Is it possible for a man to redeem himself for years of silliness and social conservatism with an act that signifies integrity? If so, Ashcroft redeemed himself in spades and can walk with his head high, knowing that he did what he could to hold the line against the Bush administration's power grabbing.

The White House was just "one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious [FISA] court."

Translation: Just one more terrorist attack on America would persuade Congress to free the Bush administration of the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Alternate Translation: The Bush Administration planned to bomb Congress.

Afterall, what role does Congress have to play? They're just supposed to sign Bush's checks.

I've seen this Goldsmith quote trotted out in several places, now...

"because they wanted to leave the presidency stronger than when they assumed office, but the approach they took achieved exactly the opposite effect. The central irony is that people whose explicit goal was to expand presidential power have diminished it."

I disagree with that assertion; the Presidency is far more powerful than ever -- it is, however, less legal than ever. The power claimed by the Unitary Executive is fundamentally extralegal, but in the absence of checks and balances from the other branches of government, is that extralegality a barrier to the exercise of that power? Not hardly. Everything Bush/Cheney have wanted, they've gotten, and then some.

The tyrant still sits on the throne untouched and unchallenged, if also unpopular -- tyranny and popularity don't sit well together, but it hardly matters to the tyrant if he's loved; what matters is the power. We're really going to have to see a Restoration period for American democracy in the wake of this administration, and if we don't see it, we need to ensure that it happens. Let's bring back the rule of law, howsabout?

The "one bomb away" wishful thinking of these fascists is stunning and frightening, and lets you know exactly where their heads are at. A timely bomb threat or scare around Election Day next year could seal the deal, and I can really see party faithful doing it, since they've so clearly put their Grand Old Party's interests ahead of everything.

Is anyone else getting tired of loyal Bushies having a change of heart long after they've done their damage? And that change just happens to coincide with a book release? Is it the allure of fame? Or is the devil coming for their soul and they're trying for a last-minute redemption?

Why can't these people speak out, resist, whistle-blow, leak, whatever when they can still impact the outcome?

This all sounds like an episode of "Big Love." It's really saying something when Bush administration officials are so slimey and so underhanded and cynical, that they make Ashcroft seem noble. That's how far-out they really are.

Why is it honorable to say, years after the fact, that you saw something wrong and terrible going on, participated in the awful things with the others, but have decided to come clean now that you're out of the position?

I mean, we've seen it from Supreme Court justices who comment after-the-fact on cases (which has happened.) This is from http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories02/02dec6.htm:

During an October 18, 1990 speech at the New York University School of Law, retired justice Lewis Powell Jr. was asked by a student if he had ever made a mistake on the bench....Powell told the students his decision in Bowers v. Hardwick was wrong and that he had regrets about it. His vote had been the fifth and decisive vote for the majority opinion.

And there's General Powell, hero of the Gulf War, sacrificing his credibility to the Bush Administration in a speech to the U.N. in Feb 2003 based on [what was known to be] lousy intelligence. This is from http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/powell-calls-un-speech-a-blot-on-his/20050908231709990004:

It was Powell who told the United Nations and the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat. He told [Barbara] Walters that he feels "terrible" about the claims he made in that now-infamous address -- assertions that later proved to be false.

Now, in Powell's defense, he was given the intelligence and told it was good (but we've since learned that Bush/Cheney knew it was bad data when they got it to Powell).

The list goes on. The list could continue with all of the "I am straight, white, and happily married" crowd in Washington (or the NJ governor's office) that is either divorced, gay, or divorced-for-being-gay.... and that doesn't even start in on G.O.P. political hacks who are violent homophobes who marry their gay partner in Massachusetts or who are known as "Miss Piggy" in Dupont Circle gay bars of the 1980's.

The best thing I can say is, whenever you hear someone say that the press is out of control and Freedom of the Press is reckless, it's good to remember that without that freedom we would not have heard such things.

He is also the lawyer responsible for, along with John Fuck Yoo and the Horse Yoo Rode In On Yoo, for the most egregious legal memoranda authorizing torture, illegal wiretapping, extraordinary renditions, and generally all the un-American thug-like actions of our government over the last 6+ years.

Addington - along with Yoo - needs to be classified as an "aider of unlawful enemy combatants" - flown to Gitmo with head in a black burlap sack, thrown in a cell - and left there forever to rot without recourse to habeas (another of his noxious theories).

These folk are traitors and betrayers of all that America should stand for.

"The central irony is that people whose explicit goal was to expand presidential power have diminished it."

And exactly how is that the case? As best I can see, the Bush administration has demonstrated that the congress, and indeed the constitution ultimately are powerless against an administration that simply hunkers down behind the stone wall. Forbid Justice from investigating or prosecuting, and game over.

The unasked question I would like to see addressed to all Democratic candidates is the following:

"Exactly what would you do to reverse the doctrine of 'Unitary Executive' that has accumulated so much power in the presidency over the past 7 years? Specifically, would you work with Congress to eliminate any credence to 'signing statements', and would you work to finally concisely define 'Executive Privilage' once and for all to prevent its abuse?