Crimenently.

And your confusing the difference between filing a petition for redress of grievances, and overseeing the President.

The confusion is yours.

Recall, it was your opening gambit that read: “This ‘Disloyal Opposition’ held the mistaken belief that they could oppose the goals of the Armed Forces and their Commander – in – Chief while pretending to  support the troops.

You promptly confused this with something about the military chain of command.

The issue is who overrules the President in his role as Commander – in – Chief. The answer is  Nobody.

Now let’s look back up this rabbit hole to see how far we’ve come.

Your initial entry:

This  Disloyal Opposition held the mistaken belief that they could oppose the goals of the Armed Forces and their Commander – in – Chief while pretending to  support the troops.

My reply:

Not a mistake. One certainly may support our family members and neighbors by opposing the misuse of our country s military power. In short, just because our people join the army doesn t mean you can do anything you want with  em.

Yours:

According to the Constitution, the United States Armed Forces have only one Commander – in – Chief, and that is the President of the United States, not you, not Oliver, not the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Mine:

& and who does he answer to?

Yours:

In terms of being in charge of the military, read the Constitution and see if it says who he answers to. Last time I looked, it was no one.

Mine:

Then look again. Go to Amendment 1 and check out all that jabber of  redress of grievances.

And so on.

To bring it all to a point, this “Disloyal Opposition” is not mistaken. We certainly can tell the commander-in-chief when we think he has misused our military, and we may oppose his goals. (And we’re not “pretending” to support our families, friends, and neighbors as we do so.)

It’s you who is mistaken if you don’t think this is exactly the kind of circumstance envisioned by the framers in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

You have the right to tell the commander-in-chief when you think he has misused our military, and you may oppose his goals. But I have the right to say that it is demoralizing our troops, and I have the right to speculate as to your motives.

Why in the heck do liberals think that the Constitution was written to protect only their rights?

And that’s pretty much it. You cam set up camp in Crawford, TX; take over the library at Columbia U., or throw your medals over the White House — don’t mean a thing.

OK, then. I will give it up. If you’re so desperate to make your point that you’re defining away the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution, you win.

But never, ever try to give me an “originalist” argument unless you’re ready to play this game some more.

Dugger, I oughtta know

buma: Calling people crazy who disagree with you is a trick that’s almost older than I am. It didn’t work then, either. It got Soviet psychiatrists tossed out of all the reputable Psychiatric Societies, until 1989.

Wilbur: Sort of like you harping on Democratic corruption and misdeeds.

Except I don’t. First of all, I believe that most politicians are corrupt, no matter what their ideology might be. Unlike you, I don’t believe that “My guys” don’t do bad stuff.
Secondly, I usually find myself in the position of pointing out one of two things: a) That what Republicans and / or conservatives are accused of by guys like Oliver and you is not true, and b) That what guys like you and Oliver praise in Democrats and / or liberals is not true.

I don’t need or want to harp on Democratic corruption and misdeeds.

Redress
redress v. 1. To set right, remedy or rectify. 2. To make amends for. n. 1. Satisfaction for wrong done; reparation. 2. Correction. [harmrd, not made upset or angry. Give it up, Quaker.

But you’re so handy with the google, Frank, can you point me to somewhere where George Bush said “Republicanism is on the move,” or “we will establish a Republic in the Middle East” or even “they hate us for our Republicanism?” Because somehow I’ve been missing those speeches.

On my TV all BUsh ever talks about is democracy, at least after he got caught out on the WMD 9/11 fibs.

not to mention the fact that that clause you refer to doesn t mean petitioning the government when the President pisses you off.

Uh, yes it does.

That’s what “grievance” means. You can look it up.

Show me the lengthy “anti – war” blogroll from those blogs.

As usual, you prove the rule by the exception.

Sort of like you harping on Democratic corruption and misdeeds.

Except my “exceptions” are more exceptional.

Three of those four blogs are clearinghouses for the opinions of multiple anti-war servicepeople and vets, and what’s amazing is that even that many are willing to speak out.

If they are currently serving, they risk official reprisal. If they are vets, they risk the scorn and swiftboating of the right-wing smear machine.

Most of us on the left honor our servicepeople and respect their opinions even if we disagree with them. I wish I could say the same for my brothers and sisters on the right. Check out the comments on those two sets of blogs (pro-war and anti-war) and see if I’m not right.

b) The “old story” has the quote properly attributed to Benjamoin Franklin as  A Republic, if you can keep it

c) Funny how you hear exactly what you want to hear of the President’s speeches. Let me know when you “hear” the rest.

Quaker, i never said you couldn’t complain, I just said it can be demoralizing (not to mention the fact that that clause you refer to doesn’t mean petitioning the government when the President pisses you off.

Finally, you have confused your failure to comprehend with my failure to communicate.

p.s. Curmudgeon, read here for a nice story about Jane Fonda.

Um Frank, if you go through the blogroll on a pro-war blog you’re likely to find…. more pro-war blogs. Whoda thunkit?

Get your head out of the echo chamber and educate yourself…

http://www.ivaw.net/
http://www.ftssoldier.blogspot.com/
http://spaces.msn.com/members/tipofthespear/
http://www.traveling-soldier.org/

Reminds me of that old story, Thomas Jefferson is coming out of the Constitutional Congress and someone asks him what sort of government the new country will have. He says, “a democracy, if you can keep it.”

Jefferson knew there would be people like you around, there were people like you in his day, too. But he also knew there would be people like us, like me and Quaker here. As he said it himself, the signers of the Declaration of Independence put themselves, their lives and their fortunes at risk so that “government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall not perish from this earth.”

But there is something I wish you could clear up. You said:

“The United States is not a Democracy. it never was, nor will it ever be, God willing.”

Yet your president is running around, telling Those Who Are About to Die that the reason for their sacrifice is Democracy. Meanwhile the yahoos in Congress are braying and waving purple fingers in the air, going on about “democracy democracy, this proves we are for democracy.”

So someone is out of step here. Is it you, or the Republican leadership?

You might want to start here, and go through the blogroll:

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/

I suppose you think that’s the same thing as telling the President what he can do with his troops?

I’ll explain the little jibe about being 35, too, even thought that always take the fun out of it.

I meant to say that the Founding Fathers thought the President should be at least 35 years old because they thought of that age as mature. But you and your confreres provide me with daily evidence that times have changed. Get it, Quaker?

I suppose you think that s the same thing as telling the President what he can do with his troops?

It certainly means I’m at liberty to say so when I think he’s using them improperly.

I meant to say that…

Personal insults kinda lose some of their bite when you screw ‘em up like that. Better luck next time.