Last edited Tue Mar 11, 2014, 06:22 PM - Edit history (1)

If we can agree that people in Ukraine united to ditch their president for a *multitude* of different motivations, why can't DU have different motivations/reasons/ideas/etc. for opposing NSA overreach?

In an easier analogy: we can applaud the media's greater scrutiny of airline security vis-a-vis stolen passports AND still think that the persons who boarded the plane from Malaysia with stolen passports may have had questionable motives. They are the reason the media is finally paying attention to the issue of stolen passports ... but they're certainly not heroes for doing so.

In fact, they think (or at least they speak as if they think) Obama is responsible for the damages the Repukes have wrought on this country since 1981.

and pushed for laws to make it legal.

What has he done to try and stop this unconstitutional spying? It's his admin now and has been for a while.

BFEE-style government.

Silly them, I mean, us.

Obama's is the weakest WH I've seen in terms of accruing the power needed to change the national security infrastructure built by Poppy and his loyalists.

Because the CIA and the NSA, are BOTH, part of the Executive Branch.

And President Obama is in charge of said branch.

He can fire, replace, retire, and investigate ANYONE working in that branch.

Are you saying he's under some unseen constraint?

Last edited Thu Mar 13, 2014, 04:08 PM - Edit history (1)

to work with CIA and NSA decades ago by Poppy Bush? I highly doubt any president has been told everything by the global power structure overseen by BushInc. Even Reagan.

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.

....and if Obama knows that it is so, then he has a sworn obligation to the Constitution to force the revelation of the truth.

His oath is not to national security, or to the surveillance state, or to the MIC, or to plausible deniability for anyone. His oath is to the Constitution and protection of the separation of powers.

At this moment, he appears to be in violation of that oath.

And every one of us?

I was WAY more worried about what was going on during the W. Bush/Cheney years in terms of what they were doing in the name of their "war on terror" than what is reportedly going on right now. I mean, people were actually being tortured with implicit government support and, of course, Bush was wiretapping WITHOUT legal authority (surprised that didn't really rankle Snowden). Plus, as I recall, Snowden was previously VERY against leakers. Granted, President Obama hasn't been able to roll some of the W. Bush/Cheney excesses back to the extent that he said he wanted to (i.e. Gitmo) but many of those shortcomings are more of a result of Congressional obstruction than him backtracking or changing his mind.

It's hard to impute motive. One could even put positive spin on Snowden's past vs. present views re leaks; after all, people's thinking does evolve, people do come to see policies they formerly supported as wrong. I do not really think (as has been suggested elsewhere) that it's likely a secretly planted Bushie outed the NSA to get Obama and then willingly fled the country and ruined his life in important respects to avoid arrest. Not many right-wing intellectual martyrs around, these days. Besides, right wingers at NSA could have handled that mission more adroitly in other ways, without having to sacrifice a friendly. Furthermore, I'm inclined to think the national-industrial intelligence complex wouldn't have preferred or chosen to have all these revelations come out just to "get" a president who arguably was in sync with their operations and who was going to leave office in a couple years anyway.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

A few minutes later the chat continues:


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

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


This should be required reading for you Snowden supporters.

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

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


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

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

IMO that just doesn't happen. Obama happened.

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

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

For Snowden, not so much.

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

Back during the Bush years, I distinctly remember all of the outcry on DU regarding the creation of the expanded security network after 9/11 and the ramping up to the Iraq war. I remember concerted effort being directed to providing feedback to legislators about the creation of Homeland Security and the gateway it opened to governing by fear. I also remember something about a big telecom building during the Bush/Cheney, Part Deux. I know that there were many of us older DUers who actively protested the advent of these mechanisms through as many means available to us as possible. Does anyone recall the endless discussions back then about whether Congress was largely silent and did not push back on preposterous legislations pushed by Bush/Cheney because perhaps the unholy duo "had something on them?" This concern is not a new one even though I'm astounded to see some people here treating it as something new rolling over the horizon.

