At what point in the last 4 years did Obama accumulate the power base needed

[blm]

to push through all the programs he wanted to push through, and eliminate those programs he would prefer to eliminated?

When? When in the last 4 years did Obama accumulate the power base to overturn an intel and security network that had been forged into iron since the 70s? Was Clinton able to gain control over the security and intel infrastructure?

Why do you think the GOP worked so vigorously from the starting gate to keep Obama off balance so publicly? It isn't ALL about election cycles and the budgets, it's also about the accumulation of power while in the WH. The Bush-Cheney administrations wielded power effortlessly because they had 50 years of a power base that had been constructed systematically by GHWBush.

Ford had no control over it.
Carter had no control over it.
Reagan had no control over it.
Clinton had no control over it.

Hell, Obama's presidency couldn't even get many in the Clinton wing to switch loyalties away from BushInc.

I've been out front about my views of Obama's weak presidency, but, I sure as hell am not going to pretend that constant sniping at an already weak presidency (about security matters that had been institutionalized in the years before he took office) is going to be helpful to him, to the country, or to any of our issues.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. So you're saying "game over"?

The Executive, who controls the security apparatus, is now unable to affect it?

That's a pretty bad problem.

[Harmony Blue]

8. Yeah

that the President of the United States, CIC, can't do anything about this? Take a hint people he condones such activity and has expressed this implicitly.

[blm]

10. No. I'm saying that keeping a presidency weak is a goal that strengthens the fascists.

Name one time when a Dem presidency ACCUMULATED the power needed to restructure security and intel network.


When Carter made his attempt, he was attacked mercilessly on every level, and then his changes were swiftly swept away.

Now, with the 24/7 news cycle, it has been even easier for GOP to control the narrative.

[Jackpine Radical]

14. 1933-1945.

"Name one time when a Dem presidency ACCUMULATED the power needed to restructure security and intel network."

[blm]

19. That makes my point. Kennedy couldn't even gain control of it.

And by the time GHWBush and his NWO fascists reached the top of the intel ladder, there was no looking back for them.

I truly believe the only Dem president who could have out angled them within the first few weeks of taking office, would have been Kerry, because he was the one who kept the pressure on BushInc over BCCI, and he knew enough to use the power of the Oval Office to get his hands on the documents that were kept from his investigation.

[n2doc]

2. I see no evidence whatsoever that Obama has tried to reduce the security state

On the contrary, he has supported it, sustained it, even lied for it, ever since he became president. Those that think he is powerless really aren't paying attention.

[Egalitarian Thug]

3. Unfortunately accurate. +1

[HardTimes99]

4. An alternate narrative: Cheney's NSA got the drop on Obama and other key players in

the Dem Party (Pelosi, Reid, et. al.), starting in about 2004 and have been turning the screws ever since. Why bother having an international surveillance apparatus if you aren't going to mine its fruits for blackmail and intimidation?

[n2doc]

6. Possible, but unsubstantiated

It is consistent with Obama's rightward turn on security the moment he got elected, though.

[HardTimes99]

7. Consistent with his policy contortions, his right-wing appointments and his

fiscal policies skewed toward the 1% at the expense of his base.

[Puzzledtraveller]

5. +1, An important distinction

[RKP5637]

9. Also, I wonder, how much of this is fueled by 'not on my watch' and hence the

security state grows and grows ... also, often, it appears the security state grows as politicians come and go ... those tapping into it when advantageous. ... others expanding it ...

[blm]

11. IMO, you're wrong to assume the Oval Office = instant control over intel/security that

has been its own governing body for the last 5 decades.

Ford didn't control it.
Carter didn't control it.
Reagan didn't control it.
Clinton didn't control it.

[n2doc]

18. Big difference between 'control' and 'support' n/t

[blm]

21. Big difference between IN the office and ON a discussion forum.

Unless you are CERTAIN that any of us would be acting differently. IMO, Obama's presidency is weak BECAUSE the DC power brokers made sure of it, including Clinton's team.

