Skip to main content

Edward Snowden has just proven beyond any doubt that the call-in question to Vladimir Putin was not, as far too many people here and elsewhere accused, a staged kiss-up to Putin. (He has also proven that he has balls the size of Volkswagens).

This is just f'ing brilliant:

The question was intended to mirror the now infamous exchange in US Senate intelligence committee hearings between senator Ron Wyden and the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, about whether the NSA collected records on millions of Americans, and to invite either an important concession or a clear evasion. (See a side-by-side comparison of Wyden's question and mine here.)
So many levels of awesome in that. Making Putin mimic Clapper's lie? Are you kidding me?

But this is the most important part:

The investigative journalist Andrei Soldatov, perhaps the single most prominent critic of Russia's surveillance apparatus (and someone who has repeatedly criticised me in the past year), described my question as "extremely important for Russia". It could, he said, "lift a de facto ban on public conversations about state eavesdropping."

Others have pointed out that Putin's response appears to be the strongest denial of involvement in mass surveillance ever given by a Russian leader – a denial that is, generously speaking, likely to be revisited by journalists.

That is just genius. And really just plainly brave: he was getting Putin to go on the record with what will now likely be exposed as a lie. Wow. (You gonna fuck with Putin like that?)

Edward Snowden - bravo, my friend. Bravo, and be safe.

Added, from Trevor Timm, head of Freedom of the Press Foundation (link):

The Guardian.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  but don't you see (25+ / 0-)

    his saying this was all part of the plan he and putin concocted beforehand. you people are so gullible!

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 10:12:13 PM PDT

  •  Interesting definition of (33+ / 0-)

    "has proven beyond any doubt."

    And regardless of what Snowden thinks he was doing: there's no way in hell that question would have been asked if Putin didn't want it to be asked. I'm surprised that all of your cynicism about the U.S. government magically vanishes when speaking of the (much more autocratic and corrupt) Russian government...

    •  The question and then the OpEd can in no way be (24+ / 0-)

      twisted by you and all the Bob Cescas in the world into something Putin wanted. Don't be too embarrassing on this quest of yours, alright?

      I'm surprised that all of your cynicism about the U.S. government magically vanishes when speaking of the (much more autocratic and corrupt) Russian government...
      I don't speak gibberish.
      •  Huh? (30+ / 0-)

        I must admit, I honestly don't understand how you think today's little Potemkin theater show made Putin look bad. I think it was him taking one more jab at the West, for the benefit of his domestic audience. He doesn't care what we think about him.

        And the OpEd is entirely consistent with Putin wanting Snowden to ask the question. The key is that Snowden's motivation for asking the question might be different from Putin's motivation for wanting him to ask the question. Snowden no doubt thought he was standing up for transparency - he seems pretty naive. Putin saw an opportunity to use that to take a propaganda shot at the West. I believe the KGB term for Snowden is "useful idiot."

        •  Russian journalist Andrei Soldatov (15+ / 0-)

          might be better positioned than you on that score, no?

          •  It's entirely possible (22+ / 0-)

            for Snowden and Soldatov to get what they want, and at the same time for Putin to get what he wants. I'm not disputing that Snowden thinks he did something important today. I'm just saying that I think Putin let him. That's all.

            •  A Russian journalist who works on surveillance (23+ / 0-)

              issues says this as "extremely important for Russia" that sculd "lift a de facto ban on public conversations about state eavesdropping."

              And you - you, person here on DKos - still takes a snide, position, somehow claiming to know better. I will never get it.

              •  Nothing I've said (15+ / 0-)

                is inconsistent with what Snowden and Soldatov are saying. All I'm saying is that based on Putin's paranoid personality and KGB background, I'd be stunned if he would have let Snowden on the air without knowing at least the gist of what he was going to say.

                And right now, it's a win-win. Snowden and Soldatov are happy because they think they've struck a blow for transparency in Russia. Putin's happy because he gets a propaganda talking point.

                •  That does not speak to what you've said. (16+ / 0-)
                  Interesting definition of (4+ / 0-)
                  "has proven beyond any doubt."
                  Here's what I said:
                  Edward Snowden has just proven beyond any doubt that the call-in question to Vladimir Putin was not, as far too many people here and elsewhere accused, a staged kiss-up to Putin.
                  That you could question whether this was staged - by Snowden, which is what I said, and what Snowden has been accused of right her on DKos - after this OpEd is ludicrous. And just bizarre. Putin almost certainly knew the question was coming. Tha'ts not the same as Snowden being involved in some "staging," and certainly not in a "kiss-up." This article proves that - beyond a doubt.

                  You also said "he seems pretty naive," one of a toolbo of smears used since last June to whittle Snowden down.

                  Putin's happy because he gets a propaganda talking point.
                  That's you taking a position. Not making an assessment. My position differs 100%. I hope what Snowden did in the last 2 days has some good effect on th erussian people.
                  •  Hmm. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    doroma, lordcopper, Deep Texan

                    Are we arguing over semantics? You concede that Putin "almost certainly knew that the question was coming". That's actually all I'm saying - that he knew it was coming, had an answer prepared, and allowed it to be asked. (Given the format of that radio show, if he hadn't wanted it to be asked, he could just have not taken the call).

                    I don't think Putin and Snowden collaborated beforehand about how to make the US look bad. I do think that Snowden played right into Putin's hands yesterday.

                    •  So claiming that Russia is too poor to do (10+ / 0-)

                      surveillance makes the US look bad?

                      I don't see how anyone can see is answer as good PR. It was a blatant lie that everyone in and out of Russia knew was a lie.

                      I haven't seen any explanation as to why the answer makes the US look bad or makes Russia look good.

                      No War but Class War

                      by AoT on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 06:25:38 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The key (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        AoT, doroma, lordcopper, Deep Texan

                        is that it was intended for internal consumption, and that the Russian mindset is different from the American one. Yes, you're right that pretty much everyone inside Russia knew it was not true - they're pretty cynical. But I don't think they particularly care, either. What they see is Putin standing up for them against the Big Bad West and tweaking the West's nose in the process. Especially in the current context, with nationalistic fervor at a height in Russia thanks to Putin's war in Ukraine, that counts as a propaganda coup for Putin.

                      •  and furthermore (6+ / 0-)

                        why is the global mass surveillance of people by bloody spooks a matter of who looks better? Is this a game which is about which power player on this planet is the worst human rights violator? Snowden said in his op-ed that this is not a question of the US vs. Russia it's about whats going on globally. It's geopolitical madness and a game where we all lose.

