I've been amazed at how long the Bush junta has gotten away with defying the old adage "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". Their truly unusual strategy has rather been to throw stones at the drop of any piece of headgear, with gross abandon, while claiming it's their opponents who're doing the flinging.

Why have they been allowed to get away with it? Are the American press simply too polite to point out the Glass House's error? Are the American people just too softhearted to return the misguided missiles to their originators?

Or are we all just anticipating a bit of prime schadenfreude once all of the lithic pigeons have come home to roost? Like watching a car race, waiting for the crash...

I'm glad you've come to your senses on the "herding pregnant women into abortion clinics at gunpoint" thing. I was pretty sure that wasn't actually what you meant.

A partial solution to the dilemna could be to ensure that the child's welfare is secured by a third party, say the government. In the more sensible parts of the developed world, where it isn't seen as quite right to throw your most vulnerable citizens to the wolves, the basic needs of a child are guaranteed. Food, shelter, protection, health care, education, emotional support- the government does its best to ensure all children have access. That's the ideal of course, in practice its rarely perfect. But then, neither are families...

This removes some of the urgency of the problem, allowing men to decide how much of a parent they want to be, independant of matters of financial duress.

I remember a lot of discussion in the months before the invasion of Iraq of the 'Pottery Barn' principle- summarised as 'You broke it, you bought it.' Well, Iraq's certainly broken, so who's going to pay the bill?

I'd be all for immediate withdrawal of occupying troops, asap, if it didn't also mean that the invading forces, the USA, Britain and Australia, will certainly abandon their already paltry endeavors to pay for Iraq's reconstruction.

It shouldn't be that way, of course, but does anyone really believe that withdrawing the troops doesn't also mean the financial abandonment of Iraq? Maybe it's still better for Iraq if the troops leave. Maybe Iraqi civilians will stop dying at such an appalling rate, and some level of security can be acheived. Maybe after a few decades they'll be able to attain Vietnam's dizzying heights of economic and social success (that's irony, for all you hawks out there).

But don't expect the Iraqis to be grateful. Don't add insult to injury.

I'm shocked at the speciesism exhibited by people posting on this article! How do *you* know Vervet monkeys are too stooopid to know what a cooking pot is for?

I've been well acquainted with the Vervet community for many years, and know them to be both intelligent and thoughtful. They don't suffer fools gladly, however, and have a wicked sense of humour. So I imagine this particular group are currently doubled over laughing at what seems to pass for informed debate in the most powerful [human] nation on Earth.

I'd be very ineterested to know just what sort of dangerous individuals this unwarranted surveilance was targeted against. Quaker peace activists perhaps? Democratic party campaign offices maybe? Any of the other highly 'dangerous' pacifists, democrats and justice advocates that the Bush junta dislikes?

Secret powers will *always* be abused, as history and human nature have shown since time immemorial. Why do Americans persist in thinking that somehow they're different to the rest of humanity, and don't need to follow the rules all the rest of us have found to be prudent.

Democracy is seriously compromised wherever this sort of executive abuse is allowed. When the third estate refuses to even report on the abuse, well you've gotta ask whether there's a democracy to defend at all. Or is it all just a big light and mirror show disguising the ugly truth that the US is in fact already a religious dictatorship, dedicated to the worship of Mammon. You can reclaim your government, but not if you don't recognise the nature of the enemy.

And why did he do it? For the same reason Nixon did, to gain intelligence against opponents of his administration. Those are the *easy* questions.

Will the GOP act to protect the constitution and US democracy, or will it bluster and prevaricate and allow another criminal president to escape justice? Will the American public care enough about its much vaunted 'freedoms' to act to defend them? Or will American Democracy descend even further into oxymoronic decay? *Those* are the important questions.

We're the enemy. That's the deconstructed rationale of the Bush junta for illegally spying on us. He can't trust us with the truth because then we won't let him pursue the far-right's consolidation of power. Democracy *is* the enemy, because it interferes with Imperial Authority.

It's the 'divine right of kings' revisited, with the token nod to democratic rhetoric that's *so* de rigeur for dictators this century.

I've argued for a few years that Americans simply aren't ready for democracy. Certainly they don't appear to understand it or value it very highly. Just look at the last few years- the Bush junta has blatantly stolen two elections and trashed every principle the founding fathers held dear. Our media and public officials lie to us repeatedly and unapologetically. All with the sheeplike acquiescence of the great American public.

But now that even the hard-of-thinking are starting to notice the holes in the fabric, Bush has fallen back on his 9/11 declaration- if your not with him, you're with the terrorists. Which, given the recent polls, means that the majority of US citizens are now enemy combatants. So, you see, Bush simply *can't* tell us what he's doing, because apparently, we're all on the other side.