[alexeisadeski3]

>Even the much-maligned George Bush generally acted in keeping with the fundamental beliefs that he told the country he held prior to his election.

Bush promised a humble foreign policy with no nation building. He had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_presidential_cam...

[downandout]

This statement was made pre-9/11 - an event that changed many things. But even this wasn't a dramatic shift in his views. If anything, Bush's reaction to 9/11 reinforced the image he presented prior to his election. Whether you agreed with his views or not, few would argue that his reaction came entirely out of left field.

By contrast, this NSA/Obama issue proves that we simply don't know the person that is sitting in the White House right now. We only know that he lied through his teeth to get there.

[subsection1h]

> This statement was made pre-9/11 - an event that changed many things.

Bush surrounded himself with PNAC members before 9/11. All that 9/11 did was give them the opportunity to initiate regime change in Iraq, which they had been calling for ever since PNAC was first formed. Yet he promised "no nation building" while campaigning.

I don't see much difference between Bush and Obama's level of honesty.

[MattGrommes]

Imagine a presidential candidate making promises and saying a lot of things that he believed in about spying and how the agencies involved should work. Then he gets into office and finds out that things are much worse than he could have possibly known before getting into office. Would you prefer he keep to the path he laid out in campaigning or deal with reality as it is, even if it goes against his beliefs? I try to be smarter today than I was yesterday, I hope somebody in such a position of power would do the same.

Note that I have no idea if this is anywhere near true and I don't believe in what Obama and the various agencies have done but I do believe something like this is closer to the truth than some grand scheme by Obama to lie himself into power.

[downandout]

Naivete is an arguable excuse for Obama's statements prior to his first election. But he continued his anti-surveillance rhetoric during his second campaign, and there is simply no explanation for that other than lying.

[cmelbye]

Did he? I can't remember that being an important issue at all in the 2012 election.

[downandout]

It wasn't at the forefront all that much, but he did say it and talked alot about how he was protecting our rights where Republicans weren't.

[mkaziz]

It would be too much to hope that he would make the public aware of why he decided to change his opinion, would it?

Government always thinks it knows better.

[narrator]

What's really funny about GWB is he did a negligible amount for the pro-life crowd. He dangled that fish in front of the rabid pro-lifers but did nothing for them except lip service. I don't want to get into an abortion debate. I'm just saying that the pro-lifers hardly get anything from any politician and it's just funny how they vote based on whatever the lip service is. The politicians have an incentive to never settle anything because those single issue voters would just move on to other issues and weaken their power base.

[alexeisadeski3]

He can't overturn Supreme Court decisions.