The presidency is a civilian office, and this is true even in wartime. This is part of the whole civilian control of the military that the Founders saw fit to implement to ensure that military officers did not make grabs for power. For that matter, it also means that presidents hold power over the military by virtue of civilian political structures, and thus can not legitimately use military power to hold onto power (Though Nixon apparently considered it). The Founders were quite wise in this. I point this out because, no matter how much it has been done since Reagan broke the tradition of following the wishes of the Founders in this, it is improper for civilians to salute members of the military, as Bush is shown in the photo. Does this bother anyone else?

Do you think adding a "nik" suffix to whatever group you hold in contempt effectively dismisses them or is even clever? I am rather disappointed in you. I seem to recall that you were often fairly thoughtful, though prickly. Lately, though, you have just been a jerk. What is with all the random name-calling and nastiness? I mean, really, does Salon need another joe or tiberius around? If you disagree with someone or a point being made, why not explain the disagreement, rather than just being inflammatory just to get a rise out of people? What does that acheive?

As to the point being made in the cartoon, I don't think it can be disagreed with that, since his primary loss, Lieberman has rarely passed up the opportunity to cozy up to the right or defame his former party. It is clear that he felt winning that primary was his entitlement, and has since decided to take out his dissappointment and anger on the Democrats who opposed him. He is an opportunist who is seizing his brief political opportunity ahead of the 2008 elections that should provide the Democratic party with a margin in the Senate that shall relegate him to quiet margins. It is sad, really. By taking the path of Zell Miller, he is effectively hitching his wagon to a rock.

Thank you for completely ignoring what I was trying to say to you, and thereby confirming my fears about you.

I do have a question: If you really have such contempt and hatred for Salon and most of those who come to read it and post upon it, why are you here so much? You are one of the most active posters, but you don't add anything other than acrimony. Even when you have good points, and at times you do, you are so bitterly inflammatory that the tone drowns out them out.

I thank you, though, for how well you think you know what goes through not only my head, but apparently everyone else's here. It is nice to be understood.

Just wanted to say that it is nice to know there is another UU here!

I find myself wondering if the prominence of our declarations of big new military pushes such as "The Surge" and the various security crack downs are so well advised. I would have to look back to check, but it seems that every time there are such large-scale, well advertised operations, there then follow massive, high casualty attacks such as this. It is almost as though all the publicity leads the leaders of the insugency, the militias, and Al Qaeda to plan such attacks just to show they can in the face of increased American activity. It is like daring them to pull something, and things are so bad, and the US has such tenuous control, that they succeed in meeting the dare. Alternately, it could be that there is just increased attention paid to such attacks as a counterpoint to the assurances by the military that "this time, we have the magic operation to make everything better". Of course, this would be in some ways just as bad, as it would indicate that those behind such attacks as this just are not much affected by whatever the American military does.

Regardless, there are more families morning in Iraq today, as those responsible for the situation in their country go about their morning routines back here, oblivious and uncaring.

I guess that Snow's explanation can be seen as stating that Bush's stance is that his foreign policies have no consequences in the world so long as he himself is not a part of the manifestation of those consequences. Think of little boy who throws rocks at a hornet nest. If kids nearby get stung, then, by Bush's position as articulated by Mr. Snow, the little boy can declare that their pain was not his fault so long as he was not stinging them himself.

That makes no sense, and is not morally justifiable, and neither is Mr. Snow's answer to the question.