                        Ask me it's a game where we the people globally are what's for dinner. Getting in a pissing match about whether Putin is Clapper or Russia is worse then us ignores the whole point of Snowden, Wikileaks and all people like OWS 'This is not what democracy looks like'. This is global oligarchical collectivism and as far as I can see this whole revival of the Cold War with the spooks is just a falling out between the oligarchs from the east to the west.

                        What kind of idiot thinks losing all our human and civil rights and having Goldman Sachs and the too big's rule the world and letting the spooks run amok globally makes the US look good? Look at what we're doing to the planet and humans everywhere all in the name of security or winning 'the race to the top? This doesn't make anyone look good especially this country which bills itself as the only 'super power'. Go team NSA kick the KGB's ass. Just what we need another crazy ass paranoid cold war. Bring on the real war the one on terra was just to nebulous.  

                        Where's my habeas corpus?              

                    •  It wasn't a radio show. It was a TV show broadcast (0+ / 0-)

                      on every major Russian TV channel.

                      I disagree with your conclusion. You're right - he could have just not taken the call - that doesn't mean it works out like he wants it. (It's like you - and a lot of others - see him as a kind of superhero.)

                      I think what Snowden did will bear fruit in Russia soon.

                •  You're peddling CT here. (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  AoT, lunachickie, k9disc, Sandino, CenPhx

                  The most un-convincable man is the one whose paycheck depends on remaining unconvinced. -- H. L. Mencken

                  by kharma on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 04:00:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It can't be, it's blaming Putin and other enemies (8+ / 0-)

                    of America.

                    It can't be CT if it is about our enemies. It's just intelligence.

                    To hear the arguments here, one would think that Putin does all of this, personally.
                    He stuffs the ballot boxes, personally.
                    He executes people, personally.
                    He invades Crimea, personally.

                    He personally colludes with Snowden to create a game of 11th dimensional chess, or is it billiards - sending out ripples of intended effect throughout the Russian sphere of influence. All to stick it to 'the West'.

                    I just love how it's Putin vs "the West".
                    I wrote a piece not too long ago about the "Dictator Diva", a dictator who becomes known by a single name: Muammar Gaddafi becomes "Gaddafi". Saddam Hussein becomes "Saddam". Vladimir Putin becomes "Putin".

                    Then these guys stand in for their nations, like a political piñata, and are beaten and whacked with sticks until the candy comes out. And while "the West" is beating and whacking the piñata to get the candy it holds inside it, the people of the West can be comfortable knowing that we're just beating on a piñata - a very bad, even evil, piñata, and we can avoid the uncomfortable images and thoughts of the people of those countries being terrorized and killed so some important, rich people and institutions can get their candy.

                    Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

                    by k9disc on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 07:58:34 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't think it's CT (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    doroma, Gurnt, Deep Texan, poco

                    to speculate that Vladmir Putin, of all people, controls at least some of the commentary on state television in Russia.

                    But if you think it's CT, by all means, go ahead and report it to the moderators or the help desk - I'd be happy to argue my case to them.

                •  wtf? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Pluto
                  based on Putin's paranoid personality and KGB background
                  Can you provide evidence that Putin has a paranoid personality?

                  and

                  why does he lose credibility for being an ex-KGB?

              •  the interesting thing (18+ / 0-)

                Is that I see Dieslrae giving you thoughtful responses, and you replying with snide remarks that are not half as clever as you imagine and that provide no genuine rationale for your over the top claims that this editorial shows Snowden as some sort of genius.

                I agree with Dieslrae and the only way this editorial proves anything is if you are reading it with an a priori view of Snowden as a blameless saint who can do no wrong. If you were to analyze the situation from an objective position, you would likely not arrive at such a definitive conclusion about Snowden's blamelessness or genius or believe so unimpeachably that he was not used as a pawn.

                I also find the logic offered in Snowden's editorial to be simplistic, silly, and grandiose. Just like the question. If I could ask Putin one question, I could come up with a much better one than that camera-ready softball with a wholly predictable and obviously false answer. Where was the "daring Snowden who risked his life" to challenge his government? He certainly was not challenging Putin with that useless question, although he was buffing his own self-anointed status as someone opposed to government spying. I guess he has to do something to overcome what must be terrible embarrassment at  being someone who claims to be fighting his own country's abuse of human rights who has accepted refuge from a leader notorious for abusing the rights and freedom of his own people, while Snowden is powerless to challenge any of it because he depends so heavily on Putin's tolerance to remain in Russia's borders.

                It is a little like claiming you oppose the corruption on Wall Street and then going to work for Goldman Sachs as a lobbyist because you lost your job. It kind of makes your claims of fighting a corrupt system ring a little hollow.

                **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

                by CatM on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 11:44:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well, anyone's opinion, I guess, but I found (14+ / 0-)

                  "Interesting defintion of..." and "Potemkin theater" and "useful idiot" - among other remarks - a little snide.

                  I also find the logic offered in Snowden's editorial to be simplistic, silly, and grandiose.
                  He gets slammed when he doesn't criticize Russia - and now this. If you're offering no way for him to win, you're not really having the respectful conversation you're pretending to.
                  It is a little like claiming you oppose the corruption on Wall Street and then going to work for Goldman Sachs as a lobbyist because you lost your job.
                  Just fucking tiring. Snowden DID NOT WANT to go to Russia. Now I KNOW you're not being honest here.
                  •  I am being fully honest (19+ / 0-)

                    He chose to go to Russia to avoid going to jail in the United States. Before that, he elected to go to another bastion of human rights--China. No one wants to go to jail, and I cannot say I would not have done the same thing. By including "lost your job," in my scenario, I was indicating being in a circumstance in which your only alternatives appear to be work for the enemy or suffer.

                    However, if Snowden did not want to go to Russia, what motivated him in February to laud Russia as a great nation for its government's protection of the powerless against the powerful, even as they were rounding up gay people and beating them?

                    I have never slammed him for not criticizing Russia, which is a disingenuous claim on your part, but he deserves to be slammed for gushing over Russia's supposed air of freedom that we all know is a Putin-created illusion.

                    How does Snowden win? Well, he could return to the U.S. and take his chances with a jury of his peers. He could live out his asylum without being Putin's convenient instrument for deceitful propaganda, which would demonstrate the principles he claims to hold dear. He could stop doling out the information he took in dribs and drabs, threatening to release more (sometimes through Greenwald)  if the government does not acquiesce to his demands. If we the people have the right to know, why is Snowden keeping things back as leverage? (I know why, do you?) If it were truly about principles, he would release it all--not just when it suits his personal objectives.

