The American Prospect: AN ODD CLOSE.

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.

—Ezra Klein

Video, please.

(Hat tip: Exurban League.)

UPDATE at 8/3/07 10:46:52 am:

I’m not familiar with the exact regulations on this, but for the sake of argument let’s say that it was against the rules for a uniformed soldier to ask a question.

When did it become the duty of a YearlyKos panel moderator to enforce Army regulations?

I wonder how they would have treated Scott Beauchamp if he had shown up in uniform?

UPDATE at 8/3/07 11:33:33 am:

John Lilyea finds the pertinent regulations: YearlyKos moderator enforces DoD policy.

What Wesley Clark was referring to was DoD Directive 1334.01 which states;

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.

Now unless Kos admits that it’s a totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive organization, the guy was within his rights to be there and in uniform. It’s just a lame excuse to keep people from hearing that current operations have improved life in Iraq, while hiding behind a DoD policy that the Left doesn’t agree with when it suits them.

UPDATE at 8/3/07 11:45:06 am:

A first attempt to spin this: democracyarsenal.org: YearlyKos check in.

I attended a session on why progressives and the military have in common this morning and there was a dust-up on the dais between panelist John Stoltz of VoteVets and a uniformed questioner. (an Army captain) John took issue with the fact that he was at the conference in uniform (his question was pretty innocuous) but this is a sign of things to come. John is technically right on this, but as a civilian, I must admit I feel a sense of righteousness when someone in a uniform says something I agree with. DESPITE knowing it is wrong to attribute my politics to him or her. Its just wrong. But its hard. And I am continually conflicted.

Ezra Klein at Tapped.com says the soldier specifically argued that the surge was working and cutting down on casualties; but to this writer the question was “innocuous.” And then she insists on how much she identifies with the military, even to the point of overriding her own political beliefs.

Oh, please.

UPDATE at 8/3/07 11:51:40 am:

LGF reader lobo91contributes the Army regulations:

The applicable reference for Army personnel is para 1-10, AR 670-1:

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.

UPDATE at 8/3/07 2:37:33 pm:

Video, kindly provided by YearlyKos themselves, is now posted here.