Right. It's only coincidence that the first picture ever used on your column was a pudgy right winger about whom you said...

As usual, Shooter is an absolute liar. I have posted photographs many, many times when the post focuses on one person.

I posted a photograph of Mike O'Hanlon with the post I wrote about his Op-Ed.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/30/brookings/

I posted a photograph of Mike Allen with the post I wrote about his journalism.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/02/mike_allen/

I posted photographs of Rush Limbaugh and Denny Hastert when I wrote about the latter's appearance on Rush's radio show.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/10/mark-foley-and-unmasked-republican.html

I began doing this in response to reader suggestions that when a post focuses on one person, it is common and helpful to include a picture. It breaks up the text and allows a visual image to be conveyed of the subject of the post.

My reluctance to do so, as I said back then, was that liars like Shooter would come and claim that I was using their physical appearance as an argument against them. The consensus was that if I use their official photograph or a common online picture -- rather than one chosen to make them look bad -- that wouldn't happen.

So that's what I do. But it doesn't prevent outright liars like Shooter from claiming it anyway -- nor others in this comment section from claiming that I made their physical appearance a part of my argument even though I did no such thing.

You don't ever hear of anyone claiming that only cops and firefighters get to have or take a position on crime and firefighting. One would think with the logic here that only cops and firefighters could do that. And only poor people could speak for the poor or nurses for the ER or Native Americans for them.

I hope you all will remember that and not leave yourselves open to this kind of intellectual dishonesty. In other words, when there's a policy issue about liberal left coast bloggers, THEN you can chime in. thank you.

Apparently Glenn thinks rotating individuals, groups, and his tires, are all the same.

Your choice of metaphor is telling. We aren't talking about machines, but human beings who have been subjected to extreme stress for prolonged periods and have time and again been denied adequate time to rest and recover from that. Small wonder the rate of suicides among military personnel are so high.

That it is taking actually legislation to force the Administration to do so speaks more of them than either Senator Webb or Congress.

When you can tell the difference between real, live human beings and the 16-bit characters on your video screen, then talk about this. Until then, or until you actually grow a set and sign up, do spare us your shite.

Unfortunately Fred continues to rabidly and desperately use any argument, no matter how ridiculous, to extend this "surge." It's embarrassing but what is left of his battered reputation depends on the surge's success. Fred has the additional pressure that comes with having so publicly brought his whole family on board to support his doomed strategy. Like all of Bush's cronies who craft failed policies, Kagan will eventually blame an unsuccessful surge on Bush's poor execution of his brilliant scheme.

Other readers have noted one of Fred's key positions is that Webb's amendment would put an impossible administrative strain on our Armed Forces. This is blatantly, laughably false and/or misinformed. The military keeps very precise records regarding the length of soldiers' tour of duty, time spent out of theater, etc. This so-called military expert apparently has no clue as to how the military actually operates.

What a moroon!

AF

Thankyou, Mr. Greenwald, for expressing my revulsion exactly as I feel it.

I hope you all will remember that and not leave yourselves open to this kind of intellectual dishonesty. In other words, when there's a policy issue about liberal left coast bloggers, THEN you can chime in. thank you.

Does this qualify as censorship, or the advocacy of military dictatorship?

Does the commentator believe the Bill of Rights is "quaint", or simply should be exercised by American citizens?

Does this idiot have even the faintest idea he sounds as stupid as futurist J.P. Yates when he declared himself "A Founding Father of the Coalition of the Clueless"?

Rhetorical questions, all. I doubt...whatever...is writing these comments under that handle is even human, never mind how foolish...it...sounds.

Seeing as you took the time to respond to one of my posts (nice smarmy response, by the way), respond to the others, please, particularly the constitutionality of Congress taking a power not granted it in the Constitution, to wit, the day-to-day running of the military.

The assignment of personnel to units, their deployment schedules, etc., clearly fall under day-to-day military affairs.

Respond also to the inherent problems in unit training, cohesion, etc., that would result if Webb's idea was put into place.

I think you are implying that Glenn claims only active or retired military can comment on military matters. If so, can you show where he makes that claim?

He also has way too high an opinion of himself mixed with a sneering condescension towards anyone he doesn't like or disagrees with.

Classic stuff, this.

-- Quillian the Elder

Liberty or some other wing-nut U? Anyway, what is the point of you posting here exactly? It would ruin your daughter's research by interfering like that, wouldn't it (maybe not at a dishonest wing-nut university)? Maybe you really do have a wing-nut daughter, but your post comes across like something a bunch of young Republican wankers would post after a couple of beers. Was that what you were trying to project?

respond to the others, please, particularly the constitutionality of Congress taking a power not granted it in the Constitution, to wit, the day-to-day running of the military.

Article I, Section 8: Powers of Congress: "The Congress shall have Power . . . To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."

I didn't respond the first time because it's not an argument that merits attention. If you want to claim again that, somehow, RULES governing leave and duration of deployment are not actually "Rules," you're going to have to cite something besides your assertion -- if, that is, you want a reply.