(You gotta put your tinfoil hat on for this or you'll take it the wrong way.)

Clearly Salon is only masquerading as a liberal/left/progressive publication. The only way they could have known that Cheney was going to shoot someone this weekend is if they are actually part of Cheney's inner circle. The clear implication of their publishing this War Room piece on Friday, is that Tim had been tipped off by Cheney or his staff that Cheney planned to shoot someone this weekend but that for unknown reasons (a TGIF induced delirium?), Tim jumped the gun and accidentally published this information a couple of days early. What we should all be asking is why has Tim been deceiving us for all this time? Is Tim really Jeff Guckert/Gannon? How did he know this was going to happen? And what is the Bush administration's motive for leaking this information to the press?

(OK. Tinfoil hat off. Hope you enjoyed that.)

Wait! I've heard about this program before. Yes, yes, I recall it now. Admiral John Poindexter and the Total Information Awareness program. I thought that was canned for being too Big Brotherish.

Oh, but why should I be surprised by the reincarnation of the program under a new acryonym? After all, Bush and members of his administration asserted they weren't conducting legal wiretaps either, but they went ahead and did it anyway.

This is like being back in the Nixon administration, when the Left seemed paranoid until it became clear that Nixon was actually doing everything they feared and more. I had hoped that would be the nadir of my political experience, but I was wrong.

The Republicans have engaged in some of the most Orwellian, self-parodying, ironic behavior that I have witnessed since the demise of the old Soviet Union. Clear Skies Initiative. You're doing a heck of a job Brownie. The President has the authority to wiretap without a warrant because it was inherent in the resolution passed by Congress; and even if it wasn't he can do it because he's the President. And now we find them letting Delay have oversight on the people who are investigating and possibly charging him with crimes.

We need to coin a new word for all of this. Ironic is too overused. Orwellian is good, but maybe too literary for today's culture, so I'd like to have a contest to give a name to the all-too-pervasive Republican hypocrisy. Any ideas folks?

Will these missing e-mails end up being like the missing 13 minutes from the Nixon Whitehouse tapes? Who's the Rosemary Woods of this caper?

The right has its share of vile "pundits," but Coulter's crude pronouncements are so revolting and offensive to any reasonable notion of debate in a civil society that I simply can't understand why she is given a forum. Her speech is pathological in its lack of judgement.

The right has its share of vile "pundits," but Coulter's crude pronouncements are so revolting and offensive to any reasonable notion of debate in a civil society that I simply can't understand why she is given a forum. Her speech is pathological in its lack of judgement.

"We have met the enemy and they is us."

When will we -- collectively as a society -- finally learn that if we espouse a set of noble principles but observe them only when it suits us that we give license to those who oppose us to call us hypocrites and to continue to overlook the value in the principles? Why can't the army see that mere expediency as a justification for our actions in these situations ultimately discredits us?

It is the same mode of action that, in the hands of the Bush administration, has so drastically lowered the world's regard for the United States.

Let's apply the famous dictum that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Many on the right make the argument that we should not be upset about Bush's warrantless spying program because only those who are breaking the law have anything to fear. In some cases, they've even gone so far as to say that they are happy to allow their benign phone conversations to be listened in on without a warrant because there is nothing of consequence in those conversations.

Fine. Using the same logic, why should the Bush administration have any qualms about releasing all of the White House records concerning Abramoff? If, as Bush claims, there was no relationship, then the White House has nothing to fear, just as those of us "have nothing to fear" from having our phones tapped. Releasing the documents, according to the Bush narrative, can only help his case because he done nothing wrong.

On the other hand, if he's lying . . .

The Bush administration's escalating rhetoric on the powers of the imperial presidency has become so ridiculous that I can't believe anyone takes them seriously, including themselves. We need Graham Chapman of Monty Python fame to return from the grave dressed as a British army officer and to step into the frame of one of these news conferences and say, "This is sketch has gotten entirely too silly, now get on with it."

McClellan isn't even trying to put up a plausible front for the administration anymore. He and the administration have reached a point of such hubris that either they don't think the media will ever hold them to account, or, worse, even if it is evident they are hiding something that not enough people care for it to have any real consequences for them.