Time for a Royal Flush?

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html?inline=nyt-per
The Treason Card
Over the last few months, a series of revelations have confirmed what should have been obvious
a long time ago: the Bush Administration and the movement it leads, have been engaged
in an authoritarian project, an effort to remove all the 'checks & balances' that have heretofore
constrained the Executive Branch.

Much of this project involves the assertion of unprecedented Executive authority, the right to imprison people indefinitely without charges (and torture them if the Bush Administration feels like it); the right to
wire-tap "AMERICAN" citizens, without court authorization; the right to declare, when signing laws passed by U.S. Congress, that the laws don't really mean what they say.

But, an almost equally important aspect of the project has been the attempt to create a political environment in which nobody DARES to criticize the Bush Administration or reveal inconvenient facts about its actions. And that attempt has relied, from the beginning, on ascribing treasonous motives to those who refuse to
'toe-the-line'.

Those of us who tried to call attention to this authoritarian project, years ago, have long marveled
over the reluctance of many of our colleagues to acknowledge what was going on. For example,
for a long time many people in the mainstream media applied a peculiar 'double standard' to political speech, denouncing perfectly normal, if forceful political rhetoric from the Left - as poisonous "Bush hatred",
while chuckling indulgently over venom from the Right (that Ann Coulter - she's such a kidder).

But now, the chuckling has stopped: somehow, nobody seems to find calls to send Bill Keller
to the gas chamber - funny. And while the White House clearly believes that attacking
The New York Times newspaper is a 'winning' political move, it doesn't have to turn-out that way,
NOT if enough people realize what's at stake.

For I think that most Americans still believe in the principle that the president IS NOT a "King",
that Bush isn't entitled to operate without 'checks & balances'. And Bush is especially unworthy of our trust, because on every front: from his refusal to protect chemical plants to HIS officials' exposure
of Valerie Plame, from his toleration of 'war-profiteering' to his decision to place the C.I.A.
in the hands of an incompetent crony, Bush has consistently played politics with National security.

And Bush has done so with the approval & encouragement of the same people now attacking
The New York Times newspaper for its alleged lack of "Patriotism".

Does anyone remember the Editorial that The Wall Street Journal published on Sept. 19, 2001?

"So much for Florida," The Wall Street Journal Editorial began, celebrating the way the terrorist attack had "pushed aside" concerns over the "legitimacy" of the Supreme Court's decision that installed Bush
in the White House.

The Wall Street Journal then warned Bush not to give in to the 'temptation' to "subjugate everything else
to the priority of getting bi-partisan support for the war on terrorism." Instead,
The Wall Street Journal urged Bush to use the "political capital" generated by the atrocity
to push through tax-cuts [for the rich] and [extreme] right-wing judicial appointments.

Things have changed since then: Bush's ability to wrap his power-grab in the flag has diminished
now that most Americans no longer consider him either competent or honest.

But, the Bush Administration and its supporters STILL believe that they can win political battles
by impugning the 'Patriotism' of those who "won't go along".

For the sake of our country, let's hope that they're wrong!!