What is Digg?327 Comments
- normlsparky, on 04/09/2009, -1/+143"THAT'S the bigger picture here folks, one that even Olbermann idealism rails against and refuses to acknowledge."
Wasn't that the same "bigger picture" Bush had to deal with? I criticized Bush for the policy, so I'll be damned if I make excuses for Obama when he continues it. The same concept applies to torture. I was against it then and I'm still against it now.
The criminal acts don't change just because your party is the one now committing them. - theviceroy, on 04/09/2009, -11/+113A big ***** you to everyone who said Olbermann wouldn't criticize Obama.
- booksnmore4you, on 04/08/2009, -64/+151Howard Fineman on the program had it nailed perfectly but Olbermann 100% ignored him to continue on with the tact he had previously intended to take.
In short, Obama has a political constituency he is trying to deal with here and it is not the American people but the U.S. intelligence community, i.e., the CIA and FBI.
Folks, like it or not, the CIA holds ENORMOUS power, and they are hardly even accountable to Congress, who they treat like mushrooms ("keep them in the dark and feed them *****", as one high-level former agent famously said). If Obama, or any president for that matter, does not pitch well to this shadowy part of the U.S. government, and in a very real sense do for them that which they wish, they are just as apt to take the same tact with a president as they do with Congress. Meanwhile, any president is desperately dependent upon the intelligence community, for whom only a sense of loyalty, to the extent it holds, keeps them in any sort of line to the president.
THAT'S the bigger picture here folks, one that even Olbermann idealism rails against and refuses to acknowledge. And yes, its some butt-ugly *****, it reeks like blackmail which intelligence folks trade in all the time to get information, and morality is a deep smoke color--where there are precisely ZERO good options. - Ajaynow, on 04/09/2009, -7/+85Democrat or Republican - The Government will stop at nothing to gain more power.
- emmeron, on 04/08/2009, -4/+71While this may be true, it doesn't mean Obama is off the hook: he's the man that should be stepping up to this. That's what he was elected for. If all that you said amounts to "precisely ZERO good options," we must request the path of the greatest amount of civil liberties. We must request it of Obama, the man who claimed he would change things.
Like it or not, the CIA must be reined in. - JoeParanoid, on 04/08/2009, -11/+74Yeah, maybe someone ought to start pressuring Obama. No one did when it could have made a difference: back then they were all swooning over his vague oratory. I've been complaining about Obama's lack of commitment to civil liberties for over a year. I'm tired of the people who fought me tooth and nail on this now acting all surprised and outraged. Outrage is the entitlement of the righteous, not the foolish, like Olbermann.
- Bagos1, on 04/08/2009, -23/+82Viva la Change!
- nysus, on 04/09/2009, -12/+67Complain all you want about MSNBC, but you never saw Hannity complain about the policies of the Bush administration.
- inactive, on 04/09/2009, -10/+62Change my ass.
Same *****, different day. - jleopold, on 04/08/2009, -0/+45It only took Leon Panetta a few days to become part of the bureaucracy. you read what he wrote and said publicly last year and hold it up to his recent statements and it's like two different people speaking.
- jester55, on 04/09/2009, -12/+54***** you Obama. I really didn't think you would do something like this.
- 4rp4n3t, on 04/09/2009, -3/+44There's a saying that goes something like:
"It doesn't matter who you elect, you always end up with the government".
I can understand why normally intelligent people were suckered by Obama, but come on - they're all ***** politicians, and yes, to a large extent, they *are* all the same! - cambob76, on 04/09/2009, -5/+45Obama is a puppet just like Bush was. Elections only determine how the message is presented. There is one party. The real power is never seen by the public and is manifold.
- hbskinner, on 04/09/2009, -3/+36I see, so Obama doesn't want to continue wiretapping, but the evil CIA is forcing him to. Riiiiiight.....
- Homerr, on 04/09/2009, -3/+34This is ***** Obama.
/anObamavoter - Smaulz, on 04/09/2009, -12/+42That's what you get for not paying attention... we knew he'd do something EXACTLY like this.
- AlterLite, on 04/09/2009, -14/+39Change you can believe in! All you fools got suckered in by your hatred of Bush and a freaking chant....
- charm803, on 04/09/2009, -7/+31The Republicans keep calling him a socialist terrorist and the Democrats keep calling him Bush Jr.
Amusing and scary at the same time. - Zanuff, on 04/09/2009, -5/+29Sad tail.
- kronzdigg, on 04/09/2009, -15/+38A few of us on digg had it right RP2008. go ahead obamabots digg down digg down.
- NorthMass, on 04/09/2009, -5/+28I can understand why someone would think Obama could bring change, he did say he was going to filibuster FISA for example in 2007. But over the course of the campaign and now in his presidency he has flip flopped and lied so much that he has become a joke.
- ricoboy24, on 04/09/2009, -1/+22"National Security", That phrase is so oxymoronic. Who is this nation really securing, us from ourselves?!
Where's the Change? - NorthMass, on 04/09/2009, -3/+24Finally Olbermann really criticizes Obama, and rightfully so.
- morcheeba, on 04/09/2009, -0/+20http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3126/2924038455_c56 ...
- atomheartmother, on 04/08/2009, -15/+34Conservatives aren't laughing as the Regressives melt down and eat their own. Really.
- okonisfree, on 04/09/2009, -21/+39The Obama Deception....watch it and then everyone might have a different outlook
However, as with anything in the world, always have doubt - NorthMass, on 04/09/2009, -2/+20I don't like Olbermann, but if this continues then I will gain more respect for him. I hope he proves me wrong and continues to criticize Obama and look for honest politicians like Kucinich who will stand up for civil rights and peace.
- phrenzy, on 04/09/2009, -8/+26If you complained and fought against the Bush administration engaging in these same policies, then you are free to complain. If you said nothing then, you have no right to say jack ***** now. STFU and crawl back into your hole.
Many people complained about it then, and fight this nonsense just as hard as before. Probably harder, because there is a (slim) chance Obama will actually listen to his constituency whereas Bush clearly could give one ***** about what the public thought. - jaymzdean, on 04/09/2009, -0/+17Just follow the Constitution.
- wjappe, on 04/09/2009, -31/+47You can't ignore the broken promises and traitorous behaviour that Obama has displayed right from the beginning and is still continuing to do so, every day makes it more and more obvious that we have been sold out and not only nothing is going to get fixed, more and more of what we knew and should have been is going down the drain. He voting record should have been a tip off, his cabinet choices should have been another. Where is the transparency? Rather means opacity to him. He is showing who he is really working for. (and it ain't us).
- jbmcb, on 04/09/2009, -2/+18> Folks, like it or not, the CIA holds ENORMOUS power
Yes, because they provide information. The president is still the *boss*. The CIA works for him, not the other way around. That doctored-up report that Bush cited about WMDs in Iraq? It was created under protest by the CIA - the director basically said cough up information to show Iraq has WMDs or loose your jobs.
> and they are hardly even accountable to Congress
Except for that time when Congress ripped the agency apart in the 70's (and rightfully so.)
> they are just as apt to take the same tact with a president as they do with Congress.
You seem to have learned the inner workings of the intelligence community by watching 24. Listen to this instead:
http://www.spymuseum.org/programs/spycast.php
Produced by an ex-CIA field op. He has no problem raking the agency across the coals, as in the case of the WMD report. You might want to listen to the show about conspiracy theories. - DESTROYER2118, on 04/09/2009, -2/+18This is quite possibly one of the best comments I have ever read.
- jakereilly, on 04/09/2009, -0/+16IF you are doing anything illegal, THE GOVERNMENT can get a WARRANT. being a well-informed citizen i promise you the government could get one if they wanted, and in a timely manner.
idiot. go ***** yourself. - Lonandubh, on 04/09/2009, -5/+21Yet another betrayal by Obama. I repeatedly, through the campaign, complained that he was not scrutinized sufficiently by the media, and now that they've no real reason to pick on the ugly candidate, they're finally getting around to picking on the pretty president, and what do they find? He's an untrustworthy politician, too!
- papasmurf12, on 04/09/2009, -1/+16You're just as bad as the Bush apologists.
