Fox better find a different military expert. This one went di cau dau a long time ago.

-- Garry Owen

You think maybe he was a..."phony soldier"?

The only substantive reason that has been given as to why impeachment was "off the table" in this session is that the Congress would be prevented from conducting its serious business by doing so.

Impeachment requires that all other business must be set aside, until the impeachment issue has been debated and concluded, one way or another.

Look at the relatively short list of legislation that has actually been voted out of congress and signed by the executive--most of it having horrible outcomes for our republic. This is the "work" that the Speaker said was more important than impeachment, and absolutely had to be done for the good of the country.

Next, look at the degradation the Congress is putting itself through with this current foolishness.

All this--the FISA collapse, the Iraq funding collapse, this Iranian madness--all of it. Remember--we gave up impeachment in order that this could be accomplished.

You just gave a great example of what the TRUTH does to their fake and flawed arguments. Thanks. And thanks for your Vietnam service.

1. Fox's military "expert" claims, brags actually, that (we) meaning he I suppose, used to leave AK ammo where the NVA and Viet Cong could find it, fixed so that it would blow up if they tried to fire it.

OK, I never, ever, in my time in Vietnam as a scout (glorified grunt) working with many different elements of the 1st Cav, saw or heard of anyone screwing around with AK ammo to leave it for the enemy to find. For one, we were pretty busy doing other things. For another, a lot of our Kit Carson scouts and even some of our grunts, carried AKs. For another, if that ammo was left in a quasi-civilian area, kids would scavenge it in a heartbeat and try to take the powder out, blowing their little faces off. For another, when we discovered cashes of weapons and ammo up on the Ho trail and its tributaries in the Parrot's Beak, we destroyed it on the spot or back-hauled it for recycling to the ARVNs. There was no time for dicking around with squeezing C-4 into a bunch of AK shell casings, putting the ball back in, then sticking the whole thing back in its wooden crate and leaving it behind. How incredibly stupid and time wasting that would be. Besides, nobody ever accused the NVA of being stupid. They would be on to that trick as soon as they saw their cashe was disturbed.

Fox better find a different military expert. This one went di cau dau a long time ago.

Green Striped Zebra's. same-same. Tony the Tiger. I go. But, I a greener 'waldO, great/lousy. gotham.

Before I go.

Open wide? I'm about to toss you gently a few perfectly ripe, green striped, Tiger Tomatoes.

There is a larger Aunt Green Granny Smith, IT is a German heirloom, and IT really does taste like it has already been 'hit' with a salt-shaker.

IT is too big tho, and may smash the computer window.

It's only OK if You are a republican with an honest heart.

Glenn, thanks for linking to this article on FOX.com (and for the brilliant satirical parody of a right wingnut). I obviously ought to read FOX more often first thing in the morning, given that it packs a jolt for my blood pressure that's stronger than caffeine. But this Col. Hunt himself seems like a parody - in effect, he's defining every place in the world where terrorists/insurgents/criminals/outlaws mingle with innocent civilians as a "war zone" where we ought indiscriminately to kill first, ask questions later. That's just nuts.

Also, praising the tactic of "baiting" by leaving ammunition or explosive devices for people to pick up and then shooting whomever does is atrocious - when a country's economy has been wracked by war or sanctions for nearly all of the last 27 years (as Iraq's has been), and a huge percentage of the middle class has fled the country, the average person who is left and is living in poverty is going to pick up anything that they think could be valuable to sell to someone else. His statement that "it worked then [Viet Nam] and it works now" is downright chilling. Indeed, everything worked out so very well in Viet Nam, particularly for the folks in Mi Lay (a place where some rules-of-engagement restraint might have been in order).

It's a good thing that this nutcase Hunt never made it past Colonel before leaving the Army, and probably a tribute to a commanding officer who saw the irresponsible, sadistic and conscienceless streak in him and alerted him that his career path within the military had reached its end.

Match their faux outrage to eventually numb the public of this ridiculous and time-wasting political device.

There was a day when Americans were too smart to have even allowed this nonsense to have gained legs. Unfortunately that day isn't today.

Liberals cannot continue to see themselves as "above" these stupid games.

The ONLY way to end the absurdity is by perpetuating it, exhausting it, and making everyone damn sick and tired of it. Apparently we haven't reached that point yet.

For those who came in late:

It's OK If You're A Republican.

I'm soooo ambivalent about this. The Senate ought not be passing resolutions condemning any group of Americans' political speech. (Ok, I know, maybe a Nazi Bund or something, but I mean in the ordinary course of the political discussion.)

I understand, but disagree. Generally speaking, there are two ways to diffuse a corrupt argumentative standard -- (1) argue that it is unfair/corrupt/dangerous or (2) take it and apply it to the people wielding it.

In our political culture, tactic (1) -- the more noble one -- does not usually work. It comes off as whiny and weak. The only way to destroy these tactics is to demand their equal application, including to the people who invent and disseminate them.

Ultimately, a bad standard applied only to one side is worse than a bad standard applied equally.

The resolution against MoveOn smacks of McCarthyism, and while I think it is helpful to keep Rush's heinous comments in the spotlight, I'm not comfortable about seeing the Senate go wholesale into the business of condemning political pundits and activists. And there are just a few other issues to which they might be better off dedicating their time.

How about if demanding equal application of the Condemnation Standard is the only way to put a stop to it (which is what I think)? Then would you support that? Assume - as I think is true - that there are only two choices:

(1) Republicans keep using formal governmental condemnation as a political weapon, or

(2) Democrats take the same weapon and apply it to Republicans, thereby eliminating the advantage of this pernicious tool, thereby causing it to end.

Which is better? Clearly, you prefer option (3) -- the weapon is never used at all -- but as the MoveOn vote shows, that is not an option in the real world.