I hope Morgan doesn't damage the credibility of WorldNetDaily with her latest boner.Har!

Seems as though these radical GOPers have an entire alternative reality existing inside their heads.

The things that are said and done by these ppl never cease to take my breath away.  I'm thankful for Olberman and MMFA's opportunity to highlight some of the wilder, more egregious "errors,"  I can't help but think that forcing Democrats to defend the wildest, most zany, even made-up accusations isn't a part of the GOP general strategy, though.

It smacks of desperation.

 

I found the code, but before I could find the part Morgan is talking about, I found another example of our troops hands being tied, even when dealing with our own side;

"Punishment by flogging, or by branding, marking, or tattooing on the body, or any other cruel or unusual punishment, may not be adjudged by a court-martial or inflicted upon any person subject to this chapter. The use of irons, single or double, except for the purpose of safe custody, is prohibited."

Appeasers!

I have been trying to keep a real open mind about this subject because I feel there is some truth to Morgan's position (for once!)

I have been looking through the UCMJ, here are some articles that may support the idea of whether or not you can speak as implied:

907, Article 107. False official statements

917, Article 117. Provoking speeches or gestures

933, Article 133. Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman

934. Art. 134. General article

The last in particular states Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

I hate to say it, but I think Morgan may be a little right. Verrrrry little, itsy-bitsy teensy weensy, smaller than an amoeba right, but there you have it.

888. 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 Homeland Security, 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 it might boil down to wearing a uniform isn't an issue, but what you say while in uniform could be an issue. Here's the link to the UCMJ.

If it's true that soliders can't engage in poiltics, then that's clearly unconstitutional and needs to be reforemed.

 

But I'm with Oberman on this one. There's nothing in the UCMJ that says that you can't engage in political discourse or even hold political office. 

I think the point they are making is she said that he could not be involved in politics.  As we can see his occupation is a political position.

That's why I took note to say it may be what he said, or quite possibly how he said it.

I'd probably support Morgan more on this particular subject if instead of soltz, she fired her tirade at the reservist who was disrupting the convention. He'd probably have been more guilty of some of these articles, in particular the contempt one.

Snoopy!

Who should we give the benefit of doubt?  Someone who has served and trying to make a change or someone who hasn't and trying to continue the carnage?

All,

I'm doing a pretty poor job of explaining what I mean. Let me try this from a different direction...

So, I do agree there is nothing in the UCMJ that specifically says you can't be political while in uniform. The point I've been trying to make is that there are codes that address how you act while wearing that uniform. For example, I can go into a bar in uniform, no problem. If I get sh-it stinking drunk and make a fool of myself, big problem because in uniform I represent the military. The same rules apply to what you say and do. Me using Soltz is probably a very poor example because of his positions, I do understand that. I'd prefer we were talking about that disruptive weekend warrior wearing his uniform during the yearly Kos convention.

If you wear the uniform, you must be respectful, curtious, basically act in a manner that commands respect. If you don't you can be subjected to the UCMJ, and to be fair, there are officers who will abuse the codes if they don't agree with your position in the 1st place so yes, it can be a slippery slope if you take a position opposite of the administration, especially if your commander thinks otherwise.

Now, do I think Soltz did anything wrong? Probably not from what I have read, the interuptor at the Kos convention was much more out of line than Soltz. The only point I would mark in the Morgan column is there are limits to how you say things. She didn't have a clue about the difference between what you wear and what you say, but is only right on the subject of is it possible Soltz could do wrong being political in uniform.

Like I said, a very small pass.

In Wingnut World, if you WANT it to be true, then it is.

Now see, right wing water carriers, such as Morgan, should listen and or watch Olberman so that they can learn how to write, and or make a catchy turn of phrase and all. Olberman does vitriol and outrage the way that it should be done. Or maybe he just has good writers. I don't know what it is, but I like it. Same thing for Jon Stewart. Good stuff all around.

Olberman does vitriol and outrage the way that it should be done. Or maybe he just has good writers. I don't know what it is, but I like it. Same thing for Jon Stewart. Good stuff all around.

Maybe it's the material they have to work with.

--ML

 

 

   

 

Why does Morgan hate the troops?

Why is this here? This isn't misinformation, but just Olberman expressing his opinion, and MMFA acting like an echo chamber to their favorite poster boy. Notice how Olberman won't go after any of their own guys, so why should we take this guy seriously?

yours truly 

question mark Tommy/Wesley

(I call Tommy question mark Tommy because he once argued in all seriousness that if a question mark occurs after a title ("Are liberals eating their young?"), then the title does not count as misinformation. After arguing this way for post after post, he then stated something like "Why are we arguing over a question mark"--though he himself brought it up. That shows that Tommy doesn't really want to debate a point but just wants to make noise.)

funny,

Why is your post here? It has nothing to do with the thread.

(Looks like you have an axe to grind.)

