They'd better hope nobody got video and passed it on to O'Reilly. Whatever the technical justification, that sort of behavior will go over like a lead balloon with the public.

It would be best if active duty personnel refrained from involving themselves entirely in politics. It's too dangerous to allow otherwise, regardless of what Wes Clark thinks. Too many nations have gone down the path of NOT making a big deal out of this sort of thing.

When you join the military, you sign away a great many of your constitutional rights. Freedom of Speech is one of them. That's a matter of law, and not one of opinion.

It was probably inappropriate for the serviceman to participate in a political event wearing his uniform.

However, this sounds like a gross and foolish overreaction by the moderator.

Five bucks says the guy was a plant.

Who was the moderator?

Since when is it a progressive principle to act as the "thought police"?

There are some progressives who are as guilty as some neocons when it comes to preferring and echo-chamber to an exchange of ideas.

Every movement has their nuts. Unfortunately, someone decided to put their nut in charge of moderating, here.

I'm with Farinata on this one. Read Greenwald's post today to get an idea of how hard the Bushies are working on properly propagandizing this war. They know they've lost, now it's just the apportioning of blame.

"Since when is it a progressive principle to act as the "thought police"?"

Shut up, troll. you have become tiresome.

If the gentleman said what you report he said, the moderator should definitely have allowed a response, since what he said is not true and should have been countered, not shouted down.

When you join the military, you sign away a great many of your constitutional rights. Freedom of Speech is one of them.

That statement is utter garbage.

American soldiers have a long history of speaking out both for and against the wars they fight in and for and against the leaders who command them.

Five bucks says the guy was a plant.

He may well have been a plant. So what. His comment is one I hear from friends in uniform all the time.

Progressives have to stop being afraid of the military. Soldiers are citizens like the rest of us and should be treated equally, not better, not worse.

It appears that several of the panelists had a response to his comment - they should've been allowed to give it.

We're going to see lots of "plants" in public discussion and at the debates over the next year. Progressives had better be able to react without going ballistic or they're going to lose.

"Since when is it a progressive principle to act as the "thought police"?"

Shut up, troll. you have become tiresome.

Thank you, brewmn, you've proven my point perfectly.

Ezra, are ad hominem attacks such as brewmn just made allowed here at Tapped? If not, I would appreciate Tapped enforcing an appropriate standard for discourse so that the adults here can have a civil exchange of ideas.

Thanks, in advance.

You can't discount the possibility that the guy was a plant; God knows that the military is obsessive about trying to control every aspect of public discourse on the war. Clearly, if this young man had been in civilian dress, which he could have chosen to be, his views may have been disputed, but there would have been no incident to report. Active duty soldiers are not supposed to engage in politics while in uniform (although senior officers violate that rule with impunity, as long as they are hewing to the administration line.) No uniformed soldier who got up and denounced the surge in a public forum could hope to escape discipline.

That's an interesting reaction JoeChi...because one commentor told you to shut up and hurt your feelings, you want mommy, er, a Tapped moderator, to come in and shut up the other commentor.

"Since when is it a progressive principle to act as the "thought police"?"

If not, I would appreciate Tapped enforcing an appropriate standard for discourse so that the adults here can have a civil exchange of ideas.

Brilliant!

Ezra -- could you tell us who the moderator was? He should be called out by name for behaving like the anti-military cartoon that our conservative opponents accuse us of being. We're better than that.

Participating in politics while wearing a uniform? Outrageous!

Well, unless you're a Vietnam-era John Kerry testifying before Congress.

Ezra:

Really, can Tapped do something about the childish name calling. The adults would like to discuss things in a civil and respectful manner here.

Thanks! :)

If you want to know why most people roll their eyes when the Left says it does too support the troops this is the place to start. The Left's love affair with generals who criticize President Bush has been palpable in recent years. But just let a grunt in a uniform speak up in favor of the President's policies and, holy cow, run for the hills because fascist militarism is on the march. What a bunch of Harper Valley Hypocrites.

If the gentleman said what you report he said, the moderator should definitely have allowed a response, since what he said is not true and should have been countered, not shouted down.

True because Harry Reid said so? Because Scott Beaucamp wrote about it for TNR before he got to Iraq?

Please give us your list of approved sources for truth.

Just curious but what would the reaction have been if he'd stood up and said that the surge was NOT working. Again... just curious.

Just curious but what would the reaction have been if he'd stood up and said that the surge was NOT working. Again... just curious.

I suspect he would have been YearlyKOS '09's keynote speaker.

Just curious but what would the reaction have been if he'd stood up and said that the surge was NOT working. Again... just curious.

I suspect he would have been YearlyKOS '09's keynote speaker.

he probably got beaten up afterwards.

But "progressives" support the troops right?

A couple of things:

The guy was probably not a plant. There are plenty of Democrats in uniform who serve honorably and well. This guy was probably one of them.

Yet he was treated as if he was carrying around a Biowarfare Toxin.

This story is zipping around the blogosphere already, especially on my side of the aisle (I'm a Republican). It's yet another example of lefties not wanting to hear a different Narrative, and betting with Reid and Pelosi on the U.S. Military to fail, but that's really beside the point.

BTW, Wes Clark was an ass, as usual. Instead of defending the Enlisted Guy, Clark tried to straddle. There's a reason why Clark, even though he was an FOB, got buried with the NATO job and never got Joint Chiefs.

This guy will go back to his unit and tell his fellow enlisted guys how these activist Democrats reacted to what he tried to tell them. Great going, guys!

"Clearly, if this young man had been in civilian dress... his views may have been disputed,..."

may have been, but more likely he would have been shouted down as a "chickenhawk" and a "nazi".

as it is, the moderator coollected his name and rank infoo and is now trying to get him disciplined.

Politics is largely theater and it looks like the other side put on a good production today.

It's disappointing, of course, that the moderator took the bait. Even if there was some arguable violation of the rule against politicking in uniform, that's for the military to enforce. It's not a basis to shut someone's opinion down.

You can tell this story is making the rounds of the wingnutosphere -- troll season has opened here on TAP.

It is a flaming liberal's duty to scoff at our men and women in uniform. We are better they are. Our morality is superior. When a soldier is reporting what he has seen in the war zone we should dance like mad gay zombies and look the other way. After all, we must be honest here, we hate Bush more than we love America.

Anyon have trouble typing when drunc?

While some statistics show the military speaker was correct about reduced casulaties, and the "surge" may be a factor, the military questioner should not have made his point in uniform.

DoD Directive 1344.10, Paragraph 4.1.2.3 states a member of the military may not "Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or
conventions (unless attending a convention as a spectator when not in uniform)." The Directive was issued by Paul Wolfowitz Aug. 2, 2004. Paragraph 4.1.1.3 allows the military speaker to attend the convention and identify himself as a member of the military, but not while wearing a uniform.

That said, the moderator blew it and, in my view, was at least a hypocrite. I'd bet dollars-to-donuts the moderator doesn't support "don't ask/don't tell" and yet all but did exactly that in the hopes of getting the military questioner in trouble.

"...the questioner was engaging in a sort of moral blackmail..."

wow. that's a galling objection.

would that be "emotional blackmail" on the order of what william arkin tried when he threatened that if troops don't shut up about their support for their mission in iraq, that "the american people" will come to a point at which they will no longer "indulge those in uniform" and return to the golden days of spitting and hurling slurs such as "baby killer"?

after all progressives have done to smear, exclude, suppress, exploit and obstruct the troops, you have a lot of nerve characterizing this one lone voice intruding on your groupthink as "emotional blackmail."

First of all, the soldier was wrong, as Iraqi casualties actually rose by a third in July.

Second, he was in violation of regs when he attended a partisan event and engaged in political activity in uniform. Did the moderator get carried away? I don't know, but I guarantee you if some kid in uniform stood up at an AEI conference and blasted Wolfowitz, JoeCHI and others would be screaming for his stripes.

Yearly KOS: a gathering of blithering idiots punctuated by a few select sane people asking them questions which they refuse to address.

It's surprising. For as many of the 'support the troops and bring them home' signs as seem to crop up during these things, when there is an actual troop there he doesn't even get to voice himself.

Down with fascists and silencing dissidents, unless they're dissing us! That seems to be the message.

Isn't this a question the panel had hoped would be asked of them?

You want to discuss all the possibilities, so if a questioner were to stand up, uniformed or disheveled, to ask "what if the surge works?", it would only be appropriate to expect the question in the first place.

The left is so invested in defeat they can not stand to hear an opinion differing from their own.

All this talk of being inclusive is crapola.

If you do not tow the line, you are ignored and ridiculed.

"First of all, the soldier was wrong, as Iraqi casualties actually rose by a third in July."

Thant does not make what he said factually wrong. He said "the surge was working". That is only incorrect if reduced U.S. casualties was a stated goal. I've never heard that said.

Quelling of AQI etc were obvious goals but It would have been foolish to predict reduced casualties during an increase in military combat related activity.

"First of all, the soldier was wrong, as Iraqi casualties actually rose by a third in July."

