The problem is Obama completely agreed with what the NSA was doing, and most likely even ordered everything to be done that way (that's why he so viciously defended the FISA Amendments Act last year, and why he tried to get lawsuits dismissed).

However, I agree that is what he should do anyway. Clapper and Alexander should get fired immediately, and so should Holder - but he's been bailing out Holder so many times, I'm starting to think it's a lost cause that he'd ever stop protecting him. If there was a video of Holder shooting a man in head, he'd probably still pardon him.

I disagree with your last part, though, that it would prevent other whistleblowers from coming out. Why would it? It would prove Snowden did a good thing, and more would come out later to fix the system (which is exactly what should happen).

Isn't it silly to fire the officials when the blame lies with the presidents? In my opinion, it's about as useful as blaming Rumsfeld for Bush's war. Appointed officials are servants who fall on their swords when needed to protect the boss. Punishing the underlings just insulates the presidents from blame.

Rumsfeld's culpability for what happened in Iraq is extensive.

Perhaps, but only to the extent that Bush would remove him... and, if tried, to the extent that he violated laws. Bush stood behind him, happily letting him take flak from the media and political opponents for years.

The buck has to stop with the president. How depressing for our civilization that people get worked up blaming a lower level appointee whose job it was to be operationally in charge of dirty work that was fully supported by the president.

It's not a zero sum game. Both Bush and Rumsfeld are extensively culpable, as is Cheney and Addington and Wolfowitz and Feith.

I agree. But considering that underlings are used as chess pieces and must have their big picture plans approved by the president, it's folly to focus more than 5% of the attention on them.

In Rumsfeld's case, he was tasked with creating a shitstorm by acting crass and making controversial remarks. It worked flawlessly and diverted tremendous criticism and attention from Bush and the larger policy direction. Eventually when he'd done that effectively for years, his resignation was engineered to help Bush turn over a new leaf.

Rumsfeld was the architect of the military strategy that resulted in the Iraqi civil war, and was one of a few very loud voices in the administration in the aftermath of 9/11 militating for an invasion in the first place.

You're arguing that Rumsfeld was incompetent? I'd say he's among the most competent executives ever to deliver to his superiors exactly what they wanted.

Without hindsight bias, and considering that selling a cheap war was critical to getting buy-in from congress, Rumsfeld architected a great plan.

I'd argue that Rumsfeld is an incredible intellect and expert tactician who made zero mistakes.

that would make obama score points in the public, but it is his second term as president already.

this would also encourage more whistleblower activity that may get out of hand.

There is no such thing as "too much" whistle blowing.

Let's assume for a moment that there exists an individual who (via unknown mechanisms) knows about 90% of the hidden affairs of marriages in the world.

Should that person "blow that whistle", as it were, suddenly turning almost all relationships "honest"? Or would it cause widespread havoc and upheaval?

>Should that person "blow that whistle"

Ask the people who are being cheated on. Or spied on.

I'm not suggesting an answer. I'm posing a thought experiment. I think it's a reasonably good analogy.

My answer is probably odd- I'd want to know if I was the possible jiltee, but I don't know if I'd say that it should be revealed for ALL people.

That depends on which side of the whistle you find yourself.