Matrix: who is Edward Snowden?

[flamingdem]

*I suspect that Snowden didn't act alone. Here's one scenario for how he got a hold of certain secrets. Of course there are other suspicions just looking at the damage he hath wrought, especially with China - US relations.

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/matrix-who-is-edward-snowden/

--- snip

Snowden never saw any of those thousands of documents on an NSA computer. Never happened. He didn’t hack in. He didn’t steal anything.

He was working an op, either as a dupe or knowingly. He was working for…well, let’s see, who would that be?
Who was he working for before he entered the private sector and wound up at NSA?

The CIA.

Would that be the same CIA who hates the NSA with a venomous fervor?
Would that be the same CIA who’s been engaged in a turf war with NSA for decades?
The same CIA who’s watched their own prestige and funding diminish, as human intelligence has given way to electronic snooping?

Yes, it would be. CIA just can’t match the NSA when it comes to gathering signals-intell.

Wired Magazine, June 2013 issue. James Bamford, author of three books on the NSA, states:
“In April, as part of its 2014 budget request, the Pentagon [which rules the NSA] asked Congress for $4.7 billion for increased ‘cyberspace operations,’ nearly $1 billion more than the 2013 allocation. At the same time, budgets for the CIA and other intelligence agencies were cut by almost the same amount, $4.4 billion. A portion of the money going to…[NSA] will be used to create 13 cyberattack teams.”

That means spying money. Far more for NSA, far less for CIA.

Turf war.

People at the CIA were able to access those NSA documents, and they gave the documents to Snowden and he ran with them.

The CIA, of course, couldn’t be seen as the NSA leaker. They needed a guy. They needed a guy who could appear to be from the NSA, to make things look worse for the NSA and shield the CIA.

[xocet]

1. Who gives a fuck? The story is not about Snowden. It is about the NSA surveillance overreach. n/t

[flamingdem]

2. Maybe that's not the complete story

Time will tell

[reusrename]

18. Actually he's secretly working with Obama to get this info to the public.

It's called umpteen-dimensional chess.

Actually, it's always easy to suspect a conspiracy when evil acts are committed. Why not a conspiracy to commit a noble act.

[ConcernedCanuk]

49. I like that idea - be nice if true.

.
.
.

Obama is not an idiot like Dubya - Obama is a well-trained lawyer - GW is the idiot son of a billionaire.

Last President that bucked the "establishment" overtly got assassinated in Dallas.

Barack Obama is no fool.

CC

[Skittles]

27. you sound like George W. Bush

[blm]

4. That over-reach was already known years earlier, and many other countries do it, too.

Come on - he went to a Chinese newspaper owned by an old crony of Poppy Bush and co-owned by Rupert Murdoch.

[xocet]

12. Yes, the overreach was known about to some extent, and the Stasi did spy on East Germans....

Your initial points would appear to be

• that the continuation of the NSA surveillance overreach should not be discussed since it was already partially revealed and
  
  
• that the NSA should conduct signals intelligence within the USA since, for example, the Stasi was able to do so.
  

"...Chinese..." plus "...crony..." plus "...Bush..." plus "...Murdoch..." does not really make for a convincing argument. It seems more like an extended statement that plays on fear, disgust, revulsion and revulsion in that order - in short, it is an ad hominem guilt-by-association fallacy.

The important story for now is the NSA surveillance overreach - not the character of Edward Snowden.

[blm]

14. Why would I say it shouldn't be discussed? It's always been discussed plenty here

since 2002. All the artificially increased outrage NOW is absurd.

You sure did have to reach for that straw to build your man, didn'tcha?

And....What's so 'important' about a 'story' that we knew about every day for the last 11 years?

I don't make it about the character of Snowden - I think he really believes he's being a hero, same as Greenwald - useful dupes - just the way BushInc likes em.

[Habibi]

23. But it isn't about "Bush Inc" now.

[blm]

30. What makes you believe that? Naive Dems thought BushInc was retired in 93, too.

They never give up control. Especially over China policy.

