Obama’s Real Mistake: Downplaying Terror
show comments
  • bpuharic

    HHHmmmm…let’s see..WRM says the president claims to have ‘liquidated’ (sic) the terrorist threat



    The temporary closing of U.S. embassies in the Middle East is “a reminder that for all the progress we’ve made — getting (Osama) bin Laden, putting al Qaeda between Afghanistan and Pakistan back on its heels — that this radical, violent extremism is still out there,” Obama told Leno at one point. “And we’ve got to stay on top of it.”

    So WRM says Obama claims to have ‘liquidated’ the terrorist threat

    Obama clearly never said any such think.

    I think WRM owes his readers…and the President…an apoology

    • Tom

      While the President has retracted some of his statements, he has said some things that were…slightly more exuberant.
      Not recently, mind, but those were made. No apologies are necessary.

      • bpuharic

        Conservatives are welcome to say the president is a Martian who drinks gasoline if they want. One merely needs proof….a fact, it seems, lost on the conservative crowd.

  • TheCynical1

    But we can’t limit our NSA surveillance, because everything is relevant to terrorism — after all, our dedicated FISA court has so concluded, in secret legal opinions, procured by our constitutional expert President, in proceedings that are transparent, accountable, and overseen by our elected Congress.

  • Maynerd

    The normally prescient WRM appears a bit naive and Pollyannish about our national security state.

    Bush, Obama, and their predecessors have created the infrastructure for a totalitarian state. The collection of metadata on all US citizens has trashed the fourth amendment. Oversight is a farce with FISA rarely rejecting NSA requests with no role for an advocate to appeal their decisions. Now we learn the DEA and god knows what other agencies are given friendly tips from the NSA regarding domestic crimes.

    Bush and Obama may be swell guys and good boy scouts. However, the next president may not be so pure and noble.

    • bpuharic

      It doesn’t matter. That’s why we have checks and balances. It was known even at the founding of the republic that this could happen.

  • Jim__L

    One of my friends (interestingly, Boomer-aged, not Facebook-aged) who works in software is of the opinion that it is impossible to keep secrets using technological means.

    I’m not sure I agree with this. Good practices and designs are possible. If there really is no technological way to prevent such spills, the real danger they pose forces us to use other means.

    Divulging these secrets leads to actual deaths, and the capacity for real destruction on the part of people who for whatever reason want to take potshots at the US and US interests.

    If the likes of Snowden can’t be prevented, they need to be discouraged. I don’t believe that it would be 100% effective, but imposing the death penalty on premeditated leakers whose leaks lead to loss of life is one of our only options.

    That said, I vastly prefer a technical solution.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.