Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

brush

(53,332 posts)
60. Have to pull your coat
Tue Mar 11, 2014, 11:35 PM
Mar 2014

I'm not a Snowdenista but I do think he did a good thing in exposing the NSA's domestic spying. Where I think he and Greenwald went wrong is in revealing intricacies of our international covert operations.

On everyone of these Snowden threads the Eddie fan's don't seem to want to accept that this is a TWO-PART ISSUE. On the domestic side, imo, he is a legitimate whistle blower.

As far as the international revelations, I say it is not the business of a somewhat naive 29-year-old to make the decision to give away details of his own country's international covert operations. It's that simple. He wasn't elected. It was not his decision to make, especially when just a few years earlier when Bush was in office he was vehemently against this sort of thing.

When Obama came in, the right-leaning Snowden had a dramatic change of heart that has made him a hero to some progressives. If you want to know more just read the transcripts below from an online correspondence Snowden (TheTrueHOOHA) had with a User19 in 2009:


"This is the background of Snowden and his position on this very issue...

Another topic made him even angrier. The Snowden of 2009 inveighed against government officials who leaked classified information to newspapers – the worst crime conceivable, in Snowden’s apoplectic view. In January of that year the New York Times published a report on a secret Israeli plan to attack Iran. It said that President Bush had ‘deflected’ a request from Israel for specialised bunker-busting bombs to carry out the risky mission. Instead Bush had told the Israelis he had authorised ‘new covert action’ to sabotage Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons programme.

The Times said its story was based on 15 months’ worth of interviews with current and former US officials, European and Israeli officials, other experts and international nuclear inspectors.

TheTrueHOOHA’s response, published by Ars Technica, is worth quoting in full:


<TheTrueHOOHA> HOLYSHIT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/ washington/11iran.html?_r=1&hp
<TheTrueHOOHA> WTF NYTIMES
<TheTrueHOOHA> Are they TRYING to start a war?
<TheTrueHOOHA> Jesus christ
<TheTrueHOOHA> they’re like wikileaks
<User19> they’re just reporting, dude.
<TheTrueHOOHA> They’re reporting classified shit
<User19> Shrugs
<TheTrueHOOHA> about an unpopular country surrounded by enemies already engaged in a war
<TheTrueHOOHA> and about our interactions with said country regarding planning sovereignty violations of another country
<TheTrueHOOHA> you don’t put that shit in the NEWSPAPER
<User19> Meh
<TheTrueHOOHA> moreover, who the fuck are the anonymous sources telling them this?
<TheTrueHOOHA> those people should be shot in the balls.
<TheTrueHOOHA> ‘But the tense exchanges also prompted the White House to step up intelligence-sharing with Israel and brief Israeli officials on new American efforts to subtly sabotage Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, a major covert program that Mr. Bush is about to hand off to President-elect Barack Obama.’
<TheTrueHOOHA> HELLO? HOW COVERT IS IT NOW? THANK YOU
<User19> Meh
<TheTrueHOOHA> I wonder how many hundreds of millions of dollars they just completely blew.
<User19> You’re over-reacting. It’s fine.
<TheTrueHOOHA> It’s not an overreaction. They have a HISTORY of this shit
<User19> with flowers and cake.
<TheTrueHOOHA> these are the same people who blew the whole ‘we could listen to osama’s cell phone’ thing the same people who screwed us on wiretapping over and over and over again. Thank God they’re going out of business.
<User19> the NYT?
<TheTrueHOOHA> Hopefully they’ll finally go bankrupt this year. yeah.

