Monday, December 19, 2005

That Confirms It

Another great question recieves another line of shit. This fits right in the ball park with the most innane comments by a W, Rove and Co officials in a while:
Q General Hayden, I know you're not going to talk about specifics about that, and you say it's been successful. But would it have been as successful -- can you unequivocally say that something has been stopped or there was an imminent attack or you got information through this that you could not have gotten through going to the court?

GENERAL HAYDEN: I can say unequivocally, all right, that we have got information through this program that would not otherwise have been available.

Well, no shit. If you were not violating our rights to get the info, you wouldn't have gotten it. This is just as good as shoveling standard rhetorical crap the W, Rove and Co feeds us on a regular basis (e.g. we have saved lives by invading Iraq). You are still breaking the law to gather said information, and even if you provided proof that it did some good, it's still breaking our Constitution to do it.

In the end, no matter how much good they profess to do, fornicating with the constitution to do it can't be good. This is SOP for the W, Rove and Co (and the way our MBA president runs most of his businesses). The ROI is never worth the initial outlay. We should have prepared or known better by examining W past performance running private organizations. Voters never learn lessons the easy way, now do they - particularly when they are blinded by party loyalty.

No comments: