As military uniforms go, if you know something of the history of them and what's considered to be significant in their design elements, Mussolini's uniform and Marine dress blues are about as different as one could get. One has lapels and collar tabs (both are considered important elements of military dress), dress blues don't. One has breast pockets with flaps, dress blues don't. I won't even get into the red piping, the blue trousers with red stripe, the lack of a tie, and the single belt rather than a Sam Brown, etc. all of which are considered distinctive elements of dress blues, each with their own historical significance.

The uniform that you've labelled the "Vietnam version" is a United States Army uniform. I think it's Class A's but I'd have to look it up to be sure - really it's not germane to the point - the reason it looks different is that it's from another branch of service, not due to the era. The Marine dress uniform has been largely unchanged for a long period of time.

I never could find an article of military dress similar to the President's goofy jacket, though I spent some time looking. There's a couple that are close, but nothing in the issue system that I could find was right on. Near as I could ever tell, someone dressed him in a "military-ish" jacket. Sad commentary that the imageering has gotten to that point.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

The uniform I listed is for sale at a military antique dealer and is listed as a marine uniform. Non-Comms do not wear enlisted men's clothing i.e. dress blues. If you look at dress blues, you will see that the collar is not darker. These are dress grays. There is an officer's dress blues too but they are different. In general, the design of military uniforms projects power and authority. That is why this Marine wore his uniform to give the presidents message. That is why the President wears a military Jacket and it is why Mussolini wore a uniform although Mussolini like Hitler was an actual combat veteran. I think the tradition of military uniforms is as fascinating as it is troubling.

We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. - General Education Board Letter #1, 1906, Rockefeller Foundation.

some research before you start making observations. You are comparing a USMC Dress Blues uniform to a US Army Class A uniform, then comparing it to a German WWII uniform and trying to draw some linear development pattern. This is totally absurd because the Dress Blue pattern is the most archaic, and has not changed in decades. All modern "European" pattern militaries have three basic uniform patterns: Dress uniform, Parade uniform, and Work uniform. The Dress and Parade uniforms are usually derived from previous versions of the Work uniform. Each pattern has elements to specifically highlight previous elements of the Service history. So, for example, the US Army has a "Mess Dress" uniform, which is basically a tux jacket with tails that is patterned after the Work Uniform of the early 1800s. The next lower level of uniform for the Army is the "Dress Blues" which are patterned on the post Civil War duty uniform and has pants of a lighter shade of blue than the jacket because troops only wore the jacket during inclement weather or in the winter, so the pants faded to a lighter color over time. The next level is the Class A, which is basically the WWI pattern uniform, with the lapels open rather than worn in the closed color fashion and converted to green rather than Kaki. The next is the Class B, which is simply the Class A uniform without the jacket and making the neck tie optional. Finally, there is the work uniform, which today is the camouflage Battle Dress Uniform. That is just one service. I could go through a similar discussion of the USMC uniform patterns as well, and the German uniform patterns too. They are somewhat related, but your efforts to cast the current trend in uniforms as a drift towards fascism are so off base as to be laughable.

For example, your discussion of: "The man in the picture, Sergeant Forsyth is wearing the latest version which takes us back to WWII but with a few changes like the darkened caller." is completely incorrect. The collar on the USMC Dress Blues is not darker than the rest of the Jacket. The darker collar on the German uniform comes from a Continental European tradition of Waffenfarbe, which is using coloring to distinguish different branches of the Army from each other. The US has never used the color differentiations on the collar to do that sort of thing. The US Army tradition is to use lace on the jacket cuffs and pant legs to accomplish the task of differentiating officers from enlisted and one branch from another. The USMC makes no such distinctions, with all members wearing the same uniform pattern.

You are right, I stand corrected. In the search the uniform came up as marine but on further examination of the dealer's site, it does not say which branch of the service its from.

I am trying to say that the US is, something closer to fascism than most people think. Also, the miltarization of the US is far more advanced culturally than people realize.

We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. - General Education Board Letter #1, 1906, Rockefeller Foundation.

...of the mode of dress known as "Greens" they look kind of gray in some photos. However, it's not a dress uniform. I think it's commonly referred to as the Service A, Service B, etc. uniform (there are various configurations, as there are for dress uniforms). I certainly have never seen any reference to "dress greys" and I've read an awful lot about the Corps over the years - the only American formations that I know of that have dress grays are cadets (USMA, among others). Additionally, I've searched the relevant regs and I can't find any reference to any mode of dress uniform that would seem to qualify as dress grays. (the manual can be found
here)

USMC dress blues for enlisted personnel, both NCOs and ORs are very similar -- IIRC, there's something to do with the blood stripe on the trousers, and a few odds and ends, like being able to wear the sword. There's some more differences for officers, but compared to other branches of service these aren't huge differences - in fact, it's a matter of some institutional pride that the various uniforms are so similar (there's a lot of belief in the Corps that at their base all Marines are Marines, whether they be senior officers or junior enlisted - take a look at some of the traditions around celebrations of the Marine Corps birthday, for example).

