Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, July 29, 2014

U.S. surveillance programs are making it more difficult for government officials to speak to the press anonymously, two rights groups said on Monday. Large-scale surveillance, on top of the Obama administration's crackdown on national security leaks, threatens the freedom of the press and the right to legal counsel, Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union said in a joint report. The National Security Agency's surveillance programs, which include the collection of telephone "metadata," have heightened government officials' concerns about dealing with the media, as "any interaction -- any email, any phone call - risks leaving a digital trace that could subsequently be used against them," the report said.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

moder8

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

So many of you seem to be either downplaying or forgetting just how outrageous NSA and other intelligence agency invasions of privacy have become. This article is just one more reality check for those of you who believe our security services are not completely out of control. IMO this is the defining issue of American freedom and civil liberties in the 21st century.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Welcome to the world as John McCain and Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney and Dianne Feinstein would like it to be.

#1 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-28 01:35 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Thanks Dubya and his supporters.

#2 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-28 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

#1

I know your list wasn't intended to be a complete list. I'll just point out that the list of elected officials who would like it to be this way is FAR greater than the 4 names you dropped. Much to my dismay.

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-28 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Blanket surveillance is now a permanent aspect of life. State controlled media is inevitable. Loss of freedom, liberty, sovereignty, speech, privacy...soon gone. All this will usher in a new era of one world, one gov't, one religion, one chip in your hand.

#4 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-28 01:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Larry,

FYI - Obama and the Dems have expanded upon what 'W and his supporters' put into place.

At this point assigning blame is secondary to the much scarier fact that this is getting little resistance from anybody in congress aside from lip service, Rand Paul notwithstanding.

This is one of the many reasons that I strongly favor a central government with limited powers.

On this issue some Obama supporters may believe that he'd never allow all of this NSA BS to be abused while on his watch. Even if I were to accept that argument (I don't), what happens when the next guy comes into POTUS?

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-28 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

FYI - Obama and the Dems have expanded upon what 'W and his supporters' put into place.

At this point assigning blame is secondary to the much scarier fact that this is getting little resistance from anybody in congress aside from lip service, Rand Paul notwithstanding.

This is one of the many reasons that I strongly favor a central government with limited powers.

On this issue some Obama supporters may believe that he'd never allow all of this NSA BS to be abused while on his watch. Even if I were to accept that argument (I don't), what happens when the next guy comes into POTUS?

Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-28 01:42 PM | Reply

No the bitty is. Republicans all declared if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear. We warned you if you accepted it then you would have a cow if a Democrat used those same tactics. It was wrong then it is wrong now. But the one's complaining now when they supported it then should kindly shut their yap flappers.

#6 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-28 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Republicans all declared if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.

I remember that. They didn't ALL say that, but your point stands - far too many did and far too many of the ones that didn't were silent on the issue.

By the same token, what do you think of all of the lefties (and the MSM) who went ------- over the 'warrantless wiretaps' when that was benign compared with what the NSA is doing?

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-28 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

By the same token, what do you think of all of the lefties (and the MSM) who went ------- over the 'warrantless wiretaps' when that was benign compared with what the NSA is doing?

Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-28 01:55 PM | Reply

Your bias against Obama is showing. Obama isn't doing anything more than what Dubya was doing back then. The NSA was doing the same surveillance today that were doing under Dubya.

#8 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-28 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Larry,

It has nothing to do with bias.

What the NSA was doing back then (their massive facility in Utah wasn't even completed until about a year ago) was irrelevant.

What I am speaking to is the reaction to the wafrantless wiretaps by the left at the time they were revealed (whatever else the NSA was doing at the time wasn't known by the public) vs. the left's reaction to what Snowden revealed which is FAR more intrusive than mere warrantless wiretaps.

Does that make sense?

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-28 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

#9

Is everyone really that naive not to realize that once the Patriot Act ethos was enshrined into law that our intelligence apparatus was going to do everything possible -- including the funding of newer, more pervasive technologies -- to intercept all forms of communication globally on a scale never seen before?

