i hate writing this post. Prognostication is such a nasty business, and gets one called all kinds of kooky names. Nevertheless.

People keep asking why the Bushies keep amassing such power, if they don't realize a Democrat might have use of their "unitary executive" powers, perhaps even in the context of a Democratically controlled Legislature. The amassing of power in the executive branch seems short-sighted or potentially self-defeating.

What if Bush and Cheney have no intention of relinquishing their hold on the unitary executive in 2009? Remember this?

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/pzykr/2006/oct/31/congress_frees_presidents_hand_to_declare_martial_law

Keep in mind that the Enterprise is sailing even now to the Persian Gulf and the redeployment plans of the two carrier groups in-region seemed unclear. Cheney is said to be gaining traction over Gates and Rice in the struggle for Bush's heart and mind vis-a-vis attacking Iran. Expect shock and awe soon.

And we know Iran will strike back at the Homeland. And we know how prepared the Department of Homeland Security is to protect us. Their datamining projects have enriched many a venture capitalist, no doubt, and the FBI loves those national security letters [legal or not], but when the inevitable attacks come, how prepared will this bureaucracy be to handle before, during, and after?

So it will be natural at some point for the president to declare martial law. He will press the National Guard into Federal Service. He may declare a national emergency, cancel the presidential elections. Who's going to stop him? The Supreme Court? 5-4...

But there has to be an ongoing hot war which he's the commander-in-chief of for him to rationalize this bold move--hence the inevitablity of hitting Iran.

Besides, this way lies Armageddon.