Funny thing about The Guardian,

[chieftain]

I remember seeing any number of accurate and damning stories about W and the lead up to and conduct of the War in Iraq. None of these exposes had the legs that this story on the collection of phone records has had.
So I wonder why.
And I think of the "left wing" drumbeat against Obama in 2010 and the pluperfect disaster that will be with us for a long time because of depressed Democratic turnout.
I believe that the threads on DU which warn us about being manipulated into a repeat of 2010 are spot on.

[graham4anything]

1. +1 and it's relentless, day in day out, week in, week out

[Enrique]

2. the Bush stories had legs enough

that in order to win the Democratic nomination, Obama had to pretend to be against such surveillance. Because at one time, Democratic voters were overwhelmingly against it. Obama has changed all that.

[forestpath]

4. Bingo.

[mn9driver]

57. Obama was against illegal wiretapping. He voted for this type of data gathering when he was Senator

and even said he supported it:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/my-position-on-fisa_b_110789.html

The storyline that he was "against" this and has now changed his position is false. It is a planted narrative.

[DirkGently]

59. Bullshit. He called for FISA orders to be examined.

He most certainly promised transparency and examination. He has backpedaled since. And that's hardly the point in the first place.

The only false narrative being pushed is that this outrageous domestic spying is somehow only about what Obama said.

His problem is he has built on Bush's secrecy, and if the idea is to try to say he didn't run on opposing that, that's a lie.

But the actual problem is not a question of campaign promises, for Christ's sake.

[mn9driver]

61. His Senate votes and his 2008 campaign material have more credibility with me than your profanity.

I'll stick with the written record.

[DirkGently]

62. Yes he sold out quickly on the issue.

Congratu (fucking) lations.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obamas-transparency-

The FBI's failure to change course in the IDW case is not the only situation in which EFF has found that the administration's actions are not yet living up to its pro-transparency rhetoric. We have clearly noted our disappointment in finding that the Obama administration has adopted the Bush policy with respect to the state secrets privilege in the context of illegal wiretapping. And the White House has not even bothered to respond to EFF's formal requests for information concerning the use of cookies (PDF) at whitehouse.gov and the policies governing records created on White House BlackBerries and similar devices (PDF). For an administration that promised on Day One that it was "committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government," the early track record leaves a great deal to be desired. It's now time to start delivering on that promise.

The actual issue has more credibility than your lame partisan knee jerking and sniffing feigned prudery.

[mn9driver]

66. You fail to address the question you claimed to know the answer to:

Regarding the Patriot Act, FISA courts, and data collection, is the Obama administration doing anything he said he would not support as President?

The answer is no. Your link to the EFF's complaining about their FOIA requests for classified material shows nothing except your ignorance of what is covered by the FOIA.

Good day.

[burnodo]

3. that's assuming DU has the power to depress Democratic turnout in any way

What depressed democratic enthusiasm in 2010 was Obama

[jeff47]

32. DU is just a reflection of Democratic activists.

The claim isn't quite a literal as you make it out to be.

[MADem]

40. Plenty of these "activists" are "keyboard activists" and we've also seen our share of

disruptive trolls.

Without naming any names, I've seen a number of posters with post counts in the dozens writing vociferous "Sky Is Falling" and "Obama is the Devil" type posts in the last couple of days. Their objective seems to be more in the line of "heat" rather than "light."

[SidDithers]

52. And some of them are zombie keyboard activists...nt

Sid

[MADem]

58. You got that right! nt

[TreasonousBastard]

5. Well, this is also a rightwing horror...

and the right is far better organized and funded to get their message out. That we agree simply means an overwhelming spilling of outrage from all sides.

And don't think for a second that they aren't using our outrage to help undermine Obama-- we're happily walking right into their trap.

And, of course, the more we spittle and fume over these things, the less we mind some other, more important, things-- like the possibility of President Christie and his Justice Dept, court nominees, EPA...

[burnodo]

7. their "trap"

Republicans were landslided in the last election when most thought they were going to win. Do you really think they're smart and clever enough to manipulate anything? (other than their knuckledragging followers, of course)

I don't think the current discussion about improper actions on the part of the Obama government have anything to do with Republicans. It's about liberals and leftys who are shocked to see a "Democratic" president so gleefully and without remorse pursuing otherwise right wing policies.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. These "improper actions" have been committed by every administration since...

at least Eisenhower. All governments claim not to spy on their citizens while spying on them nonetheless. It's not like STASI paying informants in every community, but not all that far from from it-- witness the pressure put on honest citizens by McCarthy to turn others in. It still happens, but quietly through deals with prosecutors that you can't refuse...

Put yourself in the position of having a potential way to stop another 9/11 that's skirting the law and our historical privacy ideals. Would you really risk another tragedy that you thought could be averted?

