6 ms·

How to trap a whistleblower

289 points by alsothings 13y ago

dalek_cannes 13y ago
And that's the answer to everyone refusing to call Snowden a whistle blower because he left the country rather than face the legal consequences. The consequences involved were anything but legal.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  What non-legal consequences did the counterexamples in this article face? I'm not sure what you mean.
  - bpwalker 13y ago
    Why does technicality matter? It's not like being 'legal' or 'non-legal' even matters when it's a pliable circumstance (which is really the problem exposed here) crafted by the law makers that are at work doing their best to serve themselves over the rights of the people (which is kinda the purpose of laws). Edit: this comment is not specific to your question alone, it's a comment on this specific thread.
  - snowden 13y ago
    Financial ruin, stress put on family and friends, etc.
  - dalek_cannes 13y ago
    I did not phrase that properly. I meant: technically in the law books and interpreted as such, but violates the spirit of the law and is unconstitutional. At the risk of beating a dead and buried horse, consider the legal definition of "torture". I doubt he would have had assassins on his trail, but he would have been put through the legal system the same way Manning was. Also consider the court of public opinion -- there's enough of an uninformed mass who think this is a scumbag who gave American secrets to China and Russia that an administration can bend the laws quite a bit and get away with it.
    - pekk 13y ago
      Actually he wouldn't have been "put through the legal system the same way Manning was," because Manning was a soldier tried under military law, while Snowden was a civilian contractor. I don't know which law you are consulting for the definition of "torture," but if solitary confinement is torture then our system hands it out for many people less famous and glamorous than Snowden all the time, without much of any outcry. And this outcry seems to be confined to certain political figures, not just any prisoner caught with a shank.
  - walid 13y ago
    Well the prosecution was lying to the judge: "The Drake case collapsed in spectacular fashion when the judge found that the information Drake possessed was completely unclassified, and had only been marked otherwise after it was seized from his home."
- nickik 13y ago
  Goverment is clever enought to change the law befor doing anything. So they can clame that what they do is within the law.
northwest 13y ago
Also, let's keep in mind that Obama has lied to the public when he said that there was no abuse by the NSA. (Not that we can expect different behavior from any of the future Presidents, nor from the recent ones.)
pcunite 13y ago
Obama could have been special. The symbol, the icon for an America forgiven of its past and now authoring hope for future people of all races. Perhaps it was power that corrupted him or maybe it was his close advisors that stymied his original purer motives. I remember feeling so proud that we had a black President. I knew he was human, I know that skin color does not matter, but it was hard to not hope that given what his race has been through - he could understand what was wrong with the world ... and maybe fix it. For reasons he only knows, he choose to side with abuse. He has perverted himself with something so addictive that perhaps the best course of action maybe for him to take a seat at the back of the bus.
- jup 13y ago
  > For reasons he only knows, he choose to side with abuse. Obama is a vain, stupid man who believes that he is the president of the United States. In reality he is manipulated by a small inner group of people who have the real power and who play him like a puppet. Do you really believe that a man of such limited capabilities can stage a successful campaign to become president? Obama is the biggest con ever played on the American people.
  - walid 13y ago
    > Obama is a vain, stupid man who believes that he is the president of the United States. I will intentionally ignore this line above because what you later said would apply to every elected person in any country, not limited to the USA: > In reality he is manipulated by a small inner group of people who have the real power and who play him like a puppet. Do you really believe that a man of such limited capabilities can stage a successful campaign to become president? Obama is the biggest con ever played on the American people. Taking that into consideration, I was still hoping that the president's role was something more positive and not completely covering up the NSA's blunders when they got caught with their pants down.
- rjsw 13y ago
  The lesson should be not to elect slippery lawyers in future, the UK made that mistake with Tony Blair too.
001sky 13y ago
A few months after the group sent out its second round of payments to Omondi’s village, I spent two days walking around the area in Siaya where GiveDirectly is working. One hell of a co-incidence.
mtgx 13y ago
I recommend everyone to watch this "Enemies of the State" video. Thomas Drake speech starts at minute 24. Jesselyn Radack and William Binney also have speeches in it. Drake and Binney talk about how the government treated them even when they went through the "proper channels". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBp-1Br_OEs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBp-1Br_OEs
