TOM TOMORROW: The Very Naughty Whistleblower

[Hissyspit]

DAILY KOS LINK: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/14/1313290/-Cartoon-The-very-naughty-nbsp-whistleblower

[n2doc]

1. Nailed it! n/t

[Ghost Dog]

106. Yes Ace. n/t

[IDemo]

2. Tom Tomorrow, meet bus

[Armstead]

39. You beat me to it

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. thanks Snowden and Tom for showing

how little these people really are with their little bodies and large heads.......LOL

[stevenleser]

4. Cartoon starts off with a problem right off the bat.

Obama mentioned wanting to have the conversation two weeks before Snowden's revelations.

He wasn't forced into that position.

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. LIE...... he did not say conversation.. that was later.

Last edited Mon Jul 14, 2014, 11:02 AM - Edit history (1)

21 December 2013
Just hours after receiving a report from his hand-picked advisory panel on National Security Agency surveillance operations, President Barack Obama used his end of the year press conference Friday to deliver an Orwellian defense of unrestrained US spying both at home and abroad.


“I have confidence that the NSA is not engaging in domestic surveillance and snooping around,” Obama said, despite the cascade of revelations proving just the opposite

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/12/21/pers-d21.html


http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/27/obama-curbs-nsa-cellphone-tracking-program/

nowhere in this speech did he say 'conversation' with the nation..... the word conversation is not there.


Conversation quote came in December.

Obama said. “I think that there was a way for us to have this conversation

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/20/obama-nsa-collection-phone-data-unnecessary

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Do you have a link that supports your contention?

Thanks.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Got a link?

Or just an assertion presented with frantic Foxian certainty?

[stevenleser]

14. This has been talked about and posted over and over again.

It's amazing how facts that detract from the desired narrative of some that we wouldnt be having this conversations without Snowden keeps getting conveniently forgotten

Video at http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2013/05/23/president-obama-speaks-us-counterterrorism-strategy

Transcript (See in particular parts in bold with emphasis on underlined parts):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/remarks-president-national-defense-university

Remarks by the President at the National Defense University

National Defense University
Fort McNair
Washington, D.C.

May 23, 2013 2:01 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Please be seated.

It is a great honor to return to the National Defense University. Here, at Fort McNair, Americans have served in uniform since 1791 -- standing guard in the earliest days of the Republic, and contemplating the future of warfare here in the 21st century.

For over two centuries, the United States has been bound together by founding documents that defined who we are as Americans, and served as our compass through every type of change. Matters of war and peace are no different. Americans are deeply ambivalent about war, but having fought for our independence, we know a price must be paid for freedom. From the Civil War to our struggle against fascism, on through the long twilight struggle of the Cold War, battlefields have changed and technology has evolved. But our commitment to constitutional principles has weathered every war, and every war has come to an end.

With the collapse of the Berlin Wall, a new dawn of democracy took hold abroad, and a decade of peace and prosperity arrived here at home. And for a moment, it seemed the 21st century would be a tranquil time. And then, on September 11, 2001, we were shaken out of complacency. Thousands were taken from us, as clouds of fire and metal and ash descended upon a sun-filled morning. This was a different kind of war. No armies came to our shores, and our military was not the principal target. Instead, a group of terrorists came to kill as many civilians as they could.

And so our nation went to war. We have now been at war for well over a decade. I won’t review the full history. What is clear is that we quickly drove al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, but then shifted our focus and began a new war in Iraq. And this carried significant consequences for our fight against al Qaeda, our standing in the world, and -- to this day -- our interests in a vital region.

Meanwhile, we strengthened our defenses -- hardening targets, tightening transportation security, giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror. Most of these changes were sound. Some caused inconvenience. But some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance that we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy. And in some cases, I believe we compromised our basic values -- by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.

So after I took office, we stepped up the war against al Qaeda but we also sought to change its course. We relentlessly targeted al Qaeda’s leadership. We ended the war in Iraq, and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. We pursued a new strategy in Afghanistan, and increased our training of Afghan forces. We unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with Congress.

Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure. Fewer of our troops are in harm’s way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. In sum, we are safer because of our efforts.

Now, make no mistake, our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. But we have to recognize that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11. With a decade of experience now to draw from, this is the moment to ask ourselves hard questions -- about the nature of today’s threats and how we should confront them.

And these questions matter to every American.

For over the last decade, our nation has spent well over a trillion dollars on war, helping to explode our deficits and constraining our ability to nation-build here at home. Our servicemembers and their families have sacrificed far more on our behalf. Nearly 7,000 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice. Many more have left a part of themselves on the battlefield, or brought the shadows of battle back home. From our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions that we are making now will define the type of nation -- and world -- that we leave to our children.

So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us. We have to be mindful of James Madison’s warning that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. But what we can do -- what we must do -- is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger to us, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all the while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. And to define that strategy, we have to make decisions based not on fear, but on hard-earned wisdom. That begins with understanding the current threat that we face.

Today, the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on the path to defeat. Their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us. They did not direct the attacks in Benghazi or Boston. They’ve not carried out a successful attack on our homeland since 9/11.

Instead, what we’ve seen is the emergence of various al Qaeda affiliates. From Yemen to Iraq, from Somalia to North Africa, the threat today is more diffuse, with Al Qaeda’s affiliates in the Arabian Peninsula -- AQAP -- the most active in plotting against our homeland. And while none of AQAP’s efforts approach the scale of 9/11, they have continued to plot acts of terror, like the attempt to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day in 2009.

Unrest in the Arab world has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries like Libya and Syria. But here, too, there are differences from 9/11. In some cases, we continue to confront state-sponsored networks like Hezbollah that engage in acts of terror to achieve political goals. Other of these groups are simply collections of local militias or extremists interested in seizing territory. And while we are vigilant for signs that these groups may pose a transnational threat, most are focused on operating in the countries and regions where they are based. And that means we'll face more localized threats like what we saw in Benghazi, or the BP oil facility in Algeria, in which local operatives -- perhaps in loose affiliation with regional networks -- launch periodic attacks against Western diplomats, companies, and other soft targets, or resort to kidnapping and other criminal enterprises to fund their operations.

And finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, a plane flying into a building in Texas, or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our history. Deranged or alienated individuals -- often U.S. citizens or legal residents -- can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. And that pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

So that’s the current threat -- lethal yet less capable al Qaeda affiliates; threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad; homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We have to take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them. But as we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11.

In the 1980s, we lost Americans to terrorism at our Embassy in Beirut; at our Marine Barracks in Lebanon; on a cruise ship at sea; at a disco in Berlin; and on a Pan Am flight -- Flight 103 -- over Lockerbie. In the 1990s, we lost Americans to terrorism at the World Trade Center; at our military facilities in Saudi Arabia; and at our Embassy in Kenya. These attacks were all brutal; they were all deadly; and we learned that left unchecked, these threats can grow. But if dealt with smartly and proportionally, these threats need not rise to the level that we saw on the eve of 9/11.

Moreover, we have to recognize that these threats don’t arise in a vacuum. Most, though not all, of the terrorism we faced is fueled by a common ideology -- a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West, and that violence against Western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause. Of course, this ideology is based on a lie, for the United States is not at war with Islam. And this ideology is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims, who are the most frequent victims of terrorist attacks.

Nevertheless, this ideology persists, and in an age when ideas and images can travel the globe in an instant, our response to terrorism can’t depend on military or law enforcement alone. We need all elements of national power to win a battle of wills, a battle of ideas. So what I want to discuss here today is the components of such a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy.

First, we must finish the work of defeating al Qaeda and its associated forces.

In Afghanistan, we will complete our transition to Afghan responsibility for that country’s security. Our troops will come home. Our combat mission will come to an end. And we will work with the Afghan government to train security forces, and sustain a counterterrorism force, which ensures that al Qaeda can never again establish a safe haven to launch attacks against us or our allies.

Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless “global war on terror,” but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America. In many cases, this will involve partnerships with other countries. Already, thousands of Pakistani soldiers have lost their lives fighting extremists. In Yemen, we are supporting security forces that have reclaimed territory from AQAP. In Somalia, we helped a coalition of African nations push al-Shabaab out of its strongholds. In Mali, we’re providing military aid to French-led intervention to push back al Qaeda in the Maghreb, and help the people of Mali reclaim their future.

Much of our best counterterrorism cooperation results in the gathering and sharing of intelligence, the arrest and prosecution of terrorists. And that’s how a Somali terrorist apprehended off the coast of Yemen is now in a prison in New York. That’s how we worked with European allies to disrupt plots from Denmark to Germany to the United Kingdom. That’s how intelligence collected with Saudi Arabia helped us stop a cargo plane from being blown up over the Atlantic. These partnerships work.

But despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed. Al Qaeda and its affiliates try to gain foothold in some of the most distant and unforgiving places on Earth. They take refuge in remote tribal regions. They hide in caves and walled compounds. They train in empty deserts and rugged mountains.

In some of these places -- such as parts of Somalia and Yemen -- the state only has the most tenuous reach into the territory. In other cases, the state lacks the capacity or will to take action. And it’s also not possible for America to simply deploy a team of Special Forces to capture every terrorist. Even when such an approach may be possible, there are places where it would pose profound risks to our troops and local civilians -- where a terrorist compound cannot be breached without triggering a firefight with surrounding tribal communities, for example, that pose no threat to us; times when putting U.S. boots on the ground may trigger a major international crisis.

To put it another way, our operation in Pakistan against Osama bin Laden cannot be the norm. The risks in that case were immense. The likelihood of capture, although that was our preference, was remote given the certainty that our folks would confront resistance. The fact that we did not find ourselves confronted with civilian casualties, or embroiled in an extended firefight, was a testament to the meticulous planning and professionalism of our Special Forces, but it also depended on some luck. And it was supported by massive infrastructure in Afghanistan.

And even then, the cost to our relationship with Pakistan -- and the backlash among the Pakistani public over encroachment on their territory -- was so severe that we are just now beginning to rebuild this important partnership.

So it is in this context that the United States has taken lethal, targeted action against al Qaeda and its associated forces, including with remotely piloted aircraft commonly referred to as drones.

As was true in previous armed conflicts, this new technology raises profound questions -- about who is targeted, and why; about civilian casualties, and the risk of creating new enemies; about the legality of such strikes under U.S. and international law; about accountability and morality. So let me address these questions.

To begin with, our actions are effective. Don’t take my word for it. In the intelligence gathered at bin Laden’s compound, we found that he wrote, “We could lose the reserves to enemy’s air strikes. We cannot fight air strikes with explosives.” Other communications from al Qaeda operatives confirm this as well. Dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. Plots have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, U.S. transit systems, European cities and our troops in Afghanistan. Simply put, these strikes have saved lives.

Moreover, America’s actions are legal. We were attacked on 9/11. Within a week, Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force. Under domestic law, and international law, the United States is at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces. We are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first. So this is a just war -- a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense.

And yet, as our fight enters a new phase, America’s legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion. To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. For the same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power -- or risk abusing it. And that’s why, over the last four years, my administration has worked vigorously to establish a framework that governs our use of force against terrorists –- insisting upon clear guidelines, oversight and accountability that is now codified in Presidential Policy Guidance that I signed yesterday.

In the Afghan war theater, we must -- and will -- continue to support our troops until the transition is complete at the end of 2014. And that means we will continue to take strikes against high value al Qaeda targets, but also against forces that are massing to support attacks on coalition forces. But by the end of 2014, we will no longer have the same need for force protection, and the progress we’ve made against core al Qaeda will reduce the need for unmanned strikes.

Beyond the Afghan theater, we only target al Qaeda and its associated forces. And even then, the use of drones is heavily constrained. America does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists; our preference is always to detain, interrogate, and prosecute. America cannot take strikes wherever we choose; our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and respect for state sovereignty.

America does not take strikes to punish individuals; we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat. And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured -- the highest standard we can set.

Now, this last point is critical, because much of the criticism about drone strikes -- both here at home and abroad -- understandably centers on reports of civilian casualties. There’s a wide gap between U.S. assessments of such casualties and nongovernmental reports. Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in every war. And for the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, those deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred throughout conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But as Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties -- not just in our cities at home and our facilities abroad, but also in the very places like Sana’a and Kabul and Mogadishu where terrorists seek a foothold. Remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes. So doing nothing is not an option.

Where foreign governments cannot or will not effectively stop terrorism in their territory, the primary alternative to targeted lethal action would be the use of conventional military options. As I’ve already said, even small special operations carry enormous risks. Conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and are likely to cause more civilian casualties and more local outrage. And invasions of these territories lead us to be viewed as occupying armies, unleash a torrent of unintended consequences, are difficult to contain, result in large numbers of civilian casualties and ultimately empower those who thrive on violent conflict.

So it is false to assert that putting boots on the ground is less likely to result in civilian deaths or less likely to create enemies in the Muslim world. The results would be more U.S. deaths, more Black Hawks down, more confrontations with local populations, and an inevitable mission creep in support of such raids that could easily escalate into new wars.

Yes, the conflict with al Qaeda, like all armed conflict, invites tragedy. But by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life.

Our efforts must be measured against the history of putting American troops in distant lands among hostile populations. In Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of civilians died in a war where the boundaries of battle were blurred. In Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the extraordinary courage and discipline of our troops, thousands of civilians have been killed. So neither conventional military action nor waiting for attacks to occur offers moral safe harbor, and neither does a sole reliance on law enforcement in territories that have no functioning police or security services -- and indeed, have no functioning law.

Now, this is not to say that the risks are not real. Any U.S. military action in foreign lands risks creating more enemies and impacts public opinion overseas. Moreover, our laws constrain the power of the President even during wartime, and I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. The very precision of drone strikes and the necessary secrecy often involved in such actions can end up shielding our government from the public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites. It can also lead a President and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism.

And for this reason, I’ve insisted on strong oversight of all lethal action. After I took office, my administration began briefing all strikes outside of Iraq and Afghanistan to the appropriate committees of Congress. Let me repeat that: Not only did Congress authorize the use of force, it is briefed on every strike that America takes. Every strike. That includes the one instance when we targeted an American citizen -- Anwar Awlaki, the chief of external operations for AQAP.

This week, I authorized the declassification of this action, and the deaths of three other Americans in drone strikes, to facilitate transparency and debate on this issue and to dismiss some of the more outlandish claims that have been made. For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen -- with a drone, or with a shotgun -- without due process, nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.

But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens, and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot, his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team.

That’s who Anwar Awlaki was -- he was continuously trying to kill people. He helped oversee the 2010 plot to detonate explosive devices on two U.S.-bound cargo planes. He was involved in planning to blow up an airliner in 2009. When Farouk Abdulmutallab -- the Christmas Day bomber -- went to Yemen in 2009, Awlaki hosted him, approved his suicide operation, helped him tape a martyrdom video to be shown after the attack, and his last instructions were to blow up the airplane when it was over American soil. I would have detained and prosecuted Awlaki if we captured him before he carried out a plot, but we couldn’t. And as President, I would have been derelict in my duty had I not authorized the strike that took him out.

Of course, the targeting of any American raises constitutional issues that are not present in other strikes -- which is why my administration submitted information about Awlaki to the Department of Justice months before Awlaki was killed, and briefed the Congress before this strike as well. But the high threshold that we’ve set for taking lethal action applies to all potential terrorist targets, regardless of whether or not they are American citizens. This threshold respects the inherent dignity of every human life. Alongside the decision to put our men and women in uniform in harm’s way, the decision to use force against individuals or groups -- even against a sworn enemy of the United States -- is the hardest thing I do as President. But these decisions must be made, given my responsibility to protect the American people.

Going forward, I’ve asked my administration to review proposals to extend oversight of lethal actions outside of warzones that go beyond our reporting to Congress. Each option has virtues in theory, but poses difficulties in practice. For example, the establishment of a special court to evaluate and authorize lethal action has the benefit of bringing a third branch of government into the process, but raises serious constitutional issues about presidential and judicial authority. Another idea that’s been suggested -- the establishment of an independent oversight board in the executive branch -- avoids those problems, but may introduce a layer of bureaucracy into national security decision-making, without inspiring additional public confidence in the process. But despite these challenges, I look forward to actively engaging Congress to explore these and other options for increased oversight.

I believe, however, that the use of force must be seen as part of a larger discussion we need to have about a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy -- because for all the focus on the use of force, force alone cannot make us safe. We cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root; and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the wellspring of extremism, a perpetual war -- through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments -- will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways.

So the next element of our strategy involves addressing the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism -- from North Africa to South Asia. As we’ve learned this past decade, this is a vast and complex undertaking. We must be humble in our expectation that we can quickly resolve deep-rooted problems like poverty and sectarian hatred. Moreover, no two countries are alike, and some will undergo chaotic change before things get better. But our security and our values demand that we make the effort.

This means patiently supporting transitions to democracy in places like Egypt and Tunisia and Libya -- because the peaceful realization of individual aspirations will serve as a rebuke to violent extremists. We must strengthen the opposition in Syria, while isolating extremist elements -- because the end of a tyrant must not give way to the tyranny of terrorism. We are actively working to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians -- because it is right and because such a peace could help reshape attitudes in the region. And we must help countries modernize economies, upgrade education, and encourage entrepreneurship -- because American leadership has always been elevated by our ability to connect with people’s hopes, and not simply their fears.

And success on all these fronts requires sustained engagement, but it will also require resources. I know that foreign aid is one of the least popular expenditures that there is. That’s true for Democrats and Republicans -- I’ve seen the polling -- even though it amounts to less than one percent of the federal budget. In fact, a lot of folks think it’s 25 percent, if you ask people on the streets. Less than one percent -- still wildly unpopular. But foreign assistance cannot be viewed as charity. It is fundamental to our national security. And it’s fundamental to any sensible long-term strategy to battle extremism.

Moreover, foreign assistance is a tiny fraction of what we spend fighting wars that our assistance might ultimately prevent. For what we spent in a month in Iraq at the height of the war, we could be training security forces in Libya, maintaining peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors, feeding the hungry in Yemen, building schools in Pakistan, and creating reservoirs of goodwill that marginalize extremists. That has to be part of our strategy.

Moreover, America cannot carry out this work if we don’t have diplomats serving in some very dangerous places. Over the past decade, we have strengthened security at our embassies, and I am implementing every recommendation of the Accountability Review Board, which found unacceptable failures in Benghazi. I’ve called on Congress to fully fund these efforts to bolster security and harden facilities, improve intelligence, and facilitate a quicker response time from our military if a crisis emerges.

But even after we take these steps, some irreducible risks to our diplomats will remain. This is the price of being the world’s most powerful nation, particularly as a wave of change washes over the Arab World. And in balancing the trade4offs between security and active diplomacy, I firmly believe that any retreat from challenging regions will only increase the dangers that we face in the long run. And that's why we should be grateful to those diplomats who are willing to serve.

Targeted action against terrorists, effective partnerships, diplomatic engagement and assistance -- through such a comprehensive strategy we can significantly reduce the chances of large-scale attacks on the homeland and mitigate threats to Americans overseas. But as we guard against dangers from abroad, we cannot neglect the daunting challenge of terrorism from within our borders.

As I said earlier, this threat is not new. But technology and the Internet increase its frequency and in some cases its lethality. Today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda, and learn how to kill without leaving their home. To address this threat, two years ago my administration did a comprehensive review and engaged with law enforcement.

And the best way to prevent violent extremism inspired by violent jihadists is to work with the Muslim American community -- which has consistently rejected terrorism -- to identify signs of radicalization and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence. And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family. In fact, the success of American Muslims and our determination to guard against any encroachments on their civil liberties is the ultimate rebuke to those who say that we’re at war with Islam.

Thwarting homegrown plots presents particular challenges in part because of our proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call America home. That’s why, in the years to come, we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are. That means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, but also build in privacy protections to prevent abuse.

That means that -- even after Boston -- we do not deport someone or throw somebody in prison in the absence of evidence. That means putting careful constraints on the tools the government uses to protect sensitive information, such as the state secrets doctrine. And that means finally having a strong Privacy and Civil Liberties Board to review those issues where our counterterrorism efforts and our values may come into tension.

The Justice Department’s investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between our security and our open society. As Commander-in-Chief, I believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field. To do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information. But a free press is also essential for our democracy. That’s who we are. And I’m troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable.

Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law. And that’s why I’ve called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government overreach. And I’ve raised these issues with the Attorney General, who shares my concerns. So he has agreed to review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and he’ll convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review. And I’ve directed the Attorney General to report back to me by July 12th.

Now, all these issues remind us that the choices we make about war can impact -- in sometimes unintended ways -- the openness and freedom on which our way of life depends. And that is why I intend to engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorism without keeping America on a perpetual wartime footing.

The AUMF is now nearly 12 years old. The Afghan war is coming to an end. Core al Qaeda is a shell of its former self. Groups like AQAP must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States. Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states.

So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.

And that brings me to my final topic: the detention of terrorist suspects. I’m going to repeat one more time: As a matter of policy, the preference of the United States is to capture terrorist suspects. When we do detain a suspect, we interrogate them. And if the suspect can be prosecuted, we decide whether to try him in a civilian court or a military commission.

During the past decade, the vast majority of those detained by our military were captured on the battlefield. In Iraq, we turned over thousands of prisoners as we ended the war. In Afghanistan, we have transitioned detention facilities to the Afghans, as part of the process of restoring Afghan sovereignty. So we bring law of war detention to an end, and we are committed to prosecuting terrorists wherever we can.

The glaring exception to this time-tested approach is the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. The original premise for opening GTMO -- that detainees would not be able to challenge their detention -- was found unconstitutional five years ago. In the meantime, GTMO has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law. Our allies won’t cooperate with us if they think a terrorist will end up at GTMO.

During a time of budget cuts, we spend $150 million each year to imprison 166 people -- almost $1 million per prisoner. And the Department of Defense estimates that we must spend another $200 million to keep GTMO open at a time when we’re cutting investments in education and research here at home, and when the Pentagon is struggling with sequester and budget cuts.

As President, I have tried to close GTMO. I transferred 67 detainees to other countries before Congress imposed restrictions to effectively prevent us from either transferring detainees to other countries or imprisoning them here in the United States.

These restrictions make no sense. After all, under President Bush, some 530 detainees were transferred from GTMO with Congress’s support. When I ran for President the first time, John McCain supported closing GTMO -- this was a bipartisan issue. No person has ever escaped one of our super-max or military prisons here in the United States -- ever. Our courts have convicted hundreds of people for terrorism or terrorism-related offenses, including some folks who are more dangerous than most GTMO detainees. They're in our prisons.

And given my administration’s relentless pursuit of al Qaeda’s leadership, there is no justification beyond politics for Congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should have never have been opened. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Excuse me, President Obama --

THE PRESIDENT: So -- let me finish, ma'am. So today, once again --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: There are 102 people on a hunger strike. These are desperate people.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm about to address it, ma'am, but you've got to let me speak. I'm about to address it.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: You're our Commander-In-Chief --

THE PRESIDENT: Let me address it.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: -- you an close Guantanamo Bay.

THE PRESIDENT: Why don’t you let me address it, ma'am.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: There’s still prisoners --

THE PRESIDENT: Why don’t you sit down and I will tell you exactly what I'm going to do.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: That includes 57 Yemenis.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. (Applause.) Ma'am, thank you. You should let me finish my sentence.

Today, I once again call on Congress to lift the restrictions on detainee transfers from GTMO. (Applause.)

I have asked the Department of Defense to designate a site in the United States where we can hold military commissions. I’m appointing a new senior envoy at the State Department and Defense Department whose sole responsibility will be to achieve the transfer of detainees to third countries.

I am lifting the moratorium on detainee transfers to Yemen so we can review them on a case-by-case basis. To the greatest extent possible, we will transfer detainees who have been cleared to go to other countries.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: -- prisoners already. Release them today.

THE PRESIDENT: Where appropriate, we will bring terrorists to justice in our courts and our military justice system. And we will insist that judicial review be available for every detainee.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: It needs to be --

THE PRESIDENT: Now, ma'am, let me finish. Let me finish, ma'am. Part of free speech is you being able to speak, but also, you listening and me being able to speak. (Applause.)

Now, even after we take these steps one issue will remain -- just how to deal with those GTMO detainees who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks but who cannot be prosecuted, for example, because the evidence against them has been compromised or is inadmissible in a court of law. But once we commit to a process of closing GTMO, I am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved, consistent with our commitment to the rule of law.

I know the politics are hard. But history will cast a harsh judgment on this aspect of our fight against terrorism and those of us who fail to end it. Imagine a future -- 10 years from now or 20 years from now -- when the United States of America is still holding people who have been charged with no crime on a piece of land that is not part of our country. Look at the current situation, where we are force-feeding detainees who are being held on a hunger strike. I'm willing to cut the young lady who interrupted me some slack because it's worth being passionate about. Is this who we are? Is that something our Founders foresaw? Is that the America we want to leave our children? Our sense of justice is stronger than that.

We have prosecuted scores of terrorists in our courts. That includes Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up an airplane over Detroit; and Faisal Shahzad, who put a car bomb in Times Square. It's in a court of law that we will try Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is accused of bombing the Boston Marathon. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, is, as we speak, serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison here in the United States. In sentencing Reid, Judge William Young told him, “The way we treat you…is the measure of our own liberties.”

AUDIENCE MEMBER: How about Abdulmutallab -- locking up a 16-year-old -- is that the way we treat a 16-year old? (Inaudible) -- can you take the drones out of the hands of the CIA? Can you stop the signature strikes killing people on the basis of suspicious activities?

THE PRESIDENT: We’re addressing that, ma’am.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: -- thousands of Muslims that got killed -- will you compensate the innocent families -- that will make us safer here at home. I love my country. I love (inaudible) --

THE PRESIDENT: I think that -- and I’m going off script, as you might expect here. (Laughter and applause.) The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to. (Applause.) Obviously, I do not agree with much of what she said, and obviously she wasn’t listening to me in much of what I said. But these are tough issues, and the suggestion that we can gloss over them is wrong.

When that judge sentenced Mr. Reid, the shoe bomber, he went on to point to the American flag that flew in the courtroom. “That flag,” he said, “will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag still stands for freedom.”

So, America, we’ve faced down dangers far greater than al Qaeda. By staying true to the values of our founding, and by using our constitutional compass, we have overcome slavery and Civil War and fascism and communism. In just these last few years as President, I’ve watched the American people bounce back from painful recession, mass shootings, natural disasters like the recent tornados that devastated Oklahoma. These events were heartbreaking; they shook our communities to the core. But because of the resilience of the American people, these events could not come close to breaking us.

I think of Lauren Manning, the 9/11 survivor who had severe burns over 80 percent of her body, who said, “That’s my reality. I put a Band-Aid on it, literally, and I move on.”

I think of the New Yorkers who filled Times Square the day after an attempted car bomb as if nothing had happened.

I think of the proud Pakistani parents who, after their daughter was invited to the White House, wrote to us, “We have raised an American Muslim daughter to dream big and never give up because it does pay off.”

I think of all the wounded warriors rebuilding their lives, and helping other vets to find jobs.

I think of the runner planning to do the 2014 Boston Marathon, who said, “Next year, you’re going to have more people than ever. Determination is not something to be messed with.”

That’s who the American people are -- determined, and not to be messed with. And now we need a strategy and a politics that reflects this resilient spirit.

Our victory against terrorism won’t be measured in a surrender ceremony at a battleship, or a statue being pulled to the ground. Victory will be measured in parents taking their kids to school; immigrants coming to our shores; fans taking in a ballgame; a veteran starting a business; a bustling city street; a citizen shouting her concerns at a President.

The quiet determination; that strength of character and bond of fellowship; that refutation of fear -- that is both our sword and our shield. And long after the current messengers of hate have faded from the world’s memory, alongside the brutal despots, and deranged madmen, and ruthless demagogues who litter history -- the flag of the United States will still wave from small-town cemeteries to national monuments, to distant outposts abroad. And that flag will still stand for freedom.

Thank you very, everybody. God bless you. May God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

3:00 P.M. EDT

[Warren Stupidity]

15. well if volume of response were proof you would have a point. nt.

[littlemissmartypants]

28. Seriously. Thread spam. Can't eat it. eom

[NealK]

113. Roflmao!

I think that I prefer the blue links.

[questionseverything]

16. siting a couple of lines in a speech

where potus acts as if these abuses were in the PAST

<<<<<<<<<<<But some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance that we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

HARDLY COUNTS AS STARTING AN OPEN,HONEST CONVERSATION WITH "WE THE PEOPLE"

since we had no info

raised= past tense

giving the impression it is all taken care of

might of been the least untruthful answer, so there is that

[stevenleser]

17. Right, it's only the President using the biggest bully-pulpit to raise the issues. No big deal.

Keep trying to dismiss it. It only makes your position look worse.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Actually one sentence, and his only concern is surveillence raises "difficult questions" he then

Proceeds to no discuss the problem, the questions, or any effort to change course. You've got nothing.

[Ichingcarpenter]

19. What a bunch of useless spam..... that ignores the point

in that post.




my post documents that the word 'conversation' first came in December

tom tomorrow knows his facts

[questionseverything]

21. reading the whole speech is kinda scarey

especially after the recent article about the nsa spying on the Muslim attorneys


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<. In fact, the success of American Muslims and our determination to guard against any encroachments on their civil liberties is the ultimate rebuke to those who say that we’re at war with Islam. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[saidsimplesimon]

73. Just a question, why do we need to defend the religious beliefs of any

American. It's written into law. There are a few nut jobs hiding behind the religious mask. Freedom of religion is not a protection from the "rule of law". "Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's (taxes, laws).

[questionseverything]

23. or this line

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<. That means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, but also build in privacy protections to prevent abuse. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

considering what we know now about how the nsa gives the dea tips and then does a "parallel construction of evidence"

considering how nsa directors have described the "haystack" (we are the hay)

reading the speech over with what we know NOW.....is really chilling

[stevenleser]

20. LMAO. Multiple sentences. Your denial is hilarious. nt

[LiberalLovinLug]

26. And your attempted Red Herring

is laughable

[stevenleser]

37. Yes, those facts that completely discredit the argument are so inconvenient!!

[truebrit71]

77. Especially when they don't...

[LiberalLovinLug]

94. Discredit WHAT exactly?

If you could stop your insane rolling on the floor laughing for one second, and try and pay attention, I'll explain what your red herring is.

