General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOH BOY: Hillary Clinton Blasts Edward Snowden for Fleeing to Russia and China

By Patrick Caldwell
Fri Apr. 25, 2014 10:35 AM PD
Hillary Clinton didn't have to directly deal with Edward Snowden's leaks when she was secretary of state. Clinton had already stepped down from her post by the time the Guardian published its first revelations on the expansive scope of spying by the National Security Agency. But at an event at the University of Connecticut on Wednesday night, Clinton made it clear that she's no fan of the NSA leaker, insinuating that Snowden had cooperated with countries hostile to the United States and unintentionally aided terrorist organizations. "I don't understand why he couldn't have been part of the debate at home," she said.
Clinton questioned Snowden's intentions in fleeing the country before offerring his information to the public. "When he emerged and when he absconded with all that material, I was puzzled, because we have all these protections for whistleblowers," Clinton said, when the moderator asked if there had been any positive effects for security policy following the NSA leaks. "If he were concerned and wanted to be part of the American debate, he could have been. But it struck me as—I just have to be honest with you—as sort of odd that he would flee to China, because Hong Kong is controlled by China, and that he would then go to Russia, two countries with which we have very difficult cyber-relationships, to put it mildly."
Clinton also suggested that Snowden had inadvertently helped terrorists. "I think turning over a lot of that material—intentionally or unintentionally, because of the way it can be drained—gave all kinds of information, not only to big countries, but to networks and terrorist groups and the like," she said.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hillary-clinton-snowden-nsa-russia-china

djean111
(14,255 posts)I would have been astonished if she had said anything else at all, really!
Comforting, in a weird way. I hate when politicians pretend to be liberal.
I believe Hillary knows who her supporters are, and won't be even trying to corral the other Dem voters, after all, who we gonna vote for, right?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)She has more support among liberals than among conservative and moderate dems:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024861256
djean111
(14,255 posts)Anyway, I cannot imagine supporting someone because of a poll.
progressoid
(51,092 posts)We've shifted so far to the right that people actually think the President is a socialist.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)which is clearly an attempt to woo the conservatives, and then you tell us Pew says most liberals support her. Something smells in Denmark. I think that a lot of conservative Dems call themselves "liberals". We see a lot of that in DU. If you support Wall Street, you are not a liberal.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)That's fine. The problem is that pretty much every political poll uses self-identification as a means to identify political groups.
It was done during the 2012 election when Republicans rejected polls because they felt they were skewed against them. Nate Silver noted how that notion was just silly. The reason Republicans thought the polls were skewed is that there were more Dems in the sample because more people self-identified as Dem.
Republicans eventually ended up creating their own polling methodology which turned out to be an unmitigated disaster. The few polls that weighted, like Rasmussen, were wildly inaccurate.
If you disagree with polling methodology, that's fine. You could even start to create your own polls because you don't seem to like the actual results of the polls that exist.
Good luck to you.
I'll stick with science.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Her little hate Snowden speech was aimed at the conservative vote and bound to distance her from the left. The Pew poll may be misleading because anyone can call themselves liberal. If you support a Wall Street dominated government you arent liberal.
Why do non-liberals want sooo badly to call themselves liberal?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)...on political polling and self-identification:
I don't know why I'm wasting my time.
See ya.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I guess it was your turn.
I bet you consider yourself liberal.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I guess she figures that some flag waving, scary bogeymen, and sounding tough are good for her campaign.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Hopefully, it will be just as successful as it was in '08.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)Beyond the 2 party thing, most Americans perceive Snowden's actions as a positive:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/22/most-young-americans-say-snowden-has-served-the-public-interest/
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)less government, but only that which interferes with their profits. Conservatives love authoritarian NSA/CIA/FBI.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Not saying that Hillary is a liberal by any means.
MADem
(135,425 posts)57% of 18- to 29-year olds said the leaks have served rather than harmed the public interest — almost exact mirrors of the 65-and-over age group. These youngest adults were the only age group without majority support for prosecuting Snowden — they split 42%-42% on whether the former NSA contractor should be tried. (Snowden was charged in June 2013 with three criminal counts related to the leaks, though he’s apparently not yet been formally indicted.)

Tarheel_Dem
(31,443 posts)He is now officially associated with Putin, and expect the erosion to continue.
Huffpo: "Americans Might Not Support Edward Snowden, But They Support Disclosing Programs"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/edward-snowden-support_n_5071938.html
bravenak
(34,648 posts)What she says right here:
Clinton also suggested that Snowden had inadvertently helped terrorists. "I think turning over a lot of that material—intentionally or unintentionally, because of the way it can be drained—gave all kinds of information, not only to big countries, but to networks and terrorist groups and the like," she said.
Thats my problem with him also.
joshcryer
(62,515 posts)She is definitely running, no question.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Walking that fine line with her wording.
msongs
(70,780 posts)pscot
(21,044 posts)It's a free hit. What politician doesn't love a free hit?
joshcryer
(62,515 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)I assume strong Obama supporters = strong Hillary supporters = hatessss Snowden.
Would be entertaining if she supported Snowden, but this is just Same Old Stuff.
joshcryer
(62,515 posts)ProSense and Whisp come to mind.
tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)She will seek support from the base in the primaries. Still not enamored with this lady.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Her preparation on the Snowden matter is shallow -- looks like she doesn't know much about it.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,443 posts)
Otelo
(62 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)...he would need to go to a country willing to take him, that he is able to get to without being intercepted, and a country willing to stand up to American political and economic pressure.
Russia might be the only one.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,443 posts)


Otelo
(62 posts)I didn't know that.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,443 posts)

We both agreed your comment made no sense.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,443 posts)

Otelo
(62 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,443 posts)

Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)who doesn't agree with them about something. It's just an attempt to shut you up.
Otelo
(62 posts)I would try to find a distraction too.
The NSA is spying on everyone? omg a newbie!
SidDithers
(44,329 posts)
Sid
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)will passive aggressively, if not outright, be accused of being a sock puppet of a previously banned DUer if the person doing the accusing doesn't like your opinion. many assume we new folks just joinsite unseen without lurking for awhile beforehand. it really doesn't take long to see what is what and who is who here. bullies abound!
Tarheel_Dem
(31,443 posts)Take a look on Democratic Underground
They have the gov't paid trolls out, trying to limit the outrage & rebellion on there.
If that is the reaction of hard core Dems to the news stories on the NSA, I want to stoke up some more of it.
Lots of traffic on DU.
It's the most popular Dem internet site, except for Huffy Po - where everything meaningful gets censored.
http://www.dailypaul.com/288556/clapper-and-feinstein-get-caught-lying-big-time#comment-3103138
Ron Paul Supporters Try Brainwashing Democrats...
From the "Daily Paul" - Ron Paul Cult Site...
Democratic Underground - Read the comments
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023064050
Obama branded a war criminal in the Irish Parliament - read the comments on this one too.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023067394
The Dems are starting to wake up and smell the coffee.
We should join forces.
Don't mention Ron Paul on DU you will get eviscerated (they are still brainwashed over that).
Just mention his policies - the ordinary Dems love lots of them.
Anti bankster
Anti war
Anti Corporatism
etc. etc.
http://www.dailypaul.com/290123/one-rule-for-the-rich-and-one-rule-for-the-rest-banksters-snowden-nsa
Not everyone here is who they say they are.

daschess1987
(192 posts)I found someone with fewer posts than myself... Thousands of posts equals Wall Street tycoon. You and I are poor as hell, but I've got a few more food stamps than you.
SidDithers
(44,329 posts)Sid
Tarheel_Dem
(31,443 posts)

