Down To Just A Few Possibilities: President Obama Either Lied Or Is Ignorant About The NSA

from the neither-is-good dept

Mon, Aug 19th 2013 2:51pm — Mike Masnick

Just last week, we questioned how President Obama could make his claims about the NSA not abusing its power knowing full well that there were reports showing massive, widespread abuse, happening thousands of times per year. It just seemed bizarre. Yes, politicians lie, but they generally tell half-truths or misleading truths and they rarely make a definitive statement like that which can be shown to be plainly wrong so soon after it was made. Of course, most in the press have avoided calling the President a liar, but David Sirota, over at Salon, is realizing that we've probably reached the point where it's at least a valid question to ask if President Obama flat out lied to the American public about NSA surveillance. As he notes, the only realistic alternative, given the most recent leaks, is that the President was ignorant of the NSA's abuses, and neither of those options speaks well about the President.

So sure, I guess it’s possible Obama has merely been “wrong” but has not been lying. But the implications of that would be just as bad — albeit in a different way — as if he were deliberately lying. It would mean that he is making sweeping and wildly inaccurate statements without bothering to find out if they are actually true. Worse, for him merely to be wrong but not deliberately lying, it would mean that he didn’t know the most basic facts about how his own administration runs. It would, in other words, mean he is so totally out of the loop on absolutely everything — even the public news cycle — that he has no idea what’s going on.

Except, as he noted (as did we in our post last week), this is almost impossible. There's almost no way that the President was unaware of what was happening. And that leads to the inevitable conclusion: the President was just flat out lying.

I just don’t buy that he’s so unaware of the world around him that he made such statements from a position of pure ignorance. On top of that, he has a motive. Yes, Obama has an obvious political interest in trying to hide as much of his administration’s potentially illegal behavior as possible, which means he has an incentive to calculatedly lie. For all of these reasons, it seems safe to suggest that when it comes to the NSA situation, the president seems to be lying.

Further, Sirota wonders, for the DC press who seem to be afraid to call out the lies, shouldn't they at least be asking how the President could be "so completely unaware of what his government is doing?" It seems like a valid question.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: lies, nsa, nsa surveillance, president obama

59 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 19 Aug 2013 @ 2:57pm

WHY do you insist on this unsupported "OR"?
He could just be a puppet following a script, no knowledge or moral faculty required, just gozinta the eyes, comezouta the mouth. You keep giving politicians way too much credit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 3:06pm

BOTH
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 19 Aug 2013 @ 3:06pm

When asked if he was lying or simply ignorant of the fact, President Obama issued the following statement:

"To answer the question of whether I told a lie or was simply unaware of the facts, you have to understand the context of the situation in which I made that statement. It's a complex issue to balance the security of the country and the need of the American people to be informed of what their government is doing. Sharing too much information can harm America's interests and put people at risk, while sharing too little can make the public suspicious. Which is why all such statements are carefully planned in advance to satisfy that balance."

See, he cleared up everything!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 3:15pm

At first I though impeaching the President was uncalled for, now I'm having second thoughts about that.

Congress has impeached presidents for much less. Such as having oral sex with an intern.

Violating the Constitutional Rights of millions of Americans, and thus, violating his Oath of Office, impeachment seems fully justified in this situation.

The only thing I think that's holding Congress back from starting the impeachment process, is the fact Joe Biden would become our President.

Maybe that's the new plan for politicians. Choose a running mate that nobody wants to see become President. Sarah Palen is prime example, as is Joe Biden.

We're stuck between a rock and a hard spot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BentFranklin (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 3:17pm

I think it's the second option: President Obama has as much access to the NSA as Dianne Feinstein. He only knows what they choose to tell him.

But it could also be a variant of the first: President Obama lied but he had to because NSA is holding a virtual gun to his head.

Either way I am starting to agree with Dennis Kucinich.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 3:18pm

Re:
"See, he cleared up everything!

By telling the least untruthful lie right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 3:22pm

surely, if the head of a Nation doesn't know what his own security agencies are up to, he is either purposefully avoiding knowing or he is purposefully being kept in the dark. neither of those bode very good for him. it's really like saying that the head of a company doesn't know what the senior staff are doing. there is a case like this still going on the UK with Murdoch and the phone hacking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 3:41pm

Oh, the tangled web we weave... Time to re-watch one of my favourite 'Yes, Prime Minister' episodes and marvel at how timeless the basic political concepts are that are being satirized.