                    I would have far more respect for him if he had placed principles above self-preservation because he took classified information--a lot of which he had not yet even read--and went to two countries that do not have our interests at heart and placed himself in a position where he was completely at their mercy. He exposed an abusive government overreach, but in doing so, he gambled with our nation's security. He also damaged our international reputation. Instead of working to fix our government, which belongs to all of us, he has threatened to damage it further by releasing more secrets.

                    And now he allows himself to be used by Putin, who knew Snowden's question would get the international attention no Russian journalist would have received for asking that question. Snowden is letting himself be used as a pawn in Putin's dangerous game and Snowden and others erroneously view him as the knight.

                    He can never be a knight while operating on Putin's personal chessboard, no matter how many editorials he publishes in the Guardian purporting otherwise.

                    **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

                    by CatM on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 12:24:04 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Stop repeating this lie: (22+ / 0-)
                      [Showden] chose to go to Russia
                      Snowden CHOSE to go to South America on a plane that had a stopover in Russia.  The US was trying to extradite him from Hong Kong, but couldn't get the paperwork right, so HK had no reason to detain him.  Snowden boarded the plane in HK with a valid US passport; while the plane was in the air, the US revoked his passport, so when he landed for the stopover in Moscow, the was trapped in the airport's international zone; without a passport, he could not enter Russia or any other country.
                      •  Thank you, CW! This lie is getting old (14+ / 0-)

                        It is amazing that in a so called reality based site, we continue to see this lie perpetuated ad nauseum here despite the fact that it has been verified numerous times that Edward Snowden NEVER intended to stay in Russia, but that the US govt. stranded him there.

                        Fair warning.  I am about to start HR'ing comments that continue to try to perpetuate this lie based upon them being Republican talking points.  

                        "I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West "It was a really naked declaration of imperialism." ~ Jeremy Scahill on Obama's speech to the UN

                        by gulfgal98 on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 07:13:58 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Snowden chose to flee (6+ / 0-)

                        Snowden absurdly chose to get on a plane with a stopover in Moscow while carrying many US state secrets. What could possibly go wrong?. Now why do you suppose he picked a layover in Moscow, instead of, say, London? It is because he assumed the Russian authorities would not detain him like the British might, for example?

                        He also chose to seek asylum in Russia. Then he chose to laud Russia as a bastion of freedom, in comparison to the U.S.

                        It is funny how Snowden always pops up with these statements designed to paint Putin in a better light whenever Putin is facing harsh international scrutiny. I am sure it is all coincidental.

                        If I had taken information to expose illegal activity by my government, along with countless other documents, I would not go to China (or am I mistaken there, too? Was that actually another layover as he was headed to which freedom-loving country in South America?) and I would not land in Russia.

                        No matter how you spin it, this country's goverment's abuses of its citizenry are several steps below what are seen in China or Russia.

                        **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

                        by CatM on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 08:30:18 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I count Six direct lies, re-writing history (5+ / 0-)

                          in CatM' comment here --
                          http://www.dailykos.com/...

                          Plus at least to misrepresentation of fact that fall just short of direct lies.

                          I'd enumerate them, but I have to leavce for an appointment right now.  If nobody has spelled the mout by th etime I get back, I'll do it later.

                          Easter Egg hunt, anybody?

                          •  I do not lie. (5+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Gurnt, sviscusi, doroma, Deep Texan, CroneWit

                            Clearly, you are incapable of defending your position without attacking the character of those who do not share your view. I will not be coming back to read your post, which I have no doubt will rely on great contortions of logic to achieve your purpose.

                            You disappoint me. I do not deserve to be accused of "directly lying." If I am incorrect and there is clear evidence of that, I would be happy to have genuine facts to indicate that because I do not like having incorrect information. I actually agree, now that the point was made, that Snowden did not intend for Moscow to be his final destination and no doubt regrets being stuck there. I will not be asserting that because it does appear to be somewhat inaccurate. (I do not agree with his decision to get on a plane and go to China and then get on a plane that would enter Russian air space.)

                            By facts, I mean something other than what Snowden or Putin have said (or Greenwald). I mean substantiated evidence.

                            I am just sorry every disagreement here must denigrate into acrimony. It is possible to disagree without tearing into someone as though they are an enemy with some sort of ulterior motive. I gain nothing by lying to discredit Snowden and thus am not attempting to do either.

                            I am simply stating my perspective on the situation, which happens to be different from yours. We likely agree on far more in life than disagree or we wouod not be here.

                            But if the only way you can debate is by calling your opponent on a topic a deliberate liar, you are not really someone I want to debate. I come here to discuss and learn, and I hate when other peoples' caustic responses to my attempts to discuss something goad me into making my own caustic comments.

                            That is not really how I want to spend the day--shooting darts at each other. So, I have to tear myself away from this poisonous thread. But if you want to stay and keep exhibiting the assholish behavior we have both displayed in this thread, you are welcome to do so.

                            **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

                            by CatM on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 09:00:28 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Don't worry, no acrimony, just textual analysis (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Little

                            like I did in this comment about  Stweart Baker's WaPo piece, here --

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            My goodness, you certainly got very defensive, and might I say aggressive in your language about me.  But don't worry, my analysis your comment is already written.  But I won't be able to post it till tomorrow -- my Internet connection was down this evening, and when it goes down on a Friday it stays that way forever (damn Comcast!), so I've only now just gotten back online.

                            So I intended to add a reply to my own comment, giving this apology for my delay.  Then I saw that you had replied, and I must say I found many of your points to be very interesting.  I hope you will take a few moments to go back through my comment in this thread (I think I made only two here, three with yours, but I may be mistaken) and let me know in what way(s) I behaved in an assholish way (assholishly?) here.

                            It's nice to see that you now agree that one of your earlier assertions was inaccurate.  But I would think the best way to put a reply under your first comment above (or other comments, if you presented that false information elsewhere) -- wouldn't you agree?  That's usually done by appending a reply to the comment containing the statement, and starting the comment title with 'Correction'.  It's also considered courteous to link/quote the comment(s) that caused you to recognize your error, and acknowledge the commentor(s) (or other sources) that corrected you.

                            See you tomorrow!

                          •  Seven lies about Snowden enumerated, defined (0+ / 0-)

                            My enumeration is below some introductory material that became necessary when I found (after writing the 'enumeration' portion below) that the rules of the game had been unilaterally changed.  I regret that this now-necessary addition has lengthened this comment considerably; my apologies.

                            The New Rules of the Game:

                            I wrote the bulk of this comment yesterday evening, but since then I have learned (from comments in other diaries) that CatM has some unique ground-rules for debate. Because my reply will take place in a playing-field that she has defined, I thought it best to introduce a few details about how CatM's rules shape the field.

