This really is becoming like 1984. First we had a president arguing about the meaning of "is". Next we get the the DIA lying to Congress say "No" when the truth

This really is becoming like 1984. First we had a president arguing about the meaning of "is". Next we get the the DIA lying to Congress say "No" when the truth was "Yes" and then when caught explaining he answered in the "least untruthful manner". Now when our president says [1]: "nobody is listening to your telephone calls" "if the intelligence community then actually wants to listen to a phone call, they’ve got to go back to a federal judge" "nobody’s listening to the content of people’s phone calls" "do not involve listening to people’s phone calls, do not involve reading the emails of U.S. citizens or U.S. residents, absent further action by a federal court" It actually means this [2]: "If the NSA wants 'to listen to the phone,' an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required" [1] http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-248480/ http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2... [2] http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-lis...