June 18, 2013

Charlie Rose interviews Obama about Iran, Syria, the NSA leaks, etc.

The 45-minute video.

56 comments:

Chip S. said...

I'll bet he's a better liar than Clapper.

AprilApple said...

Charlie Rose. A Pro-dem cheerleader.

Hoo-raw.

Nonapod said...

Oh boy! Who's ready for 45 minutes of strawmen, uncomfortable weasel wording, equivocation, and outright lies with a bit of demagoguery thrown in for good measure?

creeley23 said...

Video of talking heads is such a complete waste of time.

Transcript of Obama on NSA spying here.

Unknown said...

I'm trying to suppress my gag reflex enough to watch the video. Reading the transcript would get the words across but could not convey the look of worshipful rapture on the face of the interlocutor.

EMD said...

Obama just found out about this interview on the news.

Nonapod said...

Barack Obama: -the very fact that there is all this data in bulk, it has the enormous potential for abuse,” because they’ll say, you know, “You can — when you start looking at metadata, even if you don’t know the names, you can match it up, if there’s a call to an oncologist, and there’s a call to a lawyer, and — you can pair that up and figure out maybe this person’s dying, and they’re writing their will, and you can yield all this information.” All of that is true. Except for the fact that for the government, under the program right now, to do that, it would be illegal. We would not be allowed to do that.

See, it's technically illegal. And people in our government would never do anything that was illegal.

This is so classic Obama. He acknowledges the possibility for abuse, then outlines how that type of abuse would be illegal. He doesn't actually ever say that abuse would or could never happen.

creeley23 said...

Translation: Republicans sacrifice freedom for security. Obama keeps both by striking a balance and making trade-offs.

It's amusing to hear Obama go on about false choices when that's his entire MO for his opponents.

He is the most dishonest president in my lifetime.

chuckR said...

You need another tag. How about Obama's War on America?

Tank said...

As long as you can't tie me to a chair I won't have to watch that.

Where's the puking station?

Addendum: I could not stand to watch Bush, Clinton or Carter speak either.

This aversion leaves me more time for golf and playing the guitar.

chuckR said...

You need another tag. How about Obama's War on America?

FleetUSA said...

Sorry, 45 minutes of soft-ball questions with a master liar is just too much for me. I'll agree this time to just "move along".

Strelnikov said...

Well, we know we can count on Charlie Rose to ask the tough questions, like, "Why doesn't every one love you the way we do? Are they just racists or also mentally damaged?"

ricpic said...

Does Charlie have a very concerned look on his face for the entire length of the interview? That concerned look tells me Charlie is one deep thinker.

Mogget said...

All of that is true. Except for the fact that for the government, under the program right now, to do that, it would be illegal. We would not be allowed to do that.

Too bad it's not illegal to give Mexican drug gangs high powered rifles. Then the government wouldn't be allowed to do that.

Mitchell the Bat said...

Imagine my disappointment when I clicked on the video and then realized that Charlie Rose isn't Charlie Callas.

Mike said...

Screw Obama and Rose! THIS is interesting: < Which is the healthiest? Brown Sugar, Raw Sugar, Table Sugar, Organic Sugar, Honey, or High Fructose Corn Syrup? Trick Question, they’re all the same!/>

Chip Ahoy said...

45 minutes of our glorious leader pattering? From a synchophatic sincofatic sinkophatic cincofatic xxxxxx eyeball licking journalist? How could I resist?

(doesn't this thing help a brother out with words?)

Original Mike said...

Any substantive question on Benghazi?

creeley23 said...

What's the big deal with getting a transcript for this interview?

You can buy one for $19.95 from a commercial website that services news organization, but the rest of us schnooks are stuck with wasting 45 minutes of our lives if we want to hear the president explain what he's doing with our country in more than 30-second soundbites.

A few more quotes here.

Scott said...

The mere fact that you can GET a 45-minute interview with Obama brands you as a progressive cipher.

edutcher said...

Maybe he'd like to talk about the CNN poll that says 47% of the public thinks the IRS scandal leads to him.

Or the resignation of the ICE director

KenK said...

Fuck this. We've seen enough shucking & jiving by these this a-hole over the past four & half years for my taste. You wanna see Charlie's head nearly explode look for his interview with former Singapore dictator Lee Kwan Yew, where he tells Rose that America isn't helping itself by importing millions of [sic] "illiterate fruit-pickers" but should only allow immigration of quality people. Hilarious.

Darrell said...

From a synchophatic sincofatic sinkophatic cincofatic xxxxxx eyeball licking journalist?

I suggest "asshole" licking is a better word choice. The pleasure is menat to be all Obama's. Rose can get off by licking the eyebahis of his sycophantic staffers.

Chip Ahoy said...

When I visited a breeder of Belgian Sheepdogs she told me her line was played out. Apparently they inbreed a lot to concentrate on desired traits but that blue ribbon winning practice drags undesirable traits with it that cannot be got rid of, in her case east/west front paws. They're supposed to be perfectly square and her dogs have a tendency to stand at relax like ballerinas with a foot off to the side. Also their necks are not quite as long as other lines.

You purposefully inbreed?

With dogs and siamese fish that have a lot of puppies and fry and such, yes.

That causes me to imagine Rose's son or Obama's daughter delivering tongue wash interviews to Chelsea Clinton's patterings, marrying each other and delivering children that tongue bath Gore's grandchildren who seem only capable of politics like Bush's son, and so on through generations inflicting their inbred shortcomings on the rest of us and by us onto humanity.

Scott M said...

eyeball licking

Brought to you by Japan, where 78.4% of the world's truly weird shit comes from.

Mark O said...

This has to be a test that Ann devised to determine who among us was silly enough to watch it.

I didn't. Did I win or lose?

Brennan said...

What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a U.S. person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls, and the NSA cannot target your emails … and have not. They cannot and have not, by law and by rule, and unless they — and usually it wouldn’t be “they,” it’d be the FBI — go to a court, and obtain a warrant, and seek probable cause, the same way it’s always been, the same way when we were growing up and we were watching movies, you want to go set up a wiretap, you got to go to a judge, show probable cause….

It is impossible to fact check this. The FISA court is secret. We cannot know if they have approved wiretaps on US persons in the United States. For the cases where US persons suspected this, their suits are thrown out on standing grounds or that the rulings are secret and the plaintiffs are not authorized to view the material.

You'll have better luck trying to capture a ghost.

Brennan said...

Charlie Rose: Should this be transparent in some way?

Barack Obama: It is transparent. That’s why we set up the FISA court…. The whole point of my concern, before I was president — because some people say, “Well, you know, Obama was this raving liberal before. Now he’s, you know, Dick Cheney.” Dick Cheney sometimes says, “Yeah, you know? He took it all lock, stock, and barrel.” My concern has always been not that we shouldn’t do intelligence gathering to prevent terrorism, but rather are we setting up a system of checks and balances? So, on this telephone program, you’ve got a federal court with independent federal judges overseeing the entire program. And you’ve got Congress overseeing the program, not just the intelligence committee and not just the judiciary committee — but all of Congress had available to it before the last reauthorization exactly how this program works.


It is transparent you see. Now watch me use your hatred of Dick Cheney to get you on my side. Then I won't answer the question. - sayeth Obama

chrisnavin.com said...

Like a good activist, he believes in the political process as the agent of change, totally misunderstanding what war, diplomacy, sanctions actually are and are for.

He's an impossible idealist, becoming ever more isolated in a bubble he's creating.

traditionalguy said...

Rose's attitude is the usually attitude given to a God ordained and glorious King. Rose must feel something around Obama that no one else feels.

A Kings' glory is in exposing the truth. Obama's tactics are all deceptions all of the time.

chrisnavin.com said...

He also never answers a fucking question. He doesn't like being confronted and pushed against.

He doesn't like mixing it up.

He also did this at Chicago, never really putting his ideas out there, always hustling for the next big thing.

Why did he really want this job?

KenK said...

Hell yes he wants this job. Where else could a lamester like him live this kinda lifestyle? $100m Afrika adventure coming up on YOUR checkbook.

Unknown said...

"Maybe he'd like to talk about the CNN poll that says 47% of the public thinks the IRS scandal leads to him."

And this is probably not the 47% who pay no Federal Income Tax.

Dante said...

Thanks Creeley23.

Right off the bat I see Obama saying the following:

And so that’s a tradeoff we make, the same way we make a tradeoff about drunk driving. We say, “Occasionally there are going to be checkpoints. They may be intrusive.

Exactly. If you let the little violation of constitutional protections go, because you think they are good violations of the constitution, then it leads to bigger violations. Or in this case, a justification for future bigger ones.

Meanwhile, the explanation of Obama is largely within what I thought it would be:

There is a second program called the 702 program. And what that does is that does not apply to any U.S. person. Has to be a foreign entity. It can only be narrowly related to counter-terrorism, weapons proliferation, cyber hacking or attacks, and a select number of identifiers — phone numbers, emails, et cetera. Those — and the process has all been approved by the courts — you can send to providers — the Yahoos or the Googles, what have you. And in the same way that you present essentially a warrant. And what will happen then is that you there can obtain content.

Except that there does not appear to be a warrant. Also, I wonder what "US person" means. I'm guessing within the confines of constitutional interpretation, but I don't know what that definition is.

As I suspect, the roots of what we are allowing are in the past. In the airport checkpoints, the sobriety checkpoints, the Duke Lacrosse Gestapo actions, because these were white guys, not black guys. This later is on account of what Americans allow themselves to be diligent about. PCism and MCism has made us fearful to assert constitutional rights when it is a white on black hoax.

Dante said...

Ed,

Or the resignation of the ICE director

I use the droning of those crime shows help me fall to sleep. But last night, I watched how a Mexican Citizen, with a criminal history, was in the US, killed an elderly woman, and raped her corpse.

He tried it again three years later, then fled to Mexico where he was eventually tracked down. The cops were ecstatic that he was "Brought to Justice," which meant no death penalty because the mexicans wouldn't give him to us otherwise, and at great cost.

Now I see this ICE director let hundreds of Mexican National criminals out on the street. I only hope our leftist press follows their future crimes, and lets us know what they do.

Of course, they won't.

Icepick said...

If this is an Obama interview, shouldn't there be a Bush tag? Seriously, how many times will he blame Bush in 45 minutes?

Or will he stick to the simple "It's not my fault!"?

Scott M said...

Or will he stick to the simple "It's not my fault!"

He can't say it's not his fault until after he claims that he didn't even know about it until he saw it on the news.

edutcher said...

chrisnavin.com said...

He also never answers a fucking question. He doesn't like being confronted and pushed against.

He doesn't like mixing it up.


People have always deferred to him for fear of being called, "Rrraaaccciissstt". He's also been able to project this facade of intellect and sophistication.

He also did this at Chicago, never really putting his ideas out there, always hustling for the next big thing.

It's called voting "Present".

It's also called sociopathic

Why did he really want this job?

Because he thought everybody would keep kissing his ring.

ken in sc said...

Mike Gallagher, a radio talk host, pointed out and played over and over a segment where Rose prompted Obama that no abuse of the data had occurred. Just in case Obama forgot to say it.

edutcher said...

Icepick, I mentioned earlier people are taking the AZ voting decision as more a Conservative victory than commonly thought.

Here Jacobson's take.

Again YMMV

(OT, I know, I'm only doing this here because Ice is on the post)

Pogo said...

Is there any reason to listen to Obama say anything?

Lem said...

Is not bad enough that there is a rain delay at Fenway.

I guess I have to watch, if I want to comment here intelligently on, the lies Obama tells.

But the accumulation of corruption by this administration, is so much and so widespread, at this point, there is nothing he has to say, other than I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow, that is of any interest to me.

edutcher said...

Well, here's another scandal.

O'Keefe has discovered Obamaphones being given to people so they can be sold for drugs.

Oh, Ann...

KenK said...

And bad as he is Obama was a much better choice in '08 than McCain.

El Pollo Raylan said...

KenK said...
And bad as he is Obama was a much better choice in '08 than McCain.

I suppose an awful lot rides on you staying convinced of that. It would be devastating to even think otherwise, wouldn't?

Nihimon said...

I keep wondering what legal effects were triggered by those reports saying that the real threat to America was from "returning soldiers" and other "right wing" groups.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6764928

Alex said...

We've seen enough shucking & jiving by these this a-hole over the past four & half years for my taste.

Racist alert.

El Pollo Raylan said...

@KenK: This is one of my all time favorite comments in the Althouse threads (of course it was made to me so I'm biased :)

t-man said...
Chickenlittle -
The trouble is that the people who were willfully blind about Obama before the election and supported him, all thought, and still think, that they are far more intelligent that those who opposed Obama. Their self image depends upon perceived intellectual superiority, and it will be extremely difficult for them to admit to themselves that they were wrong.
The best chance it to give these people an excuse - "I was misled by the media" is the best option here. This is one of the reasons I think that the Breitbart assault on the mainstream media is so dangerous to Obama.
9/26/09, 12:19 PM
Link

edutcher said...

Alex said...

We've seen enough shucking & jiving by these this a-hole over the past four & half years for my taste.

Racist alert.


What part isn't true?

what part, therefore, is racist?

The shucking, the jiving, or the asshole?

El Pollo Raylan said...

@KKen: The postulate that McCain would definitely have been worse is irrelevant except for ego stroking at this point. The point is that we have Obama as a President now in this moment and we have a very real series of problems and what can we do about it. Forget McCain.

Marty Keller said...

Fingernails, meet blackboard. (Racist alert.)

Hagar said...

There are things that Cheney, Hayden, et al. just won't do, and evne the things that I wish they would not do, they generally do those things to the bad guys, not us.

For the Obama gang, however, the bad guys are overseas somewhere and over the horizon, so to speak, while Republicans! and "tea partiers"!! and evangelical Christians!!! are right here and take priority in "the struggle to build a better society, etc."

Which is why they are even much less to be trusted than Cheney et. al.

Rabel said...

Trooper that I am (not that Trooper) I viewed the interview. The NSA question comes up at 26:40.

1. Rose did a horrible job of conducting an interview. Not always in Obama's favor.

2. In Brennan's quote at above at 12:28 there is an obfuscation (NSA cannot - FBI can), a contradiction (equivocally - unless) and a tell (obtain a warrant, and seek probable cause). Charlie did not pick up on any of the three.

Titus said...

We hate him.

Hardik Sahani said...

Ohh such a awesome posting and such a awesome comments. Nice to see.

translator ahmedabad
interpreter ahmedabad