The green uniform is absolutely an Army uniform - if you don't believe me or Ranger, click around the links associated with the item on the antiquities dealer's site - you'll find the citation scroll for Sergeant Geske's Bronze Star - it specifies that he's in the United States Army.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

It is quite significative how the readers center in the details of uniforms treated in this article , but seem not to want to talk about the central topic , creeping fascism in the USA . Three is no exact definition for a fascist or protofascist regimen. Use of military simbolism by politicians is tipical of fascist regimens . Others signs of incoming fascisms , if we have to believe in history , are :
*) Perversion of the public media
*) A climate of fear among the people favoured by the government.
*) An apetite for torture .
*) Massive surveillance of the people.
*) Abolition of habeas corpus and other legal restrains to government authority.
*) declaration of external-perpetual wars .
*) big power to the corporations , especially the military industry.
*) dissappearence of people without a legal trial and without the family being told the state has detained someone.
*) religious ideas at government decisions
*) Disregard for the geneva convention and justification of war crimes in the basis of national supervivence...
As you can see , it is not only about this or that uniform , it is about choosing betwwen the free world as we know it , or an "always leading to disaster" fascist dictatorship .

...are issues of fact, the issues around the larger "creeping fascism" argument are issues of faith, and I ain't a priest.

People will see what they want to see in the evidence - little that I or anyone else can say will dissuade anyone when the evidence isn't dispositive, and I don't get off on hashing the same crap around and around and around to no resolution.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

uh...Sean links to a link of the regs up above. Seem pretty clear to me, and exactly the opposite of what you're alleging.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html2/d134410x.htm

Pertinant sections are:

4.1.2. A member on active duty shall not:

4.1.2.1. Use his or her official authority or influence for interfering with an election; affecting the course or outcome of an election; soliciting votes for a particular candidate or issue; or requiring or soliciting political contributions from others.

4.1.2.2. Be a candidate for, hold, or exercise the functions of civil office except as authorized in paragraphs 4.2. and 4.3., below.

4.1.2.3. Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions (unless attending a convention as a spectator when not in uniform).

4.1.2.4. Make campaign contributions to another member of the Armed Forces or an employee of the Federal Government.

Is there any indication that any of the above was being done at the "Lincoln Day Dinner" in question?

Just because an event it organized by a political party does not, in and of itself, make the even "political" in the way the directive is written.

Those regs are pretty clear to me. What Musgrave did was illegal and Forsyth had clearly stepped outside the bounds of military regulations. How is it that you and I both read the same thing and come to a different conclusion?

Oh yeah, IOKIYAR. How soon I forget. It's ok for you to do it, because you are a Republican. My bad. So sorry.

^{The price of apathy towards government is to be ruled by evil men.}

~Plato

"clearly illegal" yet you fail to show how anything that happened actually vioted the directive's prohibitions. Care to be specific?

... 4.1.2.4. Make campaign contributions to another member of the Armed Forces or an employee of the Federal Government.

[continued...]

4.1.3. Enclosure 3 provides examples of permissible and prohibited political activities. The examples in enclosure 3 do not supersede other specific requirements and policies, such as those established by this Directive and DoD Directives 5200.2 and 1325.6 (references (c) and (d)).

[This is Enclosure 3.]

E3.1. PURPOSE

This enclosure provides examples of permissible and prohibited political activities and other requirements for implementing this Directive.

E3.2. EXAMPLES OF PERMISSIBLE POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

A member on active duty may:

E3.2.1. Register, vote, and express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces.

E3.2.2. Promote and encourage other military members to exercise their voting franchise, if such promotion does not constitute an attempt to influence or interfere with the outcome of an election.

E3.2.3. Join a political club and attend its meetings when not in uniform. See Directive 1334.1 (reference (f)).

E3.2.4. Serve as an election official, if such service is not as a representative of a partisan political party, does not interfere with military duties, is performed when not in uniform, and has the prior approval of the Secretary concerned or the Secretary's designee.

E3.2.5. Sign a petition for specific legislative action or a petition to place a candidate's name on an official election ballot, if the signing does not obligate the member to engage in partisan political activity and is done as a private citizen and not as a representative of the Armed Forces.

E3.2.6. Write a letter to the editor of a newspaper expressing the member's personal views on public issues or political candidates, if such action is not part of an organized letter-writing campaign or a solicitation of votes for or against a political party or partisan political cause or candidate.

E3.2.7. Make monetary contributions to a political organization, party, or committee favoring a particular candidate or slate of candidates, subject to the limitations under 2 U.S.C. 441a, 18 U.S.C. 607 (references (g) and (h)), and other applicable law.

