What I don't like about this is the voters pretending they had nothing to do with it, when their votes endorse each president, and both houses. You cant run from responsibility in a democracy. Americans need to wake up and smell the BS. If grass roots money was enough to get Obama to the top job, which we are led to believe, then grass roots can create a new party.
But frankly, I know this will never happen, because when you get down to it, most people are safe enough, employed enough, fed enough and distracted enough, and will there for never risk losing that for a sort of political revolution. Why risk it?
UK wise, on one gives a toss in any way shape or form really. The apathy is stunning. Yeah, it gets a mention in the press, and there has been a bit of tokenistic questioning in parliament, but basically, its a non issue.
Personally, I find the whole thing depressing. What scares me is wondering how far things do have to go until people revolt, and how many have to suffer before that happens. I think one of the cynical calculations in all this is that these governments have worked out that if only a few people, preferably foreigners, suffer as a result, they will get away with it. So be as bad as you like, just keep the numbers down and try not to make it effect the voters much.
But whether the President distances himself or not is irrelevant. The agency is still nothing more than a tasked employee. So when people object to the NSA's actions they are essentially objecting to the policy and the choices the policy makers set in place.
Also when the NSA is blamed with overreach, it is blamed for not following orders within the boundaries of the law.
So if it was the first point that is the center of this debacle then both the President and Congress are responsible for the NSA's actions. If it is the second point then the NSA, the President and Congress shoulder the blame. Either way, this has nothing to do with the President distancing himself.