Hacker Newsnew | comments | ask | jobs | submitlogin
iamdave 308 days ago | link | parent

I wish I saw more people hammering home the point you made in the first paragraph. Too many people are looking for ways around discussing what is just as an important piece of this puzzle as the leak itself: The director of National Intelligence lied to the Senate. To their faces, through his teeth, on camera, in front of the American people.

I'm in the camp that Senator Wyden asked the question in such a way because he knew what the answer was going into the thing.

At this point, you need to start looking at everyone as a suspect. It's an uncomfortable notion, we might not like it, but it's a reality pill ya gotta swallow.



gasull 307 days ago | link

And also Obama promised no surveillance before winning the first election. It took him weeks to change his mind.

-----

iamdave 307 days ago | link

I'm sure it's all shrouded in "classified" and "top secret" tape, but I'm intensely curious to know what President Obama knows that Candidate Obama doesn't.

Maybe it's the same thing all presidents learn their first couple of months in office. Maybe it's a memo that gets placed on the desk in the Oval Office by some shadowy figure. Whatever the case, the honeymoon is over, folks.

-----

Amadou 307 days ago | link

I suspect that it was much like the "too big to fail" scandal. President Obama was new to the game and let the people who said they knew what they were doing run the show. On one hand he's got the feel-good speeches he made as a candidate and on the other hand he's got agencies and contractors with billions of dollars of budget on the line all pushing as hard as they can to justify their existence and their budgets. The inertia alone was probably impossible to defeat given how divided his focus was (the economic collapse and the two years of obamacare politics come to mind).

-----

gasull 307 days ago | link

It could be as easily be the case that Candidate Obama was free while President Obama is blackmailed.

That's the problem with centralization, with representative democracy. A single point of failure is a bad idea. It's time for participatory/direct democracy.

-----




Lists | RSS | Bookmarklet | Guidelines | FAQ | DMCA | News News | Feature Requests | Bugs | Y Combinator | Apply | Library

Search: