It's difficult to disagree with a "national security" designation.

[kentuck]

I think that is why President Obama continued and expanded the Bush program of spying and eavesdropping.

Also, there is a certain group-think in Washington that hangs on from one Administration to the next. With people like Bob Gates, David Petraeus, Tim Geithner, and others, they presented a picture to the President and his Cabinet that certain "policies" had to be continued for "national security" reasons.

It would take a strong President to go against such a strong tide. Obama was not that strong. He took the advice of the "experts", in military and economic issues. He had the wrong Cabinet behind him to make the changes that needed to be made. That is why we are hearing these stories today, in my opinion.

Were they really necessary? Were they in our "national security" interests? They say they have examples of how the program prevented a terrorist attack? Even if it is true, is it worth the price we are asked to pay? How much should we surrender in order to be safe and secure?

They say there was "oversight". Was it oversight or was it collusion? I'm not sure?

[JaneyVee]

1. Good questions to ask. It's so persistent that sometimes I wonder if there are threats so great to

our Nation that these actions are justified. What if the answer is yes. I don't want to believe that to be true.

[pscot]

3. They can't maintain funding for a trillion dollar security apparatus

without scaring the hell out of the American people.

[CJCRANE]

2. I always assumed that all electronic communications

were monitored or at least accessbile to intelligence agencies. I'm pretty sure that was revealed during the Bush era.

The interesting thing to me is who's leaking this information and what's their motive? The story behind the story is always more interesting (but one we don't usually get to know).