There is no clear answer-- it is a dilemma, but one that is lived with and has to be dealt with by those in charge.

If they haven't used these powers for "evil" lighten up and discuss the question openly without kneejerk attacks.

And, no, they are not that smart, most of them, but they are opportunistic and have some very good propagandists who are not saddled with complaints from their base.

[burnodo]

14. So you agreed with Bush's policies in this regard?

Or did you use it to find further fault with him and Republicans, even though "everybody does it"?

Any number of things should have prevented 9/11, other than immoral actions on the part of our government.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. Cute-- of course not, but I don't agree with kneejerk, either...

the technology is getting better every day and if it's there, someone will use it.

What's missing is serious discussion about how they will use it and what the limits will be.

[Union Scribe]

6. Oh Jesus, not the 2010 myth again.

There was no liberal drop in 2010. The moderates are the ones that didn't show up. It's in the damn polling data.

[chieftain]

19. I don't believe I said there was a drop in Liberal voters.

There was a significant drop in moderate Democratic turnout, especially among young people who are a key element in our constituency.It is actually in the damn polling data. I believe that the steady drumbeat of negative comments from those who say they are Democrats was a factor in the debacle. But thanks for refuting something I didn't say.

[Marr]

23. LOL-- so your contention is that the Left voted for Obama in 2010, but their negative thoughts made

moderates stay home? So the lack of moderate turnout is the fault of... the liberals who *did* turn out themselves?

What's it like, thinking in pretzel shapes?

[truebluegreen]

28. +100 nt

[jeff47]

34. No, in 2008, the liberals brought those people to the polls

through their efforts. In 2010, those same liberals still voted, but didn't put forth anywhere near the same effort to bring marginal voters to the polls.

[JoePhilly]

36. Not their negative thoughts.

In the run up to 2010, the media regularly pushed 2 opposite versions of why Obama was "bad".

The one version is the right wing version. In that, Obama is a Socialist commie.

The other version is the left wing version. In that, Obama is a corporatist who hates the poor.

Or he's both "weak on security" and also simultaneously "a warmonger".

The structure of the memes works to (a) energize the right wing and get them to vote, and also (b) discourage those on the left who might not be paying attention to much more than the THEME of the media narrative. And in either case, the theme is "Obama is bad".

The media does not care which of the versions of the "Obama bad" meme one trends towards ... in fact, if you get confused and just give up and stay home, it works just as well.

That's why you'll see an angry voice from the right pared with an angry voice from the left. If you (or those in the middle who don't hear much more than the screaming) decide to hate the government (the GOP's standard starting position), they win.

[Union Scribe]

46. There is no basis, besides personal dislike, for you to claim

that liberals had any negative impact whatsoever on 2010. The idea that left wing criticism turned off centrists is laughable. All of these dire warnings based on 2010 are bunk and only now exist as tools to get people to shut up.

[dipsydoodle]

8. I thought they "borrowed" it from Washington Post.

Last edited Sat Jun 8, 2013, 02:22 PM - Edit history (1)

[chieftain]

20. Don't think so.

I think The Guardian broke the AT&T story.

[Matariki]

9. People need to get over this goddamn team sport mentality

"our side" "their side" crap.

This is our lives, our democracy. We need to elect a government that respects those things.

[chieftain]

21. If I understand your post you are calling me

an ignorant loser and liar. Well that certainly raised the level of discourse.

[MirrorAshes]

24. What? Your post makes no sense. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

11. Funny thing how some folks walk right over the not only admitted, not only defended,

but further to pretty much promise retribution for letting out/confirming said fact en route to essentially conspiracy theories (which also drives a very similar group of people fucking apeshit...unless they are "theorizing" while passive-aggressively accusing themselves).

Will the TeaPubliKlans beyond hypocritically try to make some hay? Absolutely.

Will they egg shit on if they think they can make said hay? Of course they will! That is what they are.

Can the wicked schemes they instituted in the first place be swallowed in the name of circling the wagons? Oh fuck no.

At this point some folks seem to just care who is doing something without regard for what is being done. If in victory the reward is institutionalize and advance the opposition's aims then there is no victory. The outcome is the same however the names and faces change.

[G_j]

25. well said

[Demit]

56. Wow. You understood that?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

13. That's it. The TEA Party made Obama spy on millions of Americans

And here I thought they were a bunch of dumbfuck inbreeders. Nope, they've actually used an ingenious plot to make Obama act like a goddamned Soviet premier. Tricky devils--but at least you caught on to the real plot.

[chieftain]

22. I think you get the prize for missing the point of the OP by the widest margin.

But to put your mind to rest, I don't believe that the Tea Party "spy on millions of Americans". And I defy you to point to anything in the OP that could lead to that conclusion.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

30. The baggers aren't spying on Americans. Obama is. That's been established

Read the post again, it means something different than you've interpreted.

