3 ms·
> but it benefits them enormously, allowing them to expand their powers, yeah, I know, my personal opinion is that Cheney definitely did that; invading a count
by zzzeek 13y ago
> but it benefits them enormously, allowing them to expand their powers,
yeah, I know, my personal opinion is that Cheney definitely did that; invading a country that had nothing to do with terrorism was evidence of that. I don't see this as Obama's motive though, I think he just wants there to be no terrorist attacks under his watch so that he doesn't sustain more political losses on that front alone (look how much flak he took for benghazi). If there was not such a huge political price for terrorism, I get the impression it would be easier for him to reign in the NSA/FBI. But I can't prove any of this, I'm a dem so I'm biased, etc.
- mikeash 13y agoI don't know if I agree with you about Obama, although it's certainly a possibility. Even if we grant that, though, the government isn't one person, and the political losses you mention would come from Congress. The Bush administration had Congress eating out of their hand, but Obama very much does not. And no, sadly, I have no idea how to stop Congress from being a bunch of jerks.