Without leaks, Barack Obama might never have been elected to begin with.

[Ichingcarpenter]

After Barack Obama was elected to his first term as President but before he took the oath of office, Vice-President Dick Cheney gave an exit interview to Rush Limbaugh. Under George W. Bush, Cheney was the architect, along with his legal counsel, David Addington, of a dramatic expansion of executive authority—a power grab that Obama criticized, fiercely, on the campaign trail, and promised to “reverse.” But when Limbaugh inquired about this criticism Cheney swatted it aside, saying, “My guess is that, once they get here and they’re faced with the same problems we deal with every day, they will appreciate some of the things we’ve put in place.”

I was reminded of that line during last week’s revelations about mass-surveillance programs administered by the National Security Agency. When Cheney said it, the remark struck me as cynical and self-serving. Now it seems prescient. Many observers have lamented Obama’s war on leaks—which has been distinguished by an unprecedented number of prosecutions—suggesting that there is some hypocrisy in a President who, having promised to roll back Bush’s “policy of secrecy,” has devoted his time in office to the merciless pursuit of whistle-blowers.

But the hypocrisy may run deeper than that: Obama built his political identity as a national leader on revulsion at the excesses of the Bush years. Yet, from warrantless wiretapping and torture to dodgy intelligence in Iraq, he knew the full extent of those excesses because of unauthorized disclosures to the press. Without leaks, Barack Obama might never have been elected to begin with.

Among those who took Obama the candidate at his word, and then found themselves sorely disappointed when he assumed office, was, it seems, Edward Snowden, a private contractor for the National Security Agency. Snowden, who gave a trove of classified documents to the Guardian and the Washington Post, said yesterday that he had watched, in dismay, “as Obama advanced the very policies that I thought would be reined in.”

more:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/06/was-cheney-right-about-obama.html

[still_one]

1. Speaking of hypocrisy, maybe Mr. Snowden needs to look in the mirror

[GeorgeGist]

5. Nice ...

deflection from the bigger problem.

[tblue]

2. We weren't supposed to take him literally.

"It's naive and unrealistic to think that a president will keep every campaign promise. Things change once you actually take office. It's the Republicans' fault, not his. He wanted to do all of those things, but they just wouldn't let him and he couldn't do anything about that "

So I've been told. And so I stopped believing. It's sad but it beats having rude awakenings all the time. Now if he makes a speech, I'm glad he at least says the right thing.

[dionysus]

3. commence another "obama is the devil" thread... have at it

[JDPriestly]

4. Our intelligence and national security agencies

are entrenched bureaucracies. They serve a national purpose. They betray us when they serve it by placing US, the people they are supposed to be working for, under surveillance and suspicion without any reason.

Obama is not to blame, no matter what promises he made. He inherited a very protective, very entrenched intelligence and national security apparatus. He has been as much on our side as possible. He has lessened some of the worst excesses of the Bush administration.

If we believe (and I do) that the intelligence and national security cliques in the government are overly intrusive into our lives, then we should petition the Congress to change the laws and to do more supervision. This is not a personality issue.

Obama has to deal, as I said, with an entrenched bureaucracy.

Am I disappointed. Yes. But Obama cannot just make up the rules as he goes along. We have to urge changes.

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. The article is an examination

of that entrenchment and the problems Cheney left behind, once a bureaucracy is started they grow and in this case like a wild weed.


I like your summation.

[JDPriestly]

9. It is a matter of excess, and Bush/Cheney were all about lying and excess.

Obama is now taking the blame for the Bush administration's lack of respect for human rights. But Obama has a tough job addressing this, and he is not one to be really tough-acting.

Obama has a great deal of grace in what he does though. It's as if a guardian angel walks in front of him and clears the way for him.

In a sense, Snowden has, albeit not intentionally, cleared the way for Obama to hold a conversation within the NSA and with the public about whether we want our metadata stored as is contemplated and as is being done or whether we want only pretty specific subpoenas to be presented to the FISA court.

The companies that handle our data, phone companies, etc. have the data for as many years as could be reasonably needed, so it is available for the government to obtain.

We should not have private government contractors dealing with massive databases of personal information about our every communication. That is too extreme. It is a waste of money and a temptation to those who handle the databases as well as those who might want to use the databases for political purposes.

As for punishing whistleblowers, I wonder whether I imagined it or whether anyone else recalls that when the Patriot Act was enacted, there was a discussion about leaving out protections for whistleblowers. Somehow I have a vague memory that Dianne Feinstein was involved in that in some way, but I don't remember whether she wanted or did not want the protections. Does anyone else remember that? Can anyone else find that information?

The whistleblower protects were, I believe, somehow specifically left out as to certain government employees. I haven't been able to find articles on it, so I may be incorrect.

[DeSwiss]

7. And the Great Unraveling continues.....

- The TRUTH shall set you free, but one needs to have one's eyes open first......

K&R

http://vimeo.com/20355767

[fasttense]

8. Again, the Obama vs Snowden issue

This is NOT about Obama. It's about capitalism.

Huh? Yes, capitalism. If the never ending pressure to make money at ANY COST were not built into every part of our society, then I doubt the NSA, FBI and CIA would be so out of control. It's the huge amounts of money being made off of the federal government by corporate contractors that makes every American a possible traitor who must be spied on and controlled.

All the largest and most successful corporations have huge contracts with our federal government. Every large corporation makes big, big bucks off of some kind of scheme or secret deal with our federal and state governments. If they want to make more money, they got to do more for the government. So, more spying is good because it makes more money for the corporate elite.

These corporation know what they are doing is destructive, illegal and immoral. They know it will bring huge complaints from we civilians if we find out, not to mention they don't want others getting in on their schemes. So, the need for ever more secretive programs grows. And who are they keeping this a secret from? Why every American citizen who has not been vetted or paid off to keep their mouth shut. Every citizen is a possible threat to the gravy train each corporation has set up for itself.

So every whistle blower must be made to suffer and be demonstrably punished. People who can NOT be bought are even more dangerous and they must be ridiculed and humiliated. Every tiny leak must be plugged up immediately. And every person must be watched to see if they find out about the corporations giant gravy train.

But suppose everyone's major driving force were NOT more wealth and riches. Suppose the major factor controlling people was the best interest of the country. Do you think ever larger secret spying programs would be the result? I somehow doubt it.

And see, it has Nothing to do with Obama.

[DeSwiss]

11. Exactly. Which is why we must eventually withdraw from their system.

- In the words of Jacque Fresco: ''This shit's got to go.''

Resource-based Economy

[Major Hogwash]

10. Hahahaha . . . they quoted Cheney.

Yes, the evil one predicted the future several times . . . such as when he said that the stock market would crash if Obama was elected, that no corporations would create any jobs because they wouldn't trust Obama, and then, last but not least, the infamous prediction -- we'll be attacked again!!!

I've got an idea, put Cheney on the stand, under oath, and see if he doesn't leak something in to his shorts!!!!!!!!!!