[n2doc]

23. Well I guess you must know n/t

[blm]

29. You and I rarely disagree, but, I think I probably see BushInc as far more

involved in the global intel infrastructure of the last 6 presidencies than you.

[HooptieWagon]

33. Obama appoints the heads of NSA, CIA, etc.

If they aren't carrying out his policies, he can fire them. Obama owns this. Claiming previous presidents did it too carrys no weight...they are no longer in charge. Obama is responsible for his appointments, and the policies carried out in his name. His legacy will be the Surveillence State President.

[dawg]

12. The Executive branch directly controls all of these agencies.

All of these men and women serve at the pleasure and discretion of the President.

The President cannot unilaterally change the law, but he does get to determine how that law is implemented, so he is ultimately responsible for the actions of the NSA and the CIA that have taken place on his watch.

[blm]

13. Ideally, yes. In practice - no.

Not in over 5 decades.

[1-Old-Man]

15. Then all you are saying is that we have had 5 decades of weak Presidents

Because I see no evidence what so ever that the "it" that you describe even exists.

[dawg]

17. I will guarantee you that the Cheney regency, at the very least, was ...

firmly in control of the nation's intelligence apparatus. I would also strongly suspect that former CIA chief GHWB was also fully in charge (for all 12 years).

[blm]

24. I'm saying that BushInc has been firmly in control of intel/security infrastructure since 70s.

You think all those intel firms and and other 'private' firms working on National Security since the 80s weren't chosen for their loyalty to BushInc and his NWO of privatized government?

[dawg]

16. The President obviously supports what the NSA is doing.

He has told us so himself.

Do you think they are "controlling" him?

[blm]

25. I think he does what he can when he can, knowing he has yet to accumulate the real

power in DC that can effect serious change in the intel or security infrastructure.

[dawg]

26. When the things a person says matches the things they do ...

I tend to believe they are a good indicator of where they stand. I would love to believe that Obama was secretly on my side of this issue, and doing as much as he could from the inside to make things better, but that would literally require me to disregard everything he has said and done since the Snowden leaks first became public.

[blm]

28. Sorry, but, I still see Snowden as a useful dupe for Bush legacy rehab tour

that has coincided with these old 'revelations' (TIA ring a bell) and include a while lot of 'No difference between Obama and Bush' coverage from the left.

[uponit7771]

20. winger reply: "...Obama is a dictator from Chicago and Kenya... Benghazi"

[Savannahmann]

22. The laws authorize, they don't require.

We're not talking about mandatory minimums. We're talking about authorization. The NSA is supposedly authorized by the law to seek some information. The debate is this. 1) Are there safeguards in place to prevent abuse? 2) Has the DOJ/NSA/FBI abused the authorizations? 3) Have they exceeded the intent of the statutes? 4) Just how much information are they gathering?

President Obama was and is the most powerful person involved in this discussion. The NSA/DOJ/FBI/God alone knows all the people and departments involved/DEA all work for him. The various Heads of all those departments were literally chosen by him, and can be fired by him. He may have to get approval for the replacement, but he can fire the existing one.

The President could have, and should have, placed the most severe limits on these programs. That is nothing more than a policy decision. HE ALONE HAD THAT POWER. No other single man or woman held that power. The NSA was not REQUIRED to hoover up the information. The DOJ is not REQUIRED to sift and sort. But they have been and continue to. The claim is that it is authorized.

I may be authorized to kill a rattlesnake in my yard, but it does not mean I am required to do so. The choice on how to proceed is mine.

The NSA has been providing information to police since the 1990's through the DEA. This information was used, and then lied about. So when the officer swears to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, he promptly lies under oath. We need to know what cases that information was used in, but we are prohibited by National Security. So what part of the Anti Terrorism program was abused to provide information to the DEA? Again, this program is still in use today.

President Obama when he learned of the program, could have said no more. No, we are not going to provide information to LEO that requires them to lie under oath. He did not. stop that program either.

The reason, is fear. Ever since Dukakis, Democrats have run like little girls shrieking from the charge that we are soft on crime. In fact, we run shrieking from the term soft on anything. President Obama bombs more people with the Drones than Bush ever did, all so no one can claim he's soft on Terrorism. They keep the spying going all as insurance that if anything happens, the defenders of the President can say that they are not soft on Terrorism. It is fear, fear of a label. Fear of a baseless charge. We sacrificed the civil rights of the population, of our constituents, of those we hope will vote for us, on the alter to keep the bogie man of fear away.

President Obama alone had the power to issue orders to stop this shit. As a Constitutional Scholar, he knew much better than the idiot Bush did that they were wrong. Bush was wrong to start this shit, but he was an idiot, a business school graduate not that it helped his business experience. President Obama is a lawyer, and an professor who taught Constitutional Law. If anyone was to know that these programs were morally and ethically wrong, he should have been first to object.

So President Obama had the power, and he decided not to use it. For that, he deserves all the blame.

[blm]

27. Ah...IDEALISM. Cute. When all those private firms were contracted to handle US intel and

security missions in the 80s and 90s to become a part of the nation's overall security infrastructure, do you think they were chosen for their loyalty to whatever president would win election?

Do you think after 9-11, that Bush/Cheney expanded Homeland Security infrastructure even more to include private firms that would be loyal to any president?

That isn't how Bushes roll. And Bushes have had an easier time f it thanks to Bill Clinton's unswerving loyalty.

[Savannahmann]

31. Idealism? Try reality.

If you want to try and write it off as Idealism, than the discussion is limited. Because one of us is not dealing in reality. Now in Fantasy Land, you can pretend that President Obama would like to, but just can't. Which explains why his comments have been about his powerlessness. No wait, they were comments defending the programs and his participation.

The Powerless Obama of your imagination could have gone out and said he agrees with all of us, but he can't do anything without Congress, and he wants all of us to contact Congress and get it changed. The Amash amendment would have passed overwhelmingly in that circumstance. Instead, the White House twisted arms to get people to vote against it.

Powerless in fantasy land, twisting arms in reality. You can reside on Delusional Street in Fantasy Land. We're all stuck in the real world.

[blm]

32. I meant that it is SUPPOSED to work that way, but, it it doesn't and hasn't for many decades.

I am not even saying that I know he wants to gain full control over it, I'm just saying that in reality he can't.

If you think that any modern day president did, I'd like for you to name that president.

[Savannahmann]

35. I'm sorry, I'm not moving to Delusional Street to be a neighbor.

I like my street, and my current house thanks. Although I might feel a warm fuzzy feeling in Fantasy Land.

President Clinton started the NSA feeding DEA information which was mentioned in my original reply of cops lying. Bill Clinton could have said no. He had the power, but he sat on the sidelines and let the pitch go by. If nobody told him, then someone in his administration was to blame.

Bush could have fired them, but instead hired more like them to take over. He put authoritarians in place to hoover up all the information they could under the argument that they were searching for terrorists. But Bush was an Idiot.

President Obama has continued the same policies of the guy before, when he didn't have to. He didn't have to. OK, he can't close Guantanamo because of Congress. But he has refused to allow new prisoners to be sent there. He had the power, and he made a change with an order. This supposedly powerless man had enough power to tell the Military not to take people to Guantanamo Bay. Why did they listen to him if he's so powerless? Because in the Real World, they are required to obey his orders.

If you tell James Clapper that you have had enough of this spying, and he says Yes Sir and marches off. Later you find that he did not carry out your orders. You call him to the White House, and hand him a sheet of paper where he resigns. If he refuses, you sign another sheet of paper firing his ass. You give an order, and cut off the contractors access to the data. You don't renew their contracts.

President Obama is hardly the well wishing but powerless individual you think he is. If he was that powerless, he could have said help me to his millions of supporters. We've always responded when he called on us. We responded on Health Care, we buried Washington in emails, letters, and faxes. Do you think he believes he would not have our support when we re-elected him? Instead he supports the programs, thus the only conclusion is that he is in charge, and they are doing what he wants.