A few minutes later the chat continues:


<User19> It’s nice they report on stuff.
<TheTrueHOOHA> I enjoy it when it’s ethical reporting.
<TheTrueHOOHA> political corruption, sure
<TheTrueHOOHA> scandal, yes
<User19> is it unethical to report on the government’s intrigue?
<TheTrueHOOHA> VIOLATING NATIONAL SECURITY? no
<User19> meh.
<User19> national security.
<TheTrueHOOHA> Um,YEEEEEEEEEEEES.
<TheTrueHOOHA> that shit is classified for a reason
<TheTrueHOOHA> it’s not because ‘oh we hope our citizens don’t find out’
<TheTrueHOOHA> it’s because ‘this shit won’t work if iran knows what we’re doing.’
<User19> Shrugs
<TheTrueHOOHA> ‘None would speak on the record because of the great secrecy surrounding the intelligence developed on Iran.’
<TheTrueHOOHA> direct. quote.
<TheTrueHOOHA> THEN WHY ARE YOU TALKING TO REPORTERS?!
<TheTrueHOOHA> ‘Those covert operations, and the question of whether Israel will settle for something less than a conventional attack on Iran, pose immediate and wrenching decisions for Mr. Obama.’
<TheTrueHOOHA> THEY’RE NOT COVERT ANYMORE
<TheTrueHOOHA> Oh you’ve got to be fucking kidding me. Now the NYTimes is going to determine our foreign policy?
<TheTrueHOOHA> And Obama?
<TheTrueHOOHA> Obama just appointed a fucking POLITICIAN to run the CIA!
<User11> yes unlike every other director of CIA ever
<User11> oh wait, no
<TheTrueHOOHA> I am so angry right now. This is completely unbelievable.

The ‘fucking politician’ was Leon Panetta, appointed by Obama in 2009 despite his evident lack of intelligence background. The appointment was supposed to draw a line under the intelligence scandals of the Bush years – the renditions, the secret CIA prisons and the illegal wiretapping.


This should be required reading for you Snowden supporters.

Snowden evidently knew of WikiLeaks, a niche transparency website whose story would later intersect with his own. But he didn’t like it. At this point, Snowden’s antipathy towards the New York Times was based on his opinion that ‘they are worse than Wikileaks’. Later, however, he would go on to accuse the paper of not publishing quickly enough and of sitting on unambiguous evidence of White House illegality. These are somewhat contradictory views.

Certainly Snowden’s anti-leaking invective seems stunningly at odds with his own later behaviour. But there is a difference between what the Times arguably did – reveal details of sensitive covert operations – and what Snowden would do in 2013. Snowden nowadays explains: ‘Most of the secrets the CIA has are about people, not machines and systems, so I didn’t feel comfortable with disclosures that I thought could endanger anyone.’"


In 2009 he thought covert operations leakers "should be shot in the balls" (his words). Quite a change in philosophies he had from 2009 to 2013 don't you think?

I know I myself haven't went from being a progressive to a teabagger since 2009, yet Snowden has somehow managed just the reverse of this in his thinking from that of authoritarian right winger to a progressive beacon of human rights.

IMO that just doesn't happen. Obama happened.

Greenwald recruited him and the naive, 29-year-old right winger was off to the races.

It worked out well for Greenwald — what with the newly financed media venture and the press coverage and humanitarian awards.

For Snowden, not so much.

Wonder if Eddie, now holed up in Russia and having to periodically come out and kiss Putin's . . . er ah . . . extoll Putin's human rights virtues, is thinking he might have been used just a touch?

Thanks...Agree wholeheartedly Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #1
Absolutely frazzled Mar 2014 #2
Damn Straight we can, blm. thank you. Cha Mar 2014 #3
I agree, 100%. But the fools who criticize Obama think Obama created the NSA's PRISM machine... Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #4
But the smart people who criticize Obama know that he expanded BushCo's illegal spying cui bono Mar 2014 #10
And furthermore, they elected him with the expectation that he would put an end to Demeter Mar 2014 #36
You think power is accrued that easily in DC, Demeter? blm Mar 2014 #46
So Spit It Out... Do We, Or Do We Not... Live In A Democratic Republic ??? WillyT Mar 2014 #74
You believe he's been apprised of everything CIA/NSA has been doing, even by private firms selected blm Mar 2014 #79
If that is so... grasswire Mar 2014 #104
Doesn't everybody have that obligation? Why didn't Carter? Clinton? Gore? blm Mar 2014 #105
What have you done? nt Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #56
His timing seems suspect Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2014 #5
Good post. However.... rlegro Mar 2014 #34
Have to pull your coat brush Mar 2014 #60
We have similar views. Skidmore Mar 2014 #6
+1000. winter is coming Mar 2014 #7
I agree that it's not about Snowden. I respectfully disagree .... Scuba Mar 2014 #8
These ProSense Mar 2014 #13
It looks to me like these agencies look upon Obama as a modest irritant. Eleanors38 Mar 2014 #76
Certainly this would lead you to that conclusion .... Scuba Mar 2014 #77
Pretty much the way I see it. blm Mar 2014 #82
The alternative? He doesn't know. Hardly reassuring... Eleanors38 Mar 2014 #92
This OP is just a round about way of defending Obama cui bono Mar 2014 #9
Completely ProSense Mar 2014 #11
I admit I didn't read your whole post. After seeing all your LOLs and totally rude cui bono Mar 2014 #12
You are using breitbart.com as a source? Skidmore Mar 2014 #14
Oops! You are right, I shouldn't do that! It was an accident. cui bono Mar 2014 #16
Breitbart? ProSense Mar 2014 #17
I've acknkowledged and corrected that error. cui bono Mar 2014 #19
I posted the provisions of the amendment and you post spin about it. ProSense Mar 2014 #20
I told you, after seeing mostly LOLs and rude posts trying to ridicule people with no substance cui bono Mar 2014 #22
Thanks for knocking down the bullshit spin, ProSense.. I don't read those posts Cha Mar 2014 #28
*sputter* Number23 Mar 2014 #51
.. Cha Mar 2014 #54
Obama voted to give retroactive immunity to telecoms OnyxCollie Mar 2014 #21
This unfortunate "accident" Bobbie Jo Mar 2014 #68
Prove that statement with links to quotes of mine. n/t cui bono Mar 2014 #96
LOL - I think Obama's is one of the weakest presidencies in modern history. I think you must blm Mar 2014 #38
What's made it so weak in your opinion? Repub obstructionism or the goals set by the admin? Number23 Mar 2014 #52
Both - I think getting along with opposition party should have been shelved as a goal blm Mar 2014 #70
Obama went back to getting warrants treestar Mar 2014 #58
He pushed to make the illegal activity of BushCo legal. cui bono Mar 2014 #98
This message was self-deleted by its author Th1onein Mar 2014 #62
This argument is getting shopworn.. sendero Mar 2014 #95
I think you replied to the wrong post. I agree with what you said. n/t cui bono Mar 2014 #97
My apologies.. sendero Mar 2014 #103
OMG!!! A voice of reason!!! I can't take it. kelliekat44 Mar 2014 #15
+ a million Number23 Mar 2014 #26
The President consistently defended NSA overreach . . . markpkessinger Mar 2014 #18
Not correct. He spoke about it 10 days before Snowden's leaks. stevenleser Mar 2014 #24
Thanks steven for your detailed response to Cha Mar 2014 #32
That's not true. As I observed he was hearing the extent of SOME of it as we were. blm Mar 2014 #39
I don't think they see the big picture Ichingcarpenter Mar 2014 #65
And recently, NSA whistleblower Russ Tice. blm Mar 2014 #88
You make important points in your post that most of us who keep posting KoKo Mar 2014 #90
I agree. I wish there WAS a way for Dems to accrue the power base needed to confront this blm Mar 2014 #94
if his presidency is that weakened, then he has little to lose grasswire Mar 2014 #106
I agree - and do so from the comfort of my world OUTSIDE the actual arena. blm Mar 2014 #109
No, the point is to force you to stop pretending such and go after the ones with the power TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #107
Clinton accrued more power in his tenure than Obama has and STILL won't confront them. blm Mar 2014 #108
Excuses to continue the pretense. Push them to lawfully take the power or prove that it TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #111
I agree - Fvck the excuses - say those of us lefties who choose to stay out of the arena blm Mar 2014 #112
so tell us, what were his motives? frylock Mar 2014 #23
My Question is...what the hell can we do about it? fascisthunter Mar 2014 #25
we continue to pressure congress.. frylock Mar 2014 #27
and it's why dialogue on DU about this is so important fascisthunter Mar 2014 #29
word frylock Mar 2014 #30
Except, what has been happening on DU lately has not Skidmore Mar 2014 #31
It's Why I made the Statement fascisthunter Mar 2014 #33
It needs to start with acknowledging that not everyone shares Skidmore Mar 2014 #40
That's True fascisthunter Mar 2014 #42
Perfectly said. Number23 Mar 2014 #53
Who said we're cool with it? Strawmen builders? blm Mar 2014 #41
getting attention treestar Mar 2014 #59
Congratulations! delrem Mar 2014 #61
because the whines about lying, credibility, etc, are silly stupidicus Mar 2014 #35
Plenty of Snowden contradictions in your post. blm Mar 2014 #43
more silliness doesn't help your cause stupidicus Mar 2014 #47
LOL - whatever. You can fully trust Snowden's motives - I do not. blm Mar 2014 #48
thanks for conceding your silliness in the example cited stupidicus Mar 2014 #49
There are plenty of contradictions in all of Snowden's pronoucements.. he said Cha Mar 2014 #57
Keep in mind there would be no 'greater media scrutiny' to applaud without Snowden n/t whatchamacallit Mar 2014 #37
Which is exactly what I wrote in my post. Keep in mind everything else, too. There is ONE family blm Mar 2014 #44
Indeed. I keep waiting for Jebbie to quit being coy. Skidmore Mar 2014 #45
"the last few decades of BushInc" include 6 yrs of ObamaInc., 8 yrs of ClintonInc. delrem Mar 2014 #50
LOL - Apparently you never heard of Poppy Bush or his privatization of intel and blm Mar 2014 #69
So your message, complete with a "LOL" aimed at me, delrem Mar 2014 #71
I think you don't 'get' it at all. It would take you months to get through the full BCCI report blm Mar 2014 #72
You are saying NOTHING. Responding to NOTHING. Not even to defend your own OP. delrem Mar 2014 #73
I feel that if you can't wrap your brain around what was said, only focused research can help you blm Mar 2014 #78
Has NOTHING to back up your apologetics for Obama's impotence. delrem Mar 2014 #80
You are acting as apologist for the rampant lack of knowledge about the presidency and blm Mar 2014 #81
The BCCI report gives NO excuse for Obama, or any other president, to claim powerlessness delrem Mar 2014 #83
You're showing you're vastly under-informed. Get thee to National Security Archives, and.... blm Mar 2014 #85
You're showing that all you can do is throw shit at a wall, delrem Mar 2014 #86
I do - but when one is in an exchange with someone unrealistic about the presidency blm Mar 2014 #87
. delrem Mar 2014 #91
OK, that was a pleasant hiatus. delrem Mar 2014 #93
Bingo. nt ecstatic Mar 2014 #55
K & R for nuance. The NSA/CIA thing goes well beyond Obama BelgianMadCow Mar 2014 #63
People forget about NSA whistleblower Russ Tice. blm Mar 2014 #89
Sure, but which REALLY matters in the real world? Fearless Mar 2014 #64
The media's interest begins and ends with Snowden's usefulness as a Benghazi. ucrdem Mar 2014 #66
Excellent OP Bobbie Jo Mar 2014 #67
I could halfway buy that if the majority of the same people attacking Snowden Zorra Mar 2014 #75
k&r this from your post questionseverything Mar 2014 #101
great post fascisthunter Mar 2014 #102
I think the debate has been good for the country. leftyladyfrommo Mar 2014 #84
YUP ... you can be sure there are Bushies still JoePhilly Mar 2014 #99
I've been saying that from the beginning leftynyc Mar 2014 #100
You can do whatever you want PowerToThePeople Mar 2014 #110
K&R n/t bobthedrummer Mar 2014 #113
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»We can applaud media's gr...»Reply #60