You targeted one sentence in one speech covering a lot of territory where Obama mentions very briefly, questions raised of balance between privacy and security. His very next statement is "And in some cases, I believe we compromised our basic values -- by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law."

It seems that he wasn't interested in including mass citizen surveillance as one example of where the government "compromised our basic values". Maybe because that fact was still being lied about at the time.

You know perfectly well that the conversation did NOT even begin until Clapper was forced to admit he lied to congress about mass spying. Snowden forced the issue. Do you actually equate that one sentence in that one speech to a university crowd, and nothing after as he sat on the truth about NSA's abuses, and give it as much weight to opening up the conversation as Snowden's revelations did? Yes that is laughable.

And your Red Herring is simply you raising a stink and starting a flame about this one small fact of whether Obama ever mentioned even once, this topic, and that one fact, if you are proven correct, you imply must totally negate Tom's whole premise of his cartoon, and all the other angles that the other boxes in the toon talk about.

And what is truly hilarious is you are attempting by this Red Herring to deflect the a conversation away from the REAL and larger issue of NSA overreach the very thing you are highlighting in Obama's speech!

[Caretha]

109. What is in it for you?

Seriously

NSA spying on Americans is wrong. There is no ...if ...and... or but about it. There is no defense, it matters not if you write or quote a million words or letters.

I really don't get your agenda...

Can you please spell out your agenda in 500 words or less?

[NealK]

114. +1

[zeemike]

25. It did not sound like he raised any issues to me.

It sounded more like he dismissed them.

[Warren Stupidity]

59. yes but there were a LOT of lines. I'm sure somebody can produce something

that one can squint at and say "there!". Oh wait, somebody has.

[rhett o rick]

71. Can you spell rhettorick er rhetoric ??

[Rex]

80. Those great Foxnews debate skills on display.

Shhhh...nobody tell him he got pwned.

[A Simple Game]

24. Good for you for showing us that the President wanted to act a full six months

before the detractors accuse him of pretending to act!!!

So given that he has had all of that extra time, what has he done to fix the problem?

Oh, and congratulations on a post Prosense would be proud of. What was the word count you turned in?

[questionseverything]

27. to be clear

lessor's example is 2 weeks before the first snowden article

ichy's example is 6 months after

[Ichingcarpenter]

33. ''Obama mentioned wanting to have the conversation''

Nowhere in that speech did he say conversation

[questionseverything]

38. i agree with you completely

lessor's example was 2 weeks before the first snowden article but from my re reading of it potus acts like the "abuses= illegal activity", were in the past...which was completely untrue

you have correctly identified the speech were "conversation" is mentioned, 6 months after the snowden revelations began

[A Simple Game]

44. Yes... thus my saying in my title line,

Good for you for showing us that the President wanted to act a full six months

I did add the bold.

I assume my six months is equal to your 6 months.

So perhaps you can tell us what progress President Obama has made with the domestic spying problem because of that extra six (6) months? Executive orders made, heads rolled, etc.

Say, as long as we are having a conversation, you don't know what happened to Prosense do you?

[questionseverything]

51. you said six months BEFORE

ichy clearly shows it is six months after that "conversation" is inserted

sadly what potus has done since the snowden revelations began in june 2013 seems to be to double down by having doj defend doj lying to the sc


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/17/government-lies-nsa-justice-department-supreme-court

as far as pro goes.....she ( i always think of her as a she,don't know why) could still be here posting on a different persona or on multiply personas....i am not accusing her just saying it is possible

we learned about programs able to run multiple personas to influence discussion boards in the straford dumps

[A Simple Game]

55. The poster said the President mentioned a problem in late May of 2013 which is

six months, or seven depending upon exact dates, before December of 2013 when he is accused of first mentioning a "conversation".

I think we are on the same side here but we just aren't understanding each other well enough.

As for Prosense, I think anything is possible. Personally I think her word count was sufficient to allow her, and she does claim to be female, to retire to her personal Caribbean island.

[questionseverything]

63. yes i think we are on same side

both not being exactly clear

trying to be crystal clear,,,i stand on the side of the 4th amendment and defending the Constitution

[A Simple Game]

84. That's the left side isn't it? Oh yeah, I can see you not too far from me. n/t

[RufusTFirefly]

45. WWPSD?

Mebbe so. But only two blue links.
I find that troubling.

PS would've done better.

[A Simple Game]

46. Good point but baby steps first, you have to start somewhere. n/t

[Marr]

42. Squirt.

[Enthusiast]

61. ...

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Hassin Bin Sober]

76. .

[Rex]

81. That is actually more effective than using Foxnews debate skills.

Let us see if he triples down now!

[woo me with science]

93. Perfectly summarized. :) nt

[neverforget]

103. Hahahaha!

[NealK]

115. Rofl!

[pa28]

120. Dictionary definition of squid ink.

[JackRiddler]

49. Such impressive boilerplate...

posted by a volunteer worker for the FOXNEWS network!

[grasswire]

53. distraction, denial, disruption with picky detail

every freaking thread, it goes on.

[Rex]

82. Foxnews would be proud.

At least 99% of us see the BS for what it is.

[frylock]

75. cool story, bro

[ljm2002]

97. Nope...

...not a single word about a national CONVERSATION in that transcript.

Oh yes, there are some pretty words about us being at a crossroads and compromising core values. And yes, there are pretty words about these issues being a concern for "all Americans". But nowhere was there any invitation for "all Americans" to be part of any "national conversation".

Nope. Any conversations he has, he'll be having with Congress. At best.

BTW you forgot to bold another passage:

But a free press is also essential for our democracy. That’s who we are. And I’m troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable.

Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs.

Now surely you are aware of how aggressive this administration has been towards investigative journalists.

As another aside, posting a full transcript, most of which is irrelevant to your or anyone else's point, and which takes up 10 screens or so, is just rude.

[NealK]

117. "Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs."

What a hypocrite and a bullshitter.

