YearlyKos moderator enforces DoD policy (Updated 2x)
I picked up this story from Little Green Footballs who got it from American Prospect that some moderator shouted down an audience member in uniform;
[A]Â young man in uniform stood up to argue that the surge was working, and cutting down on Iraqi casualties. The moderator largely freaked out. When other members of the panel tried to answer his question, he demanded they “stand down.” He demanded the questioner give his name, the name of his commander, and the name of his unit. And then he closed the panel, no answer offered or allowed, and stalked off the stage….
Well, apparently Wes Clark, this century’s “Little Mac” McClellan, explained that a member of the military can’t participate in polical meetings in uniform. Funny, that wasn’t the argument the Left used when Adam Kokesh was bothering people while in uniform on the National Mall during anti-war rallies.
What Wesley Clark was referring to was DoD Directive 1334.01 which states;
It is DoD policy that:
 3.1. The wearing of the uniform by members of the Armed Forces (including retired members and members of Reserve components) is prohibited under any of the following circumstances:
  3.1.1. At any meeting or demonstration that is a function of, or sponsored by an organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons that the Attorney General of the United States has designated, under Executive Order 10450 as amended (reference (c)), as totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive, or as having adopted a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny others their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or as seeking to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.
  3.1.2. During or in connection with furthering political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest may be drawn.
  3.1.3. Except when authorized by the approval authorities in subparagraph 4.1.1., when participating in activities such as unofficial public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration, which may imply Service sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted.
  3.1.4. When wearing of the uniform may tend to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.
Now unless Kos admits that it’s a totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive organization, the guy was within his rights to be there and in uniform. It’s just a lame excuse to keep people from hearing that current operations have improved life in Iraq, while hiding behind a DoD policy that the Left doesn’t agree with when it suits them.
And in case this Jon Solz dude who dressed down the soldier is wondering – I don’t care what his rank is or was – I’d tear him a new aft-orifice if I ever caught him intimidating a soldier – especially like a lame little puss. “What’s your unit? Who’s your commander?” That’s stuff real leaders stop doing their first day.
Its pretty disingeuous of Solz, representing himself as a veteran in everything he writes and says, representing an organization called VoteVets which masquerades as a  nonpartisan organization, but is clearly a tool of the Democrats, and then Solz silences a member of the military.Â
Solz didn’t seem to have a problem with the soldier sitting in the audience – until he had something to say. If there was something wrong with him being at the event, someone should have said something during the 44 minutes he sat there.
More hypocrisy.
Michele Malkin has more links and thoughts. mRed at Invincible Armor tracks Leftist reaction. Volunteer Opinion Journal faults global warming for their meltdown. Ace says it’s a good excuse to prosecute Beauchamps.
Little Green Footballs now has the video.
UPDATE: Pajamas Media‘s Andrew Marcus has an exclusive interview with the young buck sergeant (h/t Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive).Â
UPDATE II: It seems that Daily Kos is also censoring their diarists who question Solz’ treatment of the young buck sergeant at the center of the fury. One story remains, but LGF has a screenshot if it goes the way of it’s predecesor.
Category: Antiwar crowd, Legal, Politics, Support the troops, Terror War
I think we have a gray area here. What if it is like Kos, a totalitarian sympathizing organization. After all, they have nothing but praise for the likes of Chavez, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/27/151146/272. They really rarely have any problem with any dictators, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/3/154659/3090, or at least they find dictators less threatening than our government.
Maybe, by this definition they are a totalitarian regime.
[…] Others posting on this topic:Â Allahpundit, Little Green Footballs, Jawa Report, ExUrbanLeague, This Ain’t Hell […]
You can’t do it in uniform period. It doesn’t matter what kind of organization it is.
.1.2. During or in connection with furthering political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest may be drawn.
3.1.3. Except when authorized by the approval authorities in subparagraph 4.1.1., when participating in activities such as unofficial public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration, which may imply Service sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted.
Jonn Lilyea wrote: I see your point, but, it didn’t fit any of the conditions you’ve highlighted. It was a discussion in a seminar setting, not a demonstration or a protest. There was no inference of official sponsorship. Â
There are often local regs that supplement the DoD regs, and these may have been more restrictive. Mine were.
