3 ms·

Exactly. I find it confounding how people are still attributing this stuff to Presidents when it should be obvious by now it's not the elected officials runnin

Exactly. I find it confounding how people are still attributing this stuff to Presidents when it should be obvious by now it's not the elected officials running this show. They're being led along by an entrenched bureaucracy with its own goals and agenda, no term limits, and with the ability to shape the world view and hence decisions of our elected officials by what information they choose to provide or withhold. Stop talking about this in terms of Bush or Obama, Republican or Democrat. The problem transcends any one elected individual or even political party.

bcoates 13y ago
This simply isn't true. Obama ran on being Bush's third and fourth terms and that's what we got. The two of them have been a radical departure from previous administrations. Two presidencies does not make an immutable law of nature. Recent political events have demonstrated just how autonomous the President is, there is no reason to think there is some sort of hidden power at play here. If anything we need a stronger and more professional bureaucracy that's less eager to help the President break the law.
- csallen 13y ago
  I understand your point, but I don't see any reason to believe it. It seems to me that it's in the NSA's (and every other gov't organization's) best interests to do everything in its power to increase its own reach and influence. It's naive to assume they are working against their own best interests unless you have some sort of evidence to back that up.
- SkyMarshal 13y ago
  >This simply isn't true. Obama ran on being Bush's third and fourth terms and that's what we got. No, he ran on the exact opposite - being the anti-Bush. Maybe you saw through that are remembering what you perceived instead. And there's no "hidden power" in so far as the Federal bureaucracy is anything but hidden. Secretive maybe, but not hidden. >If anything we need a stronger and more professional bureaucracy that's less eager to help the President break the law. Agreed. That would be ideal. There are elements of it, but it's not universal.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Well let's be fair, they both ran on some part by being "not Bush". The GOP couldn't find a corner dusty enough to stick GWB in during that election cycle.

bcoates 13y ago

This simply isn't true. Obama ran on being Bush's third and fourth terms and that's what we got. The two of them have been a radical departure from previous administrations. Two presidencies does not make an immutable law of nature. Recent political events have demonstrated just how autonomous the President is, there is no reason to think there is some sort of hidden power at play here. If anything we need a stronger and more professional bureaucracy that's less eager to help the President break the law.

csallen 13y ago
I understand your point, but I don't see any reason to believe it. It seems to me that it's in the NSA's (and every other gov't organization's) best interests to do everything in its power to increase its own reach and influence. It's naive to assume they are working against their own best interests unless you have some sort of evidence to back that up.
SkyMarshal 13y ago
>This simply isn't true. Obama ran on being Bush's third and fourth terms and that's what we got. No, he ran on the exact opposite - being the anti-Bush. Maybe you saw through that are remembering what you perceived instead. And there's no "hidden power" in so far as the Federal bureaucracy is anything but hidden. Secretive maybe, but not hidden. >If anything we need a stronger and more professional bureaucracy that's less eager to help the President break the law. Agreed. That would be ideal. There are elements of it, but it's not universal.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Well let's be fair, they both ran on some part by being "not Bush". The GOP couldn't find a corner dusty enough to stick GWB in during that election cycle.