Thant does not make what he said factually wrong. He said "the surge was working". That is only incorrect if reduced U.S. casualties was a stated goal. I've never heard that said.

Quelling of AQI etc were obvious goals but It would have been foolish to predict reduced casualties during an increase in military combat related activity.

Sorry. Misread Iraqi casualties as opposed to US casualties. Same basic response though.

I am not at all sure what the young man did was against the law or DOD policy, which is more specific than just speaking out in uniform. That being said, it was wrong of him to do so in uniform because even the perception that the military is taking sides in politics is not good.

But the hard truth is had this young man voiced the opinion that the war was wrong they not only would have not shut him down, they would have hoisted him on their shoulders and called him a national hero. I can only imagine the shear joy if Scott Beauchamp showed up in uniform.

Steve,

A stated goal of the surge was, according to Bush, to give the Iraqi government "breathing space to get on the path of reconciliation so that this young democracy could survive." A week ago, the Sunnis quit the government. The surge is failing miserably.

I can't help it that you can't read the post to see that the soldier also claimed the surge was "cutting down on Iraqi casualties," which, as I said before, is wrong.

The moderator was Jon Soltz from VoteVets, a Captain in the Army who issued a lawfull order to a Sergeant violated the rules governing wear of the uniform.

3. POLICYIt 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:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
DoDI 1334.01, October 26, 2005 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 orany 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. 3.1.5. When specifically prohibited by regulations of the Department concerned

3. POLICYIt 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:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
DoDI 1334.01, October 26, 2005 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 orany 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. 3.1.5. When specifically prohibited by regulations of the Department concerned

youtube(dot)com/watch?v=jCnQxtn9v9w

youtube(dot)com/watch?v=-G9SMnVNBUM

youtube(dot)com/watch?v=k5xrhsFWKKA

progressive democratics are now "supporting the troops" by stalking them to their homes and shooting them point blank in the chest.

digg(dot)com/politics/Deranged_Moonbat_Shoots_Airman_on_Fourth_of_July

Bullcrap. Read your own links. Now where in the DOD JAG listings does it say he can't attend an event.
----------

a. A member on AD may:

(1) Register, vote, and express his or her personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces.

(2) Make monetary contributions to a political organization-

(3) Attend partisan and nonpartisan political meetings or rallies as a spectator when not in uniform.

b. A member on AD shall not:

(1) Use his or her official authority or influence for interfering with an election; affecting the course or outcome of an election; soliciting votes for a particular candidate or issue; or requiring or soliciting political contributions from others.

(2) Be a candidate for, or hold, civil office except as authorized in subsections D.2. and D.3., below.

(3) Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions.

(4) Make campaign contributions to another r of the Armed Forces or an employee of the Federal Government.
---------------
I'm not certain if I'd use a French new source for body counts. Just saying

The moderator couldn't give a lawful order to a sergeant unless he is a currently serving officer. And if he is serving then he is contravening the regulations to the same degree as the NCO.

So ... under this policy, you cannot participate in a demonstration in uniform, or make a political speech.

It looks like asking questions at a political event while in uniform is not covered here. Capt. Jon Soltz had no business issuing that order to stand down.

He was abusing his authority to silence a soldier who had a political question he did not like.

So , if you are not in the military you can't talk about the war , or elase you are a 'chickenhawk'. But also, if you ARE in the military you can't talk about the war. Notice how this leaves only the progressives with the ability to talk about he war. Typical lefty bullcrap.

You'd be funny if this wasn't serious.

USA Today: "...July was the second-deadliest month for Iraqis so far this year, according to an Associated Press tally."

And, right there in the part you quote, it says soldiers may "(a)ttend partisan and nonpartisan political meetings or rallies as a spectator when not in uniform." Also, DoD regs,/a> say the uniform cannot be worn "(d)uring or in connection with furthering political activities."

Here's a tip: Be less stupid.

Anybody remember this incident from March of last year? Josh Marshall at TPM did the report:

Wait a second. Doesn't this break military regulations and probably several laws?

A few weeks ago we discussed the fact that the RNC was apparently working with the White House to send active duty members of the military in uniform to speak on behalf of the president's policies at Republican political events. That's against the law and military regulations. And for good reason since that's a quick ride to making the military -- or factions or individuals in the military -- tools of one or the other political party.

Now we seem to have an example in practice.

This is exactly what appears to have happened yesterday at a political event with Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO). This article in the Fort Collins Coloradoan shows a picture of Musgrave doing just that with the caption: "Marilyn Musgrave introduces Marine Sergeant Brandon Forsyth on Friday during the Larimer County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner."

A look at the picture shows pretty clearly that Forsyth was in uniform. Yet those regs linked above say clearly that military personnel can attend partisan events only as spectators and not in uniform. What am I missing?

You can find the story at http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007802.php >

It hasn\'t even been a few hours into the first day and already the right wing media will have a huge propaganda coup and a means of embarrassing the democratic candidates. This event has train wreck written all over it.

"You can't discount the possibility that the guy was a plant; God knows that the military is obsessive about trying to control every aspect of public discourse on the war."

Damn, y'all are paranoid!!!

It is instructive that the first instinct you lefties have to a contrary thought is to find a reason to throw the dissenter in jail.

Hey, Isn't it the left that's always telling us that "Dissent IS patriotic"?

I'm sorry, am I wron on this one??

The problem here is not whether or not the soldier in question was right or wrong... The problem is that the Moderator flipped out and silenced any discussion of the matter.

"Liberals" ought to be outraged. If they show this kind of behavior, how can they expect to be shown any more tolerance?

For a group that supposedly advocates the "free exchange of ideas" and the "celebration of diversity", this is a real serious mistake... A smart moderator would have actually had the answers ready and filmed the uniformed soldier participating to move against him later; but would not have made Rush Limbaugh and that type look like prophets...

you can cut and paste dod regs all you want. i can cut and paste too. in fact, i'll cut and paste for you the law of kos himself:

"Marines investigates Iraq vet for wearing cammos at protest

"by kos
Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 11:31:51 AM PDT

"So they'll prosecute me if I wear my Army uniforms to an anti-war protest? Really?

...

"[an antiwar soldier charged for wearing his uniform at a protest after his separation] has every right enshrined under the Constitution, including those of free speech and peaceful assembly.

"And anyone that thinks otherwise, quite frankly, is legitimately and objectively un-American."

Sounds like leftists love military guys when they will march in a demonstration with them holding signs saying how evil America & Bush are, but when soldiers stand up for America, the fight we are in, or Bush the left slaps them in the face and boots them off the stage.

Nice job at convincing the military folk out there you really do hate them.

If you claim that Yearlykos is a political rally that a soldier cannot wear a uniform to--and not just a gathering of bloggers--then Yearlykos comes under McCain/Feingold restrictions.

Choose wisely, grasshoppah....

So , if you are not in the military you can't talk about the war , or elase you are a 'chickenhawk'. But also, if you ARE in the military you can't talk about the war. Notice how this leaves only the progressives with the ability to talk about he war. Typical lefty bullcrap.

Posted by: doubled | August 3, 2007 03:25 PM"

they go further and call soldiers who speak out with a voice which differs from theirs "babykillers", but that's about it. progressives oppose freedom of speech and concience.

Sounds to me like the Yearlykos is a political rally that a soldier cannot wear a uniform to--and not just a gathering of bloggers--

Oops; then Yearlykos is breaking McCain/Feingold laws and they can be hauled off to the slammer........

The moderator was Jon Soltz from VoteVets, a Captain in the Army

why do the troops hate the troops?

damn the veteran kos!
hail the lifelong civilian bush!

Gray,

Um, no. Those are not the only choices. An event can be both partisan and political without falling under McCain-Feingold. That's a ridiculous argument. If the Young Republicans can have a convention without it falling under M-F, then this is clearly way beneath the radar.

And Jummy, do you know that the Marine who was threatened with prosecution was wearing cammies with no insignia AND was in the IRR, both points the Marine Corps pointed out when they dropped the case against him.

the chomsky-loving traitor pat tillman got what he deserved!

(if he was smart like a republican, he would've stuck with the money)

Does this make KOS a liar????

"Marines investigates Iraq vet for wearing cammos at protest

"by kos
Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 11:31:51 AM PDT

"So they'll prosecute me if I wear my Army uniforms to an anti-war protest? Really?

...

"[an antiwar soldier charged for wearing his uniform at a protest after his separation] has every right enshrined under the Constitution, including those of free speech and peaceful assembly.

"And anyone that thinks otherwise, quite frankly, is legitimately and objectively un-American."

If you claim that Yearlykos is a political rally that a soldier cannot wear a uniform to--and not just a gathering of bloggers--then Yearlykos comes under McCain/Feingold restrictions.

Actually, no. But thanks for at least trying to leave a substantive comment.

It's really mystifying why any liberal wouldn't be interested in receiving thoughtful input from the sort of people posting in this thread. Seriously, folks, way to represent.