Actually, the issue here is what Yearly KOS says it is. Just last night I heard a Dem. Senator argue that this nothing but a convention or gathering of like minded people who came together through the internet. In fact, I believe that Yearly KOS was billed as a bloggers convention? Wherein is the political in that? They are not a political party. There is nothing that says a soldier cannot have political opinions, express them in general public at any general gathering, even in uniform. The question is whether the event is expressly political in purpose. How was it billed?
For instance, the VFW is holding a convention here in the next few weeks. There will be former and current military speaking as well as presidential candidates who will give their spiel to the VFW members. Does that make it a political event? Does that mean that no military person can come in uniform and speak about Veteran and military affairs when VA benefits, treatment, etc is considered also to be a political issue? Since congress deliberates on it and it is widely discussed among politicos and their parties?
So, who is correct? Is the good Senator or is this moron “I pretend to be a JAG officer and was probably a butter bar LT in logistics” the person that knows?
I think we have a JAG or two in the milblog world that may be able to anwer that question.
John Stolz is from VoteVets and an Afghanistan veteran who believes the “real war on terror” is in Afghanistan.
I’ve seen him speak and he seems rather p’o’d that Iraq has undercut and taken the publicity of all their efforts to catch OBL in Afghanistan. Not that that isn’t true, but I believe this fellow should actually be thankful that occured since, six years later and still no OBL and open warfare, I believe these same discussions would be happening over Afghanistan with objections (except by Obama) about escalating war with Pakistan and Iran.
So, I tagged him as either a well meaning naive fellow or a political partisan in uniform since only those two imagine that Afghanistan is the “good war” that no one would be objecting to after six years.
Jonn Lilyea wrote: Hi, kat-missouri and welcome. The problem with focusing on bin Laden and Afghanistan is that it makes the whole war against terror about revenge and not about our security. The real war against terror should be directed at the root of all of this – Iran. That war is being fought in Iraq. Only the mental midgets on the Left refuse to admit that – Solz seems to be chief among them.
John,
I should clarify that the part that I believe is true is that Iraq had taken the publicity (and pressure) off of Afghanistan, not that John Solz’s opinion that the “real war” is in Afghanistan is true.
Jonn Lilyea wrote: Thanks, kat-missouri, I understood what you said, I was just taking the opportunity to be verbose. 🙂
I’m just laughing because this fits Kos perfectly:
totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive,
So the argument could be made that he was in violation, but only if the Kostards admitted how totalitarian they are.
😉
Whadda bunch of maroons. And only a REAL asshole would pull that “Who’s your commander” bullshit. What a f’n loser!
Gah. Did I forget to close a tag?
So Shite Iran is secretly behind Sunni Al Qaeda?
Those crafty Persians are miles ahead of us.
Apparently, Omar al-Baghdadi hasn’t gotten the memo yet.
“We are giving the Persians, and especially the rulers of Iran,
a two-month period to end all kinds of support for the Iraqi Shia government
and to stop direct and indirect intervention …
otherwise a severe war is waiting for you.”
But then again the CIA appears to think that Iran is detaining
Al Qaeda militants trying to make it from Pakistan to Iraq.
The alliance must be bekoliserri.
Jonn Lilyea wrote: As a matter of fact, yes. It’s common knowledge that many al Qaeda leaders sought refuge in Iran when the Taliban were first defeated. How much aid have the Iranians provided al Qaeda in Iraq?Â
I know it’s hard for the small-minded to grasp that the Muslim thing is bigger than the Sunni/Shi’te thing, but try to wrap your head around the fact that fundamentalist Islam will cooperate with anyone who furthers their world domination goals – picture communists and Nazis standing alongside each other in Tehran at the Holocaust denial seminar a while back for an example. So a simple temporary coalition of competing Islamic sects furthers their ambitions.Â
Iran is, to varying degrees of separation, behind every attack on civilization and democratization from the Mediteranian Sea to the Indian Ocean. Iran is the enemy. Denying it doesn’t make it any less true.
According to reports pointed to by The Belmont Club, Iran is arming and supplying both Sunni and Shia. Their purpose is to ensure enough violence that the U.S. will be politically forced from the field – which will absolutely be viewed as an American defeat. Iran is arming both sides because they are conducting political, not military, warfare.
For Iran: the military victor of Sunni vs. Shia is a secondary concern. Their primary concern is the failure/defeat of America.
Then there’s this on KOS when they were defending a former Marine for being at an anti war protest in uniform.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/2/142332/0502
Jonn Lilyea wrote: I’m surprised it hasn’t disappeared yet. But I guess there’s “good uniform” and “bad uniform” at the Kos Kids playground.