• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NSA denies Obama knew of spying on German leader

In my long time of experiences all these different administrations, this kind of thing sort of sounds like LBJ and Vietnam. LBJ only wanted to hear good news, so his cronies filtered out all the bad news before briefing him. He really believed the U.S. was winning the war in a big way. Reagan liked to delegate, he would say he wanted this or that done and leave it up to his cronies how to do it. Iran'Contra became a big thing in Reagan's second term. But after he fessed up, Reagan fired people.

It may be time for Obama to do the same, if he isn't getting the info he needs, it is time for heads to roll. I may or may not agree with what he does or what he has his agencies do, but I sure a heck want the president to know.

It could be that they know he doesn't want to hear bad news. Well guess what--most people feel that way, but we know life isn't always strawberries and champagne! Unfortunately for him, bad news sometimes goes with the job he's got! :wow:
 
It could be that they know he doesn't want to hear bad news. Well guess what--most people feel that way, but we know life isn't always strawberries and champagne! Unfortunately for him, bad news sometimes goes with the job he's got! :wow:

That is my thinking also.
 
Seems that would apply to W also....who apparently initiated the program....and conducted from the WH...at least if you are going full w-a, you might as well go all the way.

So when was Bush asked about it by the press?
 
So when was Bush asked about it by the press?
Uh....duh...right after Snowden released the data. /sarcasm.

I noticed you still haven't mentioned what your stance was on the Snowden releases.
 
Uh....duh...right after Snowden released the data. /sarcasm.

I noticed you still haven't mentioned what your stance was on the Snowden releases.

I don't keep up with what he does, so I have no idea what he released.
 
I do not comment on things I'm not interested in, or know nothing about... In this case, both apply.
If you decide to come into a thread, you ought to have SOME background.

This is directly related to the Snowden releases. Merkel, apparently did not know that this Bush era surveillance happened until the Snowden documents were released.

Come back when you have a modicum of knowledge on the topic.
 
I really do not know what to make of this. But I do think it is probably worse if the president didn't know than if he did. By not knowing he is letting our security agencies run amok without the proper guidance. If General Alexander didn't tell the president and kept him in the dark, especially when targeting leaders of allies, then he should be fired. I would be more comfortable with the president knowing and having authorized it. This kind of stuff has been going on for a long, long time and goes back all the way to WWII with our spying and way before that with countries like the British and Germany spying on us. This spying crosses party lines and presidents try to cover it up if caught. Even Eisenhower tried to cover up spying on Russia with the U-2 crash with Gary Powers. But IKE owned up, he hand a handle on what his agencies were doing, I wonder now if President Obama does.
Agree.
In my book what was worse is confiscating the working documents of a reporter who reported things on DHS along with her sources names by DHS who went looking for her husband's potato gun. That in my opinion is a violation of the 4th Amendment of unwarranted search and seizures. the warrant issued was on her husband for a firearm. Nothing was in there for papers belonging to her or anything dealing with her. It does seem to me that quite a lot of our agencies are no more responsible to our elected leaders anymore. They do what they to whom they want. It is time to fire some heads of these departments/agencies and bring them back under control.
Also agree.

It'd be pretty amazing if Obama didn't know about the spying. But he seems to know everything and nothing.
 

The deaths, lies and coverups by Obama/Clinton on Benghazi are funny?
Of course they are for you.
Keep laugh'in.
 
Agree.

Also agree.

It'd be pretty amazing if Obama didn't know about the spying. But he seems to know everything and nothing.

what is more amazing is if all this unwarranted power is used against the citizens of this country by their political party it is okay. But if the other political party does it, then it is time to holler, scream, rant, rave and call names. I think at times we Americans forget we are Americans and that our liberties and freedoms are precious things. It has become more important to be Republicans and Democrats than Americans especially when it comes to protecting our rights and freedoms. As long as it is my party doing away and abridging those rights and is in power, that is perfectly okay. That is very dangerous.
 
I spent several hours listening to German radio, and one commentator summed it up well... it was bad news that he knew, probably worse that he didn't know.

I howled.

You know... I don't recall Bush getting any passes because he didn't know. Abu Graib comes to mind... and unlike Benghazi... nobody died at Abu Graib.

I'd lay down pretty good bets that Obama won't be giving any more speeches in Berlin.

Any one remember Hogan's Heros... "I know nothinnnggg"
 
I spent several hours listening to German radio, and one commentator summed it up well... it was bad news that he knew, probably worse that he didn't know.

I howled.

You know... I don't recall Bush getting any passes because he didn't know. Abu Graib comes to mind... and unlike Benghazi... nobody died at Abu Graib.

I'd lay down pretty good bets that Obama won't be giving any more speeches in Berlin.

Just add this to the extensive list of things President Obama doesn't know...or at least claims not to know. Anyone else tired of the "I didn't know", or "I learned about it on the news" defense? It would seem this excuse can only be used so many times before it loses its credibility. At this point I would prefer, "I knew about x but [I don't care] [I'm not going to do anything about it] [I was trying to keep it a secret] [it was intentional]."
 
That is my thinking also.

I doubt it has to do with him not knowing......from post #6.

First, who would bug the head of government of a US ally without having the highest possible level of authorization? That would tend to be a career-ender if it got exposed, especially in the manner in which it did get exposed. Say, has anyone been fired for it? Er … not so far.

Second, who exactly would be the customer of this data, once collected? Here’s a hint: It’s not going to be the undersecretary of agricultural development at the USDA. The only reason to surveil Angela Merkel is to provide real-time intelligence to the highest level of government about the intentions of the German Chancellor. Furthermore, that intelligence would have to be specified as to its source for the policymaker to validate it for its consideration. If that policymaker is not Barack Obama, then perhaps we should be asking who exactly is making decisions at the top level of government.....snip~
 
I doubt it has to do with him not knowing......from post #6.

First, who would bug the head of government of a US ally without having the highest possible level of authorization? That would tend to be a career-ender if it got exposed, especially in the manner in which it did get exposed. Say, has anyone been fired for it? Er … not so far.

Second, who exactly would be the customer of this data, once collected? Here’s a hint: It’s not going to be the undersecretary of agricultural development at the USDA. The only reason to surveil Angela Merkel is to provide real-time intelligence to the highest level of government about the intentions of the German Chancellor. Furthermore, that intelligence would have to be specified as to its source for the policymaker to validate it for its consideration. If that policymaker is not Barack Obama, then perhaps we should be asking who exactly is making decisions at the top level of government.....snip~

yep, makes good sense to me.
 
I spent several hours listening to German radio, and one commentator summed it up well... it was bad news that he knew, probably worse that he didn't know.

I howled.

You know... I don't recall Bush getting any passes because he didn't know. Abu Graib comes to mind... and unlike Benghazi... nobody died at Abu Graib.

I'd lay down pretty good bets that Obama won't be giving any more speeches in Berlin.

I am no admirer of Obama. But he probably could never have imagined a head of government being so careless or lazy as to use an unsecured telephone line for anything beyond trading cookie recipes. I mean, that is so negligent the Chancellor lose her job.
 
It was an unsecured line? In the service I used to have to answer my phone all the time saying "Cpl Mak2, this is an unsecured line..." If it was an unsecured line this is too stupid ot talk aobut
I am no admirer of Obama. But he probably could never have imagined a head of government being so careless or lazy as to use an unsecured telephone line for anything beyond trading cookie recipes. I mean, that is so negligent the Chancellor lose her job.
 
nsa-lawsuit-1.png
 
Back
Top Bottom