How do you sustain that paranoia over the long haul? Doesn't it wear you down? [Well, actually, based on the evidence, I rather think Conservatives thrive on a steady diet of paranoia. It's mother's milk to you, isn't it?]

The significance of this little news item is its context: Bush has lost our trust, and everything from now on will be viewed through a filter of suspicion. It's understandable that yet another revelation of questionable behavior at the Bush White House, and one involving surreptitious surveillance no less, is imbued with extra significance so soon after we learned about the surreptitious electronic surveillance Bush ordered the NSA to perpetrate. It's meaningful as part of a larger pattern.

Why do you think Bush choose the sneaky route when, according to the consensus of people who ought to know, he could have gotten his way through routine FISA channels? It's puzzling when Presidents engage in foolish behavior like that. You might recall that Article II of Nixon's impeachment was about ordering the FBI to conduct illegal wiretaps. Will it make that big a difference for Bush that it was a different three-letter-agency?