3 ms·

My reading of Obama is that he is nearly terrified about being blamed for anything. If the OP is correct, then this is some blame that might stick to Obama. I

by graycat 13y ago

My reading of Obama is that he is nearly terrified about being blamed for anything. If the OP is correct, then this is some blame that might stick to Obama. In this case, my reading is that he will rush to correct the situation. So, first step, pin the blame on Obama, and then let him suffer with it until he changes it.

prawn 13y ago
May be more terrified of the next 9/11 and criticism that he didn't do enough to stop it. (I'm not condoning their decisions.)
- graycat 13y ago
  Yes, of course, but now for Obama that possibility of blame for not stopping another terrorist attack can seem less important than the actual blame, now, for the NSA spying on US citizens, that is, will so seem to Obama if enough people raise heck over the NSA spying. If I were the POTUS, then I'd have my staff draft a short statement and use it to address the nation. The main point would be that the US actually is vulnerable to an attack by terrorists, and even if we totally lock down our country, turn the US into a 'surveillance' state and a police state, trash most of the Bill of Rights, damage our domestic economy, shoot our international trade in the gut, etc., we will still be vulnerable. We can't be 100% safe. I'd mention that often there are several courses of action, with some safer than others but none 100% safe. E.g., from B. Schneier, after 9/11 so many people were so afraid of commercial air travel and drove cars instead that the fact that cars are much less safe than air travel resulted in more deaths of US citizens than 9/11 caused. Might also mention that a goal of UBL was not to defeat the US via force but just to trick the US into a response so absurd and wasteful that the US would bankrupt itself, and here UBL has had a lot of success. Then I'd ask the US citizens to go to a special, nationwide referendum on what to do, (1) return to the US as it was before 9/11 with some prudent and legal improvements to stop terrorists or (2) trash much of what is great about the US and still be vulnerable to terrorists. In this choice, we have to notice that the terrorists are not totally stupid and will avoid confronting the defenses we do put up and, instead, exploit ways in which we are still vulnerable. A review of the track record of just what good all our anti-terrorism hysteria -- NSA, 'militarization' of local police, trashing the Bill of Rights, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, the TSA trashing our domestic transportation industry, excesses by our Customs units, the money, etc. -- actually accomplished. E.g., we should note the Boston bomber -- the NSA, etc. didn't stop him. Then let the US citizens decide. Good way for Obama to play CYA and also get the US back to a sane country away from some national neurotic hysteria from a few wackos with airline tickets and box cutters.
  - prawn 13y ago
    I wonder if it's possible that the NSA did have awareness of the Boston bombing in advance but couldn't stop it preemptively without giving up the info that they were tracking anything and everything. Remember the security detail looking guys Reddit excitedly found when scouring photos? Perhaps they wanted to catch the bombers in action but failed?
    - graycat 13y ago
      The real situation was much worse than that: The Russians nicely enough told us that the guy was a dangerous wacko. So, the Boston police investigated and then dropped the matter. The NSA could likely have had a really tough time using their electronics to get a lead as solid as that the Russians gave us. Net, the NSA electronic data is just not very effective against such a wacko; our police departments aren't either. Maybe the hope of the NSA is catching another UBL planning another 9/11 and do so by grabbing cell phone data. Well, the terrorists know now to assume that telephones and e-mail are not secure; knowing that, the NSA will be even more useless than now. The NSA is just a bureaucracy gone totally out of control because no one with authority wants to say "Stop" and then risk being blamed the next time something goes "Boom!". Any reasonable evaluation of costs and benefits would say that the NSA should be cut way back, say, to their original mission of arranging secure communications for the State Department. Then, maybe let them try to listen in on efforts to make loose nukes. Otherwise, save the money and the US Constitution.

by graycat 13y ago

prawn 13y ago

May be more terrified of the next 9/11 and criticism that he didn't do enough to stop it. (I'm not condoning their decisions.)

graycat 13y ago
Yes, of course, but now for Obama that possibility of blame for not stopping another terrorist attack can seem less important than the actual blame, now, for the NSA spying on US citizens, that is, will so seem to Obama if enough people raise heck over the NSA spying. If I were the POTUS, then I'd have my staff draft a short statement and use it to address the nation. The main point would be that the US actually is vulnerable to an attack by terrorists, and even if we totally lock down our country, turn the US into a 'surveillance' state and a police state, trash most of the Bill of Rights, damage our domestic economy, shoot our international trade in the gut, etc., we will still be vulnerable. We can't be 100% safe. I'd mention that often there are several courses of action, with some safer than others but none 100% safe. E.g., from B. Schneier, after 9/11 so many people were so afraid of commercial air travel and drove cars instead that the fact that cars are much less safe than air travel resulted in more deaths of US citizens than 9/11 caused. Might also mention that a goal of UBL was not to defeat the US via force but just to trick the US into a response so absurd and wasteful that the US would bankrupt itself, and here UBL has had a lot of success. Then I'd ask the US citizens to go to a special, nationwide referendum on what to do, (1) return to the US as it was before 9/11 with some prudent and legal improvements to stop terrorists or (2) trash much of what is great about the US and still be vulnerable to terrorists. In this choice, we have to notice that the terrorists are not totally stupid and will avoid confronting the defenses we do put up and, instead, exploit ways in which we are still vulnerable. A review of the track record of just what good all our anti-terrorism hysteria -- NSA, 'militarization' of local police, trashing the Bill of Rights, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, the TSA trashing our domestic transportation industry, excesses by our Customs units, the money, etc. -- actually accomplished. E.g., we should note the Boston bomber -- the NSA, etc. didn't stop him. Then let the US citizens decide. Good way for Obama to play CYA and also get the US back to a sane country away from some national neurotic hysteria from a few wackos with airline tickets and box cutters.
- prawn 13y ago
  I wonder if it's possible that the NSA did have awareness of the Boston bombing in advance but couldn't stop it preemptively without giving up the info that they were tracking anything and everything. Remember the security detail looking guys Reddit excitedly found when scouring photos? Perhaps they wanted to catch the bombers in action but failed?
  - graycat 13y ago
    The real situation was much worse than that: The Russians nicely enough told us that the guy was a dangerous wacko. So, the Boston police investigated and then dropped the matter. The NSA could likely have had a really tough time using their electronics to get a lead as solid as that the Russians gave us. Net, the NSA electronic data is just not very effective against such a wacko; our police departments aren't either. Maybe the hope of the NSA is catching another UBL planning another 9/11 and do so by grabbing cell phone data. Well, the terrorists know now to assume that telephones and e-mail are not secure; knowing that, the NSA will be even more useless than now. The NSA is just a bureaucracy gone totally out of control because no one with authority wants to say "Stop" and then risk being blamed the next time something goes "Boom!". Any reasonable evaluation of costs and benefits would say that the NSA should be cut way back, say, to their original mission of arranging secure communications for the State Department. Then, maybe let them try to listen in on efforts to make loose nukes. Otherwise, save the money and the US Constitution.