I see fascism and legalistic intimidation are alive and well among the radical left. The utter of hypocrisy of liberals who spew their sophistry about how "open-minded" they are and how they want to engage in "free and open debates" and how peaceable while literally hating conservatives who have the unmitigated gall to disagree with them, is at least palpably self-evident and at worst a portent of things to come if these yahoos ever truly get ahold of the reigns of power and engage in more of their kangaroo courts and Leahy-inspired inquisitions.

And after four years of equating Bush with Hilter (at least Hitler meant well, right?) and dreaming up the most insane conspiracy theories involving Cheney, Rove, Halliburton and Big Oil, the anti-war left now whining about "ad homs" and the coarseness of the public debate borders on the comical if it wasn't so hypocritically pathetic.

This is why you can never, never trust utopian leftists with the security of this country. Their hatred for all things military is pretty plain to see and puts to lie what they've been claiming the last four years about how much they "support the troops".

And just how does one "support the troops" when they're constantly denigrating the Commander-in-Chief and equating him with a chimp (ironically, President Lincoln's detractors portrayed him as a "ape" - it's history), trying to undermine the war on terror, exchanging their honorable dissent for divisive lies which more quickly advances their political agenda, and vote for politicians whose first impulse is to cut and slash the military budget every chance they get. What sophistry.

How about "support the police" by taking them off the streets and keeping them in the safety of their police stations ... besides, police on American streets are only provoking gang members to ever greater level of violence. The statistics are there, more police equals more criminal activity and more violence, and this in a supposed mature democracy! What a quagmire!

Keep at it, fellow patriots! We have to do something to distract the reality-based portion of the electorate from the Scott Thomas Beauchamp debacle. Malkin and the rest of our brain trust are depending on us.

"Since when is it a progressive principle to act as the "thought police"?"

Shut up, troll. you have become tiresome.

Thank you, brewmn, you've proven my point perfectly.

Ezra, are ad hominem attacks such as brewmn just made allowed here at Tapped? If not, I would appreciate Tapped enforcing an appropriate standard for discourse so that the adults here can have a civil exchange of ideas.

Thanks, in advance."

brewmn apparently has been led to believe that he can simply vote for whatever he wants - and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears, and without responsiblity.

What has he done to EARN his citizenship, other than to turn 18 and be accorded that right? Unlike those in the military who have put their lives on the line and have earned their right to speak out.

Pissants like brewmn sleep peaceably at night only because rough men are willing to do violence on their behalf, ensuring their safety. His righteous indignation wears thin, like most of the limousine liberals who cry about their rights, while trampling on the rights of those who give their lives so that they may piss on them.

lemikainen

A plant? That is just pathetic. I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

The lack of clue about how the US military works by that statement just boggles the mind.

A few weeks ago we discussed the fact that the RNC was apparently working with the White House to send active duty members of the military in uniform to speak on behalf of the president's policies at Republican political events. That's against the law and military regulations.

Well, from earlier:

DoDI 1334.01, October 26, 2005... 3.1.3. Except when authorized by the approval authorities in subparagraph 4.1.1

Can someone check subparagragh 4.1.1 to see if the President of the United States in his role as Commander-in-Chief has sufficient authority to authorize?

Scott Thomas Beauchamp writes for the New Republic on military atrocities with a definite leftist slant and no one questions his right to do it (just his lies) What's the big deal about a soldier pointing out simple facts? Even a prisoner has some first amendment rights.

Scott Thomas Beauchamp writes for the New Republic on military atrocities with a definite leftist slant and no one questions his right to do it (just his lies) What's the big deal about a soldier pointing out simple facts? Even a prisoner has some first amendment rights.

Commenting on the efficacy of the surge, in uniform or not, is NOT A POLITICAL STATEMENT. That's the problem with all of this. The war has been politicized to the point of losing touch with why we are there. Good grief.

If the moderator is an active duty Captain, he has decided that he doesn't want to be an active duty Major by moderating at YearlyKos, and he'd likely accomplish the same thing at a conservative bloggers convention. Panelist he might get away with, but moderator?

That said, I would not have worn uniform to that event, just like I didn't wear uniform to the Reagan rally in San Diego on November 3, 1980.

Liberals views of the military are exemplified by their spitting on and cursing soldiers coming back from Vietnam. Nowadays they shout "We support the [ignorant, victimized, immoral, psychopathic, illiterate, stupid, homophobic] troops but not the war!" John the Putz Kerry is the poster boy for this attitude.

They support the military as a glorified vo-tech opportunity for high school dropouts or as a reform school for juvenile delinquents to "get some discipline" and nothing more.

Sorry, my comments should have given hat-tips to Robert Heinlein and George Orwell for their perceptive comments on the difference between well-to-civilians and true citizens willing to give their lives to protect them.

Lemikainen

Sorry, my comments should have given hat-tips to Robert Heinlein and George Orwell for their perceptive comments on the difference between well-to-do civilians and true citizens willing to give their lives to protect them.

Lemikainen

Does this make KOS a liar????

Ummm not a liar just not overly interested in facts.

wow. and so at anonymous 04:04, the progressives pull out a sockpuppet.

unable to answer or apologize, they choose deciet.

typical. disgusting, but typical.

the chomsky-loving traitor pat tillman got what he deserved!

(if he was smart like a republican, he would've stuck with the money)

Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2007 04:04 PM

Great, put a comment like that up by Anonymous!!!

Secondly, besides your comment being utterly senseless and stupid, most military personel ARE republicans.

Just remember, don't cloud the issues with facts!!!

But it was an uncomfortable few moments, and seemed fairly contrary to the spirit of the panel to roar down the member of the military who tried to speak with a contrary voice.

The author is able to recognize hypocrisy when he sees it. A skill that apparently many commenting here lack. The chance to see Wes Clark giving pointers on how not to get involved in politics while in uniform would have been worth the price of admission alone.

Posted by: nitpicker | August 3, 2007 04:04 PM

i saw that, but mainly what i gathered from it is that progressives are quick to identifiy those who do not think exactly like they do as "un-american" and that, pparadoxically, the progressives commenting here have "un-americanized" themselves by their leader's law.

it's funny.

Am I the only person who remembers Republicans yelling PLANT! SHILL! when a specialist asked Rumsfeld why they were having to use halfassed "armor" in Iraq (despite the fact his fellow soldiers (a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/12/15/remebering-rumsfeld-you-go-to-war-with-the-army-you-have-not-the-army-you-might-want-or-wish-to-have-at-a-later-time">applauded and cheered the question)?

Would the moderator have acted as harshly if it were Scott Beauchamp concurring with his talking points? Doubt it. They'd throw a friggin' parade for him!

I spent six years in uniform, but just because I did didn't mean I gave up the right to ask tough questions of politicians or political operatives. Haven't you ever heard that bitching is a soldier's right?

We're citizens too, you know, and the US military isn't Stalin's Red Army, staffed with political Kommisars to silence dissent in the ranks.
After what happened today, I do have to wonder if that doesn't apply to KOS. Actually, I don't. And neither does Joe Lieberman, I-CT!

I actually hope TNR and KOS keep this kind of stuff up.
You think the American people don't know bullshit when they smell it, or don't know petty tryants when they flip out over opposing viewpoints and try to stifle them? WRONG!

Look. I gave up blogging when I went to Afghanistan because I was shifting from reserves to active duty. I didn't feel it was appropriate, because I don't like mixing the uniform and ideology, period. That way leads to Caesar chasing Pompey from Rome.

Wow, this thread is troll-infested. "Liberals views of the military are exemplified by their spitting on and cursing soldiers coming back from Vietnam." Hmm. Interesting. Any documentation of soldiers actually being spat on? 'Cause a lot of people, over the years, have said this was a right-wing myth.

Btw, what did Scott Beauchamp lie about? Because the big right-wing lie *used* to be that he didn't exist. I think the right lost a massive amount of credibility when he did come forward to prove his existence, so I'm inclined to be skeptical of anyone who calls him a liar.

Well said JohnnyT.

Often on the Conservative Blogs, those leaning "left" only only post their comments but "I" have seen, and written, back in a discussion/debate.

I see very little of that when it comes to those on the left. Yes, this isn't meant to lump everybody in together. As a group though, it does seem that what the lefties want is what they can't handle back.

"Since when is it a progressive principle to act as the "thought police"?"

Since day fucking one, it seems.

One does not "sign away their Constitutional rights" when they join the military. Instead, they agree to be governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice which does not allow them all the niceties you get with an expensive lawyer in civilian courts.

Several have made the point that it is against DOD regs to have a soldier participate in a political convention in uniform. If you agree that the KOS event was a political convention, then you must agree that it (and the entire dailykos organization) should be regulated under McCain-Feingold and subject to the limits of that law right?

G.,

I haven't seen the "big right winged lie *used* to be that he didn't exist.

The only thing that I have seen prior is "questioning" of the facts.

As for Scott Beauchamp, "I" do not know what the outcome (fact or fiction) will be.

HOWEVER...with that being said, TNR has already "changed" their Scott story a bit.

What was written (and believed and LOVED by those on the left) was that this was true!!!

Now, as it turns out, there have been mis-statements on the story as it was written.

Does that prove that EVERYTHING is wrong? No. However, it does lend to the credibility of him as an author.