I would say someone who brings my name up at all, and then includes an irrelevant, off topic, out of context discussion, is just obsessively making a little noise of their own.

But I am flattered to be in your thoughts, now if you don't mind, think about someone else.

Hey funnyguy thanks for doing our work for us.

Me, Tommy, Wesley, AA & Bruce have been looking for an errand boy.

You're hired.

Are you looking for a room too? =0

I dont' do idiot as well as you do, so I can't take the job. Thanks for the offer.

What I like to happen is to read an article by MMFA and see that the topic has generated 150 posts, and then, thinking the topic might be interesting, open the threads and see that 100 of those posts are Tommy making the same exact argument. The boards have become Tommy's attention hour. 

And by the way, why does question mark Tommy sometimes post under Tommy and sometimes under Wesley?  

(Last time we argued, I remember you ranting at the end and making yourself look like an idiot, accusing me of not even able to read Homer. Do you really want to  go there again?) 

Now there's a first, Wes and I are the same poster?  Well, I could say you remind me of several posters here as well, or at least you're on the same wavelength, but they wouldn't be too flattered at the comparison.

And I flattered again that you have gone to so much trouble counting my posts, if you want an autographed picture, send me $10.

So you're not the same posters? You have been accused of this in the past and never denied it, so I assumed it was true. In addition, I remember distinctly that the poster named Tommy started the thread, and then poster X responded to Tommy. Then a poster named Wesley stated "As I said..." It was pretty clear that Wesley was Tommy. 

Are you denying this? If so, it would be news to me. I thought it was accepted around here that Wes and Tom were the same.

As regarding your autograph, like I said, you seek attention, or you seek to simply clog up the message boards, as you did with your question mark tatic. And I suppose you will do it again here.

My bad. That's what I get for even looking at any of the comments on any boards. It turns out to be such a waste.

Look, I could go on all day long and have fun at your expense responding to your inane posts, but frankly, that would clog up the board, and I would get bored, fast.

Have a imaginary afternoon.......Tommy/Wes/Judy and Liza.

So you and Wes are the same after all, or at least that is what I deduce from your dismissal. I have accused you repeatedly in the past, as have others, of posting under the name of Wes. You have never denied it. 

Yes, Tommy, you clog the boards, just like you did with the "question mark" thread. If that were an isolated incident, that would be one thing. But you repeatedly pull the same stunts.  

FunnyPants

Tommy is one of the most respectful and thoughful poster when it comes to content and for you to smear him like this for some reason other than to engage in a personal attack is wrong. I can not stand when others are called trolls on here because I believe everyone has a right to say things but we all need to be very careful when we go off topic and attack others. You had no reason to go off line and instigate an attack on Tommy.

Tommy- My advise is to ignore this and this person will disapear.

Well, now I *have* brought the thread off topic.

No, Tommy is not the most respectful. He engages in his own snark. For example, when I said that Iraq wasn't a democracy just because they had an election and argued that many countries that have elections that aren't democracy, Tommy became very smug and used the Black Knight from Monty Python. He kept implying I was so delusional. (Who was right, by the way!)

Whatever. That was in the past. I am accusing Tommy of constantly making the same argument of Why Is This Here. Did you read what I posted about his question mark tactic?  

You mentioned Tommy before he even posted on here today, it was clearly off topic and has turned a thread about the hateful Melanie Morgan into a vendetta against Tommy. I would ask you to stop , we have too much of this garbage on this site lately.

>>I would ask you to stop , we have too much of this garbage on this site lately.

Really? And where does a lot of that garbage come from?

I apologize for pulling this thread a bit off topic. Go ahead and flag it. It is the first time I have really done something like this, but, as I stated, the boards become clogged with one poster (and occasionally a few others) not arguing in good faith, and making the same argument again and again and again... 

Thank you Doris, your comments are very kind and appreciated.

Ignore him I will, good advice. 

For one to come on these boards complaining about someone else derailing threads, yet brilliantly manages to do the exact same thing is almost admirable.  Perhaps he is the one who is ignoring the voices inside his head.

Yes, okay question mark Tommy. You certainly are the most respectful poster on these boards. And the most original. Ha ha! The voices inside my head! 

Because, I must be crazy--why else would I complain about someone disrupting a thread again and again and again. Obviously I'm crazy.

By the way, I thought you didn't have all afternoon to engage in this argument? Its seems you do.

On last thing. Are you or are you not Wesley? Just say that what I wrote above concerning Wes and you is wrong. I'll believe you, really. I'll admit I'm wrong. I just want to hear you say "I have never ever posted under the name of Wesley."

(And you or someone else can then flag my original coment. Yes, it was off topic, so just flag the fricken thing and get rid of the noise which I have regrettably created.) 

Hey  aren't you also Doris? 

