Yes, I'm trying to cut back on the anger, believe me, but:
1) Bush's signing message for the anti-torture law made it clear once again that he considers all legislation subject to his whim whenever national security, in his judgment, is at issue. His statement made it quite clear that he still considers himself fully empowered to authorize torture whenever he likes. This is a previously unknown legal stance, not only in the US, but also in England since at least 1640.
Why even pass laws?
2) Can anyone seriously doubt for a second that the secret snooping targets included Democrats, journalists, career non-politicals in the Executive Branch, etc.? Why on earth wouldn't they snoop on these people, from their vantage point? There is not even an argument you can make against doing it within their framework.
Further evidence that they did this is Bush's over-the-top non sequiturs about how he can't understand why anyone would doubt that it makes sense to eavesdrop on known al Queda leaders (who, needless to say, could be snooped on without resort to the secret program).
It is so insulting and demeaning when public debate is conducted in such a transparently dishonest way. They don't think they even have to try to make coherent arguments.