                            Before proceeding to CatM's rules, I want to address the question, 'Why did I use the word, 'lies' in my previous comment?'.  Here are my reasons:  The events leading to this most recent flurry of Snowden diaries has elicited a renewed round of character-assassination memes against Snowden, with a new framing, best evidenced by ex-NSA attorney Stewart Baker's WaPo editorial (discussed here: http://www.dailykos.com/... )

                            In response to recent events, the writers at NSA Central have swept up a bunch of previously-refuted memes from the cutting room floor and have patched them together into a new version which could be titled 'Evil Arch-Enemies Scheme to Destroy America!'.  The contrived plot of this re-make is Baker's uber-meme:  'Snowden is now, and always has been, in league with Russia/Putin in a devious plot to expose  America's most precious asset, its ability to secretly surveil everyone every where all the time; if they succeed, the Russians will have won, and the world as we know it will be destroyed.  (Hey, it worked in the 50's; in the 60s-70's too – kept us in that ground-war in Southeast Asia for how long?  Yeah, close to 60,000 American lives, but lots of money rolling in, and job security with great perks.  Ahh, the good old days!)

                            So I have decided to call Baker's uber-meme, and the sub-memes that comprise it, 'lies', because the are the same od refuted assertions in new clothing.  In June-July 2013, it could still have been possible for people, confronted with a vast amount of new information, to still find the NSA-defender memes credible.  Too much time has gone by, and too much information has been credibly presented, for me to consider anyone who continues to repeat those memes as simply 'uninformed' or 'mistaken'.  And regardless of how many people share CatM's belief that 'lies are equal to truth' (see below), I will remain obdurate in differing with her, and them, and will call NSA-generated lies 'lies' whenever I see them here.

                            In comments elsewhere, CatM has posted some of her personal rules of discourse, which will be helpful for readers to bear in mind.  The unique, personal rules I know of are:

                            CatM's personal rules of debate at dKos:
                            Lies = Truth, so Lying Okay

                             There is no rule that people on Kos must always tell the truth

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            Snowden/Greenwald's words not evidence
                            If I am incorrect and there is clear evidence  . . . I would be happy to have genuine facts to indicate that because I do not like having incorrect information.
                            [HOWEVER!]
                            By facts, I mean something other than what Snowden or Putin have said (or Greenwald). I mean substantiated evidence.
                            http://www.dailykos.com/...
                            Oh.  So American Citizens Snowden and Greenwald's words do not count as 'evidence'.  That is so interesting.  In my readings in American history I'm aware of only three classes of people who have been considered 'incompetent' to have their words considered as evidence:  Black Americans, Native Americans, and women.  Snowden and Greenwald have now joined their ranks. (But that's all in the past now, isn't it?  I mean -- right, isn't it? I know it's supposed to be over, and all . . ..)  But our Parent Commentor personally claims the prerogative and authority to declare that the words of these two American Citizens just don't count as evidence because  . . . well, because . . . well, because, they're all icky or something.  Got those anti-evidential cooties sitickin' all over 'em.  I guess.  And if CatM is presented with the words of these two American Citizens -- like, Snowden's sworn testimony before two segments of the EU Parliament, or Greenwald's Pulitzer- and Polk-award winning reporting, those cooties will get all over her, and any words with anti-evidential cooties cant be 'facts' -- I mean, by definition, right?  So I'm glad that's settled.

                            CatM has made it clear that certain that certain evidence is not evidence.  The NSA documents that have been put on public view must (one supposes) also be disqualified from her considerations, even though a number of courts now recognize them.  And the reporting done by journalists other than the Dreaded Non-Evidential Two must also be disqualified, because their reporting stems from the Poisoned Fruit served up by the Dreaded Two; commentary and analysis on the reporting becomes useless, because it too is Poison Fruit.  Once all these sources are disqualified (as they necessarily must be, once the words The Two are made void and meaningless,), then the words of mere Kossacks who have read those words, reviewed those published documents, studies the reporting,  and considered the commentaries, become as meaningless and void as the words of The Two.

                            Pre-emptive poisoning of debate through character-assassination okay too (demonstrated by CatM, not described)
                            CatM will not reply to me because I am/have  such a bad character
                            Clearly, you are incapable of defending your position without attacking the character of those who do not share your view. I will not be coming back to read your post, which I have no doubt will rely on great contortions of logic to achieve your purpose
                            http://www.dailykos.com/...
                            CM's reply to my 'Six Lies' comment  poisons the debate by positing assumptions about my character & commenting style that serve as a pre-emptive attack intended to disqualify me and my reply to her.  Since we already know that, for CatM, lying is equal to truth here at dKos, I thought it would be useful to the reader to know what CatM believes, or is lying about believing, about me.

                            I would prefer to excerpt CatM's various aspersions on my character and behaviour, but I found that, like the lies in her 'Six Lies comment', her individual assertions about me were firmly woven in, at a rate of 2-3 per sentence, with the effects of individual assertions multiplied by how they echoed within the text.  So, without adding several more inches to this comment, the only thing I ca do is refer the reader to the reply she left me 12 minutes after I posted my 'Six Lies' comment.  Her pre-emptive character-blackening reply is here:  http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            Now that we all understand how CatM had shaped the field of debate, my enumeration of the lies in her comment follows.

                            Seven lies about Snowden enumerated, defined

                            The lies woven into the fabric of this comment --

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            were rebutted so early, so often, and so thoroughly in so many credible sources since June 2013 that I'm not going to throw away the days it would take to comb back through almost a year's worth of comments and news articles to substantiate the truth that rebuts each lie below.  ( I see that AoT has already tackled some of them, and CatM has conceded that her statement the 'Snowden chose to go to Russia' might be a mistake, although she did not attach a correction to her original comment.)  I'll just point the lies out sentence by sentence (although not necessarily in order) and rebut them with a summary from memory of the reporting that was available last year to anybody who was paying attention.

                            Lies 1, 2, and 3:  The first sentence contains three well-rebutted lies:

                            Snowden [1] absurdly [2] chose to get on a plane with a stopover in Moscow while [3] carrying many US state secrets.

                            Rebuttal 1 ,2, 3:  Possible air routes out of Hong Kong were heavily discussed here and elsewhere in June 2013 during the 'Where's Waldo' phase of the Snowden Saga, after he had left his hotel.  The route through Russia was one of the better ones in terms of air-time, and the US had already bulldozed some of its partners, such as the UK, into proclaiming that they would grab him and turn him over to the US if his plane landed on their soil, even though he was traveling to what he reasonably believed to be a place of political asylum, thus showing that  other countries were willing to ignore UN regulations on asylum-seekers to appease the US.  So there is nothing 'absurd' about his choice of a route, since many routes, all of which had to re-fuel in US-appeasing countries, had become dangerous to him.  

                            Also bear in mind that when Snowden boarded the plane in Hong Kong, the US extradition papers had not been validly provided to HK by the US, and Snowden still had a valid US passport.  By the time Snowden landed in Moscow, his passport had been revoked by the US, who thereby stranded Snowden in Moscow while it exerted its international muscle to get every other nation on earth to promise that they would not provide him with political asylum (and, in a piece of political theater intended to show that the entire world is the US's lapdog when push comes to shove) grounded and searched an Presidential plane because (they said) they thought that Snowden might be on it.

                             (It is also worth noting that I don't recall any reporting on who picked the plane/route that Snowden took. A number of individuals and groups, including Wikileaks, were working to get Snowden safely to political asylum, which they believed at the time was available in Venezuela.  It may be that someone else (like Wikileaks) evaluated the available routes/transport, made the decision, and handed Snowden a plane ticket without his 'choosing' at all.)

                            Rebuttal 2.  Snowden delivered all his NSA files to journalists before he left Hong Kong, and carried no files with him.  (The typical reply to this fact is 'Are you saying you believe him?'.  I devote a separate section,k below, to this question.)

                            Lie 4:
                            [Snowden] chose to seek asylum in Russia.

                            Rebuttal 4:  Please refer to Rebuttal 1-3 above.  (Lie 4 is an example of 'lying by telling the truth', taking one small piece of truth  out of its context and mis-representing to so it behaves like a lie -- in this case to support the lie that Snowden is a nefarious character who was in cahoots with the Ruskies all along.)

                            While he was trapped in the International Zone of Moscow's airport, Snowden applied for asylum in a number of countries, several of which had already indicated a willingness to offer him asylum, and one country had suggested that it might offer him citizenship in their country (Iceland), which would have blocked the US' attempts to extradite him.  Snowden submitted an asylum application to Russia rather late in his process of applying for asylum, as near-daily news reports made it clear that America's pressure on other countries to refuse him asylum were having their effects, and his pool of possible countries was rapidly dwindling.  

                            The fact of the matter is that, after throwing its weight around like Baby Huey on PCP for a month, the US had closed off every country in the world to Snowden, leaving him trapped in the Moscow Airport's international zone for what could have been years, if not the rest of his natural life.  It was only when events reached this point that  Putin granted Snowden one year of asylum, on the condition that he 'not embarrass' his friends the US during his stay.  (I am not saying anything about Putin's reasons or plans for doing this, because I don't know them, and nor can anybody know them with certainty; I am simply re-stating the history as it was reported at the time.)

                            Lie 5:  
                            [After gaining asylum,Snowden] chose to laud Russia as a bastion of freedom, in comparison to the U.S.
                            Rebuttal 5:  After gaining asylum, Snowden made a statement lauding all of the countries which had initially indicated a willingness to offer him asylum as 'bastions of freedom', as well as 'lauding' the people and groups who had assisted him to date.  Although this was treated as a big PR coup for Putin at the time, I don't think it can realistically be said that Snowden's 'Thanks to you all' statement really moved the needle of the world's opinion of Putin.  At most, I remember a flood of ironic laughter along the lines of 'Now, ain't that rich!  Putin as a champion of human rights! Har har har!'  In the media, however, NSA defenders rushed to claim that this statement indicated pre-existing collusion between Snowden and Putin.

                            Lie 6 (and possibly more than one in here):

                            If I had taken information to expose illegal activity by my government, along with countless other documents, I would not go to China (or am I mistaken there, too? Was that actually another layover as he was headed to which freedom-loving country in South America?) and I would not land in Russia.
                            Rebuttal 6:  Snowden did not go to China.  Snowden went to Hong Kong.  (But they're the same thing!  And even if they say they're not, they really are, because China controls Hong Kong with an iron fist!).  Well, no, they're not.  They are separate countries with Hong Kong working hard to establish its identity in the world's eyes as a separate sovereign nation that is no longer under China's control as it was in the past.  Hong Kong was, in Spring 2013, also undergoing a change it its asylum process, which already granted political asylum rather freely (to welcome Chinese political refugees), and that re-working of the law was causing great delays in processing -- which worked in favor of asylum-seekers because they were given an interim status while their cases were pending, sometimes for years.  Costs for internet access and computer components were also very low, and HK was known as 'the most wired place in the world'.  So all in all, Hong Kong (which is NOT China) was a very good choice for Snowden to stay while trying to make contact with responsible journalists to deliver his materials to.  (For fuller information on the Hong Kong/China issues, please go to the most excellent konKo's profile; his comments and diaries (and their threads!) from June-Aug 2013 offer great and accurate info on these issues.)

                            Multi-strand Lie 7:  Actually a rat's-nest of lies and mis-representations woven together to suggest ongoing collusion between Putin and Snowden that frame what looks (to me) like coincidences of timing as 'not coincidental', ie, as a complex plan by the two 'colluders'.   To really parse this, I'd need to be able to use different colors and arrows and a lot of different typefaces, which I don't have here; so I'll give the full quote, break it into phrases, and show how the pieces weave and echo.  The full quote:

                            It is funny how Snowden always pops up with these statements designed to paint Putin in a better light whenever Putin is facing harsh international scrutiny. I am sure it is all coincidental.

                            The quote broken down to key phrases:
                            -- "It is funny"  (odd, strange, curious, suspicious)
                            -- "Snowden always pops up with these statements" (tied to 'whenever', below, to instill a perception of temporal relations as causation, connection, 'not coincidental''; the words 'always' and 'never'  should always cause the reader to stop and think)
                            -- "designed" ('Designed', suggesting planned intent toward a particular use or goal, ie 'the plan' = 'the design')
                            -- "to paint Putin in a better light" (Aha!  the goal of the plan!)
                            -- " whenever" (Connects to 'always', above, to suggest that 'whenever' Snowden speaks, it is 'always' part of a plan ('design') between Putin and Snowden 'to cast Putin in a better light')
                            -- "[whenever] Putin is facing harsh international scrutiny" ( In terms of US PR, when is he not?  Oh, sure, the heat is on extra-high right now, but when is he not, according to the US?)
                            -- " I am sure it [ it = all the assertions in this paragraph] is all coincidental." ( = ' I am sure it [the 'design' named in this paragraph] is all  NOT coincidental, because it is all 'designed' to give Putin a PR boost whenever he needs it, which is whenever Putin is 'facing harsh international scrutiny', which is all the time, especially right now.)

                            See that bolded part, right at the end?  That is Lie 7, and it took a whole paragraph to tell it. Please compare Lie 7, and CatM's comment as a whole, with my analysis of ex-NSA attorney Stewart Baker's WaPo piece, elsewhere in this thread.  What similarities do you see between Baker's piece and Lie 7?

