Jon Soltz a Military Expert?
by Big Dog on Sep 5, 2007 at 09:07 Military
I have seen Jon Soltz on several occasions. I saw the video from the Kos convention where he tried to act tough and intimidate a soldier. The soldier was in uniform and Soltz tried to intimidate him for political activities while wearing the uniform when it appears that the soldier was not participating in any such activities and had just asked a question. Soltz threatened to take report the troops to his commander and to “take it offline” like that kind of threat from him would worry anyone. It is unfortunate that this Captain and the General (Clark) who was with him did not know the regulation and, in the case of Stoltz, acted unprofessionally.
I saw this so called leader on Hannity and Colmes last evening and he berated the person with whom he was discussing the situation in Iraq. Soltz was talking with Dan Senor and basically stated that he would not listen to what Senor had to say because Soltz had been in the service and did not need to give credence to what anyone who was not there had to say. He attacked Senor rather than the argument. Every time I see this jerk I see a person who is full of himself and thinks that because he attained the lofty rank of Captain, he knows everything about the military and that he is the only one who can speak for veterans. His Bio at the Huffington Post states; “Jon Soltz has quickly become one of the most authoritative voices on veterans issues and military issues.” In whose world? Who made this putz an authoritative voice on anything? The guy is a bully who cannot see any other point of view and he expresses that point of view at the expense of others.
I certainly do not think that this guy is a military expert. In his piece at HuffPo he asserts that the White House forced some changes to the Iraqi report card on benchmarks. According to him there were 3 of 18 met and now there is one that is partially met. I have seen a number of reports that indicate that 8 of 18 have been achieved so I do not know, and it is immaterial. My point of contention for this “expert” is this statement:
So, let’s be clear here. As the Washington Post originally reported, only three benchmarks have been met. Fifteen have not. That Iraqis are so far flunking here is just more evidence that the surge has not worked, and that there is no military solution to this problem. Troops can’t make Iraqis allocate and spend $10 billion, or any of the other things listed in the benchmarks.
His assertion that the failure of the Iraqi government to achieve benchmarks is proof that the surge is not working is ridiculous. He is correct in stating that our troops cannot allocate and spend the money but that is not their purpose nor is it the purpose of the surge. The surge is to provide more force to stabilize the region so that the government can attain those benchmarks more easily. The government of Iraq has a a long way to go. As history shows, forming a government is a long and tedious process and it will take longer than a few months to get Iraq to a state of stability. The government there is in recess and though I think that was stupid I can not fault them much, they learned that part of Democracy from our Government.
In any event, this report is not some indication that the surge has failed, as Soltz would have us believe. The troops are doing what they are supposed to and the area is becoming more secure. I have an idea though. Rather than listen to the rantings of a self righteous unprofessional like Soltz, why don’t we wait and see what General Petraeus has to say on the subject. Surely a General Officer with a lot of military experience has a better grasp of things than a Captain who could not lead a group of people out of a burning building. I guess Soltz is following suit of the Democrats and attacking another aspect, because the Petraeus report is likely to be good and what is good for America is bad for Democrats.
As for the benchmarks, keep in mind that the Democratically controlled Congress has achieved only one of the many things it promised to accomplish (remember the 100 hours). The Iraq government is still ahead of our government and they have bullets flying around them.
Guys like Soltz are why fragging was invented.
Tags: Political Commentary
Web Reconnaissance for 09/05/2007…
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….
Guys like Stolz are why fragging was invented? Leave it to BD to make veiled homicidal threats.
I liked it when you said this:
“Every time I see this jerk I see a person who is full of himself and thinks that because he attained the lofty rank of Captain, he knows everything about the military and that he is the only one who can speak for veterans. ”
I think that’s a pretty rich statement considering you advertise yourself with the following sentence – in all caps, no less – at the top of your blog:
“DON’T EVER ARGUE WITH THE BIG DOG BECAUSE THE BIG DOG IS ALWAYS RIGHT”
What rank did you reach BD? You should write about your own war experiences one of these days. If you were in for 22 years (long enough to get your pension!), you probably saw a lot of action…
24 years.
The quote you have from my site is from the movie The Fugitive as stated by Tommy Lee Jones. It is a double entendre to indicate either correct or on the right politically.
I reached the rank of First Sergeant, not that this means anything to you.
I have no war experiences to write about.
As for the fragging, I never espoused fragging, just stating that he is the kind of guy who it was invented for.
Big dog, we are all aware of the fact that “blow job’ is short for Billy Joe, so all his time spent here, is saving some one else from his Liberal bias, and probably is be paid by Hillary and Bill, to undermind us all. But, his words run off to the ground, like water off a ducks back. That is why I do not answer any of his BS he post on here, even if he dircts it at me. I have better things to do with my time than waste it on a dumb dip sh*t like that.