On a gut-reaction note: If Clinton was impeached just for lying about who sucked his cock, what should be done with/to Obama?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 3:42pm

Dilemma
So Obama's either really stupid, or he's really evil.

I'd kinda prefer evil since stupid is more embarrassing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 3:45pm

Plausible Deniability
I assume it's that he knows the general capabilities and activities going on, but intentionally doesn't get anywhere down into the weeds, so when things like this happen, like any good politician, he can fall back to plausible deniability in full.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Glen, 19 Aug 2013 @ 3:48pm

Re: Plausible Deniability
The dude is so full of deniability, it is coming out of every orifice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 3:48pm

It's already been acknowledged that as Senator, Obama was the target of NSA spying, prior to his presidential candidacy. I'd tend to think that they have the goods on him and he's toeing the official line of necessity. What use of spying if you can't make use of the data? This follows another statement that's been made that what Gen. Alexander wants, Gen. Alexander gets. There has to be a reason and so far the general has not made known publicly that he is extremely adept at public persuasion. Admittedly this is pure speculation but one that has to be considered given the light of all these government figureheads springing to the defense of the NSA, no matter what.

There is one other fingerprint in all this I am extremely curious about. Running through all this is the theme of blatantly ignoring what the law or some authorization gives as permission to do what is done and reinterpreting it to say what ever gives them what they seek, rather than what is granted in writing. That tends to me to say it's the hallmark of someone knowledgeable about what can or can not be done and how it can be twisted to make it sound ok. The hallmark of lawyers and teachers of law and constitutional fine points. Both of these, Obama fills the bill on. Unlike Bush Jr, who could not make a single public speech without giving comedians a weeks worth of materiel to make jokes about, Obama never strikes you as dumb in his speeches. He does often strike you as using weasel words to the max only after he's done with his speech and it's had time to be run over with a fine tooth comb. Not the mark of a dumb man.

It might well be the mark of one intent on controlling the reputation of his administration given his pursuit of whistle blowers. Only whistle blowers it seems go to court and jail, not the ones being exposed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 3:57pm

Re: Dilemma
Whose embarrassment are you referring to? Obama's or the nation's?

I would find 'electing someone of such stupidity' and 'being naive enough to fall for someone of such evilness' equally embarrassing.

(I'm not accusing him of being either of the two, and feel I should mention that I'm not American but did catch the 'Obamania'-Bug. I, actually, was naive enough to see something special in this man, politician-wise.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 4:20pm

Re: Dilemma
Evil - what is his agenda? it seems like he is trying to destroy this nation financially.

Stupid - well ....

Blackmail - were the birthers right? :p and what does the NSA actually have on him?

Robot - fembot or data?

Burning out - just plain old, to much for him to handle and he is doing the escapism and denial thing. Personally, I think this is the most likely of the options. Recall how weathered he looked after the first couple of months as president, then the vacations started....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 4:24pm

The question is invalid. The point is, it doesn't matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ShellMG (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 4:27pm

My husband, holder of a MSW +30, a licensed counselor and hypnotherapist, says Obama has all the signs (and background) of a big personality attachment disorder. He's basically the opposite of Bill Clinton. Clinton wanted you to LIKE him, knew how to communicate with a smile, a handshake and at least appeared to care what people thought. Obama isn't afraid to show he's annoyed, bothered and irritated if the press shows the slightest hint of independent thought.

It's a heavy burden, having "those people" question you all the time and ask you for your opinion when you really don't care and just want to know your next tee time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 4:51pm

Not on The List?
Maybe Obama's name doesn't appear on the official "My NSA Need-To-Know List". Only the names of important people are to be found there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aaron *Head* Moss (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 5:13pm

A lying politician...
A politician that lies... never.

By the way... Welcome to America.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alana (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 5:19pm

He's the president.

Lying is his job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 5:31pm

Occam's razor
Occam's (or Ockham's) razor is a principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham.

Simply stated - "The simplest explanation is usually the right one."

Politicians lie for a living.

Obama LIED!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FM Hilton, 19 Aug 2013 @ 5:49pm

Nixon was right
"When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal."

He lied. He's much too smart to be blatantly stupid. After all, he went to Harvard, and was supposedly a Constitutional scholar.

