A shortage of intelligence

Editor's note: Michael Ackley's columns may include satire and parody based on current events, and thus mix fact with fiction. He assumes informed readers will be able to tell which is which.

"… so help me God," concluded Howard Bashford, as the House Intelligence Subcommittee began hearings on the Central Intelligence Agency's secret program to bump off al-Qaida leadership.

Bashford, the CIA's liaison to the liaison of the vice president of the United States, acknowledged the chairman's admonition that he was now under oath and affirmed that he would answer all questions fully.

"I'll exercise my prerogative to open the questioning," said the chairman. "Let's get right to the point, Mr. Bashford: Isn't it true that the CIA was developing this program without the knowledge of this and other congressional oversight committees?"

"Yes," said Bashford.

TRENDING: Is this what you voted for, America?

"Then why weren't these committees informed?" demanded the chairman. "Was it because Vice President Cheney ordered the information suppressed?"

"The agency didn't see any need to inform Congress of a program that didn't exist," said Bashford blandly. "From that standpoint, the vice president's position was irrelevant."

"What do you mean, the program didn't exist?" roared the chairman. "You've already admitted it was under development."

Bashford sighed, "It's the agency's feeling that there is no program unless it is operational. As the 'Get al-Qaida' program never took effect, it was just so much chin music as far as we were concerned."

The chairman's face was beginning to turn red as he hissed, "How do you expect this committee and others to exercise oversight if you think such 'chin music' is unimportant? Why a lot of what we do in Congress could be considered 'chin music' because a lot of what we discuss never takes effect. Take the stimulus bill, for example. But that 'chin music' is important! Oh, yes it is!"

"I certainly see your point, congressman," said Bashford. "But if you all are going to be involved in planning – some might say 'micromanaging' – potential programs, the agency wouldn't ever accomplish anything."

"I'll tell you what you have accomplished," fumed the chairman. "You've confirmed Speaker Nancy Pelosi's allegation that the CIA lies to Congress all the time."

"But the agency didn't lie," protested Bashford. "You just weren't told about a potential program that never became operative."

"We are the intelligence oversight committee," thundered the chairman. "How can we exercise that oversight if we have no intelligence?!"

"I have to admit, you've got me there," answered Bashford.

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is the perfect Barack Obama nominee. She, like the president who nominated her, can make inconvenient statements – repeated over a period of years – and wipe them away by saying, in essence, "What I said is not what I meant."

However, she excels the president in this regard, because she also is able to determine that other people did not mean what they said. Last week, for example, Sotomayor said retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor couldn't have meant what she said about wise men and wise women reaching the same conclusions. Thus, Sotomayor demonstrates abilities far beyond those of most mortals.

Let us fast forward in our imaginations to her first conference with the other eight Supreme Court justices, on a point brought up by an attorney in oral argument before the court:

Chief Justice Roberts: It seems to me that counsel made a solid point in his citation of Wombat v. Des Moines Zoo, which he noted closely parallels this case.

Justice Sotomayor: He said it closely parallels this case, but he couldn't have meant it, because the ruling in Wombat didn't reflect what the judge really meant, based upon attorneys' filings that meant something entirely different from their explicit language.

Chief Justice Roberts: Uhhh …

Justice Scalia: I must say, Sonia, that any impartial observer would find that argument twisted, to say the least.

Justice Sotomayor: You don't mean that. What you mean is impartiality is a practical impossibility.

Justice Scalia: Uhhh …

Justice Ginsberg: I think what Sonia is trying to say is …

Justice Sotomayor: You don't mean what you're about to say, Ruth. Based on your past record, you mean to say something entirely different.

Justice Ginsberg: Uhhh …

Justice Sotomayor: I think we all can agree that you all mean to agree with me, a wise Latina, especially now that I have a lifetime appointment and never need to explain my words again. You mean to trust that my heart is in the right place, which is what really counts.

The other justices, together: Uhhh … Well … Ahem! … What?

And so on, for the next 20 or 30 years.