There is always room for reform or eliminating the product of a poor decisionmaking. My issues with this whole mess are along the lines you have mentioned--this surveillance is not new or unexpected. The Bush dynasty along with Cheney created a shadow government. We talked endlessly about this here on these forums for a decade. Part of the tools they used was the technology of the internet, a handy dandy new tool which had so many whizbang bells and whistles that the people saw no need to demand regulations be codified up front. Congress very much assisted Bush and Cheney firmly ensconce a machine that runs itself. Dismantling it will also take congressional action, but it will not happen with a Teabagger run legislative body.

Whether Snowden is a hero or a villain or something in between doesn't change the wrongdoing he exposed.

... with this statement: "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."

He's the Commander in Chief. If he didn't accrue enough power to take on/down these organizations when he was sworn into office, then our democracy has been over for a while. I'm not ready to admit that.

"He's the Commander in Chief. If he didn't accrue enough power to take on/down these organizations when he was sworn into office, then our democracy has been over for a while. I'm not ready to admit that."

...agencies are huge bureaucracies with thousands of career employees. I mean, look at the current battle between the CIA and Senate. The agency claims that staffers initially removed documents from a site that it set up to give the Senate access to documents. Senator Feinstein says they were placed in the system and then removed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024645057

.

The issue is, what any of us will do. It's well beyond Obama and various forms of hep-cat Gotcha in DU. God, am I drunk (but stoned!) in Austin.

when he is the one who pushed for more of this activity and to make it legal. Why is that okay? You used to go after BushCo and Clinton with a frenzy and all of a sudden when Obama is president, eh, not so much worry about all the same policies.

What's wrong with Snowden's motive? He wanted to get the information out about the unconstitutional spying. Why do you think he did it?

As to Obama, he pushed to make BushCo's illegal spying legal, albeit unconstitutional and expanded it. It's naive to think he isn't for this sort of thing when he pushed for it and expanded it.

What has he done to try to stop it?

"As to Obama, he pushed to make BushCo's illegal spying legal, albeit unconstitutional and expanded it. It's naive to think he isn't for this sort of thing when he pushed for it and expanded it. "

...inaccurate.

Bush was actually spying on Americans, Obama did not push to make that "legal."

and ridiculous posts I simply do not feel you deserve it. But here you go... hope it clears some things up for you.

EDIT: ACLU source coming...

Really?

Last edited Tue Mar 11, 2014, 07:49 PM - Edit history (1)

You know I had Bartcop in my head since he passed recently, that's weird. I will take that one out and find something else that references the ACLU.

Doh!

Everyone knows what the objections to the amendments were (primarily it was immunity for the telecomm). Everyone also knows that these included needed reforms.

Regardless, it still has nothing to do with Bush's illegal spying.

and smileys I don't read your posts. You haven't earned the respect it takes for me to spend that much time on a post. And usually they don't follow a train of thought anyway. So if mine don't either, it should work out fine.

I'm really just giving you info to help you on your way. Take it or leave it.

because of said bullshit. Except for the one I read just now about how you're so bad and rude and whine whine whine and they're so sanctimoniously freaking god's gift to the internet. Rofl

not to mention fucking hypocrites.

Hey, 23~ Howzit!

for Bush's "illegal" (your quote) surveillance program.

From your second link:

Protects telecommunications companies from lawsuits for "'past or future cooperation' with federal law enforcement authorities and will assist the intelligence community in determining the plans of terrorists". Immunity is given by a certification process, which can be overturned by a court on specific grounds.

What are the "specific grounds?"

Like the big banks, telecoms are too big to prosecute.

Doesn't surprise me in the least, as their material has become virtually indistinguishable.

believe that all power gets handed over the new president on day one. LOLOLOLOL

IMO, You must not have a realistic view of Poppy Bush.

by summer of 2009 because it completely weakened him in almost every other goal.

BushInc never even had to break a sweat against Obama - congress and stay home Dem voters in 2010 took care of that.

And maybe it's "OK" because it might track down some terrorists, and the courts said it was OK.

That's okay with you?

