In reading Rosen's piece, I was struck how the behavior he described resembles nothing less than the behavior of children who have been spoiled from birth. For example:

Later, Goldsmith drove from the Justice Department to the White House for a meeting with Gonzales and Addington. Goldsmith remembers his deputy Patrick Philbin turning to him in the car and saying: “They’re going to be really mad. They’re not going to understand our decision. They’ve never been told no.”

Any parent knows that routinely establishing and reinforcing the lines beyond which the child may not pass is a primary key in raising a child to become a functioning member of society. By contrast, the spoiled brats of the Bush Administration have been spoon-fed every treat they have wanted. Spoiled children I have been around respond to "no" exactly as Philbin described Gonzales and Addington. First, they simply don't understand and then they become very angry.

John Ashcroft's wife, as we know, was subjected to one of the most extreme examples of the self-centered tantrums the Bushies carried out when told "no". Her response at the end of the hospital scene, I think, demonstrates an inherent understanding of the developmental status of those involved:

After a bit of silence, Goldsmith told me, Gonzales thanked Ashcroft, and he and Card walked out of the room. “At that moment,” Goldsmith recalled, “Mrs. Ashcroft, who obviously couldn’t believe what she saw happening to her sick husband, looked at Gonzales and Card as they walked out of the room and stuck her tongue out at them. She had no idea what we were discussing, but this sweet-looking woman sticking out her tongue was the ultimate expression of disapproval. It captured the feeling in the room perfectly.”

More than just an expression of disapproval, I think that Mrs. Ashcroft was putting the message on the only level Card and Gonzales (and their co-conspirators) could understand.

"We're one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious [FISA] court," Goldsmith recalls Addington telling him in February 2004.

Move forward to March 10, 2004.

About 8 p.m. on March 10, Comey said that his security detail was driving him home when he received an urgent call from Ashcroft's chief of staff, David Ayres, who had just received an anxious call from Ashcroft's wife, Janet. The White House -- possibly the president -- had called, and Card and Gonzales were on their way.

We now have descriptions of Ashcroft's stern rebuttal from Comey, Mueller and Goldsmith, all of whom were present.

Later, Card ordered an 11 p.m. meeting at the White House.

Link for two quotes above:http://tinyurl.com/2m53bh

And then:

During the peak of Madrid rush hour on the morning of Thursday, 11 March 2004, ten explosions[16] occurred aboard four commuter trains (cercanías). All the affected trains were traveling on the same line and in the same direction between Alcalá de Henares and the Atocha station in Madrid.

/snip/

All four trains had departed the Alcalá de Henares station between 07:01 and 07:14. The explosions took place between 07:37 and 07:40 in the morning

Link:Wikipedia entry on 2004 Madrid Train Bombings

Note that 11 pm March 10 in Washington, DC is 5 am March 11 in Madrid.

Now back to the Washington Post article:

The next day, as terrorist bombs killed more than 200 commuters on rail lines in Madrid, the White House approved the executive order without any signature from the Justice Department certifying its legality.

When Addington speaks, the world conforms to his reality.

I never thought of myself as a conspiracy theorist before, but this is just really disturbing.

From today's WaPo front page article on Goldsmith's book:

At the same time, he wrote, they feared that they could one day be prosecuted for engaging in tactics that pushed legal boundaries. The solution was for lawyers "to find some way to make what [Bush] did legal," Goldsmith wrote.

When Congress caved last month on FISA reauthorization, retroactive immunity was included. This was presented as providing immunity for the telecommunications companies that provided information for the surveillance, but the wording covered all of those involved in the process. As Goldsmith points out, providing immunity for themselves was a very high priority for the architects of this glorious plan.

Ooops, you're right. What I was thinking about was the proposed language that was floating around before the bill was passed. I guess that was about the only thing Congress didn't cave on...

Link:http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2005/ebsp2005n020.html

At the International Atomic Energy Agency, my colleagues and I work to keep nuclear materials out of the reach of extremist groups. We inspect nuclear facilities all over the world, to be sure that peaceful nuclear activities are not being used as a cloak for weapons programmes.

/snip/

I am very proud of the 2300 hard working men and women that make up the IAEA staff - the colleagues with whom I share this honour. Some of them are here with me today. We come from over 90 countries. We bring many different perspectives to our work. Our diversity is our strength.

We are limited in our authority. We have a very modest budget. And we have no armies.

But armed with the strength of our convictions, we will continue to speak truth to power. And we will continue to carry out our mandate with independence and objectivity.

Emphasis added.

Ah, that's the problem. An independent, objective body that has been right in the past when speaking truth to power, and now dares to do so again when said power is preparing to embark on another illegal, immoral and contrived attack simply cannot be taken as serious.

A Hard Man is Good to Find

Sexual overtones in the search for a tough Republican leader

How about:

Tools Rush In

or

The Right Stuffed

Or, to bring in the obligatory sports metaphor:

Wide Right
How sexual hypocrisy led Republicans off course

Monsters in the Closet
How irrational fear and sexual repression ruined political discourse