Cha
(308,476 posts)tritsofme
(18,988 posts)So it doesn't surprise that she is not peddling Snowden apologia.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)She and I certainly see eye to eye on this issue.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Give the Republicans a chance in 2016, nominate Clinton.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)yowzayowzayowza
(7,041 posts)One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
TBF
(35,057 posts)Cha
(308,476 posts)"Letter from a Birmingham Jail"
"One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law".
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)No - they are pissed because they didn't want their dirty laundry to be seen. The same people who spy on us, want to know just about everything we do, and who treat everyone as a suspect are a little upset when tables get turned on them and their image gets tarnished.
Usually they can control image with media and money but this time all they can hope to do is try to discredit a person to try to distract from their problems he caused.
That flag they are waving while yelling 'terrorism' is getting more tarnished by the day.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)nation wide don't think highly of Edward Snowden.
randome
(34,845 posts)What does that make me? A Liberal apologist? No, that can't be it. Give me a minute, I'll think of something...
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
MADem
(135,425 posts)the headline at all. Look at the words in the snip alone...
Unintentionally aided....
Inadvertently helped...
Intentionally or unintentionally....
I don't think her attitude towards Russia's most prominent resident (who isn't Putin, that is) is anything surprising or even a "blast." I think most Americans take that very same, nuanced view of Snowden....except here at DU, of course.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-think-edward-snowden-should-stand-trial-in-us/
Meanwhile, 31 percent approve of Snowden’s actions, while most, 54 percent, disapprove. Majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents disapprove.
Americans are divided as to the impact on the country from making the NSA program public. While 40 percent think the disclosure has been good for the country, 46 percent think it has been bad.
When asked to come up with a word that describes Edward Snowden, nearly a quarter volunteer either traitor or a similar word that questions his loyalty to his country, while 8 percent say he is “brave” or “courageous” or “a hero”. Just 2 percent volunteered that he is a patriot or patriotic, and another 2 percent say “terrorist”.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/edward-snowden-support_n_5071938.html
A 45 percent plurality of respondents said they think Snowden should be prosecuted for the leaks. Likewise, only 35 percent said they would support a hypothetical pardon of Snowden by President Barack Obama, while 43 percent said they would oppose it.
Snowden's supporters have advocated a pardon for Snowden, and last week former President Jimmy Carter said he would consider pardoning Snowden if he were in office.
Both Republicans (40 percent to 27 percent) and Democrats (40 percent to 26 percent) tended to say that Snowden did the wrong thing, while independents were more likely to say he did the right thing (36 percent to 26 percent). Likewise, both Democrats and Republicans were much more likely than independents to say they thought Snowden should be prosecuted.
Independents said, 61 percent to 18 percent, that Americans had a right to know about the programs Snowden revealed, making it the group most likely to say that. But pluralities of Democrats (46 percent to 29 percent) and Republicans (48 percent to 30 percent) said the same.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
MADem
(135,425 posts)much into the High Drama Headline--they're going for that Page Click!
BeyondGeography
(40,330 posts)Probably eight of ten Americans would agree with what she said here. No less.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)I agree with her on this. I think that Snowden has undermined any good he did and continues to step in it on a regular basis.
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)Snowden was right in what he did. The NSA has been going out of control for years.
And the reason he didn't stay was because politicians, like Hillary, would have done there darn-est to make sure Snowden didn't get to tell his story to the American public.
Why isn't she complaining about the NSA's abusing our civil rights?
bvar22
(39,909 posts)She seems to have a habit of this.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Do they even have advisers who look outside of D.C. to see what's going on?
Way to step on a good day Hillary.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I would be shocked if she did NOT mention Snowden or GG. This is like saying, 'water is wet'. Unless of course she was not running, which we all know she is going to.
djean111
(14,255 posts)DiverDave
(5,055 posts)and people WANT her?
Sorry, she is wrong on this.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Cha
(308,476 posts)miss this?
"Inadvertantly" and "unintentionally" is putting it kindly.. more like being a dumbshite..
More Snowden leaks - and this time Al Qaeda is the surveillance target (+video)
".. But what caught my eye in one of the unredacted slides was the mention of Al Qaeda in Iraq being a particular target of the NSA's efforts. The slide reads: "Visual Communicator – Free application that combines Instant Messaging, Photo-Messaging, and Push2Talk capabilities on a mobile platform. VC used on GPRS or 3G networks." The next five words were what the Times tried and failed to redact: "heavily used in AQI Mosul Network."
The aim as described in the documents is to target mobile phone apps that can give away a target's physical location. The utility of this in tracking terrorists hardly needs to be stated. The document describes a program focusing on clear security interests – Al Qaeda in Iraq, now calling itself Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) – killed thousands in Iraq during the US-led war there and continues to carry out suicide bombings and attacks on civilians there on a weekly basis. ISIS is also deeply involved in the civil war in Syria, and the groups ties to Al Qaeda make it an obvious security concern for the US.."
snip//
"..But his claim that "none of this has anything to do with terrorism" is not reasonable. That's pure nonsense -- as is his attempt to suggest that any revelations of eavesdropping techniques can't do any harm because terrorists already know all about it. Terrorists may know that the US is trying to spy on them as best it can (just as Germany and France know that). But knowing the precise method is another thing altogether."
MOre..
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0130/More-Snowden-leaks-and-this-time-Al-Qaeda-is-the-surveillance-target-video