Transparency

PolitiFact Rolls Eyes at Obama's Claim of FISA Court Transparency

|

Also "Pants of Fire": Obama's claim he's "looking forward" to discussion on surveillance.

Up until now, PolitiFact had rated only seven claims by President Barack Obama as "Pants on Fire" lies, all but two of which were claims about political opponents. But not even PolitiFact could countenance the president's ludicrous claim that the super-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court operates with any sort of "transparency," a claim he made in a softball interview with Charlie Rose earlier this week.

PolitiFact ultimately determined:

Obama said that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court "is transparent." We don't doubt that there are good reasons for secrecy at the court, but if you're going to operate a mostly secret court, you also don't get to crow about how "transparent" it is. The president can't have his cake and eat it, too. We rate his claim Pants on Fire.

Perhaps a sign that the media fact checkers aren't going to continue looking the other way at the things the president says? Matt Welch wrote about the trend in our February Reason Magazine cover story.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

NEXT: British Spy Agency Also Tracks Phone, Online Data and Shares with NSA

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If the Truth-o-meter rating system was consistently applied inside the Beltway, I’d want the asbestos underwear franchise.

    1. It’s a good thing the Truth-o-meter goes to eleven.

    2. Luckily I’m about 1/8 mile outside the Beltway right now!

  2. Perhaps a sign that the media fact checkers aren’t going to continue looking the other way at the things the president says?

    When anything comes of it, you get back to me. Mildly rebuking a lying scumbag for being a liar and then moving on isn’t much of an effect.

    1. They are happy to criticize Obama now that he is re-elected. As sarcasmic points out below, if he were running again in 2016, they would be totally different.

      I would advise you to prepare yourself for an increasing number of thumb sucking pieces over the next three years about how the media needs to reexamine its roll as a watchdog, that maybe they got a little too caught up in just how awesome Obama was and they are going to do better with the next President, provided it is not Hillary of course.

      1. I’m already prepared, but I still have doubts that they will even fess up that much. They usually prefer to dump their malfeasance down the memory hole.

        1. True. Some of them will point to articles like this as evidence that the media was harder on Obama than it was on any President in history.

        2. I’d like to start a TV network, along the lines of C-SPAN, that focuses totally on reminding people of the evil done by current and recent politicians. Perhaps with evil retrospectives in non-prime hours.

          1. E-PAN: Evil Public Affairs Network

          2. I hope your tax records are in order and the FCC tells me that is a great broadcast license you have there. They would hate to see something happen to it.

            1. We’ll start with the FCC. Fuck ’em.

              1. They’ll cut you.

            2. TV doesn’t have to be broadcast over licensed spectrum anymore.

              1. There’s cable. Then there’s the Internet. Then there’s pirate radio. Then there’s pamphlets printed on a ditto machine. Then there’s yelling at parks.

                1. Ditto machines – how quaint.

                2. Just wait until the FCC requires you to have a broadband license.

          3. Let’s just do the first 3 on YouTube then run a Kickstarter.

            1. I’m in. You go hijack WFSU. We’ll broadcast from there–no one would suspect a PBS station.

            2. Ive been thinking for a while that a TV show that covers police abuse stories (The “Balko Nut-Punch Hour”) would be good. But it could be just one show on E-PAN.

              I like the concept.

              With kickstarter, maybe due it as a youtube channel, like with Geek & Sundry.

        3. True, Epi, but it’s more difficult to make information disappear these days than previously.

    2. What’s the difference between a fact and a politi-fact if not the same difference as between cheese and cheez?

      It’s not just a fact that the media is going to start holding Obama accountable – it’s a politi-fact!

  3. This administration is as “transparent” as a 30 feet thick rebar concrete wall when it comes to producing actual facts. What they are as transparent as thin air about is their disdain for those of us that do not feel obligated to worship at their feet and suck their dick on command.

  4. Despite all this, I bet he’d win a third term if he could run.

    1. I always wanted to vote for a black President three times.

      1. In Chicago, many did in 2008.

        1. In Philadelphia, they did it four and five times.

      2. They even had dead people voting for him. Some more than once.

    2. Well that goes without saying. He’s extremely sorry he couldn’t fix all of those problems caused by BOOOSSHHHH, but he’s worked hard to keep us safe, and he swears he won’t hit us again, honey, honest, I’m laying off the sauce for good now.

      1. He inherited so many problems, he never had a chance. Things will go better in the next four years. And isn’t it great to vote for a black man for President?