Considering the number of responses we've had to his original statement, there was a perfectly good reason for the moderator to let the conferees answer it.

The soldiers question was a legitimate one. It's not the place of the Jon Soltz or anyone else in a civilian setting to enforce military directives. If the soldier violated policy his commander should reprimand him, not conventioners.

The reaction simply reaffirmed the perception that progressives are hostile to the troops and will shout down dissent.

The only reason this is a problem is because our society currently fetishizes soldiers and doesn't regard them the same way it views other citizens.

"Wow, this thread is troll-infested. "Liberals views of the military are exemplified by their spitting on and cursing soldiers coming back from Vietnam." Hmm. Interesting. Any documentation of soldiers actually being spat on? 'Cause a lot of people, over the years, have said this was a right-wing myth."

I was one of those spat upon in San Francisco airport. I was called "war criminal" and "baby killer"

Any further questions?

Again, I don't like political speech in uniform, but where was all this Republican love for free speech for the troops way back when...?

'The 3rd Infantry Division is conducting an investigation into the “situation” that allegedly prompted a soldier to tell a television reporter that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld should resign.

'The Fort Stewart, Ga.-based 3rd ID has been the focus of intense media attention since last week, when soldiers from the division told a television reporter that they were tired, unhappy with the mission and angry with their leaders...

'On Monday, the 3rd ID commander, Maj. Gen. Buford Blount, decided to stop allowing reporters to spend time with his troops, other than to gather information for pre-approved “news features,” according to an e-mail response from Lt. Col. Birmingham, 3rd ID spokesman in Baghdad.

'The 3rd ID is “no longer embedding media for short stays, effective the beginning of this week,” Birmingham said.'

AND...

'On Wednesday morning, when the ABC news show reported from Fallujah, where the division is based, the troops gave the reporters an earful. One soldier said he felt like he'd been "kicked in the guts, slapped in the face." Another demanded that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld quit.

'The retaliation from Washington was swift.

'"It was the end of the world," said one officer Thursday. "It went all the way up to President Bush and back down again on top of us. At least six of us here will lose our careers."'

Nitpicker:

You only quoted a portion of the regs on attending poltical activities. As it happens, the full quote was above yours in the comments and reads:

"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."

It's hard to argue that an enlisted man in uniform asking questions infers official sponsorship.

The other quote you had implies that a serviceman should be out of uniform when participating at a poltical convention, but makes no specific prohibition itself.

You know, you might want to double-check before asking others to be "less stupid."

G says, "Btw, what did Scott Beauchamp lie about? Because the big right-wing lie *used* to be that he didn't exist. I think the right lost a massive amount of credibility when he did come forward to prove his existence, so I'm inclined to be skeptical of anyone who calls him a liar."

G, you'd be skeptical of anyone who calls him a liar no matter what evidence was presented that he was. That's your whole problem.

The New Republic HAD to come forward with Beauchamp. Their so-called reputation was at stake. Not only that, a military investion was launched. You can't hide a source who claimed to be a participant or witness to the kind of atrocities he stated in "Shock Troops." The courts have ruled against that over and over. That's why Judith Miller spent time in jail. You get cited for contempt if you don't.

Why is it, G, that you will never believe anything that Scott Beauchamp says is a lie, no matter how discredited by any facts or investigations? I'll tell you why. Because like UFO nuts, you WANT to believe. If Beauchamp's discredited, which he has been, then your whole little libtard house of cards built on Beauchamp's pack of lies falls apart, doesn't it?

How different is your reasoning that every serviceman in uniform is a Charles Manson-in-waiting any different from believing every black man is a crime waiting to happen? I guess there's good bigotry and bad bigotry, huh? You just gotta hate the right people is all, I guess.

As a six-year veteran, I defended your right to say whatever the hell you what to say. But that same First Amendment gives me the right to call you on it when you talk like an idiot. 'nuff said.

G says, "Btw, what did Scott Beauchamp lie about? Because the big right-wing lie *used* to be that he didn't exist. I think the right lost a massive amount of credibility when he did come forward to prove his existence, so I'm inclined to be skeptical of anyone who calls him a liar."

G, you'd be skeptical of anyone who calls him a liar no matter what evidence was presented that he was. That's your whole problem.

The New Republic HAD to come forward with Beauchamp. Their so-called reputation was at stake. Not only that, a military investion was launched. You can't hide a source who claimed to be a participant or witness to the kind of atrocities he stated in "Shock Troops." The courts have ruled against that over and over. That's why Judith Miller spent time in jail. You get cited for contempt if you don't.

Why is it, G, that you will never believe anything that Scott Beauchamp says is a lie, no matter how discredited by any facts or investigations? I'll tell you why. Because like UFO nuts, you WANT to believe. If Beauchamp's discredited, which he has been, then your whole little libtard house of cards built on Beauchamp's pack of lies falls apart, doesn't it?

How different is your reasoning that every serviceman in uniform is a Charles Manson-in-waiting any different from believing every black man is a crime waiting to happen? I guess there's good bigotry and bad bigotry, huh? You just gotta hate the right people is all, I guess.

As a six-year veteran, I defended your right to say whatever the hell you what to say. But that same First Amendment gives me the right to call you on it when you talk like an idiot. 'nuff said.

Jinchi,

Your group has become the copperheads of 2007, you need to deal with that fact as best you can.

The US is in awe of soldiers because as you and I go to the mall, they are being blown up by people who hate us and would love to blow us up. The only thing between those terrible people, you and I are our military.

Anon, If you'd bothered to read the comments, you'd realize I'm one of those arguing for the soldier's right to speak.

Those who argue against it typically worry that soldiers are too revered by society to sully themselves in political affairs, or on the flip side, think that soldiers are a bunch of mindless drones.

Soldiers are people, good and bad, just like the rest of us and should be treated accordingly.

Does anyone care about one incident like this? Anecdotal argument is purely rhetorical, i.e., irrational, illogical, nonconstructive. Pointless except to distract and disarm the masses. And this is what the neocons specialize in, from Willie Horton to WMDs to swift boating. They don't want to be bound by the facts (no WMDs) or by reason or by the will of the people (70% wanting us out of Iraq). And they obviously don't want a real discussion of anything, which is what makes them all trolls of one sort or another. What they do want is to sow enough confusion to keep themselves in power and feeding at the public trough, and they will never admit they are wrong or make real compromises or sacrifices because they're totally selfish and amoral. On the other hand, most real conservatives, moderates, and liberals want to act rationally and are willing to compromise and even acquiesce when necessary. Whether the blogosphere including Kos has really changed anything in terms of the politics of the masses is a separate issue but I think the presumption is that it hasn't.

The left has used soldiers in uniformfor their purposes so they shouldnt be surprised at the tactic being used against them. but i agree w/ the moral blackmail statement somewhat. even the right reply can look cold and callous when someone is wearing a uniform. the guy could have made the same comments in civvies.

G.,

I couldn't remember his name but just found it again.

Remember Jesse MacBeth? You remember him, that baby-killing, soldier that was over in Iraq?

The one that ALL of the anti-war left circled their wagons around to PROVE that the U.S. was bad? Yeah, that one.

Just another falsehood. However, it took some investigations (which the left DID NOT DO) to determine if the stories were true.

That's all anybody asks.

I wish that ALL of the U.S. was in awe of our soldiers though. They truly are our heroes!!!

DG,

I honestly don't know where to start on your "facts".

"...And this is what the neocons specialize in, from Willie Horton to WMDs to swift boating. They don't want to be bound by the facts (no WMDs) or by reason or by the will of the people (70% wanting us out of Iraq). "

Pay attention of the "facts".

Willie Horton? Al Gore brought it up to Michael Dukakis without any help from those EEEVVVVIILLLL neocons. (That is a fact, please look it up)

WMD's? You mean ALL of those Senators (from Al Gore to John Kerry to Clinton who "believed" that there were WMD's in Iraq?) You mean THOSE people?? John Kerry stating that if "if the U.N. didn't act that the U.S. should unilaterally act?" Wow, good thing he didn't become President because we would....be in Iraq????

As far as those 70% of the U.S. who want to get out of Iraq, I "believe" that it's closer to 50%. On this, I don't care.

That's why we have ONE Commander in Chief and not 300 million of them (or 100 in the Senate). It's HIS job!!! Most American people DO NOT have the fortitude for a long struggle which is too bad. I'm wondering IF they lived in the 40's so that they could see what it was really like.

"Remember, don't cloud the issues with facts"

Thank God you progressives have maintained your staunch support for enforcement of military regulations. I am sure it was difficult for you to shout the questioner down on a matter of military regs even though you were intensely interested in what he had to say. You did the right thing!!

And yes, we all know how intensely you dislike those who attempt to assume the mantle of "Absolute authority" by taking advantage of their position.

KOS kiddies = Whacko left wing radicals

long live Bush..and Dennis Miller

Am I the only person who remembers Republicans yelling PLANT! SHILL! when a specialist asked Rumsfeld why they were having to use halfassed "armor" in Iraq (despite the fact his fellow soldiers (a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/12/15/remebering-rumsfeld-you-go-to-war-with-the-army-you-have-not-the-army-you-might-want-or-wish-to-have-at-a-later-time">applauded and cheered the question)?

