Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
drsteevo
Published Letters: 69
If he had NOT sent the first email, he would have NEVER answered and sent the second email. Military protocol would have required him to call the Inspector General and start an investigation. He is arrogant and underestimated Mr. Greenwald. He also doesn't know much about the "internets."
He is a liar.
I served as an officer in the Air Force for several years, I learned to never trust anyone with a bird or a star on their shoulders, which is pretty pathetic when you think about it.
I suggest a new sig file for the Colonel.
Steven A. Boylan
Colonel, US Army
Public Affairs Officer
3rd Liar Regiment, 5th Idiot Batallion
Somewhere in the offices of Col. Boylon, there is someone who got stuck with investigating this. They were most likely appointed to this task by Gen. Petraeus himself. They are in the process of conducting interviews and documenting everything very carefully in a little red folder. This folder will then be shuffled under the rug somewhere and Boylon will get his Star in a few years anyway...
Or maybe this will get really big and cost him the Star (of the rank of General Officer) he has been working for his whole life.
I am hoping for the latter, but I am not too hopeful.
First, I apologize if this point has been brought up before, there are just way too many posts on these related blog posts to read.
However, the underlying point Mr. Greenwald has made is how the NeoCons are attempting (succeeding?) in their attempt to politicize the military.
I think it is also important to look at how BushCo has militarized civil intelligence services. He has appointed active duty military officers to head the CIA and NSA. Neither one of these officers have resigned from the military. Mike McConnell, the US Director of Intelligence, is a retired Admiral. I am not aware of specific examples where this has happened, or is happening in other departments, but it seems to be a disturbing trend.
The military is currently controlling all of the intelligence gathering resources in our country. This same military is now actively promoting a political agenda. This is very concerning and dangerous to the United States.
"Garrison Keillor is to writing What a donkey is to field goal kicking. I guess technically it can get the job done but there are probably better alternatives."
So, you are saying he is a great writer? Didn't you see the Disney movie "Gus?" That mule could kick field goals from the other side of the field...
I always enjoy reading Garrison Keillor's stories.
He isn't "going to bed early," he is going to the private quarters to hit the bottle before bed. He isn't really sleeping, just unavailable and drunk.
Wow, play a little Devil's Advocate and watch out! Don't worry Mr. Greenwald, even a few of us non-lawyers are always up for a difficult question.
But in terms of the propriety of their religious appeals for votes, is there really any meaningful difference between the two campaigns?
Yes. There is a difference. I looked up "propriety" in the dictionary, and there are four definitions, I am going to assume you are using the "true nature" definition. I think there is a difference in the true nature of their religious appeals.
As an agnostic who favors Obama for president, I have been uncomfortable with his religious statements. However, I am taking them for the statements of a pragmatic politician who really wants to be President. I think he has no choice but to make these statements, especially in South Carolina.
Huckabee is a preacher who has made religion his fundamental reason for existence.
Their appeals are different. However, if you had posed the question "Are the effects of these statement any different?" Well, I couldn't answer that one.
Is it possible to criticize Huckabee for inappropriately exploiting his status in Iowa as a "Christian leader" -- as many, many people did -- while believing that Obama's hailing of himself in South Carolina as a "Committed Christian" is perfectly fine? What's the difference?
It is very possible and has happened numerous times. I don't think what Obama is doing is "perfectly fine" as stated above, but I understand why he is doing it (I hope).
The current hybrid vehicles are little more than a clever marketing plan with dubious claims of energy efficiency. I would never buy one of the current vehicles which are overpriced, overly complex, government subsidized machines.
I don't think there would be much difficulty with demand of the nationwide electric grid. These cars don't draw all that much power and it would be during off peak hours anyway. As demand slowly increased, the infrastructure would have time to keep pace.
Don't worry about West Virginia, most of that coal is gone. Wyoming has enough high quality coal to keep us in electric power for the foreseeable future. At least until we can master the science of fusion energy to make power plants that run on sea water and construct a nationwide super-conducting power network.
I would never buy one of the current hybrids, but I would buy a plug-in hybrid as soon as they were available.
I was so happy when I woke up the morning after the 2006 elections and found out that George Allen had lost in Virginia. I remember being very happy that day, I thought a new day of reckoning for Bush and company was on the way.
What's the chance of getting rid of Pelosi and Reid after 2008?
Rudy's success has been to get nearly everyone to believe he made a conscious choice to campaign with this so-called rope-a-dope strategy. Rudy campaigned heavily in New Hampshire and visited the state more than nearly all the other candidates. After his dismal poll numbers, he concocted this story to save face and possibly salvage his campaign. He certainly has a future in public relations; everyone has bought into his lie.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