enraged_camel 13y ago
"Misled" the public? No. He lied to the public.
- toble 13y ago
  Misled is a political euphemism for lied. Politics is full of that sort of indirect language.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - tjoff 13y ago
    Well, reporting of politics shouldn't necessarily be politics. There is no reason to stoop to the low level of politicians when you call them on their bullshit.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      Unfortunately, there are lots of reasons to stoop to their level, which is why all the major media do it.
  - lazyjones 13y ago
    > Politics is full of that sort of indirect language. Politics may be full of that sort of language, but why are media? This is not North Korea where journalists have to fear punishment for insulting the supreme leader. Or is it?
    - a3n 13y ago
      > Politics may be full of that sort of language, but why are media? Because they're not an opposing force in a war, they're dance partners.
    - SteveGerencser 13y ago
      This may not be entirely true if people like Sen Feinstein have their way - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/why-sen-feinstein-wrong-about-whos-real-reporter https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/why-sen-feinstein-wron... By changing the definition, or narrowly defining it, they can exclude all of the great new forms a journalism from the protections that 'journalists' provide. The next step would be a government license for 'approved' journalists.
sbmassey 13y ago
If the head of state is a proven liar, is there any moral reason to tell the truth to any of the organs of state you deal with?
- crusso 13y ago
  Yes. 1. They're in power and "but the government lied first" is not going to hold up in court if you're accused of perjury, lying to a police officer, etc. 2. There's something to be said for taking the higher ground. Long after people forget who started it, having a culture that doesn't value honesty hurts everyone.
  - LanceH 13y ago
    That's a practical reason, not a moral reason.
    - crusso 13y ago
      Morals are there for practical reasons. Otherwise they're just random.
- snowden 13y ago
  Invoke your right to remain silent when dealing with the government, but be loud as hell in public.
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    What a lame nick.
- prewett 13y ago
  Ultimately, it depends on where morality comes from. Is it immoral to lie? If so, why? Is it always immoral to lie, or only sometimes? Why? Does someone else's immoral actions excuse you from your moral obligations? Does the immoral action of the head of state taint the entire organization? Why? If the head of state is a proven liar, but the organs of state you are lying to are honest, is it ethical to lie to them? If you subscribe to New Testament morals, then there definitely is a moral reason to tell the truth, even if the entire government is corrupt. The government is put there by God to keep order and restrain evil, so when you are acting in that sphere of government, you have an obligation to respect the State as God's agent. (Now if the State oversteps its authority or is using means known to be displeasing to God, disobedience may be in order, but respect should still be there. I expect that respecting someone usually involves telling them the truth.) Also, Jesus says to love your enemies and to not return evil for evil (instead, return good for evil), which would seem to suggest that you have a moral obligation to tell the truth even to liars.
andy_ppp 13y ago
I think what I find most disappointing is the stunning amount of apathy when it comes to politicians lying. But then what can we do to stop them? It has become farcical how every time the government makes a statement on this it's almost immediately shown they are directly lying to the people. These lies bring into question the truthfulness of a lot of other government statements.
- lifeformed 13y ago
  Why aren't there legal consequences for politicians lying? I know you couldn't catch everything, but it seems like if you intentionally mislead the public in a high profile context, you should face proportional punishment. Corporations face huge consequences if they lie, even accidentally, in earnings reports. Lawyers on the clock are always careful that what they say is legally sound; why shouldn't politicians be held to that standard? Maybe it'll make them more vague and hand wavy, but perhaps the law could be structured to be proportional to the malice and deceit behind the lie. If they must do something contrary to what they said, they should have to justify their decision in writing why they have changed their mind.
  - cheald 13y ago
    Who exactly is going to write and pass this law?
- a3n 13y ago
  I think the answer is vaguely to make them irrelevant to real life. There's nothing we can do beyond voting, and money controls who gets on the ballot. Congress writes its own rules, and gathers the campaign cash. I don't know how to concretely make them irrelevant. We could just ignore them, and consider the cost of government like friction, but they do fuck peoples' lives up and so we can't ignore them entirely. And they are currently the only significant outlet of safety net, as much as they're trying to fuck that up too. I don't know. Anyone?
coldcode 13y ago
Sad to say the old joke "How do you know if a politician is lying? Their lips are moving" is no longer funny. The even sadder thing is none of them seems to remembers the story of the boy who cried wolf. You know someday the president might tell us the truth but we won't be able to tell.
- ihsw 13y ago
  Lying implies intentional maliciousness, which is pure speculation. It stands to reason that our elected representatives are simply puppets -- what they say and do are controlled by others.
graycat 13y ago
My guess is that much of Obama's political strategy is mostly just to pretend. So, there he sees a public issue and says something, just something, just says it, to defuse the issue and, then, counts on (1) the mainstream media not getting into the details of what is wrong with the fantasy statement, (2) the voters being busy with other things, and (3) soon something else in the headlines. Except for the fantasy statements, Obama is careful about actually doing anything. He's good at making sure that whatever happens, he is not held to blame. But he does actually do some things: He pushed 'clean, green, pure, pristine, 100% all-natural energy' and got a lot of campaign contributions. He has pushed ObamaCare but seems to want to 'push' its implementation out past the end of his second term (fine with me). So, he wants ObamaCare as fantasy but not as actual implementation. He does some little things in Syria, e.g., supposedly trained about 20 rebels in how to use some Russian missiles; so, he gets to claim to support 'fighting for freedom' or some such in Syria without actually doing much or much he could get blamed for. He asks the DoD to give him options for doing more in Syria, no doubt already knowing that all the options would be high on cost and low on effectiveness and that he won't approve any of the options; but just by making public that he asked for the options he will please some voters. After one of the high school shootings, he visited the site and said he was going to 'get the guns' or some such. Of course the Second Amendment and the NRA are still there, along with a lot of gun owners in rural and Western states. But the high school shootings are out of the headlines now. We could go on and on this way. For the NSA leak issue, he sees right away that a lot of voters are concerned about the Fourth Amendment and so makes statements, like the one to Leno, that he is against 'over reaching government' or some such. But as the Salon article explained in detail, what Obama said to Leno was just nonsense. But such nonsense is about all Obama needs because only a tiny fraction of the voters will get as deep as the Salon article, and the MSM mostly won't go there. So, superficial nonsense is enough. Maybe it's a smart strategy. There is a danger that once people catch on that mostly he's just passing out fantasy nonsense no one should take seriously, too many voters will get pissed. Maybe. Maybe not. At least he's not actually doing much, and money he doesn't spend isn't wasted and projects he doesn't do aren't failures. We've got plenty of government and in total don't really need more. So in a major sense, Obama can get by without doing very much. Actually I wish that at times W had done less. There is a risk if the country actually needs a president; in the meanwhile it's okay for him to spout fantasy nonsense on Leno and work on his golf game and jump shot.
ratsmack 13y ago
Status Quo is the name of the game in Washington politics.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  From a British point of view, that is the most scary thing ever.
kyleblarson 13y ago
Obama talks like the president of the ACLU but acts like Dick Cheney.
- pekk 13y ago
  You can hate both, but the things they do aren't the same.
snitko 13y ago
Don't worry. Next time there will be a candidate who promises to never be like Obama and never lie to the public. He (or she) will give you hope that maybe this time things are going to change. And you are going to be believe it, because "what's the alternative?". And then you are going to vote sincerely believing that your vote is important and the system works. And all the bad will be forgotten and the life will pass in a blissful ignorance of the fact the they got you by the balls - for your own safety, of course. It's okay, my friend, repeat after me: we are a civilized society, democracy works, voting is important, the government is largely on your side.
crazygringo 13y ago
The thing that confuses me the most, is that Obama used to come across as extremely intelligent, with nuanced understanding of the issues at hand. In his writing and in his speeches, he had no equal, and he was very much a "straight talker", and even on issues you disagreed with him on, you felt that he understood your side (and all sides) of the argument genuinely. But over the past year, he's practically gone full retard. I'm not even talking about on a policy level -- I'm just talking about his communications, period. On the Snowden issue he's shown zero leadership, zero sense of understanding or sympathizing with Americans' concerns... and all this coming from a former constitutional-law scholar, it's just BIZARRE. Obviously my faith in Obama has rapidly dwindled, but more than that, I'm just left confused. Why can't the man even communicate anymore?
- jmaygarden 13y ago
  Perhaps all that brilliant content was written for him by other people that are no longer in his service?

289 points by alsothings 13y ago

And that's the answer to everyone refusing to call Snowden a whistle blower because he left the country rather than face the legal consequences. The consequences involved were anything but legal.

twoodfin 13y ago
What non-legal consequences did the counterexamples in this article face? I'm not sure what you mean.
- bpwalker 13y ago
  Why does technicality matter? It's not like being 'legal' or 'non-legal' even matters when it's a pliable circumstance (which is really the problem exposed here) crafted by the law makers that are at work doing their best to serve themselves over the rights of the people (which is kinda the purpose of laws). Edit: this comment is not specific to your question alone, it's a comment on this specific thread.
- snowden 13y ago
  Financial ruin, stress put on family and friends, etc.
- dalek_cannes 13y ago
  I did not phrase that properly. I meant: technically in the law books and interpreted as such, but violates the spirit of the law and is unconstitutional. At the risk of beating a dead and buried horse, consider the legal definition of "torture". I doubt he would have had assassins on his trail, but he would have been put through the legal system the same way Manning was. Also consider the court of public opinion -- there's enough of an uninformed mass who think this is a scumbag who gave American secrets to China and Russia that an administration can bend the laws quite a bit and get away with it.
  - pekk 13y ago
    Actually he wouldn't have been "put through the legal system the same way Manning was," because Manning was a soldier tried under military law, while Snowden was a civilian contractor. I don't know which law you are consulting for the definition of "torture," but if solitary confinement is torture then our system hands it out for many people less famous and glamorous than Snowden all the time, without much of any outcry. And this outcry seems to be confined to certain political figures, not just any prisoner caught with a shank.
- walid 13y ago
  Well the prosecution was lying to the judge: "The Drake case collapsed in spectacular fashion when the judge found that the information Drake possessed was completely unclassified, and had only been marked otherwise after it was seized from his home."
nickik 13y ago
Goverment is clever enought to change the law befor doing anything. So they can clame that what they do is within the law.

northwest 13y ago

Also, let's keep in mind that Obama has lied to the public when he said that there was no abuse by the NSA. (Not that we can expect different behavior from any of the future Presidents, nor from the recent ones.)

pcunite 13y ago

Obama could have been special. The symbol, the icon for an America forgiven of its past and now authoring hope for future people of all races. Perhaps it was power that corrupted him or maybe it was his close advisors that stymied his original purer motives. I remember feeling so proud that we had a black President. I knew he was human, I know that skin color does not matter, but it was hard to not hope that given what his race has been through - he could understand what was wrong with the world ... and maybe fix it. For reasons he only knows, he choose to side with abuse. He has perverted himself with something so addictive that perhaps the best course of action maybe for him to take a seat at the back of the bus.

jup 13y ago
> For reasons he only knows, he choose to side with abuse. Obama is a vain, stupid man who believes that he is the president of the United States. In reality he is manipulated by a small inner group of people who have the real power and who play him like a puppet. Do you really believe that a man of such limited capabilities can stage a successful campaign to become president? Obama is the biggest con ever played on the American people.
- walid 13y ago
  > Obama is a vain, stupid man who believes that he is the president of the United States. I will intentionally ignore this line above because what you later said would apply to every elected person in any country, not limited to the USA: > In reality he is manipulated by a small inner group of people who have the real power and who play him like a puppet. Do you really believe that a man of such limited capabilities can stage a successful campaign to become president? Obama is the biggest con ever played on the American people. Taking that into consideration, I was still hoping that the president's role was something more positive and not completely covering up the NSA's blunders when they got caught with their pants down.
rjsw 13y ago
The lesson should be not to elect slippery lawyers in future, the UK made that mistake with Tony Blair too.

001sky 13y ago

A few months after the group sent out its second round of payments to Omondi’s village, I spent two days walking around the area in Siaya where GiveDirectly is working. One hell of a co-incidence.

mtgx 13y ago

I recommend everyone to watch this "Enemies of the State" video. Thomas Drake speech starts at minute 24. Jesselyn Radack and William Binney also have speeches in it. Drake and Binney talk about how the government treated them even when they went through the "proper channels". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBp-1Br_OEs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBp-1Br_OEs

enraged_camel 13y ago

"Misled" the public? No. He lied to the public.

toble 13y ago
Misled is a political euphemism for lied. Politics is full of that sort of indirect language.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- tjoff 13y ago
  Well, reporting of politics shouldn't necessarily be politics. There is no reason to stoop to the low level of politicians when you call them on their bullshit.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Unfortunately, there are lots of reasons to stoop to their level, which is why all the major media do it.
- lazyjones 13y ago
  > Politics is full of that sort of indirect language. Politics may be full of that sort of language, but why are media? This is not North Korea where journalists have to fear punishment for insulting the supreme leader. Or is it?
  - a3n 13y ago
    > Politics may be full of that sort of language, but why are media? Because they're not an opposing force in a war, they're dance partners.
  - SteveGerencser 13y ago
    This may not be entirely true if people like Sen Feinstein have their way - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/why-sen-feinstein-wrong-about-whos-real-reporter https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/why-sen-feinstein-wron... By changing the definition, or narrowly defining it, they can exclude all of the great new forms a journalism from the protections that 'journalists' provide. The next step would be a government license for 'approved' journalists.

sbmassey 13y ago

If the head of state is a proven liar, is there any moral reason to tell the truth to any of the organs of state you deal with?

crusso 13y ago
Yes. 1. They're in power and "but the government lied first" is not going to hold up in court if you're accused of perjury, lying to a police officer, etc. 2. There's something to be said for taking the higher ground. Long after people forget who started it, having a culture that doesn't value honesty hurts everyone.
- LanceH 13y ago
  That's a practical reason, not a moral reason.
  - crusso 13y ago
    Morals are there for practical reasons. Otherwise they're just random.
snowden 13y ago
Invoke your right to remain silent when dealing with the government, but be loud as hell in public.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  What a lame nick.
prewett 13y ago
Ultimately, it depends on where morality comes from. Is it immoral to lie? If so, why? Is it always immoral to lie, or only sometimes? Why? Does someone else's immoral actions excuse you from your moral obligations? Does the immoral action of the head of state taint the entire organization? Why? If the head of state is a proven liar, but the organs of state you are lying to are honest, is it ethical to lie to them? If you subscribe to New Testament morals, then there definitely is a moral reason to tell the truth, even if the entire government is corrupt. The government is put there by God to keep order and restrain evil, so when you are acting in that sphere of government, you have an obligation to respect the State as God's agent. (Now if the State oversteps its authority or is using means known to be displeasing to God, disobedience may be in order, but respect should still be there. I expect that respecting someone usually involves telling them the truth.) Also, Jesus says to love your enemies and to not return evil for evil (instead, return good for evil), which would seem to suggest that you have a moral obligation to tell the truth even to liars.

andy_ppp 13y ago

I think what I find most disappointing is the stunning amount of apathy when it comes to politicians lying. But then what can we do to stop them? It has become farcical how every time the government makes a statement on this it's almost immediately shown they are directly lying to the people. These lies bring into question the truthfulness of a lot of other government statements.

lifeformed 13y ago
Why aren't there legal consequences for politicians lying? I know you couldn't catch everything, but it seems like if you intentionally mislead the public in a high profile context, you should face proportional punishment. Corporations face huge consequences if they lie, even accidentally, in earnings reports. Lawyers on the clock are always careful that what they say is legally sound; why shouldn't politicians be held to that standard? Maybe it'll make them more vague and hand wavy, but perhaps the law could be structured to be proportional to the malice and deceit behind the lie. If they must do something contrary to what they said, they should have to justify their decision in writing why they have changed their mind.
- cheald 13y ago
  Who exactly is going to write and pass this law?
a3n 13y ago
I think the answer is vaguely to make them irrelevant to real life. There's nothing we can do beyond voting, and money controls who gets on the ballot. Congress writes its own rules, and gathers the campaign cash. I don't know how to concretely make them irrelevant. We could just ignore them, and consider the cost of government like friction, but they do fuck peoples' lives up and so we can't ignore them entirely. And they are currently the only significant outlet of safety net, as much as they're trying to fuck that up too. I don't know. Anyone?

coldcode 13y ago

Sad to say the old joke "How do you know if a politician is lying? Their lips are moving" is no longer funny. The even sadder thing is none of them seems to remembers the story of the boy who cried wolf. You know someday the president might tell us the truth but we won't be able to tell.

ihsw 13y ago
Lying implies intentional maliciousness, which is pure speculation. It stands to reason that our elected representatives are simply puppets -- what they say and do are controlled by others.

graycat 13y ago

My guess is that much of Obama's political strategy is mostly just to pretend. So, there he sees a public issue and says something, just something, just says it, to defuse the issue and, then, counts on (1) the mainstream media not getting into the details of what is wrong with the fantasy statement, (2) the voters being busy with other things, and (3) soon something else in the headlines. Except for the fantasy statements, Obama is careful about actually doing anything. He's good at making sure that whatever happens, he is not held to blame. But he does actually do some things: He pushed 'clean, green, pure, pristine, 100% all-natural energy' and got a lot of campaign contributions. He has pushed ObamaCare but seems to want to 'push' its implementation out past the end of his second term (fine with me). So, he wants ObamaCare as fantasy but not as actual implementation. He does some little things in Syria, e.g., supposedly trained about 20 rebels in how to use some Russian missiles; so, he gets to claim to support 'fighting for freedom' or some such in Syria without actually doing much or much he could get blamed for. He asks the DoD to give him options for doing more in Syria, no doubt already knowing that all the options would be high on cost and low on effectiveness and that he won't approve any of the options; but just by making public that he asked for the options he will please some voters. After one of the high school shootings, he visited the site and said he was going to 'get the guns' or some such. Of course the Second Amendment and the NRA are still there, along with a lot of gun owners in rural and Western states. But the high school shootings are out of the headlines now. We could go on and on this way. For the NSA leak issue, he sees right away that a lot of voters are concerned about the Fourth Amendment and so makes statements, like the one to Leno, that he is against 'over reaching government' or some such. But as the Salon article explained in detail, what Obama said to Leno was just nonsense. But such nonsense is about all Obama needs because only a tiny fraction of the voters will get as deep as the Salon article, and the MSM mostly won't go there. So, superficial nonsense is enough. Maybe it's a smart strategy. There is a danger that once people catch on that mostly he's just passing out fantasy nonsense no one should take seriously, too many voters will get pissed. Maybe. Maybe not. At least he's not actually doing much, and money he doesn't spend isn't wasted and projects he doesn't do aren't failures. We've got plenty of government and in total don't really need more. So in a major sense, Obama can get by without doing very much. Actually I wish that at times W had done less. There is a risk if the country actually needs a president; in the meanwhile it's okay for him to spout fantasy nonsense on Leno and work on his golf game and jump shot.

ratsmack 13y ago

Status Quo is the name of the game in Washington politics.

alan_cx 13y ago
From a British point of view, that is the most scary thing ever.

kyleblarson 13y ago

Obama talks like the president of the ACLU but acts like Dick Cheney.

pekk 13y ago
You can hate both, but the things they do aren't the same.

snitko 13y ago

Don't worry. Next time there will be a candidate who promises to never be like Obama and never lie to the public. He (or she) will give you hope that maybe this time things are going to change. And you are going to be believe it, because "what's the alternative?". And then you are going to vote sincerely believing that your vote is important and the system works. And all the bad will be forgotten and the life will pass in a blissful ignorance of the fact the they got you by the balls - for your own safety, of course. It's okay, my friend, repeat after me: we are a civilized society, democracy works, voting is important, the government is largely on your side.

crazygringo 13y ago

The thing that confuses me the most, is that Obama used to come across as extremely intelligent, with nuanced understanding of the issues at hand. In his writing and in his speeches, he had no equal, and he was very much a "straight talker", and even on issues you disagreed with him on, you felt that he understood your side (and all sides) of the argument genuinely. But over the past year, he's practically gone full retard. I'm not even talking about on a policy level -- I'm just talking about his communications, period. On the Snowden issue he's shown zero leadership, zero sense of understanding or sympathizing with Americans' concerns... and all this coming from a former constitutional-law scholar, it's just BIZARRE. Obviously my faith in Obama has rapidly dwindled, but more than that, I'm just left confused. Why can't the man even communicate anymore?

jmaygarden 13y ago
Perhaps all that brilliant content was written for him by other people that are no longer in his service?