Naomi Wolf calls bullshit on the Snowden story

[ucrdem]

My creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports to be ...

by Naomi Wolf (Notes) on Friday, June 14, 2013


I hate to do this but I feel obligated to share, as the story unfolds, my creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports to be, and that the motivations involved in the story may be more complex than they appear to be. . . .

(snip)

b) In the Greenwald video interview, I was concerned about the way Snowden conveys his message. He is not struggling for words, or thinking hard, as even bright, articulate whistleblowers under stress will do. Rather he appears to be transmitting whole paragraphs smoothly, without stumbling. To me this reads as someone who has learned his talking points — again the way that political campaigns train surrogates to transmit talking points.

c) He keeps saying things like, “If you are a journalist and they think you are the transmission point of this info, they will certainly kill you.” Or: “I fully expect to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act.” He also keeps stressing what he will lose: his $200,000 salary, his girlfriend, his house in Hawaii. These are the kinds of messages that the police state would LIKE journalists to take away; a real whistleblower also does not put out potential legal penalties as options, and almost always by this point has a lawyer by his/her side who would PROHIBIT him/her from saying, ‘come get me under the Espionage Act.” Finally in my experience, real whistleblowers are completely focused on their act of public service and trying to manage the jeopardy to themselves and their loved ones; they don’t tend ever to call attention to their own self-sacrifice. That is why they are heroes, among other reasons. . . .

(snip)

e) In stories that intelligence services are advancing (I would call the prostitutes-with-the-secret-service such a story), there are great sexy or sex-related mediagenic visuals that keep being dropped in, to keep media focus on the issue. That very pretty pole-dancing Facebooking girlfriend who appeared for, well, no reason in the media coverage…and who keeps leaking commentary, so her picture can be recycled in the press…really, she happens to pole-dance? . . .

f) Snowden is in Hong Kong, which has close ties to the UK. . . .

(snip)

Again I hate to cast any skepticism on what seems to be a great story of a brave spy coming in from the cold in the service of American freedom. . . .

https://www.facebook.com/notes/naomi-wolf/my-creeping-concern-that-the-nsa-leaker-is-not-who-he-purports-to-be-/10151559239607949
.....................

I don't necessarily agree with Wolf's conclusions, but do I agree with her observation that Snowden is being stage managed and recites talking points that someone has written for him.

[cali]

1. file under crazy as a shithouse rat.

ridiculous and stupid.

if this is reasoning, lord help us.

[ucrdem]

6. She's right about the interviews, one of which I heard on Democracy Now

and which immediately struck me as ad copy delivered by a well-trained hack. She's also right about the sexy visuals. Have you seen this post by freshwest?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3014219

There's a whole fairytale backstory cooked up including this rather dubious photo:

[cali]

11. oh my word. could you employ just a modicum of critical thinking?

none of what loonytune earthtoned wolf cites as evidence is even remotely fucking evidence.

Seriously, you think the "theory" that Snowden is a U.S. plant is reasonable?

yikers.

[ucrdem]

14. I don't agree with her conclusions, but I do agree with her observations.

She doesn't seem to be aware that there are more intelligence outfits on the planet than the CIA or that the UK and US intel services may have different goals in mind.

[cali]

21. her observations are flat out ridiculous.

too articulate? that's an observation? the girlfriend is too photogenic?


Man, I hate stupid and crazy conspiracy crap.

[leveymg]

47. It also occurred to me that a stage-managed leak is a possibility, but I don't see any real

evidence to draw that conclusion yet.

If the Administration were trying to reform the IC and was working secretly to start a public debate about NSA overreach, they wouldn't be simultaneously escalating the US role in the Syrian conflict. It doesn't make sense in this context.

If this were some sort of organized political rat-fucking by the Paulian Rightwing, we'd see some outward evidence of extreme pushback by the Administration. Other than wild speculation here and at some other partisan Democratic sites, crickets.

On the contrary, if Snowden had actually been turned by the Chinese, they probably would have wanted him to stay in place to gather more secrets before a very quiet departure. This doesn't fit the usual pattern for espionage.

So, in the absence of some sort of proof to the contrary, the running supposition is that he's a leaker not an operative or a spy.

[ucrdem]

50. Unless he's an operative or spy for a non-US intel service.

Or a private one, controlled lets say by the Carlyle Group or the Kochs or Exxon-Mobile or some combination of all three. A private CIA in other words. Possibly that was part of the intent of "privatizing" so much CIA activity under Bush-Cheney? So these same outfits would be available to do their bidding when they were out of office?

[leveymg]

54. How is this really undermining Obama and the Dems in a way that would help, say, Jeb or Rand?

You have to explain that part of it. If it's Third Party, what are they trying to accomplish, and what's in it for them?

The Bay of Pigs was a real intelligence catastrophe, as was 9/11. Neither seemed to hurt the Party in power. You have to factor for the Rally Round the Flag effect these things have.

[ucrdem]

66. Here are two specific ways it undermines Obama on an international stage:

1) The US-China summit last weekend. The top topic was cybersecurity and basically Obama had his hat handed to him by Xi.

2) The G8 summit starting tomorrow in Northern Ireland. All our buds are expecting us to put out re. Syria and the NSA affair weakens Obama's popular support and thus his bargaining position. And sure enough he announced on Friday the US will be sending weapons to the "rebels."

The latter is exactly what I was afraid all this was leading to and I'm sorry to see my worst suspicions confirmed.

[leveymg]

78. 1) Nothing was going to come of that issue with China, anyway - both sides knew what the other is

doing, and neither will change on account of the others accusations and protestations of innocence. Seems unlikely that China would expose an inside agent for such short-term gain.

2) The US is going along with France and the UK and all are acting opportunistically and hope to benefit from the Sunni resurgence. It's good business to appear to be cooperating with the Saudis, particularly when all the the western countries are effectively bankrupt and the Arabs have all the cash in the world outside of China.

I don't see the connection of the leaks with Syria. Please clarify that thought.

[ucrdem]

83. I thought it was clear, but here goes: NSA-gate weakens his popular support

and makes him look the fool internationally, particularly in Britain, where the BBC at least is making hay with it and where, coincidentally, the G8 is being held. So the explicit or implicit argument that "the American people elected me to not engage in dumb wars" loses credibility, as does Obama generally. It weakens his bargaining position in other words.

[leveymg]

89. But, the rest of the world is now trumpeting that the US is again "engaging in dumb wars"

That's what I see in the British and European press right now.

That may be hypocritical of them, as much of such criticism from the Euros tends to be, but I don't see how the NSA flap moves Obama forward into the next stage of the Syria intervention toward military conflict with Iran, which is clearly the end-point for the neocon agenda. Maybe, if Snowden had ended up in Tehran.

This as it is there just doesn't seem to be an obvious connection, and the connections being surmised don't make much sense to me. Maybe, I'm being obtuse, but it just doesn't ring true with me. Sorry.

[ucrdem]

94. I guess we disagree. It seems patently obvious to me.

Also obvious is that the Greenwald-Snowden media blitz takes the public's eye off the ball when we most need to be concentrating our efforts on not getting pulled into in yet another dumb war. Not just dumb, catastrophic, both to populations and to the planet. As many have noted this isn't just a civil war any more.

[leveymg]

239. It's okay to disagree.

While I reserve judgement about Snowden, I also know that Barton Gellman at the WaPo has an impressive career body of good, solid intelligence and national security reporting under his belt during the past several decades. I don't think he's easily snowed, and I can't detect a nefarious agenda in Gellman.

So, that's where I am, right now, subject to change and open to contrary evidence. PM me if you see something that you think has gravity.

[reusrename]

126. It is not a "possibility" it is a reality.

The woman behind the camera was well known and respected professional documentarian.

Not only is Wolf a crackpot, she's a pretty ignorant and uninformed crackpot.

[leveymg]

236. "while she is dogged in her pursuit of information that doesn't mean she has an agenda"

Thanks for the link to that article. Stage-managed has several meanings. In a literal sense, I guess Snowden was, by Laura Poitras, one of the very best of the new breed of documentary filmmakers. What I mean was that I'm not convinced that he's either an operative or an agent for a foreign or domestic intel agency or another politically interested third-party. While I don't necessarily agree with all he's done, until I see real evidence to the contrary, I accept that Snowden's a whistle-blower.

And while she is dogged in her pursuit of information that doesn't mean she has an agenda, said Kilmurry of "POV."

"I think she's really driven by curiosity about the issues in which she gets involved rather than having a particular perspective or narrative at the end," he said. "She's open to where the story takes her and having her own perspective challenged or changed, as she hopes the audience is, too."

Johnson, who is working with Poitras on her final Sept. 11 film about surveillance and whistleblowers, can't predict when it will be finished.

"There's no timeline. That's what's remarkable about her. She really does let the story lead her," Johnson said.

[reusrename]

238. Ah yes, I see, two meanings.

I have been reading some discussions here about whether or not he is being "handled." I think Lee Harvey Snowden has come up somewhere.

He certainly appears brave enough to be doing what he's doing all on his own.

[Coyotl]

19. Not a U.S. plant, a Rand Paul plant, the Tea Party campaign for 2016.

It is all about creating the perception that Obama is spying on everyone. How long until this is tied to "taking yur guns" in redneck minds?

[ucrdem]

23. Exactly.

They really hit paydirt with this one, at least on DU.

[Kolesar]

56. Your sig line is a mini-blog

Good work on the second one: "prosecutions"
I have never seen DU so pathetic as it was during this NSA-story.

[okaawhatever]

129. Agreed. It's almost as if they're here just to muckrake. Hmmm.... nt

[ucrdem]

132. Edit: might have misread that, sorry.

[okaawhatever]

143. I wasn't referring to you specifically. There are many who only seem to show up when something bad

happens. With some I look at their past postings and they all seem to have the same theme. I agree with Naomi, I thought there wasn't something right with Snowden the first time I saw an interview.

[ucrdem]

146. Thanks, yes I just realized I'd misread your post, sorry about that.

I thought you were talking about moi. Heck I've been called everything else, why not muckraker?



