General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Matrix: who is Edward Snowden? [View all]xocet
(3,884 posts)They should not be operating in the manner that they are. Who has had and has control of the program? Then, it was President Bush. Now, it is President Obama. It was wrong then. It is wrong now.
President Obama had his chance to break with the past, but he chose to let everything slide - he even got off on the wrong foot by allowing Rick Warren to take part in his inauguration. By not standing up for Democratic values (i.e., by not reining in the surveillance, by not prosecuting torturers/ war criminals, etc.), President Obama has damaged the Democratic brand. He is not nearly as powerless as people would like to argue. He seems either to be risk averse - even now, when he does not have to stand for another election and, in all likelihood, could not be impeached, convicted, and removed from office - or motivated by more centrist or even possibly Republican goals. I don't know, because I am not privy to what he really intends. (Take his recent lack of appointments to the FEC in spite of a chance to make recess appointments. The Republicans now have a 3-to-2 advantage and can do what they want in the FEC. This is classic Obama 0-dimensional, non-confrontational, astrategic chess.)
At any rate, the surveillance programs continue, and the President's DNI remains in office even though he lied directly to Congress. One would think that President Obama would at the very least remove him. However, apparently, it is ok to lie to Congress.
Had I known that President Obama would be so incredibly weak vis-à-vis important issues like torture, surveillance, health care (he is great with health insurance), etc. I certainly would not have wasted my time volunteering for his campaign and giving it money. Apparently, Hillary Clinton was actually the better choice - she might have actually fought the Republicans instead of running from the fray and hiding behind Congress' dysfunction as President Obama has largely done.