Obama changes his mind about "privacy", and "security" amidst NSA scandal.

It seems that Obama has changed his mind about "privacy", and "security" amidst the recent NSA scandals.

Back in 2007 Barack Obama had some very harsh words for president Bush (Who was having his own NSA scandal at the time) stating the following:    

"This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand… That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists… We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary."

Today Obama changed his tune, as is clear in this more recent quote:

 Barack Obama: "I think it’s important to understand that you can’t have 100 percent security and then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We’re going to have to make some choices as a society."

The CNN/ORC International survey, released Monday, finds that Obama's approval rating has fallen eight points to 45 percent, the lowest level in more than 18 months. There is no doubt that this drop in popularity has been triggered my the recent scandals surrounding the Obama administration. And with Edward Snowden, the man responsible for leaking the information that has brought the NSA scandal into the limelight now being called a hero by many Americans, it is unlikely that people will approve of the way he is being treated.

Speaker Of The House John Boehner has called Edward Snowden a "traitor", which does not sit well with those who are rallying in his defense.

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham has stated- "I hope we follow Mr. Snowden to the ends of the Earth to bring him to justice."  

U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell: "Given the scope of these programs, it’s understandable that many would be concerned about issues related to privacy. But what’s difficult to understand is the motivation of somebody who intentionally would seek to warn the nation’s enemies of lawful programs created to protect the American people. And I hope that he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

And is seems U.S. Representative Peter King thinks reporters don't have the right to cover stories on the NSA, stating: "There is an obligation both moral, but also legal, I believe, against a reporter disclosing something which would so severely compromise national security."

And that isn't the worst of it. Director Of National Intelligence James Clapper had a very dodgy, and suspicious answer when he was asked about why he lied about the NSA spying in front of Congress: "I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful manner"

What's worse,  according to National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden: "The president has full faith in director Clapper and his leadership of the intelligence community" Something we should all be concerned about. 



                                               [Obama on NSA scandal]

Benghazi: Government Failure

There is no question that there was a failure to act promptly, and appropriately during the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi. What most people are questioning is who it was that failed to act, provide aid, gather accurate information, and send men as a precaution in case the attack lasted for more than two or three hours (It could have lasted days.) The attack began during the night at a compound that is meant to protect the consulate building. Early the next morning a second attack took place, this attack was against a CIA annex in a different diplomatic compound. Four people were killed, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Ten others were injured.

After the attack, investigators identified over a dozen violent incidents in Benghazi during the last six months. October 2, 2012, three weeks after the attacks, Jason Chaffets (R-UT, chairman of the subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense, and Foreign Operations) and Darrell Issa (R-CA, chairman of the Committee) sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton which listed a number of these events—including car jackings, assassination attempts, kidnappings, and gun battles. "Put together, these events indicated a clear pattern of security threats that could only be reasonably interpreted to justify increased security for U.S. personnel and facilities in Benghazi." The letter stated.

Initially reports were spread that the attack had broken out during a protest over an independent, short film uploaded to YouTube, named "The Innocents Of Muslims", which bad-mouthed the Muslim faith. The violence was thought to have broken out suddenly, and to have been the act of only a few people in retaliation over the film, while the protest was meant to remain peaceful. However, these claims were later determine to be false. No protest ever took place. One must wonder how these rumors started spreading to begin with. Who was it who had claimed that the video was the cause of this violence? Even Government officials claimed this largely unknown film to be the cause of the attack. One would suppose that debunking this claim would be as simple as interviewing a witness, after all, there were surviving witnesses who could definitely determine if there had been a protest outside the building before violence broke out. If gathering this information is that simple, then why did it take so long for anyone to tell us these rumors were false? Perhaps it was easier to put these matters off until after Obama's re-election.

But who is to blame for the poor response to Benghazi? My first guess would be the then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose job it is to advise the President on foreign affairs and who is in charge of correspondence, commission, or instructions to consuls abroad, and to conduct negotiations with foreign representatives. But Obama also repeated the "YouTube Film" myth, again and again. Perhaps Obama didn't want to "rock the boat" before re-election. Hillary was about to retire from her position, it seems correct to assume they were hoping to put things off until after these deadlines.

If the attack had lasted longer the death tole could have been much higher. Help was never sent, though we could have had men on the ground in about three hours. They should have been sent as a precaution, but they weren't. And it would seem that the public was intentionally misled about the cause of the attack, which was done by terrorists, not protesters. I'm also wondering why men weren't sent right after the initial night attack at the compound that was meant to protect the consulate building. Why didn't we respond immediately to the first attack by sending men, who may have been there in time to make a difference? And let's remember, this was not just any day. It was 9/11, a day when all U.S. embassies in Muslim countries should be well guarded and take more precautions. We should have prepared for this, especially in a place that was already experiencing a number of violent acts. 

Some people are worried that the Benghazi scandal could effect Hillary Clinton's chance of election if she chooses to run for the presidency in 2016.