[jeff47]

35. No. We're saying you should pay attention to everything else that's going on.

Because this particular program that's causing people to freak out has been around for 8 or more years. The Obama administration significantly reigned it in compared to W. Yes, it could use some additional protections, or accomplish the same goals in a less big-brother way.

But while you're busy ranting about this 8 year old program that is suddenly very important, the Senate will be voting to cut food stamps on Monday. All of the Democrats voted for Cloture Thursday, and the vast majority are expected to vote for the final bill Monday night.

But please, continue freaking out about this 8 year old program. I'm sure the people who will be going without dinner will appreciate your sudden concern for civil liberties 8 years after-the-fact.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

37. The President really shouldn't have derailed his agenda with this spying stuff

I think I may have already mentioned that to you. Regardless, it's the sad truth. He and congressional Democrats are going to have to deal with the fallout, at the expense of other policy priorities. This was a huge mistake on the President's part. It's an even bigger mistake when you stop to consider that those of us who actually read, me and you among others, know that the GOP is just as complicit, both in the congress and in the Bush Administration. But we also know the political reality that the GOP will make as much of this as they can without smearing themselves. Obama's left himself holding the bag that he never should have consented to holding in the first place, and that's inexcusable.

[jeff47]

38. You have that backwards.

The Democrats have no particular need to vote for the farm bill right this moment. The House version is in utter disarray.

But they're gonna get their cuts done while you're looking the other way.

Isn't it great to see a plan come together so well?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

41. Either way, Obama has eclipsed his own legislative priorities by spying on constituents.

[jeff47]

42. You're doing a great job helping the plan along. Keep it up. (nt)

[DisgustipatedinCA]

43. And what do you suppose you're doing, given your willingness to excuse spying?

[jeff47]

44. I'm not excusing anything. My outrage started 8 years ago.

As a result, I don't see a need to suddenly become more outraged now.

There's also this little thing where I rank "starvation" as a more important problem to solve at this moment than "NSA stores metadata in accordance with law, just like they've been doing for at least the 8 years".

Doesn't mean the latter should not be addressed. It means the former should have more of our attention at this moment.

[GoneFishin]

54. So then you should be outraged that money that could be used to address hunger

and other average american citizens' problems is being used instead for high-tech surveillance systems for use against those same citizens'.

[jeff47]

64. There's a lot of problems with spending priorities.

But again, the issue is what we should be doing at this moment.

We have 3 options:
1. Reform government spending priorities
2. Reign in an 8-year-old NSA program
3. Stop a bill which will be voted on tomorrow.

One of those three is time critical. 1 and 2 can still be worked on Tuesday. #3 can not.

But at this point, we've blown it. The SNAP cuts in the Senate bill will become the left side of the eventual conference bill with the house. Yay hunger!

[Union Scribe]

48. Obscene that you would use the poor as such a transparent ploy

to divert attention from this. Your point has been made clear: if you care about one issue you can't care about any others and hate starving people. No one's buying it and you're making yourself look singularly ghoulish by continuing to post it.

[bananas]

49. Unanimous jury vote

3:31 PM

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Sat Jun 8, 2013, 06:27 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Obscene that you would use the poor as such a transparent ploy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2973193

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Describing a post as obscene and characterizing another DUer as ghoulish is highly inappropriate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jun 8, 2013, 06:31 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No. Not taking sides in this Union Scribe vs. jeff47 debate...but this post doesn't rise to the level of offense sufficient to warrant a hide.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Not inappropriate at all, especially since it's true.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Doesn't bother my community standards.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[boilerbabe]

55. wow i can't believe that post was alerted on.

excellent jury result.

[jeff47]

63. I recommend actually reading my posts instead of the version in your head.

The folks who want to cut food stamps are playing you. And you're doing a fantastic job of falling for it.

Because instead of spending the last few days working against their cuts, people are screaming about an 8-year-old program. Greenwald revealed nothing significant that is new. But everyone aflame about the program now. And since the vote on the Senate farm bill is tomorrow, it's pretty much too late to do anything about it.

But this 8-year-old program must be dealt with NOW!! We can't possibly work on it Tuesday.

I do have to say I'm extremely impressed with just how well their plan has worked.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. If it's such a non-story why did Obama make a speech about it and pursue the "leaker"?

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. you're right - that right-wing rag - The Guardian is just making this shit up

[chieftain]

26. I didn't say that The Guardian is a right-wing rag.

It is a solid left of center paper that, as I said in the OP, did some great investigative reporting on the disaster that was and is W and the Neo-Cons.
My point is and remains that I find it interesting that a paper which when printing anti W reports was ignored is now spotlighted and followed when printing negative a story on Obama. And I wonder what causes this disparity.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. So you're saying it's not The Guardian, but the way we read The Guardian

I agree The Guardian put out plenty of stories that exposed what Bush was doing; but I thought we paid attention to them too, myself.