Yeah, I remember. Turned out a reporter had prompted the soldier to ask the question and something like 95% of the Humvees had already been up-armored by the time the question was asked.

Oh yeah, and then the complaints started coming that speed and visibility for up-armored Hummvees had been seriously impaired and it didn't do much good when our soldiers started facing Iranian-made shaped charges, but hey at least Rumsfeld is gone right? Victory! Huzzah!

Nice to see that Ezra admits that he knows "fairly little about the army." I've always suspected as much.

"Since when is it a progressive principle to act as the "thought police"?"

Shut up, troll. you have become tiresome

--

and this is the legacy of that big tent kos has created, where any actual thought or interest is written off as acting like a "troll."

shouting down that soldier is the visual experience of commenting on dk to people who are more frightened of ideas than chevron successfully using them.

face it, kos and his blinded libertarian lemming TU's
just ain't that good at this thing called democracy.

My goodness, but aren't the wingnuts out in force tonite?!

'Course, Ezra, you practically invited them in by describing Jon's reaction as "freaking out."

The simple fact is, merely showing up at a political event in uniform, much less speaking out, is ILLEGAL. The sergeant's commander should be informed of his behavior and he should be punished accordingly. The military simply cannot operate if it does not maintain good order and discipline.

The politics of the sergeant's opinions are irrelevant. But I wouldn't expect many of the 'nuts to know it, since VERY few of them have ever seen military service. Unlike Jon Soltz and Wes Clark.

C'mon. Did anyone REALLY expect anything different from a man (Moulitsas) who said "screw 'em" about the four contractors whose bodies were desecrated in Fallujah, or having posted a PhotoShop of Joe Lieberman giving Bush a blowjob on his website for a YEAR?

A lot of KOS kidz like to profess how Moulitsas once wore a uniform of the United States Army. As a serviceman myself, to that I reply: So did Benedict Arnold.

Just go to the KOS site(if you can stomach it) and read the articles and postings. It's like tapping into the thoughtstream of an insane asylum. The only reality that has any place in their world is the one within the tinfoil-covered windows of their mothers' basements. 'nuff said.

Wes Clark is, of course (and as usual in his civilian career) wrong. It is a violation of the UCMJ to engage in politicing (e.g., canvasssing for a cnadidate)while in uniform, but it most definitely is NOT a violation to attend and participate in a public forum where issues, not candidates, are being discussed.

Stupid. Effing stupid. I'm a liberal. I hate this war. I despise the Bush administration and today's GOP. I lover DailyKos. I love YearlyKos.

But what Soltz did was effing stupid. And Clark's follow-up was weak, weak, weak. The right wants to caricature the left by using strawmen and extreme examples of left-wing craziness (we have our own crazies, just like they do). O'Reilly has been trying to do that for weeks. But folks like Clinton and Dodd have come out in defense - I think quite effectively - of the netroots, pointing out his hypocrisy and demagoguery. Right wingers like Byron York wrote columns begrudgingly complimenting the Kos community. The winger on Pajamas Media attending the conference did much the same.

And then this idiot Soltz ruins it all by his performance today. I respect Soltz's service to his country and I respect what he's done with VoteVets.org. But whether he was correct or not about Army regs is irrelevant. He - Soltz - is not on active duty and he's not this guy's CO. And even that's irrelevant - reacting the way he did - inappropriate and wrong, in my opinion - just gives the O'Reillys of the world the ammunition they need to deliver a massive blow to a community and event (YearlyKos) that has so much going for it and can do so much good for this country.

The reality is that the O'Reillys and Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world have a nuch larger megaphone than the Kos community or the left in general. Markos himself could come out and call Soltz a complete jerk but you'll never see that on FoxNews. All you will see are endless clips of some lefty (wanna bet they won't mention Soltz's own service?) shouting down a uniformed soldier. That image will stick in the minds of many Americans.

So Soltz is an Iraq vet himself. So freaking what? What he did was idiotic - this isn't a base mess hall, dude...you can't tell people to "stand down". And the right only loves members of the military/vets when they agree with right wing ideology. If you don't, you'll be afforded no better courtesy or respect than if you were Che Guevara.

LGF already has video. Wonderful. Thanks, Soltz, for ruining something great, And General Clark...your damage control is sorely lacking.

Too freaking sad. Will we never learn?

What we are about to witness is the meltdown of the anti-war left. The dems support for the war will now increase as they do the same things the Iraqis are doing - ditch their Al Qaeda allies.

The dems may have a harder time decoupling their interests with al qaeda than the sheikhs have had. If the surge continues to work as well as it is now the turnaround will be of such a proportion that the media and the democrats will have to eat crow for decades - and they dont do that well. All the liars, truth-benders, and story-makers will have no more outlets to tell their obfuscations. I hope it is the end of the MSM.

The left is about to implode

What we are about to witness is the meltdown of the anti-war left. The dems support for the war will now increase as they do the same things the Iraqis are doing - ditch their Al Qaeda allies.

The dems may have a harder time decoupling their interests with al qaeda than the sheikhs have had. If the surge continues to work as well as it is now the turnaround will be of such a proportion that the media and the democrats will have to eat crow for decades - and they dont do that well. All the liars, truth-benders, and story-makers will have no more outlets to tell their obfuscations. I hope it is the end of the MSM.

The left is about to implode

Dear Democrats,
You are no longer Liberal/Progessive. You are Stalinist now. Congrats!

You will never learn until you purge the intellectual bigots from your ranks.

Soltz is an idiot for trying to shut down a soldier asking a challenging question, regardless of him being in uniform. He shows a lack of character and respect that I would not expect from a Commissioned Officer.

But, seeing as how he uses his war veterans status to run a phoney "non-partisan" all Democrat party candidate PAC, I guess it's not surprising that he would attempt to silence a contrary voice. Maybe the FEC should investigate VoteVets for violations of the law.

What we are about to witness is the meltdown of the anti-war left.

One moderator at a conference acts foolishly and you think the left is about to implode.

Keep dreaming, Duhize.

"Wes Clark took the mic and tried to explain what had just occurred: The argument appears to be that you're not allowed to participate in politics while wearing a uniform, or at least that you shouldn't, and that the questioner was engaging in a sort of moral blackmail, not to mention a violation of the rules, by doing so."

Neither Clark nor anyone on the panel had military authority over the soldier, so it was none of Clark's business nor that of the panel.

Just suppression of a dissenting view. In line with the left's real principles, not their stated ones.

Active Duty soldiers are not barred from political discussions, nor are they banned from supporting politics. The ban on politics is to prevent a conflict of interest of having a member of the military being control of the Civilian Government.

Active Duty soldiers are not barred from political discussions, nor are they banned from supporting politics. The ban on politics is to prevent a conflict of interest of having a member of the military being control of the Civilian Government.

Jon Soltz is a good guy, and Wes Clark was right to try and defend him (sometimes you have to defend your friends, even when they're not completely in the right), but in this case Soltz was wrong. I agree with Jinchi's points.

The young Sergeant should have been allowed to make his point, and his substantive points deserved a hearing and a debate.

As to the substantive point, the bottom-line is that the Iraqis don't want us there. They believe we are increasing the violence, and making things worse, and it's their country.

We do have some friends in Iraq whose interests we need to protect, and we do, as Gordon Brown put it, have some obligations to meet and some duties to discharge, but that's it. The basic truth is that we lack legitimacy in Iraq, and we can't do any more in Iraq than to disengage as gracefully as possible and allow the Iraqis to take charge of their own country and write their own post-Saddam history.

If we get greedy and try to get any more out of Iraq, we'll get much less.

oh, and I mispelled "blogspot" in my previous post, which goes to a spam url. If possible, can you fix the link?

roublen:

Exactly "what" are WE getting out of Iraq?

We're trying to setup a government where there hasn't been one in decades.

Do you have any idea of how long it took with the Japanese governemtn post WWII?

As far as the Iraqi's "wanting us there", there are several polls that show quite different numbers.

IF we are making things and increasing the violence, then why aren't they attacking the US soldiers? Instead, the amount of Iraqi civilians that are turning on Al Qaeda is growing larger by the day especially with the success that has been happening in Anbar province.

Q: "Since when is it a progressive principle to act as the "thought police"?"

A: "Shut up, troll. you have become tiresome."

You know. you can't make this stuff up.

Are we sure what the soldier said was political speech? Even at a political event such as this, if he was simply correcting the facts they were discussing, or giving information about the military situation on the ground, it seems well within the military's right to do so. I don't think providing factual info on the status of a military action amounts to political speech.

Are we sure what the soldier said was political speech? Even at a political event such as this, if he was simply correcting the facts they were discussing, or giving information about the military situation on the ground, it seems well within the military's right to do so. I don't think providing factual info on the status of a military action amounts to political speech.

God knows that the military is obsessive about trying to control every aspect of public discourse on the war.

................................

That is the most ridiculous hyperbole I've read in weeks.
The "military" has almost no voice in our public discussion. The media ignores its press releases, and either distorts or is too ill-educated to understand what senior officers are saying.

You poor struggling lefty civilian.

The lefties were shocked to see a guy in uniform.

Most of the libs there were used to aggressively shouting down their ideological opponents, and they just figured-this guy is going to kill us all.

Maybe congress could hold an open session where they get to interview non-officers, who would no longer face redeployment.

They could walk out on them ala nancy boyda.

roublen: but that's it. The basic truth is that we lack legitimacy in Iraq

Yeah, the sanctions and No-Fly-Zones were waaaay better and could have continued indefinitely.

Right?

"One moderator at a conference acts foolishly and you think the left is about to implode.

Keep dreaming, Duhize."

The left has already imploded, clown. Who are you kidding?

Hillary tries to ditch her man act--the one she's kept since entering congress--by showing some cleavage. pathetic. I don't wanna see her saggy horse tits.

John fagboy Edwards speaks out about taking money from rupert murdock (owner of Fox News), only to have be proven of taking over a million dollars from him himself. Retard.

And Osama...I mean Barrack Hussein Obama stumbles around talking big about fighting terror after Billary puts the pressure on. He basically hung himself on this one, talking about attacking Pakistan.

Just keep on giving us more material libbies!

HS,

Pay attention to THE POP-NEOCON TWISTING OF "the facts". I'll take the time now to handle the first of these that you mentioned:

YOU SAID: "Willie Horton? Al Gore brought it up to Michael Dukakis without any help from those EEEVVVVIILLLL neocons. (That is a fact, please look it up)"

FULL PICTURE: According to Wikipedia, and almost everyone's memory from that time, Gore brought up the furlough program but not Horton himself. The Republicans then dug up Horton and went to town with him:

'Republicans would pick up the Horton issue after Dukakis clinched the nomination. In June of 1988, Republican candidate George H.W. Bush seized on the Horton case, bringing it up repeatedly in campaign speeches. Bush's campaign manager, Lee Atwater, predicted that "by the time this election is over, Willie Horton will be a household name." [1] Media consultant Roger Ailes was reported to remark "the only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it."

In April 1988, Lee Atwater asked aide Jim Pinkerton for negative research to defeat Dukakis. Pinkerton returned with reams of material that Atwater told him to reduce to a 3x5 index card, telling him, "I'm giving you one thing. You can use both sides of the 3x5 card." Pinkerton discovered the furlough issue by watching the Felt Forum debate. On May 25, 1988, Republican consultants met in Paramus, New Jersey holding a focus group of Democrats who had voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984. After giving the focus group the material Pinkerton provided on the index card, most of the voters switched from favoring Dukakis to favoring Bush. These focus groups convinced Atwater and the other Republican consultants that they should 'go negative' against Dukakis. Further information regarding the furlough came from aide Andy Card, a Massachusetts native whom President George W. Bush later named as his chief of staff during the Florida recount.

Although commercials about Willie Horton were not run until the fall campaign, Vice-President Bush first mentioned Horton at the Texas Republican convention on June 9, 1988. The following week at the Illinois Republican convention in Springfield, Bush began to press the argument against Dukakis by declaring that Dukakis had let Horton loose to 'terrorize innocent people' and continued support of the furlough program until the Massachusetts legislature changed the law. Bush again mentioned Horton at the National Sherrifs Association in Louisville, KY and declared himself in favor of 'life without parole' for convicted murderers.

Over the Fourth of July weekend in 1988, Lee Atwater attended a motorcyclists' convention in Luray, VA. Two couples were talking about the Horton story as featured in Reader's Digest the previous fall. Atwater joined them and never once mentioned who he was. Later that night, a focus group in Alabama had turned completely against Dukakis when presented the information about Horton's furlough. Atwater used this occurrence to argue the necessity of pounding Dukakis about the furlough issue (see Germond, pp. 159-165).'

So, was my reference to Willie Horton essentially correct or not?

Having watched the video, (has anyone else?) it is clear to me that the question-and-answer time of the program had ended and Soltz was about to wrap up the panel when a man in uniform stood and practically stormed the stage. From the reaction of the panelists, it is clear that the belligerent, shrill, politically-motivated uniformed soldier was not interested in debate--I repeat, the soldier was not interested in debate or discussion--and only wanted to obstruct the panelists’ ability to present their audience with the program for which the guests of Yearly Kos paid their money for.

Even so, after pointing out that the uniformed soldier was actively soiling “my uniform,” Soltz let the uniformed soldier speak out of tern for nearly a minute and a half, uninterrupted. Let me repeat that: the uniformed soldier was given the floor to make his voice heard for 87 seconds. After this time, it was even more clear that the soldier would not be asking a question to the panel, and was instead wasting everyone’s time. Finally Soltz performed his function as moderator and his duty as an officer by asking for the soldier’s information and informing him that he was in violation of decorum and possibly of military code.

Since the wearing of the military uniform sends the message that the wearer is acting under the authority of the chain of command, that soldier will be seen as speaking for the Bush administration at the Yearly Kos convention (won’t Papa Bear be thrilled?).

It is now incumbent on the soldier’s commander to discipline him. Otherwise, the entire chain of command up to and including the President stands behind the Yearly Kos participant’s actions and words as if they were Bush’s own. And in a sense, I guess they were.

Transcript:

Soltz: "I just want to close out here. First, I want to thank the panel. I want to thank everyone who came, General Clark-"
[inaudible shout from the audience]
Soltz: "Out of time-"
Other panelist: [barely audible] “Let him-“
Uniform: [barely audible] “No I’ll be fast.” [keeps talking continuously throughout…]
Soltz: “Listen, if you- let me make this really clear to you sergeant…Hoowel. You are in the uniform of our country. If you ask me a political question, Ima’ take you outside- Listen to me. –And we’re gonna have a captain- Listen to me. Hey so- hey- …Hey! You want me to come down there? Hold on a second sergeant. [Gen. Clark may be saying “no, no” not clear who to] Let me come down here and talk to you real quick off-line. But I wanna let you know, If you say something political- If you say something political, If you use my uniform-our uniform-of our country to say something political, for or against, I will come down and talk to you.
[here Captain Soltz decides to give the solder the floor for a period of 87 seconds. The uniformed soldier proceeds to make his case, which is inaudible on the upstream.tv video because the microphones in the room are on an automatic limiter which silences them unless tripped by a direct sound]
Other panelist: “Look. Its not about the number-“
Soltz: “Stand down. …I just wanna thank- Look. Before we get into a real Army issue, I believe, that a great unit in the military has discipline. That we’ve got good units and bad units. For the sake of the Army, I wanna thank everybody who’s come here. I wanna thank the Kos panel. I wanna thank our panelists. For the sergeant, I will see you outside. I want the name of your commander and your first seargent. You will never, ever use my uniform again in the name of political purposes. Thank you.”
[Soltz stands and leaves]
[applause]
Female Panelist: “And come- Come to the-”
Clark: “Let me say something on this. Ther’r a lot of people here who love this country. And there are a lot of people who may have differing views one from another. And we support, as elements-members of this community, everyone’s right to speak. And so I think here, what we gotta be careful of, is we don’t get our military members and people who have military associations, mixed up in politics in a way that’s improper, for them. This one’s gonna have to be looked at. I don’t know what the right answer, to it is right now.

“I know that people who serve in Iraq, just like I did when I was in Viet Nam, have very strong feelings about what they’re doing. Most of ‘em believe in it, I hope. The polls show, I guess 30% really believe, 30% aren’t sure, and 30% believe it’s failing. At least that’s the most recent poll I’ve seen. But people say morale is good during the surge, I hope it is. And I’m proud of the men and women in uniform. But I do think it’s really important, that we keep our military institutions separate and out of the political questions.

“When general McCarther spoke at the military academy in 1962, he was very clear to the cadets then. He said “these great questions of state are not your concern.” They’re not yours. They’re not yours. You can study them in an academic sense. You don’t participate in them as a member of the armed forces. You participate as an individual.

“And that’s the issue which Jon is trying to discuss with the sergeant here this morning. It is an issue of propriety. It’s also an issue of legality. Thank you all for being here. I hope you bear with us as we work our way through this issue. Thank you.
[applause]

Kerry in Austin:

"From the reaction of the panelists, it is clear that the belligerent, shrill, politically-motivated uniformed soldier was not interested in debate--I repeat, the soldier was not interested in debate or discussion"

OKKKKAAAAYYYYY....You gathered ALL of this information on what the belligerent, shrill, politically-motivated uniformed soldier said, WITHOUT ANY AUDIO OF IT????

See, that's just...Exactly WHAT did you use to figure all of this out, simply by their "looks"????

Not even going to say that's a bit of a stretch!!!!

"Maybe" he was asking a question about the current surge and wanted to know "if the numbers show that we're improving, will the members of the left get off our backs and let us do our job".

Now, "I" have no idea what was asked and I'm not even going to guess because it's impossible.

For you however to say what you did without any evidence...laughable.

DG:

As for yours/mine references, they are correct.

At the time, Governor Dukakis was VERY soft on crime and it was well known about Willie Horton (although not mentioned by name) until G.B. mentioned him directly.

That was the reason that this was such a huge issue in the Democratic debates, because it was so well known.

G.B. got specific to prove the point.

reality tag off/
Nice to see the old gang is back. I remember most of these guys from when they were all over the republican blogs sticking up for the active-duty soldiers who were protesting the war in uniform. You should have read the beating that HarryStar gave Ace and Malkin. That is the great thing about America, men and women coming together to consistently support ideals and principles.
/reality tag on

Harrystar: "Now, "I" have no idea what was asked and I'm not even going to guess because it's impossible."

You seem to have no idea about a lot of things.

It is easy to see and hear what was not said by the panelists and the uniformed soldier. The panelists did not cut the soldier off for 87 seconds even though the discussion had ended and no doubt other questioners were turned away.

The uniformed soldier did not pause to have his comments answered in the minute and a half he was given to speak after barging in out of tern.

But far more importantly, he was allowed to speak and he said whatever it is he said for a minute and a half. That being the case, I can't fathom what your or anyone's criticism might be. Care to enlighten me?

Nobody was silenced here.

Were I the commanding Officer of this Sargent I would recommend him for Meritorious Service Award for his actions in the face of Traitors attempting to sabotage this country's War effort. Further I would request
A$$H-- Gen? W.C. to substantiate
the exact words uttered by the Sargent. nuff said

Regarding the incident at the KO'S the other day when a Iraq Veteran rose to speak about the Surg and was denied the right to speak and threatened. Were I the commanding Officer of this Sargent I would recommend him for Meritorious Service Award for his actions in the face of Traitors attempting to sabotage this country's War effort. Further I would request
A$$H-- Gen? W.C. to substantiate
the exact words uttered by the Sargent. nuff said

After watching the video on LGF, Soltz was less belligerent than he came across in Klein's description, Clark's explanation was a little more eloquent and it was clear that the soldier was given the floor for about 3 minutes. So my initial reaction may have been a bit overblown. However, again, even if the guy was violating Army regs, I still think Soltz's response was wrong. He could have handled it much differently. By handling it the way he did, he gave the wingers the ammo they need to promote their, "the left hates the military/troops", mantra. Again, they don't care that both Soltz and Clark are combat experienced vets. All they will talk about is how some brave soldier was shouted down at some lefty event - attended by all of the leading Dem candidates - for trying to say that the surge is working. We need to play this game better...and yes, it is a game.

So I'm not as pissed at Soltz and Clark as I was originally, but I think this was a mistake. I am happy that they actually let the guy speak his mind...I just would have liked to see Soltz and the panel address/refute his comments...who cares if they were out of time?

Kerry:

"From the reaction of the panelists, it is clear that the belligerent, shrill, politically-motivated uniformed soldier was not interested in debate--I repeat, the soldier was not interested in debate or discussion"

"That being the case, I can't fathom what your or anyone's criticism might be. Care to enlighten me?"

Would love to enlighten you.

First off, calling the soldier "belligerent, shrill, politically-motivated uniformed soldier" when you have ZERO audio of what he's asking? Exactly how did you come to this conclusion???

Politically motivated as well???? In what respect?? IF he came on to say that he believed that we're all losing in Iraq, it's horrible, we have to get out, etc, that wouldn't be "politically motivated"??? Wouldn't you call THAT politically motivated???

The fact that your first post states that "After this time, it was even more clear that the soldier would not be asking a question to the panel, and was instead wasting everyone’s time." Once again, how, without ANY audio of this can you make that statement?? Oh yes, by the look on their faces. Why didn't I think of that!!!!

How is it that HIS question is wasting everybody's time??? Geez, isn't "Disent patriotic????"

Cindy Sheehan interrupts a press conference..."YEAH!!!"

"Code Pink group disrupts the Senate...YEAH!!!"

A Soldier gets up to ask a question at a leftists group..."Hey, stop wasting our time"

Wonderful, just wonderful

I've watched Soltz on TV for the past few years and have been in near-unanimous agreement with him (it doesn't hurt him that he's so fricken hot! >:-}~). I even encouraged my dad, a Korean War vet, to join his group.

That said, he didn't do himself, KOS, or the anti-war movement any favors here.

Dissent IS patriotic, whatever side of the argument you're on.

For all the people who think they understand military justice (Especially YOU, "Retired LTC"...)

At the point that Captain Soltz threatened the Sgt, "If you ask me a political question, Ima’ take you outside... ...Listen to me. Hey so- hey- …Hey! You want me to come down there?"...
Clear implication (from the audio, where you get the nuances) was that if he came down there, it was going to be physical. Once Soltz made that statement, that threat, he lost his moral authority as an officer, and in fact could be facing charges against himself. Glad it's on tape.

And you, "Reitred LTC", in your tiny, REMFish world, it's acceptable for a Captain to lose his cool entirely and threaten NCOs. Nice one, REMF. Way to represent.

The left hated the military when I was in the USAF back in the '70's and nothing has changed. They usually dont even try to hide their hatred for our troops. This sort of action by the left is nothing new.

Harry, I still don't understand what you're so upset about. You are practically frothing at the mouth with over use of exclamation points, but I can't for the life of me figure out what you actually have to say about this incident.

It sounds like your whole point is that you don't know what happened. Here is what happened:

A uniformed soldier was given the floor to speak freely for 87 seconds after disrupting the event.

Nobody was silenced here.

Kerry,

I have never said that the soldier was silenced, so I'm not sure why you keep repeating that line.

I'm more interested in your reference to the soldier as "belligerent, shrill, politically-motivated uniformed soldier" when you have ZERO audio of what he's asking?

Here's the question again for you....Exactly how did you come to this conclusion???

The 2nd part of the question (again) is what was "politically motivated" about his question/comment (Again, without any audio, exactly HOW did you come to this conclusion?)

Really, they're quite easy to answer but I haven't heard the answers to the questions yet.

How many of you easily outraged neocon putzes actually watched the video before spewing your party line about how "liberals shout down the troops?"

Hi Redleg, I did view the video. I would not say that he was successfully shouted down. I would say that a REMF captain tried to shut him up, then gave up after threatening him.

But then, my tim eon active duty started in the cold war, and I haven't bought into the liberals supporting the troops bit. Not ever. Note that I am not saying Dems don't support the troops. Just the liberal wing of a once-great party.

Stoltz should have at least been more aware of the public perception of his actions to shut the soldier up. A nickel this is going to be all over Fox and their lemmings for the next week (that includes Meet the Press and This Week on Sunday).

Kid above got it right.
Old fashioned stinky, useless hippies and modern day hippies (Liberals) always hated the military and still do, so garbage like this is of no surprise.

I think Ezra is right to say that Stolz' freak out is just not how you manage a question from the audience. That wasn't even a particularly difficult question from the audience. The failure of the surge can be shown dimension by dimension, from the military end to the political end, from the practical surrender in Anbar, where the military is arming militias that killed Americans a year ago, to the continual mortaring of the Green Zone. It is child's play.

But there are two interesting sub-issues. One is that the soldier's factual contention about the decline of Iraqi casualties is wrong, yet it is easy to see how he wouldn't know that. The reporting on Iraqi casualties is done in such a casual, improvisational way that there are no solid figures. It would be nice to discuss why the Military has so far refused to attempt a comprehensive survey of Iraqi deaths. Even those who try to refute the lancet survey, which set the violent death toll at 100,000 in 2004, end up agreeing with the figures.

The other issue is brought up by the inevitable complaints that Stolz's freakout is a 'black mark' for the left, or that it is a story being circulated around the right blogosphere. That would truly be a black mark for the left if the right media sphere was still attempting to persuade independents, but they have long ago self-compartmentalized into a bizarre language of insult and military porn, a pointscoring about how to drive Bradley's and military regulations that bores all but the most faithful readers of pulp military fiction. Since their response to reality that they don't like - things like the real figures of Iraqi dead - is simply not to believe it, they are condemned to the narrowing of the circle that comes with cults, where the only standard of reality that counts is the confirming one. One of the good things about these mini pseudoscandals is that it does send certain bolder rightwingers out into the world, making comments on blogs they ordinarily would avoid, looking up newspapers they ordinarily don't read. It has to be healthy for them, and who knows? They might learn something.

Kerry et al:

Here's the video (and audio) of what you didn't get a chance to see.

The soldier asking the question (not one who "practically stormed the stage").

Included also is Stoltz meeting with him afterwards as he said he would.

You decide on what you see.

Click on the link or copy & paste it to see the video (and audio)

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/08/soldier_censored_at_kos_conven.php

That story is immensely disheartening, and the ensuing thread makes me want to friggin' cry.

God, what the hell happened to my country?

So a couple hours later I was like, did I really leave a comically mawkish wail on a blog?

Yup, sure did. Thank you, bunch of right-wingers upthread, for breaking me out of my detached wiseass rut.

If the Hatch act was enforced the Civil Service union members could not engage in politics. Ask the Democrats about that. As a retired service member I can wear a uniform for special occaisions and Democrats be damned. You see all of the phonies at demonstrations wearing partial uniforms from their local army store. No one cares. A soldier does not lose his rights to free speech however he cannot participate in elections in an overt manner, like handing out brocheres at work or wearing his uniform to a political rally. The moderator was trying to intemidate the speaker. What outher experts do you have on the battle other than participants? Enought said

Eh, every conference, every political discussion eventually has some crank come in and make everyone squirm while they hold the mike for a nice long rant. Eventually, the mods have step in, and that's never pretty. Not that this was handled especially well...

According to some friends of mine who went through Paris Island, there is a period in marine boot camp where they try to convince you that American Civilians hate the U.S. Military, and Marines in particular. This cutsey lie serves the military's short term personnel ends, but really fucks over american society for everyone involved in the long run.

Evidently, it really took hold with some folks. I don't think anybody has hocked one on a soldier in 30 years, but the old shit dies hard.

In film school, we studied propaganda. One of the examples that was examined was a simple edit and how an audience will place meaning unto a given scene based upon not only what they see, but what they assume. Propaganda gives you that assumption off the bat.

The scene is of a small child reacting to something is shown. The reaction is emotional and heartfelt. You're asked to decide what the reaction is and what might have encouraged it. Half the class imagined that the baby's reaction was tearful and frightened and reacting to something scary. The other that it was excited and or shocked and reacting to something it liked. Then, we were shown two separate edits of the baby crying scene- the first was a mean scary clown making the baby react. And, it seemed as if the reaction was tearful and frightened. Then, the next was of a calm, loving mommy with a baby bottle, and the reaction seemed excited. Now, keep in mind, the actual scene of the baby reacting was the same in both cases. It was simply a lesson in how assumptions can alter how we interpret any given scene. Some saw the baby as scared, others as excited. And, adding elements before it, it could work both ways.

The right wing reaction to the soldier at YearlyKos video works in pretty much the same way.

Most of the headlines early on declared that the soldier was "censored" or "shouted down" and intimated that he was not allowed to speak at all. This was partly due to the fact that the first video available was the YearlyKos stream, which had no audio of the soldier and camera only showed the panel. (The audio tells me that all mics on the floor were shut off, which would be standard if the panel was ended. Especially for a union show which Yearly Kos is..)

So, viewing the video that is on Pajama Media it is clear that the soldier was indeed allowed to speak for quite awhile. Longer so than most of the Q & Aers prior.

It is also quite clear that Soltz is angered not about what he was saying, but that the soldier is doing so in uniform. He makes this quite clear when he is on the stage and later in the moments before the soldier comes into the video. Soltz says it right out. "He shouldn't be in uniform."

For the record: The soldier wearing a uniform and speaking out in such a way, if he is on active duty, would be a violation as described in DOD 1334.10 "Wearing of the Uniform", October 26, 2005. (The directive dates back to 1953 and has been amended a number of times since then, the latest overriding the former.)

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/133401p.pdf

Policy for active and non-active soldiers is quite clear:

3. POLICY
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.
3.1.5. When specifically prohibited by regulations of the Department concerned.
3.2. Former members of the Armed Forces, unless under another provision of this Instruction or under the terms of Section 772 of title 10, United States Code (reference (d)), who served honorably during a declared or undeclared war and whose most recent service was terminated under honorable conditions may wear the uniform in the highest grade held during such war service only on the following occasions and in the course of travel incident thereto:
3.2.1. Military funerals, memorial services, weddings, and inaugurals.
3.2.2. Parades on National or State holidays; or other parades or ceremonies of a patriotic character in which any Active or Reserve United States military unit is taking part.
3.2.3. Wearing of the uniform or any part thereof at any other time or for any other purposes is prohibited.
3.3. Medal of Honor holders may wear the uniform at their pleasure except under the circumstances set forth in paragraph 3.1., above.
Appearing at YearlyKos is most definitely not sanctioned by the current policy. The reason is quite evident. A new reason is also apparent: To avoid this type of dust up.

David, I think got to the crux of the matter; this was a little propaganda moment, staged by someone who used this soldier to see if he or she could create an incident. Jon Stolz unfortunately let his temper get the better of him and took the bait. For the record though, the soldier was wrong to participate in this event while wearing his uniform. Besides the DoD publications cited, Army Regulations 600-20 and 670-1. The later regulation states (most pertinently in subparagraph j.3):

j. Wearing Army uniforms is prohibited in the following situations:

(1) In connection with the furtherance of any political or commercial interests, or when engaged in off-duty civilian employment.

(2) When participating in public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies, or public demonstrations, except as authorized by competent authority.

(3) When attending any meeting or event that is a function of, or is sponsored by, an extremist organization.

(4) When wearing the uniform would bring discredit upon the Army.

(5) When specifically prohibited by Army regulations.

I expect this was provocation aimed at giving Bill Orally some talking points and video for his next diatribe against Kos and the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, the trap was sprung. It is a shame that people who claim to be "conservatives" have so little respect for the U.S. Constitution that they would try to twist the U.S. military into being an arm of political movement, Left or Right, similar to Venezuela, Brazil, Guatemala, and Argentina.

geez..is this a liberal blog? this comment board is disgusting.

i cant believe all the people who are rationalizing the response by claiming that the poor soilder was violating regulations.

a) i didnt know that the daily Kos moderator enforced military regs in his spare time, how nice of him. The moderator wouldnt have known a military reg if it bit him in the ass.

b) the soilder didnt violate any regulation, and im going off the langauge qouted by the first few people who tried to rationalize the moderators actions. while the Daily Kos is a a grouping of people who will probably vote democratic, it is is no way a "partisan" event correctly defined, any more than going to born against christian mass is a partisan event. A partisan event is something like a political fundaraiser for a specific candidate, political party or the Democratic national convention

>>Wow, this thread is troll-infested. "Liberals views of the military are exemplified by their spitting on and cursing soldiers coming back from Vietnam." Hmm. Interesting. Any documentation of soldiers actually being spat on? 'Cause a lot of people, over the years, have said this was a right-wing myth.

No myth.

I was personally called a "fascist" and spat on while in my class-A uniform in the Oakland (CA) airport. This was when I was returning from Basic Training in 1985, so it's not exactly a Vietnam era thing, but I do know that there are degenerates in our country who do spit on soldiers. The spitter was an aging hippie type.

Every soldier knows you are not allowed to wear your uniform to a political events.

The soldier in question even admitted that he should not have done so.

G said:

"Btw, what did Scott Beauchamp lie about? Because the big right-wing lie *used* to be that he didn't exist. I think the right lost a massive amount of credibility when he did come forward to prove his existence, so I'm inclined to be skeptical of anyone who calls him a liar."

Just an FYI here...

Scott Beauchamp has recanted his story. Wait...Is there anybody here on the left that's going to call him "a plant"?? They pick ONE soldier to tell a story.

Political motives???

I hear the sound of crickets

Since when is it a progressive principle to act as the "thought police"?

Ever since the advant of Political Correctness.

As an Active Duty Captain, I have a couple of points:

- None of what I am saying is in any way an official statement or endorsement from the U.S. Army or the Department of Defense

- As far as Soltz is concerned: He has no legal authority to issue a direct order to anyone. I did a quick search on AKO (Army Knowledge Online) and found that Soltz is in the IRR (inactive ready reserve). This means that, unless he is called up and mobilized, all he retains is the actual rank of Captain. He holds NONE of the authority, responsibility, or benefits. Incidentally, GEN (R) Clark also doesn't have authority to issue direct and lawful orders. Furthermore, if Soltz isn't careful, I wouldn't put it past DA to mobilize him to active duty for the sole purpose of court martial with violation of Articles 88, 89, and a host of others.

-Some are claiming that Soltz is a "commanding officer". Nowhere in his bio does it state "company commander" as one of the jobs he's held. Even when someone WAS a Commander, he is only a Commander as long as that guidon is his.

-Anyone who wants to "give the Sergeant an MSM" for his actions has no business being a Commander. Were he in my Command, after consulting with JAG, I would recommend either a Summarized Article 15 (Company Grade) or a "warning" counseling statement from both me and my 1st Sergeant.

Scott Buttchump lost his credibility when it was found that he wrote about being in Iraq and he wasn't even there yet. The lie wasn't that he didn't exist; conservatives simply wanted to know who was doing the lying, because soldiers who were both in his unit and in Iraq refuted the "testimony" of the lying idiot.
After he came forward, we compared his blogs with what was known about the guy. which is what we've learned to do with many "progressive" folks, not because we're persecuting you all, its just just comical when we can pick through your lies and make jokes about ya!

Hey,you will do better.your posts have inspired me! - I love the way you directly get to the point, and then work outwards. I’ve been trying to do figure out what I want to say about ,that would allow me to do exactly the same thing.

Laptop Batteries
Laptop Batteries discount laptop battery

everybody wants to be more fashion,but thats not easy to join,you most have the fashion world view first,then you could read the fashion news,Magazines and so on. through these you can be the fashion man.

ed hardy bags