Also, if it's meant to track down "some terrorists" why did they miss the Boston bombers? Perhaps "some terrorists" doesn't mean what you think it means.

The courts have been wrong and overturned many, many times. What the NSA is doing under Obama is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

.... "Obama has no power". Really? Ok, then why vote for anyone? You really cannot have it both ways.

Obama doesn't have as much power as he should because he gave it away. And his appointment of assorted Bush era retreads was hardly a useful exercise of power.

Obama has a LOT of power over things like intelligence gathering and he has been pushing the wrong way. It was wrong when Bush did it and it is wrong now and there simply IS no fucking excuse.

..... I think you are right. Sorry.

. . . until it became politically impossible to do so.

The President was refining the NSA's surveillance program throughout his administration, to the point that up to one and a half weeks before Snowden leaked his information, the President was talking about that at this speech at the National Defense University. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/remarks-president-national-defense-university to wit:

Meanwhile, we strengthened our defenses -- hardening targets, tightening transportation security, giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror. Most of these changes were sound. Some caused inconvenience. But some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance that we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy. And in some cases, I believe we compromised our basic values -- by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.

So after I took office, we stepped up the war against al Qaeda but we also sought to change its course. We relentlessly targeted al Qaeda’s leadership. We ended the war in Iraq, and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. We pursued a new strategy in Afghanistan, and increased our training of Afghan forces. We unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with Congress.

Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure. Fewer of our troops are in harm’s way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. In sum, we are safer because of our efforts.

Now, make no mistake, our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. But we have to recognize that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11. With a decade of experience now to draw from, this is the moment to ask ourselves hard questions -- about the nature of today’s threats and how we should confront them.

And these questions matter to every American.

For over the last decade, our nation has spent well over a trillion dollars on war, helping to explode our deficits and constraining our ability to nation-build here at home. Our servicemembers and their families have sacrificed far more on our behalf. Nearly 7,000 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice. Many more have left a part of themselves on the battlefield, or brought the shadows of battle back home. From our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions that we are making now will define the type of nation -- and world -- that we leave to our children.

So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us. We have to be mindful of James Madison’s warning that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. But what we can do -- what we must do -- is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger to us, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all the while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. And to define that strategy, we have to make decisions based not on fear, but on hard-earned wisdom. That begins with understanding the current threat that we face.

the fallacy. The President wants to protect us.. I can understand that.

I think pretending that there are NOT greater powers at work in the world is naive. Especially since the PRIVATIZATION push of operations in the 80s and 90s onto specifically chosen firms that just happened to be loyal to Poppy Bush.

and the Secret Government that came out of the 80's documented by Bill Moyers.

America’s Secret 4th Branch of Government: The NSA kept even Obama in the Dark


Ever since the Snowden revelations of the massive, world-girdling extent of NSA electronic surveillance surfaced, I have been wondering two things: Did they tell Obama about it when they took office in 2009? And, do they have something on Obama?

Outgoing NSA head Keith Alexander or his circle leaked to German tabloid Bild am Sonntag that Alexander had told Obama about the tap on Merkel’s personal phone in 2010 and that Obama asked for more information on Merkel at that time.



In attempting to repair Obama’s reputation with his colleagues at the G-20, however, the White House counter-leakers have made an epochal and very serious revelation: The President wasn’t in the know. (Even in the best case scenario that he was told in 2010, he wasn’t in the know for the first 18 months of his presidency!)


Edward Snowden’s critics have alleged that he revealed classified US secrets to the enemies of the US. But it seems increasingly likely that he revealed them to . . . Barack Obama.


If so, imagine how furious Obama is behind the scenes. It is not his style to act out in public. But the sudden announcements of the retirement of NSA chief Keith Alexander (who apparently should be in jail) and of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (who certainly should be in jail for lying to Congress) likely signal that Obama demanded they leave.


http://www.juancole.com/2013/10/americas-branch-government.html

I really think some are very naive about the entrenched hidden power in bureaucracies that out last the terms of at least 9 terms of administrations

Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama, Obama

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.

about Snowden, NSA newest revelations feel ourselves. I, too thought Alexander and Clappers announcements meant that Obama, behind the scenes made it plain that there was no other option for them. They could keep their retirement and perks and go work in private sector if they want...but he wanted them out. He seems to dislike controversy so much that he will always give a person an out and hope they take it.

