I am very uncomfortable with how serving members of the US military are acting as political operatives in Washington. It all began with the campaigning of Amnesty International plants Jonathan Hutto and Linsay Burnett enlisting into the military and beginning the Appeal for Redress website before the 2006 Congressional elections to protest the Iraq War. The site allowed soldiers to sign a petition protesting the war. Through this website they hoped to create the impression that a “grassroots” effort from the troops was speaking out against the war without disclosing that they joined the military solely for the purpose of their anti-war activities and how the Appeal for redress is funded by multiple anti-war groups, promoted by the largest liberal public relations firm that had their site publicized in hundreds of newspapers and television shows to include a specials on CBS’s 60 Minutes. This public relations firm also just happens to be backed with George Soros money. Hardly a “grassroots” effort as they have been leading people to believe.

Jonathan Hutto before joining the Navy at an Amnesty International protest against the war.

In response to Hutto’s group a real military “grassroots” effort, Appeal for Courage was launched. Though Appeal for Courage started 5 months after Appeal for Redress, Courage was able to gather more signatures in only two months than Redress and currently has 3274 signatures compared to the 2005 for Redress. Courage easily overtook Redress without anti-war group money or the backing of the largest liberal public relations firm in the country. It was all done through word of mouth on the Internet. Due to the success of Appeal for Courage, Hutto’s group has been largely marginalized.

However, Hutto’s group is not the only liberal political operative group that claims to speak for the military. The VoteVets.org site, just like Hutto’s group was formed before the 2006 Congressional elections. This site was backed by former Democratic Presidential Candidate General Wesley Clark and the group of retired generals that made headlines before the 2006 Congressional elections by running ads funded by the site speaking out against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as well as a change in strategy in Iraq by sending in more troops. Interestingly enough Rumsfeld has since been sacked and a new “surge” strategy that called for an increase in troops has been implemented. Instead of this site recognizing the changes it has instead become an anti-war site calling for the removal of US troops in Iraq. Since then none of the retired generals has been heard from, but the person we are hearing a lot from is VoteVets founder Jon Soltz.

Democrat Lobbyist CPT Jon Soltz

Soltz made big headlines on the blogosphere with his meltdown against a US sergeant that dared speak of successes of the surge strategy in Iraq during the Yearly Kos convention. Yes, Soltz along with Wesley Clark were guest panelists at a convention for a website that regularly posts some of the most disgusting anti-military rants on the Internet like this.

Yet Soltz claims to have the creditability to speak for the troops; enough creditability that he was featured on MSNBC’s Hardball program:

Did you catch Soltz served in Iraq? I’m glad he mentioned it over and over again so I didn’t forget. He also mentioned that Clinton made sure everyone in Kosovo had up-armored HMMWV’s. Such a claim is irrelevant to what happened during the Iraq War because of the massive land force used during the Iraq war compared to the smaller force used in Kosovo, but Soltz statement isn’t true anyway. I digged into my picture archives on my computer and look what I found pictures of non-armored HMMWVs in Kosovo:

You can see KFOR stenciled on the back of the truck. This is actually a buddy of mine trying to fix his truck. Here is another picture of a soft skinned four seater in Kosovo:

I have more pictures, but I think everyone gets my point. Stoltz claim that all the soldiers in Kosovo had up-armored HMMWVs is simply not true and I’m sure he knows it. If he claimed most soldiers had use of up-armored HMMWVs than I would agree with him. Kosovo did have mostly up-armored HMMWVs, but there was still plenty of soft skinned highback and four seat HMMWVs along with other un-armored vehicles running around as well.

The AP now has an article summing up the political activities of you know who, Jon Soltz and a new group that has been formed just like Appeal for Courage to oppose him:

Despite their opposing views on the war, soldiers Pete Hegseth and Jon Soltz have much in common, not the least of which is time spent in Iraq.

Both profess their love of the Army. They are young, athletic and clean-shaven, and they speak eloquently about honor and a sense of duty, as though plucked from central casting to play the role of the patriotic soldier. Above all, they draw heavily on their experiences in combat to justify their views on Iraq, hoping their message will resonate with voters because they — unlike most of America — have witnessed combat.

They also represent dueling activist groups that are fast becoming a powerful lobbying force on Capitol Hill. And to politicians trying to make their case in anticipation of a critical assessment on the war this September, such groups have become valuable public relations tools in the deeply partisan, pull-no-punches Iraq debate.

“The Democrats, unfortunately, are trying to undermine the efforts of our troops and restrict the ability of our generals to carry out their mission,” Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said at a July news conference with Hegseth and other members of the group Vets for Freedom, which supports a continued U.S. presence in Iraq.

