Obama Says He Learns What NSA Is Doing From The Press, Then Goes To NSA For Details

[Purveyor]

By Techdirt
Saturday, September 7, 2013 10:34 ED

Ewan MacAskill calls out a rather astounding statement by President Obama during his most recent press conference in St. Petersburg at the G20 summit. The very last question, which I believe is asked by AFP reporter Tangi Quemener, asks President Obama to respond to some of the recent NSA leaks, in particular the spying on Brazilian and Mexican officials. The President gives the usual long and winding answer about doing what intelligence agencies do, and various costs and benefits, but then there's this:

Now, just more specifically, then, on Brazil and Mexico. I said that I would look into the allegations. I mean, part of the problem here is we get these through the press and then I've got to go back and find out what’s going on with respect to these particular allegations -- I don’t subscribe to all these newspapers, although I think the NSA does -- now at least. (Laughter.)

Leaving aside the "joke" at the end, the admission is rather startling. Here is the President of the US admitting two astounding things. First, it appears that he and the NSA really have no clue at all what information Ed Snowden walked away with, and second (and worse), it appears that the President is admitting that he doesn't know what the NSA is doing and is similarly learning these facts from the press. This comes from the same President who has repeatedly insisted that there is plenty of oversight over these programs. If that's true, then he shouldn't be taken by surprise when the press reveals what the NSA is doing, and shouldn't have to "go back and find out what's going on." He's more or less admitting that there's no oversight and the NSA is a rogue agency making its own rules, only checked on when the press reveals something.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/07/obama-says-he-learns-what-nsa-is-doing-from-the-press-then-goes-to-nsa-for-details/

[jsr]

1. Yeah, Obama didn't know he had restrictions on NSA reversed in 2011

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-had-restrictions-on-nsa-reversed-in-2011/2013/09/07/c26ef658-0fe5-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html
Obama administration had restrictions on NSA reversed in 2011

The Obama administration secretly won permission from a surveillance court in 2011 to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency’s use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans’ communications in its massive databases, according to interviews with government officials and recently declassified material.

[dipsydoodle]

2. Sounds extremely naive at best.

.

[fascisthunter]

3. good gawd

now he's pretending to be irresponsibly stupid.

[Thinkingabout]

5. What about the one asking him the question in the first place, were they being irresponsibly

Stupid?

[cui bono]

20. Why would asking the president a question be irresponsibly stupid? n/t

[Thinkingabout]

24. go and read post 3, the president passed the question as a joke, why was it ask.

[cui bono]

27. I don't think the joke was about the question. The joke was that he doesn't read ALL the papers.

Hence the joke "at the end".

The question was real. The answer was, presumably, real. (One can certainly believe the answer was real since the president said there was no domestic spying when there actually was. So he either didn't know about it or he was lying.) The joke was just the part about not reading all the papers.

How do you get to the conclusion that the question was a joke?

[Thinkingabout]

29. You need some more comprehension in reading responses, go grab you favorite teddy bear andvsee if

You come up with a different conclusion after reading again.

[cui bono]

30. You need some maturity. I purposely remained civil with you, yet you continue with your

usual asshattery.

I read fine. I think you've misunderstood the OP.

My first question to you again, since you never answered (as usual), why is asking the president a (that) question irresponsible stupidity? It's a simple question.

[Thinkingabout]

31. who brought up the irresponsibility stupidity first, go ask them.

[cui bono]

32. Omg... again with your circles. You really have no intention of having a discussion so why are you

posting on a discussion board???

Why on earth would I go ask someone else to clarify what YOU said??? Surely you can understand how ridiculous that is.

You made a post and I asked you to clarify it. If you can't do so then fine, I accept that you don't know what you're talking about.

[Thinkingabout]

33. yes you are ridiculous, can't stand you own medicine, if you dont read the responses then why do you

Jump in and not know what like ad to my responses. It is you who has not followed the conversation, it is up to you to find out what has already been said if you desire to know.