[xocet]

28. Interesting tactic on your part....however, the story is still about the NSA overreach and not E. S.

n/t

[blm]

29. I don't think it's about Snowden either - he was just a conduit. He was groomed to do

exactly what he did.

[blm]

33. BTW - what is 'important' about the story now that wasn't 'important' the previous 12 years

Last edited Tue Jul 9, 2013, 11:23 AM - Edit history (1)

or when the program was operating completely outside the law under Bush?

Corpmedia didn't find an interesting angle to the story until it could be used to attack Obama administration?

[xocet]

35. The fact that these surveillance programs are STILL operating is one thing that is important.

They should not be operating in the manner that they are. Who has had and has control of the program? Then, it was President Bush. Now, it is President Obama. It was wrong then. It is wrong now.

President Obama had his chance to break with the past, but he chose to let everything slide - he even got off on the wrong foot by allowing Rick Warren to take part in his inauguration. By not standing up for Democratic values (i.e., by not reining in the surveillance, by not prosecuting torturers/ war criminals, etc.), President Obama has damaged the Democratic brand. He is not nearly as powerless as people would like to argue. He seems either to be risk averse - even now, when he does not have to stand for another election and, in all likelihood, could not be impeached, convicted, and removed from office - or motivated by more centrist or even possibly Republican goals. I don't know, because I am not privy to what he really intends. (Take his recent lack of appointments to the FEC in spite of a chance to make recess appointments. The Republicans now have a 3-to-2 advantage and can do what they want in the FEC. This is classic Obama 0-dimensional, non-confrontational, astrategic chess.)

At any rate, the surveillance programs continue, and the President's DNI remains in office even though he lied directly to Congress. One would think that President Obama would at the very least remove him. However, apparently, it is ok to lie to Congress.

Had I known that President Obama would be so incredibly weak vis-à-vis important issues like torture, surveillance, health care (he is great with health insurance), etc. I certainly would not have wasted my time volunteering for his campaign and giving it money. Apparently, Hillary Clinton was actually the better choice - she might have actually fought the Republicans instead of running from the fray and hiding behind Congress' dysfunction as President Obama has largely done.

[blm]

38. We KNEW that when Congress legalized it. The program was institutionalized in 2006.

What's with the pretense that all this is new?

Who is benefitting from the perception that all this is recent? Snowden's a dupe for BushInc's operatives at the CIA. They pegged him as an easy dupe when he was working there. Got him in with Dell Computers (Bush-loyal firm). Then get him into Booz - another Bush loyal firm.

Bushes have worked for decades to be the ONLY authority for what happens with China. They've been pulling shit on other presidents for years in order to protect their grip on China and China policy.

[xocet]

39. Do you have any evidence of these claims? n/t

[randome]

41. I'm sure the same quantity of evidence exists for this theory as does for Snowden's claims: zero.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[xocet]

42. How can you be sure? BTW, DNI Clapper lied to Congress. I presume you support lying to Congress...

n/t

[blm]

45. I presume you support Obama being blamed for doing legally what was set in motion

years earlier and made legal after Bush was doing it illegally since 2001. Funny how the press jumped on this when there is nothing new in the story.

Where were you from 2001-2006 when many here at DU were bitching about the ILLEGAL wiretapping that Bush was doing to NOT just potential terrorists and groups but anyone perceived as a political opponent?

[randome]

48. No, I don't support lying.

But Congress knew what it was doing when it asked a public question of someone who was sworn to secrecy. It was a Catch-22 situation. If Clapper declined to answer, everyone would have assumed that to be a 'Yes'.

And as another DUer pointed out, 'collection' has a different meaning to those in the spy business. I don't recall the specifics of that but it sounded authentic.

And none of this has anything to do with Snowden's claims. The guy who amazingly was unable to provide evidence other than some PowerPoint slides.

