Andrew,
Tim Russert's interview with Hillary Clinton also raised ethical issues. If I remember correctly, he agreed to only ask questions that she provided him. Williams made a big mistake.

I hadn't heard of that one. While not on the same scale as Williams' error, that certainly does undermine Russert's reputation significantly.

How does it always end up back at the Clintons? In modern media, just to get interviews you have to be willing to give a lot more than you used to. Seems to me that most interviews nowadays have something like you can't ask this, I won't answer that, and I have to sit exactly 59 inches from you over a hand-carved oak coffee table with reveal lightbulbs in a rustic ceiling fan and the room temperature at 71 degrees.

I think we should go back to the good old days of confrontational interviews and debates.

All interviews should be absolutely open ended. If the interviwee doesn't want to answer a particular question they can always say 'I'm not going to comment on that at this time' or such similar statement. I've often heard people do this in the past.

I think what many politicians have forgotten is that they are elected, not divinely entitled to their current jobs. That is why I'm so strongly in favor of term limits. [Yes, Andrew, I know, we will never get them enacted].

Andrew,

I have a question regarding how honest one can be about Bush while in uniform. "Bush administration payola" is entirely accurate but not entirely flattering. It is about a non-military subject so your First Amendment rights probably give you some leeway but have you ever faced repercussions for calling a spade a spade?

BTW, this is a live question for me because I am looking at going back on active duty but am of the view that there hasn't been a president this bad for America since Jefferson Davis.

Douglas,

I can tell you that nobody from the Army has ever told me not to blog about something or to change an article in any way. I'd recommend you browse my archives to take a look at some of my commentary on the Army and see if it looks like I've been censored or censoring myself.

I didn't mean to suggest you had been self-censoring. I am really trying to get a fix on what one can and cannot say because I am planning to blog if/when I go on active duty (it would be in Iraq). I am an attorney by civilian profession and have looked briefly at the regs and no you cannot treat the chain of command with disrespect but I am looking for a bit of ground truth.

If you don't mind, I'll throw out several propositions that I believe to be true and ask whether you think any of them to be in violation of the UCMJ;

1. The 2000 election was stolen from Gore and so Bush will not legitimately be president until January 20th.

2. The American people made the wrong decision in 2004 but that is their right.

3. The proximate cause of the Iraq invasion was a calculation by Karl Rove and co. that having a "war president" would give the GOP the 2002 and 2004 elections. They were correct. WMDs, ties to bin Ladin and other reasons put forth were makeweights.

4. While there was insufficient justification for the invasion, Iraq has now become a two way live-fire training range for al Queda and so we now have to stay in the fight and win. To crib from Atrios and the Poorman, we have to find some way to unshit the bed.

5. Abu Ghraib was policy. Graner and England may have improvised a little hick flair but the use of torture was widespread and authorized at least as high as White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez.

6. The leadership of the Republican party (though not the majority of its members) has become so corrupt as to be indistinguishable from evil.

Would these statements, from a milblogger, cross the line?

Damn. Typo above. Know, not no.

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how heavily you want to lean on my answers, but I don't think any of those violate the UCMJ as long as your site carries a disclaimer that you're speaking strictly on your own behalf and not as a representative of the Army.