NYT: Obama Administration has lost credibility

The New York Times editorial board has published an editorial that is anything but favorable toward the Obama Administration.

Here is how the editorial begins:

Within hours of the disclosure that federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights.

Those reassurances have never been persuasive — whether on secret warrants to scoop up a news agency’s phone records or secret orders to kill an American suspected of terrorism — especially coming from a president who once promised transparency and accountability.

The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue.

Further down in the editorial, the NYT editorial board says this:

This sort of tracking can reveal a lot of personal and intimate information about an individual. To casually permit this surveillance — with the American public having no idea that the executive branch is now exercising this power — fundamentally shifts power between the individual and the state, and it repudiates constitutional principles governing search, seizure and privacy.

The defense of this practice offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, who as chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is supposed to be preventing this sort of overreaching, was absurd.

When liberal Democrats lose the New York Times . . .


Google Hires Obama's Campaign E-Team
Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • LiberalNightmare

    Within hours of the disclosure that federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers:


    That’s funny, I was told that it was the republicans that were overreaching.

    NSA approval of this comment is pending.

    • Commander_Chico

      Your comment is welcome, as it gives us information about you.

      It has also been linked with your device’s MAC address, IP number and GPS location if available. It has been correlated with your name, your bank account and credit card numbers and your vehicle registration numbers. We know about your purchases, travels and opinions.

      All of these are directly collected by us, or obtained by us from private service providers as allowed in their “privacy policies.”

      If we don’t have it already, we’re working on getting your fingerprints, retinal scan and DNA profile.

      All information has been stored in our servers for future reference in the event of a crisis requiring Emergency Management.


  • warnertoddhuston

    You should also note that the Times CHANGED its editorial WITHOUT leaving a notice to readers saying that it had made the change. It originally said “lost all credibility.” But after it was published, the Times changed it to read “lost all credibility ON THIS ISSUE.” (not caps in paper, that’s me). So, who made the Times soften its criticism? Was it the Times itself or did Obama insist?

    • jim_m

      How much you want to bet that the NYT received a call from the White House before they made those edits?

  • Hank_M

    As usual, the Times i wrong.

    How could Obama lose what he never had?

    • jim_m

      obama never had any credibility with anyone other than the far left. He still has credibility with them since they are still defending him and trying to explain away why surveillance of all Americans is just alright.

  • GarandFan

    Obama HAD credibility? WHEN?

  • JWH

    I think these latest revelations may be my cue to vote Libertarian for the next few cycles.

  • jim_m

    Even Bob Beckel says that under obama we are getting “damn close” to fascism. So despite Bruce’s denials that this is anything at all wrong or any overreaching at all, there are those on the left who understand that obama has gone way over the line.

    • Brucehenry

      Bob Beckel is the token liberal on FOX “News,” right? LOL.

      Show a QUOTE from me where I said nothing is wrong or that there has been no overreach. Again, not one of your fake “You said X and that can only lead to Y” bullshit. Quotes.

      EDIT: Reading your link, I found out where a certain “moderator” cribbed his “soi-disant” cliche from, also LOL.

      • jim_m

        Really? So Rodney used his time machine to travel forward to June 7th, 2013 to crib the insult he’s been using for the last few months? You’re an ass.

        And yes, you have been a total apologist for obama claiming that these scandals don’t rise to the level of Nixon’s wrong doings. Your whole position has been to claim that Bush did it!! or Nixon was worse!!! In the last two months you have descended to a level of hackery that I thought was not possible.

        I especially like how claim that no one should draw any conclusions from your own words unless you explicitly state a position. That is the typical left wing parsing of words in order to cover their lies and their crimes. We will tell you what the effect of your position is. No spinning is going to get you out of the fact that you have been a total apologist for obama over the IRS and NSA scandals.

        • Brucehenry

          I suppose it’s possible that the writer at your link borrowed the phony Francophilism from “moderator” Rodney and not the other way around.

          Just as I thought, you can’t quote me saying what you claim I’ve been saying. Transparent as usual.

          I have indeed, though, been pointing out how over-the-top the right’s reaction to these “scandals” have been, and how hypocritical, too. First off, the IRS thingie. Let’s just suppose that, in the wake of Citizens United, there was a flood of groups with “Communist” in their names (instead of “Tea Party”) applying for tax exempt status. I can’t imagine you being scandalized if the IRS had given those groups increased scrutiny. Also, it appears that increased scrutiny was given to new groups applying for tax exempt status at about the same conservative/liberal ratio as were APPLYING for tax exempt status. Thirdly, few groups were ultimately denied that status if it was warranted.

          The data-mining issue, which I have NOT excused as “not overreaching,” appears to be perfectly legal under the provisions of the PATRIOT Act. SHOULD it be illegal? Probably.