[blm]

38. Well, you are welcome to forget how JEdgarHoover controlled a number of presidencies and

you are welcome to believe that the intel community only serves the interests and agenda of whoever is in the WH.

I disagree, and think that those who think the WH is an all-encompassing position of power is delusional.

[Savannahmann]

39. So now you are claiming that it is blackmail?

The President is no longer incompetent in your newest assertion, merely impotent because of blackmail that has him frightened from any action. So now instead of the President being as incapable of making change due to the limits of the position. (An assertion now thoroughly debunked) Now it is that he is frightened of retaliation like threats of the release of information that could be damaging.

Do you realize how much weaker these assertions are getting by the minute? Don't just throw some lame excuse out, think about it for a minute. Just one minute of critical thought should demonstrate how lame these asinine excuses are.

Because this excuse actually counters your own original post. That was the assertion that President Obama would like to, but is powerless. Now, he has the power, but is blocked by dangerous revelations that will be made if he does take action. So it wouldn't matter what Congress he had. He could have a Congress full of slobbering sycophants and he would still be blocked from taking any action by the shadowy figures that are holding him hostage.

I'm still waiting for a rational argument from you. One that has the advantage of not being disproven by another post from you in the same thread. Because at this point, you sound like a child who is throwing out excuse after excuse as to how the vase got broke, each one more like the parade on Mulberry Street. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_to_Think_That_I_Saw_It_on_Mulberry_Street

[blm]

41. You keep trying to put words into my mouth - you FAIL.

I am sorry your constant need to insert your own misinterpretations is your priority here.

[Savannahmann]

42. Really? Let's review shall we?

Your OP was that President Obama had no power to do anything about the NSA Spying because he did not have a Congress that would do as he asked. This ignores the fact that he had a Democratic House and Senate for two years, but we'll ignore it to avoid the inevitable discussions of Blue Dogs that would vote more conservatively.

When? When in the last 4 years did Obama accumulate the power base to overturn an intel and security network that had been forged into iron since the 70s?

To summarize that argument, President Obama lacked the power, the authority if you will, to make the changes. That was utterly disproven. Put another way, President Obama was impotent due to limitations of his position.

After I debunked that argument showing that he was the one person in existence who could have done something if he had wanted. You posted that the people in those organizations would be unwilling to accept the orders.

Do you think after 9-11, that Bush/Cheney expanded Homeland Security infrastructure even more to include private firms that would be loyal to any president?

President Obama was impotent due to the unwillingness of those in the agencies to accept his orders. Again utterly debunked and disproven.

Next Argument, That you're not sure that President Obama wanted to gain control over his own administration, but even if he did, he would be powerless to stop it. Thus President Obama might want to, but can't. Again disproven.

I am not even saying that I know he wants to gain full control over it, I'm just saying that in reality he can't.

If you think that any modern day president did, I'd like for you to name that president.

I explained that the people in charge answer to the President, and he can hire or fire them at will. To quote the truth of the matter, they serve at the pleasure of the President. Now, he might have a fight getting a replacement through the Senate, and I acknowledged that. However, that fight would not stop anyone else from requiring those serving the President to follow orders or get fired. So we see that they are doing what President Obama wants. Your argument in short, President Obama is a figurehead, and the machine runs the man at the top.

Then, grasping for straws, you settle on the idea that someone is preventing the President from exercising his power.

Well, you are welcome to forget how JEdgarHoover controlled a number of presidencies

So now, under your constantly evolving theory, the President has the power, but doesn't dare use it. Hoover maintained his position by using blackmail and threats of exposure. At least now, under this theory, you admit that the President has the power, but chooses not to use it.

So at first, it was not Obama's fault because Congress wasn't on his side. Then it wasn't Obama's fault because the people who worked in those agencies wouldn't follow order. Then it wasn't Obama's fault because he was being blackmailed.

All of those arguments have been debunked. At this time the horse is not only dead, but decayed. But you insist on flogging the rotting carcass as though you can still get something out of it.

Just admit it all ready, everyone else already knows the truth. You can join us in the real world, or you can keep living in Fantasyland. It's up to you. Because I've shown you the truth, and you have to choose to either believe it, or continue to live in willful ignorance.

