Boy, That Edward Snowden Really Screwed Up, Says Edward Snowden

[zappaman]

“It certainly didn’t go as he would’ve hoped,” one of these sources said. “I don’t think there’s any shame in saying that he made an error in judgment.”

-snip-

The truly amazing thing is that you can say “Thanks, Edward Snowden, for prompting these half-measures,” and you can also, AT THE VERY SAME TIME, say “Goddamnit Edward Snowden, you blew a chance for a whole lot more.”
See, a lot of people seem not to understand how it could be possible to hold critical views of both the NSA’s abuses and Edward Snowden at the same time. This is how! All those words up there, those explain how we can do that.
Also, we do not like the way the the US intelligence agencies operate as their own unaccountable fiefdoms. We need to write that, or else people will say we are NSA apologists, because in their view, if you are not with them, you’re against them. What president said that, to great and deserved ridicule? It’ll come to us.

Read more at http://wonkette.com/547131/boy-that-edward-snowden-really-screwed-up-says-edward-snowden#P8FtyJb3X8VzmeLl.99

[MADem]

1. A LOT of 'these people' are posting here at DU!!!!!!

See, a lot of people seem not to understand how it could be possible to hold critical views of both the NSA’s abuses and Edward Snowden at the same time.

Instead, like clockwork, they haul out that "NSA apologist" flag and start beating folks over the head with the flagstaff...like that'll help.

[uponit7771]

21. +1

[11 Bravo]

27. + another 1

[leftynyc]

30. And one more +1

I assume all three of us have been called NSA stooges by these people.

[Tarheel_Dem]

58. And yet another +1

And for the record, I've been called much worse than "NSA stooge" by these people. I don't take 'em seriously though, their low post count speaks to their recent arrival. When you throw in the gun nuts, the Oathkeepers, the Bundy freaks, the Paulbots, etc, it's to be expected I guess.

[RobertEarl]

66. Critical views of the NSA abuses?

You mean there are actual links showing posts wherein Snowden haters are critical of the NSA's abuses? All I see is that what the NSA has done is meta data.

C'mon, yall show us some real "Critical Views of the NSA abuses".

Just one.

[Tarheel_Dem]

70. ????

[GoneFishin]

152. All I read are personal attacks on Ed Snowden which stink of a desperation

to steer the discussion away from anything the NSA has done wrong.

The new hangout position that "we are not giving anyone a pass" is baloney.

It's a transparent attempt to recover some cred after being completely discredited.

[leftynyc]

68. Some of them have high post counts

but that doesn't really mean anything to me. I've been here longer than most of them anyway.

[Tarheel_Dem]

73. I don't pay much attention to those anyhoo, but the newbies have me ROFL, They're so obvious.

[leftynyc]

94. That they are

And so self righteous it makes me want to vomit.

[SwankyXomb]

77. But they're so proud of their high post counts

As if that makes them better people. Most of them are what I like to call "Five Figure Fuckwits."

[leftynyc]

95. Well, I have 5 figures also

But then I've been around since 2002. I would go months without commenting at all and then (usually around elections), my posting picks up. I'll say one thing for DU - when it comes to breaking news, it's one of the best on the internet.

[Blue_Tires]

42. +1000

[LiberalLovinLug]

100. Wait...you hold BOTH views?

You also hold critical views of the NSA abuses? First I've heard...please go on.....?


Also, how would you even have known about those abuses?

....oh right.


and how exactly would that further the conversation if the messenger was locked away undergoing "enhanced interrogation"? Where, like Manning, no reporters are allowed to talk to him and his lawyer is ordered not to speak with the media? But you'd be happy to get an MSM laundered interpretation of the situation by Wolf Blitzer and Steve Ducey

Some of us are happy that the messenger is still in a position to speak and ask questions.

[MADem]

101. Awww, poor you--you should pay better attention.

You can do your own homework, since you 'care' so much.

You do know that "the messenger" and his LAWYER are the sources for this "blasphemy?"

Or maybe you don't? I guess "some of you" should actually read the relevant cites!

[LiberalLovinLug]

124. It is i that feel sorry for you

It seems to be you that didn't read the badly written article that this excerpt is from.

Let me fill you in so you can respond properly. It is an article where the main point of it is someone writhing in the wind of his own making where he laments how "some of you" cannot understand how one could appreciate the disclosures but hate the man who disclosed it. And that if only he'd turned himself in, then the author and many others would suddenly respect him to the 10th. That Snowden could have had it ALL!!!! He could have did his duty to expose the wrongdoing AND he could have played martyr and be thrown in prison like all good martyrs are supposed to do. Only then would the author, and presumably those with the same view, would take him in their warm embrace.

But I highly doubt even this would be good enough for you would it? You think he's some evil genius working with our enemies to destabilize the Western world as we know it.

Yes. thanks, I do 'care', like Snowden does, about the abuse of government on our privacy, especially as it gets easier and easier to do so with technology.

[MADem]

145. Please, don't expend any of your faux 'sympathy' on my account!

You plainly can't even successfully read a DUer's post, judging by your "evil genius" creative interpretation of my remarks! If that's your take-away, you have comprehension challenges. Thus, it is I who should feel pity for you...!

Let me assure you, I read every single one of the links (pssst...there was more than one of those "cites" on offer, I said that in my last post, too-- go back and LOOK) provided IN the article, something you plainly didn't bother to manage. One of 'em even had a VIDEO, for the "words hard/pictures easier" crowd. You really ought to try to struggle through that one; it has lots of nuance and a "big finish!"

Go on, give it a try! You can do it!

And PRO TIP: Don't go trying to "fill in" DUers on what you think they feel about a topic--you just do not, as you demonstrated here, have the skills.

[LiberalLovinLug]

183. Wow I'm talking to a "PRO"

Excuse me I have a long way to go to learn how to belittle others with such professionalism.

When I said "You think he's some evil genius working with our enemies to destabilize the Western world as we know it." What I was referring to was a previous post in another Snowden thread where you pounced in with this gem:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=782755

He's not naive. He's either a prisoner or a collaborator.

I lean towards the latter.

When Snowden did a bunk, he hid out after leaving that high end hotel in the Russian Embassy in Hong Kong.

He fled to Hong Kong because he'd been there before. He vacationed there when he worked in Japan.

Now the question needs to be asked: Did he meet anyone from the Russian government while he was vacationing in Hong Kong all those years ago?

Connect the dots!

What is really is how your ilk cannot make up their minds whether he's an idiot loser that left his girlfriend and because he craved fame and fortune and naively thought this would be his ticket....OR......He's an evil genius working with the most evil tyrannies and enemies of the USA in a plot carefully crafted ahead of time.

And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the main thrust of the linked story in the OP. I am not fishing in links within cites within links to find something to pin my biases on. I was talking about the actual main article that this OP was referring to. What a concept.

so you still, of course, haven't answered if you feel the same as Alex Ruthrauff in the article he wrote. That you'd be fine with Snowden, if he'd only done the manly thing and turned himself in?

[MADem]

184. Oooooh....you used the word "ilk!" And you've likened me to a "pouncer," too!

Aaaaand....you're running all over the board reading my every word! Not much of a life, is that it?

Three thoughts:

***You didn't prove the point you were struggling to advance with all that "word salad."

***For someone who whines about "belittling," you seem to have taken a few lessons, yourself. Pro Tip: Names will never hurt me.

***I don't really care what you think, I find your "discussion" technique both boring and "failed gotcha." I have no desire to play the "wrestle and get dirty" game with you, it's too nice a day and you are just not sufficiently clever or interesting to me. Find another partner! Get your aggressions out on someone else, why don't you?

You have one of those real nice days, now!

Go on, have the last word, big guy--I think you might need it.

[joshcryer]

143. Wyden broached the subject.

But apparently didn't think it was dire enough to release classified data (as a Senator he can release the data, absolute constitutional immunity).

[Number23]

125. Nailed it as always, MADem. The grown ups here have always known that it was possible to

despise the Patriot Act, surveillance AND Snowden all at the same time. Personally, I've always felt that Snowden had a very open agenda at smearing this president and yet, I still felt a small bit of sympathy towards him. He has always struck me as naive as hell and driven more by the need for attention than anything else. Comes across as a very YOUNG 30 year old.

The hero worship that this person inspires among so many here (many of whom happen to be the SAME FOLKS that scream bloody murder at the president's supporters as "swooners," "bots" and "cheerleaders&quot would be ironic if it wasn't so stupid.

[NanceGreggs]

146. Just popped in to share the deliciousness of the irony

with you, Number 23.

You're exactly right. The same people who are constantly decrying Obama supporters as cult-of-personality types don't even see how they have become what they railed against - worshippers who believe their idol can do no wrong.

In their narrow black-and-white world, unless you are a fellow Snowden adorer, you are against the Constitution, democracy, freedom, civil rights, etc. It is just obvious projection on their part, accusing others of holding TWO completely separate thoughts in their head at the same time (being anti-NSA spying and anti-Snowden) simply because they are incapable of doing so themselves.

I suspect that Snowden is a classic case of one who thinks he's smarter than everyone else - only to be easily tripped-up by those he looked down on as not being in his intellectual league.

GG has a new gig and a new book, and stands to make money from both. Snowden, on the other hand, is merely surviving at the whim of Putin - a whim that could change course at any moment. I doubt that Eddie foresaw his obvious fate, and would have acted differently had he known he'd be left high and dry after his usefulness to Greenwald came to an end.

If some want to believe that Snowden (aka The True Hoo-Ha) "put his life at risk and sacrificed everything" to protect the social security recipients he described as moochers, so be it. There was nothing in his previous rantings that would indicate any obligation to his fellow citizens - in fact, he expressed his opinion that leakers should be shot in the balls. And yet his devout followers actually believe that his motives are altruistic and he really wants the 'moochers' to be made aware - and aware of exactly what, we still don't know. Maybe it's the "things he saw" that upset him, which he has yet to reveal. Perhaps it's the fact that he could access the President's emails - which he has yet to prove. Then again, maybe it's the fact that too many here on DU declared him the second coming of Christ, and refuse to lose face by admitting they've been had.

The meme that "it's not the messenger, it's the message" only arose when the messenger was demonstrated to be a less than savoury character - and yet the "message" can't be discussed without holding the messenger out as some sort of hero by his devout followers.

The messenger they revere has stated that Russia and China are the great protectors of human rights (all evidence to the contrary), and that - along with his other statements and behaviour - is to be ignored, simply because it doesn't fit the "Great American Hero" narrative his minions have concocted.

I do have to admit that I owe Snowden a great deal in terms of providing unending entertainment. Watching his devotees twist themselves into pretzels to defend him has been an incredible source of amusement for those who, like me, lurk here for the sole purpose of reading what excuses for his actions and statements the blind worshippers will come up with next.

It's like watching a reality show on TV - with the twist that the participants are totally unaware of reality.

Hope all is well with you and yours, Number23. Keep fighting the good fight - for what it's worth among people who have no idea what the good fight actually entails.

[msanthrope]

148. Miss you. Come back. nt

[NanceGreggs]

161. Thanks, msanthrope

But no can do.

A few weeks ago, I admit to toying with the idea of posting an OP that read: "Snowden is a piece of shit used car salesman", just to watch the posters who defended that statement being made about Obama rush to alert when the same thing was said about their newly-embraced deity.

It would have been amusing, to say the least.

[msanthrope]

164. I think that would be an awesome OP. I coined the moniker "Comrade Eddie."

So far, the right-thinking DU juries have let it stand.

[Egnever]

175. OMG Nance

You rule as always!

God I would have loved to have seen that thread.

[SunsetDreams]

176. Hi Nance!

Good to see you. I do so miss your posts, they were always a joy to read. You definitely have a way with words

I would have loved to see that OP! There would have been so many but..but..buts in there it would have been hard to not fall through all the cracks.

[Number23]

151. Always so great to see you, Nance

And as usual, you are spot on. After Snowden's tv debut with Putin, there were quite a few pundits, academics etc. even those who have criticized the NSA that said he was doing himself no favors. And now we have it straight from the horse's mouth that he was for some reason shocked and mortified at the response to his softball question to Putin. He appears to now realize that he made a gargantuan misstep (probably took a while for his lawyers and handlers to get that through to him but I have no doubt they persisted) and is engaging in behavior that is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what he is attempting to champion.

But yet, here on DU, the same folks that scream authoritarian at everyone here were doing their usual "THANK GOD FOR SNOWDEN" (in my best Tom Hanks "Thank God, it's Friday" voice) and insulting EVERYBODY but their dwindling ranks. The facts are that growing majorities of Americans do NOT consider Snowden a hero, even among those who despise the surveillance that he has brought to the forefront.

The fact is also Putin called Snowden an "agent" and a "spy." There is nothing in Snowden's career that even comes CLOSE to spying. His job always was to backup data, he was a systems administrator. And the whole "well, he worked for the NSA" angle doesn't work. There are tons of NSA support staff that would not in any way be considered spies just because they work there. Are the janitors at the NSA considered spies? What about the cafeteria staff? I find it interesting that the former head of the KGB would call him a spy and Putin does not strike me as the kind of person who tosses out such charged words lightly.

[NanceGreggs]

158. You obviously share my mirth

at watching the "cult of personality" accusers protecting the personality they've conjured up in their own minds, and rallying 'round him in a manner that can only be described as "cult like".

"It's NOT about Snowden!" Except when it IS about Snowden - which it always is, according to his fans.

BTW, "authoritarian" is yesterday's word-de-jour. I know it's hard to keep up without the morning memo. A few weeks ago, it was "a lack of moral authority"; today it's "being on the right side of history". Have you ever noticed that the people who insist they don't march in lockstep with anyone invariably use exactly the same words and phrases at the same time? It sure smacks of lockstepping, doesn't it?

Even some of the self-admitted "moochers" (SS recipients) have convinced themselves that their hero "risked his life and sacrificed everything" for the very people he has been quite vocal about despising.

The Great American Hero quickly turned out to be the Great American Scam Artist - and his fan base just won't admit they've been worshipping the wrong guy all along.

[Number23]

167. There was someone who actually typed a poster's user name + authoritarian in Google

to illustrate the amount of name calling this person does on a regular basis. It was nothing short of astonishing. Pages and pages of misused, poorly understood insults hurled at everyone who dared to disagree with him/her. And what's absolutely hilarious is that these folks appear to not understand that all of this does nothing, absolutely NOTHING but make them look like the biggest tools and suckers, particularly as it now appears that Snowden was the naïve guy with delusions of grandeur that a hell of alot of folks have been saying he is all along.

I am always so happy to see you. I hope that you and your entire family are doing well. Did you have a nice Easter?

[zappaman]

168. I did that to the same poster today!

It's astounding.

[Number23]

169. Link, please?? Would love to see!

[zappaman]

170. just type in the posters name

and the word AUTHORITARIAN

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024852051#post120

[Number23]

171. Yep. One and the same!

Not surprised that so many have that one's number. He could not be more pitifully obvious.

[SunsetDreams]

173. Confession: I once broke a real one

[SunsetDreams]

174. Hey 23

It seems I've missed quite a bit today..just got home from work a bit ago.

How you doing?

[Number23]

179. Hey Sunset!

I don't think you've missed much. Snowden has realized a tad too late exactly how he is perceived by much of the world and his fans are compensating by screaming 'authoritarian' at everybody that hasn't put a tight blue shirt with a big H for Hero on him.

SSDD.

[MADem]

186. When his own lawyer is quoted as saying "He just fucking did it" that doesn't sound like even his

own personal and intimate crew found his actions advisable. His defenders-in-denial are all on the fringes of his team; I guess the "Hush up, put your head down, hope like hell this will blow over" guidance hasn't quite trickled down to them yet.

[SunsetDreams]

197. LOL

I'll put one on if my H can stand for something else.

Lets see...

Snowden

Hero



Snowden

Hyperbole

[SunsetDreams]

172. WOWZA!!

[joshcryer]

180. Thought you were talking about "woo."

Not that uncovering these peeps to "me" are done "with science."

[Number23]

190. That one too!

Haven't seen that one and his Orwellian insults hurled at everyone lately. But it's entirely possible I may just be overlooking them/him.

[Tarheel_Dem]

193. Takes "rhetoric" to new heights, don't it?

[joshcryer]

177. I hope you come back for 2016.

2014 is lost thanks to the ratfucking dirty tricks. But we could use your voice for 2016.

[NanceGreggs]

191. The fact that you think ...

... 2014 is already "lost" tells me you've been spending way too much time here, and not enough time in the real world.

My RL Dem friends are very enthusiastic about the mid-terms, given the voters the GOP have done everything in their power to lose: women, minorities, Obamacare recipients, the unemployed, etc.

It's time to GOTV - even though "both parties are the same, there's no point in voting, the Koch brothers have more money to spend", and all the other nay-saying BS that gets posted here on a daily basis.

DU should change its name to Professional Crepe-Hangers Inc., the website where all Democratic hope comes to die, and political suicide is amply assisted.

I thank the universe for the fact that DU is in no way reflective of real life. It is simply a refuge for perpetual whiners, who find some kind of comfort in surrendering in defeat, long before the battle is even engaged.

[joshcryer]

196. You're right, I'm not 'home' at the moment.

So my political influence is DU as opposed to the local groups where I can get a sanity check. I have seriously considered abandoning DU as of late but I think if the defenders leave the bullshit will go uncontested and I think that is worse than actually rebuffing the crap.

[MADem]

185. Dayum! I'm with 23...Come BAAAACK!!!!!!!

You are MISSED.

Now THIS is discussion!

[Tarheel_Dem]

192. My dear Nance, this should be a stand alone o.p. OUT OF THE PARK!!!!!

[LiberalLovinLug]

199. What is "being anti-NSA spying and anti-Snowden"?

I've always had great respect for you Nance. Your OPs got me through the darkest GW Bush days. But I'm disappointed to hear the vitriol in your voice about supporters of Snowden.

Back to the my question...It just seems strange to me that someone can appreciate the act but despise the actor to such a degree. I think exaggerations are a plenty on both sides. But to say that those that DO appreciate his disclosures, even forcing Clapper to admit to lying about the NSA program, are somehow "blind worshipers" of his, is insulting and way over the top.

I admire what Ellsberg and Manning did as well, for if they didn't, their revelations would never have seen the light of day. I respect them for that. But do I worship them? No. I don't even know them. I may not even like them. Same goes for Snowden. And based on his previous ties to libertarianism, I am pretty sure I wouldn't like or agree with most of his political views. But you have to admit that there are some issues even most Dems agree with Ron Paul on...his anti war and anti war on drugs. And its no wonder that libertarians also don't like government mass spying on citizens. Just because i agree with Paul and Snowden on this issue, does not make me a "blind worshiper".

All I have seen from the MSM, especially from the right, is vile and hatred towards the man. I don't think he deserves piling on. It really is about the message. And since you also imply that you support the conversation he started, but not him....fine. I don't want to talk about him either. Frankly I think there has been much more talk of Snowden in extreme language like "traitor" or worse than I've heard supporters of his actions saying he is their "hero" or any such thing.

So at least lets agree to forget about talking about Snowden the man, whether as an evil spy or a saintly hero...and lets all just focus on holding the government to account for any civil privacy abuses. Can we do that?

[NanceGreggs]

201. Oh, the sweet irony

of having a DUer take offence at being labelled a 'blind worshipper' because they support Snowden.

Obama supporters are called "blind worshippers" here on a daily basis - along with being called mindless cheerleaders, crazed Tiger Beat fans, Obamabots, and much worse.

Calling Snowden a traitor is not "extreme language" - it's an apt description of what he is, based on what he's actually done.

The "it's not about the messenger, it's about the message" meme is ridiculous on its face. Snowden made all kinds of assertions that he has never proven. And yet some choose to take him at his word, and believe his every assertion without any evidence to back it up.

What reasonable person believes every unproven thing a man says - and then, when confronted with actual evidence that the man they're trusting is not trustworthy, comes back with, "Well, it's not about him anyway."

Snowden was a complete unknown until he stole thousands upon thousands of sensitive documents and disseminated them to third parties, without even KNOWING what those documents contained, and what the consequences of their disclosure might be. Within 24 hours, he was hailed as a hero right here on DU.

But when his past statements and behaviour revealed him to be a narcissistic liar who believes SS recipients are lazy moochers, etc., rather than admit that maybe - just maybe - he was not "hero" material after all, people came up with the "it's not about the messenger" BS rather than admit they'd put their trust in the wrong man.

When someone makes accusations without any evidence to back them up, the only thing one can base their trust of his "word" on is his character. To say that his character is irrelevant is to say that you believe his every word anyway - without evidence of its truth, nor evidence of his personal trustworthiness. That's about as blind a follower as one can be.

And to add to the irony, the very people who keep saying "it's not about the messenger" are the same people who pile on in thread after thread defending Snowden and his actions to the hilt. If it's truly "not about the messenger", why would one care what the messenger is called? Why the necessity to keep coming up with excuse after ridiculous excuse for his behaviour, his statements, his actions, if it's "not about him"?

But, hey, I'm sure that if I searched all of your posts, I'd see you coming forward every time an Obama supporter is called a "blind worshipper" to say that such accusations are "insulting and way over the top", right?

If you choose to put your trust in the word of a man whose words include praising Russia and China for their staunch protection of human rights, be my guest. I'd say that placing that trust in someone that delusional and self-serving is as blind as it gets.

[LiberalLovinLug]

202. The irony indeed

Wow , ok. I put out an olive branch and this is how you respond? I still hold a special place for you from those dark Dubya days, but okay.


"Oh, the sweet irony of having a DUer take offence at being labelled a 'blind worshipper' because they support Snowden.

Obama supporters are called "blind worshippers" here on a daily basis - along with being called mindless cheerleaders, crazed Tiger Beat fans, Obamabots, and much worse."

So you have boxed all the "DUer"s as hypocrites? I understand you reached your limit and left over the Obama bashing going on here, but this thread is about Snowden. Its pretty childish to tie one to the other. The reasons some on here are disappointed with some of Obama's decisions and appointments have nothing to do with the NSA or Snowden. Its a deflection tactic used a lot by the right and its not very useful here.


"What reasonable person believes every unproven thing a man says - and then, when confronted with actual evidence that the man they're trusting is not trustworthy, comes back with, "Well, it's not about him anyway."

No reasonable person does this, of course. What specific untrustworthy actions are you talking about? I cannot defend against a Straw Man sorry. I can only speak for myself that there was never a time that I switched to "Well, it's not about him anyway"....because what he was revealing was way more important that if he left his girlfriend, or if some of his political views didn't mesh with my own.


"Snowden was a complete unknown until he stole thousands upon thousands of sensitive documents and disseminated them to third parties, without even KNOWING what those documents contained, and what the consequences of their disclosure might be. Within 24 hours, he was hailed as a hero right here on DU.

But when his past statements and behaviour revealed him to be a narcissistic liar who believes SS recipients are lazy moochers, etc., rather than admit that maybe - just maybe - he was not "hero" material after all, people came up with the "it's not about the messenger" BS rather than admit they'd put their trust in the wrong man."

Yes he was a complete unknown, so was Manning and Ellsberg. What is that point? His reasons were clear. From his first interview with Greenwald:
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/7/4/nsa_leaker_edward_snowden_in_his

"I think that the public is owed an explanation of the motivations behind the people who make these disclosures that are outside of the democratic model. When you are subverting the power of government, that that’s a fundamentally dangerous thing to democracy. And if you do that in secret consistently, you know, as the government does when it wants to benefit from a secret action that it took, it will kind of get its officials a mandate to go, "Hey, you know, tell the press about this thing and that thing, so the public is on our side." But they rarely, if ever, do that when an abuse occurs. That falls to individual citizens. But they’re typically maligned. You know, it becomes a thing of these people are against the country, they’re against the government. But I’m not. I’m no different from anybody else. I don’t have special skills. I’m just another guy who sits there, day to day, in the office, watches what happening—what’s happening, and goes, "This is something that’s not our place to decide. The public needs to decide whether these programs and policies are right or wrong." And I’m willing to go on the record to defend the authenticity of them and say, "I didn’t change these. I didn’t modify the story. This is the truth. This is what’s happening. You should decide whether we need to be doing this."


"When someone makes accusations without any evidence to back them up, the only thing one can base their trust of his "word" on is his character. To say that his character is irrelevant is to say that you believe his every word anyway - without evidence of its truth, nor evidence of his personal trustworthiness. That's about as blind a follower as one can be."

Again, what kind of unsubstantiated "accusations" are you talking about? But moving along, if you are so adamant that anyone whose word you take on such important issues such as civil rights for Americans, how do you feel about Martin Luther King's reported infidelities and affairs? He was a preacher no less. Do you also dismiss any of his altruistic statements when he himself could not be true to his wife? (And before you go there, to deflect the question, NO I am not in any way comparing or elevating MLK to Snowden, only using MLK's situation as an example)


"And to add to the irony, the very people who keep saying "it's not about the messenger" are the same people who pile on in thread after thread defending Snowden and his actions to the hilt. If it's truly "not about the messenger", why would one care what the messenger is called? Why the necessity to keep coming up with excuse after ridiculous excuse for his behaviour, his statements, his actions, if it's "not about him"? "

Yes….it still is about the message! yes yes a thousand times yes. And you say it right there…"defending" Snowden. You are admitting we are on the defence (not offence)….We who support his actions are constantly HAVING to defend those actions against these ad hominem attacks and sinking the conversation down to the base low denominator of personal insults. From right wing media, from NSA hawks, and even a small but vocal segment on DU.



"But, hey, I'm sure that if I searched all of your posts, I'd see you coming forward every time an Obama supporter is called a "blind worshipper" to say that such accusations are "insulting and way over the top", right? "

Once again, please put your bitterness and scorn about some DUers reactions to Obama aside for the moment and concentrate on the issue in the thread please. But I will put out there this; If you compare the name-calling of Snowden on one side against the hero knighthooding on the other…its no contest. Snowden gets called a traitor, a scumbag, Anti-american, asshole, and more….and compare that with posts calling him their "hero"?...well it pales in comparison. Snowden himself went of his way to say he doesn't regard himself that way. So yeah, it does seem like it is "all about the messenger" with yourself and others.



"If you choose to put your trust in the word of a man whose words include praising Russia and China for their staunch protection of human rights, be my guest. I'd say that placing that trust in someone that delusional and self-serving is as blind as it gets."


I haven't found a statement on China. The only statement I could come up with is this upon arriving in one country willing to shelter him, Russia: “These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless.”

Yes, I forgive him for including Russia as he was in an emotional state and was quite obviously listing off the countries that had, in principle, indicated that he would be welcome in their countries. He was referring to his predicament at the time. I don't believe he was proclaiming an all-encompassing historical dissertation on the over-all behaviors of countries throughout the century. You are reading too much into that I'm afraid.


Which brings me around to my post title. As a staunch (see I didn't say blind) supporter of Obama, you'd think you'd have more tolerance for trying to find common ground with "the other side of the aisle" and try and find areas we can all agree need to be addressed…..no matter where the conversation started, or who started it. Its ironic to find a defender-of-all-things-Obama to be demonizing a whistleblower, who's actions spurned even Obama to admit “One thing I’m certain of: this debate will make us stronger”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/17/obama-acknowledges-edward-snowden-nsa-reform

[NanceGreggs]

203. Thank you for your response.

Firstly, I was not tying Obama to Snowden – I was tying the term “blind worshipper” to Obama supporters, because they are called that here on a daily basis. And yes, I do appreciate the irony of someone who supports Snowden (or anyone else, for that matter) taking umbrage when the same term is used to label them. If one thinks calling someone a "blind worshipper" is "insulting and over the top", it is unfortunate that no one here ever speaks up when that label is being applied to Obama supporters, but only when it is applied to themselves.

“No reasonable person does this, of course. What specific untrustworthy actions are you talking about? I cannot defend against a Straw Man sorry. I can only speak for myself that there was never a time that I switched to "Well, it's not about him anyway"....because what he was revealing was way more important that if he left his girlfriend, or if some of his political views didn't mesh with my own.”

Snowden gained instant fame with his assertions that he could access Obama’s emails, that the NSA was reading people’s internet postings as they were being typed, that he “saw things that disturbed him”. Where’s the proof? What were “those things he saw”? No one here has cited Snowden’s “leaving his girlfriend” as grounds for disbelieving him. Despite his grandiose claims, Snowden has revealed very little that wasn’t already known by those paying attention for the past decade.

Most recently, Snowden – after almost an entire year of claiming he couldn’t divulge what he knew through appropriate channels – suddenly “remembered” that he had done so after all. He now claims that he sent emails to his superiors – where are they? Are we to believe that he could steal thousands of documents, but didn’t have the common sense to keep copies of his own emails that would prove his assertion that he had attempted to disclose what he knew to his superiors? Seriously? It took him almost a year to ‘remember’ that he had in fact sent those emails? Really?

You can’t get around the fact that Snowden (like Manning) handed over thousands upon thousands of sensitive documents to third parties WITHOUT KNOWING what those documents contained. That doesn’t strike me as the action of someone wanting to disclose untoward or illegal behaviour – it is the action of someone who has no regard for the consequences of their actions, or the consequences of the actions that might be taken by those they indiscriminately disclosed those documents to.

Ellesberg’s mission to disclose what he knew was focused on the point he felt needed to be made. He did not hold himself out as wanting to inform his fellow citizens what was going on behind closed doors – while, at the same time, telling China or Germany what spying tactics the US was using. As many have said, had Snowden kept his revelations focused on what he said his goal was – to inform the US citizenry about domestic spying – he might be seen in a far different light. But he didn’t.

My point about Snowden being an “unknown” is simple: If you have never heard anything about or from a particular person before, you can only judge him by his character in assessing the truthfulness of what he has to say the first time you hear him speak. Snowden’s character was completely unknown when he made his claims. And yet, many here lauded him as a hero without knowing who he was, what his motives were, or what his past revealed about his character. One wonders what the reaction would have been had it been revealed, within 24 hours of his being declared a hero, that Snowden is a pathological liar who has repeatedly made claims about things proven to be lies. I suspect that many here would have ignored those facts – just as they had no need to KNOW those facts before declaring that Snowden, without any evidence at all to back it up, was a truth-teller.

Perhaps you believe that Snowden, who displayed an incredible distaste for his fellow citizens (like SS recipients, lazy moochers all) suddenly had an epiphany and decided to “risk his freedom and his life” for the very people he so openly despised. I don’t.

Snowden’s motives have been suspect from the start. Abuses of the law regarding the NSA, acquiring warrants, etc., were at their worst under Dubya. Why did he wait to open his mouth? Why didn’t he speak up during the years of the worst abuses?

As I’ve said before, the “it’s not the messenger, it’s the message” meme took hold the second Snowden’s true character was revealed. No one would say that about MLK, or any number of others, because they have been KNOWN quantities all along. To compare people whose history, statements, positions, etc. are known to the public with someone like Snowden, who was a complete unknown in every respect, is downright silly.

MLK’s infidelities have nothing to do with anything. We KNEW who the man was, what he’d done, what statements he’d made, what positions he’d taken, what he stood for - long before his personal life became a matter of discussion. No such facts were known about Snowden when he made his ‘revelations’ – ergo the need to judge his character in order to assess who he is, and what his motives might be. And that character has proven to be less than savoury, to put it mildly.

To believe Snowden’s current stance that he willingly risked his life and liberty in order to speak the truth is to be truly gullible. Had he known that he would wind up in Russia, a propaganda tool for Putin, his every movement scrutinized, his every statement monitored, I sincerely doubt that he would have voluntarily placed himself in the predicament in which he now finds himself. I sincerely doubt that he would have chosen the life he is now living in order to “inform” the very citizens he holds in such contempt.

Above all, I sincerely doubt that he would willingly throw his life away had he known that his buddy, Greenwald, would parlay Snowden’s revelations into a cushy job for himself and a book deal, while poor Eddie doesn’t know from one day to the next where he will wind up, and what fate awaits him in future.

“Which brings me around to my post title. As a staunch (see I didn't say blind) supporter of Obama, you'd think you'd have more tolerance for trying to find common ground with "the other side of the aisle" and try and find areas we can all agree need to be addressed…..no matter where the conversation started, or who started it.”

Therein lies the problem. On DU, any attempt at discussion is futile. Post after post goes along the lines of: “I don’t trust Snowden, but …”, which is immediately countered with, “Oh, so you’re an NSA hawk!” There is no middle ground – on this issue, or any other. If you are not a Snowden supporter, you are automatically in favour of unfettered domestic spying. It is no different than the RW saying, “If you’re against prayers being said in public schools, you are anti-Christian.” “If you’re in favour of gun control, you are anti-Constitution.” “If you are pro-choice, you think every fetus should be aborted.”

It is that mindless black-and-white, you’re-with-us-or-against-us BS that has turned this site into exactly what it used to stand against – this ridiculous notion that if one is against one thing, it means they are automatically for the completely opposite position. The world is a place of myriad shades of grey between one position and another. To believe that every issue only has two positions – 100%-for or 100%-against – is not only incredibly ignorant, it renders actual discussion impossible.

I can't remember the last time I saw an actual "discussion" about anything on DU. Every thread, regardless of subject matter, immediately devolves into sides being taken, and one side calling the other side names, each accusing the other "side" of being paid trolls, gov't operatives out to manipulate the conversation - yadda, yadda, yadda.

As for citing "deflection tactics used by the right", I don't think you want to go there - although many here have, and do so continually. Let's remember that many on "the right" would heartily agree with the statement that "Obama is a POS used car salesman" - does that make the author of that statement, and all of those who agreed with that sentiment, right-wingers? Promoting the idea that because "the right" are Snowden detractors means that all Snowden detractors are siding with "the right" is truly beyond ridiculous.

But, sadly, being truly beyond ridiculous is what is to be expected here nowadays. More's the pity.

[treestar]

149. Yes, and their ODS shows

up constantly as they refuse to give the President credit for going back to using warrants when Bush claimed he did not need them. And like their hero, they exaggerate each factor to death. Calling the warrant-based metadata collection "spying" on them, claiming Eddie would not get a regular trial as would anyone else with federal charges. Like their hero, saying things that cannot possibly be true.

[MADem]

166. Merci, ma belle!

And you nailed it, yourself!

Right on the money.

[MohRokTah]

2. Too many people live in a black and white world.

IF you don't bow to the idol of Snowden, you hate Democracy or some such bullshit.

It's possible to understand that Snowden violated an oath and committed a crime by revealing operational information surrounding international intelligence gathering while also understanding that had he stopped at revealing nothing but the illegal domestic intelligence gathering he would rightfully be called a whistleblower and a hero.

But Snowden crossed a line and committed a criminal act. He should be held accountable for those crimes.

[Luminous Animal]

3. What oath did he violate?

[grasswire]

6. I'd like to know that, too. nt

[MohRokTah]

8. See the post below this one. eom

[MohRokTah]

7. First oath was this one

"I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

That one he took in 2004 upon entering the Army Reserve. HE failed to complete his training and was released. Under the law, he would still be a member of the Inactive Ready Reserve to this day and that oath would still be in effect. He violated that oath when he released operational information about international intelligence gathering into the wild. That failed to defent the Constitution of the United States of America by giving that classified information to the enemies of the same (Al Queda, Hamas, etc. etc. etc.)

The next oath he took was this one:

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

That one he took in 2006 when he joined the CIA.

Finally, he signed two classified information non-disclosure agreements, one when he worked for Dell and another when he worked for Booz Allen.

He violated both oaths and both agreements.

[Luminous Animal]

9. He gave no information to any enemies of the U.S. The info is in the hands of reporters.

Snowden and most of those who support what he did believe that by copying the files delivering them to journalists, he upheld his oath to the constitution.

And for the record, non-disclosure agreements are not oaths.

[MohRokTah]

11. The law does not distinguish between routes the information takes to the enemy.

By giving that information to reporters, it is no different than directly delivering it to the enemy under the law.

Had he only disclosed information regarding illegal domestic surveillance, he'd be a whistleblower under the law. He did not stop there, so he is a criminal who engaged in espionage and violated both his aoth when he joined the Army Reserve and his oath when he joined the CIA. HE also violated two agreements he was bound by law to uphold.

[Luminous Animal]

13. I bet al quaeda was shocked to find out the U.S. and it's 5 eyes partners were/are

surveilling them.

Your argument is childish.

[MohRokTah]

15. And now you have no argument, so you resort to an ad hominem.

That ends the possibility of any conversation on this topic.

[Luminous Animal]

19. I made no claims about your character but rather, I addressed the merits of your argument.

It probably would be best to hone up on the definition of ad hominem before tossing it into the conversation.

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

[MohRokTah]

24. "childish" was an ad hominem.

This is the last communication I will have with you.

[LordGlenconner]

35. It's always funny when people

Show they lack the intellectual capacity to understand nuance. Thanks for shining a light on that in this thread.

[Luminous Animal]

165. Dudette. An ad hominem would be calling you childish. Which I did not do.

I characterized your argument as childish.

Learn and grow woman. Learn and grow.

[msanthrope]

181. Hey!! Still waiting for you, downthread, to clarify your argument! nt

[BenzoDia]

106. Too right

[Tarheel_Dem]

62. And guess what? The American people agree with you. They don't like Snowden. His "support".....

continues to crater here at home. That's why his sycophants are peddling so hard.

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

[MohRokTah]

71. It's like I've been posting all along...

Had Snowden merely disclosed the domestic surveillance programs and left it at that, he'd be hailed as a hero far and wide. He crossed the line, though, and it looks like the American people see that.

He made a lousy choice, but he's got to live with it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

75. And the American people think he should be prosecuted accordingly. They're spinning their asses off

after this latest PR debacle. He can read, he sees what public opinion in the country is. His father must be so proud. It'll be interesting to see what new polling reveals about his status.

[bvar22]

78. They said the same things about Ellsberg way back when.

Like those who demonized Ellsberg,
you are also on the wrong side of History.

Snowden did us all a huge favor,
and will be recognized as such.

[Tarheel_Dem]

85. Yeah, but you & I will be dead by then.

[Number23]

127. I agree. Everyone hates the Patriot Act. Exposing the extent of the surveillance would have been

enough. It still would have been controversial but I don't think as many would have been as outraged as his decision to out U.S. surveillance on other countries (as if no one does that but the U.S.) as well a non-U.S. surveillance ie Australia and Indonesia. These actions have absolutely nothing to do with his stated claim that he did this because he was outraged at the extent of the domestic surveillance.

Turning tail and running to Hong Kong and then Russia sure as shit didn't help either. This bit from the OP sums that up nicely:

So Snowden’s in US custody. That means no schism on the left between his supporters and detractors. That means he is unambiguously a hero — no speculation that he’s an actual Russian spy, no head-shaking that he has, by error or design, set himself up as a propaganda tool for a regime that is worse on civil liberties than the United States by every metric. That means a truly united, left-right coalition against surveillance abuses. That means the focus is where it belongs, rather than on what we think about Edward Snowden. Yes, the focus on Snowden initially helped the NSA stories take off, but now the pendulum has swung the other way.
Read more at http://wonkette.com/547131/boy-that-edward-snowden-really-screwed-up-says-edward-snowden#1kwJUXrwK5oCPdPe.99

[treestar]

150. Yes, it's not like reporters are going to keep the information secret

Revealing it to all is revealing it to enemies. That is plain as day.

[MohRokTah]

153. But I've been told on these forums that form of thinking is "childish".

As if that sort of argument releases Snowden from being accountable for his actions, don'tchaknow.

[msanthrope]

17. That is an incorrect and illogical legal analysis. You seem to be arguing that because

Snowden handed the information to a reporter, he is somehow immunized against criminal liability.

Kindly cite the section of the laws he is currently charged with breaking that contains that exception. He isn't charged with oath-breaking, fyi.

Hint--there isn't one. Check out the Daniel Ellsburg prosecution, which would have been successful had not the FBI wiretapped. But Ellsburg was headed to jail for disseminating to reporters.

[Luminous Animal]

20. Nope. Not making that argument, at all. Try again counselor.

[msanthrope]

23. Why not clarify the argument you making, then? nt

[MADem]

33. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that, if I were you!

You'll get a lot of sound and fury, but not much if any clarification.

It's kind of tough to do when the argument made isn't supportable in the first place.

[msanthrope]

40. Oh--ever since I was threatened in this post.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3051961

I've been under no illusions.

Of course, when how the Internet works was explained,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3053576

there was no reply....


