I keep thinking about this and wondering why they are taking such chances with the Constitution. What Bush/Cheney seems to be pushing for is not the right to wiretap or open or view, or whatever, since in fact, they have that right already...They want the right to do it without a paper trail.

I can think of few things more sinister unless it is this:

Consider what would happen if they claimed the right to view the financial records of any old large Corporation without a judge's order?

The Corporation, in fact, has more protection under the Bush version of the Constitution than you and I do.

I vote for impeachment.

Steve

I'm also curious what you think "Bush/Cheney" wants to do with these secret things.

Save the country!

Seriously. They believe that restoring presidential authority is critical for the United States' very existence. This is what they believe the real legacy of this administration is, not tax cuts or the War on Terrah.

This it what makes them so dangerous. Everything they do is subsumed to this overriding goal: to thwart Congress from usurping executive power as it did after Vietnam and Watergate.

They don't care if Iraq is collapsing, how deep in debt we're buried, or whether innocents are being jailed and tortured. Hell, if Congress were demanding the "surge," they'd be against it. Such things are mere roadbumps in history. The principle is the real prize.

Look at what Cheney says here.

Vice President Dick Cheney asserted that lawmakers' criticism will not influence Bush's plans and he dismissed any effort to "run a war by committee."

"The president is the commander in chief. He's the one who has to make these tough decisions," Cheney said.

[...]

Like Bush, though, Cheney braced Americans to frame the war in Iraq as part of a much longer effort.

"This is an existential conflict," Cheney said. "It is the kind of conflict that's going to drive our policy and our government for the next 20 or 30 or 40 years. We have to prevail and we have to have the stomach for the fight long term."

I bet dollars to donuts that when he says "existential conflict," he's referring to the battle with Congress, not Bush's Folly in Iraq.

The Bushists do not believe in the rule of law. They know Americans care about law, so they are careful to provide rationales (from Gonzales, Yoo, et al) to "justify" their violations, but any fool with open eyes can see that the emperor has no clothes.

The Bushists do not believe in democracy. Whatever you believe about the intent of the voters in Florida 2000, it is clear from the very little they have done since that embarrassing debacle that they only want a count that puts them ahead. They don't care how it is arrived at; they'll market it to the lapdog media.

The Bushists believe only in power. They believe they are entitled to it and to complete authority. When Duhbya made his crack about how much easier it would be if he were dictator and the left jumped all over it, I didn't think it was more than a joke. Now I know that I was wrong; that remark showed his actual desires.

Of course, Duhbya would never ask for the trappings of dictatorship. He's already bored and tired and wouldn't want to be President-for-Life. There's always another Republican figurehead waiting in the wings (Jeb?). Instead, he wants "democracy" in the style of Vladimir Putin or Ferdinand Marcos, since Duhbya's family sits perfectly at the intersection of the secret police and the hundred families.

Liberty and justice for all.

Johnny, you need some reading lessons, bud. This is what I wrote:

Whatever you believe about the intent of the voters in Florida 2000, it is clear from the very little [the Bushists] have done since that embarrassing debacle that they only want a count that puts them ahead.

Nothing about theft of the election there. You read that into it.

Objectively, the serious doubts about the 2004 election should have led anyone serious about the principles of democracy to make sure of recountable paper trails, for example (and anyone left or right who buys into those goddamn take-away receipts is a naive fool). Instead, Duhbya went with HAVA, which was a typical Bushist attempt to appear to solve the problem without actually addressing the third-world-worthy doubtful reliability of American elections.

Again, so you won't mistake my meaning, it's the doubt itself that should stimulate action; I'm not alleging proof of fraud or error.

(Side note: Why do I use Bushist? There are honorable Republicans who are not Bushists, though not many of them hold positions of power. I'd like to preserve that distinction.)

Liberty and justice for all.