This line of attack could be more of a danger than a defense for the White House. Because even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the Clinton administration (and for that matter, Bush senior's)had access to the same information, and on that basis also considered Saddam a threat, isn't the burden on the Busheviks to explain why they were the only ones who found it necessary to go to war?

Wouldn't you think that, before they can rule how Cheney's heart as a problem, they'd have to find it first?

At least one Jewish date for Jerry comes to mind: the girl he made out with at the movies during "Schindler's List."

"I didn't ask for this job."

Has this administration passed an event horizon and entered a black hole of lies from which no truth can ever emerge--or has Cheney forgotten that he picked himself for the job?

Most of us lie to stay out of trouble or to gain an advantage, but these guys do it reflexively, even when it would be just as easy or convenient to tell the truth. It's if lying is their default position.

"I was drafted."

No, Dick, you were NEVER drafted. That's what all the deferments were for.

Its natural arrogance nonwithstanding, the White House seems unusually brazen in trumpeting its role in illegal wiretapping.

Which leads me to wonder if the controversy doesn't serve another purpose: to mask the real target of the taps.

Not terrorists. Political opponents.

The Rove regime has always seemed incredibly effective in getting those who disagree with it to recant, apologize, and drop the subject.

Either Rove has a limitless supply of horse's heads, or they've amassed dossiers chock full of embarassing secrets.

It worked for J. Edgar Hoover--made him virtually fireproof for four decades--and it might have worked for Nixon as well, if his people hadn't been so sloppy.

Remember, Bush and Rove are Lee Atwater acolytes, fully schooled in doing whatever it takes to win.

Compare their half-hearted attempts to capture Bin Laden with their zeal to destroy anyone who threatens their hold on power; it's pretty clear who their highest-priority targets are.

So Porter Goss "has made leak-proofing the agency a central goal--maybe the central goal--of his tenure."

Excuse me, but isn't this the same administration that never fails to find a reason to raise the spectre of terrorists and remind us that there is no end in sight to the "war on terror"?

Isn't every resource diverted to plugging leaks a person or a capability that could be unearthing the next attack on our country?

I've long thought that the real reason the Busheviks wanted warrantless surveillance was not to eavesdrop on Al-Qaeda but to spy on dissenters and political opponents here at home. Porter Goss' troubling choice of priorities only confirms these suspicions--and is further evidence of just who the Bush administration considers its REAL enemies:

Us.

I was going to suggest that we all get together and each send Cheney a little packet of extra salt for his steaks.

But then I realized that if anything happened to Cheney, Bush would become president. And we'd really be f*****d.

In WWII, to enforce adherence to the party line, political commissars were assigned to Red Army units. Even line officers tiptoed around them; no matter how courageous or capable you were, one word from them and you could end up in the Gulag or probing for mines with the toe of your boot.

Aside from the fact that their punitive measures are not quite as severe as that, there doesn't seem to be much difference between old Bolsheviks and new Busheviks.

Simple, easy-to-understand answer:

Just point out that impeachment would put Cheney in the White House...and that's a thought that even scares Republicans.

When Bumiller announced she'd be leaving The Times to work with Condoleeza Rice on her biography, the paper reassigned her husband (also a reporter) from his beat at the State Department. Reason? Because there might be a perceived conflict of interest.

Yet Bumiller was allowed to continue as White House correspondent--where there's not merely a perceived, but an actual conflict of interest.

First JuMiller, now Bumiller. What is it with the Times and kneepad reporters?

Now that we've twice had Bush campaign officials overseeing elections in two critical states, and voting machine manufacturers openly campaign for the GOP ticket, isn't it about time that protecting the vote became a major campaign issue for Democrats?

It's an issue that manages to be both non-partisan and partisan at the same time.

Even Karl Rove would have a hard time turning the idea of honest elections back at Dems (isn't that what they keep telling us we're fighting for in Iraq?); at the same time, it reminds us that the two most recent cases of questionable elections are case studies in Republican skullduggery.

Let the Repubs have their gay marriage and flag-burning. I'd rather own the banner of "honest elections" any day.