We can do both: Applaud increased scrutiny of NSA and question Snowden's resume, timing, motives

[blm]

Reposting my thoughts from last March, mainly because one of Snowden's remarks was in line with my view - that he was, indeed, trained as a spy. CIA. No surprise to me his jobs were also with private firms developed under Poppy Bush to work with the CIA.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024646595

March11,2014:

We can applaud media's greater NSA scrutiny AND think that Snowden's resume/timing/motives deserve scrutiny, too.

Why on earth would anyone who lived through the last few decades of BushInc not be cognizant of the benefit the closer scrutiny from the corporate media that Snowden brought to NSA's excesses?

Why on earth would anyone who lived through the last few decades of BushInc not be cognizant of all the red flags on Snowden's work record and not question the motives of someone who skipped over the excesses of the CIA and NSA during the worst of their over-reach, then concentrated all his verbal firepower on President Obama?

And, for the record, I highly doubt President Obama has accrued enough power in DC over the last 5 years to take ON, let alone take down the darker forces of the CIA and NSA and the select private firms that form the powerful elite. Selected.... in the 70s and 80s by Poppy Bush. It's naive to think that any president since has held complete control over the CIA and NSA.

Remember NSA Whistleblower Russ Tice: The NSA began spying on Obama in 2004; the program, which spied on members of government, the military, and the private sector, was run out of VP Cheney's office; the country is run by the upper echelon of the intel community, not the 3 legitimate branches of government.

[villager]

1. There'd be nothing to "applaud" without Snowden

those leaks provided the critical mass so that people finally paid attention...

[blm]

4. Which is why I said we can do both. However some media DID know much of what was going on

as early as 2001 and chose to relegate the stories to either back pages or the buzz saw. Most chose to ignore the stories altogether and keep propping up Bush, no matter what.

I agree with you that THIS set of leaks provided the critical mass. Press responded here. BushInc was always pristine in being able to get the press they wanted versus the press they DIDN'T want.

[Mojorabbit]

53. I read he hoped President Obama would

do something about it but when he continued Bushco's policies he decided to act. It was perhaps six months ago, an article posted here.

[gollygee]

2. +1

He's a libertarian shit, and he waited until this had been going on for ages and only got upset about it when Obama was president.

However, I'm glad the info is out there. I wish it had come out soon after the Patriot Act.

[JDPriestly]

49. Did you watch Snowden's entire interview?

I was favorably impressed with him. I do think he is a patriot and a loyal American. He is quite intelligent and thoughtful.

He volunteered for the Marines but broke both his legs in training. (He does not look physically very fit.)

We have serious problems in our government and at the highest levels. Snowden is the least of our problems. I am grateful to him for drawing so much attention to the NSA's overreaching.

I was concerned but not so concerned about the surveillance until I read the FISA order regarding Verizon. I could not believe that a court would give blanket permission to invade the privacy of so many Americans. It is unthinkable to me. And for what purpose? What percentage of Verizon users are likely to be terrorists? Very few in my opinion.

Mass murderers and careless gun nuts? We have lots of those on the internet but you probably won't spot most of them. Too many harmless crazies and ordinary gun nuts posting absurd messages. How could you tell the dangerous from the foolish?

The NSA program in my opinion can only have one final purpose -- to monitor political speech. That's called "chilling" speech and it violates the Constitution.

Then there are the violations of the Fourth Amendment. And that is only the beginning of the violations of the Constitution that the NSA program involves.

The worst aspect of it is the complete disregard for the separation of powers doctrine in the Constitution. The executive grabbing the phone records and possibly the e-mail lists of members of Congress and of the judiciary? That's just plain sick. It's anti-Constitutional.

But the generations educated after LBJ don't know enough about our Constitution and our rights to understand what Snowden is trying to tell us. Ignorance is bliss but very dangerous.

[msanthrope]

3. Yes. That's reasonable. nt

[KoKo]

5. Disagree Strongly...Without Snowden following the Whistleblowers who Tried

We wouldn't have Obama speaking out about Reforms and DiFi and her supporters would still be sanctioning Spying and Dragneting Info on Americans done in SECRET.

Without Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald, Clapper's Lies would have been Believed when he said the US Govt. was not Spying on the American People. Obama's Misinformation from his "Advisors" that it wasn't Meta Data would have been believed by a cowering populace and things would have gone on as before as every word we post here on DU and and our Past Activism (by DU'ers who Posted about it with Photos) would have been in that Mass Data Base FOREVER!

So you are trying to say that Obama "is doing the best he can with the system he inherited and it was always going to be incremental" ....but, FFS! We Elected him TWICE and we were SWINDLED.... and we had lots of help from our Dem Think Tank and willing supporters from NeoCons, Wall Street and MIC. The purpose was to GET RID of the DEM Activists ...so Horrified by Bush and the Lies into Wars and Interventions that we Protested, Worked hard to get involved with our Dem Party ...Grassroots Upward...and were TRASHED in retrospect.

"BLM"...you and I have always had interactions and I think we have been better at going back with each other than the "Drive By's" that know little who come on here and do "One Liners." We have long history...and that we can still interact is postive...i think at least.

"We agree to disagree"...but, we've always kept it CIVIL. But, I strongly disagree with your post! But, still...we've been here forever. So.... if we can show examples of how people can still disagree but speak to each other with out putting ourselves on IGNORE.

Regards to you... but, I strongly disagree. but, still want to hear what you say.

[blm]

7. Sorry, but, you haven't shown me one thing I said that was incorrect.

I think you need to think in extremes to lay it all on Obama because you're invested in that position at this point. Snowden deserves no scrutiny to you, because you are convinced that his connections within the CIA and Bush loyalist firms are mere coincidence.....right?

[KoKo]

15. No...I don't lay it on Obama...but on NSA, MIC, Pentagon,

Obama has to deal with them. And, Kerry obviously has been "captured" by the same group. Remember ...Kerry has always been friendly with John McCain.

It's not about Obama with me...it's about what has been going on that he couldn't or wasn't able to deal with in our Out of Control "Mainstream Media, Military Industrial, Corporate Funded, Think Tank Governed, NeoCon Influenced Federal Government.

That's where I come from. Those, perhaps, older than you so have watched it like many other DU'ers have (of our older Boomer and older DU participants) and that's our "Four Alarm Fire" going off.

Why do we keep elected Presidents who seem to have NO POWER to do ANYTHING.

So the conclusion is: "MSM//Military Industrial/Corporate/Wall ST/Think Tank/Koch Brothers Complex" who runs it all. But...I wish our Democrats could have done better than this after we worked so hard for years to get them elected.

That's my opinion.

[blm]

17. Well, you're part of the group working now to weaken the WH even further than it is.

And it was already weakened so much from the get go. He NEVER accrued power - the RW lie machine made certain of that. Now many on the left push this imaginary figure who had all the power in the world to change things and did not. LOLOL - - yeah - - when was that? 2009? 2010? 2011? 2012? LOL - Congress held off until Dec 2012 allowing even Obama's modest tax hike to finally replace Bush's tax policy.

Sorry, but, I don't see Obama having the power to wield in official DC - not when the REAL power structure in DC is so ingrained in the intel and security networks built over the last 40 years by Poppy Bush and his fascist cronies.

[KoKo]

19. Then why do we go to the polls to elect Presidents, then? Doesn't matter if

they are Democrats because Republicans have the power and always will.

That's what we are faced with. And "more and better Dems" didn't work out so well in 2006 when all of us worked our butts off to get Pelosi in there and she immediately started pulling back on what we thought our Democrats would be able to do if we gave them control of the House and more in the Senate.

We need to start blaming those Dems under Obama and those who urged us to vote for him and build a new Party or do a Third Party if we can't elect a Democratic President who can use his power like George Bush, Bush I and Ronald Reagan did. It's only our recent Democrats who seem to be more inclined towards Wall Street, MIC Bidding as opposed to the wishes of their voters. Unless their voters are Republican Light...which may well be the case and so they owe the rest of us Democrats nothing.

[blm]

22. If he had been able to accrue power it would likely look different today.

Accruing power isn't easy when you're a Democrat and, especially, when you're supposedly in charge of the intel and security institutions built by Poppy Bush and his cronies.

[KittyWampus]

6. Those of us capable of rational thought can. We aren't ideologues. The Snowden Fans

are kind of pathetic at this point.

[Rex]

8. Oh dear...are you saying we should multitask? You realize that some people lack that ability?

Yeah I agree with you, we can do BOTH and also a lot more at the same time.

[Uncle Joe]

9. Perhaps Drake and his experience inspired Snowden.

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

2007 FBI raidsIn July 2007, armed FBI agents raided the homes of Roark, Binney, and Wiebe, the same people who had filed the complaint with the DoD Inspector General in 2002. Binney claims they pointed guns at his wife and himself. Wiebe said it reminded him of the Soviet Union. None of these people were charged with any crimes. In November 2007, there was a raid on Drake's residence. His computers, documents, and books were confiscated. He was never charged with giving any sensitive information to anyone; the charge actually brought against him is for 'retaining' information (18 U.S.C. § 793(e)). The FBI tried to get Roark to testify against Drake; she refused. Reporter Gorman was not contacted by the FBI.

(snip)

In early June, shortly after the May 22, 2011 6 pm broadcast of a 60 Minutes episode on the Drake case, the government dropped all of the charges against Drake and agreed not to seek any jail time in return for Drake's agreement to plead guilty to a misdemeanor of misusing the agency’s computer system. Drake was sentenced to one year of probation and community service.

At the July sentencing hearing the presiding judge, Richard D. Bennett of the Federal District Court, issued harsh words for the government, saying that it was "unconscionable" to charge a defendant with a list of serious crimes that could have resulted in 35 years in prison only to drop all of the major charges on the eve of trial. The judge also rejected the government's request for a large fine noting that Drake had been financially devastated, losing his $154,600 job at the NSA and his pension.

(snip)

In a September 2013 interview Drake re-affirmed his belief that the problems of the NSA are so chronic and systemic that the only solution would be to completely dismantle and subsequently rebuild the entire organization.

(snip)


Drake reportedly inspired Edward Snowden to leak information on the NSA spying program PRISM in June 2013.[64]

Furthermore perhaps Snowden didn't act for the first few years of the Obama Adminstration in order to give President Obama a chance to live up to Candidate Obama's words.

Thanks for the thread, blm.

[blm]

11. Bush 2 years into his presidency had accrued more real power in DC than Clinton had by year 6.

Last edited Fri May 30, 2014, 09:33 AM - Edit history (1)

Obama's is one of the weakest presidencies in terms of accumulating and wielding political power that I have witnessed in my lifetime.

I don't think for a minute that he was made privy to all that the entrenched powerful elite of Poppy Bush's intel circle have been doing for the last 3 decades.

[GeorgeGist]

12. Greenwald says he's going to name Americans that NSA spied upon ...

I won't be surprised if Obama is on that list. Maybe not after he became President but almost assuredly before. Think Cheney.

[blm]

18. It was already revealed by Tice that Obama was spied on since 2004.

That's one of the reasons why I have to laugh somewhat at the contention that Obama is the one in full control. LOL - Clinton didn't even manage to gain full control of CIA and NSA. Or the FBI, for that matter.

[Uncle Joe]

13. I agree in large part regarding the accrual of power issue, but Snowden wouldn't know in 2008,

that Obama would be a weak President and the nation was traumatized after 9/11 during Bush the Least's terms so that raises the question you implied as to whether Snowden just wanted to undermine Obama for partisan sakes?

Consideriing the timing of Snowden's actions, I doubt it, he did nothing during Obama's first term in office waiting until June of 2013 when Obama wouldn't need to run for office again.

Perhaps Snowden believed that the national outcry from his revelations would give a second term Obama the political impetus to carry out the needed gutting or at the very least major reforms regarding the NSA.

Timing is everything and as I stated above I believe Drake's experience also inspired Snowden as well.

[blm]

14. Or perhaps Obama was set to visit China in a historic meeting and BushInc didn't want that to happen

Poppy Bush has been notorious for maintaining his stranglehold on US-China relations. After 40 years of being in control of it he wasn't going to let Obama be seen in any legitimate way as a force of influence.

I highly doubt that anyone remembers that when Clinton was set to visit China during his second term, a CIA operative 'accidentally' gave the wrong location to a site that was targeted in Belgrade and the wrong site turned out to be the Chinese embassy. That operative ended up getting a promotion to the WH shortly after Bush took office.

I don't believe in coincidences when the beneficiaries of the events are the Bushes, and, especially when someone trained in the intel system by CIA and by Bush-loyal firms is involved.

Who benefits when an entire voting block can be convinced that Obama is 'no different' than Bush?

[Uncle Joe]

16. U.S. China relations improved in 2013 after President Obama's meeting with Xi Jinping here

in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBAMA%27S_VISIT_TO_CHINA
here in the U.S.


In an effort to build a “new model” of relations, President Obama met President Xi Jinping for two days of meetings, between 6 June and 8 June 2013, at the Sunnylands estate in Rancho Mirage, California.[85] The summit was considered “the most important meeting between an American president and a Chinese leader in 40 years, since Nixon and Mao,” according to Joseph Nye, a political scientist at Harvard University.[86] The leaders concretely agreed to combat climate change and also found strong mutual interest in curtailing North Korea’s nuclear program.[86] However, the leaders remained sharply divided over cyber espionage and U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. Xi was dismissive of American complaints about cyber security.[87] Tom Donilan, the outgoing U.S. National Security Adviser, stated that cyber security "is now at the center of the relationship,” adding that if China’s leaders were unaware of this fact, they know now.[87]

Relations between the military leadership of the two nations improved in 2013. General Qi said that over the long term the shared interests of the two would outweigh their differences. Meanwhile he called for vigilance against "infiltration and subversion" by the West, and "interference by outside powers" in the South China Sea."

In May 2014 tensions flared again after five Chinese military officers were charged with cyber-spying and stealing trade secrets from major U.S. companies. China retaliated by banning state-owned firms from engaging U.S. consultancies, and on 26 May 2014 sharply criticized the United States for its cyber-spying activities, details of which had been unveiled by whistleblower Edward Snowden. "The revelations about PRISM and other programs demonstrate that the U.S. has mounted the most wide-ranging, costly, long-term surveillance operation in the history of the Internet," argued China's Internet Media Research Center.[88]

Relations soured in 2014 after The U.S. charged the Chinese military officers with cyber-spying and stealing trade secrets, only then was Snowden brought up.

Between June of 2013 and May of 2014 President Obama was still President and his own inactions after Snowden's revelations gave China the ammunition they needed.

[VanillaRhapsody]

26. A "weak President" ?

Did you get here by way of freeperville? That is DEFINITELY Rightwing speak. Because this President hasn't started another Iraq war he is weak?

WTF are you basing that statement on?

[blm]

28. No, that is absolutely NOT what I was saying. In terms of being able to change the DC powerstructure

and crack BushInc's elite circle of intel and security firms who aren't loyal to ANY president, Obama hasn't been able to accrue the political power needed to counter them, let alone crack them.

The GOP in DC is adept at keeping Dem presidents from accruing that level of power.

You need to go back and read what was said again and put it in the context of the issue being discussed. Obama even said he was unaware that Merkel and others were bugged. He certainly didn't order it. Who did?

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. You expect a single President could do that?

This is what we mean when we said you expected him to walk on water AND perform feats of magic!

How one could use the word "weak" to describe him speaks volumes....

[blm]

31. It's the accurate word. The office of PRESIDENCY always gets weakened when Dems occupy it in postCIA

America. Poppy Bush had set up institutional strongholds since the 70s that assured HIS power structure would be impenetrable.

The GOP in congress keep multiple targets on Dem presidents, even over the pettiest of matters, to insure they never find firm enough footing to set up a powerful power structure of their own.

Any alert observers of the last three Dem presidencies would agree.

[VanillaRhapsody]

32. That is Malarkey.....Would you prefer what a Republican does? You call that strong?

Ridic!

Democrats weak....Republicans strong....

Yeah I hear ya loud and clear!

[MohRokTah]

35. They're pretty blatant about it these days. eom

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. Aren't they though?

[blm]

39. You aren't bothering to read what I am saying. Your reactions are to individual words

instead of the context and the entire statement.

I am not condemning Democrats in any way - I am being realistic about the way Republicans deliberately work at keeping Dem presidencies from accruing the power needed to confront the intel elite power structure that has developed since the 70s.

That is why WE Democrats need to work harder to counter the onslaught by Republicans who work from day one to keep Obama and the next Dem president from accruing the power needed to confront the institutionalized power structure.

I am also saying that those on the left who keep taking potshots at the WH, based on the lies and deceitful efforts of the Republican
machine and the intel industry, are only helping the intel elite and BushInc to weaken the OFFICE of the presidency even further for Obama.

How you can read all this and think that this is an attack on Obama is a mystery.

[Whisp]

50. I think you are misunderstanding, Van.

This is not a slight toward Obama, but toward the power structure that excludes him.

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. Yes it is....it is a slight against Dems in general too....calling them weak...

Weak is not a word I would use to describe them or the President....why would you?

[Whisp]

52. That is not in the same vein of discussion. Obama is not weak

in fact it is miraculous he has been able to achieve the so many great things he has, because of his personal strength.

But the power of the Presidency has been weakened for the Democrats by the Republican's work. That I can also agree with and not consider Obama personally weak.

[VanillaRhapsody]

55. then why say he is? Poor choice of words to say the least..

[blm]

60. Would diminished have been a better word? It would have illicit the same level

of misunderstanding, imo.

I don't know how I could have made any clearer than I did when you read all of the posts knowing my body of posts over the last many years.

[Cha]

56. I hear ya..

[blm]

59. Exactly.

That is the ONLY way it is being stated.

[VanillaRhapsody]

64. Exactly!

[KoKo]

34. PBS: Frontline: "America's Secrets" exposed

much of this and that Snowden was aware of how they had been harrassed, careers ruined and nothing was done. He had hoped that Obama would institute some reforms and when time went on and neither was there a call from Obama or action from Congress to promote reforms and lack of action from his supervisors led him to realize that more would have to be done to expose the growing massive date collection on American Citizens.

Thanks for posting this!

[blm]

66. And all fire aimed at Obama, not Bush, when Obama wasn't even told the details on the extent. Why?

Perhaps because the Intel and Security INDUSTRY has an inner-circle elite loyal to Poppy Bush that has been operating with its own rules since the 70s.

[KoKo]

68. "Frontline" did an excellent job showing it was Bush that began it

in earnest. But, faulted Obama for extending it.

I found it very fair from my reading of articles at the time with Bush and now with Obama.

Any President will take the power that's given him and use it. It's clear the program is invasive into US Citizens privacy. And, it needs to be stopped. Elsewise the 2016 winner of the Presidency will want even MORE power.

[blm]

69. You manage to miss the point. You think just because a Dem becomes president the intel elite share

every detail with that president? Obama didn't have a clue that Merkel's personal phone was tapped.

Frontline and all other news organizations will never point out that there is even a BFEE controlling the intel and security industry, and that has been operating in the shadows for decades.

[KoKo]

70. I think Frontline focused on what is being done. If they mentioned BFEE

They would have been attacked as "Conspiracy Theorists." The issue is that it's being expanded and it has occurred after 9/11 with both Presidents involved.

[blm]

71. It was INSTITUTIONALIZED by congress before Obama even ran for president.

And, yeah, because MEDIA won't acknowledge the BFEE's hold on the intel and security INDUSTRY that means YOU and other DUers are supposed to NOT factor their involvement in this story when we know damn well that circle keeps Obama and HIS officials on the periphery of THEIR industry?

[Union Scribe]

10. I'll continue to trust my reading skills

as to who is arguing in good faith. Frankly I don't see a lot of what you're describing. When people are obsessed with condemning Greenwald and Snowden to the point of childish nicknames and mocking others on DU for having the gall to think they've done some good, I know damn well they aren't allies when it comes to opposing the NSA's overreaches.

[neverforget]

20. What you said!

[Logical]

21. + 1000 n/t

[uponit7771]

24. You do understand that the number on DU that support Snowden way outnumber those who don't

... and the name calling is in no way proportional

[VanillaRhapsody]

37. and you know this how?

Definitive proof please!

[blm]

25. People who aren't completely trusting of Snowden's motives are treated pretty viciously, too.

There are layers to this entire story. I, personally, do not know how anyone can ignore Snowden's resume and not smell BushInc all over him. But, then, I can still appreciate that at least NOW the corporate media has finally stopped suppressing the story, even though they do still skate quickly over Bush and Cheney spearheading the programs that were the most egregious, including the spying on Obama himself, since 2004.

[Skidmore]

27. I tend to be in agreement with you.

Noting the creeping of Jeb into the ring underscores some of that for me. Rand Paul will never be President--can't be controlled. I do think we are about to have another Bush forced on us. The alphabet soup of intelligence agencies needs to be broken though and the Bushes expelled from it. Securities industries need to be reined in too.

[blm]

29. EXACTLY - The Security Industry that sees Dem presidents as minor players that don't effect them

.

[redqueen]

33. Well said. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

38. Viciously.....are they taking your lunch money or what?

Last edited Fri May 30, 2014, 03:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Being challenged on Snowden on Democratic Underground....is vicious.....yet you would expect to be able to say anything you want about President Obama here too!

LEAVE SNOWDEN ALONE!

[blm]

40. Geez - Try reading what is written in context.

I'm defending Obama and his role and asking for a balance in perspective based on BushInc's dominant role in the Intel INDUSTRY (as Skidmore accurately labeled it).

You'd know that if you bothered to read and comprehend instead of jerking your knees over individual words.

[VanillaRhapsody]

41. What contextual problem? YOU claim that you are viciously attacked....with words....

And I find that hilarious....did you get your feelings hurt by those words? How is being challenged repeatedly "viciously attacked"? Hyperbolic much?

[blm]

42. Are you saying Obama supporters are NOT called vicious names by Snowden supporters?

I see it everyday - ProSense gets raked over the coals by a whole group of people who cannot tolerate that she sticks to the facts at hand instead of hyperbole.


Geez - try reading this thread over again and get a clue.

[VanillaRhapsody]

43. I am saying that this meme sounds violent....and these are just words on a screen..

I have been involved in a number of verbal skirmishes on DU....I never felt "viciously" attacked....If you play the game of politics...even discussing it...you have to be tough skinned.

[treestar]

46. Childish nicknames are part of the internets

But come on, admit the other side does it too. Authoritarians comes to mind. That's silly. I can be in favor of the constitution and still question what Eddie did.

[randome]

23. The best thing to come out of this affair is the concept of an adversarial rep in the FISA court.

And that wasn't even Snowden's idea. I can't tell what Snowden's objectives are but he clearly stole national security documents and every country on the planet considers that to be a crime.

He will either spend the rest of his life in Russia or return to imprisonment in America.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

44. Nice to know

I had learned on DU that if you don't think Eddie is a hero, you support a totalitarian police state. You are an "authoritarian."

[kelliekat44]

45. Yes, we can!!! nt

[Aerows]

48. Erm, yes

We can.

[Aerows]

47. We can do both

So stop making it about the personalities of Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald. When you do that, you are like the gun nut that chimes in on an article and harps that the journalist didn't get the name of the gun correct instead of the fact that a six year old boy killed his grandfather with a gun.

See the comments in this article by Gene Starwind for an example of obfuscating the real argument by distracting with meaningless details.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/29/florida-6-year-old-kills-grandfather-with-ak-47-left-unattended-by-boys-uncle-at-family-picnic/

It matters not if what Snowden, Tice or whoever broke the law and what their personality is - what matters is that they revealed corruption.

I want to know what is being done about the corruption, not read a bunch of nitpicking over whether or not Snowden broke the law. The US Government is breaking the law as a systemic and organizational process.

Whether the person that revealed that is Ted Bundy of Mahatma Gandhi is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that the Constitution is being violated and attempting to shoot the messenger, whether you think he is worthy of being shot or not, has nothing to do with the message that:

OUR GOVERNMENT IS VIOLATING THE LAW.

[deurbano]

54. You think Snowden is a BushInc plant? If so, why bring scrutiny to the surveillance state?

What's his motive? Why pull back the curtain for the whole world to see? I would think the private contractors (etc.) would prefer public ignorance.

<<Why on earth would anyone who lived through the last few decades of BushInc not be cognizant of all the red flags on Snowden's work record and not question the motives of someone who skipped over the excesses of the CIA and NSA during the worst of their over-reach, then concentrated all his verbal firepower on President Obama? >>

Snowden was something like 22 or 23 when he went to work for the CIA in 2006. It think it was a process of discovery and then of developing conviction. Remember how long it took Ellsberg to come forward? I don't think Ellsberg was just waiting for a Republican president to come into power.

[blm]

58. The scrutiny had been there before, but, this was a way to focus blame on Obama and

appeal to the 'No difference between Obama and Bush' sentiment which always works in favor of the GOP come election time.

Especially if Jeb2016 is in the works.

[scarletwoman]

61. I have to agree with deurbano, I don't think Snowden's motives have anything to do with

Dem vs Repug partisanship. He's just a young guy who took awhile to make up his mind about what to do and get up the courage to do it.

And as someone else pointed out above, he waited until after Obama had been safely re-elected. If his goal was to sabotage Obama, he could have acted before the 2012 election.

I get what you're saying about the Bushco hold on the intelligence industry, and Obama's inability to "accumulate power", but it appears to me that the timing of Snowden's revelations and the public reaction actually serves to strengthen Obama's hand, rather than weaken it. The public demand for reform gives Obama at least some cover that he wouldn't have had otherwise, don't you think?

[blm]

65. I don't think that is his motivation. I think he was used like others before him - groomed to think

a certain way for when the time comes.

I do agree that had any of this received this level of scrutiny when Bush was in office, that WH would have basically BFD - WTF ya going to do about it?

BTW - There was no way BushInc would sabotage for 2012 - How would they pull off Jeb2016?

[Trekologer]

62. You have to admit that there is an odd pattern

Things that were all hunky dory when Bush was President are now OMG!!! THIS IZ THE WROST TING EVERRRRRR!!!!! with Obama as President. Just off the top of my head:

Economy
Budget Deficit/National Debt
Embassy Security
VA Hospitals
IRS
Executive Orders

Granted, the folks making a big deal out of these things are also the ones who simultaneously claim Obama hasn't done anything as President while at the same time is a communist, socialist, dictator ruling through executive fiat. But they make enough noise and since the media covers the controversy (not the facts), those themes get played over and over again.

If you take a step back, it seems suspicious. Snowden works for a spy agency, is trained as a spy, and suddenly is SHOCKED, SHOCKED that the spy agency he works for is...GASP...spying. Coupled with guys like Jim Sensenbrenner, who wrote the damn Patriot Act, are SHOCKED, SHOCKED that the government uses the powers that his law gave it. He wasn't up in arms when those powers were being used by Bush but now that Obama is president, there's urgency to change it.

I think that we need to be clear about something: the NSA likely isn't breaking the law by collecting the data that they collect. The Patriot Act, passed by Congress and signed by President Bush, gave them that power. Until the Courts rule the law unconstitutional or the law is changed, the NSA isn't breaking the law. On the other hand, Snowden did break the law. Was he justified in doing so? I don't really know.

[Number23]

67. Lots of great points in this post

[m-lekktor]

57. rofl!

holy *crap*

[berni_mccoy]

63. Agreed. I think the scrutiny of NSA

Was warranted, has been since the Patriot Act. I also believe it would have happened without Snowden, definitely not as fast, but also without doing the damage that Snowden did.

[SomethingFishy]

72. The problem isn't when Snowden's motives are questioned..

It's when mine are.

But that is what DU has become.