And that is just the way it is.
If you are on the radar you can assume they are watching.
It has always been that way.
But, it is ridiculous to assume that the ABC agencies can monitor all of us all of the time but they cannot monitor Snowden.
That the ABC agencies are listening to you talk to Aunt Mabel, but that they cannot suss the Boston bastards even when the Russians gave them a heads up years earlier.
Something stinks here, and it stinks real bad.
Something stinks here, and it stinks real bad.
The Boston bombing is easy -- Holderbama didn't WANT to prevent it because they can use it to justify the FBI/ATF's illegal home searches and to "condition" us to accept it in the future. Also, to justify the need for NSA's unconstitutional eavesdropping.
The Snowden "fiasco?" I'm beginning to think it's not as it appears. If Holderbama et al wanted all Americans to know about the comprehensive snooping (and thus think we have NO secrets), what's the best way to let everyone know? What's the best way to break that news if they wanted to brainwash as many people as possible that "resistance is futile?" It's not as if obama could call a presser in the Rose Garden to tell us. They would need a leaker, an event as big as Snowden to make sure EVERYONE heard the news.
As for Snowden himself, there are many possibilities. Maybe he was used w/o his knowledge. Or maybe he's complicit and was in on it, as well as Putin. Or maybe he was supposed to be Fostered but he outsmarted them.
Or, then again, maybe our entire intelligence apparatus is too inept and too intellectually-challenged to use all their fancy NSA-eavesdropping knowledge to prevent a 3rd-rate pressure cooker bombing and a pimply-faced Gen-Xer from making us look like fools.
I can't decide what's the best fit for Occam's razor. :-/