I never got the deal with Snowden. If people didn't realize what the government was doing, then they weren't paying attention. Snowden didn't need to release the details -- many of which were damaging to national security -- in order to tell his story. NO ONE should remotely think or feel that they personally have any real security in this day and age that isn't running state of the art security systems to protect their communications. And then the designers or manufacturers of those systems often sell the government the back door keys anyway.

The privacy horse left the barn in 2001 and blaming Obama in 2014 isn't going to put it back in it's stall. Again, my only hope is that when history is told Obama may have been a more responsible overseer than was W and the neocons, and that's not much of a hope at all for freedom in perilous times.

#10 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-29 09:59 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Yes, coupled with the fact that Obama has decided secrecy is paramount when his promises to the Bankers was exposed by whistleblowers, proving to be exactly the opposite of what he promised the public in his State of the Union message. Obama then launched the most far reaching prosecution of whistleblowers in American history, imprisoning more truth-tellers than all other Presidents in American history. His downing of Eva Morales airplane in a vain search for Snowden was a violation of international law. Not that the United States pays much attention to international law. Considering itself to be the sole remaining superpower and ruler of the planet the US with Israel figure there is international law for everyone else and whatever they feel like doing for themselves.

#11 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-29 10:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

What I am speaking to is the reaction to the wafrantless wiretaps by the left at the time they were revealed (whatever else the NSA was doing at the time wasn't known by the public) vs. the left's reaction to what Snowden revealed which is FAR more intrusive than mere warrantless wiretaps.

Does that make sense?

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-28 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

You don't think Dubya wasn't datamining just like Obama is doing?? Where do you think Obama learnt it from?? BTW It was wrong then it is wrong today. It needs to stop post haste.

#12 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-29 10:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

I never got the deal with Snowden. If people didn't realize what the government was doing, then they weren't paying attention. Snowden didn't need to release the details -- many of which were damaging to national security -- in order to tell his story. NO ONE should remotely think or feel that they personally have any real security in this day and age that isn't running state of the art security systems to protect their communications. And then the designers or manufacturers of those systems often sell the government the back door keys anyway.

The privacy horse left the barn in 2001 and blaming Obama in 2014 isn't going to put it back in it's stall. Again, my only hope is that when history is told Obama may have been a more responsible overseer than was W and the neocons, and that's not much of a hope at all for freedom in perilous times.

Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-29 09:59 AM | Reply

The only thing Snowden did was to reveal the illegal behavior of Obama with regards to his domestic spying. If nobody should feel we have a expectation to privacy then why have the US Constitution at all. Tis partially the reason I didn't vote for him in 2012.

#13 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-29 10:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

The privacy horse left the barn in 2001 and blaming Obama in 2014 isn't going to put it back in it's stall. Again, my only hope is that when history is told Obama may have been a more responsible overseer than was W and the neocons, and that's not much of a hope at all for freedom in perilous times.

#10 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2014-07-29 09:59 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Obama could have stopped it his first day in office. He made the decision not to. Anything else is spin.

#14 | Posted by RobThomas at 2014-07-29 10:25 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#13, #14

Reality check: The US populace is more concerned with living their lives without repeated acts of domestic terrorism taking lives and property than they are with hidden encroachments on their liberties that the majority will never see, understand or affect them on any real personal level.

Obama was never given the political juice to throw aside the apparatus put in place during W's tenure and the GOP would have impeached him on the spot for even trying. He has always been a realist not an ideologe. Be real.

Larry, there was no magical off-ramp on January 20th 2009 that Obama could have taken. The security of this nation is any President's Job One and with multiple foreign wars then raging, why would a president seek to limit the amount of raw intell available to him?

Of course, this is all extra-constitutional, but it was on the day the Patriot Acts were passed and the point of no return was reached. Until technology changes in ways that personal liberty can again be hidden from prying eyes, we live in the society our politicians created and we're not going back for the reasons explained above.

#15 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-29 11:11 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Tis sad that You continue to supports Obama's illegal behavior that you once condemned Dubya for doing. Contrary to the belief this country cares more worried about staying "safe" over the right to expectant privacy is laughable considering the backlash after the Snowden reveals. People even today care very deeply about their privacy. Obama could stop it at any time considering the FBI CIA NSA falls squarely within the executive branch of Government. Any President worth a tinkers damn would not violate the rights of his citizens. Ben Franklin declared they who give up essential liberties for some temporary security will have lost both and deserve neither.

Larry

Of course, this is all extra-constitutional, but it was on the day the Patriot Acts were passed and the point of no return was reached. Until technology changes in ways that personal liberty can again be hidden from prying eyes, we live in the society our politicians created and we're not going back for the reasons explained above.

#15 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-29 11:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Sad that you even admit it's extra Constitutional yet still support it. The Constitution hasn't been suspended yet has it???

#16 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-29 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

#15 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2014-07-29 11:11 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Even with it's warts, as a senator, Obama voted for the Patriot Act. And as a president, he recognized it's value in securing the nation, and pushed for its extension.

When the bill was up for renewal, he could have joined ~150 house members and ~24 Senators and let it die.

5/27/2011 "It's an important tool for us to continue dealing with an ongoing terrorist threat."

#17 | Posted by RobThomas at 2014-07-29 11:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Tis sad that You continue to supports Obama's illegal behavior that you once condemned Dubya for doing.

I'm not supporting anything, I'm explaining reality as I see it. The Patriot Acts are law and until they are repealed or declared unconstitutional, the President is following the law as it's written and interpreted. And when this conflicts with the law, courts can and do place limits on the government.

People care more about their perceptions of safety than they do with invisible privacy as long as there are no overt changes in their daily lives.

This issue is not as simple as you make it out to be and if there was a consensus supporting your views then the laws would have been repealed through Congress. How is that then the President's fault unless he vetoes such nonexistent legislation?

#18 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-29 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The best way to end terrorist attacks on the United States would be to focus on real defense instead of offense and stop invading other countries. Almost all terrorist threats since 9-11 were concocted by the FBI.

#19 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-29 11:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

The mindset of the typical American seems to be right of center. Hell, even many of the so-called liberals on this site have no problem defending the NSA and Obama on the issue of invasion of personal privacy.

#20 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-29 11:45 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The mindset of the typical American seems to be right of center. Hell, even many of the so-called liberals on this site have no problem defending the NSA and Obama on the issue of invasion of personal privacy.

Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-29 11:45 AM | Reply

Tis sad so many a liberals defend this Kohler Gift. It was wrong under Dubya it is wrong under Obama.

#21 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-29 11:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

The NSA overstepped it's authority in it's national security role, even given the change in law after 911. But it erred on the side of caution in dealing with terrorist attacks, which is better than erring on the side of incaution.

The outrage about the, "invasion of personal privacy', which invasion has certainly occurred, would turn to dust in the face of another 911 attack, and those who were found to have put privacy ahead of security would be castigated for that by the same people who are overly outraged about privacy concerns today.

Some people need to understand that they are no more perfect than the people at the NSA, and that the people at the NSA have no other motive for gathering intel than that of protecting against terrorism.

Conspiracy nuts, blame America Firsters, journalists concerned about their paychecks, and faux outraged pants-wetters are no help in making sure there is balance between our privacy and our security concerns, which is a difficult, and now thankless task for the people who try to maintain it.

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-29 12:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The NSA overstepped it's authority in it's national security role" - Corky

Saying the NSA "overstepped" it's authority is like saying Hitler or Attilla The Hun were "bad" guys, or that Hurrican Katrina was "unfortunate". It is an under-statement on such a massive scale as to be absurd. Let's be honest. NSA and our intelligence gathering facilities engaged in long term outrageous invasive operations against the American people. People should be in prison for long periods of time for what is going on. This isn't merely a case of "overstepping".

#23 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-29 12:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

" The Patriot Acts are law and until they are repealed or declared unconstitutional, the President is following the law "

Obama promised to "restore core constitutional liberties" in 2008. We're still waiting.

#24 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-29 12:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

#23

The Drama Queenery aside, tell us, oh Mighty Karnak, what is the motive for the people at the NSA other than national security?

To read your tweets to Justin Beiber? I think not.

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-29 12:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obama promised to "restore core constitutional liberties" in 2008. We're still waiting.

So am I. I've yet to see a legislative fix work it's way out of Congress nor the President propose to roll back the security state through executive orders.

Perhaps it's the people's fault for not holding our elective representatives responsible for their actions TOGETHER.

But the "people' aren't going to do this to the point of forcing meaningful changes are we?

That is my sole point: Everyone is a part of the problems and impediments to the solutions.

#26 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-29 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

#23 con't

What's really funny to me is that you just posted on another thread about your ability to see both sides of the issue when it comes to Israel. It's too bad you can't do that for your own country and your fellow citizens who are tasked with protecting the country.

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-29 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Obama promised to "restore core constitutional liberties" in 2008. We're still waiting."

Yeah...I'm still waiting to see the healthcare negotiations on CSPAN too. Maybe they were all video taped on computers that crashed before they were broadcast??? Yeah, I'm sure that's what it was.

#28 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-07-29 12:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

That is my sole point: Everyone is a part of the problems and impediments to the solutions.

#26 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-29 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

No Sir the responsibility rests solely on the President.

www.trumanlibrary.org

#29 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-29 12:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The Patriot Acts are law and until they are repealed or declared unconstitutional, the President is following the law as it's written and interpreted."

It is truly amazing! All the "progressive" DR commandos who were filling their trousers over the Patriot Act years ago all love it now that Commissar Barackski has extended and expanded it. Can anyone spell "hypocrits" or "zealots?"

#30 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-07-29 12:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Can anyone spell "hypocrits" or "zealots?"

You should know because you just exposed yourself as both for intentionally omitting the beginning of my statement as though I'd never uttered it:

I'm not supporting anything, I'm explaining reality as I see it. The Patriot Acts are law and until they are repealed or declared unconstitutional, the President is following the law as it's written and interpreted. And when this conflicts with the law, courts can and do place limits on the government.

And its obvious that you can't spell hypocrites, sheesh.

#31 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-29 12:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

And its obvious that you can't spell hypocrites, sheesh.

Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-29 12:41 PM | Reply

And You can't get your proper grammar correct. It is I T Apostrophe S.

Thank G-d I have spellcheck.

#32 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-29 12:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

You can either have a world in which there are no secrets, or one in which a few know everything and use that information to control the rest of us(current world).

There is no middle ground.

Pick one.

#33 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-07-29 12:58 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

- a world in which there are no secrets

Someone's been hitting the hard stuff again.

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-29 12:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've yet to see a legislative fix work it's way out of Congress nor the President propose to roll back the security state through executive orders.

I don't remember any executive orders but the USA FREEDOM Act has been around since last year. A new version was introduced today. www.lawfareblog.com

#35 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-29 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Go Vermont thank you for electing a man willing to do something.

Tony I don't think you can blame the people for not fighting this enough look at other issues our opinion does not matter.

77% support deportation of illegals politicians are working towards amnesty. 58% of Americans support legal marijuana politicians talk about how dangerous it is. Our politicians do not represent we the people any longer. It doesn't matter what percent want to end it.

We can vote for people who say they will then they will turn about face when in office. We can write letters and get form responses. We can protest outside legislative offices and get arrested.

#36 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-07-29 08:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

The outrage about the, "invasion of personal privacy', which invasion has certainly occurred, would turn to dust in the face of another 911 attack, and those who were found to have put privacy ahead of security would be castigated for that by the same people who are overly outraged about privacy concerns today.

If another 9/11 attack were successful it would mean we gave up all our privacy for nothing.

Some people need to understand that they are no more perfect than the people at the NSA, and that the people at the NSA have no other motive for gathering intel than that of protecting against terrorism.

The NSA works for somebody else, and who knows what that person's agenda is?

Conspiracy nuts, blame America Firsters, journalists concerned about their paychecks, and faux outraged pants-wetters are no help in making sure there is balance between our privacy and our security concerns, which is a difficult, and now thankless task for the people who try to maintain it.
#22 | Posted by Corky

Get over yourself. There was sufficient intel to stop 9/11 if we had wanted to stop it. You really can't accept that Bush let 9/11 happen because his PNAC plans needed a Pearl Harbor Level Event, can you?

Our spies and spooks were doing their job back then too. With no other motive than protecting America. That's why they sent the President a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US." What the President did next (or rather, didn't do next) let analysts such as yourself to mistakenly conclude that you simply didn't get the President enough warnings. In reality, he deliberately ignored you because that was all part of his plan. In your zeal to find external threats you failed to understand the implications the PNAC document. I doubt you even read it.

And the real problem today is that you (by which I mean our intelligence community) still haven't learned what the threat model you're supposed to be protecting us from looks like. The big threats to America are not external, but among us. PNAC literally made the case for a domestic terror attack to start a war with Iraq, and you missed it.

Edward Snowden understood that the tools you're building and the intel you're dutifully heaping more and more of on the President's plate are a dictator's wet dream. Nobody, especially an American President, should be trusted with that power, especially when so much of the surveillance state operates beyond public oversight and even judicial oversight.

Coincidentally, that oversight is entirely in the hands of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. If the President decides to start doing bad things with the information you provide, and the Chief Justice is okay with it, it will be very hard to stop them.

Sleep well.

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-30 01:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

This quite an interesting and informative article:

firstlook.org

It may make you wonder how long our American culture of protest (and Constitutional right) and of standing up to political elites will continue.

#38 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-30 09:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

"U.S. surveillance programs are making it more difficult for government officials to speak to the press anonymously"

If we had all used encryption when it became available we probably wouldn't even have this problem.

However, if you choose to use encryption now to protect your privacy you will probably just become a target of the NSA.

Yup.

Sleep well.

#39 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-30 06:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

The NSA and Encryption

On NSA's Subversion of NIST's Algorithm

#40 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-30 09:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Germans lost World War II at the Battle of Stalingrad, which was fought from August 23, 1942 until February 2, 1943, when most of the remnants of the powerful German Sixth Army surrendered, including 22 generals. Nineteen months previously the largest invasion force ever assembled on planet earth invaded Russia across a one thousand mile front. Three million crack German troops; 7,500 artillery units, 19 panzer divisions with 3,000 tanks, and 2,500 aircraft rolled across Russia for 14 months. By June 1944, three years later, very little of this force was left. The Red Army had chewed it up. When the so-called "allies" (a term which apparently excludes Russia) landed in France, there was little to resist them. The best forces remaining to Hitler were on the Russian front, which collapsed day by day as the Red Army approached Berlin.The Red Army won the war with Germany. The Americans and the British showed up after the Wehrmacht was exhausted and in tatters and could offer little resistance. But in America, we won WWII.

Washington has equated self-determination in eastern and southern Ukraine with "terrorism" and has encouraged its stooge in Kiev to use military violence against protesting civilians. The reason for branding separatists "terrorists" is to make it OK to kill them. It is extraordinary to any learned person that the President of the United States and the titular heads of state of the Western European countries would publicly declare such blatant lies to the world.

In the USA the "world community" is the US, Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, and Japan. The other 190 countries are not part of Washington's "world community." In neocon doctrine, they are not even part of humanity. Yet, the land mass of Russia itself exceeds the land mass of the "world community."

Putin is supposed to kiss the new corrupt Ukrainian Oligarch on both cheeks, pay Ukraine's natural gas bills and forgive its debts. Russia is supposed to repudiate the Crimean people, evict them from their re-unity with Russia and hand them over to the neo-Nazi Right Sector to be eliminated as retribution for Russia's victory over Nazi Germany, for whom some Western Ukrainians fought. In exchange, Washington and NATO will put anti-ballistic missile bases on Ukraine's border with Russia in order to protect Europe from nonexistent Iranian nuclear ICBMs.

Sanctions on Russia will wreck Europe and have little, if any, effect on Russia. Russia is already moving, with China and the BRICS, outside the dollar payments mechanism.

Americans are very susceptible to propaganda. Bergdahl, like pro-football star Pat Tillman came down with a case of doubts about the war. Originally, Pat Tillman's death was attributed to his heroic action and enemy fire. Then it emerged that Tillman was a victim of "friendly fire." Many concluded that he was murdered, because the government did not want a sports hero speaking out about the war. As Bergdahl is off the battlefield, he has to be murdered in the press–like Russia, China, Iran, Putin, Assad, Crimeans, and the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine. In America hate and the cultivation of hate is alive and well. But not a single moral virtue is. (Paul Craig Roberts)

#41 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-30 09:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Washington has equated self-determination in eastern and southern Ukraine with "terrorism" and has encouraged its stooge in Kiev to use military violence against protesting civilians. The reason for branding separatists "terrorists" is to make it OK to kill them. It is extraordinary to any learned person that the President of the United States and the titular heads of state of the Western European countries would publicly declare such blatant lies to the world."

These "stooges" were elected and these "civillians" aren't even Ukrainians, they are Russians who have a history in other former Soviet nations.

"Putin is supposed to kiss the new corrupt Ukrainian Oligarch on both cheeks, pay Ukraine's natural gas bills and forgive its debts. Russia is supposed to repudiate the Crimean people, evict them from their re-unity with Russia and hand them over to the neo-Nazi Right Sector to be eliminated as retribution for Russia's victory over Nazi Germany, for whom some Western Ukrainians fought. In exchange, Washington and NATO will put anti-ballistic missile bases on Ukraine's border with Russia in order to protect Europe from nonexistent Iranian nuclear ICBMs."

Sorry, but that's just crazy.

#42 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-30 09:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Gee Danni,

Is that a meaningful response? Is there a particular point you would like to take exception to? In what way? What about Bergdahl or Tillman? Doesn't PCR's explanation make more sense than the official Government story, which began as a bald faced lie?

The sad truth is we live in a sea of lies.

#43 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-30 09:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

The last "election" in the Ukraine involved 3% of the population. For more detail:

www.counterpunch.org

#44 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-30 09:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

-But not a single moral virtue is.

Those who can't do, moralize. Or teach badly.

#45 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-30 10:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Paul Craig Roberts sees himself as an analyst, not a community organizer. But as Reagan's Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and PhD in economics from Stanford he is also known as a doer.

#46 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-30 10:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So '70's.

We ID'd "The Man" in the '60's, dude. We get it.

We've know about the Ajax Project for decades. We know about systemic problems in government at home. We've known about the military-industrial complex since Ike. We know about crony corporate/government collusion and about money in politics. We already know what the problems are.

When you want to do more than whine about it, give us call.

And, btw, falling for the 1 percenter meme that, "the parties are the same" is only playing into their effort to create apathy and stifle real opposition in the form of votes.

Someone else tell him that, he doesn't listen to me.

#8 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2014-07-17 10:46 PM | REPLY |

originally posted for Shawn, but you will do

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-30 10:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

lol, quoting the co-founder of Reaganomics is not really something that you see everyday from supposed liberals.

#48 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-30 10:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Before you can fix it you have to know what is going on. That said, in the meantime, there are marginal reasons for preferring Wussies over Rethugs. But a major problem with the Wussies is they are playing their progressive wing for fools, lying incessantly to them while legislating opposite what they say. At least one cannot blame the Rethugs for that. Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall, signed NAFTA, and established a nationwide network Federally Funded State Attorneys to chase so-called "deadbeat dads" by matching every dollar they collect (rightly or wrongly) for their own enrichment. A new system with a built in conflict of interest. All at taxpayer expense. All of it a continuing proven failure.

As wrong as the Rethugs are, at least they do what they say.

How Reaganomics is popularly described and what it has turned into is seriously misunderstood. PCR objects strongly to offshoring jobs, but he is hardly welcome at the Wall Street Journal or Heritage Society.

#49 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-30 10:36 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

-you have to know what is going on.

We've known what is going on since at least the 1960s.... is this thing on?

-playing their progressive wing for fools,

NO, they are playing us for what we are, about 30 percent, at best, of the national voting electorate.

Presidents have to be leaders of the whole country, not just their base.

-is seriously misunderstood. PCR

No, it isn't, it's easily understood. And PCR isn't infallible by several long shots.

Here. You like history...

www.rollingstone.com

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-30 10:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

ha! as if our press were independent of the corporatacracy

#51 | Posted by truthhurts at 2014-07-30 10:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obama is another puppet for the 1% just like Shrub. Shrub was their direct advocate. Obama does it behind closed doors after giving contrary speeches. Anyone that exposes this fact is prosecuted for revealing "National Security Secrets". Obama has locked up more whistleblowers (truthtellers) than all other Presidents in American History. This policy began when his lies about getting tough on Bankers was exposed.

#52 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-30 11:42 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"PCR objects strongly to offshoring jobs, but he is hardly welcome at the Wall Street Journal or Heritage Society."

Roberts in the 80s isn't quite the same as the 2010s. He's on the left on the two most important issues: Empire and the national security/surveillance state.

#53 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-30 11:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Obama has locked up more whistleblowers (truthtellers) than all other Presidents in American History. This policy began when his lies about getting tough on Bankers was exposed."

He just treats the word "tough" like a term of art. Collateral consequences and all.

#54 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2014-07-30 11:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

lol, all these delicate virgins that Obama deflowered, my, my.

The question I have to ask is, after they found a Messiah, and then dumped him before his first term was half over, who will want to be their candidate next time?

They have already proven to have the staying power of a rabbit, and about as much courage of their convictions when they voted for him.

Were they being foolish then or are they being foolish now?

Or both?

#55 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-31 12:38 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"The question I have to ask is, after they found a Messiah, and then dumped him before his first term was half over,"

That's hilarious, and a lie. Certainly for Hagbard. Neither of us ever thought Obama was a Messiah.

#56 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-31 12:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

#56

And you didn't dump him before his first term was half over. Right.

If you had anyone at all to replace him, which you don't, oh wait... you can't be trusted with either making a good choice, even in your own opinion, nor do you have the ability to back that choice.

So, never mind.

#57 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-31 12:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

"And you didn't dump him before his first term was half over. Right."

Concedes the point, changes the goal post. Can't speak for Hagbard, but I thought he was a weasel when he and your Messiah Hillary were fighting it out. That's why I posted this article numerous times in 2008.

Obama Is the Best BS Artist Since Bill Clinton
www.alternet.org

#58 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-31 01:09 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

And why you voted for him, right.

During the primary, I and others pointed out that he was a compromiser and a conciliator, not the liberal firebrand many people thought he was.

When he won election to the Harvard post, he replaced one of his liberal supporters, much to their consternation, with a conservative member to try to make peace and govern judicially taking in all concerns, not just those of his base.

This was pointed out as an example of how he would govern as President.

So, forgive some of us who are not shocked, dismayed, disenchanted and in some cases downright hysterical about the way he he has handled his office.

#59 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-31 11:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

Concedes the point, changes the goal post. Can't speak for Hagbard, but I thought he was a weasel when he and your Messiah Hillary were fighting it out. That's why I posted this article numerous times in 2008.

Obama Is the Best BS Artist Since Bill Clinton
www.alternet.org

#58 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-31 01:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

Tis why I didn't vote for him in 2012

#60 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-31 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Tis why I didn't vote for him in 2012"

Very wise decision. He got his chance and blew it. That's why I voted 3rd party in 2012.

#61 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-31 12:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

The NSA and Encryption

On NSA's Subversion of NIST's Algorithm

#40 | Posted by et_al

excellent articles...

#62 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-31 01:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort