Nope.

You're easily insulted I don't know if its insecurity or what but you sure as hell don't like criticism and it appears that I struck the right chord.

You are mistaken. I have no problem with criticism. What I don't like is someone attacking my integrity. I don't consider your comment to be "criticism" because it has neither facts nor logic behind it. It was really just an insult.Really? That's the way it seems to you? You make an unfounded and illogical personal attack, for which I really have no defense. You have no facts to back up your insults. And you conclude that you "struck the right cord." Ridiculous.

And yet my defense of Obama is a "stale attempt"? That makes sense to you?

They are not defending the intercepts. They are not defending the quality of the intercepts. All they are doing is trying to keep the methods the intelligence community uses to obtain and/or evaluate data. The righteousness of the data collection and/or its usefulness is nowhere in the neighborhood of what they are defending.

__________________
1984 300TD

It was Bush's fault. Stick to the gameplan here.

__________________
'06 E320 CDI
'17 Corvette Stingray Vert

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=141345&highlight=wire+tapping&page=3

Maybe I missed something, where were these "stale attempts" to defend Obama? Dculkin's point, if you had been paying attention, was that the intel has already been gathered, and it would be detrimental to divulge it. The methods that were used are still employed today, just that now they have judicial oversight, as they should have from their inception. If the current administration turned over that intel, they feel it would highlight the methods used to collect it, and jeopardize the ability to continue using it.

__________________
On some nights I still believe that a car with the fuel gauge on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. - HST

1983 300SD - 305000
1984 Toyota Landcruiser - 190000
1994 GMC Jimmy - 203000

https://media.giphy.com/media/X3nnss8PAj5aU/giphy.gif

I missed that in the article.

Stale meaning stale, old he changes his argument to fulfill his partisanship while believing that he is non-partisan. I'll be honest and admit I don't read 95% of what he says sometimes it upsets my tummy.

Mind the shotgun!

Thy are defending the means, methods, and information acquired. Not coincidentally, those were the points of contention in the suit. Why would anybody bring in an extraneous question except on a forum? The forum goes where no politician has gone before!

Why the rudeness?

Nothing in that link supports anything you've said here. Maybe you should trot out that list of quotes from Bill Clinton from back in 1998. That used to be your response to just about everything. Maybe it will work for you here.