Is This an Actual Rationale?

Headline, Washington, D.C.

Vice President Cheney said yesterday that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks might have been prevented if the Bush administration had had the power to secretly monitor conversations involving two of the hijackers without court orders.

That's a direct quote from this Washington Post article. Does anyone else find this utterly shocking?

When we allow government to explain questionable policies by referring to horrors of the past we walk a very dangerous line. But, if we allow the government to justify with unfounded claims that those horrors could have been prevented, we cross that line and the seven lines immediately thereafter. If this really works as a justification, then I suggest we lock up all Japanese descendants... because that could have prevented the attack on Pearl Harbor. Or, maybe, let's institute a policy requiring everyone to submit a mandatory blood scan everytime they want to leave their home... it might prevent illicit drug us and give our lagging war of drugs a much needed boost. While we're at it, I think chaining everyone to the floor might be the most effective way to possibly win the war on terrorism.

The article in the Post was highly critical of the Vice President's justification, which is a good sign. I hope to see some more administration bashing in the next couple of days for such an outrageous, ridiculous, and dangerous suggestion.