It's ridiculous this is being repeated ad nauseum. Yes, he threatened to veto the NDAA unless specific changes were made. The changes were made, compromised was reached, and he didn't veto it.
Agree or disagree with the NDAA, saying he threatened to veto it and then backtracked is just wrong. He threatened to veto it _unless_ it was modified, and it then was.
This is exactly the point being made. Threatening to veto unless minor changes are made is just a way of getting the public to accept a form of something they previously opposed entirely on principle. As the previous commenter said, it's a strategy to erode public opposition. NDAA was augmented and yet indefinite detention without charge is a reality.
I wouldn't want to program a big system with some of the people on this thread. I can just picture y'all screaming and forking the code base because we compromised to keep Windows XP support.