[NealK]

116. Bah! HumBog!

[uponit7771]

127. Facts SUCK!!! / sarcasm <---- cause that's needed around here these days

[sabrina 1]

47. Why did he keep Bush loyalist and appointee, Clapper in place at the NSA? Not to mention former

CEO of Booz Allen to whom he is able to continue to funnel huge contracts for 'our security', a glaring conflict of interest?

Do you know? Are there no Democrats who could have filled that position and BEGUN the necessary reforms we KNEW WERE NEEDED six years ago?

[rhett o rick]

86. Now to be fair, I don't think he has a choice. I believe that Gen Clapper has a "higher paygrade"

to steal a line from Scandal where the head of B613 out-ranks the President.

During the Bush/Cheney years, the NSA/CIA were given and unlimited budget and carte blanche to do what was "needed" to keep us safe. I think they took advantage of that and built a Security State (heretofore to be known as the SS) that the president can't touch.

[JDPriestly]

123. The security state existed long before even Cheney and

Bush. Cheney dates back to the Nixon administration, but the security state dates back at least to the Eisenhower administration, maybe the Truman administration. The excuse for the disregard for the Constitution, the secrecy, the cheating, the lying and the hypocrisy has changed since the Iron Curtain fell, but the excuse of Communism has been replaced by the excuse of terrorism.

Both Communism and terrorism are real threats. But they do not excuse the increasingly intrusive security state.

[rhett o rick]

125. I don't disagree but believe the power of the SS was greatly increased with 9/11 as the justificatio

justification.

[JDPriestly]

118. Has Obama ever admitted that they are collecting more than

just metadata?

Let's see. Obama did not know the NSA was tapping Angela Merkel's cell phone.
Obama did not know we had spies inside the German defense ministry and intelligence agency.

Have you read Greenwald's book? Because Snowden was already trying to get Greenwald to cooperate in outing the NSA well before two weeks before the rest of us got the news.

I have no doubt that the NSA knew early on that there was a leak. The Washington Post had some of the information before it was made public.

Stephen, I know that you are a news reporter. Therefore, if you have not read it, I recommend that you read Greenwald's book. It's information that a reporter should have before commenting on the situation. Excuse me if you already have read it.

[NealK]

121. Speaking of metadata:

William Binney is one of the highest-level whistleblowers to ever emerge from the NSA. He was a leading code-breaker against the Soviet Union during the Cold War but resigned soon after September 11, disgusted by Washington’s move towards mass surveillance.

“At least 80% of fibre-optic cables globally go via the US”, Binney said. “This is no accident and allows the US to view all communication coming in. At least 80% of all audio calls, not just metadata, are recorded and stored in the US. The NSA lies about what it stores.”

The NSA will soon be able to collect 966 exabytes a year, the total of internet traffic annually.

...

With evidence that there could be a second NSA leaker, the time for more aggressive reporting is now. As Binney said: “I call people who are covering up NSA crimes traitors”.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/11/the-ultimate-goal-of-the-nsa-is-total-population-control

[WillyT]

5. Absolutely Perfect !!! - K & R !!!

[Warren Stupidity]

7. DU wreck and appreciation comment for our establishment members!

Last edited Mon Jul 14, 2014, 02:00 PM - Edit history (1)

You know who you are! This toon's for you! Stand up and take a bow, you've earned it!

[theaocp]

8. Damn, the truth hurts.

When you get spied on, don't cry about it. Just clap louder. Louder! I can't hear you!

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Glenn Greenwald is the most dangerous person alive today

I wish Tom Tomorrow would do cartoons about that instead of this nonsense.

Regards,

TWM

[lame54]

13. Should we drone him?

[zeemike]

29. You are asking Third Way Manny that question?

Of course we should drone him...he has damaged the brand.

[littlemissmartypants]

30. There is already enough droning in this thread. eom

[Aerows]

35. DUzy!

[Enthusiast]

36. At the very least.

[MannyGoldstein]

54. Won't work: He's a zombie vampire Libertarian.

We'll need to drive a stake made of Social Security checks through his "heart", while his eyes are forced open to stare at a recording of FDR reciting his Second Bill of Rights.

[Enthusiast]

64. I hate zombie vampire Libertarians. They're a lot like Illinois Nazis.

[MannyGoldstein]

66. Greenwald and Snowden vs. Freedom and Liberty

[Enthusiast]

67. That stuff is only possible when you're on a mission from God.

That and cop brakes.

[MannyGoldstein]

69. !!!

[rhett o rick]

72. I just alerted. You are not allowed to use two different personalities in one thread.

It makes me confused.

[MannyGoldstein]

90. Good point!

I can understand that some of Manny's personalities are disappointed that progress isn't as rapid as we'd all like to see, but there is definitely progress. I know people who are no longer making minimum wage, which is a good thing, some as much as $9 per hour! And the convenience store is increasing my hours. Soon I'll have 20 hours a week! The other people here won't have so many hours like I do, because they don't have master's degrees. This shows the value of an education.

We are also making progress on spying, for Manny's information. We're not there yet, but I'm confident that soon we'll have cameras in every room of every house, so our children can be safe from terra. God bless General Clapper, and God Bless our country.

Regards,

Government-created-persona Manny

[whatchamacallit]

12. TT FTW! n/t

[Babel_17]

22. Well, the "reality" is shifting

Thanks to Tom Tomorrow, and many others, the reality is heading towards being that Snowden did us a favor. I expect we'll see the conversation amongst the political class continue to shift.

Very few will drastically alter their viewpoints. But "the midfield" will move to "Well, Snowden should have handled it better". And it will eventually move even more towards favoring Snowden.

What can be done against Snowden has been largely done. The hits against the NSA keep coming. Those who stood by its dissembling are chagrined by the continuing revelations and are unlikely to double down.

[SwankyXomb]

50. I'm sure the NSA apologists and paid Snowden haters

will be along shortly to attack you with their blue links and five figure post counts.

[Bobbie Jo]

68. "paid Snowden haters"

Good gawd, people.

[NealK]

119. I agree.

Paid propagandists and/or fanatics is more accurate.

[littlemissmartypants]

31. I like the pretty colors. eom

[SixString]

32. DU Rec.

[G_j]

34. naughty cartoonist

keeps hitting homeruns...