I think he was unaware of how vastly corrupt everything has become and how little power he had to deal with it or he didn't feel that using power wouldn't just make things worse for the country and himself.

If anything I blame our Dem Party Insiders and Operatives and the Corporations that Fund them for letting this get out of hand for Decades. Both Repugs and Dems worked together to allow this corruption to get out of hand. They were happy to take the money, let the lobbyists write the bills and vote accordingly. Most of the Senate and House Members who came from poor backgrounds who had to work their way up and know something about real life people (remembering the NEW DEAL & FDR) are gone and a new breed (the DLC /NeoLiberals)have taken over with their Globalization Dreams and Wall Street/Banking worship.

But, I disagree that we should sit around and feel sorry for Obama and encourage his doing nothing about the situatation he has found. We must keep pressuring him to try to try to clean this all up or we are done for as a country going forward. The people have had enough and it's going to be some very bad years for this country with unrest and battles with our ever increasing Military/Police/Surveillance state if he doesn't at least try to roll back to before Bush II.

He owes it to all those who worked hard out in the streets to get him elected and to the future of the youth for which he was such a huge inspiration.

but, there is absolutely no chance for Obama to be the one now that his presidency has been so successfully weakened from its first year.

It has been decades of Dems being backed into corners by BFEE that made this so tough now. Ike couldn't do it, yet, so many newly engaged minds think it should be no problem at all for the first black president who probably knew less about the real BFEE when he entered the WH than some of us here.

He can either cement a legacy as a hero of the caliber of MLK/JFK/RFK/Lincoln, or be known forever throughout history as the man who let democracy go.

Yes, he might lose his own life in the process, but he would be martyred and revered forever.

There comes a time when in the course of human events each citizen must choose liberty or tyranny. This is his time. Liberty? Or tyranny? Not choosing is a choice for tyranny.

Our forebears pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor to protect the Republic. It's Obama's time to choose.

.

rather than vigorously playing this little game they set up for us to have the illusion of some control and in turn force our party to bring it to a head and either lawfully take some of that power or show the game is rigged trying.

Admitting it doesn't mean that for all practical intents and purposes you are not going along with the play even if you are just mouthing the words in hopes of not getting whacked in the back of the head.

You can't convince me that any one here would do differently when most every one here avoids even stepping into the arena.

Sorry - but this nation blew its last chance for this generation of DC officeholders when Clinton took office and proceeded to waylay or deep six IranContra, BCCI and CIA drug running investigations and report findings, as he continued GHWBush's privatization policies and overall politicization of the CIA and NSA.

Perhaps some overhauling CAN be done down the road, but, with Bush2 holding control over his father's papers due to changes in document laws he made in 2001, I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

cannot be done through electoral means.

Fuck the excuses.

and judge those who do. I am as guilty as anyone.

and why wouldn't we be cognizant, if not outright wary, of people that were against unfettered surveillance when bush was in office but are seemingly cool with it now?

I mean in stopping the NSA to have the ability and power it does now? We have to do something about this.

they're already starting to crack now that they know that they aren't safe from the NSA's overreach.

been dialogue.

to support the idea of concentrating on the issue of NSA spying and the overreach of their powers.

the same opinion of Snowden and let it be.

As far as motives....Always look at the calendar in Bush land.

The launch of the Bush rehabilitation tour coincided with the release, iirc.

he seems to have some sort of psychological problem. He's run all the way to a country which will surely spy on him without checks in order to get famous and talked about.

The metadata crap is not the end of Freedom as We Know It. Every time he talks he exaggerates in order to dramatize himself. He says things are are provably untrue and exaggerated. He is not playing with a full deck.

You hit every ad hominem meme that the NSA has put out there, without skipping a beat or pausing to think.
Love that pic of Biden, by the way.

given who won the "Lie of the Year" award recently, and who also went to great lengths to cover up what we now know to be the truth in this matter.

The only diff between the Snowden bashers around here, and say the Gore bashers on the right, is the fact that they don't think Gore is describing reality, whereas some of you do appear to think otherwise in the case of Snowden -- after initially denying it just as avidly as the common flat earther did and continue to do with the work of Gore. Gore's likely heard or read about every slam regarding his doing it for personal fame and/or fortune too as opposed to it being possibly no more complicated that doing the "right thing". Snowden isn't getting bashed to the extent that he is because he's an occasional liar like the rest of us, it's due almost in its entirety over whose face the egg landed on.

The simple fact of the matter is, if you accept the fact that most of the NSA spying is done to protect the monied masters, then he and Gore are on the same team.

And based on what did you assert that he shoulda acted sooner? As far as I can tell, he likely couldn't have in terms of attacking Bush with the same info.

Snowden has said that in the 2008 presidential election, he voted for a third-party candidate. He has stated he had been planning to make disclosures about NSA surveillance programs at the time, but he decided to wait because he "believed in Obama's promises". He was later disappointed that Obama "continued with the policies of his predecessor".[54] For the 2012 election, political donation records indicate that he contributed to the primary campaign of Republican candidate Ron Paul.[55][56]

Snowden resigned from the CIA in February 2009[61] and began work for Dell, a private contractor, inside an NSA facility on a US military base in Japan.[29] Snowden remained on the Dell payroll until early 2013.[75] He was one of around 1,000 NSA "sysadmins" allowed to look at many parts of the system without leaving an electronic trace and able to argue for the use of thumb drives in a secure environment.[61] Persons familiar with the 2013 government investigation into Snowden's history said that Snowden had downloaded sensitive NSA material in April 2012.[76] NSA Director Keith Alexander told the U.S. House Intelligence Committee that Snowden "moved into the Booz Allen position in March [2013], but he had worked in an information technology position for the 12 months preceding that at NSA Hawaii. So he'd actually been there 15 months. He had moved from one contract to another."[77][78] In those contractor positions, Snowden held top secret Sensitive Compartmented Information clearances.[79] Snowden took a six-day Certified Ethical Hacker training course in 2010 in India.[80][81][82][83] USIS completed a background check on Snowden in 2011.[84] On January 23, 2014, the US Department of Justice filed fraud charges against the USIS for routinely failing to properly investigate individuals.[85][86] The company is accused of falsifying 665,000 background checks on government employees.[87]

Why on earth would he say he believed in Obama's promises and then vote for a third party?

Sorry - I go on pure logic and the facts of history. Your intentions here aren't credible, imo.

there's nothing mutually exclusive about his believing BHO's pre-election/candidate povs http://boingboing.net/2013/06/22/obama-candidate-vs-obama-pr.html on such matters and still voting third party -- presumably libertarian -- which was more appealing to his wider political interests as such.

If contending otherwise as what you've argued here is tantamount to, well, your intentions here are the least of your problems on the "credibility" front, beginning with your self-assessment and the role "logic" plays in your analysis.

And my reasoning is sound.

You are welcome to believe that Obama has 100% control over CIA and NSA and even grabbed more power than Bush had, and I will nod my head at you and think you're naive because it is obvious to me that Obama has accrued very little serious power within the DC power infrastructure. I can live with that difference between us.

and continuing it like the common strawman factory laying claim to "logic" use.

I made no case that I "fully trusted" Snowden's motives, I made the case that they are largely irrelevant to anyone not a dedicated BHO cheerleader, who coincidentally, are guilty of the same offense you fallaciously or erroneously, but certainly illogically, charged me with here.

The same case could be made with your "believe BHO has 100% control..." BS, which is something else I never even implied.

If all that is what you call "logic and reasoning", I'd say your thought processes have been poisoned by too much irrational BHO-love seasoning.