          But you and the rest of the right have spent the last 11 years defending the PATRIOT Act as “not overreaching,” and pooh-poohing the concerns of silly civil libertarians and librarians, secret lie-berals all, I guess.

          We who were against the PATRIOT Act warned you that power given to the executive like this would be expanded in ways you didn’t like when a different administration was in power. You dismissed our warnings as treasonous chatter and terrorist-sympathizing. You are fools.

          • jim_m


            You suppose? You actually believe that effect precedes cause. You are either a complete moron or a dishonest, ideologically bound jerk. I will yield to the possibility that you are both.

            As for my being scandalized about them scrutinizing communist groups – Wrong asshole. The law is the law and unlike fascists like you I expect our government to follow it and apply it fairly.

            Yes, the GOP were fools to not expect that the left would abuse these powers as soon as they had the chance. Don’t worry, we will never trust fascists like you again. While it occurred to many of us that it could be used against citizens we never suspected that it would be exclusively used against citizens and not used against terrorists, but since you and your leftist buddies think tat conservatives are the real terrorists and that islamists are your friend, I suppose we should not have been surprised

          • Brucehenry

            Some of these are jokes, Jim. And I am, perhaps unfairly, assuming that the writer at your link has used “soi-disant” before, probably over and over, as a certain “moderator” has, in a pathetic attempt to appear sophisticated and cosmopolitan. I could be wrong, lol.

            The word “party” — whether of the communist or tea variety — has a connotation of political action, and therefore maybe finding that word in the title of a group applying for tax exempt status implies the IRS should give that group some extra scrutiny. No? Well, it seems that way to me, but maybe I’m just a stickler for what words actually, you know, MEAN.

            Yes, conservatives were wrong to support and defend legislation so broad, so far-reaching, that it could be expanded in the scary way it has been expanded. You were warned, by liberals, that you were making a mistake. But you were so intent on beating Democrats with the “soft-on-terrorism” stick that you ignored sound, logical warnings. Again, you are fools, and short-sighted, and ideologically blinded, and hypocritical.

            This is another example of the National Security State that a reasonable, sane Republican, Dwight Eisenhower, warned us about 52 years ago. And it is discussed very reasonably in this book, by a very liberal writer: http://www.amazon.com/Bomb-Power-Presidency-National-Security/dp/B005FOGCEO

          • Shawn

            “Let’s just suppose that, in the wake of Citizens United, there was a flood of groups with “Communist” in their names (instead of “Tea Party”) applying for tax exempt status.”

            Jesus H. Christ, Bruce..

            Using “Communist” to attempt an analogy with “Tea Party?”

            You’re a good guy, Bruce, but that’s just scummy.

          • That was typical of him.

        • Commander_Chico

          They do seem to use “soi disant” a lot at that website Hotair:


          • Brucehenry

            L O Freaking L

          • jim_m

            You know, I frequent that site daily and this is the first time I have seen the term used there. Looking at your link I would say the term is used ~ once a month.

          • Brucehenry

            Click on the link, Jim.

          • jim_m

            I will explain it to you since you are so seemingly dim: “Soi Dissant” is French for self proclaimed. It is a humorous jab at lefties who admire and often adopt the emasculated, self-important attitude of the French, seeking to surrender to their enemies before the first shot is fired. The left rejects their own culture all the while trying to maintain an air of intellectual superiority claiming that this very rejection is evidence of their intellect.

            So you have clearly missed the point that we are laughing at your self-important attitude and find that the very things you think make you intelligent and sophisticated are the things that make you foolish, ignorant and self-deluded.

            It is not a surprise that the meme of Francophilic self-importance, faux intellectualism and cultural self loathing would lead multiple people to adopt this insult at approximately the same time.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, you are right, perhaps, that it was a “humorous jab” — the first 60 or 80 times we saw it.

            Thanks for explaining the joke at length. That makes it ever so much funnier!

            EDIT: There’s only one “S” in “disant.” And tell your “moderator” buddy that “cognoscenti” is plural, “cognoscente” is singular.

          • jim_m

            Sarcasm is always ugly when you examine it. But in this case it is only ugly because of what it conceals: the loathsome attitude of the left.

          • Brucehenry

            I disagree. Sarcasm can be a beautiful thing, in its own way.

          • Brucehenry

            More ex post facto editing from ol’ Jim.

          • jim_m

            My browser notifies me of when someone has posted a new comment. I have said before that I do not add to my comments once someone has responded. Quit your whining.

          • Brucehenry

            I know you’ve said it before.

          • jim_m

            I am so relieved that you’ve been paying attention.

          • A soi disant Cognoscenti and Veteran notes:

            They do seem to use “soi disant” a lot at that website Hotair

            Then again progtards are inordinately fond of self proclaiming that which is not, as you demonstrate here regularly.

        • He’s the most ignorant of an astoundingly ignorant set of progtards here.

  • Pingback: IMAO » Blog Archive » lolbama! Part 139()