E3.2.8. Display a political sticker on the member's private vehicle.

E3.2.9. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political meetings or rallies as a spectator when not in uniform.

E3.3. EXAMPLES OF PROHIBITED POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

In accordance with the statutory restrictions in 10 U.S.C. 973(b) (reference (b)) and references (g) and (h), and the policies established in section 4., above, of this Directive, a member on active duty shall not:

E3.3.1. Use official authority or influence to: interfere with an election, affect the course or outcome of an election, solicit votes for a particular candidate or issue, or require or solicit political contributions from others.

E3.3.2. Be a candidate for civil office in Federal, State, or local government, except as authorized in paragraph 4.2., above, of this Directive, or engage in public or organized soliciting of others to become partisan candidates for nomination or election to civil office.

E3.3.3. Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions (except as a spectator when not in uniform), or make public speeches in the course thereof.

E3.3.4. Make a contribution to another member of the Armed Forces or a civilian officer or employee of the United States for the purpose of promoting a political objective or cause, including a political campaign.

E3.3.5. Solicit or receive a contribution from another member of the Armed Forces or a civilian officer or employee of the United States for the purpose of promoting a political objective or cause, including a political campaign.

E3.3.6. Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

E3.3.7. Serve in any official capacity or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan political club.

E3.3.8. Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

E3.3.9. Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against of a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

E3.3.10. Conduct a political opinion survey under the auspices of a partisan political group or distribute partisan political literature.

E3.3.11. Use contemptuous words against the officeholders described in 10 U.S.C. 888 (reference (b)), or participate in activities proscribed by references (c) and (d).

E3.3.12. Perform clerical or other duties for a partisan political committee during a campaign or on an election day.

E3.3.13. Solicit or otherwise engage in fundraising activities in Federal offices or facilities, including military reservations, for a partisan political cause or candidate.

E3.3.14. March or ride in a partisan political parade.

E3.3.15. Display a large political sign, banner, or poster (as distinguished from a bumper sticker) on the top or side of a private vehicle.

E3.3.16. Participate in any organized effort to provide voters with transportation to the polls if the effort is organized by, or associated with, a partisan political party or candidate.

E3.3.17. Sell tickets for, or otherwise actively promote, political dinners and similar fundraising events.

E3.3.18. Attend partisan political events as an official representative of the Armed Forces.

E3.4. POLITICAL ACTIVITIES NOT EXPRESSLY PERMITTED OR PROHIBITED

Some activities not expressly prohibited may be contrary to the spirit and intent of section 4. of this Directive or section E3.3. of this enclosure. In determining whether an activity violates the traditional concept that Service members should not engage in partisan political activity, rules of reason and common sense shall apply. Any activity that may be viewed as associating the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security, in the case of the Coast Guard, or any component of these Departments directly or indirectly with a partisan political activity shall be avoided.

E3.5. LOCAL NONPARTISAN POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

This Directive does not preclude participation in local nonpartisan political campaigns, initiatives, or referendums. A member taking part in local nonpartisan political activity, however, shall not:

E3.5.1. Wear a uniform or use any Government property or facilities while participating.

E3.5.2. Allow such participation to interfere with, or prejudice, the member's performance of military duties.

E3.5.3. Engage in conduct that in any way may imply that the Department concerned or any component of such Department has taken an official position on, or is otherwise involved in, the local political campaign or issue.

E3.6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Members of the Armed Forces on active duty engaging in permissible political activities shall:

E3.6.1. Give full time and attention to the performance of military duties during prescribed duty hours.

E3.6.2. Avoid any outside activities that may be prejudicial to the performance of military duties or are likely to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.

E3.6.3. Refrain from participating in any political activity while in military uniform, as proscribed by reference (f), or using Government facilities or resources for furthering political activities.

Uh, Ranger, from the article:

"more than 250 Republicans gathered in Fort Collins on Friday night for the Larimer County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner."

Not a "Lincoln Day Dinner" as you posted, a GOP function. Get your facts straight.

Let's see, I called it a Lincoln Day Dinner organized by the GOP, and the article calls it a GOP organized Lincoln Day Dinner. Yeah, I really screwed that one up.

The fact that it was organized and attended by GOP members does not make it a "political" meeting as the DoD directive describes political activity, any more than the NAACP organizing a Martin Luther King Day event attended by NAACP members makes it a political event. The question is what type of activity takes place, not who orgnizes it. Local Chamber of Commerce lunchins are closed to anyone who is not a member, but that doesn't disqualify it as a "community event" in the view of the DoD.

The fact that "GOP" was in the name of the event says much. Just how many invitees were from other political groups? The tactics of Republicans today seems a war of semantics; words are twisted as are facts, in order to fit comfortably. If this event was a Lincoln Day dinner, "hosted" by local GOP (with a varied guest list), then I could buy into your reasoning. Without using any play on words, it was, it seems, a political function held by one party for one party.