The simple fact of the matter is that whatever "control" BHO may or may not have had or yet has for that matter, served as no bar to him proposing whatever remedial measures he's proposed since the revelations, even if they effectively change nothing https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.zdnet.com/obamas-proposed-nsa-reform-changes-nothing-7000025329/&sa=U&ei=87YfU-ncBKbmyQGrhIGYDQ&ved=0CBsQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNE7xvtRs1pUy3k3EAVeXpuQf2sPPQ now does it?

And from Snowden's and the common "BHO-haters" pov, if he lacks sufficient control then who are we to blame that on -- anybody besides the guy that never actively sought it as one who was so opposed to this and that on that front before getting the job? WHat's next Mr "Logic", there's no diff between trying and succeeding? And isn't that lack of control, if it exists, also a problem he should be correcting. Bush didn't seem to have any problems dictating illegal wiretaps, so why aren't they listening to BHO?

Why he hadn't tried prior to -- even to give such an effort some lip service -- the Snowden revelations http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/16/131216fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all is the question, and will remain the only important one until he does propose and pursue meaningful changes.

But you stay focused on your shiny little Snowden bauble, no? I'm sure the history books will share your interest in and focus on ferreting out the many ways Snowden lied or undermined his own credibility due to the speculation as to his motives such spawned.

"Naive"? That's pretty funny coming from such an illogic master. I'm almost 60 and have been living politics since before graduating from college. You should go back and retake a logic class, or find some of the integrity you're so avidly arguing Snowden lacks.

the US wanted to assassinate him and another time he said the US wasn't afraid of him it was us they were afraid of.

He's calling Sen Feinstein a "hypocrite" while he's whining about the USA's NSA from Russia. Too chickenshit to say anything about Russia unless he's praising it(Putin) for being among the first to stand up against human rights violations. Idiot.

Says he tried 10 times to alert someone before he went rogue but absolutely no proof.

It's obviously not just about NSA's spying on Americans.. he hates America.. they must have done him wrong.

Snowden and Greenwald Beginning to Self-Destruct; ‘The Nation’ and ‘Mother Jones’ Raise Questions

snip//

"He handed over documents about American cyber warfare against China — to China. Specifically, Snowden gave the documents to a Hong Kong publication. Perhaps he was emboldened by all of the attention, hero worship and deification he received here. Who knows. Whatever drove him to do it, it was phenomenally irresponsible on a couple of fronts. Not only could he have exacerbated an already dubious international relationship, considering how there appears to be an escalating hacking war between the United States and China, but he also managed to turn numerous Americans against him — Americans who believe he crossed the line from whistleblower to traitor."



TDB

in particular who benefited the most from the timing.

It's only a matter of time.

IMO the exclusive focus on party over policy is fundamental cause of US political dysfunction, where you have tweedledum/tweedledee administrations on matters of economic military policy and you have nothing else than spin to suggest some deep dividing difference. Spin that is directly contradicted by the D&R politicians themselves in their more candid moments.

The notion that after 6 yrs as president Obama hasn't "accrued enough power in DC to take on...." is utterly absurd, esp. when compared to the obsequiousness of the premise, which surrenders to and absorbs a right-wing "BushInc" message that the fascist right is all powerful. Even after 6 yrs. As if "BushInc" should have more natural power than "ObamaInc".

security since the 70s.

is that the R's, esp. the Bush family R's and "Poppy Bush" in particular, are strong powerful leaders who know how to get things done and DO get things done, whereas the D's, esp. Obama, are weak feckless do nothing wasters of time and flappers of gums who pretend (doing a poor job at even that) at being leaders during interludes when the R's aren't directly in power.

Your LOLing at me aside, is that the gist of your message, your excuse? Or do you have a deeper message, a deeper excuse in there somewhere?

if you start now......

and BCCI would be a great place for you to start. Just warning you that it would take at least a month and then you would be more likely to 'get' it. You see - YOU are the one saying nothing that matters, del rem, but, I doubt you could see it. Anyone who truly believes that in the 5 years of Obama's presidency that he accrued the power in DC, the CIA, NSA and in the world to tear down the power infrastructure that Poppy Bush and his cronies have built and accumulated since the 60s, is just not dealing with reality.You assume a fantasy of a presidency with all-encompassing powers that hasn't existed in many decades. Even Eisenhower warned us.

Your postings make it clear that BCCI Report is something you never even pondered, let alone studied.

If you start now...........

Last edited Thu Mar 13, 2014, 04:07 PM - Edit history (1)

the limit of its power in modern history, as intended by the powerful, Bush-loyalist elite who built a global intel and security infrastructure and privatized many of its aspects, back in the 70s and 80s.

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.

before an out of control "global intel and security infrastructure...back in the 70s and 80s"

You're being ridiculous.

be swift about it.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

because you have no point to argue.

and its actual powers, it makes it difficult.

No one who grasped the historic reality of the last 5 decades would be so dug in as you.

The National Security Archives will make a considerable difference in your internet exchanges.

I understand your only point to be, putting words in your mouth:
"you, delrem, are a singularly ignorant person who has no learning."
"That's why you are "wrong", and disagree with me, blm, when I flatly state that President Obama, as a Dem., is singularly impotent to act."

That's how I paraphrase your argument.

One: I say that such an argument is self-defeating in that it contends that the President of the USA is impotent, and that's fucking well false. Excuse my adjective, if you're one who doesn't enjoy expletives, even when well placed.

that's not to say I'm not disappointed, but it just isn't just about him. Thank you for providing a nuanced "third" position, between "NSA lover" and "Obama hater".

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.

Yes, it's all about Iran. What Obama-Holder "scandal" hasn't been? The Neocons will give us no peace until we bomb their latest obsession into oblivion, and after we do, and sooner or later we probably will, they'll find another "threat" to obsess about. JMHO.

p.s. triple K/R

Thank you for this. The juvenile screaming and finger-pointing is beyond tiresome.

with silly personal attacks weren't making the same type of silly personal attacks on Greenwald, Assange, and Manning.

If "Everything Is Always All About Obama™", then Snowden would have gone public with the information before the 2012 election.

I agree, it's good to scrutinize motives, but, based on your logic and assumption of facts, if Snowden wanted to bring down Obama, he would have revealed this info just prior to the 2012 election, assuming that he had the info at that time, which you seem to imply, in your OP, that he did have the info.

There are other reasons why your argument does not hold water, one of which is the very great probability that Snowden had to take great care and time to plan and time his whistleblowing so as to be successful, and not get caught and imprisoned by the most powerful spook agencies in the most powerful countries the world.

Obama is not perfect; and that's A-OK, because nobody is. Snowden kind of made him look bad, because this happened on Obama's watch. He had important information, that took him a long time to safely gather, to reveal. It would be silly to expect him to wait until after Obama's second term was over to release it, just to save lot of hurt feelings among his fervent admirers.

Isn't it time to stop attacking and complaining about Snowden, and see what we can do to help the President "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."?

Shooting the messenger over and over, and over again because of hurt feelings may make some people feel better, but it isn't going to solve our problem in any way.

Instead of shooting every messenger who makes us aware of serious problems, let's stop this silly waste of time and put that time in energy into something constructive.

Everything is not all about Obama.

It's all about us, the People.

Isn't it time to stop attacking and complaining about Snowden, and see what we can do to help the President "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."?

I haven't really decided how I feel about Snowden.

running around within the government. And its going to take a long time to get rid of them.

Every time we get a GOP President, they work hard to populate the inner levels of the government with cronies and hacks. Folks who are they specifically to help ensure that the government does not work the way it should.

Clinton had a well working FEMA, Bush destroyed it, it works again under Obama. But most parts of the government that the GOP breaks simply are not that easy to repair.

Its going to take a long time.

but the Snowden sycophants try and tie to two into a very tight knot. It's completely dishonest and I've come to ignore and scroll by certain screen names knowing they aren't the least bit honest about the subject.

This administration has NOT worked to stop the unconstitutional/illegal acts by * since he left office.