                            ON 'BELIEVING SNOWDEN'

                            The common 'Are you saying you believe Snowden?' response to those who quote or cite Snowden's written, spoken, or videoed words is meant to suggest that, if you do, you are a naive fool, an ignorant tool, or (darkest of hints!) some kind of 'fellow traveler'.  And now that we know that the words of certain people is “not evidence', and that any words by others are also “not evidence” (because of the Poison Fruit principle), it becomes obvious that believing non-evidential non-words of an un-person has to mean that you are stupid, crazy, or in on the plot.

                            Many people here are old enough to remember watch Rihcard Pryor on TV, our sides aching with laughter when we watched his wonderful riff on 'What women don't get about men is – that Men Lie!  They lie through their teeth, they lie like rugs, we're all dogs and we lie!'  He describes scene after scene of men being caught in their lies, and how they try to lie their way out of that, culminating in how one day he was up in his house with This Woman, and he was kissin' on her and getting' all up in there when Bam!  His wife walks in, sees them, and starts tearing him a new one.  He but-but-buts through his wife's (most righteous!) rant, til she says 'Don't you set your mouth to lie, I saw you! Then he bellows:  “Who you gonna believe, woman?  Me, or your own lyin' eyes!'

                            Since early June 2013, the news-cycles of the NSA disclosures have followed a pattern:  (1) NSA document(s) are published, as is thorough reporting about them which has been vetted by the NSA prior to publication; (2) NSA denies the report, identifies certain portions as 'lies', produces an alternate version to 'correct' the reporting, often using ordinary words which (unbeknownst to the public), carry a specialized meaning in NSA circles; (3) A few days later (at most), more document-based reporting shows that the NSA's denial/rebuttal is false, and defines the specialized usage of terms, and the public sees that in their rebuttal has just piled more lies  up to defend the previous lies.  Lather, rinse, repeat several times a month for 10 months.

                            Sort of like the NSA telling us that Lies = Truth (when we tell it), isn't it?

                            When the first stories broke, Snowden was in hiding and incognito.  Everybody expcted him to stay incognito forever, because who wouldn't, if he wasn't crazy?  But within two weeks (iirc) of the first stories, the Guardian led one day with videoed interviews of Snowden telling uw why he did what he did, and what he hoped to accomplish.  Snowden gave us a voir dire, a chance to 'see him speak' and study the transcripts later.

                            For several months thereafter, Snowden was out of sight and silent, releasing occasional written statements through his lawyer when circumstances seemed to require this.  Then, later, he won his first award, and held a press conference,  with a well-known Russian human rights activist at his side (hat-tip to Mark Lippman for that detail).  Later, he was asked to testify as a witness to two sections of the EU Parliament as they move toward changing Internet and Intelligence laws.  These events, as well as more awards to Snowden and the reporters/publications who have been providing this information to the public, have formed the bulk of reporting about Snowden.

                            I have read and/or watched every statement made by Snowden in the past 10 months, including his EU testimony (again, thanks to Mark Lippman and others!).  In every statement he has made in the last 10 months, he has presented himself as a calm, logical thinker who presents a case that has remained consistent over time, the only changes being in response to additional reporting which allows him to speak more freely, adding congruent detail and depth to his earlier statements rather than contradicting them.  

                            So given the choice of who to believe – NSA (and their defenders) or Snowden, their differing performances over time make that choice easy:  I believe Edward Snowden, and believe that I can take him at his word.

                        •  Snowden did not take documents to Russia (6+ / 0-)

                          by all accounts. He handed the documents to reporters in Hong Kong and then left.

                          No War but Class War

                          by AoT on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 09:25:08 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  All accounts? (0+ / 0-)

                            You mean we have his assurances that he did not keep any data as leverage so therefore he did not? Just because someone says they did something does not mean they did, and just because you want to believe him that he had no other digital files on him does not mean I want to believe him. There would be very good reason to lie about such a thing to the public. Why such an eagerness to simply believe everything he says without question? I do not share that eagerness.

                            **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

                            by CatM on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 11:38:15 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  He did not get on a plane to russia with (7+ / 0-)

                          state secrets. That is factually incorrect and you refuse to even acknowledge that you have been corrected on this point.

                          No War but Class War

                          by AoT on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 09:55:54 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  How or when was I corrected? (0+ / 0-)

                            Further, a lie is not simply the opposite of whatever Snowden says.

                            Snowden says he does not have a huge cache of state secrets, the NSA says he does. Given that he has disclosed some of those secrets, it seems rather evident that he took state secrets. The facts about how many he took and where he took them is something that we do not know. The two sides say two different things.

                            I am not lying just because I do not believe Snowden and you do.

                            **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

                            by CatM on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 11:34:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The NSA says he still has the documents? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            CroneWit, allenjo

                            Well then, if that's true, and confirmation would be great, then I'd point out that the NSA are a bunch of well known liars. So if you choose to believe a group that is already and constantly lying it's ass off then you're free to do so. That means you're repeating a lie and thus lying.

                            Snowden says he does not have a huge cache of state secrets, the NSA says he does. Given that he has disclosed some of those secrets, it seems rather evident that he took state secrets.
                            No one disputes that Snowden took state secrets. Not a single person. This is the stupidest straw man argument I've ever seen.
                            The facts about how many he took and where he took them is something that we do not know. The two sides say two different things.
                            No, they don't. The NSA has never said anything as to how many documents he has and in fact has explicitly said again and again that it has no idea how many documents he copied. You are clearly not interested in the facts of the matter.
                            I am not lying just because I do not believe Snowden and you do.
                            No, you're just making idiotic claims with absolutely no evidence to back them up. None. More than one reporter has said that Snowden gave up the documents. But you don't care because you've created a reality that doesn't exist where the NSA says otherwise. Never mind that you can't actually show where the NSA said that, because they never did. You're doing a great job at a Gish gallop though.

                            No War but Class War

                            by AoT on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 11:59:10 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  NSA has said it DOESN'T KNOW how many (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            AoT

                            documents Snowden took.  Does. Not. Know.

                            (The above is reply to this statement --)

                            The facts about how many he took and where he took them is something that we do not know. The two sides say two different things.

                            And, iirc, thee is a distinction between 'state secrets' (such as troop movements in times of war) and 'classified documents', which can range from extremely valuable and sensitive information to old useless junk that shouldn't have been classified in the first place but is still classified now.

                            Two different categories.

                            I appreciate your efforts to introduce facts and truth here, AoT.

                          •  Snowden took classified documents to Hong Kong (0+ / 0-)

                            where he delivered them all to reporters before boarding the flight to Venezeula.  He no longer has copies of the classified documents.

                      •  STFU. Him a Putin Planned it, and you know it. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        CroneWit

                        /snark

                        Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

                        by k9disc on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 10:00:01 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Fair warning to everyone (10+ / 0-)

                      This is a Republican talking point that has been debunked numerous times with links which verify the facts.  Edward Snowden was stranded in Russia during a stopover on his way to South America.  He did NOT chose to stay there.  The US govt. chose to strand him there.  That is reality.

                      If I continue to see this talking point being used here, I will begin to HR it every time I read it.  My reason will be that it is a fictional Republican talking point.

                      "I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West "It was a really naked declaration of imperialism." ~ Jeremy Scahill on Obama's speech to the UN

                      by gulfgal98 on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 07:17:46 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  And I will report you for HR abuse (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Gurnt, sviscusi, doroma, Deep Texan

                        No one is obligated to reach the same conclusion you did about the quality of debunking. This is not like 9/11 trutherism. Further, you cannot assume everyone is aware of said debunking. For example, I had never read any post on Kos debunking it and was unaware there was such a post until now.

                        It is rather disgusting to me that you would use the HR system to try to punish people who are not as enamored of Snowden as you are with no evidence they read the "debunking posts" to ehich you refer or your absurd little warnings instead of acting like a real adult and simply explaining why you ferl their perspective is incorrect.

                        Much better to be contentious and misuse a system designed to prevent trolling, and not to inflict your anger on well behaving, even long-term Kos members.

                        Really disgusting, from a philosophical perspective and says a lot about you, none of which is good.

                        **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

                        by CatM on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 08:39:03 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Actually, (7+ / 0-)

                          I am not proposing to use the HR system for disagreement.  

                          But this particular point that Snowden somehow "planned" to end up in Russia has been debunked multiple times by multiple factual sources. Every time I see it posted, it is being used to muddy the discussion.  I am tired of having to continually debunk it when it contributes nothing to the substance of the discussion.

                          Feel free to report me.  My history here at dkos speaks for itself and if the PTB want me to leave, then so be it.  

                          "I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West "It was a really naked declaration of imperialism." ~ Jeremy Scahill on Obama's speech to the UN

                          by gulfgal98 on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 08:50:55 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  And my long history here speaks for itself (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            doroma, Deep Texan

                            Just because you are personally tired of debunking a point you happen to have read a lot about does not entitle you to misuse the HR system to punish people under the assumption they choose to read the same posts you do on the same topics--or because they may not agree with your conclusions.

                            That is using the HR system against people for disagreeing with you. It is designed to root out trolls, shit stirrers, and really detestable remarks. I do not fall into any of those categories, and yet if I had made my comment after you made your decision to abuse the HR system, you would have dinged me simply because I had not read the same posts you did and had not considered that choosing to stay in Russia is technically not the same as choosing Russia as your final destination and that his passport was revoked while he was in mid-flight. That is a fair point.

                            And it would be nice to think a Kos denizen would want to take the time to explain it instead of lashing out at them with a donut attack because he or she has grown weary of explaining the facts.

                            How about simply asking, "have you read the posts explaining why Snowden ended up in Russia?" and then letting the person explain? Is that really so difficult to treat others with that limited amount of respect even if they do not appear to be on your side of an argument?

                            **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

                            by CatM on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 09:11:53 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  debunking lies is not debunking someone's (7+ / 0-)

                            so called point.

                            If someone has talking points they choose to repeat diary after diary that are lies, they deserve to be hiderated.

                          •  No they don't (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            doroma, Deep Texan

                            Although I have rarely posted in Snowden diaries nor lied, and thus your statements do not apply to me, I disagree that someone who says the same thing in multiple diaries deserves a donut because you reached different conclusions about the evidence and do not agree with his or her perspective. Especially if it is someone who is not a troll, is not trying to stir shit, and is not saying something really offensive, or exposing someone's personal information.

                            The HR system is not designed to be used to force people to adopt one group's perspective of the truth. Maybe that person does not believe Snowden that he always intended to go to South America (please do not start arguing with me about what is just a hypothetical, thank you). Maybe that person doubts the credibility of the sources used.

                            I find it disturbing to read that people on Kos, who I would expect to believe in the right to think and express one's self freely, are advocating for the use of a tool designed for a specific purpose to try to enforce group think. Especially when one has the alternative to respond to any comment with which he or she disagrees or to ignore that person.

                            It is one thing if someone is a troll or says something very hurtful. It is quite another if someone just does not like Snowden or agree with the conclusion others have reached.

                            Kos, by the way, has never had a requirement that not being factual is worthy of an HR. I have read many statements over my many years here that were not factual and were even repeated, sometimes by well meaning but uninformed people that were not targeted by a group of people with the point of running them off the site or forcing them to shut up.

                            That is apalling and something one would expect to see at Red State, but not here.

                            **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

                            by CatM on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 09:52:53 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "not being factual" - is that like the (5+ / 0-)

                            least truthful answer?

                            On this website we like to refer to ourselves as reality based.

                            Anyone who posts lies about how Snowden came to be stuck in Russia, when the information, "the truth" is as easy at their search engines, deserves hiderating. And yes, some here repeat their lies in dairy after diary.

                            spreading lies is not someone having a different opinion.

                          •  Grow up. (0+ / 0-)

                            I am sorry, but your defense of your intent to bully someone via the HR system so that only the information you want propagated is permitted is immature and not in keeping with this site.

                            **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

                            by CatM on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 11:26:30 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are sounding like quite the bully, CatM (0+ / 0-)
                            Grow up. (0+ / 0-)
                            I am sorry, but your defense of your intent to bully someone via the HR system so that only the information you want propagated is permitted is immature and not in keeping with this site.
                            HR lies in your mind is bullying?
                          •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

                            There is no rule on this site that people are only allowed to speak the truth or adhere to your interpretation of the truth. Not everyone agrees on what constitutes a credible source. Not everyone thinks that whatever words come out of Snowden or Greenwald's mouths are the truth. But again, there is no requirement at Kos that people only ever speak the truth, especially when they may say something incorrect out of ignorance instead of maliciousness.

                            I have seen so much incorrect information stated at Kos about health conditions, which is my area of expertise, and have corrected people for making false claims but have never given them an HR for it.

                            It is most definitely mean-spirited bullying in an attempt to enforce group think.

                            **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

                            by CatM on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 11:45:30 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We agree on this..... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poco
                            It is most definitely mean-spirited bullying in an attempt to enforce group think.
                            Sadly we see it happen all too much from each side.
                          •  I am not a side (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poco

                            I have never discussed this at length in any diary until this or with anyone on this site except my boyfriend, who has a master's degree in international affairs.