[blm]

43. You failed to connect key points. I have said that no president would have

ended all the NSA programs while BinLaden was still out there. By the time BinLaden was neutralized, the GOP had already been swept into office by a huge margin.

Like I said, your MIINTERPRETATIONS and your own conclusions are the basis for your argument.

Since you like having arguments with your own straw men and false assumptions, please proceed.

[Savannahmann]

45. Again, your argument is fatally flawed.

Your argument played into mine, and was also debunked. It was that we Democrats are afraid of appearing soft on anything that we come down harder than the Rethugs. Ever since Dukakis and the Willie Horton debacle, we have done everything to be tougher on defense and crime than the Republicans.

Yet, even your argument is flawed. No president would have. They could have, but didn't. So President Obama Could have, but didn't.

Game, Set, Match.

[blm]

46. In your strawman argument world, I suppose. Where YOU misinterpret then

Last edited Tue Aug 20, 2013, 10:05 AM - Edit history (1)

argue against your misinterpretation. I believe they call that mentally mastering your own domain.

[Savannahmann]

48. Ah

I can see that in Fantasyland, you're house is on the riverbank of Denial.

[Dustin DeWinde]

53. it seems some folks

Are upset that a Black president is wielding the power congress granted the executive branch.
If you don't like the law have your congressman seek to change it.
But to posit that Obama shouldn't use his power the same as any other president would is absurd.

Imagine if Obama didn't use every tool at his disposal and we got hit again.
It is legitimate to debate whether any president should have the wide powers granted after 911, it is not legit to expect Obama alone not to use them.

[Savannahmann]

54. Again, it's the we're afraid of being labeled as soft on terror

That has us violating Civil rights. This goes back to Dukakis and the asinine Willie Horton ad that Bush ran.

We didn't elect those other possible Presidents because we thought this one was going to act responsibly. Claiming this is about race is insulting as hell. So just to make sure I understand. Because President Obama is black, I am not supposed to care about civil rights anymore? Is that what you are suggesting?

Seriously, if that is the attitude of the Democrats as we approach a year from the midterms, we are going to lose the Senate.

[Dustin DeWinde]

55. if you voted for obama

It may well have been because you thought he wax going to dismantle all the defenses we have, i will take you at your word. Others voted for him because he was strong on defense. Obama is acting within the law. If your concern is about perceived violation of civil liberties, change the law.

Your post indicated that Obama should leave the wielding of post 911 powers to future presidents. That he alone in our entire history should leave stones unturned when it comes to defending our .nation.

I disagree.
Obama is clear headed. That's why I voted for him. And is keeping the country safe. Am I really supposed to be outraged that records are kept of what calls were placed overseas? I am not.

The NSA isn't listening in on calls just looking at what numbers are dialed. Every phone call anyone has ever made has generated a record otherwise phone companies couldn't bill people.

Keeping a record of what calls were made doesn't violate any civil liberties. But the gop voter suppression does.

When my American right to vote is being threatened, I can't and won't get worked up over trivialities. There are REAL issues that require my attention

[bigtree]

30. but he kept so many Bush holdovers

. . . and I don't see where he really challenged the worst of the Patriot Act/FISA changes fostered in the Bush era.

I think there's a difference between lacking a legislature to do what you want, and, lacking a progressive agenda on these issues and against these laws that would actually challenge the legislature to meaningful reforms.

[blm]

34. Practically speaking, what president WOULD do that before BinLaden was eliminated?

And, after, he was dealing with a GOP congress that came in like a tsunami. And, as always, he could never even get to second base with Clinton's power structure, let alone first base with any of Bush's powerstructure.

[Savannahmann]

36. So now you're back to supporting my argument that it is fear that motivates?

A short while ago, you insinuated that President Obama was powerless to effect the changes he wanted because Congress wouldn't go along. Now, you're saying that it is fear of being labeled soft on terror that motivated his lack of action on the issue.

All these lame excuses, and they are exceedingly lame, fail to take the next logical step into consideration.

