re: #289 Targetpractice

this is the part that I have issues with as well…. the whole idea of what you can say and when you can say it in conjunction with what questions get asked and where you get to ask them. In regards to what took place with Clapper for instance, Wyden knew that Clapper couldn’t tell him the truth in an open public forum. Clapper knew it too and still managed to screw the pooch in public and was (correctly) burned for it. Wyden was posing in order to establish his position for the “other” meeting behind closed doors and Clapper helpfully provided him additional ammunition. Still, does that mean that Wyden thinks that this NSA program should have it’s spigot turned off, no… it doesn’t. It means that he wants more checks and balances, more protocols that delineate where and when the data can be tapped, how it’s tapped and the reasons for tapping it to be better defined. I have no issue with that.

I do have issues with more sledge hammer legislation that attempts to deal with a nuanced issue with a chainsaw that just happens to be sponsored by a teahadi, whom I have zero trust in drafting a piece of legislation that doesn’t have serious repercussions embedded within (the Gitmo issue and the way that the program is truncated w/o recourse or discussion) like most of the crap that they pull (gee doesn’t anyone remember the poison pills in the farm bill? their behavior with the sequester?).

Don’t have an issue with Nancy Smash allowing some folks to vote their conscience on the issue once she was sure that the No votes were there, unlike Speaker Happy Hour, she does know how to count votes and she’s enough of a DC veteran to understand and know that the program probably does yield good intel when applied as intended.