Welcome to YEARLY KOS 2007!!!
I really do not know what makes Wes Clark tick. He seems to have become so loud mouthed and a partisian so quickly. He sounds like a lefty University student. I don’t know if he is just a little off or is a power seeker or is getting rich on the side. An intelligent person would not act and speak as he does. Something about him is strange.
2. The Kos suddenly remembered the prohibition when he spoke in favor of the war.
Wesley Clark is a POS.
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.
More about Jon Soltz
http://www.votevets.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=199&Itemid=80
ahhh - where have you been sleeping for the past quarter century? ;o)
Why is that considered 'political?"
If he were saying the lib/rats were wrong - etc - that's politics - but hasn't a member of the military the right to speak for his mission?
If they claim that's political - then they are condemning not him, bu themselves, out of their own mouths -
Welcome to YEARLY KOS 2007!!!
From the Corner:
The Military and the Kossacks [Byron York]
The panel at which there was a dustup over the Iraq war is described this way in the YearlyKos program:
The Military and Progressives: Are They That Different?
This panel will examine the military, and how it embodies progressive values. We’ll also examine why conservatives gained the military vote and how progressives can get it back.
Panelists: John Soltz, Brandon Friedman, Ilona Meagher, Jon Power
At the American Prospect, Ezra Klein described the close of the discussion this way:
As the Military and Progressives panel came to an end, a young man in uniform stood up to argue that the surge was working, and cutting down on Iraqi casualties. The moderator largely freaked out. When other members of the panel tried to answer his question, he demanded they “stand down.” He demanded the questioner give his name, the name of his commander, and the name of his unit. And then he closed the panel, no answer offered or allowed, and stalked off the stage. 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. Knowing fairly little about the army, I can’t speak to any of that. 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.
Whatever happened, there probably weren’t many witnesses. Earlier, Klein filed this post:
I’m at YearlyKos, sitting in the back of the room at the “Military and Progressives Panel.” This looked, at least to me, like the marquee panel of the hour, and the organizers seemed to agree: It was placed in the Grand Ballroom. But the place is empty — a couple dozen attendees at most, a sea of empty tables stretching out. Whether this is a function of reduced Democratic insecurity over the relationship between progressives and the military or a simple lack of interest in the subject is anyone’s guess. But it is, to me, a surprise.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTc3Zjg3YjRlNGMwMGRlYTQ3OTJmOWE2NTYxMjYwZGY=
Yuh, right, Wes. I don't think soldiers are forbidden to correct an incorrect statement. They are just not allowed to get into partisan politics.
Interesting how they set that up, though, huh? They can lie with impunity, but someone with first hand knowledge of the situation is not allowed to counter their lies.
Liberals may be anti-war, but they sure love to use military language. Reminds me of the chubby, unathletic guys in high school and college who used to love to hang around the jocks. They would high-five the studs and cheer on their sexual conquests, yet have no love interest of their own.
Weird guys.