The dancing hypocrite takes his show to the stage – part 3 [See Part 1]
Obama did Jay Leno to roll out his thoughts on national security, Benghazi, and embassy closings. Did someone move the press room to NBC studios?…
In this episode, we find Hypobama deeply engrossed in the NSA which has grown into a dragnet.
Recap: After explaining in the last episode how we had the proper reactions to terrorism like the Boston bombing, with our super-resilience abilities, and how we do not let a little terrorism shut us down, he now explains why we are wrong about NSA and our concerns about the increasing dragnet of phone records and FISA courts vacuuming up our information. But yet we’re right, somehow, for having concerns about them, even if our concerns are not substantiated — if that makes any sense.
Q: It’s safe to say that we learned about these threats through the NSA intelligence program? Is that a fair assessment?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this intelligence-gathering that we do is a critical component of counterterrorism. And obviously, with Mr. Snowden and the disclosures of classified information, this raised a lot of questions for people. But what I said as soon as it happened I continue to believe in, which is a lot of these programs were put in place before I came in. I had some skepticism, and I think we should have a healthy skepticism about what government is doing. I had the programs reviewed. We put in some additional safeguards to make sure that there’s federal court oversight as well as congressional oversight, that there is no spying on Americans.
We don’t have a domestic spying program. What we do have are some mechanisms where we can track a phone number or an email address that we know is connected to some sort of terrorist threat. And that information is useful. But what I’ve said before I want to make sure I repeat, and that is we should be skeptical about the potential encroachments on privacy. None of the revelations show that government has actually abused these powers, but they’re pretty significant powers.
And I’ve been talking to Congress and civil libertarians and others about are there additional ways that we can make sure that people know nobody is listening to your phone call, but we do want to make sure that after a Boston bombing, for example, we’ve got the phone numbers of those two brothers — we want to be able to make sure did they call anybody else? Are there networks in New York, are there networks elsewhere that we have to roll up? And if we can make sure that there’s confidence on the part of the American people that there’s oversight, then I think we can make sure that we’re properly balancing our liberty and our security.
Oh, he’s been talking to civil libertarians? I bet their phones are ringing off the hook.(pardon the pun) He mentioned that again in his speech days later. Who is he talking to? He hasn’t offered one name. He can’t.
If the NSA techniques are so instrumental, how did it fail on the Boston bombers? Now he wants to use the very attacks that happened on his watch, and that sordid course of events, from Benghazi to the Boston bombing, to justify the program.
“…put in place before I came in. I had some skepticism.” (as he rings the Bush bell)
Its amazing that he has critics all over the place and how he tries to run out in front of the parade of criticism against him. What hypocrisy. He’s taken these policies to new heights, as a dragnet. Sometimes you cannot be on both sides. Oh, now that he has no criticism of NSA no one else should? (and his credibility is excellent)
“If we can make sure there’s confidence on the part of the American people that there’s oversight…” ? Well, having results to justify it would help. Did it really help? I’m not even sure the legitimate, inter-government phone calls from Benghazi were responded to correctly. But they did get all those calls.
Please, do tell us about the need for congressional oversight. I’ll be waiting.
Make the case and make my day!
The real point is how this government responds or doesn’t to threats, namely to terrorism in general. So the problem is not that they don’t have access to enough information. Benghazi showed that. It’s not just what they have access to but what they do with it.
We do not know if they are going to abuse or extort the information against us, or only apply it to pursue terrorists. Pandora’s box is opened. Look what they did at IRS.
I don’t know of a department of the federal government Obama has not politicized. What information do they not have access to? Companies are turning over passwords and user names. Is he making the case for that?
Let’s summarize: If he can only convince us to have “confidence”, then we “properly balanced our liberty and our security”. That is his basic message. We just need to be convinced to have confidence. Remember that hope theme?