Spoken straight from the "DNC" talking points,
4 dead people - no story happens all the time,
targeting the media to make sure they tote the line no big deal so long as you like living in a banana republic nothing to see here,
using the official power of govt to harrass political opposition - would be the norm in Iran - now America under this fascist regime,
spying on the entire country - just like China right!
By the way I have to hand it to Bob Beckle the spokesman of the left on the "FIVE" show on FOX noting the "fascism" of the left you so well illustated here in your "centrist" post.
"What difference" "does it make?"
concerning what our most transparent president in history calls a lot of "hype," evidently generated by the partisans at wapo and the wingnuts at the guardian:
(yahoo above)"That’s not to suggest that you just say ‘trust me, we’re doing the right thing, we know who the bad guys are,'" Obama insisted.
"With respect to my concerns about privacy issues: I will leave this office at some point -- sometime in the next three and a half years -- and after that I'll be a private citizen," he said. "And I suspect that on a list of people who might be targeted so that somebody could read their emails or listen to their phone calls, I’d probably be pretty high on that list. So it's not as though I don't have a personal interest in making sure my privacy is protected."
it's all about him
do you find obama odd?
“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes
at least now that we know what they're doing, we can have a national discussion about whether or not we want that. this stuff goes back to the 90s (Carnivore,) was ramped up exponentially in the 2000s, and has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. now that everyone's team has been a part of it, maybe we can put aside partisan bull**** and take a good look at the program, its results / effectiveness, and whether or not it's constitutional.
edit to add : i don't personally think that it is, and i see no way that it could be.
LOL!Only the faithful right wing rags were running with this so called story
as of may 16:
beast: U.S. Officials Knew Libya Attacks Were Work of Al Qaeda Affiliates - The Daily Beast
cbs: Lt Col Woods says his 16 member team pulled a month before attack - CBS News
the hill: GOP: US Consulate received repeated threats, had requested more security - The Hill's Global Affairs
wapo: White House secret meetings examine al-Qaeda threat in North Africa - The Washington Post
the hill: Report: FBI still not on scene in Benghazi - The Hill's DEFCON Hill
wsj: Militant Link to Libya Attack - WSJ.com
beast: U.S. Consulate in Benghazi Bombed Twice in Run-Up to 9/11 Anniversary - The Daily Beast
wapo: Sensitive documents left behind at U.S. diplomatic post in Libya - The Washington Post
ex: Dems join chorus questioning Obama on attack | WashingtonExaminer
wapo: Panetta says undetermined terrorist group carried out attack on US Consulate in Libya - The Washington Post
abc: Some Administration Officials Were Concerned About Initial White House Push Blaming Benghazi Attack on Mob, Video - ABC News
wsj: Gross Security Failure - WSJ.com
abc: Security Concerns Keep FBI From Scene of Ambassador's Murder, Official Says - ABC News
wapo: From video to terrorist attack: a definitive timeline of administration statements on the Libya attack - The Washington Post
youtube: Tammy Duckworth: Marines Should Have Been in Benghazi - YouTube
beast: Obama's Shaky Libya Narrative - The Daily Beast
cns: Lieberman Calls for Independent Investigation into Libyan Attack | CNS News
cnn: Exclusive: Amb. Chris Stevens worried about al Qaeda hit list – Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs
huffpo: CNN's Use Of Christopher Stevens' Journal Is 'Disgusting': State Dept.
cbs: Why Did The White House Take So Long To Admit Libya Attack Was Terrorism? « CBS
weekly standard: Permanent Spin | The Weekly Standard
wsj: Miscues Before Libya Assault - WSJ
independent: US 'was warned of Libya embassy attack but did nothing' - Independent.ie
fox: Diplomatic, western posts targeted repeatedly in Benghazi in run-up to deadly assault | Fox News
buzzfeed: US Embassy In Cairo Deletes Controversial Tweets
sentinel: Administration Insists Benghazi Attack Not Premeditated | Atlantic Sentinel
independent: Revealed: inside story of US envoy's assassination - World Politics - World - The Independent
atlantic wire: Report: Ambassador Stevens Said He Was on an Al-Qaeda Hit List
cns: Where Was Obama on Night of Benghazi Attack?
cbs, 60 minutes: Obama Says Attacks In Libya And Egypt Are Just "Bumps In The Road" - YouTube
i have dozens more but sixty second clickers aren't really worth anyone's time
ostriches are amusing
so why did the odni under this most transparent president of all time lie to congress?
James Clapper Clarifies Remarks Over NSA Snooping - NationalJournal.comDirector of National Intelligence James Clapper said Thursday that he stood by what he told Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., in March when he said that the National Security Agency does not "wittingly" collect data on millions of Americans.
"What I said was, the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens' e-mails. I stand by that," Clapper told National Journal in a telephone interview.
On March 12, at a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Wyden asked Clapper: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" Clapper responded: "No, sir." When Wyden followed up by asking, "It does not?" Clapper said: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect—but not wittingly."
darn that george bush
Why does anyone seem to think that this is news? What did everyone think was happening when the NSA was building a giant bank of computers? What did people think the warrentless wire-tapping was all about? All you had to do was spend 30 seconds talking to a data-mining expert and you'd get a pretty good idea as to what that much computational power could do and why the NSA might want it. I could have written these stories in 2007. It's not like it would have taken all that much investigation.
But I think the worst part is how few people want to treat this as a trade off between liberty and the threat of terrorism. A terrorist event occurs and everyone panics, demanding that the government stops each and every possible attack. Anyone who wants to have a reasonable discussion is instantly branded as soft on terror. Now people find out what the government was doing (AT THEIR REQUEST) and they instantly get up in arms about it. And anyone who wants to have a reasoned discussion is instantly branded as a fascist.
This is ultimately a choice, how much freedom are you willing to give up for safety. But we won't have that discussion until we mature past the point of demanding 100% freedom and 100% security.
it's because of our stupid "go team" partisanship. when this ramped up in 2002, Republicans on the board i posted on told me i wanted to help the terrorists because i was leery of this kind of stuff. now it has come full circle, and each side pretty much takes the convenient position. i'd rather toss all of that, take a close look at what we're doing, and ask the question do we want to do this, and what should the limits be? that would be a much more fruitful discussion than "oh look, politician X who i hate is in charge, so i hate the NSA. when politician Y who i like is in charge, i love the NSA." does not compute, and it gets us nowhere.