Anyway I edited it. And yes I agree, some seem to take real satisfaction in spreading the latest Drudge scandal if it puts Obama in a bad light. Go figure.

[BlueStreak]

26. More ad hominem attacks

Do you have anything useful to offer on the real issues?

[ArcticFox]

148. that's got to be photoshopped

How can he be blurry standing next to that sharply-focused woman?

[ucrdem]

149. Something looks awfully suspicious.

Like, who is supposed to have taken this tropical paradise publicity shot, anyway?

[Comrade Grumpy]

195. Dude, you are going down the rabbit hole.

What does who took a "suspicious" photo have to do with the NSA scandal?

Absolutely nothing.

[pscot]

242. Careless use of a polarizing filter

[randome]

182. She DOES have a nice backstory, doesn't she?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[ucrdem]

189. She does indeedy

I'm having some trouble figuring out that brown stripe though:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

8. But, Cali you must admit that his personality, the way he comes across

is a bit over dramatic--a bit overdone.

[cali]

16. by what standards? look, naomi wolf's "theory" is shithouse crazy conspiracy crap

Is Snowden a Chinese mole? I doubt it, but at least you can make a semi-rational case for it.

There is nothing remotely rational or intelligent about wolf's "case".

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

29. I'm not talking about Wolf. I'm talking about the way the guy comes off.

At the very least, some people are beginning to question his credibility because of some exaggeration a he made. I'm not suggesting that he's lying or telling the truth about what he knows. I'm strictly observing how he's coming across--melodramatic, a bit over the top.

[BlueStreak]

39. So you are saying he sounds TOO credible, ergo he must be lying!?

Yeah, you really nailed him with that logic.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

243. The opposite. He's hyperbolic and dramatic. He comes across as staged and therefore

questionable. He might be telling the truth, but in his interviews, he's exaggerated and dramatic. It's just weird.

[BlueStreak]

246. I don't deny he's a drama queen, with an inflated ego.

But I don't see how that changes the substance of what he is saying.

[aquart]

270. He sets off alarm bells.

But I still have no idea where the fire is.

[cali]

40. one thing I've learned in life, is that people can tell fibs about this or that and be truthful

about other things. We've all lied and exaggerated about something or somethings. as you say, that doesn't mean he's lying about what he did, what he knows, what he's revealed or his motives for doing so. Or he could be.

As for how he's coming across, what on earth do we have to compare him to?

[Eric J in MN]

109. Evidence of Snowden's accuracy

"NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants"

National Security Agency discloses in secret Capitol Hill briefing that thousands of analysts can listen to domestic phone calls. That authorization appears to extend to e-mail and text messages too.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/

[randome]

115. It's already being walked back and disowned.

Even the title of the article is wrong. The NSA made no statement on that so why would a news organization title the article that way?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[HooptieWagon]

152. You were at a secret meeting?

Do tell how you know what was or wasn't said at a secret briefing by the NSA. Rep Nadler WAS there, he's an attorney....and attorneys are rather proficient at recalling what was said, its their job.

[randome]

155. The text of the article does not support the headline.

In fact, the text says just the opposite. But then I don't always believe what I read.

If this was the sensationalist story CNet is promoting, you would think other media organizations would be lining up for their share of eyeballs. But they aren't. There's a reason for that.

The conversation between Nadler & Mueller was about metadata and a misunderstanding of how it was handled.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Eric J in MN]

220. Yes, Nadler took it back,

...but I'm not sure that the retraction is more credible than the allegation.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler allegation:
"We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that and you didn't need a new warrant. In other words, what you just said is incorrect. So there's a conflict."

His retraction:
"I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant."

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/jerrold-nadler-does-not-thinks-nsa-can-listen-us-phone-calls/66278/

[Blue State Bandit]

177. Booze-Allen-Hamilton contractors are listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants.

NSA contractors. Remember, he said "I could listen" to Americans, judges, and even the President. There is a distinction. So here's a question.

If this was about civil liberties, then why out NSA hacking of Chinese servers, and nothing about the use of this system against the Occupy movement? The only tech firm I heard honestly rebutting the Gov on account info was Twitter.

I call bullshit on his story for this reason. If he was truly acting on "Patriotic Duty" he would have outed his company's collusion with Corporate America to destroy Occupy and Anonomus (sic on purpose) and not a 6 year old program to spy on China, a country that has been sending shiploads of infested USB drives for 10 years now.

[Coyotl]

13. file under these suspicion appeared on DU right away, with far more substance!

Here on DU, there was no hesitation to call BS on Snowden and to advance the probable ulterior motives scenarios because the "revelations" were already well known by those paying attention to the issue for a long time.

[trumad]

22. Let's see--Naomi Wolf--or Keyboard Warrior Cali?

I'll go with Naomi.

[cali]

34. feel free. but it's hardly just me

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/naomi-wolf-edward-snowden-false-flag-conspiracy.html

and yeah, I've always thought she was full of shit.

[zeemike]

48. Let's see...Psycholical Anallise of someone Wolf does not know

or facts....I'll go with the facts because Wolf is not qualified to do that even if she did know Snowden.

Or Cali or apologist.....I will go with Cali thank you.

[cali]

63. well thanks. we're just going with basic common sense here.

[loudsue]

76. You and me, Trumad.

I thought those things before Naomi ever articulated them, which she does so well.

The whole story has been drama-queen sensationalist ready since it hit.

[Cooley Hurd]

30. Agreed - since when is she a psychologist???

She's not even a good writer...

[cali]

35. no she's not. I've never been able to understand why she's held in high esteem on the left.

[LittleBlue]

171. Agreed. Didn't realize she was this crazy. nt

[BlueStreak]

2. Why are we still doing ad hominem attacks on Snowden?

It doesn't matter who his girlfriend is.

It doesn't matter what country he went to.

It doesn't matter how articulate he is.

It doesn't even matter what is his motivation for releasing the information.

What matters is whether or not he is revealing any information that is true and that educates us about what our government is doing.

Please stop the personal attacks. It only reflects badly on the people attacking the man. Please address the issues.

[randome]

5. The 'issues' are flat out wrong. He has shown us no evidence of his claims.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[BlueStreak]

17. Have you been in a cave for the past 2 weeks?

Snowden claimed that the NSA is collecting call information on millions of Americans. An NSA official lied to Congress about this, and ultimately we learned that it was Snowden, and not he NSA that was telling the truth.

To great ridicule, Snowden claimed that as an analyst he was in a position to wiretap anybody. An NSA official lied to Congress about that, and now we are learning that it has, in fact, been NSA policy that they don't need no damn warrants for any wiretap. This evidently came as quite a surprise to FBI director Mueller.

Please tell me what major claims by Snowden have not yet been shown to be true.

[Coyotl]

25. What has Snowden revealed that wasn't on DU years ago?

For all we know, he read it here first!

[BlueStreak]

32. The Verizon warrant, for one thing.

Last edited Sun Jun 16, 2013, 04:38 PM - Edit history (1)

There was certainly some speculation all along. But Snowden's actions have triggered a fall of dominoes that have brought some of the NSA schemes into the daylight for the first time.

Do I have to explain the difference between idle speculation and actual public admissions by responsible officials? Do you understand the difference between those two things?

[Coyotl]

42. Revealing a "warrant" pales to the fact that we knew everything was scooped without warrant!

It seems more like a cover-up for the real atrocity, cloud storing every single communication.

[BlueStreak]

184. When Obama shut down the Bush warrantless wiretaps, a reasonable person would have assumed

this meant that there would be no wholesale spying on Americans. After all, if you have to go to the FISA court, you must show probably cause and specificity, right?

Wrong. Under Obama, the NSA just carried right on doing what they had been doing, with the minor tweak of getting a lawyer to run over to a thoroughly corrupted, rubber stamp, FISA court every month or two.

[Coyotl]

225. You are quite mistaken.

Obama did not shut down the Bush warrantless wiretapping, James Comey did back when Bush was president. Then, the law changed and retroactive immunity was passed by Congress. After the law changed, Obama was elected.

[BlueStreak]

230. Nonetheles, the NSA under BOTH Bush and Obama continues to operate exactly as before

The only difference in this instance is that they are now going thorough the formality of getting the rubber stamp FISA court to issue vague, blanket warrants.

Has the FISA court rejected a single request -- even one?

[okaawhatever]

141. The woman doing the documentary has released this info before. She had already announced that the

third part of her trilogy was coming out this year. Look under Stellar Wind, same project different name. Then she worked with a retired NSA employee. She did a huge story in New York Times last August saying much of what was said now. Also, I think Laura Poitras (the documentarian) was going to release the story after more info was verified. She apparently got into a race to publish with Glenn Greenwald and I suspect the story would have been handled differently had Glenn not gotten in the picture. He clearly sensationalized this for maximum effect.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

73. Tell that to the government, the whole M$M, and the rest of the world

[Coyotl]

80. See post # 25

Just did!

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

87. He revealed that the government is HARVESTING & STORING ALL US DIGITAL/PHONE COMMUNICATIONS

as well as most of the rest of the world.

Where have you been?

[Coyotl]

223. I guess you are new to DU

Deja DU: L. Coyote Nov-09-07 1

Are ALL COMMUNICATIONS routed overseas to circumvent US law and the Constitution?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2245762

[MNBrewer]

167. So you're in the

"This is all old news that everyone knew about, and about which there was no controversy, but it is highly classified and revealing it is terribly damaging to national security and has put Americans at risk" camp?

[Coyotl]

224. There is never any point to rep[lying to posts like yours because

you're in the "put words into my mouth and make assumptions based on jack" camp.

[randome]

27. Funny you use the word 'claimed' so often yet fail to appreciate its meaning.

Please tell me what major claims by Snowden have been shown to be true.

That the NSA has 'direct access' to the world's Internet providers? Thoroughly debunked.

That he could spy on the President if he wanted? If he wanted to show us evidence of that, why not get one of the President's emails and show it to us?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[BlueStreak]

36. The NSA Powerpoint says as much, and this is still a point of dispute

Not debunked in the slightest.

Snowden's claims were 100% consistent with the text in the NSA's own Powerpoint.

And remember that companies like Google and Microsoft, if participating in the activities shown in NSA's own PowerPoint, would be under strict non-disclosure rules.

A gag order is not the same thing as "debunking." Do you understand the difference between those two things?

[randome]

41. The PowerPoint slide? A gross misinterpretation by Snowden and Greenwald.

The item on the slide represents a secure server where the companies place data that has been gathered according to a warrant.

These companies have millions of customers. They may get a handful of warrants a day, I don't know how many, I'm guessing.

What would you expect them to do? Mail the data to the NSA?

There is no 'direct access' to everyone's Internet connections, it's merely an efficient way for the NSA to get the data they have requested.

And all the companies you mention have recently been given the go-ahead to release some of the statistics involved in this. And they are pressing for additional transparency.

I'm not saying the NSA is perfect but they do appear to be following the law. Until Snowden & Greenwald give us evidence that disproves this...

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[BlueStreak]

49. Please show me any place where Snowden accused the NSA of not following the law.

The issues here are:

1) The laws are very poorly written.

2) The laws allow for secret courts to issue secret orders with virtually no scrutiny (the FISA court has never turned down any request that I am aware of.)

3) Ports of the law are unconstitutional on their face, or unconstitutional in the way that NSA is interpreting them

4) What does any of the have to do with foreign intelligence?

To my knowledge, Snownden has never said the NSA is not following the law. He has simply revealed a set of operations that are staggering in their intrusiveness in the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans.

[randome]

52. Except he has not done what you claimed.

Of course there are issues that need to be addressed. I have no problem with that.

But most of what you listed is subject to interpretation. "Poorly written" and "Unconstitutional on the face of it"? Um, no. Rational people can disagree on stuff like that.

A productive conversation on those items would involve objectivity and the possibility that others might disagree.

'Foreign intelligence' is what the NSA claims is their over-riding criteria. Now if Snowden wanted to show us that the NSA is spying on citizens, why not show us evidence of that?

All we have to go on is his claims that he 'saw things' over the course of his career. What things? He hasn't been very specific except for the things like the PowerPoint slides and those, as I stated, look very much to be a false assumption on his part.

The FISA court has been secret since it's inception. Do you mean Snowden made all this international noise because he doesn't approve of it? Fine, let's have that conversation again.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[truebluegreen]

191. Unconstitutional on the face of it? Um, yes (this rational person disagrees with you).

Unconstitutional laws get passed, and implemented, and can then be challenged in court...IF someone knows about them. IF they are not so secret that no one can show harm, and therefore have standing to challenge them. That is the issue here, not any of the various personalities involved, or the way the laws themselves are being used, or the rubber stamp that is the FISA court....

It's the secrecy. I want to have that conversation, which would not be possible without Snowden or someone like him.

[randome]

193. FISA has been secretive since its inception in 1979.

Sure, we can have this conversation -yet again- but it seems like most people are willing to allow national security organizations do some of their work away from public scrutiny.

It would be a better world, I'm sure, if no country ever had any secrets from their citizens. But that's not the kind of world we live in right now.

Was it worth all this trouble when we have pretty much admitted as a society that we're okay with a secretive FISA court?

I mean, there is Congressional, Legislative and Executive branch review of the FISA court. If that's not enough for some, that's fine, let's have that conversation. Myself, I'm okay with it.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[truebluegreen]

197. I know it has.

It was the lousy idea and a lousy law then, and it still is.

The increased militarization of our daily life and the increased scrutiny our citizens are subjected to, with dubious claims of safety and security are a flippin' disaster and the road to ruin for our Republic. The fact that we are well down that road doesn't make it better. The fact that many people don't care makes it even worse, and the fact that many of our elected representatives are just fine with it is worst of all.

I agree with Snowden that I don't want to live under a government that has this sort of power...which is why I no longer do. Good luck to you all.

[leveymg]

61. "Lockbox" or direct line to NSA, a distinction without a difference except to a lawyer.

The fact is, the feds are still getting all that data about you directly from the companies, and building your profile. The virtual you - the one with a T-Quotient that determines whether you get a security clearance, a gov't job, a seat on an airliner, droned during your next trip to the Bahamas (well, maybe if you vacation in beautiful, scenic Yemen.)

You seem to be arguing distinctions that don't really matter to the central debate, which is about privacy and what gov't does with all that data it's amassed about you and everyone you've spoken to on the phone.

[randome]

65. How do you transfer information from one site to another?

You copy the files onto a server and then the intended recipient copies them to their destination. Do you get that? How is that 'direct access' to the world's Internet providers? It's a secure FTP server, most likely. And the data is requested with legal warrants.

And no, the 'feds' are not getting information and building a profile about me. What do you not understand about the criteria that there needs to be foreign involvement for the NSA to seek a warrant for this data?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[leveymg]

68. You're playing semantical games and frantically waving that stinky red-herring around.

Your distinction between the secure server (lockbox) and a live-feed from MS and Google to NSA really isn't the point. It's a red-herring. The point is the gov't is acquiring all your personal calls, data and profiling everyone. Even if the data acquisition is legal -- the profiling part may not be -- it's the dangerous intrusion into everyone's privacy, without cause, that has people outraged.

[randome]

70. You have no idea if that's being done.

Snowden has shown us no evidence. It really is that simple.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[leveymg]

81. He's shown us the slides. You haven't shown squat to the contrary

except a weak semantical argument intended to confuse and color perceptions. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's a fact.

[randome]

85. There is a HUGE difference between...

..."secure server (lockbox) and a live-feed from MS and Google to NSA". You apparently don't understand the technology that well.

You're not required to, either, but I would think you'd show some leeway toward those who do.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Chathamization]

176. Doesn't make sense

For PRISM, the slide says "Collection directly from the servers of these US service providers.” You're arguing that this is inaccurate? Based on what? And that the whole slide show showing how great PRISM is and how it can bring you all these files was merely talking about how it was a great lockbox, but just neglected to mention that on any of the slides? You imply that the alternative was shipping CDs in the mail - well, how does Twitter, not part of PRISM, comply, do they have to mail CDs to the NSA? How did Apple comply before they joined the program?

[randome]

179. No, I'm saying that those servers are likely secure FTP servers.

A secure FTP server allows only authorized persons access to that one computer and nothing else. For the express purpose of transferring files.

I don't understand why Twitter won't set up a similar system or what they do when served with a legal warrant. I don't understand why they would have a problem with securely handing data over to the NSA when served with a legal warrant.

I don't know what Apple did, either.

But the implication that all these other companies are lying or trying to cover up their involvement in spying on 300 million Americans just strains my sense of credulity.

If Snowden wanted to get 99% of the world on his side, why has he not shown us evidence? He says he 'saw things' in the course of his career. What things? He hasn't said.

He says he had unfettered access to everyone's email, including the President's. Why not show us an email from the President, then?

Add all these questions to the fact that his resume appears to be largely bogus and I'm left scratching my head as to why this guy is hiding out in Hong Kong.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Chathamization]

190. Pure speculation

Sure, it's possible that PRISM is merely a way to securely transfer files, even though the slides presented it as a data collection program and did not present it as a program to ensure the security of file transfers (did it talk about this in the slides at all?). And yeah, maybe other companies didn't want to transfer files securely because...some reason...and used other methods, even though you seemed to think using other methods was silly when you wrote "What would you expect them to do? Mail the data to the NSA?" And maybe someone could make the argument that collection directly from the servers is not the same as direct access to the servers. I'm not sure how that argument would be made, but maybe it's possible.

But that is a hell of a lot of speculation that seems to fly in the face of what the slides were actually saying.

[randome]

192. The speculation at this point is all Snowden's.

If he wants to bring me on board, he needs to show me evidence.

Even Greenwald walked back the 'direct access' conclusion by saying, in effect, "Hey, all I did was print the slide, I don't know what it means."

In other words, neither he nor Snowden vetted this to anyone else to get their facts straight. It was sloppy journalism and I think Greenwald will regret this for a long time to come.

But I suppose the picture will become clearer over the next two weeks or so.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Chathamization]

194. Regret what?

He interviewed the tech companies involved and wrote that they said they weren't aware of this. You seem to think Greenwald reporting "Collection directly from the servers of these US service providers" as "direct access" is sloppy journalism. But I think most people would struggle to find any difference between those two statements (I am), let alone think that the difference was so huge it would sink the rest of the article.

[randome]

198. It's a misleading term on the PowerPoint slide.

The companies saying they didn't know anything about this probably related their answer to the way Greenwald asked the question.

"Do you give direct access to the NSA?"
"No, we don't know anything about that."

But if he had spoken to someone else from IT, he might have asked a different question.

"Do you allow the NSA to directly download material that you provide?"
"Oh, that! Sure, we do that!"

Because Greenwald didn't realize that 'direct access' could also refer to a secure FTP server, a very significant difference, he may have couched his question in a way that elicited the answer he expected.

Also, I believe the companies were not allowed to discuss this, although they have now been given the go-ahead to be more open about it.

All speculation on my part, of course. But like I said, we'll see.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Chathamization]

219. It's a distinction that it seems like everyone has trouble with

"You copy the files onto a server and then the intended recipient copies them to their destination. Do you get that? How is that 'direct access' to the world's Internet providers?"

"Direct access to FTP servers. Not at all what Greenwald & Snowden wanted us to believe."

So Greenwald's wrong because it's not direct access to the servers...oh, the slides say they collect files directly from the servers...well, yeah, they have direct access to the servers, but they're the ftp servers...the slides might not say that but I assume this to be the case...but Greenwald's still wrong because Greenwald said they couldn't be ftp servers...well, he didn't, but I felt like he wanted me to think that. And PRISM is merely a program for secure transfers, even though the slides treat it as a data collection program and not like a secure file transfer program at all. The companies that didn't comply probably just didn't want to transfer files securely.