[chieftain]

27. No.

I am saying that the media uproar over here is curious given the Corporate Media's the blind eye that they collectively turned to solid reporting by The Guardian in the run-up and execution of the War in Iraq.
And that makes me wonder about motivation especially as we get closer to the mid-terms.

[Herlong]

29. I don't look back, I fight back.

We love our country, run with it and don't look back. Good news is, there *can* be a president worse that Bush and Obama. A time when we can't fight back, so NOW is the time. I don't look back, I fight back.

[ucrdem]

33. Nope, it's the Guardian.

Since about 2000 it's been the go-to source for her majesty's official propaganda, occasionally fronted by a name-brand fake leftist like Assange or Greenwald or fake movement like Optor or Occupy. Notice how they laundered the NSA stuff through Glenn this time instead of Wikileaks? Apparently that Swedish business took the bloom off that rose but it had a great run while it lasted. Just a theory.

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. Well, the thread starter disagrees with you

In #27, they say it's the way the American media has chosen to repeat, or not, what The Guardian says.

Really - you think The Guardian has been pro-UK government since about 2000? That's astounding. Maybe you should back it up with an argument. You know - compare it with other UK media. It did support Labour on various subjects, but, in international terms, it was anti-Iraq invasion (though its sister paper, The Observer, published on Sunday, was pro-invasion - as were most UK papers), and has certainly been a strong supporter of the Democratic party. It's no supporter of the Tories.

I don't think you understood what happened with Wikileaks, though. Wikileaks went to the Guardian - and other international papers - with the leaks, not the other way round.

You also call Occupy a fake movement. Why?

[marshall]

31. That's because numerous places were reporting W exposes

The British press is decidedly different these days when compared to US sources.

[markiv]

39. I agree, a leftwing rag criticizing a democrat for rightwing activities

is a right wing plot

as are anyone who objects to those activities

[Autumn]

47. The only organization that has the power to get me to stay home in 2010 is

the Democratic Party.

[mercuryblues]

50. but the author of the PA is outraged, why now?

"Aug. 13, 2007 issue - The controversy over President Bush's warrantless surveillance program took another surprise turn last week when a team of FBI agents, armed with a classified search warrant, raided the suburban Washington home of a former Justice Department lawyer. The lawyer, Thomas M. Tamm, previously worked in Justice's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR)—the supersecret unit that oversees surveillance of terrorist and espionage targets. The agents seized Tamm's desktop computer, two of his children's laptops and a cache of personal files. Tamm and his lawyer, Paul Kemp, declined any comment. So did the FBI. But two legal sources who asked not to be identified talking about an ongoing case told NEWSWEEK the raid was related to a Justice criminal probe into who leaked details of the warrantless eavesdropping program to the news media."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1523222



The New FISA
Posted August 7, 2007 | 01:36 AM (EST)
-----

What is at stake in the legislation, signed into law last weekend by President Bush, amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA)? To answer this question, it's necessary to review how we came to this point.


The Fourth Amendment generally forbids the government to engage in wiretaps or other forms of electronic surveillance of private communications without a prior judicial determination that there is probable cause to believe that unlawful conduct is afoot.

<snip>
The president and his defenders responded that the NSA program was lawful because (a) Congress had implicitly empowered the president to ignore FISA when it authorized the use of military force after 9/11, and/or (b) FISA is unconstitutional insofar as it limits the President's inherent constitutional authority to act in the nation's best interests in his role as "commander in chief" of the armed forces.

Both of these arguments have been dismissed as groundless by most constitutional scholars, a federal court rejected both arguments and held the president's secret surveillance program unlawful and unconstitutional, and last January the president agreed to have the program overseen by the FISA court, although it was unclear precisely what that court was to do with program.

<snip>

What does the amendment authorize? Until last weekend, FISA prohibited the government from intercepting any international telephone call or email communication involving persons in the United States without a warrant from the FISA court based upon probable cause. The amendment authorizes the government to wiretap or intercept any international communication, even if one of the participants is an American citizen on American soil, as long as the intercept is undertaken for foreign intelligence purposes and is "directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1540542

[SidDithers]

51. Greenwald didn't start "writing" for the Guardian until 2012...

there's your answer.

Sid

[kenny blankenship]

53. And it's a funny thing about the Guardian - ever notice how its eyes follow you around the room?

But then when you turn around suddenly to square up on it, and return its gaze directly, it's already pretending to look the other way, humming a little tune or quietly laughing at someone else' joke? Yeah, there's something awfully funny going on around here....

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

60. Indeed! +1,000,000!!!

[99Forever]

65. What you are experiencing...

... is called selective memory, which can be easily resolved with a visit to the real world and away from cognitive dissonance.

You're welcome.