Category Archive

Lots of folks in conservative-partisan circles are gesticulating wildly with accusations that a soldier in uniform was “censored” or “kicked out” of a panel discussion at the recent Yearly Kos convention in Chicago.

Unfortunately for them this is yet another case of premature vacuity.

Bill Baar admits it was “unwise” of the fellow to wear his uniform, but still tries to somehow sluff it off by posting to a biographical page of another soldier which shows a picture of him in uniform. (Here’s a clue Mr. Baar, it’s a bio page, not a political statement. Besides, it’s perfectly legal to use past photos of yourself in uniform which is why both conservatives and progressives do it.)

The likes of Anne Leary, Roger Simon, Michelle Malkin, Newsbusters, Powerline and much of the rest of the con netroots (they seem to prefer “nutroots” though, don’t they?) also hopped on the fallacy bandwagon. Time for a basketful o’ facts for these folks.

Let’s lay the facts out on the table, shall we?

1. The soldier was in uniform. We know this from eyewitness accounts of both the opening keynote speech (in which the sergeant was in uniform and engaged Retired Gen. Wesley Clark in conversation) and from video taken by conservative-partisans who were monitoring the convention in their attempts at finding dirt.
2. The soldier was at a conference of politically active bloggers who were discussing politics in their panel sessions called YearlyKos 2007.
3. Soldiers are prohibited from making political statements (of any type) while wearing their uniform lest they appear to be promoting one political agenda or another as a member of the Armed Forces — see DoD regs here and here.
4. Jon Soltz of VoteVets.org was the lead of the panel in which the soldier rose to ask a question is himself a veteran, and knows the edict on prohibited political statements full well.
5. The panel at which the soldier had stood in line to ask a question had ended by the time it was his turn. The attendees (those Kossacks who have been so denigrated by the conservatives these past few weeks) encouraged panel leader Soltz to allow the man to have his say. (Oops, there goes the “censorship” smear.)
6. Soltz, a Captain in the Reserves, gave the soldier the same warning Gen. Clark had given the man the night before — it is illegal to publicly make political statements while in uniform.
7. The soldier in uniform at a political conference attended by political activists proceeded to make politically-influenced statements — which is illegal — to a panel of men whose careers earned them several medals and the sacrifice of a collected 8 combat deployments. (In fact, the second of this soldier’s angry points was false to boot.)

   Check that Pajamas Media video again. The sergeant admits to knowing he is violating the military’s rules.

8. Soltz reprimanded the soldier for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice and confronted the sergeant, lest he and the others on the panel and in the audience be viewed to have condoned this action and face consequences themselves.

Censorship had nothing to do with it folks. There were plenty of hard, opposing questions posed throughout the conference sessions.

It was all about the soldier doing what he was doing while in uniform and the discipline it takes to be a soldier. He was reprimanded right then and there for knowingly and flagrantly violating military regs. Now I’m not sure if Mr. Baar and Ms. Leary served in the Armed Forces but if they had, they certainly should have known this. Indeed, Markos Moulitsas, a veteran himself, has argued that military personnel ought to be allowed to wear their uniforms while engaging in political activities but only the Pentagon or the White House can change those rules should they so choose. Til then, rules is rules as Kos’ adversaries at Red State quickly pointed out (which, strangely enough, puts Red State on the side of Jon Soltz given the incident at Yearly Kos), and without rules the military cannot enforce discipline.

As it is, had he been in flip-flops (as conservative pundit Dan Proft erroneously jabs) he would certainly have been allowed to pose his politically-motivated statement, despite the fact the session had already ended.

Pretty simple really, but far be it from conservative-pundits like Bill Baar, the Pajamas Media collective, or the like from bothering with facts and logic.

From Ellen’s blog, we are reminded again of the number of partisan-conservatives who rail against soldiers who criticize the war while wearing their uniform. Now, we see this same set of folks hypocritically supporting a soldier who also wanted to make a political statement while in uniform.

Either it’s illegal for soldiers in uniform to make political statements or it’s not. Doesn’t matter if the politic statements are agreeable to you or not. If it’s illegal, it’s illegal.

It doesn’t magically become ok just because you happen to be nodding your head at what the guy is saying (even though what he’s saying is false anyway).

Bill Baar posts a link to a recent YouTube ad for John Edwards in which Sen. Edwards rhetorically asks if there aren’t more important things than hair to be talking about in this country.

Mr. Baar says of the ad:

Far be it from me to talk about hair, but I’m not certain this ad from the Edward’s campaign does the candidate much good. It just makes me wonder more about the guy. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me.

Apparently Mr. Baar thinks the conservatives’ failures vis a vis Iraq and Katrina aren’t a big deal and anyone who brings it up (instead of talking about hair) is to be wondered about … now I’m not saying Mr. Baar thinks haircuts are more important than policy foreign and domestic, but what is there to wonder about?

We already know the media is fascinated with unimportant things like hair and sweaters (and, apparently, presidential candidates’ breasts and nether regions) and that they pile on Dems on these junior high issues while essentially ignoring the same things among the Repubs.

But, really, what is there to wonder about when a candidate calls the talking heads out for jib-jabbing about non-issues ad nauseum?

Actually, this is now from yesterday… (Thought I hit “publish” but I must’ve hit “save”.)

Ladies and gentlemen, this may be Bill Baar’s first appearance on Illinois Reason. He earned it with this whopper. In response to another George Dienhart screed on how Democrats are evil and all wrong and to blame for everything bad ever… Mr. Baar tells us his thoughts on Sen. Obama’s vote and press release against the Iraq War. Bill Baar says:

This poor foolish man has no idea how much tougher this war is going to get with America flinching like this.

It will get bigger, costlier, and bloodier. American’s [sic] will rightly blame Democrats for this failure of will. It’s going to be a hell of way to learn the lesson though.

…What was that about a “poor, foolish” man?

Add “blind” to it and the phrase more appropriately describes those partisan conservatives whose collective heads are so deep in the sand that they can’t even comprehend the myriad ways this war based on lies has exacerbated the problem of fundamentalist-based terrorism instead of worked to solve it. Just as the British learned in fighting the Irish Catholics and as we should have learned in fighting the Viet Cong, it is George Bush’s America which is today learning the hard, bloody reality that this war (like those just like it waged throughout history) is a zero sum game.

Read the rest of this entry »