"I was never crazy about Greenwald, and don't care for Snowden. But some of you make me a fanboy

My basic opinion about Greenwald is that he's always been a bit of a loose cannon, who sometimes hits the mark and sometimes misses it.

Don't know much about Snowden, but he makes me a little bit edgy. Don 't quite trust him."

...you don't like them and don't "trust" Snowden, but because others express these opinions, makes you like them?

OK. LOL!

That I think what they did to shine a light on in the subject was good.

And my comments were not directed at people who reasonably expressed misgivings. It is directed at the Snark Squad who feel it is necessary to demean them and anyone who even slightly agrees with what they did.

"And my comments were not directed at people who reasonably expressed misgivings. It is directed at the Snark Squad who feel it is necessary to demean them and anyone who even slightly agrees with what they did. "

...I think your comment was designed to get in good with those who declare anyone critical of Greenwald and Snowden as sockpuppets.

Related to my theory that those shouting down criticism of the two have some scared to come right out and denounce them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025017715#post10

I'm not running for class president.

And, having watched the degeneration of this whole debate, there's enough shouting down on all sides that whatever one might say is likely to get jumped on.

"Pink fluffy bunnies"
"Oh yeah $&@$)(;.!!!"

"I'm not running for class president.

And, having watched the degeneration of this whole debate, there's enough shouting down on all sides that whatever one might say is likely to get jumped on. "

Is that the reason for: I don't "trust" him, but criticism makes me want to like him?

You basically reiterated my theory.

I think I will borrow that. A nonsensical but polite answer to a belligerent poster looking to engage.

"I think I will borrow that. A nonsensical but polite answer to a belligerent poster looking to engage."

"nonsensical" = "belligerent"

Please do adopt that "style."

Another adjective to add to your list.

you caught the biggest fish in the lake, and on your first try.

What a prime example of what your OP was about.

I like this part in your OP:

but perhaps are pretending not to. It's a common human tendency to come to the defense of someone who is being smeared. There are plenty of examples. For instance, although I voted for Clinton, I was not a fanboy by any stretch, but when they tried to impeach him, I had his back, big time.

"It's a common human tendency to come to the defense of someone who is being smeared."

You mean being "smeared" by "sockpuppets" as opposed to being criticized by people who disagree with them?

your propensity to laugh at anyone you are debating with, undermines your whole schtick.

"your propensity to laugh at anyone you are debating with, undermines your whole schtick."

...I could emulate the "vast majority" and simply refer to everyone who disagrees with me as a sockpuppet. That's the in thing, isn't it?

And you wonder why I'm

& I haven't either,
so..
back at ya

Really?

People can see it, you know?

LOL!

I, as Armstead also expressed above, just find the hatred expressed here bizarre and puzzling. I'm sure there are all kinds of sockpuppets that manifest here for various reasons, but I try to avoid accusing anyone of that. Because frankly, I don't know.

(And to add to it, I don't particularly care.)

I actually have no problem with the criticism or defense of Snowden or Greenwald. It's interesting to me and it's made me reflect on the situation, our privacy, lack thereof...etc.

But seeing the irrational hatred (or the irrational support, sometimes, too) of either of them is puzzling.

The posts dismissing you and Armstead with LOLs, etc. are attempts at dismissive condescension, but they aren't substantive. It's all a game.

personal attacks there were made on Greenwald and Snowden, the more people were turned off? That is a natural reaction by most people who in RL know such behavior would never be tolerated.

I guess those who manufacture these smear campaigns, see HB Gary eg, don't have normal human relationships. Probably why they are attracted to this not very noble occupation.

They think it's all a video game where if you zap one of the characters, there is no normal human reaction to it. Just on to zap the next one, and the next.

If I wanted to undermine someone's credibility I would do it with facts or not at all if there were not facts, as in Greenwald's case, to smear him with. He seems to have led a relatively boring life in that regard.

So they make up stuff, twist normal activities into something they were not trying to destroy someone who has one nothing more than write about politics. And they think we are too stupid to see what they are doing and how normal people react to such behavior. I understand the OP's reaction completely.

Seems to me they need more mature, intelligent smear campaigners. But wait, mature intelligent people don't engage in such behavior, deliberately setting out to ruin someone's life or reputation. And no, it's not 'just politics', it should be illegal and a few members of Congress agree and did move to investigate the smear campaign against Greenwald.

"You really don't understand, I thought you were just being facetious. You didn't wonder why the more personal attacks there were made on Greenwald and Snowden, the more people were turned off? That is a natural reaction by most people who in RL know such behavior would never be tolerated. "

...are really too smart to be trying this approach. I mean, what do you think the "personal attacks" on people critical of Greenwald and Snowden are doing?

Your problem appears to be that you think this will change people's opinion.

Nor have many other DUers. We HAVE pointed out the lies being told, and backed it up it with proof. If pointing out that someone is posting propaganda from an orchestrated smear campaign is a personal attack, that's news to me. Disagreeing with people is not attacking them.

I'm not trying any approach, I'm stating facts. I don't know how you 'try an approach' I just know how to express what I think in my own words. I don't need talking points, or snark, or anything else, just the facts, far more powerful than any fancy 'approach' from some think tank.

The issue is the violation of our Constitutional Rights and NO amount of distracting talking points or excuses is going to change that, or the fact that the American people care very much about their Rights. I can see why those who are guilty would be trying hard to divert attention away from what they are doing, but I don't see why any ordinary American would want to do that.

The way some have framed the argument allows them to equate snark with debate and disagreement on issues to personal attacks. The underlying motivations of the debaters is not to discuss the issues, but to protect the president's reputation.

Since I do not hold Obama single handedly responsible for the massive build-up of the NSA, their argument is a distraction from the real issue of how the government (which is comprised of 3 branches) has systematically violated my right to privacy. That is what this discussion is about, right?

In addition, a good argument is meant to persuade the opposition not harden their positions. Shrill, strident attacks accomplish nothing, convince no one, and thus fail.

"that those shouting down criticism of the two..."

Criticism, or gossip column inches?

But I think NSA defenders and those whose mission is to constantly attack Snowden or Greenwald are thousands of times worse. Yes they are prolific. Yes they are dedicated. Yes they are willing to hit below the belt for their cause...but they are wrong and most people I've ever talked to think so. But I don't hang out with many conservatives but it's my understanding even they are pissed. I'm sure once the Bush family is back in power and Jeb takes the reigns supporting NSA will increase for some and others won't be able to blame the criticism by who is left on anti-Obama bs or liberal racism which I have to say is about as out there as anything I've seen implied here.

perhaps you can link to some examples.

They are the most prolific of any sub group I've witnessed. They have 3 threads going right now. I don't wanna name names as they are very hostile and willing to flag anything as a personal attack. Trust me. Check out latest Snowden, Greenwald related threads. And another earlier that actually said if you were on DU and didn't support what the president is doing then you are a racist. Incredulously their sources were about sock puppet paid for profiles managed by republicans to alter public opinion but those links originally stated that it was military contractors and republicans using those tactics to support NSA and illegal wars. I also pointed out to the hysterical poster that yes I'm severely disillusioned with our president and have always been hard Left progressive and that many of my Black friends and colleagues are more liberal than me. Are they racist too? This is a ridiculous tactic used by whoever these people are posting such crap.

post a link to something that is Pro-NSA.

Unless what you're saying is distrust/dislike of Greenwald and/or Snowden is Pro-NSA?

That I think what they did to shine a light on in the subject was good.
-
the rest is secondary

releasing all the information they did?

Consider this possibility. Greenwald was already a prominent journalist. What if Snowden taking a new job, just to get more classified documents on various subjects, he worked with Snowden to produce a sensational (in the good meaning of the word) piece.

I could imagine it having the form of introducing Snowden as a person hired for his tech genius, who gradually became concerned with what he was doing and once he became convinced they were wrong, he quit a very rewarding job - likely in both a tech. professional sense and financially because he thought it was wrong.

Then the article could go into what he thought wrong. Without releasing ANY classified details, he could have highlighted provisions hidden in the legislation. Using the excerpt to define what was done and adding his concern of how each chosen excerpt had the potential to morph into things that were, in his opinion, contrary to the values of the US as he saw it. (In fact, he could have even quoted various Democratic Senators from floor statements in 2006/2007/2008 - including the current President and Secretary of State.)

This would have kept Snowden on the right side of the law and would have defined him in a very positive way as a man of values, who was willing to give up what was a very good life - intellectually and financially. It also could have been the catalyst to raise the very issues that people here have said needed to be raised. With no broken laws and the high profile he would have, Snowden would likely be in high demand - whether we speak of speaking before Senate committees (which on at least one high profile issue was very well used by a young vet/statesman) or various talk shows, cable shows and serious media articles.

Had he done this I would be among those impressed by him - even as it made the Obama administration and the people like Senator Leahy scramble to answer the questions and move to rewrite the law - as they have done in the wake of Snowden.

Note that this would release NONE of the various documents relating to the international spying of the US or other countries. This would have minimized the impact on Obama's/Kerry's ability to use diplomacy to solve problems. Unlike Bush, it is clear that Obama really would prefer to use diplomacy first - and the military only as a last resort. I know I have been somewhat inarticulate in making the case, but my gut feeling is that the timing of the releases of embarrassing international documents close to when Obama or Kerry had diplomatic missions with countries involved in the near future is no coincidental. I think at least some of the "trusted" journalists do not want the Obama administration to succeed.

The fact that all those documents come from the treasure trove stolen from the job that he took JUST to gain access to them to steal them -- possibly after he was already working for journalists changes the story for me. That is why I really see him more as someone very capable in his field, but rather naive and vulnerable to people who used him - with little care of where he ends up.

The saddest thing about Snowden that I heard in the interview is that he can't speak Russian and he spends his time binge watching TV series. In a year immersed in another country, I would have guessed he might be pretty proficient. That he is not, shows he had no desire to interact at all - not all that surprising as he sounds like he was pretty alienated since he dropped out of school. It is clear he wants to come back - but he has made himself incredibly vulnerable because he no longer controls anything. He has nothing to trade to get a plea bargain. Even if he wanted to promise that no more documents will ever be put out, he can't deliver that.

even if he had done as you said and did an interview without revealing anything specific, he'd be igniored and the issue would continue to be swept under the collective carpet.

As I said in he OP, I have mixed feelings about the guy. But te extent to which this has been personalized is disheartening about our lack of ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.

I KNEW Kerry would be attacked here when he was the one sent out before the Snowden interview was broadcast. I also know that his comments would be the Obama administration's position. They might work for some deal, but that would be done by Holder and they certainly would not signal any willingness. (I also think Kerry was a good choice as he has felt the brunt of the reaction - and it likely has made things harder. -- not to mention the damage is NOT from the "spying on America" stuff.) What has shocked me is that many people went to far right smears - even to idiocy such as saying he only married Teresa because he wanted what the money could buy.

It is not personalizing things to say - even point blank - that he almost certainly broke the law. It is also fair to link to comments where he has praised totalitarian countries over the US on issues like spying and personal rights.

I think there was a much better discussion of the issue of a data base of all the phone records in the US being used as a tool to find networks AFTER you find one confirmed terrorist in the 2005 - 2008 period. I also think that James Risen and his unnamed source deserve far more credit. They are the ones that REALLY made this public. At this point, there is more than I ever would want to watch on CSPAN.org or read in the Congressional record on what was done. (I think many of the politicians were being disingenuous when they seemed surprised by some of Snowden's leaks -- although most of those comments refer to the international documents. )

I think the main reason I do not see him as a hero, is that I do see that there were alternatives that he does not seem to have seriously tried before he indiscriminately leaked a huge amount of classified info to journalists, relying on their honesty and judgment. He seriously is not in control of his legacy at this point - they are.

You're becoming a Greenwald/Snowden 'fanboy' because anonymous posters on an online message board are saying mean things about them.

It doesn 't shape my view of them one way or the other. I'm glad they did what they did, but I'm not crazy about them and don't condone 100 percent of what Snowden did.

But it doe shape my view and reaction to those here who sound remarkably like the "love it or leave it" crowd of Bush supporters back in the day.

I expect such things from Republicans...not from people here.

So i defend them more strongly than I might if some people weren't being so strident in demonizing them.

the more anti-Obama one is, the more pro GG and Snowden they also are.

Yep all of us are concerned about violations of privacy because of President Obama

Seems like the two go hand in hand.

After this OP I really don't know what to think though. You don't like the two, but you defend them simply because others speak out against them? Am I missing something? Wouldn't that also mean the the poster would like the president because so many here attack him on a daily basis? Yet from posts I have read that doesn't seem to be the case. I am so confused now!

I had mixed feelings about them. Still do. As i said up top, I basically think what they did was helpful, because we need to get the intrusiveness into the open.

If the nature of this whole sorry debate since it happened had actually been about how much of what they did was appropriate or not, based on issues like privacy versus collective security, i would have expressed those mixed feelings in that context.

But when it descended into calling them demeaning names, arguing about Greenwald's sexual orientation, dismissing them because the have had libertarian leanings...etc,

Well that made me start to defend them more adamantly than i might have otherwise.

My views didn't change, but I got angrier about the blockheaded attacks on them than the merits of the issue.

What is your opinion of the blockhead attacks on him?

Thank you,
sheshe2

I like President Obama a lot. I agree with him on many things. Supported him in the primary. I've given his campaign a few bucks. And i bit my nails on election night hoping like hell he'd win.

But I am also often disappointed by him, and he makes me angry and frustrated on some things. I do not like the fact that he is so close to the Corporate and Wall St, crowd, and that he too often cares more about what business wants than what's best for the rest of us.

He could be a great reforming president, but he chose to stay too close to the status quo and business as usual approach.

On balance I like him but am disappointed by him.

As for the blockheaded attacks..My opinion was the OP

I knew, somehow I knew he was going to win. He had the best feet on the ground, you could feel the swell of support. You could feel it.

Sadly some are disappointed in this President, he is not perfect, I did not vote for a perfect man. I know of no one that is. I did not vote for a god that would transform us instantly. Change takes time and the lack of support from the GOP has hindered what he could have accomplished. Also the Racial overtones that has surrounded his Presidency is unprecedented. He is President while Black, sadly many don't like that.

You state what seems to disappoint you. What are you proud of? ACA maybe? That is helping millions of people.? Gay rights? Keeping us from the worst economic collapse since the great depression. Fighting for women's rights, VAWA and equal pay. Raising the minimum wage? No war with Syria and bringing our troops home. None of that means anything to you?

No. To you it is...

Your words.

I pay attention.

It is perfectly fine to disagee on things But don't imply such nonsense as my being disappiunted in Obama because i am not paying attention.

You want the gloves off? Okay, heres why i am disappointed and angry.

I am angry because his ACA further entrenched the private insurance companies, and forces us to buy their crappy overpriced coverage. Obama did not bother to support a public option. Not even a public option. He was too busy listening to the insurance and drug compsnies to even invite those who wanted universal single payer or at least some form of affordable public insurance to the table to give people a real choice.....I'm so glad Romney didn't win because he certainly would have protected the insurance companies and...er Oh come to think of it Mitt did do the ACA in Massachusetts. Obama borrowed that one while killing the public option.

TPP partnership.pushing through another right wing free-trade race to the bottom con job trade agreement. I'm not happy with that. Sorry. That's not a matter of whether he's a God or not. It's a matter of seeing something that has already ruined Americas economy, and willingly doing it again. And doing it in secret.

Net Neutrality. The same president who said he would fight to protect the Open Internet, turns around and appoints a lobbyist who is a minion of Comcast as chair of the FCC, at the same time that Comcast is trying to get a monopoly over the cable and Internet industry.... And at the same time that the cable industry is trying to kill the whole idea of the open Internet is a level playing field. I'm a little pissed off about that. sorry.

These things are not examples of the "change" he promised. They are actions that Mitt Romney would have been comfortable doing.

Sorry if you think those are just talking points. They are what has done. Its just the record.

And I do pay attention. ....Do you?

I am not a fan of any politician. They work for ME, for US. They need to have OUR back, not the other way around. When they aren't doing their job, we call them on it.

An the authoritarians don't apparently care that we are all being spied upon, at the behest of Obama (although he certainly wasn't the first).

Bottom line, you cannot admit that if the spying had exposed during the Bush Administration, it would be a whole different story.

You mean Democrats?!

You seem to like the "authoritarians" word, great talking point.

Not!

If you have never seen this test before, perhaps you should take it, so you can see where you fall. Most of the Democratic party is authoritarian, though not as extreme as the Republican party. Also they are more liberal, as makes sense. Where the axis are located is based on broad spectrum of data from people like Ghandi, Castro, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, and so on. In this chart from 2008 presidential contest, Hillary Clinton is the right of Obama and both are about the same authoritarian wise. Only Kucinich and Gravel were in different different quadrants. I think we took a political compass test here at DU several years ago. As I recall most were in the left/libertarian quadrant.



http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html

WH.

FOX hates Snowden and GG most so, yes, people are missing something here or deliberately avoiding the obvious.

I'm sick if ignorant, subversive comments like that. The more antiGG or antiSnowden you are the more proCIA, proWar, proNSA, proEstablishment you are. Some blame whoever the leader is when these crimes happen. Some say the leader isn't in control. I've heard both these arguments about Bush and Obama. At this rate if you are antiObama you are antiBush. Wait. If you are antiObama you are proBush. Wait. If you are proObama you are proBush. It's all BS. Look at the facts not immaturely acting like children by saying " no one likes you" or " if you wanna be in the club you have to do what we say" or " your not friends with so and so so you can't be my friend". Unbelievable. I miss debating face to face with people I'll admit that.

FOX hates Snowden and GG most so, yes, people are missing something here or deliberately avoiding the obvious.

Can you back up this assertion?

You rec'd that thread which insinuated that a number of people here are paid shills.

Interesting...

You don't find that to be insulting to members of DU?

and that says nothing about whether I agreed with the premise or no and that is none of your business...and it has nothing to do with the allegation the above poster made. Are you speaking for that poster?

You claim that Whisp's post is insulting members of DU, but you have no problems with other posts accusing DU members of being paid shills because you agree with that point of view.

Sad.

Most people on this board worked hard to get our President elected and the assertion was ridiculous, insulting, and worthy of someone in the third grade and btw why are you keeping track of who recs what threads? That seems pretty creepy.

that other thread.

So I clicked on your profile and...whaddya know....you rec'd the thread which insulted DUers. You accuse Whisp of insulting DUers, but you obviously had no problem with another thread accusing DUers of being paid shills. That thread was certainly insulting to DUers, but you didn't seem to mind it at all.

Now you're scolding someone for insulting DUers?

Crocodile tears.

because you know, that would be pretty creepy. Have a good evening.

to post, or because posting is part of the job.

None of us can know for certain which posters they are.

Claiming it's zero posters, though, is very much against the odds.

All the posters that defend Snowden and Greenwald not matter what, yet love to bash the president on a daily basis and that accuse those who disagree of being Obama bots, trolls authoritarians, etc?

Probably some would rather pay them NOT to post.

Or are you one of those that espouse the "impeccable logic" that those to the left of Obama must be rightists? Because I find that ludicrous.

You didn't answer the question.

So you don't think that anyone, say right wing types or libertarians, would pay anyone to "pretend" to be liberals on a democratic discussion board that bash Obama? Now that would be ludicrous.

I don't accuse anyone of being a "rightest", that's not my job. But I actually think people would pay posters to come here and divide the board by posting on "both" sides of an issue, and stirring the pot simply to cause the kind of BS we see here on a daily basis. Those that think only the "Obama" supporters might be paid shills really need to get a grip on things.

First, I said that it's impossible to tell who is a paid poster and who isn't. That is a general and overarching proposition.

When you asked specifically about critics of Obama, I expressed doubt that anyone would pay the left of the left to post. But, I did not take back any part of the first overarching statement I made, namely, I don't think we can know who is paid and who isn't. That said, I can't imagine who would pay the left of the left to post, though. Someone may, but I cannot imagine who.

As for your additional points:

As far as rightists of any kind passing themselves off as liberals, I don't think they do that very well. I have seen rightists laying low as to their rightist leanings criticize Obama. More often, though (as far as I observed) they jump in and agree when anyone else criticizes Obama on certain things. Things that you would expect a rightist to agree with, though.

This recent exchange might be a good example. I have not read posts on it yet, but I have no doubt some people here might sincerely disagree with it. And that is the kind of post I would expect a rightist to give a +1 (or some equivalent).

Would anyone giving it a +1 automatically be a rightist though? No, because again, I don't know to tell which +1 is sincere is which isn't. I would have to see a pattern of posts from a given poster before I would hazard a guess.

But, on issues, rightists do not do a great job of passing themselves off as liberals. They don't post pro-choice, pro-environment, anti-war, anti-snooping, pro-equal rights for everyone, pro-Social Security, etc. If someone posts that Obama hasn't done enough on the environment, I don't expect to see a + 1(or equivalent) from a rightist poster.