Eh. Again, you could be right, these things aren't impossible and the world is a strange place. But to say that Greenwald is guilty of sloppy journalism because if we assume a lot of things without evidence we can show that something he didn't say isn't true seems to be a bit of a reach.

[randome]

222. I get you. Then again, it's PowerPoint.

I have yet to see a PowerPoint presentation that was all that meaningful. Usually the presenter cares only about showing pretty shapes and colors rather than getting a real message across.

If Snowden had the access he claimed, why did Greenwald not lead off with something more damning?

PowerPoint is a toy for bureaucrats, not a company directive.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Whisp]

135. This is like 'Obama is a Muslim'

Once that is said out loud, nothing else sinks in to the select few that want to believe it. 'Direct Access' is now the Muslim word.

The Fox way of doing things, and purposefully too because that is how journalism works today, the fox way, and Snowden and Glenn and whoever else is involved (because there is a someone/s else) know this has worked all these others times, and used it.

FTP is what we should be talking about, File Transfer Protocol, not 'direct access'. Snowden is deliberately throwing everyone off track with that, and it's working.

[randome]

140. I don't buy Wolf's contention that Snowden is a plant of any kind.

No one knows, of course, but I'm starting to suspect he is not the 'IT genius' his friend on Lawrence O'Donnell claimed, although she also admitted she doesn't understand IT.

I think Snowden has somehow bamboozled everyone up and down the line in his life and has even managed to convince himself that he is somehow superior to everyone around him.

His resume is forged. He hasn't shown us evidence of his claims.

Something isn't right about this guy. In the head.

I've known IT consultants who could smooth talk their way around just about anything, come across as 'geniuses' -and who rarely, if ever, produce anything of substance.

I think Snowden falls into this category.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Whisp]

147. I think there is someone else involved

and Snowden may have been 'chosen' for the project ahead of time based on his personality traits and 'idealism'.

I still find it very suspicious that Greenwald met Snowden Before the NSA steal.

But I don't think Greenwald is brave or smart enough to be the head cheese in this caper - someone is pulling this off and it's ain't Eddie or Glennie.

btw. Do you know how that meeting came about between Glenn and Ed? Where did they meet and how and why?

[randome]

151. No, just that Greenwald said he was talking to Snowden in February...

...before Snowden started his latest stint at NSA as a contractor. Snowden had been at the NSA in various capacities for a few years before this so it's unknown why Greenwald was talking to him then.

For Greenwald to have admitted this raises suspicion on its own because it sounds like a conspiracy between the two of them, not just a passing of sensitive documents.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Whisp]

161. Now that would be the big question to put to Greenwald, wouldn't it?

I'm sure it's being asked about now.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

93. That is flat out BULLSHIT, and that discrepancy was addressed in Greenwald's original article

The discrepancy being the CLEAR indication on the slides that the government had direct access to their servers, and the denials by the companies involved.



You are obviously trying to muddy the water.

[randome]

96. Direct access to FTP servers. Not at all what Greenwald & Snowden wanted us to believe.

If you don't understand the technologies or the terms involved, then don't denigrate those of us who do.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

102. More Bullshit! WTF Right At the Top of the Original Greenwald Article it points out the discrepancy

stop muddying the waters!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data

BTW: I am a web developer who has worked with the web for 17 years so I know the terms. Again stop muddying the waters.

[BeyondGeography]

108. These folks apparently don't realize that even Greenwald has hedged on that slide

we did not claim that the NSA document alleging direct collection from the servers was true; we reported - accurately - that the NSA document claims that the program allows direct collection from the companies' servers. Before publishing, we went to the internet companies named in the documents and asked about these claims. When they denied it, we purposely presented the story as one of a major discrepancy between what the NSA document claims and what the internet companies claim...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/nsa-partisanship-propaganda-prism

The "major discrepancy", as you point out, is so easily explained that this slide never should have been a story in the first place.

[randome]

112. But even with the most nefarious interpretations of any of it...

...where is the evidence? Snowden says he 'saw things'. What things?

I don't even want proof, just some evidence would be fine. So far, none.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[BeyondGeography]

120. This issue has become a rage funnel for many here

They aren't waiting for it to flesh out, and they assign zero credibility to the President, who was very clear about "no one listening to your phone calls." There is absolutely nothing in his history to suggest he would make such a claim if it wasn't true. He is an extremely cautious man when it comes to important pronouncements. But none of it matters when measured against the perverse thrill of darkest fears fulfilled or the opportunity to vent.

[Cha]

211. Yeah, poor things.. it's like debating this..

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

125. They have presented proof, WTF do you think everyone is reacting to on the hill, & around the world?

We have a whistle blower, and we have his documents, that have not been claimed to be unauthentic by the government, now this may not be enough for you personally (I suspect nothing will be enough for you) but it certainly is for the rest of the world AND our own government.

[Marr]

157. I suppose if you can't fool the world,

you can always just fool yourself. Some of the denials here are pretty incredible. I particularly like the "ftp" talk, and the assertions that the document doesn't say what any fool could read in three seconds.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

163. exactly, as they are the only ones they are fooling

but I doubt that that is true, i think that a few are pros getting paid to be the sophist defenders of their masters as anyone who is truly looking for the truth would not be repeating these falsehoods constantly even after being called out o them repeatedly.

The others, are the weak willed/minded who are simpy rooting for the 'home' team, blinded by their partisanship, though I do believe that in time they will become less and less vocal with their denials as the truth sinks in for them, and that is why we should all take every OPPORTUNITY to responded to the sophists as a teachable moment not only for them but even more importantly for the many, many others who read but do not post here, as they will share what they learn here with their social network, and that is how the truth will prevail in the end.

[treestar]

174. You're the ones being paid

That is such a stupid dodge.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

124. He did NOT 'hedge' he called it out at the TOP of his original article.

That slide is a major component of the story, and IF it is wrong, it is on the government NOT Greenwald, and THEY, the U.S. government owe us an explanation for that discrepancy between their words and the companies involved.

not to mention spying on all americans and the rest of the world.

[Cha]

213. And, if they did know.. unfortunately don't care. nm

[okaawhatever]

153. Doesn't it look to you like the names added to the top of the slide were added after the fact?

They seem cramped and pointless. the entire graphic design of the slides doesn't make sense. Also, I have seen two different project numbers on the slides. On has a SIGINT ID number and this just has a FAA number. It doesn't make sense to me.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

158. They look like the kinda internal docs cobbled together by non-graphic designers that are ubiquitous

in all modern offices thanks to the desktop publishing revolution of decades ago.

But, the relevant fact is that these have not been deemed inauthentic by the source, the NSA, so this argument is truly moot.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

79. The documents authenticity has not been disputed by the government

And our governments reaction, not to mention the rest of the world, does not support your talking points.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

71. Sure, and that's why the government is reacting

With such vitriol, because he hasn't revealed anything.

[randome]

74. What vitriol? You mean Boehner calling Snowden a traitor?

Boehner, of course, is an ass.

But Snowden claims he has thousands of internal NSA documents and he's hiding in Hong Kong. What about that does not rise to the level of concern?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

84. He isn't the only one, and you know it.

What kinda hypocrisy are trying to sell here...

1. He does not have anything of value
2. He has thousands of documents of value

[7962]

15. Soerry, but it DOES matter what country he goes to NT

[BlueStreak]

20. Why? Does that make any of his claims any less true?

[treestar]

169. If he can't stand the heat he shouldn't have come forward

He's going to sustain "personal attacks" as anyone else who puts themselves out there does. He's going to be vetted. You can't expect to stop that.

The people who called him a hero too soon are embarrassed. They should have waited to learn more, first.

[randome]

3. I think the 'talking points' are only those he has created for himself.

The narrative he has lived with for so long must seem very real to him, to the point where he doesn't appear to question himself.

The point that stood out to me most was about the lack of any legal representation. Snowden and Greenwald hatched this together without even so much as a reference to legalities.

That, to me, is amazing.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[ucrdem]

7. Well, Greenwald is an attorney.

I'm surprised she didn't mention that.

[randome]

9. I'd forgotten that.

Since he's been talking with Snowden for months, however, you would think it might occur to him that he's too close to the situation.

Isn't there an adage about that? An attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client? Or something like that.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[ucrdem]

18. It makes sense that the attorney would be prepping him for his closeups.

I imagine GG wrote or largely wrote Snowden's pretty speeches because they're just as meaningless and irrelevant as the stuff he puts in the papers.

[Hissyspit]

31. You imagine lots of things.

[temmer]

4. This is only a guessing game

without any meat on the bones. Her view on whistleblowers and their typical behavior is extremely narrow.

[cali]

24. + quite a bit. well said.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

117. And suspect as he went to the media who know a thing or 2 about presentation

I don't find her critique astute at all.

[Junkdrawer]

10. A preemptive, controlled, and then "discredited" leak?

Check the fonts, Guardian. Check the fonts.

[reformist2]

12. I think she might be overanalyzing.

[Quantess]

28. Naomi Wolf is not Naomi Klein.

Naomi Klein wrote the The Shock Doctine.
Naomi Wolf writes about somewhat lighter subject matter.


Just wanted to remind people, since these two Naomis are easily mixed up.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

33. Why do you think people are confusing the two women? Does that make

Wolf less credible because she's not Klein? I don't think so.

[Hissyspit]

37. People confuse them here all the time.

[BlueStreak]

38. Well, actually, it does.

Does Wolf do anything but simply use her imagination in that article? What does "credibility" have to do with anything she wrote? It all just seems to be musings on her part. She is welcome to any musings she wishes to make on a Sunday morning, but that doesn't make any of it fact.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

240. I don't think musings equal facts and her article

didn't come off that way in my view.

The point is well made, though. Klein is one of my heroes. Shock Doctrine should be required reading.

[Quantess]

255. Okay, but, you just mixed up the Naomis, right there!

Shock Doctrine is written by Naomi Klein.

This particular article was written by Naomi Wolf.

Edit to add: Liberalstalwart, I don't appreciate your glaring intellectual dishonesty!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

256. Yes, I know the difference. You misread. Those were two different thoughts.

On Wolf: Nothing wrong with musing. She's not coming off as a reporter of facts
On Klein: Shock Doctrine IS fact; should be required reading.

I'm well aware of who these two women are.

[Quantess]

258. And I am just as aware as you are

how easy it is to mix up the Naomis. I'm not stupid.

But it's a good bet the well known basis for confusion is a cause for exploitation.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

262. Didn't say you we're stupid. I'm telling you that I know well the different

identities of these two women.

Can you drop it now, or is this a baiting game? If it's the latter, don't bother. I don't get easily excited over people I don't know who spend time on political discussion boards.

[Quantess]

260. In other words. is your name cellophane

because you are so transparent.

Yes, cutie, I'm hitting on you.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

261. I don't get it. Unless you're tall, dark, SINGLE, and smart...

...maybe I'm slow. You'll have to explain. If you're just here to insult me, we'll, you'll be disappointed.

[Quantess]

118. Yes, people definitely confuse Naomi Wolf and Naomi Klein every time one of them is mentioned.

They even look a little bit alike!

Naomi Wolf is a good writer in her own right, but IMHO she doesn't hold a candle to Naomi Klein.

[Marr]

159. I have to admit, I often confuse them when I read the names.

And yes, I do regard them differently. At first I thought this was written by Naomi Klein and was surprised that she'd base such a contentious argument on nothing but silly things like speech inflection and body language.

When I realized it was Naomi Wolf, I was not surprised. Not that Wolf is a bad writer or anything. I just don't think she's as serious as Naomi Klein.

[reusrename]

168. Who is more credible, Wolf or Klein?

That you have to ask makes me wonder if you know what the word means.



It's pretty clear that Wolf doesn't rely on trying to assemble any facts in order to make her case. She seems to be unaware of the fact that the Snowden vid was filmed by a well respected documentarian, Laura Poitras.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/laura-poitras-documentary-filmmaker_n_3441081.html?utm_hp_ref=entertainment

[davidpdx]

44. True I have done that in the past

[Quantess]

122. Yes, davidpdx, most of us have an easy time mixing them up.

[ucrdem]

64. Here's what Google/wiki say about Naomi Wolf:

Naomi R. Wolf is an American author and former political consultant.



With the publication of the 1991 bestselling book The Beauty Myth she became a leading spokesperson of what was later described as the third wave of the feminist movement.

Born: November 12, 1962 (age 50), San Francisco, CA
Children: Rosa Shipley, Joseph Shipley
Parents: Leonard Wolf, Deborah Goleman
Education: Yale University (1984), Lowell High School (1980), University of Oxford, New College, Oxford

Also wrote this one in 2007:

[davidpdx]

43. Cue the assassination of Naomi Wolf

Oh wait, that already happened.

[cali]

45. cue the fucking melodrama, hon. oh wait, you already brought in a truckload of that shit.

[davidpdx]

58. No, I think you have that covered all by yourself

You seem to be a drama queen as of lately.

[Junkdrawer]

46. Interesting how you clipped points d. and h. which even her critics acknowledge have merit....

The most recommended comment in her original post:

Chris Dowd Come on Naomi..

a - he is organized, so he must be a fake?
b - he is well spoken and has figured out what he would say ahead of time, he must be a fake?
c - he knows what has happened to other whistleblowers, he must be a fake?
d - okay, point taken. fully agree here
e - the media loves to report on sexy dancers, he must be a fake?
f - there might be a better country to have fled to, he must be a fake?
g - the media isn't sure where he is anymore, he must be a fake?
h - okay his not having a lawyer for someone who is so organized is a little odd, granted. Good point.

I agree with points d and h, but the others are pretty much nonsense paranoia. I mean I'm not saying you're wrong, Naomi. It's just I don't there is really any evidence that you are right, either.

For the record:

...

d) It is actually in the Police State’s interest to let everyone know that everything you write or say everywhere is being surveilled, and that awful things happen to people who challenge this. Which is why I am not surprised that now he is on UK no-fly lists – I assume the end of this story is that we will all have a lesson in terrible things that happen to whistleblowers. That could be because he is a real guy who gets in trouble; but it would be as useful to the police state if he is a fake guy who gets in ‘trouble.’

...

h) I was at dinner last night to celebrate the brave and heroic Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Several of Assange’s also brave and talented legal team were there, and I remembered them from when I had met with Assange. These attorneys are present at every moment when Assange meets the press — when I met with him off the record last Fall in the Ecuadoran embassy, his counsel was present the whole time, listening and stepping in when necessary.

....

Again I hate to cast any skepticism on what seems to be a great story of a brave spy coming in from the cold in the service of American freedom. And I would never raise such questions in public if I had not been told by a very senior official in the intelligence world that indeed, there are some news stories that they create and drive — even in America (where propagandizing Americans is now legal). But do consider that in Eastern Germany, for instance, it was the fear of a machine of surveillance that people believed watched them at all times — rather than the machine itself — that drove compliance and passivity. From the standpoint of the police state and its interests — why have a giant Big Brother apparatus spying on us at all times — unless we know about it?

[BlueStreak]

51. So you think the right wing machine would put this story out when they were already dominating

the airwaves with their whole series of "scandals"?

That makes no sense at all. Have you notices that nobody has talked about Benghazi, the IRS, or reporter-gate for a couple of weeks now?

[Junkdrawer]

55. mughba dunnnaa kxnmhh <- Me trying to talk with your words in my mouth

If you want MY take:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022994688

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. Reporter gate is part of this

Did you notice the administration pushed back on that hard?

It is the same meta data and production orders

[ucrdem]

53. I don't agree with "D," and "H" is mistaken since GG is an attorney,

as his CATO bio notes:

[Junkdrawer]

57. H is mistaken because the investigative reporter is an attorney????

Is this a joke?

[ucrdem]

67. Greenwald is an attorney, yes. nt

[Junkdrawer]

69. Just to be clear, you're joking, right?

"Representing" a client with such a clear conflict of interest would get him disbarred in nanoseconds.

[ucrdem]

77. How many times are you going to ask this question? nt

[Hissyspit]

119. Here's Markos Moulitsas' profile at CATO:

You going to save us from Daily Kos, too?

http://www.cato-unbound.org/contributors/markos-moulitsas

[ucrdem]

127. KOS is at least trying to drum up votes for Democrats.

The Case for the Libertarian Democrat


http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/10/02/markos-moulitsas/case-libertarian-democrat

I'll give him a pass.

[Hissyspit]

156. And Greenwald is trying to stop the horrific abuses of the War on Drugs.

[suffragette]

150. Thank you for highlighting points D and H

Much food for thought with those two specific points, especially D.

[Vinnie From Indy]

59. Did you ever think that maybe it is Wolf that is the "operative"?

I could easily construct an argument that Wolf is a planted agent.

Cheers!

[cali]

62. lol an earthtoned operative

[Generic Brad]

123. Possibly. Now the NSA knows exactly who disagrees with them

We may have been called out so that we could be identified, tagged, and watched more closely. A threat to the status quo cannot be neutralized until it is identified. The fact that he has not been arrested yet certainly raises my suspicions.

[JoeyT]

60. Naomi Wolf has written for the Guardian.

And I've been assured that no one should ever listen to anyone that's written for the Guardian.

Naomi Wolf is...to put it mildly...crazy and stupid. All the time. She's been persona-non-grata around here for a long time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2389724

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022146890

She's a regular guest on Infowars, anti-progressive, and would take a shit in Times Square if it would make people pay attention to her. Are we going to start listening to her now because she said something we wanted to hear?

Apparently we are, because some of the people defending her in this thread were railing about how batshit crazy she is in one of those threads. Clearly not someone you can trust to get anything right back then, a paragon of investigative journalism now.

Edited to add: Just for shits and giggles:

"I have a lot of respect for Ron Paul":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PITb4fHmbZ4#t=139s

[ucrdem]

75. According to your links she's also a Rhodes scholar and Huffpo writer:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/

As for the Guardian, youthful indiscretion?

Anyway I get that she's out there, and as I mentioned in the OP, I don't agree with her conclusion or rather speculation that Snowden is a US intel operative. But I do agree with her observation that he appears to be an operative of some sort.

[cali]

137. how in hell would you or wolf know what an operative of some sort looks/sounds/acts like?

this is so fucking silly, I'm aghast that anyone with a few functioning brain cells would even contemplate this for a nano second.

[HooptieWagon]

164. You're assuming they have brain cells....

All I've seen is regurgitating talking points from the MIC, which even a parrot can do. I can't say I've seen evidence of a single brain cell.

[hunter]

72. Snowden is bait on a fishing line.

Don't know which agency cast him into the water or what they are fishing for.

Don't care.

But they certainly are getting a lot of hits.

Maybe they're just testing the machines.

[Cleita]

82. She's not the first commentator to mention that there is something

fishy in this story and all that we know is not everything we should know. As some have said, they want ALL the pieces of this puzzle before they pass judgement. I, too, thought he was rather articulate and precise for a high school drop out.

[ucrdem]

97. Thanks Cleita,

there's also the fact that what he says has very little to do with what he was apparently doing, i.e. distributing classified intel and interviews to the Chinese in the days before the Obama-Xi summit last weekend, which was basically a fiasco for Obama on the cybersecurity issue.

[timdog44]

86. I too think Snowden stinks.

But the message we have learned is real. The way he presents himself really makes him look polished and ready for presentation. It does not, or should not detract from the fact that our rights are being tampered with. Period. Surveillance is a needed evil. It needs monitoring and that is the real story. Also the mercenary scumbag people Snowden worked for should not be doing "our" surveillance for us. They are working for high $$$ and will sell out for even higher $$$$. Surveillance should be done by our government and not out sourced.