If the evidence surfaces, I'll be glad to change my opinion but right now this entire affair seems amateurish.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[blm]

44. Yes - coincidences where the Bush family is involved are never coincidences.

.

[DevonRex]

40. Yep. Dell is a huge tipoff. Michael Dell gave $250,000 for W's inauguration.

He's so in with the Bushes it's ridiculous.

[blm]

43. One would have to be a 'coincidence theorist' to not see what happened here.

He was pegged as a dupe and groomed along the way.....and appeared right before the George W Bush rehabilitation tour that also just happened to be when Obama had been trying to work out agreements with China.

People forget that the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was 'accidentally' bombed in 1999 right before Clinton was to visit China - the trip was canceled.

The Chinese newspaper that Snowden interviewed with was a longtime crony of GHWBush.

Snowden may not know it, but he was definitely used by masters at this technique. Greenwald's ego would never accept that he's been useful to BushInc.

[DevonRex]

50. And Dell is owned by Michael Dell and Silver Lake Partners.

Check out Silver Lake Partners. You'll come up with Blackstone, SunGard, Avaya, TGP Capital, Bain Capital, Carlyle Group. Silver Lake is HQed in Hong Kong. Just happens Dell has moved most manufacturing to China. Also check out what the companies that Silver Lake owns happen to produce.

[blm]

3. From the beginning it smelled like a standard Bush op to me to prevent a Dem president

from advancing any relationship with China that wasn't under their control. The Bushes (GHW and Prescott) and Jackson Stephens have been controlling the US-China relationship (aka NWO fascism) since the 70s when Bush and Stephens made their deal with Chinese industrialists to move US manufacturing base to China...... Stephens put WalMart on the table.

Apparently, not many remember that Clinton was prevented from carrying out his trip to China after preparing for years. Oddly, the Chinese embassy was 'mistakenly' bombed and the guy who 'made' the mistake ended up being promoted right after Bush took office.

[flamingdem]

5. Yes, and it was amazing how little condemnation there was when Snowden singlehandedly damaged

delicate negotiations with Obama.

That does add up.

Then, he turns around and hands them surveillance information on a plate, and gets a get out free ignore our treaties prize from the Chinese HK. What was that all about.

He landed in Hong Kong and a few days later two major groups put on large protest for him with printed signs. What was that all about. As if they wait with baited breath over there ordering up signs just in case an NSA leaker might stop by!

Wonder how those pieces fit what you've written.

[blm]

6. Walk down memory lane....

Wikipedia:
On May 7, 1999, during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (Operation Allied Force), five US JDAM guided bombs hit the People's Republic of China embassy in the Belgrade district of New Belgrade, killing three Chinese reporters and outraging the Chinese public. According to the USA, the intention had been to bomb the nearby Yugoslav Federal Directorate for Supply and Procurement. President Bill Clinton later apologized for the bombing, stating it was accidental.[1] Central Intelligence Agency director George Tenet testified before a congressional committee that the bombing was the only one in the campaign organized and directed by his agency,[2] and that the CIA had identified the wrong coordinates for a Yugoslav military target on the same street.[3] The Chinese government issued a statement on the day of the bombing that it was a "barbarian act".[4]
>>>>

By the way - Clinton was told by CIA that the target would be an illegal arms warehouse in Belgrade. Pretty big 'mistake' the CIA made with their coordinates, eh?

[flamingdem]

7. So that nixed Clinton's trip to China

Why do they think destroying Democratic improvements of relations with China are so important? What is it they control by preventing that?

[blm]

11. Pretty much everything. The deals in the 70s with China's financial and industrial elites

was a piece of cake for Poppy Bush with Jackson Stephens leading the set up with Walmart. By the mid80s US manufacturing really began a steady move to China. Prescott Bush became head of US-China Chamber of Commerce. He died a few years ago, and the Chinese newspapers lionized him. US media always managed to ignore the depth of the Bush family's connections to China and Jackson Stephens whole history with China has been pretty much whitewashed, as well.

[HiPointDem]

17. that is interesting to me as rand paul's biggest career donor is the club for growth, jackson

stephens jr = director.

the kochs are # 5.

alliance resource partners (coal), senate conservatives fund, & corriente advisors round out the top 5.

[flamingdem]

19. Now that is quite interesting

I guess it's time to learn a bit more about ole Rand Paul.

[HiPointDem]

24. i found it curious too. dad's biggest donors were army & navy groups. the kochs were in ron's

mix historically though, as ron was the first head of the koch astroturf group 'citizens for a sound economy'.

[blm]

32. Jackson Stephens (deceased) bankrolled Bill Clinton's primary campaign, but, only when

it was determined that GHWBush needed to lose in Nov 92 because the BCCI report was to be released in Dec 92, and Jackson Stephens - a longtime friend and political backer of GHWBush - was a named figure. In fact, Stephens helped Bush bring BCCI into the US. Bush needed to lose in 92 because he was certain to face impeachment after the inevitable hearings that would follow the release of the BCCI report. Bush and Stephens were protecting themselves by assuring Clinton was the Dem nominee. Clinton won, insisted Dems must move on past investigations, buried the BCCI report.

[Recursion]

8. I'm losing confidence in the proposition that he exists, frankly

[flamingdem]

9. Well he hasn't spoken a word publically

And I assume that Wikileaks is doing all the legwork on the applications.

He is epileptic, wondering if he's ill from all the stress.

[arely staircase]

16. I know, right?

I have thought that too.

[arely staircase]

10. interesting theory

I thought during the early days that he was some kind of spook sent to feed disinformation to the Chinese. However, current diplomatic craziness brought about by this guy' s misadventures have me doubting seriously my original hypothosis. Superficially at least your theory is plausible.

[flamingdem]

13. You might be right. Who knows. But something sure feels wrong about him

and what he did in China should have everyone wondering whose interests he's serving.

It's working for him though - all this hero worship and justification that no matter what he saved us, started dialog, etc.

[arely staircase]

15. the endgame to all this will be interesting in the short run

then hopefully we will eventually know the full story.

Occam's razor dictates he is what he appears - a disgruntled right wing hacker who fell under the spell of Assange and company and who got talked into doing some impulsive, sensational, and finally self-destructive stuff and who has probably run his course.

Fascinating in any case.

[Amonester]

21. Maybe he intends to write a script about it and sell it to Hollywood

I'm almost certain Oliver Stone would be ecstatic to get the rights...

[flamingdem]

25. No kidding. Maybe that's why he came out with forceful support

for him a couple of days ago. Thinking ahead. Combine that with his film South of the Border, and we know he's got the ability to pull it off. He knows the leaders in South America. Access.. Should be a doc

[marions ghost]

46. Absurd

but fantasize away.

[KittyWampus]

20. Who Benefits? Financially? Politically?

[flamingdem]

22. Yes, but this one's tougher than Follow The Money

Each player gets a different benefit.

We'd have to break it down country by country.

Also agency by agency.

Individual by individual.

And put it all in a running, updatable timeline!

At times like these we need real investigative reporters.

[blm]

34. NWO - Bushgang style.

.

[HiPointDem]

26. i have a theory. snowden is actually kermit roosevelt iii.

grandpa was a spy too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2000/jun/13/guardianobituaries.haroldjackson

[kentuck]

31. Interesting..

There is probably more to the story than any of us know?

[DevonRex]

36. This is a Bush op. Obviously. Same with all the CIA leaks. nt

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

37. Conspiracy Theories are a dime a dozen

A bakers dozen at that

[marions ghost]

47. Ditto

Creative speculation, thick and fast.

[longship]

51. Typical when there's a dearth of knowledge.

Make shit up. Reynolds foil is selling out in this thread.


Fun reading it, though. Strictly entertainment, mind you.

[Democracyinkind]

52. Why is this not in creative speculation?

Clearly, it belongs there.