That's a pretty fun subthread, no????

[MADem]

46. Now that's frigging hilarious--how dare you plagiarize ..... YOURSELF!!

Good gravy!

[msanthrope]

48. Indeed...I get quoted round the Internets (and never disputed, mind you!) on Greenwald's fuckup

of Rule 26(b)(3) and I get accused of plagiarizing my own work!

Everyone likes to forget this--because no one can dispute it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3046099

[MADem]

51. It's priceless! Worth a second look! nt

[SidDithers]

103. Oh my....

that was pretty hilarious.



Sid

[msanthrope]

105. In my opinion, the defendant in that case has an excellent legal malpractice suit

against his counselor. And the defendant in that case went to law school, so I have no doubt the debt was collected.

I'd be rather interested in reading that--surely at some point, a biographer of Mr. Greenwald will interview his former client, and find out exactly what happened. As Mr. Greenwald is the head of a media conglomerate now, certainly his past connections and actions must be scrutinized.

[Number23]

130. WHEN will these people learn to stop fucking around with you??! Your sig line should be

"Msanthrope ain't nothing to **** with..." (to the tune of "Wu Tang Clan ain't nothing to **** with, of course)

I mean, you wipe the floor with these folks EVERY SINGLE TIME. You'd think that they'd understand by now that a) their understanding of the issues is faulty at best and b) YOU ARE NOT TO BE FUCKED WITH!!

[msanthrope]

134. Thank you...I've had just about enough of the Disaffected White Man Hero Syndrome.

As an addendum..,,there's still posters on this board who do not think I am an attorney.

Still...

[Number23]

139. AND you know the Geto Boys too?? Now, I think I understand better than ever why you've

got a pack on your heels all of the time. I bow down to your obvious magnificence.

This thread is astonishing. The endless and beyond idiotic attempts to portray everyone that doesn't rush to plant wet, sloppy kisses on Edward Snowden as "obsessed authoritarians" or "paid operatives" is just about the dumbest damn thing I've ever seen here. Lots of folks took one read of his question to Putin on television and did an IMMEDIATE face and were called -- as usual -- authoritarians and paid operatives. Now we see that Snowden himself as well as the folks who are helping him most directly are as dismayed by his behavior as many of us were.

Given his usefulness as a stick in the eye to Obama may be wearing off soon, I wouldn't be surprised if Putin allowed his visa to expire in August and he was moved somewhere else. If Snowden is this upset about the justified criticism of his appearance with Putin, he may get even more strident with this criticism of the Kremlin in order to "correct" this major fuck up and we all know Vlad does not play that.

[msanthrope]

140. These threads are only slightly less sickening than the rape apologia threads for James Blond.

But infinitely more palatable that the demonstrated sheer fuckery on this oldie but goodie....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023467863


Of COURSE I know the Geto Boys...I saw Office Space!!! And I admit, having worked for the Clinton White House, this particular track was played more than once...

[Number23]

142. Oh my God... that poster... that thread. There aren't enough face palms in the whole world

"fuckery" is a perfect word to describe it.

And I have not heard that track in FOREVER. You've got me lost in memories now.

[msanthrope]

144. "Comrade Eddie" is my own. "Fuckery" is from a meme

Last edited Mon Apr 21, 2014, 09:56 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Whimsicle%20Fuckery

used to describe useless, revolting, handmade things....usually from Etsy, but entirely applicable here in the Comrade Eddie context.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/01/regretsy-closure

[joshcryer]

195. +1

[11 Bravo]

47. Because there is no coherent argument to clarify.

The question was asked "What oath did he violate?" An answer was provided. The next response consisted of something along the lies of "Uh uh!" followed by some gibberish about how Al-Qaeda already knew they were under surveillance ... none of which has a damned thing to do with the fact that Snowden indisputably violated two oaths he swore to uphold.
This is exactly the kind of crap to which the OP was referring. Apparently it is not possible for some posters to wrap their heads around the fact that one can abhor the actions of the NSA while still realizing that Edward Snowden is not a hero.

[msanthrope]

49. To be fair, I did not ask for a coherent argument. It's all about managing your

expectations.

[LanternWaste]

53. Far better he simply "followed orders..."

Far better he simply "followed orders..."

[MohRokTah]

54. Far better he simply disclose the illegal domestic surveillance and left it at that.

He'd be a whistleblower then.

He crossed the line, though.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

55. nope, far better had he simply

released the domestic spying information and refrained from giving out information related to international NSA operations.

When giving me view on Snowden i mostly tend to state that i commend him for releasing the domestic spying information, but at the same having no trouble seeing him prosecuted for releasing the information thats unrelated to the above(I'd also have no problem seeing him get some leniency due to the domestic info release but not a full pardon)

[msanthrope]

99. Far better that he actually disclosed under whistleblower protections, without all the silly drama

of running to Hong Kong, then Russia, then that Putin press conference fiasco.

Far better if he'd simply gotten a lawyer before all this happened, and LISTENED to them.

Hubris fucks things up, though.

[stevenleser]

128. Bingo. The other part of this is, his supporters assume his documents reflect reality.

There is no proof of that. He grabbed documents. If you randomly grab documents from the document management repository of medium sized and large organizations, you are going to grab a lot of project proposals that never made it into operation, or were put into operation with major changes, etc. There are many more ideas that never made it 'into production' than those that were implemented.

We have no idea whether the documents that Snowden grabbed are actual programs. They could also be programs that are only implemented in certain circumstances. Either way we have no idea. If he had raised the issues through official whistleblower programs, they would have been investigated by people who have the clearance to know the difference instead of being flung into the public eye with the attendant sensationalism not knowing whether the information reflects existing programs.

Considering how much of a fool Snowden is, no one should have any confidence the docs he grabbed reflect programs in operation.

[msanthrope]

138. Thank you....you raise and excellent point that his followers have yet to answer. How do you know

that anything that was posted was implemented?

This dumbass had to steal passwords. That's the sign of an actual hacker?

[JDPriestly]

69. I believe that in coming forward at the risk of his life to reveal to Americans the fact that the

NSA is violating the Constitution, Snowden kept his oaths. It's the people who did not and do not come forward when they witness a violation of the Constitution by an agency in our government who violate their oaths.

[Vashta Nerada]

59. Who cares if it was criminal?

I'm glad he exposed the NSA spying. However, he's made himself look like an idiot by kissing Putin's ass.

[brush]

72. Agreed 100%, he went too far

I've always thought, and have posted many times on these Snowden threads that his revelations of domestic info gathering, while not completely new (PRISM started under Cheney/Bush and was reported previously without getting much traction) did a service to the country and 4th Admendment rights.

But he seemed naive and at the same narcissistic in wanting everyone to know that he was the one revealing all the information gathering — as he was advised that he could do it another way without giving up his whole life.

His real mistake though, IMO, was going too far in revealing details of his own country's international covert operations.

Here's something else that someone posted on another site:

"How freakin' long is it going to take for folks to realize Snowden is, was, and has always been a patsy? 

This wasn't a MISTAKE. Good god. Operatives the world 'round work day and night to recruit naive idiots in security positions like Snowden." 

Snowden worked for the CIA in Switzerland before he hooked on with Dell, then Booz Allen. He could have been worked/turned there, or in Asia when he visited there before defecting with the "appropriated files".

Here's yet another take on the Putin Q&A:

"That's it in a nutshell -- as Shoeone wrote:  "In asking his idiotic question, Snowden served Putin well, and punched his ticket for another year of" temporary" asylum."

I think as the saga unfolds people are beginning to get the full picture of who Snowden really is — most likely a naive yet narcissistic computer geek who got in way over his head and was used by journalists hungry for a scoop, and is now being used by Putin.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Obviously, and hopefully, we will get more Snowdens who will get right.

And, who, like Snowden are not dumb enough to turn themselves in to the very people he/she is exposing.

[grasswire]

5. from Wonkette, a gossip site.

"Two sources close to him told the Daily Beast that he “instantly regretted” his appearance on Russian state TV to ask shirtless Russian godhead Vladimir “the Botox Fox” Putin a softball question about Russia’s security apparatus, to which Putin naturally responded with transparent, regime-serving lies."

Sure, that's reliable! How are these two sources "close to" Snowden communicating with him to get his reaction? Hmmm? Would anyone that he trusts to tell his thoughts to share those thoughts with the world?

Come on. Get real.

[Luminous Animal]

12. You should read the Daily Beast article. Ben Wizner, Snowden's lawyer from the ACLU, does go on

record.

Wonkette's interpretation is, as usual, tediously shallow.

[msanthrope]

22. One of the sources is a person claiming to be one of Snowden's lawyers. Ben Wizner, although

he does not appear to be formally entered onto the federal docket, seems to be quoted directly as saying--

Wizner said he understood the revulsion: The interchange looked like cheap agitprop. “I know this is hard to believe. I know if I was just watching from afar, I’d think, ‘Wow, they forced him [Snowden] to do this,’” the ACLU attorney added. “But it’s not true. He just fucking did it.”

So it seems that Wonkette got it right, as they usually do.

I pity the lawyer with Snowden for a client.

[Historic NY]

64. He now made himself look like the dupe...

[msanthrope]

108. Hubris does that. nt

[Number23]

132. But my question is, if he "immediately regretted" going on tv with Vlad, then why did he print that

really lame, moronic Guardian op-ed to placate others who ALSO "immediately regretted" him going on tv with Vlad?

[msanthrope]

135. Because Greenwald's book is coming out in May, and GG accurately judged his royalties hit.

I think the Guardian op-ed was GG. In an attempt to preserve book sales.

[joshcryer]

157. Ding-ding. I think it was GG too and Snowden signed off on it.

The logical contortions were, in my view, beyond Snowden's style that we've seen so far.

[msanthrope]

159. I think Snowden signed off before the actual attorneys told him it was a very, very bad idea to

engage in this way. He really needs a criminal defense attorney....one he should listen to.

[joshcryer]

160. Ah, good point.

It would explain why the lawyer made the statement, too.

"You don't have to come out and publicly apologize, but you have to acknowledge the error, let me make a statement that brings us closer to reality."

[msanthrope]

163. Wizner isn't on the federal docket, from what I can see. So I think he's an 'advisor' as opposed

to Snowden's retained criminal attorney.

I can't find an attorney who is willing to say that Snowden is their client with regards to the charges filed against him.

But Wizner is no dummy--he knows that Snowden has pretty much screwed the pooch on any leverage he thought he had....it's one thing to claim you are righteous. It's quite another to have a federal prosecutor play your press conference with Putin on an endless loop in a courtroom.

The big mistake here is that Snowden just took a dump on his own credibility as a "whistleblower."

[MADem]

39. One source was his ACLU lawyer, the other source was Snowden, himself.

It's in the article at Wonkette, and the one Wonkette cites.

The lawyer is probably communicating with him by telephone. Snowden communicated by writing an op-ed for the GUARDIAN.

Snowden likely asked the lawyer to put out "his side" of the story--he knows that people who once supported him are REPULSED by the Dog and Pony Show he participated in with Fearless Leader. He knows that he needs the approval and support of acolytes if he's ever to escape from the prison of his own making; otherwise, there will be no one to advocate for him in the American court of public opinion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. I don't think that writer has been reading the criticism of Snowden

So Snowden’s in US custody. That means no schism on the left between his supporters and detractors. That means he is unambiguously a hero — no speculation that he’s an actual Russian spy, no head-shaking that he has, by error or design, set himself up as a propaganda tool for a regime that is worse on civil liberties than the United States by every metric. That means a truly united, left-right coalition against surveillance abuses. That means the focus is where it belongs, rather than on what we think about Edward Snowden. Yes, the focus on Snowden initially helped the NSA stories take off, but now the pendulum has swung the other way.

Wow, that just has no basis in reality. We can see, in this very DU thread, that there are plenty here who want him imprisoned for talking to us, not for talking to Russians.They'd be leaping for joy if he had gone straight to US custody.

[Luminous Animal]

16. Yep. As if there was no schism during Manning's persecution and prosecution.

Plenty on the "left" pretended the first didn't happen and cheered on the latter.

[grasswire]

84. the writer is very young, and essentially a purveyor of celebrity gossip.

His work is archived at http://happynicetimepeople.com/author/alex-ruthrauff/

[Maedhros]

14. It's perfectly acceptable to be critical of Snowden.

It's not acceptable to attempt to use criticism of Snowden to deny, distract from and distort the bad acts of the NSA.

[rhett o rick]

18. The daily "We Hate Snowden" thread. Looks like they are on some kind

of coordinated rotation. I do wonder at the motive of the constant barrage of Snowden hatred threads.

It certainly cant be good for the unity of DU Dems going into the elections.

[bvar22]

28. I knew that the Pulitizer would make them foam at the mouth.

The knee jerk response was to ramp up the daily Two Minutes of HATE.


Ignorance is STRENGTH.

[rhett o rick]

31. I have an honest question.

What possibly can be the motive for such a seemingly coordinated display of hatred?

[bvar22]

63. I'm mystified myself.

Seems to be that if they can demonize Snowden,
then somehow President Obama might look better?
It is the primary form of ODS (which I'm sure you have heard of).
It doesn't make any sense to rational people.

Snowden did us ALL a huge favor by blowing the whistle, and is now paying a price,
though not near the price that Chelsea Manning is paying.

He was very smart to run and stay where he can communicate.
The early American "Traitors" (to the Crown) did the same thing.

[rhett o rick]

74. I think it's a combination of things.

Some automatically hate whistle-blowers, OWS, protestors in general, investigative journalists, etc. Basically anyone that dares to rock the authoritarian boat and their comfortable vision of reality.

Some is self-righteous bullying. Whistle-blowers break the rules therefore they are fair game for the self-righteous bullies. Same with OWS. Yesterday I read a post where someone complained about the damage to the parks that OWS did.

Some choose to side with the power. Like the kids on the playground that support the big bully. They feel safe if someone else is getting picked on.

I find the obsessive Snowden hate threads as divisive and not helpful to our efforts in Nov.

[LiberalLovinLug]

96. +1

And this is the first I've ever heard of these obsessives ever saying they hold TWO views, both hating the man, but welcoming the conversation he started. I've never heard the latter from any of their one note minds. And they still haven't actually. Probably because then they'll HAVE to at least admit that this never would have reached the public discussion, and Clapper's sudden admission he lied to Congress, if Snowden hadn't done what he did.

[Maedhros]

129. I've seen this argument a few times:

They claim that they are concerned about both issues, then proceed to talk only about Snowden's "bad character".

It's just a way to dilute and derail discussions of NSA abuse.

[msanthrope]

34. Mr. Snowden did not win a Pulitzer. Apparently he regrets his interaction with Mr. Putin, and took

to the press to remark upon that.

I'm sure that once Mr. Snowden tires of the press conferences, appearances at film festivals, testifying before various Parliments, and the interviews, we might have a discussion about the legal ramifications of the upcoming reauthorization of the Patriot Act Section 215.

Maybe.

[joshcryer]

79. He needs to release his manifesto.

I'm dead serious. GG stopped him from doing out and he wound up in Russia.

[msanthrope]

109. Greenwald's book is coming out...there's no way he allows Snowden to release anything without

making sure his royalties are unaffected.

[joshcryer]

122. Truth. I should write one to get in on the action.

[msanthrope]

155. I think you should just copy GG's tweets, with annotations.

Or just start a parody GG account. And then publish it. You could make shiteloads of cash.

[joshcryer]

156. Nah, you gotta take him seriously.

Then once he does then you get into it with him, there goes half his audience. If you just pick at him his defense force will just turn a blind eye and attack you, etc. But if you get him engaging? Call him out on his lies then he writes a long spiel about you? Oh man, that could be awesome.

"The Snowden Greenwald Conspiracy of Profiting off of the Left from the Libertarian Right."

[MADem]

50. Yeah, that Ben Wizner is a big fat LIAR! How dare he "hate" on Ed!

Leave Snowden ALONE!!!

[rhett o rick]

60. I just think it's kinda sad the obsessive daily hate posts. Even if he is as evil as you guys claim

I dont understand the obsession with posting about it.

[MADem]

83. You might want to read the articles with your defenses down.

The reason people are "posting about it" is because both Ed AND his lawyer are admitting that he TOTALLY shit the bed with his little Dog and Pony show with Pootie Poot. His lawyer even used the "F" word!

That's why people are "posting about it."

And it's not an obsession (but way to go with that distraction/derision characterization)--it is news. That's why newspapers are carrying articles about it; that's usually what they do when a topic of interest--like this one--comes to the fore.

You do know that Snowden himself was so horrified at the reaction to his participation in Putin's Propaganda Putsch that he himself wrote an op-ed--in the GUARDIAN, no less-- to try to explain himself? Should we ignore THAT, too, because, ya know "obsessive daily hate posts" and all, and people are much too concerned about this topic ... "obsessive daily hate post" translating as "opinions that suggest Snowden is somewhat less than God Almighty," I suspect.

Since Snowden is "posting" about it himself, in a major newspaper, I think it's entirely appropriate that those of us who are less Godlike be allowed to comment as well, doncha think?

Or is only Snowden allowed to comment on Snowden's conduct? That hardly seems fair, certainly!

[zappaman]

90. But...but it's a coordinated effort by us "authoritarians"!

[MADem]

98. Unfortunately for them, they'll have to count Snowden and his lawyer among that number! nt

[rhett o rick]

107. A hate post per day seems to me like obsession. And look at the Group that replies.

They say the same thing in post after post, day after day. Do they think they will influence someone, or is it a method of self reinforcement . The same thing happened with the same Group when OWS was in the news and Pfc Manning, and journalist Michael Hastings.

The obsession with every single thing Snowden does is comparable to Wolf Blitzer's obsession with the missing plane.

[zappaman]

110. Michael Hastings?

You mean the posts talking about how he was "murdered"?
Skinner shut those down.
How authoritarian of him, eh Rick?

[rhett o rick]

111. Nice try. My comment was aimed at the hatred for Michael Hastings that sprang up in post after

post by "anti truth to power" Group. I have no problem with Skinner shutting those posts down.

It seems like the same posters that disparage Michael Hastings, Snowden, Greenwald, OWS, Pfc Manning, and others that dare to speak out. And they seem so consumed with vitriol. It's a shame they dont have the same concerns about liberties lost do to the Patriot Act, unchecked domestic spying, indefinite detention, trade agreements that kill American jobs, pipelines that harm our water supplies, etc.

[zappaman]

115. I don't recall any hatred of Michael Hastings here at DU.

Perhaps you could point to some.
Thanks in advance!

[rhett o rick]

118. And why am I not surprised. I bet you dont recall any hatred of Pfc Manning or

OWS. It was all in good fun. Kinda like calling Snowden "Eddie", "Traitor", and "Comrade". Not really mocking, just some fun.

[zappaman]

119. So no links to all the hatred of Hastings on DU?

Not surprised.
Perhaps you read all that hatred on a conservative site?

[rhett o rick]

120. Well I will say those that spew hatred for whistle blowers are probably conservatives. nm

[zappaman]

121. Ok, no links to the hatred of Hastings on DU.

Got it.
Again, no surprise.

[ProSense]

113. Who does that?

"A hate post per day seems to me like obsession. And look at the Group that replies."

Who posts a "hate post per day"?

Snowden is in the news. People post more frequently about him when he is and rarely about him when he isn't.

I'll use myself as an example. I post a lot about Snowden, sometimes a few threads in a day, but never a "post per day."

Over the last two months (Feb 21 - Apr 21), I've posted 16 OPs that mention Snowden.

Mar 8: Robert Parry has a very creative imagination: Obama neocon buster
Mar 10: Snowden: My Leak Has Benefited 'Every Society In The World'
Mar 10: Snowden recently changed his story because he's still desperate for clemency
Mar 10: Snowden: Giving his colleagues the "front-page test" was "reporting it"
Mar 11: Snowden Inc. ("The strategy: Attention = bargaining power&quot
Mar 14: Eugene Robinson: The CIA is out of line
Mar 17: Journalist Tom Ricks 'Beginning To Believe The Worst' About Greenwald And Snowden
Mar 24: Carter: Snowden's leaks 'good for Americans to know'
Mar 26: Jimmy Carter says he would consider pardoning Edward Snowden
Apr 17: Putin Tells NSA Leaker Snowden There’s No Mass Surveillance In Russia (updated)
Apr 18: Snowden Defends Questioning Putin: I Want To Hold Him Accountable, Too
Apr 18: It takes bravery and courage
Apr 18: Lavabit loses contempt of court appeal over Edward Snowden encryption keys
Apr 19: Snowden's question and op-ed were attempts to whitewash Russian spying by equating it to the NSA.
Apr 19: RT: Putin’s annual Q&A: 10 most compelling quotes
Apr 21: Snowden’s Camp: Staged Putin Q&A Was a Screw-Up

They either directly or indirectly mention Snowden and often coincide with him being in the news.

