Attorney General Forgets That Preznit Reminded Us That Al Qaeda Remembered What Terrorists Might Have Forgotten, But Didn't

I got this from some other guy who thought it was a joke, and he got it from another guy who thought it should be a joke, and he got it from an organization who was dismayed that it wasn't a joke, and they got it from the Washington Post, which, aside from a couple of Walter Pincus stories, buried in the back sections, has pretty much become a joke.

BIDEN: Thank you very much.

General, how has this revelation damaged the program?

I'm almost confused by it but, I mean, it seems to presuppose that these very sophisticated Al Qaida folks didn't think we were intercepting their phone calls.

I mean, I'm a little confused. How did it damage this?

GONZALES: Well, Senator, I would first refer to the experts in the Intel Committee who are making that statement, first of all. I'm just the lawyer.

And so, when the director of the CIA says this should really damage our intel capabilities, I would defer to that statement. I think, based on my experience, it is true -- you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance.

But if they're not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget.

(LAUGHTER)

It's horrible and it's stupid, but it gives me a great opportunity to do what I like to do most, which is quote myself:

No, leaking this highly illegal—and unnecessarily illegal—program did not compromise national security.  FISA has been on the books for decades.  And, no, leaking this highly—and unnecessarily so—illegal program did not put government wiretaps on the front page of every newspaper in the country.

Authorizing these wiretaps without warrants did.  Breaking the law put a very useful investigative tool on the nightly news.  If the Bush administration had followed the extremely minimal requirements of FISA, they probably would have gotten nearly every single warrant they wanted.

And it would have been lawful.

And it would never, ever, ever, ever, ever have been news at all.

But, you know, as scornfull, and as brilliant, and as profane and irritated as I was, well, I was also being goofy.  I was being goofy just because of how incredibly stupid and dishonest the Preznit was being.

Again, the Preznit was saying:

"My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war," Bush told a news conference at which he was questioned repeatedly about the controversial operation disclosed on Friday by The New York Times.

He was saying that at a press conference.  He was saying that to the American people.  He was "honestly" trying to say that the New York Times compromised National Security by printing an article revealing the fact that the United States government might be using the ultra sophisticated, state of the art, unheard of technology of wiretaps.

The President was actually saying to the American people that al Qaeda had no idea that the United States government might actually listen in to phone calls, and the New York Times just fucked us all by printing that fact.

And to illustrate how badly the New York Times just screwed us and condemned us all to sudden terrifying deaths, the Preznit said:

"Let me give you an example about my concerns about letting the enemy know what may or may not be happening. In the late 1990s, our government was following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone. And then the fact that we were following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone made it into the press as the result of a leak. And guess what happened? Saddam -- Osama bin Laden changed his behavior. He began to change how he communicated…”

For those of you who regularly vote Republican or cleared too much "brush" in your younger years, or maybe were born without a frontal lobe in your brain, let me explain why that's funny:

The Preznit is saying that it's shameful for the New York Times to reveal that the government is listening to phone calls.  The Preznit is saying that the New York Times, by revealing that the government is listening to phone calls, might alert al Qaeda to the fact that the government is listening to phone calls and as a result al Qaeda might stop using their phones.

And, to illustrate that, the Preznit tells a bullshit story about how al Qaeda used to use their phones and then a story was printed about how the government was listening to their phones and al Qaeda stopped using their phones.

Again, if you regularly vote Republican, I'll explain why that's funny:  if, as the Preznit claims, al Qaeda stopped using their phones because they are aware that the government is listening to their phones, why on earth would revealing that the government is listening to their phones stop al Qaeda from using the phones they already stopped using after learning the government was listening to them???

Never mind the stupidity of claiming that a New York Times story revealing that the Bush administration was brazenly and intentionally breaking the law was revealing anything at all--governments have been listening to phone calls for sixty years.

Christ, Montgomery defeated Rommel at El Alamein because he was listening to Ultra intercepts--he was listening to their phone calls.  Really.  You could look it up.

It isn't exactly new technology.

And FISA, which makes it legal technology, with regard to terrorists, has been a matter of public record for thirty years.  It ain't a secret.  At all.

So, it seemed to be baffling why The New York Times had shamefully compromised National Security be revealing that the government was doing something that governments have been doing for sixty years and that, according to the Preznit, al Qaeda was already aware our government was doing.

Until the Attorney General of the United States explained why:

"They sometimes forget."

Jesus Christ.

According to the stupidest, most incompetent people who have ever run our government, it's the duty of the free press and all Americans to not repeat anything that is a matter of public record, that is widely known, that is specifically known by terrorists in case the terrorists have forgotten about it.

That makes great sense to me!  That's darn smarty!  What doesn't make sense to me is:  why stop at wiretaps?

We've got satellites orbiting the globe taking high resolution photographs of things here on earth.  The "terrorists" may have forgotten about them!  It should be treason to talk about space.

We've been using U2 spy planes since the fifties.  They photographed the missile sites in Cuba in 1961.  The Russians shot one down and captured Gary Powers, a U2 pilot.  But it's shamefull to keep mentioning them, because the "terrorists" may have forgotten about them.

We've got 135,000 Americans in Iraq, battling the "terrorists", with tanks, helicopters, air strikes, Striker vehicles--but it's shamefull for anyone to mention that.  Because the "terrorists" might forget they're there.

We've created an entirely unnecessary, redundant, clunky extra level of bureaucracy called the Homeland Security Department specifically to deal with terrorism, but it's irresponsible to even mention it!  Because the "terrorists" might have forgotten we created it.

Sometimes they forget!

Shit, why even mention that we have a military, a CIA, an NSA, customs, Homeland Security, police, a court system or prisons at all???  They might have forgotten!

Sometimes they don't, but that's no reason to have a First Amendment.

We have no reason to believe that the "terrorists" are as lazy and incompetent and have anywhere near a short attention span as our Preznit, but that's no reason we shouldn't scrap the entire Constitution and forfeit all the rights and freedoms generations of Americans fought and died for just in case the "terrorists" might forget.

These clowns, and the people who senselessly continue to support them, are so embarrassing, this isn't even a political discussion anymore.

It's basically just Republicans saying, "It's our football and, if we say a catch that's out of bounds at the fifty yard line is a touchdown, it's a touchdown.  And if you don't like it, we won't let you play anymore.  But we'll keep running up the score."

Comments

[Jerry]

No sweat, Gonzales...if you're right, in a few days they'll forget it again and GW will forget about bin Laden...no harm, no foul.

[Bruce]

You have to remember that the terrorists are clever and evil and have a multi-threaded organization spanning the globe with sophisticated...
ooo, shiney.

[cookie]

Damn, and I almost forgot that the Bush Administration is completely incompetent. Thanks for reminding me.

[Mary - Minnesota]

Seriously Ricky,
That headline I keep reading and dying over...god, you are SO funny and what you write is SO true....

[ricky]

I spoke to my mother today and she said something so funny, I'm just going to turn the blog over to her:

"What the newspapers should stop doing is mentioning where America is. Then the terrorists might forget how to find us."

I agree. In fact, I think the newspapers should just stop mentioning America. At all.

The terrorists would forget about us, spend all their time blowing up Danish cartoons, and we would be free to go, quiet as Canadians, and steal all their oil.

[Neil Shakespeare]

Shhhhh! Wet's be qwiet widdo bunny wabbits!....Shhhhh....

[daniel]

al Qaeda stopped using their phones, because it resulted in a massive bombing of the meeting place they arranged with said phones.
Bush knew that when he gave this example as a good reason for blaming the NYTimes' article "revealing" secret domestic NSA taps.
They also (the guvment) bypassed FISA because of the unfeasability of getting warrants for each one of the MILLION people they eavesdrop on. They kept it secret because the program is probably a lot bigger in terms of expending the prez powers than what we are aware of as of today.