It should be noted in any discussion of domestic spying that -- as has been documented by numerous former Bush insiders (DiIulio, O'Neil, Clark, etc.) -- the Bush administration "doesn't do policy." Everything is based on political calculation. It's all they do.

Even the Iraq War itself can be described more in terms of a political strategy for the 2002 mid-terms and the 2004 presidential elections than as a true geopolitical/national-security policy decision.

Since everything the Bush administration does should be viewed through a political prism, we shouldn't describe Bush's domestic spying as a legitimate national security strategy at this late date considering all previous actions and evidence to the contrary.

I think it's a safe assumption that the Bush administration's illegal domestic spying program was conceived and executed not to spy on terrorists, but to be used to gather dirt for political blackmail against political opponents and the press.

Since the FISA laws granted retroactive warrants and were virtually never denied, and since the Bush administration has *never* shown an interest in the legitimate functions of good governance, it is naive to come to any other conclusion other than that Bush and the neocons have abused the domestic spying program for political extortion.

The Republicans' stiff-arm salutes and the press' and Democrats' feeble opposition to this blatant illegality should only strengthen this conclusion.

Before he became Bush's consigliere, he was an attorney for Enron. Makes perfect sense now.

The DOJ attorney firings is just the tip of the iceberg of the much bigger scandal. The USA firings were focused on "voter fraud" which was just one tactic employed by the Republicans in a much grander conspiracy. The worst of it -- and the facts that Gonzo and company must shield at all costs -- is the wholesale vote stealing such as occurred in Ohio in 2004. At this point, there should be no doubt that Kerry was the actual winner in 2004 and Bush was illegally inaugurated not once, but twice.

America ceased being a functional democracy in 2000.

When will national economic self interest become a notion that generates political traction? A country without a strong manufacturing base is doomed to Third World status.

You can always tell when Condi is lying: She apparently finds it so funny to spin those whoppers to the rubes that she can't avoid smiling -- even when discussing deadly serious topics. She seems quite amused by her own clever mendacity.

..don't need no stinkin' elections.

Washington's neocon cabal should be forced to read GG's latest post on national TV wearing dunce caps.

Our misadventure in Iraq, like the Israelis' in Lebanon, sprang forth from the martial fantasies of those suffering from delusions of omnipotence and an incapacity for rational analysis.

It's all happened before. Barbara Tuchman's "The March of Folly" spells it out in excruciating (yet highly entertaining) detail.

Joe Biden was on Meet The Press on Sunday and held forth for an hour -- offering a substantive and intellectual monologue on foreign policy issues, focusing on Iraq.

It wasn't a "discussion" since Russert never, not once, responded to any of Biden's well-articulated, well-thought-out points. Instead, Russert engaged in a series of "gotcha" questions, such as on the plagiarism of the Kinnock speech from 20 years ago.

One would have thought that a TV pundit would have been delighted to share a substantive discussion of critical national importance with a "serious" presidential candidate -- as rare as that would be.

Not Russert. He clearly wasn't up for it intellectually.

The Bush cultists' war isn't so much on terror as it is on reality. Ron Suskind's anonymous Bush aparatchik admitted as much when he referred to their opponents as "the reality-based community."

These bastards make the Soviets look like the embodiment of truth and wisdom.

Can there be any doubt that the *reality* contained in the diary of Pat Tillman (a true American hero), was in such conflict with the fictions promoted by the Bush administration and its slavish devotees that it had to be destroyed along with his bloody uniform?

What worries me is that like any cult (think Jim Jones & David Koresh), when the jig is up and reality threatens the fantasy, the all-powerful cult figure would rather "take everybody with him" than give up that god-like power.

As we all know, there are plenty of kook-aid drinkers ready to do the unthinkable in service to their lord and master.

Gonzales -- and all Bush aparatchiks subjected to congressional/legal scrutiny -- can't tell the truth (political suicide) and can't lie (perjury charges). Therefore their only recourse is the lame "I don't recall" response.

Even after two weeks of intense coaching and rehearsals, Gonzales' memory was (ostensibly) still insufficiently jogged to answer the Senate's questions. Gonzo may still enjoy the "full support of the president," but Congress should set an example and show that they will not accept that type of obfuscation by impeaching Gonzales.

I'm old enough to remember AM radio under the "Fairness Doctrine." Back then, you actually had informative debate and civil discussions by guests with opposing viewpoints.

The content was inarguably better than in today's era of one-sided polemics, vein-popping rants and outright propaganda.

When the enemy is "fairness," it's easy to spot the bad guys.

Shooter said:

"Like it or not, characterizing this blog as a hate site isn't far fetched. I have seen not a single instance of anything less than derision for the Bush administration. Certainly there is no praise anywhere."

There you have it: the RWA definition of a left-wing "hate site," i.e., one that criticizes rather than sing the praises of George W. Bush.

Hey Shooter, by all means list the successes and praiseworthy acts of the Bush administration. It will be a very short list at best -- especially when measured against their f*ck-ups.