The six most recent posts (in bold) are related to his participation in Putin's propaganda event.

The latest:

Snowden’s Camp: Staged Putin Q&A Was a Screw-Up
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024852509

[MADem]

123. What you call a "hate post" is what everyone else is calling "news."

You want people to "not notice" that Snowden stepped on his crank with his Pootie-praising propaganda stunt, apparently...that's just not going to happen.

If they upset you so, you can hit the "Trash Thread" button and not be discombobulated by them.

It's not "obsession" to "notice" that

--Snowden cozied up to Putin by tossing him a softball;

--His own LAWYER used the "F" word in articulating that the stunt was ill-advised;

--Snowden raced to do damage control by publishing an op-ed in the GUARDIAN.

I haven't watched CNN in quite some time; thus, Blitzer's comments aren't of any consequence or concern to me.

See how easy that is?

[cpwm17]

91. People are perfectly capable of being wrong on their own

without being in on some kind of conspiracy.

[Otelo]

25. Anonymous Sources= weak thread

Follow that rule, lovers of real journalism.

[DonViejo]

26. This isn't an anonymous source...

“He basically viewed the question as his first foray into criticizing Russia. He was genuinely surprised that in reasonable corridors it was seen as the opposite,” added Ben Wizner, the American Civil Liberties Union attorney who serves as one of Snowden’s closest advisers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251361119

[msanthrope]

29. Had you read the article, you would have realized that Snowden's attorneys are not anonymous sources

but are directly quoted by the Daily Beast article referenced by Wonkette.

Welcome to DU. I highly recommend, in the future, reading the material thoughtfully provided by the OP.

[MADem]

43. It's a bit hilarious, how they denigrate the source, not realizing that the source is

not just Snowden's own attorney, but Snowden, himself!

Yes, they are ALL lying about poor Snowden!!! Oh, those lying liars, and the lies they tell!

[msanthrope]

45. Next, you'll be accused of ad hominem, since you used Snowden's own words to describe Snowden.

No shit--I've had that happen to me.....quoting Greenwald's support for Bush was somehow an ad hominem against Greenwald....

[grasswire]

182. you just said upthread that you could find no record...

....of Wizner being Snowden's attorney.

[MADem]

188. You do realize Wizner self-identified as being Snowden's adviser? And he IS an attorney?

There is no record in the US legal system stating that Wizner is Snowden's attorney of RECORD, is what I believe is confusing you.

“He basically viewed the question as his first foray into criticizing Russia. He was genuinely surprised that in reasonable corridors it was seen as the opposite,” added Ben Wizner, the American Civil Liberties Union attorney who serves as one of Snowden’s closest advisers.

Wizner IS an ACLU attorney:

Wizner said he understood the revulsion: The interchange looked like cheap agitprop. “I know this is hard to believe. I know if I was just watching from afar, I’d think, ‘Wow, they forced him (Snowden) to do this,’” the ACLU attorney added. “But it’s not true. He just fucking did it.”

These quotes are from the Snowden’s Camp: Staged Putin Q&A Was a Screw-Up article in the Daily Beast.

[msanthrope]

189. No...I wrote I could not find him on the federal docket. Which means something else entirely. nt

[NorthCarolina]

65. Akin to Fox's "Some people say"....nt

[MADem]

86. Some people...like Edward Snowden's lawyer, and Edward Snowden himself!

[SidDithers]

32. DU rec...

but Comrade Eddie's fan club ain't gonna like it.

Sid

[warrprayer]

37. "Comrade Eddie"??

Really?

"1. Start a partisan divide-and-conquer fight or otherwise push emotional buttons to sow discord and ensure that cooperation is thwarted. Get people fighting against each other instead of the corrupt powers-that-be. Use baseless caricatures to rile everyone up. For example, start a religious war whenever possible using stereotypes like “all Jews are selfish”, “all Christians are crazy” or “all Muslims are terrorists”. Accuse the author of being a gay, pro-abortion limp-wristed wimp or being a fundamentalist pro-war hick when the discussion has nothing to do with abortion, sexuality, religion, war or region. Appeal to people’s basest prejudices and biases. And – as Sweeney explains – push the author into a defensive posture:


Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule … Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/the-15-rules-of-internet-disinformation.html

"Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule …"

[SidDithers]

41. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024843963

My "Comrade Eddie"s are a direct response to this dumbass thread.

Sid

[warrprayer]

44. I wish you would make your posts longer

.. and discuss issues more, Sid. Are we not worth your time?
You put up a good argument when you bother to do so.

[Warren Stupidity]

102. Notice also the use of the phrase "DU rec" to divide us here

so that anyone who thinks the op is a crock of shit is automatically not part of "DU" (at least not according to Sid.)

[rhett o rick]

36. Hey here's a thread that isnt getting much attention.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024850930

[Blue_Tires]

38. lol...brilliant

The truly amazing thing is that you can say “Thanks, Edward Snowden, for prompting these half-measures,” and you can also, AT THE VERY SAME TIME, say “Goddamnit Edward Snowden, you blew a chance for a whole lot more.”

Interesting to see how many points I made last summer keep bubbling to the surface...

[LiberalLovinLug]

92. This is such a cop out

This statement is the latest tidbit the Snowden haters are rallying around? LOL

Because he didn't sacrifice himself like Chelsea Manning and be whisked away to a maximum security prison to undergo the same types of physical and mental torture like 24 lights on in a cold cell with no clothes or bedding? Sleep deprivation etc.. And where even his attorney being ordered to be silent? No reporters allowed at the trial? How would shutting down the conversation helped? But YOU and your ilk, if you ever first had the balls to actually do what Ellsberg, Manning or Snowden did, YOU would immediately voluntarily submit to authority right? Easy to brag about sitting in your nice comfy computer chair.

And this is the first I've seen of the motley crew of shadow-frightened Snowden haters to actually even agree to any smigeon of credit to him to shed light on the actual real story about the NSA's overreach. Its always been hands in ears La La La La....I'm not going to give him one ounce of credit because he stole from his employer, he left his girlfriend, he must be covertly working for the Reds and on and on.

Is this like a Jesus complex? That any good deeds he does or crimes that he reveals about the State are all moot until he voluntarily submits to crucifixion? I do not cringe watching "Collateral Murder" any more just because Chelsea Manning is rotting in prison than if he had escaped the law from the the very authorities that wrote those laws.

[randome]

104. Chelsea didn't 'sacrifice' herself.

She was screwed up beyond belief, having punched out her commanding officer and was found in a fetal position on the floor after having carved the words 'I want' into a chair.

She had very real psychological problems, if I need to spell that out for you.

Snowden has a different problem. He's a loner who never completed anything in his life. Isolated, he dreamed of being a superhero. Now he's simply isolated himself more completely.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[LiberalLovinLug]

126. wow

All I keep hearing from you lot is "look at the screwups of the messenger - not the message!" As if you are perfect. If you heard the smuggled testimony from Chelsea at her initial trial, she speaks quite clearly about her reasons for whisleblowing.

And you are downright inventing your own fictional story about Snowden and his life and what his dreams are or were. If it makes you feel better to crap on someone else be my guest.

[Blue_Tires]

114. But you can't have it both ways

It can't be "He had to flee to escape the big, bad U.S. government who wanted to put him in the gulag for a thousand years without trial" AND "Poor Snowden is stuck in Moscow and he's hurt by all the accusations that he's owned by the FSB..."

If exile in Russia is that bad, there are multiple ways he could leave tomorrow (assuming of course he isn't owned by the Russians and he truly is free to leave)...Either way he'd do well to HTFU and sleep in the bed he made for himself...

Since you don't know me I'm not sure why you'd hazard a guess at the size of my fuckin' balls -- From the comfort of your computer chair, no less...And if this is the first credit you've seen me give to Snowden, then that just means you don't read many of my posts on the issue...Haven't you considered the increasing likelihood that even Snowden didn't have the balls nor the smarts to independently pull off what he did, and that people have been pulling his strings from the beginning?

And even you can figure out by now that Snowden's antics are starting to hurt more than they help...Maybe if Greenwald could get up off his ass and *WRITE* something new with his $250 million operating budget, the general public would have something different to chew on than prime-time press conferences...

[LiberalLovinLug]

131. Uh.....why not?

He DID have to flee to escape the US government based on what happened to Assange and Manning.

And as an American citizen trying to do the right thing, he IS probably sad that some Americans think he is doing this all at the bidding of the Russian (or Chinese.....) government.


And no I don't think there is a vast secret cabal pulling his strings. I think he realized that it was probably a mistake to ask Putin a question about Russia's spy program because of the backlash of it being a setup. Making a mistake and admitting it doesn't seem like a carefully planned action by a smart secret group.

And no I don't think his "antics" as you call them hurt more than they help. He is not relenting in his quest and I wish him god speed to carry on as long as he can.

And no I don't want Greenwald to stop focusing his attention on one of the most important rights issue in modern history. I don't want the story buried so we can all forget about it. There are plenty of other MSM "journalists" if i want to catch up on the Kardashians.

[Tarheel_Dem]

194. Assange?

[LiberalLovinLug]

198. that IS funny

The paranoid authoritarians are reaching for anything aren't they?

Trying now to say Assange is the puppetmaster?
He's under house arrest, his organization has been marginalized. Wikileaks may have helped Snowden to escape to Russia initially, but after that they've been out of the loop. Its Greenwald and the Guardian that is Snowden's disclosure partner, not Wikileaks.

I'm sure next it will be Kim Jong un that all you nutty chicken-littles will be screaming about holds Snowden's puppet strings.

[Blue_Tires]

200. The funny part is even his people openly said

the *MAIN* reason he went along with that stunt was some misguided, half-assed attempt to polish his image since a growing number of people back home are believing he's owned by the Russians...