Doris, you clearly are not as familiar with Tommy as many of us are.  Sometimes he's fair, many times he's a disingenuous, hypocritical jackass.  He is not respectable, overall.  He always wonders why people point out his illogical arguments and blatant self-contradictions, and the purpose is so more people recognize the pattern.  If we all ignored it the way he says we should, then more people would be under the same false impression you are.  Funny how that works.

On one thread, when Tommy continued to refuse to answer a valid question (while pretending his argument still stood), he made a comment about my mother.  When I smacked him for it, he crawled off, but then on a later thread some poster named "Celia" chastised me for my behavior in that exchange, using the same phony bravado that Tommy often does in lieu of an actual argument.  I don't think she was seen much outside of that, strangely enough.  Also a poster named "billyboy" appeared for a while, who seemed to believe his job was to defend Tommy at all costs.  Quite odd.

In another incident, when I made a point during one conversation he insulted me out of nowhere, for no valid reason, then refused to apologize for it.  He's accused me and Clams of being the same person, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, then later brushed off his actions as being the result of "boredom".

And you will probably appreciate the irony of this one:during one exchange, Wesley pops in to make a completely irrelevant jab at me, having to do with nothing in the conversation, and Tommy praises that action as the perfect addition to the conversation.  Yet, we're supposed to feel sorry when people criticize him out of nowhere, with his history of behavior?

And there's lots more, believe me.  I don't mind bringing Tommy's behavior up at all, since he's made himself a home here and expects people to give him credence.  People should know better.

This Funnypants thread smells of Sue. Maybe I am wrong? Can anything be even more off topic ?

Please keep your villains' list straight: you have sworn an oath to prosecute NoMoBush as Sue! (Or is that persecute?) Is it now your contention that Funnymanpants is actually Sue/Ellie/NotThatGeorge, and that your initial prosecution was errant? Or that NoMo and Funnyman share an identity?

Since this whole thread will be yanked by tomorrow, I offer:  The Ballad of Sue/Ellie

Come and listen to a story 'bout a little 'ole thread

Along came Sue/Ellie and she shot it full 'o lead

Her fuss'n and a fight'n got some people in a feud

And Sue/Ellie caught a licking for her bubbling crude

Banned, that is...Black Hole...Gone for good.

Now Tommy and some others think Sue/Ellie has come back

They're a piling on NOMOBUSH and they're giving him some flack

I wish that they would drop it 'cause to read it is a chore

To wade thru all this verbage is an addlepat'n bore!

Ya'll come back now, hear???

Mary, I don't know you very well, but I LOVE that! Nice!

Mary, That was priceless :-)

In reality there are actually only 10 people posting here but we've all taken dozens of names [sock-puppets] to make it appear that this forum gets a lot of traffic.

I myself post as Liberals, Conservatives & Independents just to keep it fair & balanced.

Sometimes I argue with myself just for fun ;-) 

Sometimes I argue with myself just for fun ;-) 

No, I don't.

Brilliant!  You just elevated yourself into JuliaJayne territory!

Funnyguy, I don't recall our last get together, but if I insinuated in any way that you couldn't read Homer Simpson, then I apologize. It's easy to tell you are quite proficient in his works.

P.S. Thanks for your contribution in continuing to take this thread off topic. Seriously, I think you'd like working for us :-)

Yes, Jeter, I'm sure you don't remember, because you looked like an idiot, and here you are again, doing the same. 

Ha ha ha! Homer Simpson! What a funny joke. (If Homer Simpson even fricken wrote books.)

As I said the last time, quoting Homer, leave joking to the gods, who do it best. Now do you remember?

By the way, why do you feel you have to defend Tommy? There was snark directed at Tommy because he clogs up the message boards pretending to argue honestly when he doesn't. You weren't even mentioned. You are obviously interested in an argument with me. 

And also, are you admitting that you just post here to get the thread off topic?  

Funnyguy,

You started this, & now you're whining because you've received responses. That's rich..

I'm sorry I don't remember our conversation, though your name of course is familiar.

I doubt I ranted or made a fool of myself, except by your definition.

I rarely pull threads off-topic, & I apologize to the other posters here for helping funnyguy to do so.

Tommy & I stick up for each other, & for other Conservatives here. You know, just like the Liberals stick up for each other. Why are you so shocked by that?

Ok I'm done here... I won't be a part of your nefarious plot to pull this thread any further off topic!

You honestly don't remember? I honestly doubt you. My name is pretty distinct, and the thread was my annoyance with your using caps in the middle of the post. I find it hard to believe you don't remember that because it was one of the few times you completely lost your cool and started ranting. 

I admit I posted something off topic, but I certainly didn't attack you. You choose to respond to something I posted at Tommy, and I think with good reason. Tommy clogs these threads so much that it isn't even worth reading them anymore. I don't think my complaint is that illegitimate.

Without trying to sound too much more like a jerk (though c'mon, you are the one one that started the errand boy crap),  it sounds a bit juvenile that you need to stick by other conservatives rather than think independently. It makes it sound like we are in junior high. 