Later that week, Hegseth — a National Guard soldier who worked as a civil affairs officer in Samarra last year — stood behind President Bush in a news conference chastising Democrats for not passing a spending bill for the troops.

“These patriotic Americans who are behind us deserve an opportunity to be heard,” McConnell said.

Democrats agree they should rely on the counsel of troops. They just opt to listen to Soltz, a captain in the Army Reserves who deployed logistics convoys in Iraq with the 1st Armored Division in 2003. His group, VoteVets.org, says Bush should bring troops home.

Politicians play on the expectation among voters that because the military is supposed to be apolitical and service members experience combat first-hand, troops will offer an unvarnished assessment of the war.

“Their status as combat veterans gives them an authenticity that politicians don’t have,” said Darrell West, political science professor at Brown University. “Voters will always see them as combat veterans first, not advocates.”

Still, advocates they are, with extensive political ties and budgets for televised political ads.

Both Vets for Freedom and VoteVets.org are tax-exempt nonprofits, but they are not charities. Such groups deliberately do not accept tax-deductible donations — making it tougher to raise money but giving them free reign to lobby on Capitol Hill.

Soltz’ VoteVets.org also operates a separate political action committee and has officially endorsed six candidates for the 2008 elections. The group has spent about $850,000 this year on political ads, including local spots during the Super Bowl aimed mostly at pressuring Republican senators into breaking with Bush on the war.

Its board of advisers includes retired Gen. Wesley Clark, a Vietnam veteran who sought the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, and former Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey, also a veteran of the Vietnam War. It’s affiliated with the Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, a coalition of anti-war groups that includes the partisan MoveOn.org, which backed Democratic challengers in the last election.

Soltz suggests his group’s ties to the Democratic Party reflect a bigger movement under way within the military.

“I think you’re seeing a paradigm shift in the military, from those who served being fairly passive Republicans to being more active and opposed to what the current leadership is doing,” Soltz said.

Hegseth’s Vets for Freedom is firmly rooted in politics as well, but with Republican ties instead. The group has worked with former White House spokesman Taylor Gross, and Campaign Solutions — headed by Republican consultant R. Rebecca Donatelli — helps manage its online media.

Adriel Domenech, the press contact for the group, is a former intern with the Republican National Committee and worked on Bush’s 2004 campaign in Colorado. Most recently, Domenech worked for 13 months in Iraq for the State Department public affairs office under Bush.

This month, Vets for Freedom launched political ads in five states — Minnesota, Kentucky, Connecticut, Nebraska and Virginia — in a bid to shore up support for Bush’s Iraq policies among key senators. The ads feature young combat veterans urging members to fight al-Qaida and thanking them for their support of continued military involvement in Iraq.

Hegseth said the group is still nonpartisan. In July, the group tried to meet with members of both parties and are pushing to sit down with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

“We stand with those who stand with the mission,” he said in a recent interview. “I don’t care if you’re Republican or Democrat. … If you believe it’s important to finish the mission in Iraq, we will stand with you.”

Soltz and Hegseth readily acknowledge they don’t speak on behalf of the military and are careful not to lobby in uniform, as prohibited under Pentagon rules.

Both say they are proud of the advocacy roles their groups play on Capitol Hill and think troops should share their experiences on the ground.

“Those who served have a duty to speak out for those who are on active duty and cannot,” said Soltz. “As long as they follow the rules about doing so, all Iraq and Afghanistan veterans need to get involved.”

Hegseth said personal experience enhances the debate but that it should be done without a political agenda.

“It can become dangerous when troops use their status as a veteran to talk about their own political beliefs,” he said. “But when troops are talking about their mission and the importance of their mission and why the strategy being used is successful, or why it’s different or why it could be altered, I think that’s important.”

The political activities of retired military officers doesn’t bother me, but the fact that serving military members are conducting such activities I’m a bit uncomfortable with. Unlike Vietnam people on the left had to start planting and recruiting activists within the ranks of the military because of the lack of troops speaking out against the war due to the nature of an all volunteer military and no draft. This phenomenon is what caused someone like recently outed Scott Thomas Beauchamp to admit that he only joined the military in order to get “creditability” when he writes articles against the military when he gets out. Beauchamp isn’t alone as the number of fraudulent soldiers continues to grow.

The frauds, liberal military plants, and political activists within the military did have an influence on last year’s Congressional elections and now this has caused members of the military on the other side of the aisle to come out against them. Maybe it is just me but is anyone else out there uncomfortable with this politicization of the military?

Popularity: 1%