Pershing never wore six stars--not even five.
His title was General of the Armies, but he chose to wear four gold stars to distinguish his senior status over silver stars of other four star generals.
Pershing had retired before there were any generals above four-star rank.
He did outrank all generals however until his death in 1948 by act of congress, but he never tried to use the authority.
I have taken the time to explain this just to show others to be more careful of what you say than what I say!

Bas and dollar, since Mixer is laid up, I’m going to reply for him while he’s sick:

Generalissimo my foot. The man was an idiot to think he could go up against a judge. He got handed his pretty good. If you want to support a real military man why don’t you get behind Adm. Michael Mullen who’s taking over in Iraq? You guys are probably afraid he’s going to implement a new strategy and win. If you would get behind him and support the President instead of dissing our troops, it might make a difference. But you are to busy promoting your leftist agenda and it would destroy your socialist party if that happened.

By the way, “Cold Cash” Jefferson pled “not guilty.” I guess both of you will now have to come up with excuses for his hiding $90,000 in the freezer.

Fighting the Left One Lib at a Time

Mixer
(As Channeled through JeffC)

You make a terrible devil's advocate!
You can't be Jeff.
First, Admiral Mullen is to be Chairman, not someone taking over in Iraq.
Judging by the recent past, all Chairmen do is spout the administration policy.
Secondly, "cold Cash" Jefferson used most of the half million to educate his whole family through Harvard, etc. Wonder how they got in? That is OK, isn't it? He seemed to think so.
The 90,000 in the freezer used to be 100,000. That was just pen money, 10,000 at a time.
Looks like he didn't give those horrible Africans any of it.
What is the FBI shovelling him bribe money for anyway? He should have kept it!
If what "Cold Cash" did was wrong, then my goodness, we will have to arrest about 50 Senators and about 250 Congressmen and women.

(From Mixer by Proxy)

You don’t think the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is going to take over the Iraq war? What do you think he’s going to be doing? Planning an attack on the Justice Department for prosecuting Libby? Yeah, Right.

Here read this from today’s International Herald Tribune:

“As chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for two years, and vice chairman for the previous four, Pace has been involved in all of the key decisions leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the planning for the post-Saddam Hussein era.”

Whoa! Chairman … involved in all key decisions … Iraq… Duh!

And later in the same article we have:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said senators, "will be looking very closely at Admiral Mullen and General Cartwright's views to make sure they are committed to changing course in Iraq. Both men must be advocates for our troops, not for a failed policy."

Sounds like he’ll be involved in Iraq after all Dollar. Even “Land Deal” Reid thinks so. What “failed policy” do you think he is referring to? Iraq! The policy he and his leftist fellow travelers are trying their best to cause to fail!

I’m surprised you didn’t know this. After all it was published in the IHT, a joint publication of the two biggest news outlets owned by the Democrat Party: The New York Times and the Washington Post. I though it was required reading for you pinkos.

Since you missed it, here it is:

Pentagon taps admiral Mullen to replace Pace as head of US Joint Chiefs of Staff

And I’m glad Jefferson put his kids through college. I’m just sorry he had to steal the money from me and you. Oh, sorry, you don’t have a job do you? You don’t pay Jefferson with your taxes, do you? And Harvard! Jeeessh. Who could have guessed he’d pick a liberal school?

Fighting the Left One Lib at a Time

Liberal Idiots - Collect the Whole Set

Presidential Legacies – Reagan vs. Clinton

The French Army

Mixer
(By Proxy As Channeled through JeffC)

I was also "involved" in the last six years of the war in the muddleeast.
I gave my opinion, funded part of the war, convinced others, went along with Rumsfeld and Bush, failed to man the war, didn't guard the borders of Iraq and Afghanistan, sent the British home, kept the three Polish soldiers and the six Japanese (non fighters) and the 20 other coalition soldiers.
It is best to spread the blame around, however, but tell me why all the guys in Iraq got fired (generals, I mean) and not one Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff? That Air Force guy was another politician instead of soldier (one before Pace).
Unless we stop getting them out of the Pentagon, and promoting them like the Lions Club and Rotary every year, we won't have the best independent Chairmen.

