Pajamas Media member, Andrew Marcus caught some fascinating footage of what I consider to be less than respectful treatment of a member of the military who showed up at a panel discussion entitled, “The Military and Progressives: Are They Really That Different?” The panel was moderated by Jon Soltz, a veteran and outspoken critic of the Iraq war.

Now, there has been much made of this incident by both right and left-leaning bloggers, and I’ll talk on this in a moment, but two other things struck me as I watched the video clip found here at PJM. First of all, there seemed to be VERY few people in the room. I’m wondering if part of Soltz’s angst, which was eventually vented on a fellow Iraq veteran, was partly due to the fact that it was quite obvious to Soltz and his fellow panel members — one of whom was retired General, Wesley Clark — that even those members of the military who oppose the Bush Administration and the war in Iraq are generally disrespected by liberals. Especially very left-leaning liberals like Kos.

Secondly, I have seen many comments on how Soltz closed the panel discussion immediately, and insisted on speaking to the soldier in private, but very few people have commented on the fact that the soldier, after meeting with Soltz in private, acknowledged that he had been threatened. When Marcus asked the soldier what Soltz said in private, the soldier responded that Soltz threatened he was going to try and get him in trouble and have him dishonorably discharged for asking what Soltz deemed to be a political question while in uniform.

Personally, I’m not sure if the soldier did ask a political question. What I can say is that Soltz definitely was acting in an intimidating manner and the soldier was having none of it. He was courteous, clear and concise; and he tried to cite the facts of a recent report showing that progress was being made in Iraq.

Unfortunately, Soltz acted in an angry and aggressive manner towards this serviceman from the beginning, telling him that, if he engaged in political dialogue while in uniform, there was going to be trouble. I don’t think Soltz walked away from this encounter looking very good.

What of Soltz’s contention that the soldier was out of line by questioning his panel while still in uniform? Well, Mike at Lampligher blog looked up the military codes of conduct which might relate to this situation and, after reading Mike’s post, I have to agree with him that Soltz’s accusation is not very convincing. Not unless there were more recent orders issued that might amplify the codes Mike cites. I did hear that the military is trying to crack down on the number of military members who are blogging from Iraq, but that has nothing to do with asking a military-related question during a panel discussion.

I feel quite certain that the conservative media is going to be highlighting this story. Hopefully we’ll hear from Michael Medved on Monday during his show and I would be “shocked, shocked” if James Taranto of Opinionjournal.com’s “Best of The Web Today” didn’t call attention to this in his Monday column.I first learned of this through the Drudge Report, so I think we can expect this to balloon into a major news story before too long. And kudos to Pajamas Media for capturing this incident and reporting on it. I’m very grateful they were there and so quickly published their video.

Finally, let me point out a fascinating tidbit from a debate that Soltz had with fellow veteran Stan Coerr on the Jim Lehrer News Hour, which was then published on PBS’s Online News Hour on September 16, 2004. The debate between Coerr and Soltz was fairly long and detailed; a good read actually.

Towards the end of the debate, moderator Margaret Warner asked of both men if candidate Kerry was making inroads with members of the military and military veterans with some of his campaign promises. Coerr was asked to respond first and here are a few excerpts from his reply:

Margaret, John Kerry’s not making inroads. And let me tell you why. I think most veterans, as I said before, along with the American people, honor what John Kerry did in Vietnam.

What they are unhappy about is what he did when he returned home, using Vietnam as sort of a springboard to political office. His testimony, which we’ve all seen on television before the Senate, about what he thought about the war, leading an anti- war effort…

I can tell you that I have a photograph of myself meeting Sen. Kerry, and the friends that I sent that photograph to think I’m a traitor.

They can’t believe that I would even shake hands with that man, and everyone I know, my peers and those I worked with, are all very strong Republicans and they’re Bush supporters in this specific campaign.

So, you can see that Coerr lays it out plainly. In his opinion, members of the military and veterans in particular are not supportive of Kerry. They are so against Kerry that they think Coerr a traitor for even shaking the man’s hand. What is fascinating, however, if Soltz’s response to what Coerr has just said:

If John Kerry is a traitor, then so am I. John Kerry fought for his right to come home and question his war in Vietnam; 12,000 Americans died after he testified in the senate. And I fought for my right to question this president’s policies in Iraq.

But Coerr never calls Kerry a traitor! He never even questions his patriotism, which is something people on the left love to accuse conservatives of doing. Actually, Coerr specifically said that Kerry’s fellow veterans honored his service but question his commitment to them based on what he did and said after returning from Vietnam.

It was Soltz who applied the word “traitor” to Kerry, by denying that he was any more a traitor than Soltz himself. I find this kind of thing fascinating, not because of all the name calling, but because liberals so often are the ones who apply these labels to themselves by complaining that conservatives are applying these labels. It’s like stepping out in front of a moving car to complain that you are being hit by a moving car.

Liberals consistently fail to understand their own fundamental disrespect for the men and women who serve in the military and conservative’s deep and abiding respect for those same men and women. We would never consider labelling Kerry or Soltz as traitors. They served this country. They risked life and limb to protect us. I’m personally grateful to both men for their service.

But liberals are not so loathe to apply disrespectful labels to America’s best and bravest. And it seems to me that the low turnout for Soltz’s panel on similarities between progressives and the military underscores my point perfectly. Those who lean far left likely hate the thought that they might have anything in common with the military.