Why the President’s NSA Reforms Weren’t as Sweeping as They Could’ve Been

President Obama’s slate of National Security Agency and FISA Court reforms, which he announced in a speech on Friday  were exactly what I expected they would be: modest changes to a highly complex system which is not particularly easy to reform, especially using broad-stroke, sweeping measures.

It probably wasn’t watched by most Americans, but it should’ve been, if for no other reason but to hear some actual history and reality about the upsides — and downsides — of America’s intelligence agencies. This was a welcome breath of fresh air, given how the debate around NSA and Edward Snowden is increasingly resembling an InfoWars comment thread.

The address was also a lesson in political reality — a reality which is mostly ignored by the Greenwald clique.

As we’ve observed throughout this administration, and even during previous administrations, changes in the United States never happen overnight and change almost never gives us exactly what we want, especially if those demanding changes resort to flailing, unhinged screeching.

Indeed, there are many things about NSA functionality that needs to be reformed. Not to get too soupy about it, but it’s always our duty as citizens composing a government “of the people” to make the system better and more effective. But as former NSA analyst and Naval War College professor John Schindler observed over the weekend, the manner in which the current debate came about ultimately delayed any serious reforms for many years to come.

The patient-zero of Glenn Greenwald’s and Edward Snowden’s failure: their basic lack of understanding of American politics.

If they’d been serious about making changes, and if they’d understood from the beginning how change occurs here, they would’ve turned the dial slowly and methodically. Instead, the two primary voices in this effort ignorantly and indiscriminately blurted away, raising all kinds of hell, as if they could’ve successfully rolled back decades of national security policy by mocking the very people who’d otherwise be tasked with carrying out those changes.

One of the very basic rules of a negotiation, much less politics in any form, is to allow your opponent to save face; to not embarrass them or to force them appear as if they’re a weakened capitulator, crumbling to the incessant scolding of an activist ex-pat in Brazil and a defector in Moscow… [CONTINUED HERE]

By: Bob Cesca

Bob Cesca is the managing editor at The Daily Banter (www.thedailybanter.com) and a Huffington Post contributor since 2005. He's worked in journalism since 1988 as a print writer/editor, a radio news anchor, a digital media columnist/editor, a book author and blogger. He's the co-host of the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast and a Thursday regular on the syndicated Stephanie Miller Show. He's appeared on numerous other radio shows including the John Phillips Show and Geraldo Rivera Show in Los Angeles. Bob has been a commentator/analyst on the BBC (TV and radio), MSNBC, Current TV, CNN and Sky News. Following him on Twitter: @bobcesca_go