Someone has a nose for noses.

HEY G

A nose is a nose is a nose.

Looks like another strange cameo-like appearance in the right middle! Is that Terwiliger in the upper left? Just kidding T.

COWBOY:

I don't mind--especially since it's just about the antithesis of what I actually look like (cross Rutger Hauer with Placido Domingo & an out-of-shape Bob Lilly, then whack the result in the face with a nightstick a time or two).

That's the second T. S. Eliot-looking character you've said looks like me.

It's kind of funny, because when I was in college, I had to watch a black-&-white reel of Eliot reading "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock"--& from time to time the way he reads the line "Do I dare to eat a peach?" (which in his voice sounds like "Do I daih tuh ayte a poitch?") gets stuck in my head--& it popped in my head several days ago.

What is it about that look that makes you think of me?

ALL:

Judging from my posts on the last thread, I'm off my [writing] game. In my defense, I'm "represented" by a Democrat Congressman & two Democrat Senators. I blew a gasket the 7th of this month. A week later "they" announce the "M-5" will be tried in New York. I have yet to cool down, & last night didn't help matters any.

Anyway, let's see if I can briefly clarify & redeem myself.

The point I was making is that the only thing that makes a strong enough co-conspirator association between the "perp" terrorists & the "M-5" is the "war definition" of a "combatant". Obama, Holder, & those who try to interpret the law on technical grounds claim that Al Qaeda is not a nation--& therefore we technically can not be at war them. This technical legal trick they are using to "get their way" actually dissolves the "co-conspirator" bond between the "perps" & the "M-5" & makes the "M-5" ILLEGAL enemy combatants. They would have had to have been on American soil at the time of attacks to qualify for the Constitutional protection they do not deserve (yet which a 100% Democrat-controlled administration is intent on granting them).

Alternately, if the claim is made that we ARE at war with Al Qaeda, then both the "perps" & the "M-5" are considered LEGAL enemy combatants, & the "M-5" would have to be considered enemy combatants captured on foreign soil.

Either way, there is no sagacious argument to be made that would justify prosecuting the "M-5" except by military tribunal.

Here's what Obama is REALLY doing regarding the "M-5". He wants to go after the military & intelligence agencies over the "torture/interrogation" issue. When he got slapped by the reclamas from all military & intelligence agencies & the evidence of how effective the techniques used were, he lost his nerve. He thinks this is a back-door way of getting at those issues & avoid the fallout. HE IS WRONG.

Remember what Obama promised us: (1) complete transparency; (2) no lobbyists or special interests in his administration; (3) five days for the public to review any legislation so they could contact their "representatives" with their concerns; (4) fair consideration of views contrary to his; & the list goes on.

DICTATORSHIP BY COMMITTEE.

Hmmm, with a little rotation, you can fit the heads nearly together.
Sort of a town of "Pangea"- a neighborhood drifting apart while concurrently colliding - slowly and violently.

TJ:

That's one hell of an observation. Now that I look at it, you're right. But....what ever you're smok'n send me some.

Mather Byles attributed and updated - for "T":

"Which is better; to be ruled by 1 tyrant 3,000 miles away, or by 318 tyrants not a mile away?"

Very good. It took me a few minutes to get it. However, I think a good number of Republicans should be included in that count as well.