But plausible deniability is another matter altogether.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
i_am_so_smrt, 19 Aug 2013 @ 6:07pm

The moral melee
Your wise men don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ppps (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 6:21pm

aiding the enemy?
I thought that when Obama said Snowden was aiding the enemy by telling the American people the NSA was spying on us, he meant the American people are the enemy. But if he found out himself from Snowden, perhaps he has met the enemy and it is himself!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
horse with no name, 19 Aug 2013 @ 9:31pm

third choice
Perhaps there is a third choice, and usually it's the most simple answer that makes the most sense:

President Obama does not run the day to day of the NSA, the CIA, or for that matter your local DMV. He doesn't have 24 hours a day to spend only on NSA, nor can he be completely in the loop to the fine details of their operation.

Based on that simple obvious fact (he doesn't work there 24 hours per day) he can be both somewhat ignorant as to the fine grain details, as well as perhaps not make a statement that is absolutely correct because of it.

Mike, question for you: Do you know what Tim Cushing ate for lunch yesterday? Why not? He works for you, you should know everything that he does, down to the fine grain detail, and you should be able to account for all of it all of the time. Moreover, you need to be completely up to date for the work that his plumber did in the bathroom last year, and which color wires were used when he have his ADSL installed.

Come on, he is your responsiblity, you should be able to to tell us exactly without error about all of these things. If you get it wrong, you are either ignorant or lying, which is it?

See how it works?

PS: Which candidate are you working for currently? Wyden? Udell? Would you like to disclose your work as it related to the tone and the direction of your posts here?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 10:21pm

Obama is probably lying. He could be ignorant before, but not now and his acts speaks volumes about how he thinks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 11:18pm

Maybe he thought we were too ignorant to see though his lies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JohnParryJones, 19 Aug 2013 @ 11:34pm

NSA
Often times the president is shielded from the truth. Since he doesn't really know, he is not lying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 11:37pm

well. did you check to see if his lips were moving? if they are then that's a good indicator that he's lying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ethorad (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 1:54am

Re:
I think the "unPresidentable" running mate has been part of the gameplan for years. How else would you explain Quayle?

My guess is it started as an insurance policy after the NSA shot Kennedy ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 3:13am

Re: Occam's razor
"In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Moe Badderman, 20 Aug 2013 @ 3:27am

state of fear
Binary thinkers are convinced the Prezdent either lied, or else was ignorant; but there's a third possibility: psychologists call it an "affective filter" that inhibits the acquisition of knowledge because of fear or anxiety. People tend not to learn what they are afraid of knowing. The Prezdent may be fearful of being pushed into trying to do something about the Agency, and the Agency pushing back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 5:33am

Re: WHY do you insist on this unsupported "OR"?
He could just be a puppet following a script, no knowledge or moral faculty required...

That case clearly would fall under the "Ignorant" category.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 5:42am

Re: state of fear
Sounds to me that is a combination of lying (to himself) and willful ignorance.

The options are not mutually exclusive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 5:54am

Re: WHY do you insist on this unsupported "OR"?
ootb's razor: Among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be met with bewilderment and treated as a fanciful, unsupported claim that makes no sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim Anderson, 20 Aug 2013 @ 6:01am

What Do We Know
What needs to be done is clear. We need an investigation of what actually happened. The investigation should be similar to the investigation of former President Nixon. Start at the bottom and work up the chain of command and find out the truth of the situation. What did the President know and when did he know it is the ultimate information that is sought. When there are co conspirators they will lie to protect each other. Is the President a fool and a weak one at that or is he a very bad man doing very bad things? The answer to either of those questions is the President should resign.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael Price, 20 Aug 2013 @ 6:37am

Re: Re: Dilemma
Too old? He's 52, I think we can hold off on giving him a shawl to cover his legs while he sits in his rocking chair.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 7:19am

Worse, for him merely to be wrong but not deliberately lying, it would mean that he didn�t know the most basic facts about how his own administration runs. It would, in other words, mean he is so totally out of the loop on absolutely everything � even the public news cycle � that he has no idea what�s going on.

Semantics 101

1) Either/Or Syndrome

It could be that there are other possibilities that you are not aware of in the least. One that is the most obvious is; 'what if such an open disclosure would jeopardize potential intel of possible enemy activity that has been obtained through NSA surveillance?'

Before anyone declares anyone to be a noncompatriot, especially the President, they need to know for sure what the hell they are talking about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
paul (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 7:22am

Re: Impeachment insurance
I though that Dan Quayle was the first real case of impeachment insurance
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jasmine Charter, 20 Aug 2013 @ 8:19am

Liar Liar
Liar.... idiot... or complete incompetent...

Either way you slice it, he looks bad.

But that's his strategy... the whole "I learned about this on the news with the rest of you" line shows how he tried to distance himself from his duty and his responsibility.

At least none of this has interrupted his MANY, MANY, MANY vacation plans!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 9:11am

Re: state of fear
I say he's just lying
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Roland, 20 Aug 2013 @ 9:21am

when he was a senator
When he was a senator, he opposed the first surge in Iraq. He opposed domestic spying and telecom immunity. He opposed the first Wall Street bailout. He opposed all these things right up to the moment of truth, then he voted FOR them. So yeah, he's a liar, and has been for years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jose_X, 20 Aug 2013 @ 9:57am

What abuses, specifically?
>> reports showing massive, widespread abuse, happening thousands of times per year.

Abuses like what?

I am not trolling. I was away from this site for a while (and have not kept up too much with the NSA topic) but have read several recent articles. I know the mere notion of having your email read by someone presents a privacy issue. And that the mere fact someone might read it might give you fits. But we have to go beyond that, I think.

If you find a paper on the street with "juicy" dialog about no one you know personally and which could be fictional, would it count as an abuse for you to read it and mention those details to your spouse over dinner?

Have there been leaks of specific abuses besides accessing lots of third party emails because of a typo, automated query, or some other scenario where the data perhaps wasn't even read by anyone except at most as in the situation just mentioned?

Why do I ask this? Because one person's notion of "abuse" may not be called such by another, especially in the context of preventing murders (as many in government intel community see their job) and where there are controls in place that hopefully keep such mistakes without much consequences to the third party author.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eponymous Coward (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 10:15am

Re: What abuses, specifically?
Abuses like collection of data from US citizens without warrants, violating our Fourth Amendment rights. Thousands of these per year. Abuses like this same data being passed along to numerous government agencies with instructions to 'launder' it so that it's harder to trace the info back to the NSA.

As to controls, you'll need to do a bit of your own catch-up reading to see how little oversight, much less follow up on abuses, has existed.

TL;DR... Big stinking piles of abuses, with nothing but shitty damage control from the government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eponymous Coward (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 10:22am

Re: What abuses, specifically?
Oh, and when the term "abuse" refers, as in this case, to a violation of the Constitution, it removes a lot of the subjectivity.

The "they didn't mean to" defense has already been trotted out, like a five year old standing by the broken cookie jar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 10:24am

Re: third choice
When are you going to go public with the details about the censorship!!!!!??????????????

I'M ON PINS AND NEEDLES HERE DUDE.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jose_X, 20 Aug 2013 @ 10:24am

Re: What abuses, specifically?
[same as parent author]

People should be able to cuss out government and what not. They should discuss fantasies/fiction even if would be illegal if acted out. We might even disagree over "goodness" of any given law and what not and might want to take our chances violating it.

I know that the government is in an asymmetrical position, eg, they have guns and legal rights to arrest us, throwing our lives out of whack, etc, and we don't to them. I don't want to downplay privacy, but we should have an idea of an abuse, based on what is read or who you are, where some other action is taken besides entering the query or reading the response that causes some form of harm. To merely read something from an unheard of person after briefly making a mistake in typing or in judgement or storing something away incorrectly but from eyes for a period of time, doesn't seem to me to be an abuse.

Abuse is to exploit something. To carry out and advantage beyond a minor amount and usually with concrete harm to someone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jose_X, 20 Aug 2013 @ 10:41am

Re: Re: What abuses, specifically?
>> Abuses like collection of data from US citizens without warrants, violating our Fourth Amendment rights.

A rule was ruled unconstitutional, but the belief prior to that was that it was not. What harm came of those instances and have the people been made whole in some way? Have these details been reported or just that some unauthorized query was performed?

To perform a query you thought was legal is not generally an "abuse"..

>> Thousands of these per year.

..even thousands of queries per year or more.. more so if these were a tiny fraction of the whole. [I don't know the size of the "whole".]

>> Abuses like this same data being passed along to numerous government agencies with instructions to 'launder' it so that it's harder to trace the info back to the NSA.

Can you be more specific? Was this uncovered? [I'll google.]

>> As to controls, you'll need to do a bit of your own catch-up reading to see how little oversight, much less follow up on abuses, has existed.

Surely, you can mention one or two things or quotes or links, no?

BTW, I have read how other branches of government have been kept in the dark on the details, but that is a different question than to assert that NSA controls have failed to curve abuses. First, we need to come to some understanding on abuses. Maybe then we can look at how those abuses have or haven't been kept in some sort of check.

I am not saying "evil" has not happened. I am wondering about what has been uncovered, specifically wrt to abuses.