    3. This is his FOURTH term – one and two as “G. W. BOOOOSH”, three and four as “His Excellency The One”.

      It’s almost like there’s no difference between them, other than BOOOOSH speaks Spanish and Obama’s a bigger liar.

    4. I’ll bet that in the next couple of years we will see a proposal to repeal the 22nd Amendment. Actually, Rep Jose E. Serrano of New York has been introducing a bill to do this since 1997, but watch for it to gain steam as Obama’s 2nd term comes to an end.

  5. Well, time for the usual slew of articles explaining why PolitiFact is biased. Or were we already there and had just swung back from how good they were at exposing Rethuglican lies? I can never remember.

  6. “But not even PolitiFact could countenance the president’s ludicrous claim that the super-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court operates with any sort of “transparency,” a claim he made in a softball interview with Charlie Rose earlier this week.”

    Stating that the interview was a softball one was really unnecessary, since there has never been ANY Obama media interview that WASN’T a softball one.

    1. Only a racist would ask Obama a tough question. That or maybe someone who wants to be blackmailed by the NSA or audited by the IRS.

      1. Or have their FOIA requests stonewalled by the EPA while it gives a big sloopy kiss to the Sierra Club and hands over anything it asks for PDQ.

        1. hands over anything it asks for PDQ

          For free, too, while everybody else gets charged. But don’t you dare suggest it’s politically motivated.

    2. Obama will never, ever agree to a non-softball interview. Ever.

      1. What are you talking about? He had that super tough one where he said that if you look at the dictionary for the definition of a word you are clearly reaching. That was a tough one where they totally tried to nail him but he’s just too perfect and had an answer for everything.

    1. I don’t want any trans’ pants.

  7. Well, the fact that they called him out on this totally makes up for the crap they’ve endorsed over the years. This definitely isn’t just low hanging fruit that gives them the cover to claim non-partisanship.

    OT: The future of men’s soccer in the US is bleak, if the men’s U20 national team is any indication.

  8. OT Took a 1/2 day – watching the Moto3 race. Holy mother fuck but they’re all about corner speed. Do they ever let off the throttle?

    R

  9. OT Took a 1/2 day – watching the Moto3 race. Holy mother fuck but they’re all about corner speed. Do they ever let off the throttle?

    R

  10. From the Choomgang to hanging out with super simpleton leftist at Occidental onward to dealings with a University of Chicago faculty that tended to roll their eyes but keep their mouths shut around him then a political career in the Illinois legislature where he collected checks for being present, it has been softball for Obama his entire adult life.

    1. The sad thing is this isn’t even unusual, it’s a typical politician’s gold plated path through life.

    2. Its good to be Big Daddy. And Big Daddy knows it. If he wasn’t doing so much damage to the country, I would almost like Obama for the horrible things he is doing to liberals. He really is the ultimate abusive b/f. He is forcing them to surrender every ounce of shame and dignity. And they keep doing it and loving it.

      1. They never had any shame or dignity to surrender.

      2. You are assuming they’re capable of feeling shame. Most aren’t.

        People like Sad Beard, for instance, are amoral, shameless slugs either because they’re evil or stupid.

  11. Obama said that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court “is transparent.” We don’t doubt that there are good reasons for secrecy at the court, but if you’re going to operate a mostly secret court, you also don’t get to crow about how “transparent” it is. The president can’t have his cake and eat it, too. We rate his claim Pants on Fire.

    I feel like the section I bolded is the real takeaway. They give him the benefit of the doubt even when calling him a liar.

    1. Whether keeping some information secret for some amount of time is an issue is one thing, but whether that court serves as no check at all on executive power is another.

    2. I was just thinking of a constitutional amendment mandating that public servants doing public service always do it in public. Public servants should not be keeping secrets from the people they work for. Period.

  12. Wait – what the hell just happened! I THIINK THE NSA IS ON TO mfadsf

  13. Also, I hate the fucking Truth-o-meter. I understand that it’s their gimmick, but what the hell is the difference between partially true and half-true? What garners a pants-on-fire as opposed to a false?

    The only reason the Truth-o-meter exists is so that Politifact can give Democrats the benefit of the doubt by saying they said something ‘mostly true’ while making a Republican look like more of a liar by giving him a ‘half true’ for substantively similar statements.

    1. Partisans gonna partisan. That’s why ignoring them is the best policy.

    2. If it were honest, it would be based more on whether the facts indicate that the speaker knew his information was false. Granted, that would be almost all of the time with this administration, which only tells the truth by mistake.