[cui bono]

34. Seriously, just answer one question. Just one time.

Here's a second one, I'm sure you can handle both of them.

Question #2 - what do you mean by my own medicine? What did I do or say that you are calling that? I really asked you one question, that's all. I wanted you to elaborate on your post and clarify it. But you refuse to do so. You are playing your usual game of going in circles by posting nonsensical retorts and insults.

Quetions #1 - AGAIN... Why was asking the president a question irresponsibly stupid? You implied that that is what you believe by posting this:

What about the one asking him the question in the first place, were they being irresponsibly stupid?

If you can't clarify your own post, just say so. No need to go to so much trouble posting all this other gibberish.

[Thinkingabout]

35. Since i ask the question to the poster in #3, I did not receive an answer, this is the reason back

Some post ago I referred you back to Post#3, did you go back and follow? If you went back and read you would have found out I did not get an answer. You have to read to follow the conversation.

[cui bono]

37. Okay, so I'm going to take that as two things.

1 - You really can't follow this discussion and perhaps don't really know how discussions work.

2 - You really don't know what you're talking about since you can't elaborate on what you said.

Either that or you are purposely being an a-hole. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

So to try to get back on track... I understand the post you were responding to. I therefore have no need to ask them what they meant. You responded to them with a question. I asked you what you meant by your question. All you need to do is answer that question. It's really logical, I'm not sure why you are having such difficulty with it and being an ass towards me.

I really want to know, what is irresponsibly stupid about asking the president a question? You are the one who implied that, not the person you responded to, so the next logical step in the discussion, going back to that point, is for you to clarify what you were saying.

[Thinkingabout]

38. You seem to conclude what your problem is so you can reread what you posted.

I am not going to copy and paste the same information which is posted here for you, I have important issues to handle and it is not saying something over and over to your satisfaction. Do you understand American colloquial?

[cui bono]

39. So again, you refuse or cannot clarify you initial post in this subthread.

That's fine. Good to know.

[Thinkingabout]

40. I did clarify, you are not reading very well.

[Demeter]

19. I don't think it's an act

[Thinkingabout]

4. Since in your own words "leaving out the joke at the end" which should be a big clue,

How can you seriously conclude the things in which you wrote? There has been many post since the claims of Snowden "revealing" his stolen information and many who apparently think this information was nit known before. George W Bush talked about this in 2005 news conference, where in the hell was all of the ones who thinks this is new information. I would have made a joke if I was in Obama's place, some folks needs to get real for a few years, the world has passed you by, get on the life train.

[cui bono]

25. See link below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-had-restrictions-on-nsa-reversed-in-2011/2013/09/07/c26ef658-0fe5-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html

[The Straight Story]

6. I don't have a problem with this

The US government is HUGE. From the forest service to the navy to transportation.

How many hours a day does Obama have to get complete updates from every single department (not to mention there are 2.6 million people working in the government)?

8 hours sleep, guests, travel, bathroom breaks, etc. How many zillions of projects are going on all at once?

The US Forest Service alone has a slew of things going on (and their website is about a year behind on a lot of things).

Keeping up with the military alone and problems around the globe would take up most of his day.

That is why it is important for news outlets, senators, house reps, citizens, whistle blowers, etc to aggregate data and investigate things as well as keep track of it all. You really think Obama would know if the NSA was spying on Peter Jackson to get new details of the latest flick?

[tavalon]

7. Okay, I'm as pissed at him as the rest of us here are, but that sounds more like a misspeak

And as well, he doesn't know every single thing happening in that giant monolith called the MIC/NSA/CIA, no one does. He is one human with a huge staff and a 24 hour day just like the rest of us. It was dumb that he said that but not unrealistic. No human knows everything going on in DC - it's just too big and too bureaucratic.

[Sanity Claws]

8. Is this a reference to the shadow government?

I know this statement makes him sound clueless but there has been talk of a shadow government since at least JFK's administration. Is this statement an admission that he does not control the NSA and probably other agencies?

[Iliyah]

9. Yep.

But check with Supreme Court Justice Roberts on that.

[OnyxCollie]

10. That reminds me...

Bush welcomes probe of CIA leak
'I want to know the truth,' president tells reporters
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.

"I welcome the investigation. I am absolutely confident the Justice Department will do a good job.

"I want to know the truth," the president continued. "Leaks of classified information are bad things."

He added that he did not know of "anybody in my administration who leaked classified information.

...

In other news, O.J. Simpson continues to search for the real killer.

[progressoid]

41. Same old story.

[WillyT]

11. K & R !!!

[forestpath]

12. Gee, I'm glad Obama found it such a laff riot.

I don't find it the least bit funny myself.

[JoePhilly]

13. How does the President not know the daily activities of the

all government employees??????

Ummm ...

Anyone who has ever been a manager / leader of more than 10 people understands exactly what the President means.

The levels of silliness reached in this article are rather impressive.

[L0oniX]

23. Well then ...let's just hope he knows who has fingers on the nuke buttons. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

14. If sounds like the NSA has gone rogue, not Snowden.

Thanks for the thread, Purveyor.

[Junkdrawer]

15. Oh I believe it. Obama is primarily a spokesperson. That, alone, is a fulltime job.

If there were 30 of him, he couldn't keep up with 1/1000th of the BIG decisions "The Federal Government" makes every day.

Attributing all the actions of the Federal Government to one bi-racial man is a PROPAGANDA vehicle.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

16. I said this when it first came out.

[Gman]

17. I believe him 100%

What? The NSA is out of control and run by career people with unimaginable power and they're going to tell a civilian all the illegal shit theyre doing? A civilian who so happened to win a popularity contest known as an election and who will be gone on no more than 8 years? If they tell him he might have to do something about it.

Bill Clinton made similar comments too.

[Carolina]

18. Pathetic

Rogue national security, parsed/twisted intelligence, and he's pushing for war. What an MIC tool.

[DeSwiss]

21. Neither are astounding......

...at least not to me. Since Ike left us the word, we've known that the MIC was in-charge of things. He gave us a heads-up but most just thought he was a doddering old guy about to lose his job and retire to the golf course. So they humored him, ''Oh yeah Ike, whoa that big, bad MIC. Boy! Hmmm. Gee, we'll be on the lookout for those guys, you bet!''

In truth, most thought we were the greatest power in the world and nobody questioned it except the Soviets which basically meant nobody questioned it. And nobody knew (definitely) who controlled it. Nobody knows that now (except in that common-sense way our President is so fond of saying). But Ike was trying to tell us that he didn't control it. So if the President didn't control it, who did? No one asks (especially after JFK, MX, MLK, & RFK) since no one wanted to rock the boat or get their head blown off. Like George Carlin said, ''everybody wants a cellphone that makes pancakes so no one says anything.''

The other non-astounding thing -- that the NSA didn't know what Snowden took -- was and still is the subject of several news reports. He covered his tracks so well they didn't know where he'd been because he circumvented the logfiles in a way they weren't familiar with. Which is understandable when you contract out your national security to the private sector.

Governments are generally stupider than most people think. I mean, they're basically us, so we know the truth. They mostly just seem knowing and authoritative and with guns at the back of it, you tend to pay attention. But it's the contractors (as in this case) that know what makes everything work. Just like in the real world where it's us that makes the machine work.

- And it's only us that can shut it down since it can do nothing without us......

K&R

[L0oniX]

22. OH FOR FUCKING FUCKED FUCKUP FUCKING SAKE!!!!!!!! wtf?

[Sunlei]

26. private companies have no restrictions on information they can collect on you. I believe it when O

isn't sure what regulations/restrictions the gov has. Who knows maybe the Gov buys all the info from the public businesses.

[Th1onein]

28. Bullshit, he didn't know. Bullshit.

He had restrictions on the NSA lifted. He knew.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023625462

[Wilms]

36. ^