Should this story continue to unfold (which, in a moral country governed by the Constitution of the United States would be a gimme, but who knows), please let's not give a free pass to Bush just because Cheney ran this operation.

Why? Because of the real, actual meaning of the doctrine of a "unitary executive" under the Constitution. While the neocons have done their "sound bite best" to argue that their claim of a "unitary executive theory" somehow allows the President to wield astonishingly broad powers never before contemplated in the history of the United States (guys like Addington, Yoo and Cheney are the "thinkers" here, the likelihood of intellectual integrity is of course less than zero), that isn't what the doctrine really was meant to be about. The "unitary executive theory" actually does go back to the constitutional debates. It was about whether there should be an executive committee to share the load, or a single executive to focus accountability. And, in an environment that had a notable reluctance to do anything reminiscent of monarchy, it was Hamiton's view (Federalist # 70) that won out: to focus accountability and facilitate the laying of blame in order to encourage responsible executive actions, the Constitution is written in a form creating a single ("unitary") executive -- the President -- who has the singular responsibility of accepting the constitutional blame when his minions screw up.

This is yet another reason why Bush needs to be impeached. And another reason why Cheney should be pilloried for any number of his actions, not least of which would be the reports of his desire to "insulate" the President in order to create "plausible deniability" by running various nefarious operations out of his own office and supposedly without "involving" Bush. The fact is, Bush is involved up to the President's constitutional eyeballs whether Cheney tells him or not. To the extent the neocons want to seek to insulate their plans by the devious expedient of arguing that some "unitary executive" concept justifies their actions, it should at least be noted that not everyone agrees with the concept as they would define it -- and that the twisted and absolutist neocon articulation is utterly untrue to the roots of the concept (surprise, huh?).

not realize they are fish, or that they are in a barrel?

Don't really know what else to say about TIME, except I'd rather they be a little less defensive and a little more useful.