I'm not saying the info in the briefing is wrong. I'm referring to the assertion that all the Obama thought he had was wrong - and thereby the rest of Congress and the public too.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Got it
I hate (despise) the unPatriot Act, and have since its inception, and have never apologized for it. But, for the sake of maybe playing devil's advocate, there is something that nags me. No one knows whats in the intel briefings (nor should we). There *is* the possibility that all *is* necessary.
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Got it
I hate (despise) the unPatriot Act, and have since its inception, and have never apologized for it. But, for the sake of maybe playing devil's advocate, there is something that nags me. No one knows whats in the intel briefings (nor should we). There *is* the possibility that all *is* necessary.
Actually, we do have *some* idea. If I recall, one was declassified (the one with the 'Al Queda determined to strike in US' one), and other info has come out, if you look.
But the larger point is that in a democracy, the public needs information to make good choices, and the government withholding that information is the road to tyranny.
The idea of Congress being 'completely wrong' poses its own problems.
So, what's appropriate to be confidential from the public? There are occassionally some short-term items, which the President should release before long when the need for secrecy is over. The PDB doesn't typically have - if I understand correctly - operational details much at all, but if it had some, those could need confidentiality. Information that could reveal sources needs to be released delicately without threatening the sources if at all possible, but with the obligation to meet the public's need to be informed prioritized.
Secrecy is an incubator for mischief and corruption and mistakes. There must not be an excess of it for our nation to work.
There's no way the PDB can contain info to contradict 'all the info Obama thinks he has' as a Senator. That's clearly hyperbole. Of course, *some* things would come to light.
Time and again, history shows that the hidden information is less 'legitimate secrets the President needed for basing decisions that turned out to be right', and more things that were secret for the reasons listed above, good or bad. For just one example of a 'Presidential secret' that's all too typical, for decades the story was that on Ford and Kissinger's visit to Indonesia, the fact that the day after they left Indonesia invaded East Timor (using US-supplied weapons with a Congressional ban on that use) was just a coincidence. Kissinger specifically said there was no discussion on the visit, and no approval by the US.
Recently, the documents finally came out - they lied. On the visit, the planned invasion was discussed, and Kissinger and Ford gave them a green light - but with instructions on strict secrecy because of the President approving what Congress had outlawed. Kissinger told them to not start until they'd left - and they waited, hours.
Err on the side of less secrecy, and don't fall victim to the myth of the President and holder of the secrets the nation must not know. On policy issues, he needs to be able to articulate the case, without revealing secrets. Look at how much secret information was revealed on the WMD case, and they still got it wrong, even though less secrecy would have expsed that better - such as the *only source* for the key facts being the unreliable Curveball who the US had never spoken to - and some did come out accidentally, like the Yellowcake falsehoods because an insider, Joe Wilson, unexpectedly went public to expose what he knew was wrong (and was savaged by the right for his patriotic act).
The legitmate need for secrets is not usually at the policy level - 'we have to go to war with this nation, but don't ask why' is a problem, and that's how it should be.
Sheik Yerbouti
Lifer
- Feb 16, 2005
- 14,080
- 5,453
- 136
Please don't tell me how I'd vote, NOONE has my vote unconditionally. I liked McCain in 2000, I liked Perot in his first run. Voted for Clinton 2x, but clearly I don't vote a straight party ticket.
And you can easily replace dumbya for Obama in your intellectually challenged analysis.
Sheik Yerbouti
Lifer
- Feb 16, 2005
- 14,080
- 5,453
- 136
DAMN STRAIGHT!
Nothing, and I mean NOTHING rocks harder than Mrs. Brown, You've Got a Lovely Daughter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv8k0VI9tBc
retrospooty
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
Right here... Lefty, and outraged if its true. EFF.org is not exactly where I get my credible news.
Are there any confirmations or is this another blog reaching for reasons to attack?
retrospooty
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
OK, but that is just the opinion of an anonymous person on the internet... Are there any links to credible news sources, or anything at all to verify this is even true?
Yes. But 2012 is far off.
Maybe something good will happen by then? Hey, it's possible!! And at my age, I could be dead by then.-Robert
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Well the Republicans have Palin, Jindal, Huckabee and Romney. Nope it doesn't look to good for them. Well there's Newt but his unlikability is off the charts.Originally posted by: chess9
Yes. But 2012 is far off.
-Robert
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
EFF is credible... they should know better than anyone else, they're one of the few groups fighting this surveillance program in the courts.
Nice find Craig. He's right of course. The evidence is starting to accumulate that Obama really isn't a new sort of leader. But, I'll be happy to give him another 6 months to really trash his reputation...or resucue it.
-Robert
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well the Republicans have Palin, Jindal, Huckabee and Romney. Nope it doesn't look to good for them. Well there's Newt but his unlikability is off the charts.Originally posted by: chess9
Yes. But 2012 is far off.
-Robert
I wouldn't vote for any of those yahoos.. Romney has no chance of getting my vote, especially. He is oilier than the crankcase on my Olds.
-Robert
trenchfoot
Lifer
- Aug 5, 2000
- 16,084
- 8,682
- 136
I agree with you, but from a very narrow interpretation of your point of view. However, I based my opinion on the overall stated agenda, ideology, philosophy and proven acts and attitudes that both administrations have shown so far.
To me, when considering how arrogant, secretive and deceptive the Bush admin. was, especially in their insistence for adopting their Unitary Executive Doctrine, I'm compelled to assume that the Obama Admin. will utilize this policy in ways that will respect the Constitution and Bill of Rights as much and more than Bush and Cheney didn't.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter