Bill Maher Blasts ‘Useless Obama Hacks without a Shred of Intellectual Honesty’ (NSA spying)

[marmar]

Published on Jul 11, 2014

Bill Maher went after the left over NSA spying on Friday night; specifically, liberals who have refused to criticize surveillance under President Obama as opposed to, you know, when George Bush did it. Maher said, "If this was happening under Bush, liberals would be apoplectic. I'm sorry, but liberals are just sometimes useless Obama hacks without a shred of intellectual honesty."

Congresswoman Donna Edwards jumped in to make clear she's very apoplectic, saying Congress needs to set more limits on the NSA's dragnet and arguing for more privacy advocates who can take on the government in the name of individual liberties.

Ron Suskind added that for years, the government kept sneering at critics and asking where their proof is, and so the one great thing Snowden did was provide the proof.

[truebrit71]

1. He's absolutely 100% right.

n/t

[rhett o rick]

33. I don't agree. Anyone can call themselves liberal and a lot of people out there incorrectly

calling themselves that. It's easy to test a liberal. One thing, no liberal would blindly follow anyone. No liberal would support the TPP, the XL Pipeline, persecution of medical marijuana users, the Patriot Act, etc. It's easy to spot a pseudo-liberal they sound just like a Republican.

[JDPriestly]

37. Thank you. Thank you. No liberal would oppose trade unions, raising the minimum wage,

equal rights, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health care for all, strict regulation of the environment as well as of Wall Street and the safety of conditions in the workplace, a woman's right to choose, public education including very strong and generous support for public colleges and universities, our scientific programs, public ownership of national and state parks as well as of our highways (no toll roads), increases in taxes on the very rich and investment in our infrastructure and in saving our environment.

No liberal supports the NSA surveillance as it is now being done, excessive secrecy in government, the extreme corruption in Washington, D.C., our overfilled prisons, our lack of adequate mental health care for the poor, media consolidation, monopolies, militarized police forces, or corporate personhood.

It's just not logically possible to be a liberal and fail to back those policies that will increase human freedom and welfare while opposing those policies which are oppressive and which cause human suffering.

For myself, I believe that the universe is energy expressed in many different forms, and that beneath the cruelty and apathy, the greed and repression, we are all one. What hurts one of us hurts the total that we all are.

[rhett o rick]

49. Well said. I am ok with your "the universe is energy". I believe in Einstein's God which

I think means I don't qualify as an Atheist.

People need to stop blaming the liberals and listen to them.

[raouldukelives]

47. Yeah, it ain't rocket science.

Pretty easy to be a liberal. It either comes naturally to you or it doesn't. Some people have no qualms profiting off the suffering of others, others get a sick feeling and a stain that cannot be washed off.
If profiting off the pain of others is hunky dory with you, then you might be a redneck.

[sabrina 1]

50. You have a point, I can't think of any actual Liberal who would in any way even try to diminish the

issue of violations of the Constitutional Rights of the people. But he is correct that under Bush those same apologists, whoever they represent, would be screaming.

So the conclusion is, they are POLITICAL hacks and they are on all sides. It's their living to defend whoever they work for and should simply be ignored imho.

[rhett o rick]

55. Good point. Those people whose stands on issues switch depending on who is president

(e.g., on issues like the Patriot Act) are not liberals, they are pseudo-liberals (also hypocrites).

[grasswire]

2. I'll have to watch that clip.

Maher must be watching Internet discussion boards.

[n2doc]

3. He must have been reading DU n/t

[BillZBubb]

4. He got it exactly right.

Too many Democrats reflexively ignore the crimes of the NSA in a misguided and hypocritical effort to protect president Obama.

[nashville_brook]

5. damn right.

[Uncle Joe]

6. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, marmar.

[frylock]

7. knr

[TransitJohn]

8. DU rec and bump

[daleanime]

9. K&R....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Yep. K&R

[shanti]

11. no, bill, it's not the liberals who are refusing to criticize obama over this

but it is some democrats. not all democrats are liberal.

[Fred Sanders]

13. Not all democrats are liberal, proven many times over right at this very site.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. We also have the newbies who are doing the 11th commandment thing....

Then there are the rare Obama cult followers who act like everything he does is perfect.

Then there's the Eeyore Dems who claim we HAVE to do this stuff we hate or the Republicans will win the next election.

[SammyWinstonJack]

59. heh. ¨Eeyore Dems¨

[Doctor_J]

23. Word

The liberals are the ones getting abused by the DINOs and Tiger Beat

[HooptieWagon]

32. Exactly!

What criticism Obama has gotten from Democrats is from the left wing of the Party. The head in the sand apologists are the RW authoritarian corporatists who claim to be Democrats.

[Blue_Tires]

12. Are there really *that* many supposed liberals who "refuse to criticize surveillance under Obama?"

Because I sure as hell don't see it...

EDIT: Before everyone reflexively starts pointing fingers in my direction, all I've asked for is:

1. Snow-Wald to account for the massive gaps, inconsistencies and still-unanswered questions in their official story; and tell the world how and why this thing really went down from beginning to end, warts and all...

2. Snow-Wald to widen the public discussion to other countries (**cough*cough** Russia), along with the complicity of Google, Apple, the TeleComs, and everyone else who they have allowed to dodge any kind of responsibility whatsoever...Not only have they escaped any serious discussion, but on some occasions Snow-Wald have intentionally shielded Google from being implicated in their stories...I want to know why...

[Fred Sanders]

14. I do not see many either. Apparently you are auto labeled as in favor of mass surveillance as soon

as you offer too much praise of the President, and you of course you will be labelled also loving some of that there drone killing, and all trade agreements.....the same people probably worship Lebron James and do not see the hypocrisy.

For too many the lack of perfection is grounds to dismiss all praise. So it is with black people.....unless you are a sports hero, then the lack of perfection is no reason not to hero worship...hero worship for real and for an entertainment figure, that is all good.

[Oilwellian]

65. We don't expect perfection

We expect him to keep his oath and protect our Constitutional right to privacy.

His self deprecating self confidence and calm is unearthly when it comes to our government's massive illegal spying. Please do point us in the direction where the Obama adorers have voiced a strong opposition to this criminal behavior. All I see is their mocking of the messengers who gave us the documented proof.

[maced666]

20. Well, on scale with say Hobby Lobby, it's 100-1. On reaction.

It's the way/type of response, not really that progressives aren't upset with surveillance under Obama - in numbers most of us all are.

Hobby Lobby was a shouting, fist, lip curled response that they could not deny - we were heard.

Surveillance? 'Um, I don't think this is right murmur murmur...well bush did it...murmur'
A lot of that is natural - why bash your own President when the MSM talk radio and the rest of medias leftovers to it every second of every day.
So it's not that I agree with Obama's surveillance policies - it's more, eh - I'd rather not stand on the sideline with Obama haters.

[thesquanderer]

31. Russia???

You want "Snow-Wald to widen the public discussion to other countries (**cough*cough** Russia)"??

Snowden worked at the NSA, so had access to all kinds of inside info about what was happening there. What makes you think he has any inside info about what's happening in Russia? Besides, revealing what's happening in the U.S. is what really has value to us here in the U.S., because, at least in theory, we can do something about it. Protest, vote, contact our representatives... Why do we need to know what Russia is doing? What could we do about it? And haven't we always assumed they did this kind of stuff anyway (and that's one of the things that ostensibly made the U.S. "better&quot ? I don't think "Russia Spies on its Citizens" (or anyone elsewhere) is going to make headlines anywhere.

And I really don't even see the relevance. Either you care about the issues they raise, or you don't.They are doing what they are doing, what does it matter what other things they are not doing? So, they don't talk about Russia. They don't talk about whaling in Japan or child labor in China either. So what? I mean, even if he has some kind of incriminating info on Russia via his NSA work, how does not revealing it change anything we know?

Also... you say you want them to "tell the world how and why this thing really went down from beginning to end" and to answer unanswered questions, etc.... I'm not sure which questions you're talking about, or which aspect you are referring to when you said "this thing," but one thing "Snow-Wald" has said is that there is info there that they will not release... even Snowden recognizes that some of the secrets he knows may be secret for good reason. That doesn't reduce the value of the information that has come to light. I don't see how not knowing every last detail (some of which may even put someone in danger if released) in any way makes his/their contribution to the conversation about civil liberties any less important.

re: "on some occasions Snow-Wald have intentionally shielded Google from being implicated in their stories...I want to know why." -- I don't know what this is about, might you have a link to post? The obvious "Occam's Razor" reason to shield someone from implication would be if you think they're not guilty of what they're being accused of, but I don't know anything about this story. Though still, getting back to my bigger point, I don't feel we are owed explanations for everything they do or don't do. The information is the information. Attacking them for reasons of motive, character, affiliation, etc., all lead to little more than ad hominem attacks and defenses which are really beside the point.

[Blue_Tires]

34. I just thought Russia was slightly relevant

because that is the country he has chosen to take refuge in (and whose government provides him food, shelter and armed protection 24/7), while being notably silent of Putin's well-documented crackdown of the press and online freedoms (Fun fact: Putin has occasionally cited Snowden as his justification in his crackdown, spinning it as he wants to 'protect' his people from the U.S. NSA)...Does Snowden have to singlehandedly speak for all Russian citizens? No...But he seems hypocritical the longer he avoids saying anything at all...


Just to catch you up on the google thing, since you missed it: http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/wikileaks-takes-on-the-intercept Now why would Greenwald shield the name of a country where google is running a covert operation? There's much more to it, of course, but you can use that piece as a starting point and dig from there...

[thesquanderer]

36. There is no law against hypocrisy

re: "I just thought Russia was slightly relevant because that is the country he has chosen to take refuge in"

Why is that relevant?

Also, as I understand, he didn't really "choose" to take refuge there... it's where he ended up while en route to someplace else. Though I guess you could say he "chose" to stay there once he was stuck there with few options and they permitted it, even though it had not been his intended destination. But your statement implies it was his goal to be there, whereas it was more that that's where he ended up by circumstance.

But anyway, let's turn it around, and say someone comes into an American embassy for protection from his own country. Is he not allowed to criticize his home country unless he also criticizes the U.S.? (There is surely plenty to criticize here.) Why is Snowden obligated to criticize Russia? And seriously, do you think it is wise for a man with few options to criticize his host? And do you really think any good would come out of it? I don't just mean for him, I mean for *anyone* including the Russian people? Even if you think it is hypocritical to call out the U.S. (who he has info on) without calling out Russia (who he presumably has little to no confidential info about), so what? It's not a crime to be a hypocrite, it doesn't make what he is saying less true or less valuable, and honestly, it would probably be kinda dumb for him to bite the hand that feeds him, and for no apparent good besides. What benefit is there to be had? So people like you won't call him names? Attacking him as a hypocrite is a simple ad hominem attack that does nothing to address or invalidate the issues he raised. Sometimes there can be a fine line between courage and stupidity. Personally, I see what he has done as brave; and I think criticizing his hosts would probably be stupid, besides being outside anything he probably has any unique knowledge of.

I did click the link you provided. Google was not mentioned anywhere on that page, but more to the point, Greenwald's defense is alluded to: his appraisal that the info could lead to violence (possibly causing an "uprising" or at least "a handful of deaths&quot . You may choose not to buy that explanation, but there it is.

[truebrit71]

35. I suggest you start that Greenwald ' new book.

Very illuminating.