>> TL;DR

If you are saying you didn't read my comment, let me draw attention to one question from it:

> If you find a paper on the street with "juicy" dialog about no one you know personally and which could be fictional, would it count as an abuse for you to read it and mention those details to your spouse over dinner?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dirkmaster (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 10:57am

Re: third choice
If you don't know, then you should say so. You should say, like many presidents before him "I don't know the details of what's going on, but I intend to find out!"

That's not what he said. Even if he didn't know, he pretended to know, and so still lied.

As far as I'm concerned, he lied no matter which way you go.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jose_X, 20 Aug 2013 @ 11:19am

Re: Re: Re: What abuses, specifically?
>> to numerous government agencies with instructions to 'launder' it so that it's harder to trace the info back to the NSA.
>> > [I'll google.]

[I just realized it says "numerous" and not "foreign".]

OK, I read Mike's "IRS Also Secretly Got Intelligence Info And Was Told To Launder It" and "DEA Not Only Gets Intelligence Data, But Then Is Instructed To Cover Up Where It Gets The Info"

From the latter:

> Gertner and other legal experts said the program sounds more troubling than recent disclosures that the National Security Agency has been collecting domestic phone records.

> That the DEA appears to be actively covering up this information, and that it's been standard operating procedure for decades, is immensely troubling.

I found an Obama quote that probably is what this article complains about:

[Aug 9, 2013] "And if you look at the reports � even the disclosures that Mr. Snowden has put forward � all the stories that have been written, what you're not reading about is the government actually abusing these programs and listening in on people's phone calls or inappropriately reading people's emails. What you're hearing about is the prospect that these could be abused. Now, part of the reason they're not abused is because these checks are in place, and those abuses would be against the law and would be against the orders of the FISC."

Obama seems to be talking about programs like listening on phone calls and reading emails inappropriately.

Question: is the "laundering" a result of the programs that include emails and phone calls? [Note, Mike mentioned "decades" and the other person contrasted it to "collecting domestic phone records".]

Or is there another Obama quote that might apply to the laundering?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hopponit (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 11:22am

Re:
"Maybe that's the new plan for politicians. Choose a running mate that nobody wants to see become President. Sarah Palen is prime example, as is Joe Biden." I really don't think this is new. Look back at some of the VPs we have had from the beginning.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jose_X, 20 Aug 2013 @ 11:32am

Re: Re: What abuses, specifically?
Well, at any given point in time there are an arbitrary number of rules and laws that will be deemed unconstitutional in the future. Does that necessarily mean that all of those cases currently passing as law are abuses by law enforcement?

You seem to be saying yes.

I think it's questionable and we should look more closely. In the context of the NSA spying, they changed the procedure the day that one rule was judged to be unconstitutional. In my mind that may make a difference (but I'd need more info).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jose_X, 20 Aug 2013 @ 11:36am

Re: when he was a senator
Do you have a quote?

I ask because a lot of representatives are both for and against competing bills that are similar in content but differ in the details.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 1:45pm

Re: Re:
While Teddy Roosevelt was exactly "impeachment insurance" but, it is common wisdom that he got the role of VP as a way of being "kicked upstairs," since he would have limited power there. It's just no one counted on McKinley getting shot.

So VP as a dumping ground for those considered incompetent or dangerous to the party platform certainly has a long-running precedent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 2:29pm

Re: Re: Re:
It's The Peter Principle in action.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DNY (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 4:29pm

Lying vs. Bullsh*tting
I commend to all Techdirt readers the charming little volume by Harry Frankfurt entitled "On Bullsh*t" (which can be read online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/2089043/On-Bullshit).

Most utterances of our current President, whether true or false, fall under Frankfurt's definition of bullsh*t, and as such are more corrosive of honest political dialogue than actual lies. Obama says whatever seems expedient without regard for whether it is true or false, and has done so seemingly since he entered politics, if not before in his days as a community organizer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 4:39pm

Obama is a just puppet that is neither white or black.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 4:40pm

Re: WHY do you insist on this unsupported "OR"?
Why was this flagged? I start believing that is indeed someone from Techdirt flagging posts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 21 Aug 2013 @ 10:57am

Re: NSA
Since he doesn't really know, he is not lying.

But he said he knew, so he was lying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 21 Aug 2013 @ 10:58am

Re:
It could be that there are other possibilities that you are not aware of in the least. One that is the most obvious is; 'what if such an open disclosure would jeopardize potential intel of possible enemy activity that has been obtained through NSA surveillance?'

That would still be lying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]