Snowden worked for the NSA -- He already knows (or at least should) damn well what invasive surveillance capabilities Russia is employing, and if he actually gave a shit about the issue he could have met with Russian journalists and said something at ANY time...But no; with Snowden image and public perception is everything so he is the only person in the world to the unmitigated nerve to act shocked about how much blowback resulted from this bullshit...

By the way -- One week later has that big debate or public discussion Snowden was feebly trying to spark ignite? Guess it shows that Snowden in the end DID only have self-serving interests in mind...

[LanternWaste]

52. Great gossip column...

I suppose it's often more convenient to many people to focus on personalities rather than the policy itself. Heddy Hopper was a trail-blazer in that regard, yet she called it for what is was-- gossip columns and fluff.

[Tarheel_Dem]

56. But..But...didn't you see "The Guardian's comment section"? There were 800 replies, all kissin'....

Comrade's ass. Of course, this is what the sane world saw.

[ProSense]

57. Fascinating

From an embedded linked in the OP original:

Snowden’s Camp: Staged Putin Q&A Was a Screw-Up

Even the NSA leaker’s closest advisers now say his appearance on a Kremlin call-in show, which touched off yet another international firestorm, was a mistake....Edward Snowden instantly regretted asking Russian President Vladimir Putin a softball question on live television about the Kremlin’s mass surveillance effort, two sources close to the leaker tell The Daily Beast.

<...>

“He basically viewed the question as his first foray into criticizing Russia. He was genuinely surprised that in reasonable corridors it was seen as the opposite,” added Ben Wizner, the American Civil Liberties Union attorney who serves as one of Snowden’s closest advisers.

According to Wizner and others, Snowden hadn’t realized how much last week’s Q&A—with Putin blithely assuring Snowden that Moscow had no such eavesdropping programs—would appear to be a Kremlin propaganda victory to Western eyes. And so the leaker quickly decided to write an op-ed for the Guardian to explain his actions and to all but label Putin a liar for his televised response.

- more -

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/20/snowden-s-camp-staged-putin-q-a-was-a-screw-up.html

How dumb are the people around this guy? I mean, this was epic FAIL, and still does nothing to wash away the fact that Putin staged the entire event.

More:

But it wasn’t easy in Russia, where the press is controlled so tightly by the regime. Last month, the Kremlin silenced many of the last remaining critical news outlets in the country. “In Russia, you just can’t—obviously, there’s not as much dissent as in the U.S.,” a source close to Snowden said. The Putin television program seemed to be “a high-profile opportunity” to correct the record.

So after coming out in droves to claim this was a really courageous act, they're now saying in hindsight that it was stupid because Putin staged the event?

Here's my theory: Snowden and his Russian allies (lawyer) are playing his U.S. allies for fools or they're gullible. Snowden and his allies didn't need this bullshit event to call out Putin or Russian spying. The fact that they're running around in circles after this embarrassing episode making CYA excuses is a clue that this isn't about calling out Putin. This is Snowden PR hands down. His allies have no control over what Russia allows him to do. He can't be trapped in a country that silences dissent and claim that he's attempting to hold Putin accountable, but must be careful not to jeopardize his asylum.

Snowden's question and op-ed were attempts to whitewash Russian spying by equating it to the NSA.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024843557

[joshcryer]

61. Admitting judgment errors is a sign of integrity.

Too bad his media man has none because this won't help his image in a world where everything is about image

I say he release his manifesto.

[Aerows]

67. No mistakes allowed

[randome]

76. "My mission is finished."

Last edited Mon Apr 21, 2014, 04:10 PM - Edit history (1)

"I am not here to hide from justice."
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[bvar22]

80. YES!!!

He needs to be paying the same price as Chelsea Manning
for revealing the ongoing crimes of our Surveillance/Security State!!!
How DARE he do that!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

97. Manning was a member of the US Military, and faced

a military court and received a military punishment under the UCMJ. Remember that word: MILITARY

Snowden, as a CIVILIAN, is NOT subject to the UCMJ and would NOT face a military court. He would face the same court
that Thomas Drake faced. Remember Thomas Drake? He was an NSA whistleblower that was tried under the Bush admin and charges were DROPPED under the Obama admin.

So, MILITARY vs CIVILIAN. Different sets of laws.

[Cryptoad]

81. seems its getting harder and harder for yall to keep Comrade Snowden's name in the news.... ! nt

[grasswire]

82. the "author's" other tidbits

http://happynicetimepeople.com/author/alex-ruthrauff/

Alex Ruthrauff. A fairly recent college grad whose only work history appears to be as an events coordinator and minor project manager at a non-profit.

Finding a way to make some money off celeb gossip.

You can see his "work" at happynicetimepeople.com

[ProSense]

89. Here,

Alex Ruthrauff. A fairly recent college grad whose only work history appears to be as an events coordinator and minor project manager at a non-profit.

Finding a way to make some money off celeb gossip.

You can see his "work" at happynicetimepeople.com

...the following wasn't written by "Alex Ruthrauff."

Snowden’s Camp: Staged Putin Q&A Was a Screw-Up
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024852509

[Bobbie Jo]

87. More evidence

that 'judgment' is not his strong suit.

[whatchamacallit]

88. HAIL HYDRA!

[SunsetDreams]

178. meh

[siligut]

93. " . . . you blew a chance for a whole lot more."

The people who are saying this have probably never practiced subterfuge within a subculture of paranoia and conformity. I am beyond impressed with Snowden, without any training in covert activity that I know of, he made out with what he did and has remained 'free'. Think about it, he was one lone guy, acting on his own initiative in among some pretty frightening and no doubt craft-trained persons. Maybe his mild appearance helped him evade suspicion, but it my book the guy has balls of steel.

[Rex]

112. Yeah about that...WHO COULD HAVE GUESSED that throwing softballs

to a DICTATOR about HIS domestic spying program (or lack of) would have negative consequences!? Might as well have a huge sign over his head that says FAIR AND BALANCED.

This is why some of us on the fence are wary of this guy; he cannot be that stupid or that unaware of his current surroundings.

[MrMickeysMom]

116. What makes this mean so little is THIS paragraph...

Let’s imagine an alternate universe in which Snowden didn’t try to have it both ways — instead of maneuvering to stay out of US custody, let’s say he turned himself in after handing over his NSA files to journalists in Hong Kong. (No, we are not saying we’d be so brave ourselves, but if Snowden is going to insist on repeatedly reminding us that he’s done all this sacrificing and life-risking, it’s entirely fair to hold him to a high standard here.)

There's nothing quite like creating a "what would Jesus do?" moment to hold others to a higher standard than, say, writing a piece that reads like an elephant giving birth to a mouse.

What ever makes print in the guise of stirring up some fresh… ah... insight (sigh)…

[BlueCheese]

117. That statement refers to asking Putin that question.

Not about revealing the NSA's surveillance activities.

[elias49]

133. The energy and the bile

that go into these threads lately blows my mind! During this 5-hour jamboree, I've planted 4 rows of early peas, took my dogs for a walk in the woods and cooked chicken on the grill. And you dozen or so regulars apparently haven't moved asses off your desk chairs.
Take a break!

[Cali_Democrat]

137. LOL....welcome to DU.....

[AverageJoe90]

147. But, but.....Obama is a closet Republican.....uhh...all spying is bad...uhh.......white privilege!

BTW, in case I need to be ABSOLUTELY clear;

Snowden is about as much of a "hero" as I am "privileged" just because I happen to be "white".....which is to say, NOT AT ALL.

Thanks, zappaman.

[Cha]

154. Well, either Ed and his lawyer acknowledged it was a dumbass move or

they're like his die hard fans and continue to live in deep denial.

Ben Wizner.. Ed's lawyer..

"Wizner said he understood the revulsion: The interchange looked like cheap agitprop. “I know this is hard to believe. I know if I was just watching from afar, I’d think, ‘Wow, they forced him [Snowden] to do this,’” the ACLU attorney added. “But it’s not true. He just fucking did it.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/20/snowden-s-camp-staged-putin-q-a-was-a-screw-up.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024852509

[UTUSN]

162. I truly luerve these last paragraphs:

*********QUOTE*******

Yup, we’re going there. Let’s imagine an alternate universe in which Snowden didn’t try to have it both ways — instead of maneuvering to stay out of US custody, let’s say he turned himself in after handing over his NSA files to journalists in Hong Kong. (No, we are not saying we’d be so brave ourselves, but if Snowden is going to insist on repeatedly reminding us that he’s done all this sacrificing and life-risking, it’s entirely fair to hold him to a high standard here.)

So Snowden’s in US custody. That means no schism on the left between his supporters and detractors. That means he is unambiguously a hero — no speculation that he’s an actual Russian spy, no head-shaking that he has, by error or design, set himself up as a propaganda tool for a regime that is worse on civil liberties than the United States by every metric. That means a truly united, left-right coalition against surveillance abuses. That means the focus is where it belongs, rather than on what we think about Edward Snowden. Yes, the focus on Snowden initially helped the NSA stories take off, but now the pendulum has swung the other way.

Now, with Snowden in Russia pissing off the very people who otherwise would be celebrating him (us, for example), Obama feels no pressure to go any farther with NSA reforms than the half-measures he has already announced, to moderate fanfare.

The truly amazing thing is that you can say “Thanks, Edward Snowden, for prompting these half-measures,” and you can also, AT THE VERY SAME TIME, say “Goddamnit Edward Snowden, you blew a chance for a whole lot more.”

See, a lot of people seem not to understand how it could be possible to hold critical views of both the NSA’s abuses and Edward Snowden at the same time. This is how! All those words up there, those explain how we can do that.

Also, we do not like how the US intelligence agencies operate as their own unaccountable fiefdoms. We need to write that, or else people will say we are NSA apologists, because in their view, if you are not with them, you’re against them. What president said that, to great and deserved ridicule? It’ll come to us

Read more at http://wonkette.com/547131/boy-that-edward-snowden-really-screwed-up-says-edward-snowden#Qg8BWTguiPRRJbTp.99
*********UNQUOTE*************

[MADem]

187. I agree with you.

It's an impressively nuanced analysis for a site decried by those who don't like what they are saying as a "gossip" page! That's Daily Show/Colbert-style, IMO!