At the very least he can explain why he changed his mind. I get it. I just can't trust him if he doesn't come as clean as he can about his reversal on Gitmo and surveillance and whatnot. I totally understand getting into office, seeing the real data, and saying, "I can't be the one that pulls the plug and causes people to die."

But he owes it to us to at least tell us that.

How has he reversed his position on Gitmo?

The Associated Press's Elizabeth White reports on a speech by Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, then a junior Illinois Senator, to a crowd in Texas. "We're going to close Guantanamo. And we're going to restore habeas corpus," Obama says. "We're going to lead by example—not just by word but by deed. That's our vision for the future." [0]

[0]: http://m.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/01/obama-closing-gu...

And then there's this, from May 1st this year: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/30/obama...

> And yet he lies to cover it up.

Is there any evidence of that?

Obama talking to Charlie Rose earlier this week:

> What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a U.S. person the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls and the NSA cannot target your e-mails.

Then The Guardian released a document several days later, signed by Eric Holder, authorizing numerous exceptions to that, with which they are allowed to spy on Americans.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-w...

So you are sure Obama was lying through his teeth and not just ignorant? I mean, Obama must know every detail of Eric Holder's job right?

Or are you just using "lying" to make a strong political statement, and you really see no difference?

The buck stops with Obama. Ignorance or incompetence is in some ways worse than lying as he might have some good reason to lie.