"I say amen, and amen. Really Sugarman, enough is enough. Your prolific eccentricities detract from the comments section."

We're on again.

Must be the gender, eh?

"I think the trickier part of commenting is figuring out the best format for distinguishing between quotes/excerpts and your own words. Many do it well, but Sysprog is the master.

I wouldn't sweat it... your own comments are always very readable."

I've found that using the 'blockquote' function along with quotation marks to work for me.

"(Yes, Edwards voted no, he's my second choice...)"

I'm curious. In what forum did Edwards vote 'No'?

Try this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jrHPjm4qKM

I'd like to see them pull a Dixie Chicks on old Merle.

"Maybe I could have stomached practicing law had I joined an organization such as EFF."

It's not too late, is it?

Psssst!

While GG is away, we can secretly sneak off to that desert island and fool around.

What say thee?

"Sneak away to an island? But I'm still (1) Irish, and (2) female!"

Sure. 'Cause I'm (1)German/English (with a tad of Danish), and (2) straight!

BeBop-O may serve as my Batman. Perhaps you'ld like Althouse as your Old Maid in Waiting.

Seriously!

We could drink ourselves gloriously and seriously funky with the sweet nectar of fresh papaya, stroll along white sandy beaches, delight in the setting sun, and give my Batman enough time to drive your Old Maid silly.

What say you?

"Has a more transparently stupid and disingenuous person than shooter ever walked the earth?"

Yes.

He currently resides in the White House.

"Regardless about how one feels about aggression or violence, it remains a fact that the Armed Forces serve to defend ALL Americans, not just those who cheerlead their efforts or endeavor to silence their critics. In times when the moralty of particular conduct is called into question, the importance of the ability to examine that conduct becomes even more extreme."

The same can be said of the Department of Justice, The Department of Homeland Security, The EPA, and so forth and so on. This administration has taken the politicization of our federal government to heights never seen before and it will take a generation to undo what they have done, if it can, indeed, ever be undone.

I really hate to say this but it could very well be that it will take an imperial asskicking to get the ball rolling. With our supply lines so vunerable, both here and in Iraq, it really won't take much for an extremely bad experience to manifest itself.

For this, we owe so much to the Neocon Cultists.

Thank you for your service to our country. As a veteran of another conflict a generation or two ago, I can certainly understand your frustration with those who have not served in uniform when they comment on the war.

Unlike you, however, I can understand the difference between commenting on the political aspects of the war and commenting on the tactical or operational aspects of the conflict. Perhaps you have not noticed, given your rather apparent recent interest in Greenwald's writings, but Glenn confines his comments to the political aspects of this war and I'm sure you can agree that it doesn't take a Warrior such as yourself to understand politics, even when said political activities are undertaken by military personnel.

Perhaps the difference between us can be explained by the hind sight I have acquired since serving and, as another poster, another ex-military man, mentioned, it could quite possibly be due to your closeness to the situation (and, perhaps, your current need to publicly submit to the ideas and judgements of those military people in authority) which seem to blind you to the reality that at the top of the chain of command, politics and tactics are blended. When such a blend does not take place, such as when Gen. MacArthur (IMO, a superb tactical commander but a miserable excuse for a political commander) suggested the nuclear annihilation of North Koreans and Chinese, the civilian power of our government necessarily must control. Previous military commanders in Iraq obviously had difficulty melding their opinions and tactical suggestions with the political dictates of their situations and were therefore replaced by someone who could and would do so. Like it or not, as was the case with President Truman, George W. Bush is Commander in Chief and his legal orders must be followed by those of you in uniform. The only honorable thing for an officer to do when he disagrees with a legal order is to offer his resignation rather than follow such an order. To disobey a legal order would not be honorable.

Consequently, we now have a Commander in Iraq who is able to utilize his considerable political strength to further his tactical goals, even though those tactics are not favored by his own military chain of command, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (Yes, I am aware that Gen. Petraeus does not report to Adm. Mullen but Adm. Mullen's views should certainly be taken seriously by the civilian leadership, which doesn't seem to be the case currently.) In a very real sense, General Petraeus has President Bush by the balls. It would now take an act of political suicide for the CinC to oppose one of his own subordinates - yet another in a long line of monumental organizational fuckups by this President.

When Glenn comments on Gen. Petraeus specifically, he confines his comments to the political and legal aspects of Gen. Petraeus, not on the tactical aspects of the General's actions. Certainly a man with your demonstrated abilities can understand the difference.

I'm curious about something though and I'd appreciate your views, given that you are currently serving...

Do you believe as strongly that it is improper for people who have never served to praise and actually suggest tactical decisions by the military as you seem to believe it is improper for people who have never served to scorn such decisions?