Executive privilege is not mentioned in the Constitution. It's spun out of the gossamer of penumbras added onto things that the Constitution is supposed to imply. Usually conservatives would deride "activist judges" who add things to the Constitution that aren't actually there, but not in this case.

If Congress is to have oversight of the Executive, executive privilege can't exist, at least not in the form the Bush Administration claims. But don't hold your breath on this one, the fetishization of executive power won't permit the courts to tell the Bush administration or any other president that he doesn't have the right to seal his advisors lips.

Our government is supposed to be open, when described as "for the people, of the people, and by the people". There is not a "privileged executive" who holds himself above the law. That is to say, the "elected" executive does not make any laws. That is, of course, the job of the legislative branch. Bush is a radical who has attempted to destroy our government. He has manipulated congress, and pushed his agenda with breathtaking, singleminded pursuit of "executive power". Congress has enabled his agenda.

So far, they seem to be doing things based on their personal views, not the law.

It is not a bad strategy to wait until after the election to fully examine the potential wrong-doing. I don't believe that any statute of limitations will impede activities, a stronger majority will preclude many defensive moves in Congress, and there's no worry about the awkward Bush-then-Cheney nature of any impeachment efforts.

If the investigations lead to a civil suit, there is the possibility that little george and that dick Cheney just might have to part with a goodly size chunk of their ill gotten filthy lucre.

It would be no small irony if the two of them had to live out their last years on Social Security, eating cat food.