- thesonofdarwin, on 04/09/2009, -9/+24They stood by Bush, unflinchingly, as they watched and supported his plummet. What's Fox's stance on this? I'd assume they'd be gleeful since this was Bush's baby. I have a feeling they are bashing him, though. Fox is criticized because they don't function on logic. They function on hate of the opposition. We, however, are quite able to pick out one of our own for making huge mistakes. There lies the difference.
- elliotys, on 04/09/2009, -6/+20Yeah, but Obama's goes up to eleven.
- HallEffected, on 04/09/2009, -0/+13I remember a certain president and presidential candidate back in the 60's who publically said they would like to see CIA power cut.
They were John F. Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy.
I'm not sayin, i'm just sayin. - beldenge, on 04/09/2009, -2/+15I voted for Ron Paul. I convinced several coworkers to do the same. I was never worried about the whole "experience" issue surrounding Obama. I was just more interested in a congressman who had proven countless times where his intentions were. He was proven through his actions, not by mere speech.
- theviceroy, on 04/09/2009, -6/+18The point is that while Olbermann may be liberal, he is not a partisan shill. Or at least that's the point I was making. What's the point I'm missing?
- TrentDeux, on 04/09/2009, -0/+12UNO?
Obama promised not to raise taxes on those making less than $250k. But on April fools day he raised the excise tax on cigarettes. FYI many poor people smoke, and this was no prank.
Obama flip flopped on the FISA bill.
Obama promised a five day review period before signing bills into law, and then proceeded to ram one of the biggest spending bills (stimulus) through Congress with barely time to skim through the pages.
Obama promised to go "line by line" through the federal budget, and eliminate unnecessary spending, and then proceeded to propose one of the most pork-laden budgets ever.
We are just getting started, my friend, and you have been bamboozled. - Derka010, on 04/09/2009, -10/+22Rabble Rabble they both belong to the same organization...
seriously... - YouBeDaMan, on 04/09/2009, -3/+15Seen it, it's good.
No doubt you will be buried by people who don't want to challenge their worldview.
Seriously, you can fact check the whole movie for yourself, and they encourage you to do so. - Lonandubh, on 04/09/2009, -2/+13Frankly, i CAN'T see why intelligent people were suckered by him. Oh, he's charismatic and all, but i don't recall much intelligent commentary or ideas, simply rhetoric. Great for swaying hearts, but minds that are worth a damn should know better.
(FTR, i didn't vote for mccain, either) - TrentDeux, on 04/09/2009, -0/+11And that, my friends, is a cop out. You are basically saying it is ok to sell out core principles in order to keep a particular constituency happy. A typical maneuver for a political operative, but not what one would look for from a leader who promised to bring change to Washington.
And I think we all can guess whether you would have made such an excuse for Bush... - JimmyIkon, on 04/09/2009, -0/+11They are meaningless labels these days. They used to actually mean something.
- kaelyiesta, on 04/09/2009, -0/+11That's absurd nonsense. Pandering for political favors does not provide an adequate excuse for this. The president has no need to to cater to the 'powerful' CIA anymore than bush did when he ignored their military evidence with regard to iraq and then later iran. He even ignored official reports until 6 months later they were made public, forcing him to back pedal.
No, Obama isn't under the thumb or even much pressure from the CIA. They don't hold the incentives over him. Others may, but again that is irrelevant. Like it or not, a president should not acquiesce to political pressure that demands such policies, and if that president does, then he should not be the president much longer. - yocouchdigga, on 04/09/2009, -0/+11is sad.
- madtechnologist, on 04/09/2009, -3/+14nysus-Your statement is absolutely, 100% not true. You must not listen to Hannity. He ALWAYS criticized Bush on the immigration and spending. You obviously don't listen. Go educate yourself before criticizing what you think is the truth.
It's about time Olberman kept it real with his ideology. I don't agree with him (wow, does that mean I agree with Obama?), but I'm just glad he got off his knees and wiped his mouth off. The Olberman to Obama slurping sounds was really getting disgusting! Now if we can only get Chris Matthews up before his knees are permanently damaged. - jakereilly, on 04/09/2009, -2/+12Uh, the entire video is about obama expanding the spying.
*****. -
Show 51 - 100 of 333 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 