...from MSNBC:
"During his remarks in a packed law school lecture room at Georgetown, the attorney general also said the legal standard the administration uses in deciding whether to carry out surveillance on people with suspected al-Qaida ties is equivalent to the standard required for complying with the Fourth Amendment, which bans unreasonable searches and seizures.
The reasonable basis standard, said Gonzales, 'is essentially the same as the traditional Fourth Amendment probable cause standard.'"
Um, what...?
So why the hell can't you just get warrants for your little spying scheme, you asshole?
Thank God 50% of mainstream media journalists suffered immediate braindeath shortly after securing their present employment--otherwise Bush's domestic spying scheme would be the biggest impeachment clusterfuck in the history of the U.S., instead of, as it now stands, a charming little Big Brother bloc party which makes the mainstream media want to squeeze and hug and kiss and pinch the dimpled cheeks of our adorable little President, who's totally super and cares about us so very very much! Yay Mr. President! Yay Mr. President! Yay! Yay! We fisted the President, yay!
...
First Michael Hayden, head of the spying program, reveals that he erroneously believes the standard under the Fourth Amendment is "reasonableness" and not "probable cause" (see my earlier post on this), and now we have Gonzalez trying to put the pieces back together by saying, well, when we say "reasonableness" we mean "reasonable," which means "reasonable basis," which means "probable cause," which means...um...wait, that's the standard for getting a warrant...[looks at notes]...these talking points can't be right...God, I sound like I didn't even go to law school...I sound like I just gave the President a handjob in the little hallway next to the Oval Office...alright, need to recover, need to recover, think Alberto...um...
But it gets better.
Now Bush is heading to the NSA to rename his illegal and unconstitutional domestic spying scheme a "terrorist surveillance program." Um, what...? You can't even show probable cause that these Americans are doing anything illegal--meaning you're using these warrantless taps in cases weaker than 99.9% of the cases you sent to the FISA Court for review--and now, suddenly, they're full-on terrorists? No. No, it's bullshit, and I won't stand for it. And neither should you. And neither should this country. And neither should the fucking media which should do its fucking job and simply decline to keep reporting propaganda they know is factually bullshit. That's not liberal media bias. That's saying, "No, we don't think we'll report that the moon's made of cheese--sorry, Mr. President. Just looking out for the viewers."
And Congress?
If there was even a single Republican in D.C. with balls--I'm looking at you, Susan Collins, and you, Olympia Snowe--this bastard of a President would be selling cock-rings in Tijuana by now, or else back on cocaine like he was during the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford Administrations.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

10 comments:
Cock-rings in Tijuana?
I laughed so hard I snorted - not in the way Bushie does (ahem.. sorry, did).
Ok, sorry.. just one more comment:
this was the funniest post I have read all year. Awesome, Seth.
Well said. Righteous indignation too--I like it.
It's time to start telling it like it is.
I love the way you wrote this piece.
It's a great combo of articulation and passion!
Kudos!
Exactly what Lyco said -- funniest. post. ever.
I hate to say it, but in the interest of our amusement you may have to lose your shit more often. I'm particularly fond of your media bit: "Yay! Yay! We fisted the President, yay!"
I'm in agreement here, cowboy. LOSE YOUR SHIT MORE.
"Yay! Yay! We fisted the President, yay!"
Okay this might make the top 10 quotes of 2006 (and it's only January)
I wonder what will happen when Alito is confirmed. It will happen BEFORE Bush and his cohorts are hopefully, finally, forced to face the consequences of their illegal actions and blatant violations of the constitution and the oaths of office.
WILL the constitution be 'reinterpreted' based upon reasonableness versus probable cause??
Anyone taking odds???
Post a Comment