Not to pick a fight, but I'm wondering what you were getting at when you wrote:

"By Cpl. Whatsisface's rules, then, only military veterans can criticise the military. And presumably, only gays and lesbians can criticise gays and lesbians."

The military exists -- in theory -- to serve and protect all Americans. It is funded by American tax revenues. And all Americans share in the responsibility when our military leaders and politicians abuse their power.

That, by the way, is why I can't stand it when tough guys try to crowd "sissies" like Greenwald and Blumenthal out of the debate. If Greenwald and Blumenthal share in the moral responsibility for the use and abuse of American military power around the globe, then they must have the corollary right to forcefully express their opinions about how that force should be used. Otherwise, we arrive at an untenable situation where only soldiers and veterans are morally culpable for all of our missteps. And isn't that one of "the lessons of Vietnam?" That we shouldn't blame our soldiers for America's wartime mistakes? This lesson is incompatible with the idea that only veterans have the right to express strong opinions about the military and its leaders.

A non-veteran criticizing a general, then, is a little different from a straight guy offering well-meaning "criticisms" of gayness. (I can only imagine what "criticisms" you're imagining.) My sexuality is none of anyone else's business; they're not "funding it" (ha), they have no role in deciding how it's practiced, and they bear no responibility for my bad choices (again: ha).

Participating in debate about our military adventures around the globe is not like offering "straight talk about the Jews," bashing the crazy Mormons, etc. The former is obligatory; the latter (at best) optional.

Gonzales has nothing to worry about. I'm sure the Democrats are already busy concocting a bill to provide him with unqualified retroactive immunity.

I don't understand. What the hell is a "brief tattoo?" I'm missing the pun.

Yeah, doofus, I think everyone got that part of the joke.

I just didn't know what "brief tattoo" meant.

Man, today's strip is really bad. It just doesn't work at all.

First, Opus isn't embarrassed that he has a Bush tattoo -- just embarrassed that he has one of Bush in briefs? That doesn't make sense.

Second, the girl isn't repulsed that Opus has a Bush tattoo? That doesn't make sense.

Third, Opus is mortified that he has a tattoo on his ass (or wherever)? That doesn't make sense.

And none of it is funny. Who are these people who are "ROTFLMAO?" What other sorts of things make you ROTFLMAO? (I'm guessing that the popular TV show "Ow! My Balls!" is one of those things.)

He should resign from the Senate for being so out-of-touch and incompetent that he doesn't have a computer at his desk and "doesn't use the Internet."

Senator without a computer in 1988? Endearing. No computer in 1993? A little weird. No computer in 2007? Alarming.

No wonder these people think Americans are clamoring for endless war, less health care for indigent children, and retroactive immunity for corporate felons.

Everyone knows that he inherited this blog from his father, Larry Greenwald. If that weren't bad enough, it's been obvious for years that Glenn is grooming his adoptive son, Tagg Greenwald, to take over the site when Glenn becomes Transportation Secretary in the Gravel Administration.

More dirt: do a simple records search on Joan Walsh, and you'll discover that, a few years back, she had her name legally changed. Walsh's birth name? You guessed it: Maud Greenwald. Glenn's sister.

Keep chucking those stones from that pretty glass house of yours, Glenn.

Yes, dalefi. It is true. Sadly, every word of it is true.

In the interim, "Unclaimed Territory" will be guest-blogged by Shooter and Tiberius.

While reading this piece, I was alarmed by the ignorance and apathy of the American electorate.

Reading the comments, I'm starting to be alarmed by the ignorance of some Salon readers.

Scotswoman and others: it may be take a class in basic statistics! If you're completely lost while reading a simple article like this, you aren't able to follow the news in a meaningful way. (Until you become statistically literate, it might be a good idea to curb the "new new math" snark.)

As Larry Craig would say: "jiminy gosh!"

. . . like the "no" was to the question "Can you confirm . . . etc."

Either way, what a dick. Also, what a loon. And the Democrats are of course too visionless and weak to make the politicization of the military a real issue. Frankly, I'm starting to tire of this "top-ranking military leaders and spokespersons are American Hero Warriors who represent the very best of what we are as a nation" shtick. I must have slept through that meeting where we got together and decided that the military junta would be running things from now on.

Glenn, any "respectable, ethical journalist" would have let this email matter drop five updates ago. That's why I no longer get my news from "respectable journalists." I don't trust those types!

PS, to the rest of the Glenn-o-sphere: I caught that new(-ish) Bill Maher show, Real Time, this weekend, and I was surprised at how good it was. Politically Incorrect always bored me (Pam Anderson, Camille Paglia and the guy from King of Queens rapping about the environment: who gives a fuck?), but this new show is compelling. It can barely be called a "comedy" news show; Maher's interview with Kay Bailey Hutchinson was one of the best I've seen with her, and the discussion between Maher, Andrew Sullivan (whom I can't help but like), and Wes Clark was filled with passion and the non-ironic kind of seriousness. I don't mean to waste thread-space with TV recommendations, but as someone who rarely watches television, I thought this tip was worth passing on.