[Enthusiast]

40. "Er, I mean, I welcome this debate."

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL] [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[stevenleser]

41. It's even more funny when you factor in that it's wrong! LMAO!

[Marr]

43. Your claim is untrue, and was disproved in this very thread.

Repeating it again makes me question your interest in honest discussion.

[KurtNYC]

48. actual quote: ""I welcome this debate and I think it's healthy for our democracy," -6/7/13

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/obama-nsa_n_3403389.html

[Ichingcarpenter]

57. Two Days After the Guardian wrote the Article on Snowden

Timeline of Edward Snowden's revelations


June 5, 2013
Guardian announces leak of classified NSA documents

British daily newspaper The Guardian reveals the leak of classified National Security Agency (NSA) documents, beginning with an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) requiring Verizon to hand over metadata from millions of Americans' phone calls to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the NSA.



http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/multimedia/timeline-edward-snowden-revelations.html



Obama says "I welcome this debate and I think it's healthy for our democracy," -6/7/13

[tkmorris]

60. You know the saddest part?

I am starting to be convinced that you actually believe what you are saying. I despise spin doctors, but at least they have plenty of company. People who steadfastly maintain their belief in the light of incontrovertible evidence against it kind of frighten me.

[LondonReign2]

85. Perfect description in this case

True Believer vehemently crusading

[Caretha]

110. You are totally right

they are more scary than the deep south's belief "all people of color are incapable of learning to read or write".

Can you believe that was really someone's mindset less than 100 years ago. And here we have to face that same ignorance & blindness today on Democratic Underground from supposedly a Democrat & expert.

[samsingh]

52. kick

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. Dear Prez: Covering your ass doesn't equal "debate".

[grasswire]

58. fearless cartoonist shoots and scores

I think I'll have to frame this one.

[Enthusiast]

65. It's frame worthy.

[pa28]

62. And now it looks like we have another whistleblower out there.

I'll bet he's got boxes in his garage and broke up with his girlfriend in a mean way too . . .

[grasswire]

70. now you've done it

Any mention of boxes and GF is now being heavily hoo-hawed by the horde of NSA defenders.

Ohoh. I said NSA defenders. They'll be on that one, too.

It's exhausting, like trying to fight through a blackberry thicket or a swarm of mosquitoes.

[riderinthestorm]

91. Now that I know how much it irritates them to bring up the old smears of boxes and pole dancer

As evidenced by their strident belligerent denials. ..

.... means I'm going to use it even more!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

74. I don't know ANY Liberals who support a surveillance state....

I know a LOT of Right Wingers that did when THEY ran it.

[truebrit71]

79. Plenty of people that post on this board who claim to be liberals do...

...some in this very thread i'd wager...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

98. We could do the "No true Scotsman" thing.

[Skittles]

89. I don't know about SUPPORTING it

but plenty of DUers think Snowden is garbage solely because he embarrassed their hero

[Spitfire of ATJ]

95. Those idiots act like Obama INVENTED the NSA.

[Skittles]

96. they're not known for their critical thinking skills

THAT'S for sure

[Spitfire of ATJ]

100. I'm old enough to remember when the Trilateral Commission was called a "conspiracy theory"....

Now you can go to their website.

Lots of people who CLAIM to be long term libs voted for Reagan,....TWICE.

[Caretha]

111. I wish I was

as eloquent as you and others when putting down this NSA BS.

Just Don't Stop...please.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

112. You must have missed the stool for kilts.

[rhett o rick]

78. Those that are being critical of the President are not being fair. If you watch the Netflix

series Scandal (which we know is based on real life (isn't all TV)), then you'd know about B613 and that they out-rank the President. The real version of B613 was probably created in the frenzy of the 9/11 aftermath*. The Oligarchs didn't trust the country to either Goofy or Dr. Evil, so B613 was created. And when Pres Obama took office, B613 told him not to mess with the carefully crafted Security State (SS). Sorry, I can't reveal any more or the NSA will get me or worse, the DU CT Posse will hide my post.

*Some real conspiracy nuts (as compared to some of us "just drifty" conspiracy nuts) believe B613 existed long before 9/11 and in fact were responsible for the Bush appointment in 2000 (see it wasn't Ralph Nader). But I think that theory is nuts (not that there is anything wrong with that).

[Rex]

83. Yeah I see that made some Foxnews heads explode.

[rhett o rick]

87. Spoiler - Nadin wanted me to pass along that Germany wins the World Cup.

I guess she is feeling safe saying such, seeing she's in "time-out".

For those that need an explanation, I am not mocking Nadin. Maybe mocking her detractors.

[countryjake]

88. K&R!

very naughty!

[WillyT]

92. The Point To Me Is... Obama Shouldn't Have Waited Until Two Weeks Before Snowden's Revelations...

He shouldn't have waited until his second term...

He SHOULD have started this "conversation"... out loud, and in public...

Early in his FIRST term !!!

Hell... if he had, it's possible that Snowden would still be working in Hawaii.

President Obama campaigned on transparency in 2008...

[JEB]

104. Exactly correct!

[uponit7771]

128. REALLY?! So the OP is fos and the come back is Obama's timeliness?! Come on people the hateraide

... jar is getting empty... just a corner left no?

[smirkymonkey]

99. Awesome! He nails it everytime!

[BillZBubb]

101. Good one! nt

[Uncle Joe]

102. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Hissyspit.

[hueymahl]

105. One Fucking Million Recs

Tom Tomorrow, you are my hero.

[DeSwiss]

107. Ummm-huh!

[NealK]

122. K&R

Thanks, Hissyspit.

[carolinayellowdog]

124. this thread reveals that the authoritarian circle jerkers are not a majority

after all. Last week with the boggy mutual admiration society antics, it was looking very grim.

[truth2power]

126. Thank you, Hissyspit. Judging by many of the posts in this thread,

it appears that the smear brigade is finally losing some credibility around here.

It's about time.

[Zorra]

129. Perfect. Bullseye. nt

[woo me with science]

130. kick!

[m-lekktor]

131. that Kerry panel is KILLING ME!

lol

[woo me with science]

132. kick