[JDPriestly]

38. There were a lot of them here, but they have suddenly and mysteriously become silent.

Since Greenwald's book came out, we haven't seen their posts so much.

Were they undercover and just pretending to be Democrats?

Did they read Greenwald's book and change their minds?

Are they cowering under some table waiting for the next embarrassing revelations from the Intercept?

One prominent one has simply dropped off the face of DU.
Will she return:

Stay tuned fpr the next episode of "This is your life in electronic data."

[A Simple Game]

43. I was wondering about our our most prolific propagandist myself.

If a person makes a good price for their word count, and the blue links count as words, I assume she retired to her own island in the Caribbean.

Time will tell.

[Armstead]

57. You lost me at "Snow Wald"

If you are trying to engage in serious questions, using cute denigrating little nicknames is not the way to spark any objectuve conversation.

[BuelahWitch]

15. But he had boxes in his garage!

[sendero]

39. He left his girlfriend! n/t

[raindaddy]

16. Why is Obama continually associated with the left?

He's a moderate right leaning Democrat who would've fit right into the GOP before they pulled the plug on moderates.
I know of no one on the left who stands with Obama on NSA spying, drones,TPP, etc...

The GOP uses the liberal Obama meme as a way to shift the political spectrum even further to the right. In truth Obama's presidency has been a wet dream for the 1%...

[bvar22]

17. "The one great thing Snowden did was provide the proof."

---Ron Suskind

[sulphurdunn]

18. Since the ascendancy of the DLC

in democratic politics, all presidential candidates with a chance of winning from either party and most members of congress have been Wall Street hacks. That is unlikely to change in 2016 without a populist uprising and a purge of the Democratic Party to keep Republicans and big money from dragging it even further to the right.

[cantbeserious]

22. Right You Are - Further Proof Of The DLC Impact Can Be Found In This Prophetic 1994 Interview

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025203338

[JDPriestly]

40. Have you watched Bernie Sanders speech at the New Populist conference?

I just saw it. It's posted here under video and multimedia.

After seeing it, I have decided that Bernie Sanders if election-ready.

If he runs in 2016, I now think he has a good chance of winning enough votes to win the presidency. I did not think that before I heard the speech posted here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017202544

I've always liked Bernie Sanders, but tonight I think his delivery of that speech makes him quite a likable, strong candidate for 2016. His voice, his manner, his sincerity and of course his ideas, his issues, his thoughtfulness, his humility, his humor. He's the real thing. Talks like a country lawyer. I think he has what it takes.

I think Hillary will look up-tight and in need of therapy next to Bernie Sanders if Bernie runs as a Democrat. That's a big if, but I think he could do it.

I will back either Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders in 2016. We've got time.

And I thank Bill Maher for this great portion of his show.

[sulphurdunn]

48. If he runs I will support him.

[mindwalker_i]

21. Fucker needs to be link-bombed into submission

[xchrom]

24. du rec.

[Initech]

25. What planet is he living on?

Most of us are just as pissed now as when George Bush did it, fuck the NSA.

[JustAnotherGen]

46. And when

Truman

Eisenhower

Kennedy

LBJ

Nixon/Ford

Carter


Reagan

Bush I

Clinton

. . . did it too.

I get frustrated with the idea that NO ONE knew this has been going on all of these years. Really? Two guys say it is so and NOW you believe it? And I truly believe it was just as insidious in 1952 as it is today - however we the American people had fewer ways to communicate.


I just wish everyone would knock of the babe in the woods act - the I didn't know until our heroes told us it was so!

People knew - they just didn't care.

Now I'm "over it" after 20 years of understanding it and enjoying everyone else being/experiencing the anger I felt when I was 18. Welcome to the Dystopia.

[Maedhros]

64. Yes, we knew this was happening.

Ron Suskind added that for years, the government kept sneering at critics and asking where their proof is, and so the one great thing Snowden did was provide the proof.

[Rstrstx]

26. We can pound our fists all we want

But I doubt we'll see any real changes in the near future, no president wants to have another 9/11 on their watch and if they were to curtail the NSA and a big terrorist attack happened there would be absolute hell to pay, forget impeachment they'd be coming with pitchforks.

The only way I see it changing soon is if a prominent politician gets caught up in the dragnet, specifically if somebody pulls a Hoover and uses information the NSA has collected against someone else to extort or destroy them. And it must be very tempting for many pols (I won't mention Rove's name), who know the NSA surely has some juicy tidbits on their enemies.

[djean111]

27. Bill is assuming all Democrats are liberals, when liberals are actually in the process of being

kicked out, sidelined, thrown under the bus by centrist Democrats.
The liberals here at DU seem plenty angry about the NSA. The Obama-centrist folks are all like hey! it is legal! So shut up, you stupid useless Lefty liberals!

[vi5]

29. Not true!

Us liberals (we liberals?) are only thrown under the bus and beaten up to impress conservative friends when it's actually time to govern or lead or make policy.

When the D's need money and legwork they are more than happy to pretend to be interested in us and what we have to say.

[djean111]

30. Yeah. You are quite correct in that, for sure.

[Ash_F]

63. I wouldn't call them centrist

Looking at how Americans poll on most issues, they should be called right-wing Democrats.

Liberals are the real center. TV does a good job of false-branding.

[Rex]

28. Wow what an idiot. Does he know that there are moderates in the Democratic party too?

Why I would even say some conservatives under this Big Tent. I've yet to NOT see a liberal complain bitterly at the state of affair over our Spy Nation...moderates and conservatives, not so much. Of course he is just doing the standard liberal bashing...sad to see him do it, but expected of people that have no clue as to what they are talking about.


Don't have an easy scapegoat? Liberal punching is always acceptable in this country, hell it seems to be a sport on DU.

[Oilwellian]

56. Indeed...he was wrong to refer to the hacks as liberal

I'm happy he put a spotlight on the centrists taking joy in mocking the messengers that gave us a gift...documented proof of massive illegal spying, and they are anything but liberal. One of them even commented above that it was something we all knew about, so what's the big deal. Well, the big deal is now we have the proof and it can be used as evidence in the courts of national and world opinion. We are Jack Ryan in Clear and Present Danger.

[Android3.14]

41. A dozen heads explode at DU

As that small crew of DU screamers scramble to show why their particular brand of political hack isn't political hack.

The strange thing is that, even when the cold truth faces them, when their hypocrisy and mealy-mouthed rhetoric is so painfully obvious that only someone without a shred of self-respect, or someone with serious emotional issues, or a victim of blackmail would continue to defend their nonsense, they do so.

I guess that is the defining characteristic for hacks.

[w4rma]

45. I'm sorry Bill, but it's the centrists, not the liberals who are backing the NSA spying. (nt)

[navarth]

51. kick!!! nt

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

52. I/we've been saying that about the Democratic hacks...

...at DU for months.

[littlemissmartypants]

53. CC deniers, dragnet deniers... is there a difference? eom

[Ash_F]

54. Someone should explain to these liberals that the NSA is an extremely right wing organization

It was ridiculously right wing before Obama came and it will remain so after he leaves.

People don't know how our government works.

[sabrina 1]

60. Too bad he didn't fire Bush loyalist, Clapper when he was elected. It is still

Right Wing. There was a chance to reform it by firing all of Bush's appointees and loyalists, but that didn't happen. So, nothing has changed.

[Ash_F]

62. That and the judges that oversee it are all Reagen/Bushes appointees, save one. /nt

[SixString]

58. DU Rec.

[Marr]

61. Only the "liberals" he sees. Insiders and corporate-approved Democrats, in other words.

The actual voters don't support it at all, and most of them aren't sycophantic fans of some politician.