That'd be like looking for an honest banker, an industrialist who cares for his employees and the environment, or a compassionate conservative. As George Carlin pointed out years & years ago (and George is still relevant today -- if not more than ever) that "military Intelligence is an oxymoron".

So why would you look for integrity or even honesty in the military?? Sheesh, the higher you go up the chain, the bigger the lies, denials, fabrications, coverups, and the good old American sport of brown-nosing. I stopped believing in good Generals the first time I ever watched 'White Christmas'.

The good thing is, those of us who don't wear the uniform, or much give a hoot about those who have chosen to, don't have to salute the C-in-C or even hum that tune -- as civilians we haven't taken the King's sovereign. You can have your opinion about the military, or gawd, or even the flag -- just leave it at that. An opinion . . .

nabalzbbfr aka anonymoose hits the nail on the head when he pens (in one of his drive-bys):

"This is very much an ad hominem personal attack on Bill Kristol. After all, he is supposed to be an opinion columnist and he is expressing his opinion."

Yes, but he was so funny in both 'Analyze This' & 'Analyze That' -- maybe he should stick with comedy . . .

"If you dislike him, just say so -- don't wrap it up with so much sanctimony."

Sheesh, moose, thanks for reminding us that letters to a columnist (this one where you keep dropping by to practice your droll wit at) shouldn't contain ~ahem~ reader's ~er~ opinions . . .

Mr. Owens wrote: "He (Mr. Kristol) has sacrificed his credibility, his dignity, his honour, and his decency. (Assuming he ever had any of those qualities.)"

I agree with second part of that "ad homien personal attack" (thanks Anonymoose for that particularly glib phrase)on Mr. Kristol, but he sure as shootin' never sacrificed a thing in his life. He SOLD his credibility, dignity, honour & decency. Speaking of whores, what's the difference between Mr. Kristol & a syphlitic prostitute. Well, one's a cunning runt and the other is a . . . .

let's stop this while I'm ahead of the game.

BTW -- in a prior post (it would have to be, wouldn't it??) someone asked why Jon Stewart allowed people like Mr. Kristol on his program. I think rather than giving these people a showcase, he's actually letting us see the enemy first hand . . .

Shooter, as per usual, doing his "yeah, Bush is bad, but Clinton was much worse" deflection shee-it points out in his talking-point-download-cut-and-paste scree: "How about some analysis on the polygamy story instead? Their religious freedoms are being stomped on by the state. If they were Muslim, the situation would be the same but I'm sure the state would leave them alone."

Two points here: firstly, while polygamy is frowned upon in polite society, the deal here is not multiple wives: it's about children. These freeks bring their hare-brained, home-schooled, living-in-a-bubble incestuously in-bred kids up, then marry these children off to scary skinny burning-eyed zealous elderly guys. That, shooter, is the point. It's called child abuse. The crime that a lot of pasty fat stogie-sucking bent old farts (why does Rush Limbaugh come to mind) should swing for.

Secondly, stop playing the frigging 'Oh-but-the-muslims-are-much-worser-guys' card. It(s despicable, and s-o-o-o-o totally not mature.

Then, shooter continues in his mewling: "Perhaps the sect should start bombing people to gain their freedom. That strategy seems to work well in Europe. In the UK, not only is Muslim polygamy acceptable, one gets additional benefits for each wife. State benefits that is."

Not true, shooter. You lie, as usual. Polygamy is NOT acceptable in the UK. Please, some references -- not from your downloaded wingnut talking points / golf hints / voucher & coupon savings broadsheet. Liars are bad. Bald-faced liars are despicable.