      1. It’s not a lie if you believe it!

        1. Or the more polite way of saying the same thing – it is a matter of faith.

  14. Perhaps a sign that the media fact checkers aren’t going to continue looking the other way at the things the president says?

    Derrrr……

    …wouldn’t hold breath. Even when he gets caught in blatant lies, the most the media will do is headline the story, “Republicans Using X Issue to Attack President…”

    1. If the lie or the scandal is so bad even the media can’t deny its existence, the coverage changes to “Republicans use X to attack President” and turn it into a horse race story.

      Or they will do like this Politico story on the IRS scandal does: bury the lead as far back in the story as possible and surround it with “facts” that minimize the damage. Here, Politico writes four “takeaways” about how the IRS scnadal is just a big misunderstanding only to have the lead buried in the fifth one admitting that the IRS did target and harass conservatives. The last point makes a lie out of every other point in the article.

      http://www.politico.com/story/…..Page2.html

      Now that is how one practices being a hack.

    2. Case in point: Benghazi.

      Amid criticism, Romney doubles down on criticism of White House’s response to Egypt, Libya attacks

      Republicans were seemingly slow to take up Romney’s line of attack in light of the tragedy: Aside from RNC Chair Reince Priebus, who called the Obama administration “sad and pathetic” in a Tweet, there was little mention of the president in a flurry of Republican statements released Wednesday morning.

      Even some conservatives seemed to take issue with Romney’s column: Columnist Peggy Noonan said on Fox News that she didn’t feel Romney had been doing himself “any favors” in addressing the attacks.

      Democrats, meanwhile, seized on Romney’s remarks as “reckless” and evidence that he lacks a comprehensive understanding of foreign affairs.

      1. And remember, right after the election DOS itself admitted they were totally negligent.

        http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-25…..ut-malice/

        But Romney criticizing the administration in September for their incompetence was “sad and pathetic”.

        You would think they would get tired of lying for the government.

        1. For some reason, partisan scum never get tired of shaking their ass for their leaders. I don’t get it; they don’t personally benefit at all, and they destroy their integrity to bolster the people who do benefit. Yet they love to do it and go out of their way to do it.

          I think the most logical explanation is that they’re retarded.

      2. “”Even some conservatives seemed to take issue with Romney’s column: Columnist Peggy Noonan said on Fox News that she didn’t feel Romney had been doing himself “any favors” in addressing the attacks.

        Democrats, meanwhile, seized on Romney’s remarks as “reckless” and evidence that he lacks a comprehensive understanding of foreign affairs.””

        As I noted = the issue being discussed among the mediacrats is always the *political ramifications* of X, Y, or Z… not the actual “incompetence, malfeasance, misstatements, cover-ups, etc” by their own preferred players. They are less likely to admit wrongdoing than the politicos *themselves*, which is stunning.

        (recall that Obama was making pearl-grabbing statements of concern about IRS harassment… while the media – NYT, looking at you – concluded “nothing to see here…”)

        To this day, I have yet to see a Benghazi report that isn’t about “republicans need to regain narrative”… Not about, oh, potential false testimony to Congress?

        1. Or incompetence resulting in the death of Americans? First they lie and pretend the scandal doesn’t exist. Then when it is proven too exist, they say it doesn’t matter because the Republicans are not winning the narrative, which of course is only true because of the media’s own lying to begin with.

  15. Invisible is the same as transparent? Right?

  16. FISA is totally transparent. It tells Obama everything.

  17. Has anyone noticed a drop off in the number of troll posts defending the left here? Is it just me?

    Are they growing tired of defending the indefensible? Perhaps they are beginning to finally lose faith.

    1. Yes there has been a drop. And I think what is going on is that the powers that be can’t come up with good talking points, so the marching orders are just to ignore certain stories.

      Make no mistake, shreek and Tony and the other occasional liberal trolls all get the same talking points from the same sources. They are quite comfortable with central control.

    2. I imagine the trolls are spending more time defending Dear Leader, but due to the limited number of hours in the day they appear here less frequently.

    3. They just don’t have the fervor anymore for proselyting. They are spending all their time in church helping each other keep the faith.

  18. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ory_1.html

    In figuring out whether a target is “reasonably believed” to be located overseas, for example, the agency looks at the “totality of the circumstances” relating to a person’s location.

    Whenever I read or hear the words “totality of the circumstances” I know I’ve been fucking lied to.

    1. And that authorities are justifying illegal or shady shit.

    2. Similarly, “nuance” is code for “piss down your back and tell you it’s raining.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.