I am glad you are admitting to your culpability in the war in Iraq. As to the Joint Chiefs question... I am pondering it.

Jeffc or Mixer... I have confused myself.

If you can ponder it out, I'll appreciate your answer.
But I'm afraid there is no ryme nor reason to it anymore.
People are picked with a threat over their head for the next promotion rather than for their ability. Also, the Joint Chairman, in my opinion, has become a useless job due to White House interference politically.
Why does Bush keep saying the current ground commander will report in September--not the Chairman--not even the four-star in Tampa.

By the way, have you read The Final Days written by Barbara Olson?
If so, what is your opinion of the book?

Mixer, if you read this I hope you are feeling better!

Another author to check out James Rollins, Matt Reilly, both write adventure, Reilly [ i'm likely spelling this wrong] is a roller coaster ride from the git go[excuse the pun] both are excellent.

I yam what I yam...Popeye

But I know about it since I track the ICC. From what I know, her premise is completely wrong. I think it is fair that if there is an accusation of war crimes it should be investigated. Under the rules which set up the ICC, if the country which is the nationality of the alleged war criminal investigates the situation, then the ICC has no further jurisdiction. To claim that US soldiers can be brought before this transnational court is incorrect because if any US citizen was accused then the US authorities would investigate. That's how we do stuff here. Once the host country investigates, whatever the outcome, the ICC is out of it.

I mentioned this book because it includes a comment by your father. I thought you might have read it. I was interested in your opinion re Hillary Clinton.

Thanks

"From what I know, her premise is completely wrong."

What is Olson's premise that you are refuting?

It is interesting hearing you argue with yourself. Do you ever really listen to your conservative voice?

I believe her premise was that the creation of the ICC was a huge mistake. I think she is wrong but I have not read her book so it may be me that is wrong about her premise. I did read an article that referred to her book as an anti-Clinton piece but again (so what?), not having read it, I may be way out on a limb here.

Have you read it? Am I in error?

Arguing with myself? I have no idea what you'rer talking about.

No, I haven't read her book. I haven't read or heard much about the ICC for a while. Knowing exactly what you were arguing helps me to follow your other comments. Keep trying to imitate a conservative, and some of conservatism might actually stick.

Paul Kahn, the Robert W. Winner Professor of Law and the Humanities at Yale Law School and the Director of the Orville H. Schell, Jr. Center for International Human Rights makes two excellent points in his article which I have linked below:

“The United States pays for its military because it intends to use it as an instrument of national policy…”

And:

“The American perception tends to be just the opposite: invocation of international law is seen as just another form of politics to be assessed like any other political claim.”

Why the United States is Opposed

He is absolutely right. The ICC Charter says that “Any State Party” can refer a case to the ICC and you can bet it would be political. Every two-bit dictator in the world would be charging the US with bogus war crimes for purely political purposes.

It would be just another way to attack the United States. We should be very thankful that President Bush has persuaded almost every other country to exempt the US from the ICC.

Mixer
(By Proxy As Channeled through JeffC)

Fighting the Left One Lib at a Time

Liberal Idiots - Collect the Whole Set

The charge of war crimes has to be credible to the judges of the ICC after an investigation. The Presiding Judge of the ICC is Philippe Kirsch from Canada, other judges are from Bolivia, Ireland, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Finland, Republic of Korea etc. These are hardly anti-American stooges who can be used by countries like the Zimbabwe to bring bogus charges against the US.

Then, if these judges determine the charges are credible, the US still retains the right to do its own investigation before the ICC can act. In fact, the US would be able to start an investigation even after the ICC brings charges and starts proceedings. This is exactly what has just happened in Sudan over allegations of genocide in Darfur.

I yam what I yam...Popeye