Something still wrong in the WH

It has long been axiomatic that for a president to argue that he is, for instance, not a crook by directly asserting that he is not a crook is a surefire method of reinforcing suspicions, legitimate or not, that he is a crook. So why President Obama, appearing on "Charlie Rose," would argue that he is not a Cheneyite by even loosely asserting that he is not a Cheneyite is an axiomatic puzzler. Yet this is the strain of political advice he's receiving. 

As noted, there is something wrong at the White House. Something is just off, and has been for months. The above was a veteran's rookie mistake, first committed in the fifth year of a troubled presidency; the below was yet another invitation to easy ridicule--the absurd straw man:

"To say there’s a tradeoff doesn’t mean somehow that we’ve abandoned freedom," Obama said.

Of course it doesn't mean that. By definition a tradeoff cannot mean the adoption of one (security) for the abandonment of another (freedom).

There was more.

I think it’s fair to say that [there are] going to be folks on the left, and what amuses me is now folks on the right who are fine when there’s a Republican president, but now, Obama’s coming in with the black helicopters.

This cleared not a square inch of air. Indeed it underscored that likewise there are folks on the left who are fine when there's a Democratic president executing tactics they would have once denounced with stentorian fury as authoritarian if not borderline fascistic. In fact, they did.

No one wants to see Obama succeed more than I. But he won't, in repeating amateurish mistakes and playing word games. I can't tell him that. Collectively, you can. 

Comments

[Peter G]

Who's he speaking to? Certainly not the loonies on either the left or the right who imagine that an organization the size of the NSA can spy on millions of Americans. It can't. I don't see this as being particularly harmful or a real mistake. Obama is ultimately the repository for such trust as still exists in the administration and I see nothing wrong in him explaining that loonies are loonies. As far as loonies go, nothing ever clears the air.

[JTL]

I think that brushing people off as "loonies" is too easy. As is saying that there will always be those on both sides who disagree. I'm put in mind of all those "loonies" who objected to the war in Iraq. They were marginalized in a similar way remember.

I'm not comparing their arguments. Just observing that the right answer isn't always the one in the rhetorical "middle." Sometimes one of the sides can actually be right.

[JTL]

I should add that I also hate the rhetorical games that the President is playing. Hiding behind the fact that there's a court who approves (rubber stamps) these efforts. And implying that "plots" have been foiled when there's minimal evidence that this is the case. It reminds of the crap that the GWB crowd pulled and I don't like it one bit.

I think I understand the politics of it, however. Many of those objecting to what's happening would be cowering under the covers asking why the government didn't protect them if we were attacked again. No one wants to be the person to stop these programs for fear of being blamed for the next attack. It takes a brave person to do this and, while his campaign rhetoric suggests that boldness, the President's actions rarely match up. Don't get me wrong, I think he has achieved a LOT, but rarely through boldness. It's not his way.

I've always had a fear that a Democratic President would be brought down, or at least terminally tarnished, by continuing actions that began under GWB. It would be sadly ironic if that happened.

[Peter G]

Well JTL you made my case with your second post. It wouldn't really matter what checks and balances were in place would it? The court would be a rubber stamp and the government's intent clearly malicious regardless of what system was in place. So. Ya. Loonies.

[Chris Andersen]

My problem has never been with the gathering of information or the analysis thereof. My problem has always been with the excessively levels of secrecy around these programs. The argument seems to be that this secrecy is necessary to protect them from those we are trying to catch, but this argument is flimsy at best.

But what does result from all this secrecy is a growing level of paranoia on the part of the American people about just what these programs are doing. If they weren't so secret (at least on the question of their very existence), then maybe people wouldn't be so quick to assume that the most inflammatory headlines about it might just be true.

In other words, the administration is sowing the the very ground that is creating this problem by continuing to defend the secrecy around it.

Free Ron Wyden!

[japa21]

Chris, actually, the data mining has not been secret. It was very publicly announced when it was started in 2007. The reason was to show that, unlike earlier, warrants were being sought, rather than warrantless searched and wiretapping taking place.

It also was in the news in 2009, when the DOJ investigated the program, discovered some abuses going on and the administration tightened up a lot of the rules and checks and balances. This was also in the news.

As far as the FISA court issuing warrants in secret, that is no big deal. Most warrants are issued in secret, behind closed doors. There are very obvious reasons for that.

Also, the claims FISA is a rubber stamp court is debateable. I would like to know how many normal requests for warrants sought by local police are refused. My guess would be that it isn't many. So are all judges rubber stampers.

[Peter G]

Bit of a paradox there Chris. There's paranoia even when there is no there there. And so people believe in Chemtrails and FEMA camps. They believe HARRP controls the weather and there are Alien corpses at Groom Lake. It really wouldn't matter what was revealed or kept secret about what the NSA does. Historically their mission was interception and decryption of foreign communications with heavy emphasis on decryption. That wouldn't prevent people from believing an organization the size of NSA is physically capable of spying on millions of people when a few moments reflection would reveal that is not possible. It wouldn't stop them from believing a program with a budget of twenty million bucks is capable of that depth of intrusion. If it were so the NSA would be the best bargain in intelligence gathering ever.