The term "paranoid" has lost its meaning in this administration. Whatever actions you can imagine -- if they build unbridled presidential power, then yes, those actions have occurred.

"Truth," "facts," "intelligence" (in all its meanings), "law," "patriotism," and a host of other formerly "self-evident" concepts have been redefined.

We need to redefine "homeland security" in a way that protects us from the whims of our own leaders. We're more vulnerable to those whims than ever.

Wouldn't it make some sense to employ this to some better purpose? I mean if they can chase down 12 year olds downloading illegal music why is it they can't monitor employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens? If they're going to spy then spy on COMPANIES, not people.

Will somebody please ask the Administration, especially AG Gonzalez, this question:

"Isn't the President required to obey the law and uphold the Constitution ALL THE @*%$&% TIME?"

Perhaps we can get a straight answer then. But I doubt it.

Is that the same Gonzales who held the Geneva Convention outdated,who told el presidente that prisoners of an invasion can be held indefinitely in Guantanamo, the top lawman in the country? Is there really a paper called the constitution starting with the words "We the People", just this morning shown and explained on Public Television? Then, who are those who support the likes of this man and his boss King George the W? Let us hope that the post November 2006 period will call these transgressors to account for their denial of this Document. It seems that the same people who held President Clinton under indictment for a relatively minor sexual transgression are now asleep at the switch or worse, like and soupport what the Gonzos of today are doing.

If that happens, Speedy Gonzales, John Yoo, and every other crackpot promoter of George Bush's divine right to rule had better head for the hills. It will be a rought couple of years before Bush is finally ejected from the Oval Office.

I knew it. I just knew it.

Back when they were spying without court orders, they were insisting that they always had court orders.

So isn't it reasonable to assume, that as they are insisting that they aren't doing domestic spying, that they are doing domestic spying?

Perfectly reasonable.

This also correlates with the comment about Pizza Hut phonecalls being tapped. Pizza Hut doesn't deliver to Pakistan. Not from any American Pizza Hut. Not even to Canada. Ain't no international Pizza Hut phonecalls.

So, my next question is, did they spy on John Kerry's campaign in 2004? I think the answer is Yes. If you ask them, they could answer anything, but they did it.

So that's how a war criminal got reelected - he just spied on all his political enemies to cut them off at the knees. Do they spy on congressmen and senators and then blackmail them? Is this how they got John McCain to endorse Bush? Is this how they got so many democrats to vote for the war? Is this how they intimidate Dem congressmen and senators into silence?

If you tap all the phone calls in America, think of the stock market trades you can pull off. You can listen to all the insiders, without any blackout period. You can intercept faxes. You could double your money in no time.

If you can tap journalists' phone calls, think of all the juicy details you can get. Think of all the enemies you can arrest. You can find out if your daughter has been having sex, with who, and have the guy arrested. If you have a business, you can listen in to competitor's bids and undercut them. If you don't, you can sell that information to competitors.

According to the linked article, "Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos played down Gonzales's remarks, saying he 'did not say anything new' about the NSA program.

"'The Attorney General's comments today should not be interpreted to suggest the EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE of a domestic program or WHETHER any such program WOULD be lawful under the existing legal analysis,' Scolinos said in a statement." (end of excerpt; emphasis added.)

Now I ask you, what kind of bizarre wording is THAT?! If they ain't a-spyin' and listening to whatever domestic phonecalls they want, including anything they wanted during the 2004 campaign, then I'm Frank Sinatra.

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.

You are not being paranoid. What amazes me is that you (along with so many others) are consistently surprised when this administration acts as though it is not bound by any rules (silly ones, like the law and the consitution).

This president's personal history has been shaped by a life in which the rules have never applied to him. He got into college despite having little in the way of qualifications because of who his father and grandfather were: the regular rules of admission did not apply to George W. He got out of Vietnam and into the Air National Guard because the regular rules did not apply to him. He did not have to take a military physical which likely would have revealed his drug use because the regular rules did not apply to him. He did not have to complete his Air National Guard Service because the regular rules did not apply to him. He did not have to succeed in any of the business he worked in or ran because the regular rules did not apply to him. He did not have to get more votes than his opponent to become president because the regular rules did not apply to him.

What part of this guy's background would lead him to ever consider the fact that he couldn't do something simply because there was a rule against it? He has never once been held to any of the standards the rest of us live by every day. He has absolutely no familiarity with the concept of personal responsibility and the consequences of one's actions.

The rules, in the eyes of George W., are for suckers, and not for the annointed ones.

Tim Howe

Wauconda, IL