. . . . when there's nothing left to steal.

shooter sidewinds: " Well guess what, Article 2 of the Constitution says Bush has extraordinary powers in time of war. Are you going to argue that the Constitution is un-Constitutional? That would seem to be a neat trick. Like I said, there were no crimes."

shooter's main squeeze, Numba 43 says: “Conducting war is a responsibility in the executive branch, not the legislative branch,” the president said at a 46-minute press conference. “Most presidents believe that during a time of war that we can use our authorities under the Constitution to make decisions necessary to protect us.”

The Constitution? Only a piece of paper, y'know.

"War Powers of President

The Constitution divides war powers between the Congress and the President. This division was intended by the framers to ensure that wars would not be entered into easily: it takes two keys, not one, to start the engine of war.

The Constitution's division of powers leaves the President with some exclusive powers as Commander-in-Chief (such as decisions on the field of battle), Congress with certain other exclusive powers (such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort), and a sort of "twilight zone" of concurrent powers. In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act. Although on paper it might appear that the powers of Congress with respect to war are more dominant, the reality is that Presidential power has been more important--in part due to the modern need for quick responses to foreign threats and in part due to the many-headed nature of Congress. "

So, if George wants to have his dirty little war, with or without the consent of Congress (expediency, doncha know) or International consent (fuck 'em, they're foreigners anyway), then he can go ahead . . . get over it. It's all about making "us" "safe" (excuse me while I larf), enabling us to go about our business ("The business of America is business . . . especially if the profits aren't taxed and the stuff is made off-shore"), protecting property (if gawd hadn't wanted us to own all the oil, she wouldn't have created Exxon -- so why are those danged ragheads parked on top of it??), and preserving 'freedoms' -- for the status quo.

"They hates us for our freedoms", to paraphrase simpletons around the world. And it's true. Because most of America's freedoms are built on the curtailing of other folks' freedoms, or on their corpses, or on the remnants of their freedoms . . .

this is the war that the shooters of the world support.

C'mon. Good old Frank Zappa had it all down pat. The adolescent, sexually-challenged, swaggering, oooo-la-la, chemically-neutered, militarily-obsessed, pimple-popping, look-at-me, anally-repressed inhabitants within the bubble called 'Murica are a wee bit titillated about the sexual antics of a guy. Who likes women. And then it gets worse. They go absolutely beserk over any silicone-shaking, lip-smacking, dumber-than-a-bag-of-rubber-nipples female who goes public. Where the French yawn, the Japanese take for granted, the average latin shrugs, the Land Of Hooters gets a hard on.

And as for Dick Cheney?? Respectable retirement? Where? The man is a living breating POS and he will never ever eve be able to leave the land of the Free 'n' the Brave. Sorry, Dick is going to have to suffer. If the Belgians don't arrest him, then the South Africans will. Of course, the four-packs-a-day he used to smoke will catch up some day.

Aesop had it right, and there are many versions -- they all deal with a 'compromise' between two diametrically opposed creatures, one a predator, the other, well, not. This one involves a Ladybug who is asked to trust a scorpion, and we all know how that ended . . .

http://www.aesopfables.com/cgi/aesop1.cgi?4&TheScorpionandtheLadybug

And then there's the camel's nose (not to be confused with the camel's toe, but I wander off topic).

The camel's nose is a metaphor for a situation where permitting some small undesirable situation will allow gradual and inexorable worsening. It comes from (purportedly) an old Arabian proverb: "If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow."

An early English version The Arab and His Camel, warns: "It is a wise rule to resist the beginnings of evil."

Other lovely metaphors, all:

"Slippery slope"

"The thin end of the wedge"

"Foot in the door"

"Domino effect"

"Boiling frog"

"Give them an inch; they'll take a mile"

And hence Number 27: Al Wilson had it right . . . do not clasp that pretty snake to your bosom

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=3sE17JQOsIc

The moral?? Why even consider trying to compromise with those who will not compromise. Yes, the tent is big, but there are those who aren't satisfied with just a place in it.

. . . and he is us. Or something like that. The ol' Pogo comic strip. Seems every letter here seems to be blaming Bush, the neo-cons, the right-wingers, and all those other guys. Shee-it. It ain't them. The others. Those guys. Somebody else. It's America. Americans. The whole gawd-damned thing. It's riddled with a horrible cancer. It ain't them -- it's US. The ultimate proof of being an American. Deniability. It ain't me, babe. The whole title of the article, think about it. "Torture ambivalence masquerading as moral and intellectual superiority". And there are those among us who would sneer and say, "I'm above that . . . even I'm more cleverer than those smug torturing bastards." Look, that these freaks could even exist in our midst shows that we are all pretty well smug about the whole deal.