Jeter I would just ignore this , this is a clear attempt to get the topic off target.

OH MY.......ah.....I think I figured it all out!

Tommy is Jeter 2 who is really Sue/Ellie, who on Thursdays is Another American! But all of these people are just figments of Hunting Beach Lefty's twisted imagination, but we all know about him and a certain grassy knoll in Texas!

It all makes sense now!

Now back to the Thread 

Jeff Gannon and I just happened to be on that same grassy knoll at the same time.

I'm also SavageRocks and Peghen, as well as a freelance troll.

Although I like where your heart is at, I'm thinking that snarky preemption against the WITH Patrol is anything but constructive to MMFA's cause and those of us who believe in it.

I think we really need to leave the WITH rhetoric to those best at it and not stoop to this kind of mockery. 

I checked on the link and found this: 

On Wednesday, Move America Forward Vice Chairman, Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson (USAF, Ret.) confronted Soltz on his political activism at the same time he is serving in the reserves – a violation of the U.S. Military's Uniform Code of Military Justice.

As captured in a video from MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, Soltz screamed, yelled and literally stuck his tongue in the side of his cheek in discomfort as he realized that Colonel Patterson had busted Soltz for improper conduct.

It looks to me like Morgan is, in her column simply reporting what Lt. Col. Buz Patterson was alleging.   

Further review of the links from MMFA tells me that:  What active-duty members, reservists, and military retirees are explicitly barred from doing is engaging in political activity while in uniform "when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity ... may be drawn."

Since Stoltz had a picture of himself in uniform on his website (since removed,) and I do believe was wearing an army uniform or parts of one at the Kos convention, (I may be wrong, I have not seen any pics,) and somehow was chastising another soldier, (whom I guess was in uniform,) for presenting a different point of view.  Melanie's comments seem to me to be a legitimate interpretation of the Uniform Code. One can argue that  Stoltz is not inferring official sponsorship, but that is a different matter. If Stoltz can accuse another soldier of violating the code, why not Melanie?  

I don't know what you think your link to the Matthews video shows, but certainly not what you claim. Where does Buzz bust Soz? By the way, as MMFA documented, Buzz has a problem with the truth, and continually shifts his story on the story about uniforms in the White House. 

Further, your first link doesn't show why you claim either, unless it is burried somewhere on the site. It does contain some nice headlines: "Protests against surrender monkeys Reid and Pelosi."

Further, Morgan didn't just claim that Solz violated the army code by wearing his uniform--which he didn't--but that he shouldn't engage in political activity. She was lying. There is not such code.  

 

The link was to/from? Morgan's article. 

No it wasn't. click above.

"Since Stoltz had a picture of himself in uniform on his website (since removed,)"

This one is still there as of typing this.

"and I do believe was wearing an army uniform or parts of one at the Kos convention"

Not according to this snapshot.

Got any other BS from the rightwing blogs to share with us? 

Pete,

I think I covered my rear pretty good when I said I did not know for certain. Thanks for the follow up.

 

Yes, but don't you think you could have looked this up first instead of basing your whole argument on a conjecture? 

As an ex-military man myself, albeit serving with the British Army, I have to ask why Melanie Morgan even needs to ask the question.  Military discipline is normally swift and therefore doesn't need any kind of prompting from a journalist.

 My own take, being unfamiliar with the code specified, is that if an offense really had taken place then it would be being dealt with already.  If he hasn't been charged or informed of possible charges then no offense has been committed.

AA FYI

Neither Soltz nor Wesley Clark, who was also on the panel at Yearly Kos, wore their uniforms.

Morgan can state her opinion but she should preface or follow it with "in my opinion."

Just like she should have stated "in my opinion Bill Clinton is still dating" last week.

Also, when it's found your opinion isn't based on facts, and in this case Morgan is certainly no military expert and is misinterpreting the code, it should be pointed out and you should quickly apologize for your misstatements.

Johnny,

How can you say her opinion, in this case, isn't based on facts?  

Was Stoltz in uniform? (I do not know as I haven't seen any pictures.) Did Stoltz have a picture of himself in uniform on his website?

Did not Col. Patterson suggest to Stoltz he was in violation of the code of conduct?

These all seem like facts to me.  

I'd like to see your facts countering those above. Otherwise you've been hoisted by your own petard.  

Morgan though (go back and read the article from the other day) accused Solz of breaking the UCMJ by wearing his uniform while participating in politics. This, is not true according to the UCMJ, be didn't break the UCMJ at all.

If he's a hypocrite, and a liar, that's another discussion, but no laws were broken, that's the point of it all.

"Was Stoltz in uniform? (I do not know as I haven't seen any pictures.)"

No, he wasn't. 

"Did Stoltz have a picture of himself in uniform on his website?"

He still does (as of typing this), and it does not violate the code unless you can prove that he was engaged in political activities at the exact moment this picture was taken. 

I was one for two with the one being modified with the caveat which you so graciously have provided a picture that says he wasn't in uniform. 

I'm not a lawyer so I'll leave the violation of the UCC to others.  

My point is that Morgan offered a point of view that Stoltz was in violation of the UCC and made reference to his uniform as part of the violation.

KO ignored that in his Worst Person reply making KO as guilty of distortion as he implies or Morgan.  

That's "UCMJ" a.k.a. the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Not the "UCC" a.k.a. the Uniform Commercial Code, a statutory scheme that harmonizes the statutes regarding commercial transactions among the fifty states.

Thanks for the correction.  Where do pay my fine?

Was Stoltz in uniform?

No.  Stoltz was criticizing someone else for being in uniform at the YearlyKos convention. 

Did Stoltz have a picture of himself in uniform on his website?

Yes.  I believe one could argue that to be a violation of Defense Department and Army regulations.  Even though photos are never mentioned specifically, the language seems vague enough to not rule it out.

However, the military seems to believe otherwise, given the failure to pursue other instances of photos used for political purposes.  Thus, I don't think one can say as a point of fact that Stoltz photo use violated the regulations.

Did not Col. Patterson suggest to Stoltz he was in violation of the code of conduct?

You can infer that, as did Morgan.  He actually never said it.  He may have been blowing smoke.

However, even if Morgan drew the correct inference, the statement is still false. At the very least, Morgan uncritically repeated the misinformation.  Citing a source doesn't magically absolve one of all responsibility for checking facts.

 

if you look at websites on "defamation", you'll see that these sites do a good job of explaining how a factual matter isn't a matter of opinion. although the present incident isn't necessarily defamation, the distinction these sites draw is still applicable here.

Where someone is dating and whether there is a certain law that says a certain thing are factual matters. Either someone is dating or not, and either the law exists or it doesn't. So simply prefacing something with "in my opinion" doesn't make a factual matter a matter of opinion. 

If someone wants to say "In my opinion, Bill Clinton is not handsome" that IS a matter of opinion.  Or there may be some  matters of interpretation with some  laws. But that's not what MM is talking about.

 

If Stoltz can accuse another soldier of violating the code, why not Melanie?

Well to begin with Morgan has never been a soldier, has never been subject to the code and is clearly misinterpreting it for partisan political purposes.

Why do you think the military hasn't gone after Stoltz?

It's because they don't follow the Melanie Morgan School of Illogic.

The point of her not being in the military, (are you sure?) is irrelevant.

You can argue she's misinterpreting the code. But that is all you and KO need to say.

In my opinion, naming her "Worst Person" is a bit overkill. 

Besides that, KO obviously didn't understand the relevant code himself by citing the Senator and Congressman - who do not conduct political activity in uniform - as his examples.

In this regard KO has shown more ignorance than Melanie. Maybe tonight he'll give the award to himself?  

She didn't say anything about the uniform though being part of breaking the UCMJ. She said (again, I stress you go back and read the original article) that if you in the reserve and participate in politics, you are in violation of the UCMJ. It's not about wearing the uniform, but about being in the reserve and being involved in politics, again, Solz might be a hypocrite for wearing his and chastising someone else for doing the same, but that's not the law that she said he was "breaking".

Magnolia,

I pulled this from Morgan's column.

 

Like Soltz, Kerry famously posed in his uniform while attacking his superiors in the military and actively organizing to undercut the missions of U.S. troops involved in combat.

It seems to me that Morgan, although not explicity stating so, made the reference that Stoltz being in uniform, like Kerry years ago, did indeed break the code.  

Again, because she says it is so, doesn't mean that it is. She is wrong. Maybe she's not "lying" per se, but she is incorrect in her assumptions.

"Like Soltz, Kerry famously posed in his uniform while attacking his superiors in the military"

No, he didn't.  He posed in his uniform with his rifle while in the theater fighting for his country, not while protesting his government's actions.

Give it up already. Morgan is a liar 

 

Pete,

If you would have checked the link you'd have seen the picture of Kerry before that subcommittee where he, (without verifying), accused his fellow soldiers of all sorts of savagery.

When you do link there, please tell us what Mr. Kerry is wearing.  

On second look, you may have been refering to Stoltz. 

I think someone else argued that posting the picture on his website can be inferred as a violation.

Obviously you disagree 

Yes, you never get tired of repeating propaganda, do you?

Kerry accused his fellow soldiers of savagery? Really?

Except, he didn't, as has been stated and documented again and again. He was repeating what the soldiers wanted him to say, not accusing them. The soldiers said "We did all these awful things because of war," and Kerry got up there and said "These soldiers did all these awful things because of war. That is why this war is wrong." (I'm obviously paraphrasing.)

You make is sound like Kerry got before the committee and said something like "My fellow soldiers are awful  and this is what they did." 

I was not arguing the condemnation of Kerry, I was arguing Morgan's assertion that Soltz was engaged in the same kind of activity as Kerry while in uniform, which is a TOTAL CROCK.

WWAAHHHH, how DARE Kerry spread vicious truths about Vietnam. Of course Kerry SPECIFICALLY cited the POLICIES and decision makers but then why let facts mess up a good fantasy. Also EVERY SINGLE THING Kerry talked about has been shown in the National Archives which I linked to the LAST time you tried this putrid inanity. Give it up attrocities WERE committed in Vietnam only the most brainwashed psychophant is still pretending they werent.

I'm ex-Air Force, and the regulation in question is indeed practicing political activism while IN uniform.  Technically, even showing affection with your sweetie while in uniform is verbotten by the UCMJ.  However, that's freqently overlooked since the WWII Look cover story with the sailor kissing a nurse on the announcement of the wars end.

Since then we've seen Ollie North having to defend himself on charges in a non court-martial setting while in uniform, and regular phalanxes of uniformed individuals behind bush implying support for his delusional policies. 

 

ysbaddaden,

While you seem to have some animosity toward Bush, I appreciate you supporting Melanie Morgan's contention.  

Ps. Even though we may have differing political opinions, I sincerely and very much appreciate your years of service to our great Country! 

As a veteran from Texas I resent this Connecticut cowboy misrepresenting our state, breaking long-standing treaties like the ABM, long-standing alliances that have left our troops isolated in Iraq, and his complete disregard for the IV, V, and VI amendments, the Seperation of Powers, abuse of Executive Priviledge, Above the Law (both domestic and international) attitude, breaking our military, breaking our finances and that's just scratching the surface.

"Technically, even showing affection with your sweetie while in uniform is verbotten by the UCMJ."

Then we've got a lot of soldiers to prosecute for taking their wedding vows and kissing the bride in their full military dress. 

Be sure to contact Morgan and get her on the case.

AA

Was Stoltz in uniform? (I do not know as I haven't seen any pictures.) Did Stoltz have a picture of himself in uniform on his website?

Did not Col. Patterson suggest to Stoltz he was in violation of the code of conduct?

Are you really saying if Buzzy Patterson "suggested" a code violation occurred it's a fact it did?

This is the right wing echo chamber operating at its finest. One clown misrepresents the facts and another clown bases an opinion on those misrepresented facts.

The same thing happened last week when John "Warrior" Gibson's producer claimed John Edwards was whoring out his wife's illness to raise money.

That "opinion" by Gibby's producer was based on an item in the New York Post which happened to be false.

The New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch. It's all part of the echo chamber of lies.

Johnny,

Sorry the reference was not worded to your satisfaction.

I see you have not answered my questions about those 'facts'  but gone off in funnymanpants land to an irrelevant thread. 

Anyway, nice chatting.  

Johnny, Barney Fife presented two questions without answers, and a "suggestion" by documented fruit bat Patterson.

Those are "facts" in his world.

Tommy,

You have your funnymanpants, I'm stuck with HBL.  

So it goes.  

Nobody's stuck with anyone, Barn. Read the items, read the comments, research things you're not sure of, review your comments and eliminate the BS and ridiculous logic before posting.

Funnymanpants and I will be left with much more free time. ;0)

Gomer,

You are too funny. You haven't added anything to the thread except your silly little opinion of me.

Your repeated and overused replies to my comments show a bit too much obsession if you ask me. But thanks anyway. Kinda reminds me of your old obsession with Sarge. Cute, but a bit strange. 

 

Gomer,

It seems to me I posed some very simple questions. Just because you cannot answer them  doesn't mean they are unanswerable.

Whether Patterson is delusional is beside the point, he did make that assertion.

All you need to say is yes, that is a fact. 

  

I'm sorry, your "questions" were "facts"?

Please review my earlier advice.Or study this illustration;

Was AnotherAmerican recently captured on "To Catch a Predator". I don't know.

Is he a member of the communist Party? I could be wrong, but I say yes.

A guy I saw at the store today suggested that AA doesn't signal when making a lane change.

Please refute these facts.

Pretty ridiculous, eh?

I would answer in a word but MMFA won't show it.

Yes.  

Refreshingly honest admission, AnotherAmerican. You may be making progress towards non-ridiculous-ness.

Yes, I second the sentiment of this post. AA, you base your argument on conjecture, such as claiming that Solz was in uniform at Kos. That is what you based your argument on.

Wouldn't it be a bit more fruitful to actually do a google search before using a questionable assertion on which you base your argument?

 

It was only part of my argument and not a very big one as I said I did not know for sure. I thank you for the correction.

I thought I had read Stoltz was in uniform in one of the links. Since I did not remember which link, I made sure I pointed out that I could be wrong.

Anyway, it seems to me this is your third post regarding that issue. I thought I answered it earlier, but in case I haven't, here it is.

