If a President insisted on some policy and an officer felt he couldn't follow it, they would resign, like Shineski did, they wouldn't rebel.

Oh, I see. We will just hope they miraculously change their minds.

Do you expect to see Officers resigning, say, when the rules about detainees are changed? When the ROE are clarified and enforced? When contractors are subject to reasonable oversight?

When pre-emption is dumped as a policy? When stop-loss is stopped?

Certainly, given the level of integrity you tell me exists, I'm certain that the officers are completely devoted to the present policy. I would expect them to resign if new policies, which they cannot agree with, are started. And I expect they will always, as they have been in the past, be ready to take responsibility for their actions in pursuit of these policies.

A Democratic president will have to either Lieberman up or be totally transparently anti-war. And the illegal acts you point to will be the first test. Eisenhower did it to Kennedy, whether deliberately or not

Thanks so, so much, and especially for the Eisenhower-Kennedy.

That's in reference to what, if you'll excuse my ignorance. Do you mean generally, or a specific incident?

Yeah, thanks for that "first test" remark. I don't see how they can go a week, let alone a month, what with the perpetual kicking upstairs of any possible illegality or transgression for the White House imprimatur, along with the entire media obfuscation treatment. There will be so many things to endorse, so many things which must be approved again by the present administration, hell, you'd be impeachable, and maybe even hangable after the first week.

Or is there going to be, out of nowhere, a completely revolutionary change in the way we are fighting the War On Iraq?

Well, its obvious to anyone who works with them day by day, otherwise how on earth would you know it?

Just as some things are obvious to people who live with them, in their community, day by day, for tens of years.

No one can tell me that military people, and the community of people connected to the military through the vast amount of contract-work it uses, are any worse than any other people.

But don't try to tell me they're any better. I don't have to take that.

Revealed Sock Puppet!

Whoops! Okay then "Derbig Mooser, DFH et al, RSP" it is!

Revealed Sock Puppet- sounds almost Divine, you know. "And His Glory Revealeth the Sock Puppet of God" or something. Don't say I said it.

so that in a year he can begin the campaign to frame Clinton or Obama as a warmonger.

Baldie McEagle

And stop loss is only one thing, and a relatively minor one at that. Not to the people involved, of course, for whom it has been life and death.

Sometimes, we gotta put family before politics (and I do not mean "politics" in any prejorative sense), and sometimes, we even gotta put family before principles. Especially when what may be required of us is helping heal, not endorsing actions.

Besides, if I thought a person's own actions would punish them, and probably severely, why should I heap my punishment for them (for their perceived betrayal of me) on them too? That's what I know from my family. I don't know if it applies.

And maybe this is why wars are mostly fought by young men, and there's not much we can do about that, either. I'm sure as hell not goin.

"it's time to abandon military adventurism"!!! he's voting Obama!!!

Shooter! My man! It took a while, but I was always sure you'd make it!

If you need help registering to vote, call me, pal!

These national security chieftains constitute a sort of permanent war party.

Amazing! And who makes up the constituency of their party? Who are they representing if not "fear itself" and war. As we've all heard, they do not represent the bulk of the Armed Forces, the people who serve. It is just amazing about those guys. Since the fifties, too.

Once they got that "national security" thing goin', wow, the place was theirs. "Homeland Security" is sort of piddling by comparison, ya know? It's like your protecting a tract home or something. But "National Security"! That has stood us in good stead.

One thing that will really cause the M$M and Repugs confusion with a President Obama, as it has during the campaign, is that Obama really does say what he believes and speaks the truth as he sees it.

He is amazing that way. The first guy who talks to us like grown-ups in a long time. I'll be voting for him, as hard and as often as they let me.

And part of working with someone is sometimes telling them: "That is illegal (orcriminal, unconstitutional, or even immoral), and I won't do it. And BTW, if this is what you have been doing up til now, I want to tell you in the nicest way, you are going to jail, for a long, long time."

Obama, being a nice guy who's for unity and all will say: "Don't forget to call me if you run out of conk. A guy's got to look right in the joint, or he's toast"

Okay, I made up that last part.

You mean that kind of working together? Or the kind where he says"Since your entire lives have shown us you can't think of non-white people inany other terms than that of your peg-boy, please, go ahead, I'm flexible!"

Cause it's gonna be one or the other, pal. He's talking about people who have committed what was called at Nuremburg, oh something about "the accumulated evil or crime of the whole" or something. It's gonna be one or the other.

Or will they welcome Obama as a co-conspirator? That would be rich! Has anybody seen "Putney Swope"?