Then again, I am not one who sees everything in terms of being pro-Obama or anti-Obama. Being leftist or rightist is not only about Obama. And, while I can see someone being paid to post anti-Obama to the extent thatI have described above, I cannot see either New Democrats or Republicans paying for posts that are liberal on the issues.

When I see the obvious desperation of those attacking, it makes me think there's actually something valid there.

Why are some so desperate to tear these two individuals down if they are so unimportant, if what they have brought to the table is so irrelevant? Why are a very small and directed portion of the DU populace so driven to make up stuff about them, to try and make their words mean things that any literate reader could easily determine they dont mean.

they turn people off.

See Clinton and the attacks on him, in the end even people who weren't wild about him in the first place, ended up defending him against what to the majority of the people was far worse than anything he had done.

Why are you surprised to find that this would be the result of an obvious campaign against those two? People don't like nasty personal attacks on others for the most part.

explain how these campaigns of nasty personal attacks always backfire, your OP explains it very well. Sorry for the confusion! I agree with you!

They might have a point but their constant drumbeat of vitriol drives me into defending Snowden much like I did with Clinton who I was similarly ambivalent about at the beginning.

I'm not sure they realize how detrimental their rhetoric has been to their "cause".

Your Clinton analogy is spot on.

credibility from anyone who sinks to that level. The minute they started with the 'Comrade' garbage, generally used by Right Wingers who are stuck in the past and dreaming of a return to those 'glorious days', they raise questions about THEMSELVES, not about Greenwald or Snowden. And seeing it here on DU is simply reprehensible.

Yet, when we speak of the arc of the universe bending toward justice, we usually mean the ideas that the left originally advances.

for Hillary. At one point, she told me that I and others like me were the ones who had made her dislike Obama by our defenses of him. I don't think that was all true because she disliked him a lot from the jump. But, I now understand her comment a lot better.

Last edited Mon Jun 2, 2014, 09:33 PM - Edit history (1)

My friend thought he was awesome, but I thought he was prone to hyperbole and jumping to conclusions with insufficient evidence. Snowden is just a black box to me. I am not sure what to make of him. But the smears against Greenwald and Snowden have made me a defender of them. Why so many who opposes something Obama thinks are subjected to a huge smear campaign is beyond me, but it is certainly true that many are. This goes all the way back to the primaries in 2008. Anyone who reads my posts know that I am not a big fan of Hillary Clinton. But the smears against her by Obama supporters in 2008 practically turned me into an ardent defender. Remember when she mentioned RFK's assassination and many Obama supporters acted like she was suggesting that someone should assassinate Obama? Crazy stuff.

Just deciding how I express myself on DU.

popular. It's no surprise they have turned people off. Why are you surprised? It is probably the worst possible tactic to try to get support for something, but I hope they keep it up, all it has done is make people wonder what on earth is going on, why would people go to so much trouble to try to denigrate them PERSONALLY, who not discuss what they did?

Whenever the Blue Link Special is attacking an Obama critic, the critic has some cred and bears listening to.

They have had a lot of blue link specials lately.

I'm kinda surprised you would finally realize that there isn't only one person in all of DU that uses Blue Links. Always thought that was so kindergarten to accuse someone of that.
Really low brow.

"Whenever the Blue Link Special is attacking an Obama critic, the critic has some cred and bears listening to."

..."Blue Link Special"?

I mean, everyone know some "blue links" are more "special" than others.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025036592

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025039978

Propaganda defends the party and the politician regardless of the policies or principles involved, or how they shift and change over time. That's why you get barrages of blue links in propaganda that contradict one another, or go nowhere, or actually say the opposite of what they are claimed to. Propaganda must be able to say with conviction on Monday that "We have always been at war with Eurasia," and then on Tuesday proclaim, "We have always been at war with Eastasia" just as confidently.

You post an average of 30-40 posts per day of such uncritical support of the Obama administration, including weekends and holidays, and regardless of the administration's actual policy or positions.

For example, in 2006, when Democrats were united against the revelations of spying under Bush, you were vehement that such spying was unacceptable and could never be made legal:

some links say what the poster claims they do, and not merely what the poster wishes they did.

And true.