 

Additionally naming Melanie Morgan Worst Person is overdue since her rudeness and immaturity, and just plain deranged behavior, toward John Soltz on the Lehrer Newshour.

Here's what Morgan originally said:

He's actually a reservist, and he has no business -- well, he's in violation of the United States Marine Corps Code of Justice by making these kinds of outrageous political and partisan statements.

Reservists have been elected to local, state and federal government throughout the history of this country. When they campaign they make political and partisan statements.

Just because Morgan thinks a statement is "outrageous" doesn't make it a violation of the code anyplace but inside her warped partisan mind.

Johnny,

Thanks for the quote. Not that I doubt you,  but now we're finally getting some place.  Can you please provide the link?

Thanks 

You'll never find a picture of John Kerry appearing before Congress in uniform while testifying on behalf of Vietnam Veterans Against The War unless it from the same place the John Kerry/Jane Fonda phony photo came from.

Another lie by Morgan.

It looks to me like Morgan is, in her column simply reporting what Lt. Col. Buz Patterson was alleging.

Yep, that's how the echo chamber works. One monkey falsely alleges something the other monkeys report it as fact.

Are you referencing Joe Wilson? 

;-)  

No. More like the entire argument to go to war in Iraq.

Joe Wilson was right and YOU are delusional

Thanks for that brilliant reposte!

(Oh.. and nice to you move off the "LIAR" rant.)  

3.)  Wilson Has Claimed His Niger Report Was Conclusive And Significant

Wilson Claims His Trip Proved There Was Nothing To The Uranium “Allegations.” “I knew that [Dr. Rice] had fundamentally misstated the facts. In fact, she had lied about it. I had gone out and I had undertaken this study. I had come back and said that this was not feasible. … This government knew that there was nothing to these allegations.” (NBC’s, “Meet The Press,” 5/2/04)

Officials Said Evidence In Wilson’s Niger Report Was “Thin” And His “Homework Was Shoddy.”  (Michael Duffy, “Leaking With A Vengeance,” Time, 10/13/03)

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: “Conclusion 13. The Report On The Former Ambassador’s Trip To Niger, Disseminated In March 2002, Did Not Change Any Analysts’ Assessments Of The Iraq-Niger Uranium Deal.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

• “For Most Analysts, The Information In The Report Lent More Credibility To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Report On The Uranium Deal, But State Department Bureau Of Intelligence And Research (INR) Analysts Believed That The Report Supported Their Assessments That Niger Was Unlikely To Be Willing Or Able To Sell Uranium.”  (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

CIA Said Wilson’s Findings Did Not Resolve The Issue. “Because [Wilson’s] report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior administration officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerien officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release 7/11/03) 

The Butler Report Claimed That The President’s State Of the Union Statement On Uranium From Africa, “Was Well-Founded.” “We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:  ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’ was well-founded.” (The Rt. Hon. The Lord Butler Of Brockwell, “Review Of Intelligence, On Weapons Of Mass Destruction,” 7/14/04)

Joe Wilson's Top Ten Worst Inaccuracies And Misstatements

1.)  Wilson Insisted That The Vice President’s Office Sent Him To Niger:

Wilson Said He Traveled To Niger At CIA Request To Help Provide Response To Vice President’s Office. “In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report. … The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.” (Joseph C. Wilson, Op-Ed, “What I Didn’t Find In Africa,” The New York Times, 7/6/03)

• Joe Wilson: “[W]hat They Did, What The Office Of The Vice President Did, And, In Fact, I Believe Now From Mr. Libby’s Statement, It Was Probably The Vice President Himself ...” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 8/3/03)

Vice President Cheney: “I Don’t Know Joe Wilson. I’ve Never Met Joe Wilson. … And Joe Wilson - I Don’t [Know] Who Sent Joe Wilson. He Never Submitted A Report That I Ever Saw When He Came Back.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/14/03)

CIA Director George Tenet: “In An Effort To Inquire About Certain Reports Involving Niger, CIA’s Counter-Proliferation Experts, On Their Own Initiative, Asked An Individual With Ties To The Region To Make A Visit To See What He Could Learn.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release, 7/11/03)

2.)  Wilson Claimed The Vice President And Other Senior White House Officials Were Briefed On His Niger Report:

“[Wilson] Believed That [His Report] Would Have Been Distributed To The White House And That The Vice President Received A Direct Response To His Question About The Possible Uranium Deal.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Reported That The Vice President Was Not Briefed On Wilson’s Report. “Conclusion 14. The Central Intelligence Agency should have told the Vice President and other senior policymakers that it had sent someone to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal and it should have briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador’s findings.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

CIA Director George Tenet:  “Because This Report, In Our View, Did Not Resolve Whether Iraq Was Or Was Not Seeking Uranium From Abroad, It Was Given A Normal And Wide Distribution, But We Did Not Brief It To The President, Vice-President Or Other Senior Administration Officials.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release, 7/11/03)

4.)  Wilson Denied His Wife Suggested He Travel To Niger In 2002:

Wilson Claimed His Wife Did Not Suggest He Travel To Niger To Investigate Reports Of Uranium Deal; Instead, Wilson Claims It Came Out Of Meeting With CIA.  CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “Among other things, you had always said, always maintained, still maintain your wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA officer, had nothing to do with the decision to send to you Niger to inspect reports that uranium might be sold from Niger to Iraq. … Did Valerie Plame, your wife, come up with the idea to send you to Niger?”  Joe Wilson:  “No. My wife served as a conduit, as I put in my book. When her supervisors asked her to contact me for the purposes of coming into the CIA to discuss all the issues surrounding this allegation of Niger selling uranium to Iraq.”  (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 7/18/04)

• But Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Received Not Only Testimony But Actual Documentation Indicating Wilson’s Wife Proposed Him For Trip.  “Some CPD, [CIA Counterproliferation Division] officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip.  The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife ‘offered up his name’ and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, ‘my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.’”  (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

5.)  Wilson Has Claimed His 1999 Trip To Niger Was Not Suggested By His Wife:

Wilson Claims CIA Thought To Ask Him To Make Trip Because He Had Previously Made Trip For Them In 1999, Not Because Of His Wife’s Suggestion.  CNN’s Wolf Blitzer:  “Who first raised your name, then, based on what you know? Who came up with the idea to send you there?”  Joe Wilson:  “The CIA knew my name from a trip, and it’s in the report, that I had taken in 1999 related to uranium activities but not related to Iraq. I had served for 23 years in government including as Bill Clinton’s Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council. I had done a lot of work with the Niger government during a period punctuated by a military coup and a subsequent assassination of a president. So I knew all the people there.”  (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 7/18/04)

In Fact, His Wife Suggested Him For 1999 Trip, As Well.  “The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA’s behalf … The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region …”  (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

6.) Wilson Claimed He Was A Victim Of A Partisan Smear Campaign

Joe Wilson: “Well, I Don’t Know. Obviously, There’s Been This Orchestrated Campaign, This Smear Campaign. I Happen To Think That It’s Because The RNC, The Republican National Committee’s Been Involved In This In A Big Way …”  CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “But They Weren’t Involved In The Senate Intelligence Committee Report.”  Wilson: “No, They Weren’t.”  (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 7/18/04)

Senate Intelligence Committee Unanimously Concluded That Wilson’s Report “Lent More Credibility” For Most Analysts “To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Reports.”  “Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador’s trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts’ assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.”  (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

Members Of The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence That Wrote The Unanimous “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq”:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)

Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH)

Sen. Christopher Bond (R-MO)

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS)

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)

Sen. John Warner (R-VA)

(Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

7.) A Month Before The Bob Novak And Matthew Cooper Articles Ever Came Out, Wilson Told The Washington Post That Previous Intelligence Reports About Niger Were Based On Forged Documents:

In June Of 2003, Wilson Told The Washington Post “The Niger Intelligence Was Based On Documents That Had Clearly Been Forged Because ‘The Dates Were Wrong And The Names Were Wrong.’” (Susan Schmidt, “Plame’s Input Is Cited On Niger Mission,” The Washington Post, 7/10/04)

However, “The [Senate Select Committee On Intelligence] Report …  Said Wilson Provided Misleading Information To The Washington Post Last June [12th, 2003].” (Susan Schmidt, “Plame’s Input Is Cited On Niger Mission,” The Washington Post, 7/10/04)

• Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: “The Former Ambassador Said That He May Have ‘Misspoken’ To The Reporter When He Said He Concluded The Documents Were ‘Forged.’”   (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

8.) Wilson Claimed His Book Would Enrich Debate:

NBC’s Katie Couric: “What Do You Hope The Whole Point Of This Book Will Be? Joe Wilson: “Well, I - I Hope, One, It Will Tell - It Tries To Tell An Interesting Story. Two, I Hope That It Enriches The Debate In A Year In Which We Are All Called Upon As Americans To Elect Our Leaders. And Three, … That [It] Says That This Is A Great Democracy That Is Worthy Of Our Taking Our Responsibilities As Stewards Seriously.” (NBC’s “Today Show,” 5/3/04)

Wilson Admits In His Book That He Had Been Involved In “A Little Literary Flair” When Talking To Reporters.  “[Wilson] wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved ‘a little literary flair.’” (Matthew Continetti, “‘A Little Literary Flair’” The Weekly Standard, 7/26/04)

Wilson’s Book The Politics Of Truth:  Inside The Lies That Put The White House On Trial And Betrayed My Wife’s CIA Identity Has Been Panned In Numerous Reviews For Its Inaccuracies:

• “On Page One Of Chapter One, He Quotes NBC Talk Show Hos