Jebbie, I think I understand the distinction you're trying to draw. That is, it's noteworthy that if Obama couldn't have Brennan as CIA Director, then he sure seemed determined to have him as close to that position as possible by appointing him as Deputy NSA. Being essentially 'unsuitable' for one ought to have made it less likely that, or raised questions whether, Brennan was 'suitable' for the other. Yet, Obama persevered in pursuing his preference.

Taking the above events and decisions and looking backwards, based on the available information in the NPR piece, it is imprecise to contend that Brennan convinced Obama to change his position. It could be equally true that by selecting Brennan to advise him, Obama had already come to some sense that he wouldn't uphold his campaign pledge, and the inclusion of Brennan on his advising team could be said to signal a decision Obama had already made, or was in the process of making on his own.

What follows then, ought to tell us more about Obama than about Brennan. And, Brennan's weasel words aside, all of the programs in existence, presumably, continue to exist at the behest of Obama and Congress, even though - apparently - the PSP program is of questionable value. And, even the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC, are you familiar with Google frakkBel?) has determined other sources provide more timely or detailed information. With such a ringing endorsement, how could Obama and Congress not continue their support of the same (/snark).

It would be bad enough that this data collection process is a second best (if that) option for the NCTC for the purposes of dealing with external threats, but it's application for the purposes of internal 'threats' is profoundly worrisome. Part of me is fairly well horrified by Amy Goodman's interview (well worth a read), and part of me is absolutely unsurprised given the experience of various groups during the Republican National Convention. Technology, and the people authorized to deploy it, go where they go. And, depending on the culture of the agency, organization, or institution "authorization" can be defined more implicitly than explicitly.

Which brings me to,

Frankly, my dear, ..,

Why does ...
... "I fulfilled all my responsibilities" remind me so strongly of "I was just following orders"?

Because, they essentially mean the same thing? What a great catch. But, consequent, our exchange about VOOM, I'd ask, Whose orders?

For all those comfortable with the thought that they have health insurance, no, actually, you don't.

The Baseline Scenario
You Do Not Have Health Insurance
By James Kwak
August 5, 2009

Right now, it appears that the biggest barrier to health care reform is people who think that it will hurt them. According to a New York Times poll, “69 percent of respondents in the poll said they were concerned that the quality of their own care would decline if the government created a program that covers everyone.” Since most Americans currently have health insurance, they see reform as a poverty program – something that helps poor people and hurts them. If that’s what you think, then this post is for you.

You do not have health insurance. Let me repeat that. You do not have health insurance. (Unless you are over 65, in which case you do have health insurance.

[...]

If, like most people, your health coverage is through your employer or your spouse’s employer, that is not what you have. At some point in the future, you will get sick and need expensive health care. What are some of the things that could happen between now and then?

• Your company could drop its health plan. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (see Table HIA-1), the percentage of the population covered by employer-based health insurance has fallen every year since 2000, from 64.2% to 59.3%.
• You could lose your job. I don’t think I need to tell anyone what the unemployment rate is these days.
• You could voluntarily leave your job, for example because you have to move to take care of an elderly relative.
• You could get divorced from the spouse you depend on for health coverage.
• 
  
  

  For all of these reasons, you can’t count on your health insurer being there when you need it. That’s not insurance; that’s employer-subsidized health care for the duration of your employment.

  (continues)

http://baselinescenario.com/2009/08/05/you-do-not-have-health-insurance/#more-4585

They are fighting to retain what they have...at least those Americans who still have health insurance.

I think that's an astute observation. But, people are then evaluating health care reform from where they are standing right this minute, failing to recognize that, for many of them, just around the corner, it's already gone.

Wrong Message

The administration has been trying to sell health care reform by reassuring people that if they are satisfied with the coverage they have now, they can keep it.

That is, so long as it's still available. Given the way employers have been shedding responsibility for health care and the way escalating costs have been reducing affordability, it's unlikely that it will be. And, of course, if you do get sick, you may find you don't have the coverage you thought you had.

So the message should be that health care reform is the only chance people have to keep the coverage they have now. - Mark Thoma

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/08/wrong-message.html

The financial sector of the economy may be recovering. The real economy - the goods and services sector - is still collapsing on itself. Maybe not as fast as it was, but the economy is still shedding jobs. And, with 30% of households in a negative equity position (50% projected by next year) that's a whole lot of lost consumer demand for those goods and services everyone employed is providing.