Was it wrong for someone in military uniform to attend? I don't know - I simply recognize double speak and justification when I read it.

is exactly the reverse of what you posit. If it were an event hosted by the GOP, but open to the general public, then it would clearly violate the rules because it would then be a "political" event where the presence of the military would indicate support for a particular party. In this case, everyone present was somehow already affiliated with the GOP, and therefore the presence of the military does not impact the political process. As long as no specific candidate standing for election is being endorsed or challenged, no internal party management is being done, and no money is being raised for the party, a member of the military can attend and speak in uniform just like they can at an NAACP event or a Rotary Club meeting. This "Lincoln Day Dinner" is probably one of the only party sponsored events it could be done at.

"Actually I think the situation is the exact opposite of what you posit."

This is right out of the Powerline/Karl Rove playbook. Take one of your parties worst political weaknesses and blame the others for making them do it, all the way saying it is the complete opposite of what our eyes, our ears and our brains tell us it is.

This strategy only works for so long. We're figuring it out. You can only project for a limited amount of time.

Like I said earlier: IOKIYAR.

^{The price of apathy towards government is to be ruled by evil men.}

~Plato

of what I was saying. The argument was made that it would be OK for someone from the military to show up if the event were sponsored by the GOP but open to the public. My response is that is exactly the kind of situation the DoD directive prohibits. That kind of event would be a "political" event, a rally or fundraiser. On the other hand, having someone from the military show up and speak in uniform at an event which is sponsored by a political party (any political party by the way) but only open to members of the party is OK (as long as there is no "party management buisness" going on), because the presense of a member of the military in uniform does not transmit the idea of political endorsement to the general public. The Democrats are more than welcome to invite the military to speak at their celebratory dinners as well (as long as they are not fundraisers, and no party management buisness is going on).

That's what the DoD directive says. Don't like, then have someone propose legislation that bars the military from appearing in uniform and speaking at any event which might even imply support for anything remotely political (such as the Chamber of Comerce, which is "pro-buisness" or the NAACP, which is "pro-civil rights").

Ranger

Nice attempt at defense but it doesn't fly. The Larimer Republican's newsletter here

http://www.larimergop.org/newsletters/jan%202006%20newsletter.pdf

states: The evening will also feature
a silent auction. Call Geri Paxton, 667-3364, if you have
an item you wish to donate.
The Lincoln Day dinner is a great way to kick-off the
election year. Join your fellow Republicans and help start
the party off to a clean sweep in November!

The event raised money (silent auction, other newsletters indicates this is an event at all their meetings, hence this event is the same as all their party events)
All speakers were Republicans

Also, if they were not wrong then wht did they scrub all photos?
http://www.metrodenvergreens.org/

I was at their site yesterday at
http://www.larimergop.org/index.htm

and personally saw about ten photos of the event with two Marines in uniform. I just went back and they are gone. This makes me think that they believe something was wrong.

I just went back and they forgot to scrub some photos on their site

http://www.larimergop.org/photos/LincolnDay/LD2/LD2019.html

http://www.larimergop.org/photos/LincolnDay/LD2/LD2003.html

As I said, yesterday there were about 10 photos with two Marines
(1 E-7 and 1 E-5). Some of them were the Marines on stage.

Here's what is there now
http://www.larimergop.org/photos/LincolnDay/LD2/LD2004.html

http://www.larimergop.org/photos/LincolnDay/LD2/LD2005.html

And so on where the photos once were.

Once again, makes me think the GOPers believe it was wrong, why else scrub the "evidence"??

Good job, Ranger, there's certainly a place for you in the Bush admin Disinformation Bureau. You are good at it. LOL

It was titled a "GOP Lincoln Day Dinner". What if it had been titled a "GOP Tuesday Night Dinner"? That would mean it was more significant that it was tuesday than GOP? According to the title in the article, this was plainly a GOP function. End of story.

the issue is what is done at the dinner, not who organizes it. Why is that distinction so difficult for you to make? The DoD directive clearly prohibits activities, not associations. As long as no prohibited activities take place, why does it matter to you who organizes the event?

See my response above

We'd all love to hear about any Democrats that were allowed to speak at the GOP "Lincoln Day" rally, assuming they were allowed to attend.

Of course, any dissenting voices to their gung ho propaganda were allowed to do so--a mile away in a specially guarded "free speach zone." That's the way it works now, isn't it?

"Death before being dishonored any more." - Col. Ted Westhusing

I'm working on one for "Your Brain Is Not Engaged".

- Rick

_{"Free your mind, and your ass will follow" - George Clinton}

that was turned off because it had been causing problems for one development project.

It's turned back on now, so it's supposed to catch and fix open tags, we'll see how it goes.