Dick Cheney and the Mona Lisa

Today there were "new revelations" in the NSA wiretapping case that showed that ***pause to register my incredible shock*** Dick Cheney may have been directly involved in the effort to circumvent legal challenges to the warrantless wiretapping program, and that he vindictively blocked the promotion of the career attorney involved in promulgating those challenges.

My question is, was there ever any doubt in anyone's mind that this was the case? Does anyone believe that Alberto Gonzales made a spirited and in all probability illegal effort to legalize a program invented by the white house, without the prodding of Cheney/Bush? Isn't it likely that he had some kind of impetus, from somewhere, and if it is, where else could that impetus have come from than the only masters he serves?

To make my point without rhetorical questions: Alberto Gonzales, whether his efforts were illegal or not, certainly went to extrordinary and extreme lengths to make this program legal. Furthermore, people do not resort to such extreme measures without the instruction of, or at very least the approval of, those above them. Finally, there is nobody above Alberto Gonzales except the President and Vice President. So, one or both of them must have told him to do it, or he wouldn't have.

I don't even have to point out the obvious fact that Cheney is one of the most evil men I have ever been made aware of to make this point, but that don't hurt either, ya dig?

This is all so silly because the fact is we can all see the picture. We can all see the chain of events that obviously happened, and the ricidulousness of the stonewalling currently under way by anyone who might be thought to be responsible. It's just that apparently, unless Cheney or Bush actually says they did this, there's nothing anyone can do. And since it's apparently a given in this country that neither them nor anyone who works for them can be called or compelled to testify about anything, they will never have to face the choice of admitting the obvious or perjuring themselves. Not that they would hesitate to perjure themselves, but it would be some satisfaction to me to know they had done it, instead of having to watch them smugly explain why they don't have to tell anybody shit.

This is a little like if I went to France and put my finger over one of the Mona Lisa's eyes, and then told everyone that the Mona Lisa had been stolen. And then someone told me the Mona Lisa was right there, and would I please stop touching it. And then I said "No, look, the Mona Lisa has two eyes, this painting only has one. And people kept pointing out that I was just, in fact, covering a tiny part of the picture, and that didn't change the fact that the painting was the Mona Lisa. And then I told everyone to stop looking at me and I spit in anyone's face who got too close. That's literally how ridiculous I find this entire situation.