Now the other thing I have to say. The rude, crude way that some people on this thread have presented themselves is truly mind boggling. Name calling and demeaning words. Makes me ashamed to be a DUer. I am sure some of the people I am talking about will not see this as I know they have me on ignore. But there are better ways to dispute someone than to call them batshit crazy or crazy as a shithouse rat. Or "none of what loonytune earthtoned wolf cites as evidence is even remotely fucking evidence." I say climb out of the gutter and talk nice and give some rational reason why you disagree. Or this " naomi wolf's "theory" is shithouse crazy conspiracy crap". Now that makes me really doubt the OP.

[Junkdrawer]

91. There's a too-long tradition of beating down uncomfortable ideas with over-the-top put downs...

Sometimes you find out which tooth is abscessed by tapping on all the teeth in the region and watching when the patient yells.

[timdog44]

201. If I take what you are referring

to as my second paragraph, then it may be a tradition, but unworthy of any one on this forum. And the over the top put down by the person I am referring to, is the only thing this person does. It is disgusting to raise one's self up by "attempting" to put someone down. And over the top is the correct term. It is a sign of un-intelligence.

If you are referring to my first pragraph, I see no analogy.

[Junkdrawer]

205. second paragraph...

and my dental analogy is that those who use the stategy often give far more information than they realize - especially when it's done as a pack.

[timdog44]

208. I then suppose you agree with what I was saying.

There are a few who seem to think that belittling others make them more of an expert. They are like the people you get into a discussion with and are fast talkers and never give an opening for rebuttal. This is the written way of doing that. I will read and try to digest and ascertain their motives. But mostly I come to the conclusion "get a life". I think incivility in most instances is not called for. If there is disagreement with a persons position, then give your reasons, don't just call them stupid. Everyone needs to learn or have the opportunity to learn. It is why I disagree with the Ignore option. I know have 16 people ignoring me. I am not a hard person to get along with unless I perceive I am being treated badly. I can ignore someone by not responding to them, but I still read what they have to say.

[ucrdem]

116. Yes, his speeches make us angry

but his actions are something else altogether. What does selling classified intel to the Chinese have to do protecting the 4th amendment for example?

[timdog44]

202. Help me please.

I am not sure what you are referring to. It is my fault because I was making two points in my response. Please restate, if you don't mind.

[ucrdem]

204. I was elaborating a little on your first point.

I agree with you that the security apparatus grew alarmingly under Bush-Cheney, and the outsourcing is disgraceful pork, also dangerous for the reasons you cite. However, I disagree that GG and Snowden did anything more than demagogue, i.e. stir up popular outrage, and for nefarious RW purposes, one being to "Dem-wash" the permanent evil empire erected by Bushco. Obama has to defend it, and therefore (quoth the haters) he owns it. We've seen this before, e.g. on Guantanamo, drones, etc.

The other thing that strikes me is that Snowden's noble words have zilch to do with what he was actually up to, i.e. slipping classified intel to the Chinese at the moment Obama was preparing to meet new Chinese President Xi Jinping in a US-China summit held last weekend in California:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014502822

WTF kind of hero is that?

[timdog44]

210. Yes, I think I am agreeing with you.

Two stories are going on hear.

1). Snowden/Greenwald. Not really heroes. I still think a different agenda drives their actions, more Snowden (who's actions could about be considered treasonous) than Greenwald. Snowden is persona non grata, if you will. Being a tattle tale, basically makes you always a tattle tale. It is a postion that people end up in, but don't realize that is what is going to happen. I have yet to settle my self on Greenwald. I have promised another poster to read more of his blogs and history, before I make any more characterizations of him, and I am going to hold to that.

2). The spying, the bigger issue. It has gone on for ages. It is data mining at the worst, if all phone calls and internet transmissions are being intercepted. There needs to be something done and our elected officials are being lax, to say the least, in their duties. Part is that they don't go to the meetings where all this is being explained. They are their phones soliciting like a bunch of whores for more money. And then they step out and make pronouncements that they know nothing of. The other issue of the spying is when is it done as an out sourced job. If it is done for money, they will sell out for money. Patriotism is a biggy with me. There is no patriotism involved in the mercenary spying on Americans or anyone else. There is no patriotism in any mercenary things done at all. All the mercenaries in the wars that have been fought recently is disgusting. Bottom feeders. Scum bags. I have nothing good to say about them. But I am off track. We need to rein in the spying, and I am not sure how it can be done.

[snagglepuss]

214. Link please to proof he has sold info to the Chinese.

[ucrdem]

218. Here's a five-in-one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023014270

You're welcome. As for a photocopy of his receipt which I expect you'll next demand, sorry, I can't help you. Maybe you could send tweet to Glenn:

Twitter: @ggreenwald

[snagglepuss]

226. No proof he's sold anything nor proof he disclosed anything other than

the word of a Chinese journalist working for a govt controlled press.

[ucrdem]

231. Fine, let's say he procured them.

Or since nothing in this sorry tale has yet been adjudicated, allegedly procured them. Why would he do that? How does supplying classified US intel to the Chinese possibly accord with his protecting-the-4th-amendment yarn?

[ReRe]

90. Naomi Wolf?

I haven't heard anything out of Naomi Wolf in quite a while. Wonder where she's been? (Or should it be 'Wonder where I've been?&quot

Me thinks Naomi has been schmoozing it up, becoming a little too close to some agency types. If you click on the facebook link, you will see the full article, BUT there is a more recent update link at the top. Did you see/read that one? She seems to be walking back her comments from the Friday article. Gives Booze Allen a pass, saying he's a respectable consultant (or some such.)

Sorry, Naomi, I don't buy it. Thanks for the OP, ucrdem, as it is good to keep with what's out there in the cloud.

[baldguy]

92. Naomi Wolf is just another fascist enabler.

[ucrdem]

100. I'll bet she secretly voted for Obama.

[JackRiddler]

95. Damn you Snowden! How dare you!

How dare you be as well prepared in your interviews as Naomi Wolf would be!

Her spidey-sense tells her that real whistleblowers are nervous, ill-prepared, unable to speak for themselves, making the wrong moves in PR and legal terms, and already safely in the hands of the proper authorities. Heroes!

[ucrdem]

98. So where did he get his "architecture of surveillance" line?

JSTOR?

[JackRiddler]

101. Words! This high school dropout presumes to use words! Big ones!

Here's a word for you: Reaching.

[ucrdem]

104. Here's two for you, coincidence theorist. nt

[patrice]

257. And speaking of co-inkydinks: Whom could Republicans just NOT bear as SOS, but ended up at

the head of NSA???

I have absolutely no idea what/if that little tidbit about Susan Rice means anything, but there it is.

[NoMoreWarNow]

106. a 29 year old high school drop out who sounds like a high priced lawyer on TV

color me suspicious-- for that, and many other reasons she lists.

I don't trust the NSA at all, neither do I trust people who worked for them, as noble as they may seem. Plus, he worked for the CIA too.

[JackRiddler]

183. Thanks for the disgusting dose of class prejudice.

I know it's probably not heartfelt, and you'll resort to any calumny against Snowden no matter how baseless to distract from the story, which is the establishment of a permanent all-encompassing corporate police-surveillance state in the United States - of a technological power the Soviet Union could only dream of.

[ucrdem]

187. Ahem, the Shax avatar does not exactly scream working class solidarity.

Just sayin' . . .

[JackRiddler]

196. Shax?

[NoMoreWarNow]

266. "I don't trust the NSA at all" and neither do I trust spooks.

Snowden seems a bit shady to me. As does Greenwald, for that matter. Greenwald is smart enough to know about 9/11 being an inside job, but has strenuously avoided that topic since he started writing.


I am aware of the disgusting/disturbing/unconstitutional surveillance state. I am also aware that spooks like to play a lot of games.

So I'm happy to denounce the NSA and support any legislation to abolish them. I'm happy to discuss what the NSA does. I also am happy to question the veracity of Snowden, and whether he is some kind of limited hangout artist. But I don't know for sure. Maybe he's totally legit too.

[JackRiddler]

267. Sure...

On the basis of "spidey sense" and no evidence, these statements can be made, I don't find them useful given the authoritarian demonization campaign going not against Snowden per se, but against all whistleblowing forever. You may have noticed that on DU most people slinging every piece of random shit at Snowden and Greenwald do not think "9/11 was an inside job." I've noticed that Greenwald has strenuously avoided that topic, which is very interesting. Because far as I know he also never did one of those Taibbi/Cockburn-style "I hereby (pretend to) hate Conspiracy Theorists" declarations that were sort of required as neo-McCarthyite oath for establishment writers in the progressivesphere.

[NoMoreWarNow]

269. fair enough...

and honestly, I would be happy if Snowden was completely a good guy. Maybe he is. It's just that I've seen too much weird shit over the past 12 years.

[freedom fighter jh]

99. I think she is speculating by way of precaution.

In other words, Something is fishy here, This could be a set-up, Maybe. So let's be careful how we respond to it.

I shared her opinion until last night, when a friend talked me out of it, so I can speculate about where she is coming from. Snowden does seem awfully polished, and China as a place of refuge does seem suspect, given its record on human rights as well as the opportunity for someone with security clearance but without loyalty to the U.S. government to commit treason.

Here's how my friend talked me out of it: Just because, as Wolf says, most whistleblowers are not polished does not mean this one can't be. Maybe he rehearsed with Greenwald. That would not make what he is saying any less true. And China? At this point, Snowden has to do whatever he can to protect himself. And China may be the only country that won't extradite him back to the U.S.

[ucrdem]

103. Hong Kong is not exactly China.

It's a former UK colony so I'm more suspicious of possible ties to UK intel than to China's, even though he apparently sang like a canary to the Chinese papers and who knows who else.

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. So he sang to an allied intel agency and a junior partner

Of the NSA? This is sheer comedy.

You should consider writing for the Onion.

Oh and I forgot. Hong Kong is the Special Exclusion Zone and Chinese territory. England left over fifteen years ago.

[ucrdem]

113. Yes, I'm sure they're all one big brethren.

And who is the "junior partner"?

[nadinbrzezinski]

145. Actually yes, yes they are

Google the 1948 UKUSA treaty

I won't give you my article on this...just the wiki page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement

Denial is not just a river in Egypt

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. Cognitive dissonance at it's best

Lmao.