If President Obama is so powerless that he is merely a figurehead with no ability to influence events or issues, then why did we work so hard, donate so much money to get him elected? If the Bushies were going to be in control anyway from behind the scene's, then why would we want the office when we could stand back and let history blame them for all that is predictably going wrong? You see the problem yet?

So make up your mind. Either it was political based upon fear that kept those programs in place, or it was inability based upon the President being a figurehead, in which case it doesn't matter which figurehead is in the office.

[blm]

37. Fear is probably a factor, but, more likely someone going INTO the position EXPECTS

Last edited Mon Aug 19, 2013, 03:20 PM - Edit history (1)

that they will accrue far greater power than they actually do.

Like going into a marriage where you believe you can change the person to better fit your vision of an ideal family.

I don't think Obama expected to stay as weak as he has. People constantly taking shots at him certainly are no help for any cause.

BTW - I never said he was a powerless figurehead - I said that he never accrued enough power to overcome the intel/security machine that has been built over the last 5 decades.

What president has?

[DirkGently]

40. Would be more relevant if it appeared he was trying.

It's not like Congress has been smashing wave after wave of publicly supported attempts at reform of the surveillance state.

And the White House sided with rightwing Republicans to actively oppose the Amash amendment.

It's true, of course, that everything in the world doesn't boil down to who's President. The NSA scandal is not all about Obama, nor does anyone seem to think that besides the outraged defenders of the President, who leap in with that angle on every subject, regardless.

But Obama has not been on the right side of this, nor even on the same side as candidate Obama, who called for FISA transparency and gave the clear impression he would seek to to curtail, or at least not expand, the gross overreaches pushed by the Bush administration.

He can't wave a wand and fix it. But he could stick his neck out politically and support reform.

The speech sounded like a start in the right direction, but the followup -- appointing Clapper to head an "independent review" -- signals the administration intends to prevent, not promote reform of any kind.

[Bake]

44. If this is an NSA thread, isn't NSA part of the Executive Branch?

If so, he has the power as Chief Executive to change it by executive order. So far he hasn't chosen to do that.

That's how and when.

Bake

[blm]

47. So did Carter. So did Clinton. They couldn't, could they?

.

[Bake]

57. Couldn't? Or just DIDN'T. Same as Pres. Obama.

Could have, but didn't.

Bake

[blm]

58. Wonder what stopped them?

.

[Bake]

59. Lack of political will.

If the NSA is part of the Executive Branch, which I believe it is (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), it reports to the Chief Executive, i.e., the President.

Bake

[blm]

60. It is...but, the political appointee gets the information from the same

people who've been running it for decades. You think the private firms who have been involved since the 80s and 90s were chosen for a willingness to meet the agenda of ANY future president?

[Samantha]

49. I believe if Obama had made a concerted effort to change certain things already in place

he would have done so at the risk of his life. People do ascribe more power to the Office of the United States President than actually exists. There is a continuity of certain programs that run from administration to administration. The personnel who run these organizations, some of which have been made public, some of which even Congress does not know about, believe it is they that are the mucilage which holds everything together.

In fact, I will go so far as to say the problem with the U.S. government is that everyone in DC thinks they truly run it.

But if you doubt the reality of the statement I made in my first sentence, I would like to suggest you do some extensive reading on the late President John F. Kennedy and the private goals he had for his administration and the changes he intended to make regarding the intelligence community at the time he lost his life.

Sam

[ConcernedCanuk]

50. BFEE and the MIC are alive and well, and they are not alone ...

.
.
.

Big oil, big Pharma NSA et al, are in control.

Obama's hands are tied.

But he's still trying!

Give him that.

CC

[Marrah_G]

51. ROFL- He always as powerless as a mouse until something positive happens

Then he is fucking superman.

[blm]

56. Never to me. I've seen his as a weak presidency for the last 4 years.

But, then, I also never expected he was going to go into office and overturn the entire intel/security network in this country the way some expected.

[rug]

52. I heard these same arguments about Hoover and the FBI.

Still don't buy it.