Well, we've certainly had a heap of excitement this weekend over YearlyKos, haven't we?
First we had O'Reilly attacking the Democratic Candidates for endorsing a "Partisan Hate Site" that dares to engaging in political (photoshop) cartoons. Oooh scary.
"Mama hide the kids! they're gonna drop the F-Bomb again!"
Then we had Michelle Malkin claiming that we've Kossified the Minnesota Bridge Collapse by daring to mix taxes with - uh - spending.
The sheer nerve!
Yesterday we had the latest flap over an Army Sergeant who attended YK2 in uniform and was reprimanded by John Soltz for violating the UCMJ which forbids those in uniform from being involved in politics.
Today, that soldiers has come forward - now out of uniform - to fight back.
Now, I wasn't able to attend YK myself, I've never been in the military - but then neither have most of the people on Pajamas Media so we're basically even on that score.
However, I have this thing for truthiness that they seem to lack. Showing that they have a deep and reverent respect for the "facts" - PJM set the stage this way.
Sergeant David D. Aguina returned to the YearlyKos gathering on Saturday, a day after he had been unceremoniously thrown out of a panel on the military and progressives.
Point of fact Sergeant Aguina, as is clearly visible from their own video, Was not thrown Out. The panel was over, he was allowed to speak at length after the questioning period was done - he was not interrupted, he was not cut short and he was not "censored." He did however receive an offline audience with Capt Jon Soltz, the moderator of the panel, who felt he clearly needed some talking to about the regulations he was in the act of violating.
When Sergeant David D. Aguina stepped up to the microphone at the YearlyKos forum on the panel on "The Military and Progressives: Are they that Different?" and began to quietly rebut many of the points that had been made about the failure of "The Surge," he knew he wouldn’t have an easy time of it. That is why he prepared a four-inch thick loose leaf binder full of charts, graphs, releases from the Department of Defense, the State Department, and Central Command, as well as articles from the mainstream media.
But for all his preparation, he was still taken by surprise when one of the panelists, John Soltz founder of the anti-war group Votevets.Org, took him to task and silenced him on the grounds that Aguina was wearing his uniform while expressing his political opinions.
As has been pointed out in the front page diary by The Angry Rakkasan - this wasn't the first time that Aguina had been warned. It was the second, following a confrontation with Gen. Wesley Clark the previous day.
Clark is said to have told the sergeant that, while he respected the sergeant’s opinion, political activism while in uniform was both inappropriate and illegal—and to do it at the much-publicized YearlyKos Convention would put the soldier in an unnecessary and precarious legal position. He told the sergeant firmly but politely that it would be in the soldier’s best interest to leave. And that was the end of it until the next day.
Aguina had no reason to be "surprised" by Soltz stern warning the next day. And it seems, he knows that.
"Technically, he was right," Aguina concedes. "He is a commissioned officer in the army and I follow the rules. I will respect his authority which is why today, I came in civilian uniform."
During his first interview with Pajamas Media immediately after the end of the panel discussion on Progressives and the Military, Sargent Aguina claimed that "We need to come together" and that we shouldn't let Al Qaeda divide us. He said those attending Yearlykos were "Good people."
His comments on the microphone had even begun with a statement that he wouldn't abide the attendants at Kos being attacked.
It seems his view on this has changed somewhat.
Despite his change of wardrobe, he remains boiling mad at Soltz for angrily chastising him in public for violating military regulations. If he wants to get technical about it, Aguina counters, two can play at that game.
"If I’m in violation of AR670-1 which is the regulation he brought up, then he’s in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 88 which says no commissioned officer can criticize a government official."
A "Government Official?" Who exactly would that be?
Call me silly if you will, but I actually like to look things up. Natch, It's the President.
- ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
So an Officer can not insult the President, but did Soltz actually "Insult" the President or does he simply disagree with him? Is it really a court-martial offense to say that the President's strategy in Iraq has been a failure?
I think not.
And then there's this.
Aguina also pointed out that Soltz violated the code of behavior between a commissioned and non commissioned officer. "Article 91," he said, forbids a commissioned officer from criticizing a non commissioned officer, and behaving in the "condescending" manner in which he was treated. "People in that audience didn’t have to see an American soldier be as rude and disrespectful toward another American soldier."
As is clearly visible on the tape, Soltz tried to speak to Aguina in Private and asked the Pajamas Cameraman repeatedly to give them some space. It was Aguina who countered saying "I have nothing to hide." and invited them over. ON TAPE Aguina acknowledged that he was willingly violating the rules, then attempted to justify that violating by claiming that he was doing it "for the Iraqi people" and that it was "worth it" to break the rules and help them rather than break the rules and hurt them "like they did in Abu Ghraib."
That's right, he actually attempted to justify his violation of the UCMJ by using someone else's greater violation of the UCMJ - and now he's trying to use the UCMJ against Soltz when he did his duty by trying to keep Aguina from violating the rules.
Are you getting a headache yet? I am.
Further Article 91 actually says the following.
- ART. 91. INSUBORDINATE CONDUCT TOWARD WARRANT OFFICER, NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICER, OR PETTY OFFICER
Any warrant officer or enlisted member who--
(1) strikes or assaults a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office;
(2) willfully disobeys the lawful order of a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer; or
(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer while that officer is in the execution of his office;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
This is a regulation that restricts insubordination from lower noncoms to Petty Officers and Sergeants like Aguina, not from Commissioned Officers like Soltz.
There's also this failure to heed the directive of a Superior Officer - like the way Sargent Aguina failed to heed both General Clark and Captain Soltz by appearing and speaking at Yearlykos in uniform.
- ART. 90. ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his officer; or
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer;
shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.
So is Aguina trying to find "common ground" with progressives? Er, not so much.
Aguina believes that the "netroots" – Soltz in particular, had used the uniform issue as an excuse to muddy the waters regarding what he had to say.
"They disagree with me because of my message, but they used the technicality of the uniform to try and influence something. And believe me, John Soltz? I am not done with him yet. I was up all night researching the USMCJ finding all the things he did wrong.""He lost his professional standard when he couldn’t control himself on stage."
I would agree that Soltz got a might angry, but as I said - Aguina had already been warned! If you have to tell your kid four times to stop trying to stick their tongue in the light-socket, the fifth time you just might be a wee bit testy.
The primary claim that Aguina made during his time at the microphone was that the surge is working because Iraqi casualties are down... Well, except that they aren't.
Although, it is fair for him to point out that the casualty count went down from 1,941 the previous month to a measly 1,251 in June. The unfortunate fact is that in July they went back up again to 1,621. You can call that "progress" if you consider doing the hokey-pokey (2 steps forward, one step back) to be "progress."
Just as Aguina has apparently been misreading the Military Regs that he admitted he really doesn't care about anyway, he's been misreading the facts on the ground in Iraq as well.
There are severe problems with the Iraqi Power Grid, the one were supposed to have fixed almost four years ago.
shortages across the country are the worst since the summer of 2003, shortly after the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.
If Aguina cares so deeply about the Iraqi people, why doesn't he wonder why we can't keep the lights on?
Secretary Gates, who happens to be a unassailable "Government Official" says the Surge hasn't really helped where it counts - Politically.
Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates acknowledged Thursday that the Bush administration underestimated the difficulty of getting a political truce in Iraq, where Prime Minister Nouri Maliki’s government has been crippled by a walkout by Sunni Arab ministers.
The Pentagon chief’s remarks Thursday were his closest yet to acknowledging that the Bush administration’s top political goals for Iraq may not materialize during the buildup, even if it is extended into next spring, the latest the military could sustain the increase. He also is the top Bush administration official to express such concerns publicly.
If Aguina really wants to have a serious debate on these issues - which everyone serious notes is going to need a Political not Military Solution - I'm certain he'll more than welcome to do so by many of the attendees at YK. In fact he may already have.
"I understand trying to change people’s mind is a lot harder than it would seem or I would like it to be. I’m just here to provide information for people. If they want to talk, if they want to know, I’ll just show them."
He said that the conference-goers had treated him with respect and listened carefully to what he had to say, arguing strenuously against him but hearing him out nonetheless.
"There’s quite few people here who are open-minded and will listen. And even if they don’t agree with me, I at least thank them for listening. I’ve dealt with other people who insult me and then walk away."
Part of the task of truly attempting to change people's minds, is also being open to change yourself. He wants progressives to listen to him, but is he listening to them?
It seem to me that Aguina has nothing more than an agenda to push and his attempts to play "Gotcha" with Jon Soltz make me somewhat skeptical that his real goal is helping the Iraqi people, rather than trying to bait and punk progressive into fight with a cherry picked fact storm of right-wing talking points. Frankly my feeling is this guy is a Troll in the Flesh, nothing more.
I could be wrong, I wasn't there in person - but that's how I see it. Am I way off base or right on target? You decide.
Update Someone in the comments mentioned this, I had forgetten about it - but there recently were two Marines who were summarily discharged for violating the UCMJ in exactly the same way - wearing their uniform to an anti-war rally!
The Right-Wing site Newsbusters argued for their dismissal claiming that it wasn't partisan just part of the rules (not that they weren't fairly Schadenfreude about it)
Every time there is an anti-war rally, march, die-in, puke-in etc. you can find several protesters dressed in official military uniforms. The ones in uniform usually claim to have served in Iraq or Afghanistan. While some are truly vets, others are obvious posers (i.e. Jesse Macbeth). The uniforms are typically defaced with IVAW slogans or logos done in black marker. The tops are unbuttoned to show off the latest protest t-shirt. Medals and ribbons are usually in plentiful supply as a sign of "real service".
Two of the members of IVAW (Iraq Veterans Against the War), Adam Kokesh and Liam Madden are facing hearings by the Marine Corps for their protest attire. But if you read David Montgomery’s article, Antiwar to the Corps, in the Washington Post, you would think that the Marines were attempting to silence an anti-war voice. Not only did Montgomery miss the entire reason for the hearings, but he overlooked a few facts in his reporting.
Montgomery gave the background of the case...
In a case that raises questions about free speech, the Marines have launched investigations of three inactive reservists for wearing their uniforms during antiwar protests and allegedly making statements characterized as "disrespectful" or "disloyal."
Upon learning he was being investigated for wearing his uniform during the mock patrol, Kokesh wrote an e-mail to the investigating officer, Maj. John Whyte
Kokesh was notified by Major John Whyte via email of the investigation in March 2007. Major Whyte stated that he was reminding a "fellow Marine" of his obligations and duties, specifically the wearing of all or part of his uniform while engaged in political demonstrations or activities.
Soltz did the same thing that Major Whyte did.
How does that arguement about "If he had been speaking in support of Yearlykos" go, again?
Vyan
No comments:
Post a Comment