Molly Ivins: They don't tell him anything

[Dudley_DUright]

My theory is that they don't tell him anything, that's why the president keeps sounding like he doesn't know what he's talking about.

There he was at Brooke Army Medical Center over the weekend, once again getting it wrong: "I can say that if somebody from al-Qaida's calling you, we'd like to know why. In the meantime, this program is conscious of people's civil liberties, as am I. This is a limited program ... I repeat, limited. And it's limited to calls from outside the United States, to calls within the United States."

So then the White House had to go back and explain that, well, no, actually, the National Security Agency's domestic spying program is not limited to calls from outside the United States, or to calls from people known or even suspected of being with al-Qaida. Turns out thousands of Americans and resident foreigners have been or are being monitored and recorded by the NSA. It's more like information-mining, which is what, you may recall, the administration said it would not do. But now Bush has to investigate The New York Times because Bush has been breaking the law, you see?

<snip>

There he goes again. He is being deceitful and insincere. Bush and Co. have broken the law, and furthermore, it was completely unnecessary to do so. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is not a hindrance to tracking down al-Qaida -- every objection to its requirements is easily refuted.

So Bush breaks a law he didn't remotely need to and then denounces anyone who discusses this as helping the enemy. Come on. It's so stupid. The choice is not between a police state and another al-Qaida attack. (Speaking of disingenuous, if you wanted to make this country safer from terrorist attack, you'd do a lot better to trade in the NSA spy program for some sensible precautions at chemical plants, or making the Department of Homeland Security into something resembling an effective agency.)

more...

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2006/1290

[tuvor]

1. Undoubtedly intentional. They've been doing this for a long time.

bush asserts (which gets reported widely because he's the "man in charge"), and soon afterward someone in the White House qualifies it (which invariably doesn't get reported to the same degree).

People therefore remember bush's words better, to the benefit of the bush admin, and they've got it on record that they corrected themselves when they're accused of not being truthful.

This is not just a series of convenient coincidences.

[Dudley_DUright]

2. Yes, I think it is intentional as well

It is just part of "catapulting the propaganda".

[applegrove]

3. The only way to have complete control of a patsy is to have control

of everywhere they get info from. Once you control that - then you can control them - you have your puppet! Creeps.