An Even More Dangerous Winter Soldier?

Update: After reviewing the items and links below - see Soltz vs Patterson here via Gateway Pundit.

There may be an even more adept, potentially more destructive and new political warrior at work within the Winter Soldier movement today than many we've noticed - Jon Soltz.

Michelle Malkin has a complete round up on the Winter Soldier concept today, tracking its legacy back to Vietnam and John Kerry. But as it's more a political movement than a military one, where did it really begin? With Ted Kennedy, of course. That screen clip is from a video available at the link above. It was Ted Kennedy who took a young Kerry under his wing, that's well established by now.

Did Ted Kennedy help John Kerry "focus his disillusionment" after returning from Vietnam? I'd wager he did. Now see the YouTube video at bottom h/t AWTM.

"(Jon) Soltz ... thanked Massachusetts Governor John Kerry, who opposed the Vietnam War after returning form combat, for helping him to focus his disillusionment after returning from Iraq.

Soltz, who as most know, came under scrutiny for trying to publicly shut down an NCO at YearlyKos. Roger Simon commented on Soltz here. Video of the incident here.

Why did Jon Soltz react so dramatically when a soft-spoken soldier tried to argue that the surge in Iraq was working? Why should someone as meek and anonymous as Sgt. David Aguina have the power to make an authority figure like Soltz lose control?

But what Soltz seems pretty careful about is not maligning the troops, not making the same mistakes John Kerry did during Vietnam. Think maybe he had some coaching along the way? According to him, he has. Unfortunately, not all legacies that get handed down are the ones many of us might like to see preserved.

Comments

[Phoenix]

jeez. My hackles are up. Soltz is going to try to get that guy a dishonorable discharge for speaking in uniform. Forget the guy's strong message. Can't be dealing with that, you know. Gotta get him for his uniform. Revolting.

[Bill Adkins]

http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/134410.htm

See Article 88 - you don't like it, take it up with the UCMJ. Republicans have always been selective in the provisions of the law they want to enforce. Another factor in why Republicans can't be trusted.

[IslamoLlama]

Yeah, that monster. How dare he object to a soldier playing politics while in uniform? Doesn't he know the UCMJ strictly encourages supporters of the President to do so in public forums?

Some people just hate this war so much that they'll openly shout down a brave American Soldier for adhering to UCMJ guidelines that totally don't prohibit politicking in uniform.

I think its pretty clear that Soltz hates the troops and America. When do we get to lynch him?

[chris]

I heard the clip of that uniformed 'hero' speaking. He should be discharged for being unable to speak coherently.

[Neo]

Notice Soltz's comments about the Republicans refusal to "grow" the size of the military.

Of course, the proscribed solution to "growing" the military is to introduce the "draft". Everyone knows (or should know) that after the "draft" ended in 1973 (or 74), there were no more large scale anti-war protests. For most folks, it really wasn't about the war as much as being sent to war.

In our current situation, the truth lies in HR163 (108th session), the `Universal National Service Act of 2003'. Charlie Rangel's bill expressly indicates that the draft would be for a retreat.

(b) FORM OF NATIONAL SERVICE- National service under this Act shall be performed either--

(1) as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services; or

(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and homeland security.

Doesn't a "reverse component" do retreats ?
(no spelling error, it appears this way four times in the bill)

[Neo]

Notice Soltz's comments about the Republicans refusal to "grow" the size of the military.

Of course, the proscribed solution to "growing" the military is to introduce the "draft". Everyone knows (or should know) that after the "draft" ended in 1973 (or 74), there were no more large scale anti-war protests. For most folks, it really wasn't about the war as much as being sent to war.

In our current situation, the truth lies in HR163 (108th session), the `Universal National Service Act of 2003'. Charlie Rangel's bill expressly indicates that the draft would be for a retreat.

(b) FORM OF NATIONAL SERVICE- National service under this Act shall be performed either--

(1) as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services; or

(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and homeland security.

Doesn't a "reverse component" do retreats ?
(no spelling error, it appears this way four times in the bill)

[Neo]

Notice Soltz's comments about the Republicans refusal to "grow" the size of the military.

Of course, the proscribed solution to "growing" the military is to introduce the "draft". Everyone knows (or should know) that after the "draft" ended in 1973 (or 74), there were no more large scale anti-war protests. For most folks, it really wasn't about the war as much as being sent to war.

In our current situation, the truth lies in HR163 (108th session), the `Universal National Service Act of 2003'. Charlie Rangel's bill expressly indicates that the draft would be for a retreat.

(b) FORM OF NATIONAL SERVICE- National service under this Act shall be performed either--

(1) as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services; or

(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and homeland security.

Doesn't a "reverse component" do retreats ?
(no spelling error, it appears this way four times in the bill)

[chris]

Is neo a stutterer or just stupid???

[Bill Adkins]

Here are some dangerous neocon idiots: This Nut, Stu Bykofsky, a newspaper columnist in Philadelphia, wants another 9/11 to "sew us back together." And Bykofsy is not unique -- he and Bush have long used 9/11 for political currency - and they want to have more mass murder for their political purposes. Stu, you're a disgusting sonofabitch. But then, as I said, Stu and Bush are not the only disgusting sonsofbitches. Here's another - Bryan Milligan, who also is chairman of the Saline County Republican Party, (Arkansas) says, "I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country. .." What say we line up Bryan as a victim in the next such attack? Think he's up for that, too?

[Fred Beloit]

Cut the s---, Willy. You folks of the Left are always arguing there is no threat from terrorists. Now you are wanting to line up someone for "the next attack"? It is clear you will say anything no matter how self contradictory.

[Odysseus]

Unfortunately, SGT Aguina was wrong to address a partisan political gathering in uniform. This is strictly prohibited by the UCMJ and further spelled out in DOD Directives 1334.01 and 1344.10. Any officer would have acted to inform the SGT that he was in violation of DOD guidance, however, Soltz's public browbeating of a subordinate was totally unprofessional. Further, SGT Aguina had every right to speak and the matter could have been settled by having him change into civvies prior to letting him address the convention, but that would have required that Soltz relinquish his standing as the sole arbiter of the military viewpoint, something that he could not do without acknowledging that the vast majority of Soldiers do not concur with him. Instead, Soltz used his rank to cow a subordinate and prevent him from presenting a different point of view, and that is despicable.

[Bill Adkins]

Fred, your reading disability is showing. Again, for you and any other challenged and special individual - Stu Bykofsky, a newspaper columnist and Bryan Milligan, chairman of the Saline County Republican Party, (Arkansas) both think it is a great idea that America suffer another 9/11 type mass murder so as to "sew us back together" and cause 'naysayers' to "come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country. .." -- it is my opinion that Stu and Brian display the same type of mentality as the maniacs/radicals promoting suicide bombers in the Middle East. Of course, Stu and Brian are not lining up to put on the bomb belts - they want someone else to volunteer. Hope that helps, Fred -- and do be sure to try and color inside the lines with your three crayons.

[Fred Beloit]

Well, Willy, you act like a presumptuous and fatuous idiot when you write crazy crap like this:

"This Nut, Stu Bykofsky, a newspaper columnist in Philadelphia, wants another 9/11 to "sew us back together." And Bykofsy[sic] is not unique -- he and Bush have long used 9/11 for political currency - and they want to have more mass murder for their political purposes."

Could you give me your source showing that Bush said he wanted another attack, as Bykofsy did or a "mass murder"? No? Well it doesn't make much sense, except propaganda-wise to insert Bush into this then; does it? What a reckless pig you are at times, Willy. One needs crayons to communicate with someone like you.