As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Obama’s Latest Credibility Hit

Someone has to explain to me why I should believe anything I hear out of this White House. Really, I want to. I write things they say, and I’d prefer what I write to be the truth.

When my children were babies, the doctors warned us of the phenomenon known as projectile vomiting. If the kid was really sick, chunks of puke might suddenly emerge from its mouth like rapid fire from a Kalashnikov.

I’m reminded today of projectile vomiting as I behold statements from White House.

We’re all aware of the serial lying that occurred to sell Obamacare to the public. But strangely – or not so strangely – the press has done little to note and ask questions about the unfortunate contrast between President Obama’s suggestion that telephone data collection had prevented many terrorist attacks and his own review panel’s conclusion that it didn’t.

“We know of at least 50 threats that have been averted,” Obama said in June with respect to the NSA’s Internet and telephone record surveillance. “Lives have been saved.”

The report stated otherwise, and it indicated that even the NSA doesn’t make such a claim:

NSA believes that on at least a few occasions, information derived from the section 215 bulk telephony meta-data program has contributed to its efforts to prevent possible terrorist attacks, either in the United States or somewhere else in the world.

Our review suggests that the information contributed to terrorist investigations by the use of section 215 telephony metadata was not essential to preventing attacks and could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional section 215 orders.

Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor who was on the panel, told NBC news in an interview that the group found no instances of the telephone data collection preventing an attack. “We found none,” he said.

Tellingly, and damningly, the White House is stonewalling.

Jonathan Karl asked White House Press Secretary Jay Carney last week whether Obama stands by his statement. Notice how hard he had to squeeze to get it out of him.

Q    Jay, coming back to this NSA program, the President in June said, talking about the metadata collection program, “We’ve saved lives.  We know of at least 50 threats that have been averted because of this information, so lives have been saved.”  So the question is, does the President still believe that?

MR. CARNEY:  The President does still believe and knows that this program is an important piece of the overall efforts that we engage in to combat threats against the lives of American citizens and threats to our overall national security, as well as threats to the lives and security of allies and allied nations, as I mentioned earlier.

I’m not going to parse or respond to every sentence of I believe a 300-plus page report that the review group produced, except to say that with the exception of the one recommendation that’s already been acted on in a separate process, all 45 in the President’s view and our view merit serious consideration.  And the President looks forward to spending time reviewing that report and working with the other elements involved in the overall internal review to reach conclusions about what reforms we can put in place, what changes we can make.  And he’ll have more to say about that in January once he’s made those decisions.

Q    But, Jay, I didn’t ask you about the report.  I’m asking you specifically about what the President said in June when he said that this data collection program has averted —

MR. CARNEY:  And I’m saying that, yes, the President believes that this program is part of a broader effort —

Q    He wasn’t talking about part of a broader.  He said, information —

MR. CARNEY:  But it is part of a broader, obviously.  This is one of the many efforts that we engage in to —

Q    But I’m asking if he is standing by what he said —

MR. CARNEY:  Yes, he is.

Here’s the video.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And then Friday, Obama himself dodged the question which, though unfortunately not asked very directly, was clearly an attempt to get him to justify his June statement.

Question: As you review how to rein in the National Security Agency, a federal judge said that, for example, the government had failed to cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk metadata actually stopped an imminent attack.  Are you able to identify any specific examples when it did so?  Are you convinced that the collection of that data is useful to national security and should continue as it is?

Obama:  Let me talk more broadly, and then I’ll talk specifically about the program you’re referring to.

The president, in his response, didn’t cite any specific examples, or even suggest that they exist.

FREE ROAMING FOR INTERNATIONAL CALLS!
Check out the best international Sim Cards and save up to 80% on your phone calls, go to roaming free sims and travelsim!
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

24 Responses to Obama’s Latest Credibility Hit

  1. “…. information derived from the section 215 bulk telephony meta-data program…” might as well be a Klingon secret program.
    Section 15? bulk telephony meta-data? what?
    More government gobbledee-gook to obscure what they’re really doing.

    I get it. The NSA is tapping phones everywhere, but it hasn’t been successful in identifying or preventing any future terrorist attacks. The President lied about the success of the secret program, and the press called him out on it.
    He’s a liar, or the people tasked with feeding him information are either liars, too, or just telling him what they hope is the truth.

    We don’t know what the truth is about the NSA program; what they’re doing and what they plan to do with all this information in their lockbox.
    . If it wasn’t for MrSnowden we wouldn’t even have been aware that they were snooping on everyone, all the time.
    Telephony; really?

  2. Journalistically speaking … if you, a reporter, are lied to by another this is not your fault in any way whatsoever. On the other hand, if you are lied to and, acting as a reporter, promote the lie … well you’d be part of the main stream media and dispicable.

  3. Nice post. I hope Peter King reads it.

    This is a modus operandi of the WH, i.e., make claims which eventually turn out to be false, but take in the suckers up front for a long spell. Another is to make claims which can never be proven, e.g., that Obama’s disastrous economic policies really prevented a second great depression.

  4. I will give it to Carney, He sounds intelligent as you read what he stated. However he is talking in circles. As far as the word, Broader both men used. That word Broader is terrifying. What BROADER plan to they have?
    I asked earlier: Why is he getting away with the Health Law Changes?
    It is unconstitutional. Isn’t there someone in office we can fire for not doing their job looking over this man?

      • I understand the voting issue. However we voted on Congress and Senate. Several of them need to stand up. They were elected to do a job. If they do not get elected again, at least they can sleep at night knowing they did the best for the country.