Thanks for the laugh

[ucrdem]

110. I think you mean "its."

You're welcome.

[Hissyspit]

160. From the poster who spelled "Gaurdian" wrong several times last week,

"that shitbag of right-wing trollery" that Naomi Wolf has written for... You're welcome.

http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/11/obama-war-on-weed-american-voters

[ucrdem]

165. So nice that you noticed.

For some reason that one has always thrown me for a loop. And phonics-wise it should be "gaurd," you'll have to admit. Ah, l'anglaise, c'est pour rire!

[patrice]

259. Cognition is a great deal more about dissonance than many wish us to pretend that is.

Think about it; dissonance, in-equilibrium, is a great driver. Even resolution of a given instance of dissonance can lead to other, related, dissonances.

The real questions are about whether a given dissonance is valid or invalid relative to real-world experiences and the whos, whats, whys, hows, and wherefors thereof. Not all consistency is good. Not all dissonance is bad. It is our responsibility as progressed free individuals to figure out which is which. That's called diversity and there can be great beauty and strength in it.

Personally, I think the ways that principle is commonly characterized as absolute consistency is possibly a result of Western cultural "Christian" brainwashing.

[caseymoz]

111. Bullshit!

Because the guy's more articulate than most and because of her purportedly extensive statistics on Whistleblowers' personalities, obviously done with a well-funded study, she suspects he must be a conspiracy within a conspiracy. Why? To bring down Obama? The risk the intelligence industry is taking in doing this is great, because if Obama reverses himself and works to shut down these programs, the plan backfires. Unlike Nixon, people will support the guy because the real Nixons who won't reverse themselves are in the other party.

Oh, and Dick Cheney thinks Snowden is a traitor. That's right folks, no less than Snidely Subtlety himself, Dick Cheney agrees with you here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/16/dick-cheney-edward-snowden_n_3450006.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Lies are terribly difficult to detect. People are poor at doing it. To try to guess by the standards she's using have as much reliability as reading tea leaves.

[Eric J in MN]

114. Naomi Wolf isn't claiming that anything Snowden said is false.

She's speculating that Snowden was authorized to leak this info to make the American people more afraid of the US government.

Suppose Wolf is right.

If Snowden is telling the truth (and most of what he said has been supported, though some of it is denied by tech companies) then what he's telling us is still more important than why.

[ucrdem]

121. That's where I part company with her.

As I mentioned I don't agree with her speculation that Snowden is working for the USG. But I do agree with her observation that he's a "surrogate transmitting talking points" and not the pole-dancer romancer whistleblower we're all rootin' for.


p.s. hat tip to whoever came up with "pole-dancer romancer"

[Eric J in MN]

206. Who wants Snowden to transmit talking points

...and why?

[patrice]

263. Good question. Wouldn't one of the last things that Susan Rice would have managed

as U.S. ambassador at the U.N. have been the United States conditions for our support of this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/world/arms-trade-treaty-approved-at-un.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

And now Rice heads the NSA, which recently acquired a role in drone program management.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

133. Sounds like a South Park episode to me n/t

[napoleon_in_rags]

128. I've noticed some oddities too, but its not central to the conversation.

The government is calling it a big leak, which means a lot of the stuff has substance. They are spying, it is on the American people. There does seem to be a vacuum cleaner which sucks up lots of data which they can access later. So this is really what the conversation is about. Maybe the NSA wants to leak some of what its doing to advance some other aim? Well that's fine, but we're still going to have the conversation about what they are doing.

[world wide wally]

130. It seems that the bigger problem is that a "private firm" has this kind of access to anything we do.

The idea of the government "spying" on us is bad enough but that is what governments all too often do. The idea of a private company doing this "for" the government is nothing short of obscene.
I am not hearing nearly enough about this aspect of the whole ordeal.

[randome]

136. I'm not convinced Snowden had the access he claimed.

So far all he's shown us are internal NSA documents. You would think if he had the unfettered access he claims, the ability to spy on the President, he might have furnished evidence of that. An email from the President's Inbox, perhaps?

But there is nothing so far. Add to that the fact his resume appears to have been greatly exaggerated if not outright forged and I wonder about whether we're dealing with a mentally unbalanced individual.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[MadrasT]

131. I have no opinion about Snowden, but Naomi Wolf is batshit crazy, so who cares what she says? (n/t)

[Madmiddle]

134. Implication here.

Naomi seems to articulate that only news people and television personalities can make their point eloquently. There are many people in this world that don't stutter and stumble over their words like she implies. Snowden has obviously had time to think about what he has been up to. So, that means to someone like Naomi that this is suspect? Then we should more than question what our commentators say on a daily basis, because they articulate their message without seeming to think about what they're saying.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

138. She does a lot of speculating on his motives but doesn't refute what he revealed.

Try again.

[Eric J in MN]

251. Exactly. NT

NT

[Jarla]

139. The character assassination of Lindsay Mills in the media really bothers me

Lindsay Mills received a bachelor's degree in fine arts from the Maryland Institute College of Art (source), which is considered to be one of the top art institutes in the US. Note that MICA only offers programs of study in the visual arts, so Mills is not "just" a dancer. It hasn't been reported what her major was, but I'm guessing photography.

Yes, Mills is a pole dancer, but that does not make her some kind of whore. She's part of a group of performers who are trying to promote pole dancing as a legitimate art form. The LA Times published an article about this movement just a couple of months ago. And Natasha Wang, the 2011 US Pole Dance champion, has even performed on The View (Sorry, I don't know how to link directly to the Youtube video. Google "Natasha Wang-2011 US Pole Dance Champion Live On The View&quot

So pole dancers don't just perform in seedy strip joints anymore.

[randome]

142. I agree completely with that.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[DirkGently]

162. The fact that slut-shaming has become part of the Snowden smear

... speaks volumes.

And sorry, but Wolf is spouting tinfoil nonsense here. Posing suspicions and queries, but not even articulating any kind of narrative, never mind a plausible one.

The guy could be made of balsa wood have a squirrel fetish. It doesn't matter. The story is the documents and the hilarious-yet-troubling frantic spin machine that has followed.

If it was nothing, they wouldn't be squirming like this.

[Jarla]

178. I find it a bit ironic that a self-proclaimed feminist is participating in the slut-shaming

Though admittedly I don't know much about Naomi Wolf or her stance on such things.

[DirkGently]

188. Apparently we're learning a lot, very quickly.

[spooky3]

215. Welcome to DU, and you raise a good point. (n/t)

[Jarla]

221. Thanks! :)

[PSPS]

144. LOL. Yes, Snowden must be dismissed because of his "unusual stagecraft."

Before, we had to contend with Judith Miller willfully writing lies she was told by the Bush junta which, after they were printed, were referenced as "proof" by the same junta.

Now we have the corporate/state media (including Wolf here) trying to smear Snowden based on the corporate/state media's own smear campaign.

If one has spent a lot of time thinking about an important decision and is repeatedly asked the same questions about it, of course they have answers ready to go. And the "girlfriend" angle is something worthy of "Access Hollywood" -- infotainment at its finest.

This piece reveals more about Wolf than Snowden.

[DirkGently]

170. He's also known to listen to bad music & pay tolls

in pennies!

If he's annoying, domestic surveillance must be OK!... er. Or something.

[HooptieWagon]

172. And the same cadre of smear campaign posters...

spouting the same lame talking points which defy logic. One could easily conclude they get them from a single "handler".

[ucrdem]

175. One could easily conclude the same about the Obama detractors,

and one would certainly have more reason to, if one were so inclined.

But one has better things to do than run around all day with a tarbrush.

[PSPS]

216. Yes, some disapprove of Obama's performance. Therefore, domestic spying is OK. Is that how it goes?

[Marr]

229. That's a good point.

That's exactly what she's doing. She's citing the tabloid reporting of her own corporate media brethren as evidence that Snowden is an unreliable media hound in pursuit of tabloid coverage.

This has a Peggy Noonan quality about; start with the thing you want to believe, then lazily, breathlessly back it up with whatever floats into your musings.

[Marr]

154. It's possible, of course, but this seems awfully thin to me.

People aren't robots. They don't all respond the same ways in similar circumstances. And anyway, if I had to assign a reason for the behavior Wolf cites above, I'd think I'd go to simple narcissism long before thinking of a political set-up.

[ellennelle]

166. wag the dog

i've been skeptical about snowden from the beginning. mainly because of the timing; mainly because of the scandal pile-on the rightwing has been pumping for weeks now, but even more because manning will be made a hero and a martyr, and we can't have that now, can we?

those of you concerned about rand paul and teabaggers and that ilk, really??? you believe those shallow benchers, those thin substance and weak argument peapickers, those flybynight idiots could pull off something this sophisticated and complex and INSIDE???

your aim is way off. check out those who are weighing in - like ari fleischer and cheney - and how they are all trumpeting how this rehabilitates and vindicates W!

this kind of operation - if naomi is right - requires tremendous coordination and forethought and intricate chess move kind of planning, and most importantly it requires not just someONE but a whole structure working from the inside. the kind of structure cheney put in place over the past two-plus decades. what is the NSA but just such an operation? and who has his tentacles dug eyeball deep in that whole process more than cheney?

like i said, i was quickly wary; where was snowden's lawyer and why had greenwald and the filmmaker not insisted he have one with him? the hong kong story did not ring true, and the girlfriend - again, really??? her posts were clearly written by a man trying to sound like a forlorn young woman; gag.

of course, someone planning and monitoring this - like a real producer - would have to see that some cheesy and questionable stuff be thrown in there to make it real; squeaky clean would never fly. and, here's the kicker for me, the scandal would have to involve a topic EVERYONE is on board with, not one that divides the citizenry. pretty much across the board, folks don't like the snooping (now, tho everyone got in line in '01 of course), and it's the one aspect of DHS and NSA want most to nail down. as naomi says, it's the snooping that gets ya. anyone here ever see the lives of others?

i think naomi may be on to something;

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

180. Let's arm al-qaeda in Syria!

Is that what you mean by wag the dog?

[ellennelle]

209. you must be young

did you not see the movie?

quite enlightening.

and, it would answer your question quickly.


carry on.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

212. at heart, but I do believe that "wag the dog" refers to a war who's sole purpose is to distract

Therefore Syria seems to better fit the analogy.

[ellennelle]

244. no; methinks 'wag the dog' means...

the tail is wagging the dog. in the case of the film, the media were conscripted to construct a fake war. true, to distract. but that is not the point of the phrase, just the point of that movie's war.

in this case, the media are being conscripted to deliver the msg that the NSA is protecting us and whistleblowers are evil and doomed. by construction; at least, that's naomi wolf's assertion.

no war involved here, but the analogy of 'wag the dog' applies. no need for a war, as its meaning is simply that the normal recipient of action (i.e., tail/media) is actually the creator of action instead of normalcy (i.e., dog/government).

[LittleBlue]

173. . Didn't realize she was this crazy.

Shocking piece of writing.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

185. I think she knows a lot about the craft and is simply projecting

though her reasoning isn't sound imho, as she appears to be suspicious of the professional presentation, when he in fact went to professional presenters to tell his story, so why would you be surprised by that?

And she also seems to be surprised by his calm, articulate manner, but considering his line of work (IT) that does not surprise me (not that everyone in IT is calm and articulate, that certainly isn't true) as you work daily in a world of logic and sequence, so that he is able to present a logical and calm presentation of the facts that he is well aware of, since that is what he did for a living, in a private, comfortable setting, a hotel room, probably coached somewhat as well by the professional presenters he is with, does not surprise me at all... in fact I am more surprised by her take on it.

[railsback]

181. And the hero-worshippers attack Wolf for her observations that raise questions

There really is NO difference between the Left and Right. I hope you're all proud of yourselves, baggin' all the way.

[Marr]

232. This isn't a matter of left and right.

It's authoritarian vs. egalitarian, establishment vs. the rabble, or something more in that line. The only middle ground here is simple apathy, and that hardly counts as a political position.

Wolf's "evidence" is nonsensical and suggestive of nothing. They're idle musings and nothing more. If they illuminate anything at all, it is what Naomi Wolf wants to believe.

[ucrdem]

233. She isn't giving testimony in a trial, she's blogging her observations of Snowden.

Which accord with my own, but Wolf expressed them in much more detail. As for a matter of left or right, I think this is. Greenwald is a CATO Libertarian, and Snowden by his own account is a Bush-believing Ron Paul supporter, and his claims, whoever scripted them, appeal directly to the paranoid black-helicopter fearing keep-government-out-of-my-Social-Security 2nd-amendment-protecting survivalist Teabag right.


And a few others.

[Marr]

234. I know, and he has boxes in his garage, too.

I've heard the 'shocking truth about Edward Snowden', believe me. I don't care about him. It's the information he released that's relevant.

Wolf's musings here are just sort of silly and threadbare. I don't care if she's offering them in court or in a kindergarten classroom-- grasping speculation is grasping speculation and can really only shed light on the person doing the speculating.

[ucrdem]

235. I'd say the timing is what's really relevant here.

Just before two big international conferences, last week and this week, with Syria at the top of the G8 agenda. Also revealing was the strenuously anti-Obama spin that Attorney Glenn was putting on Snowden's meager claims on what seemed like every channel last week.

[Marr]

237. Honestly, I find the timing suspicious as well.

Coincidences happen all the time, of course, but it does make me wonder about any broader political motivations that might be at work.

Ultimately, however, that all seems like a little sideshow next to the information released.

[Eric J in MN]

253. There are international conferences every month. NT

NT

[reusrename]

241. Most of her "opinion" is just uninformed ignorance.

Most of her concerns are answered by the fact that a professional filmmaker was the person behind the camera during the interview. Nothing much to see here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/laura-poitras-documentary-filmmaker_n_3441081.html?utm_hp_ref=entertainment

[Hissyspit]

248. Greenwald is not a "CATO Libertarian."

But keep catapulting the propaganda.

[railsback]

268. Like Snowden offering up empty evidence?

Wolf makes observations and gets browbeat over it. Who's to say she's wrong? The evidence coming in from the companies that were handing over information points to a severe overreaction. EVERYONE isn't being spied on. Not even half, or a quarter, or an eighth, sixteenth, thirty-second...

[Hissyspit]

250. "hero-worshippers attack for observations that raise questions"

I think there is plenty of that to go around.

[Zorra]

186. Is there any way for the 1% to substantially gain more wealth/power/control as a

result of Snowden's revelations?

I like to play "Follow The Money" when it comes to exposure of interesting activities related to the intelligence community.

Here's one simple scenario:

The public is outraged over Snowden's revelations that Big Brother is engaging in detail spying on them and their grannies. Indignant public protest is widespread. People are sick of the Patriot Act, sick of cameras on their streets, sick of Big brother constantly secretly sniffing their panties at every opportunity.

Public outrage peaks over the invasions of privacy.

And then



Some deranged Syrian jihadist, now living in Peoria, who was among those being spied on by the NSA, and who was being unknowingly nurtured by the NSA/CIA, blows up the Supreme Court for declaring DOMA unconstitutional.

Some might call it a transformational event - a "catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor", which leads RW politicians to scream how we've been attacked, and how we are going to be attacked again and again unless we give up all of our antiquated ideas that we have any right to privacy.

Public is scared shitless, they'll give up any and all rights immediately just to feel safe and secure again. Strict, invasive control measures are called for.

With little forethought, Congress quickly legislates, (they don't want to be recognized as terrorist appeasers), President signs, and Patriot Act II comes to a theater near you, complete with cameras, security scanners, ID checks, and panty sniffing dogs at every ticket booth.

The 1% has eliminated all possibility of democracy forever.

Game Over, thank you for playing.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
― Hermann Goering

I'm not saying that this is what is occurring, or that Snowden is definitely not on the level. I'm just saying that I agree with Naomi, that it might be a good idea to use a little caution in assessing this situation.

Getting fooled again will have permanent tragic consequences.

[Eric J in MN]

207. If the Patriot Act is repealed...

...then after the next big attack Congress may restore it.

If the Patriot Act isn't repealed, then after the next big attack we'll get Patriot Act II.

[Zorra]

249. Don't hold your breath waitng for the Patriot Act to get repealed.

That just ain't never gonna happen.

[snagglepuss]

217. I pretty much on the side of Snowden but am always willing to entertain doubt.

What struck me as I read your post is the coincidence that this revelation happened at now when more names are being released by The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists regarding the massive world wide tax evasion revealed by a whistleblower who has not been named.

http://www.icij.org/offshore/icij-releases-offshore-leaks-database-revealing-names-behind-secret-companies-trusts


It certainly is in the interest of the world's obscenely wealthy plutocrats not to have their communications monitored. They certainly stand to benefit materially if surveillence is curbed. Lots of plutocrats in China might be very grateful to Snowden.

[agent46]

199. I had similar thoughts about Snowden

Given how manipulated "news events" are these days and how relentless the GOP led scandal & distraction brigade has been since the election, it occurred to me this Snowden/NSA leak could be a manufactured attempt to spin the whole debacle into an attack of the Obama presidency and cement the tired Tea Party meme that Obama is leading us into a dictatorship.

If that's the case, I'm pretty sure the opportunity has already escaped their control. This is a real issue and people are angry. I don't think the propagandists on either side are going to be able to successfully politicize this to their advantage. The fact is, the system itself has become toxic to our democracy and this transcends petty party politics.

On the other hand, I've noticed over the years that every time there's a scandal, changes are made under the radar. We are now supporting a side in the Syrian civil war opposite the Russians. Is this now a proxy war in the middle east? Is the Neocon agenda moving forward? I'd say, probably.

So, is this connected with the Snowden NSA leaks somehow? I can't say.

Whatever the case, I don't think party loyalists on any side are going to like what may come of all this.

I could be wrong though. It could all go away in a few weeks. The memory hole in America is silent, dark and deep.

~46

[randome]

200. Next up: The secret NSA directive to impose Sharia Law on us all!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[think]

203. Or Snowden has put some thought into his message

and because he's polished it, it seems staged. After 5 or 6 years he might have thought about what he might say. Or not.

But then he could be a stooge who risked everything for a foolish publicity stunt.....

[Major Hogwash]

227. "Missed it by that much".

I loves me some Naomi Wolf.

[felix_numinous]

228. Yea because we absolutely MUST

dissect, analyze and assassinate the whistleblowers.

Shit if this whole issue gets shoved under the rug because they killed the messenger, this country deserves what it gets.

[Number23]

245. The pole-dancing girlfriend has got to be the most baffling part of this whole equation

I truly have NO idea why I keep reading about this scantily-clad, totally uninteresting woman. I see a guest spot on Keeping up with the Kardashians in her near future.

[Eric J in MN]

252. It shows Snowden's sacrifice.

Ed Snowden had a house in Hawaii with a pole-dancing girlfriend.

Soon he'll probably be in prison cell for years. Maybe for decades.

[DontTreadOnMe]

264. So a guy in his thirties with a $200K salary and a hot girlfriend.... decides to throw it all away

yeah right.

I worked in IT for almost 20 years. Before and all through the dot-com era. We got paid insane amounts of money to work on projects that we knew were a joke or doomed to fail. We didn't care one bit about the actual projects we were working on, as long as they paid us plenty of overtime. No one ever questioned the morality of the projects we worked on, no one cared. Everyone knew that the dot-com era was going to implode, so just ride it as long as you could, they pay was addictive. It was heaven.

No one ever walked away from that kind of gravy train. And to Hong Kong?

Patriotism or a hot girlfriend? He picked the flag? A single guy in his thirties... impossible!

[Eric J in MN]

265. Are you saying that Ed Snowden was authorized to leak

...and he won't go to prison?

[jimlup]

247. Interesting take on the situation thanks for posting /nt

[MrMickeysMom]

254. Dear Naomi...

Count me as one more person who cares nothing of what you think...

Blech...