                            I have my own views, which are not consistent with either side. I am just one person having a discussion and would never HR a member of this site in good standing just for disagreeing with me and pretend I was doing it because he or she lied. If I think someone lied, I do not think that means they should be driven from the site due to being Bojo'd by my "side"

                            **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

                            by CatM on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 12:04:22 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I do not recall gulfgal saying anything about (3+ / 0-)

                            banning - driving people from this site, so you might need to read her comments again. She said she would be hiderating.

                            You seem stuck in your own version of comments that never said what you state.

                            So I will leave you to your views & your distortions.

                          •  hide rating (0+ / 0-)

                            Sometimes results in people getting bojo'd, especially when people pile on the donuts on someone who is not especially active, as the defense your side is offering of the practice seem to suggest would happen.

                            You are the one with distortions and rather narrow minded views.

                            **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

                            by CatM on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 01:46:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  For the record (7+ / 0-)

                            This will be the very last time I spend debunking the ridiculous notion that Edward Snowden somehow intended to go permanently to Russia.  His original destination was to be Ecuador.  The US govt. is who stranded him there.  

                            It is absolutely ridiculous that we must debunk this lie over and over.  This is not my opinion, it is there in writing in which various government officials are quoted.  If you can demonstrate otherwise with documented data, please do.

                            Link 1 USA Today

                            Snowden's request will be "reviewed responsibly," said Efrain Baus, the deputy chief of mission at Ecuador's Embassy in Washington. "The government of Ecuador has requested that the U.S. submit its position regarding this applicant in writing so that it can be taken into consideration as part of our thorough review process."
                            Link 2 Huffington Post
                            Kommersant also said Snowden had spent a couple of days in the Russian consulate in Hong Kong to declare his intention of flying to Latin America via Moscow.
                            Link 3 BBC News
                            Mr Snowden, whose passport has been cancelled by the US, has stayed in the airport's transit area since arriving from Hong Kong on 23 June.

                            He has requested temporary asylum in Russia, and said recently his favoured final destination was Latin America.

                            Link 4 CBS News
                            Three countries, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Bolivia, have all said they're willing to grant Snowden asylum, but the logistics of getting the international fugitive onto Latin American soil have left the leaker and his allies at a dead end.
                            Finally, there is the forcing down of the Bolivian President's plane which ended up destroying any previous good will between the US and most of South America.  Link 5 CNN
                            Portuguese authorities wouldn't let President Evo Morales' plane land for refueling in Lisbon, Bolivian Defense Minister Ruben Saavedra told CNN en Español. French authorities also wouldn't let the plane enter their airspace, he said.
                            Link 6 NY Times
                            President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner of Argentina said the episode had “vestiges of a colonialism that we thought was completely overcome,” describing it as a humiliating act that affected all of South America.

                            "I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West "It was a really naked declaration of imperialism." ~ Jeremy Scahill on Obama's speech to the UN

                            by gulfgal98 on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 12:35:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Tenure does not guarantee rightness. (4+ / 0-)

                            Sure once I was young and impulsive, I wore every conceivable pin. Even went to socialist meetings, learned all the old union hymns. Ah, but I've grown older and wiser. And that's why I'm turning you in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

                            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 02:42:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Poor thing. Having a bit of cognitive (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                doroma, lordcopper, Gurnt

                dissonance are you?

              •  That cat is just a Russian Greenwald. Why should (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CenPhx

                we care about him?

                Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

                by k9disc on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 07:36:27 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  It's easy to get. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gulfgal98, Little, Choco8

                There's a huge pushback against Snowden by everyone who wants to get people's attention off of what the NSA and others are actually doing. Also by everybody who 1) feels this reflects badly on President Obama, and 2)wants to protect Obama's reputation at all costs. Also by people who are simply authoritarian in leaning and enjoy the gated community version of America, in which everyone inside the gates is "good" and dissidents, foreigners, and everybody who doesn't look or talk quite right is "bad."

                By speaking to Putin, Snowden gave them an opening and they took it, in the closest discursive equivalent to carpet-bombing I've ever seen; no need for accuracy just REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT! Restate the association with Putin, restate the character attacks, talk about traitors and authoritarians and patsys and puppets and tools, talk about Snowden and Putin having sexual encounters (pretty weird on a website that usually is very strong against homophobia) REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT.

                Sure once I was young and impulsive, I wore every conceivable pin. Even went to socialist meetings, learned all the old union hymns. Ah, but I've grown older and wiser. And that's why I'm turning you in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

                by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 12:14:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's our duty then to let them go. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  SouthernLiberalinMD

                  Cut them off like the ropegrasping ship stragglers they are. Off to sea with them. Not worth our time.

                  Thanks for keeping up the fight, though - surprised to wake up here and find my diary such a big battleground.

                  •  Well, that's the question, isn't it? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Little

                    The eternal question of trolling:  is it better to let it rage unimpeded and dominate the narrative, or to waste endless time pouring energy and effort engaging with the troll?

                    The fact is, whenever anybody starts trolling, it's a lose-lose situation for the opponents of the troll, unless someone interposes authority and makes it stop.

                    Sure once I was young and impulsive, I wore every conceivable pin. Even went to socialist meetings, learned all the old union hymns. Ah, but I've grown older and wiser. And that's why I'm turning you in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

                    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat Apr 19, 2014 at 11:29:36 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  There's a reason that so many on the left (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma, Deep Texan

      hate and distrust everything the U.S. government does but swallow any bullshit spewed by Snowden and Greenwald and now Putin.

      President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

      by askew on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 07:51:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do tell (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gooderservice, cybrestrike

        What IS that reason?

        Enquiring Minds want to know.

      •  Snowden, Greenwald and Putin. A new axis of evil. (5+ / 0-)

        Is it because they are all libertarians? Or is it because they are all autocrats? Or are they really just commies?

        People on the Left distrust the US government on foreign policy because it lies and it is a for profit enterprise that is taking food, education, and medicine away from our people.

        People on the Left distrust the US government on economics because it is entirely corporate sponsored: SCOTUS, ALEC and legislation in general, and the $2B it costs to buy the Presidency. Never mind the exclusionary effect of anyone to the Left of Chuck Schumer getting into a position of real power.

        People on the Left distrust the US because it spies on it's people and lies about it, as we have been talking about and getting called tin foil hatters for about 15 years.

        Might have something to do with that stuff. And Greenwald & Snowden's connection to those issues.

        Your comment is insulting to the intelligence of every reader.

        Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

        by k9disc on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 10:16:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Here's some NaCl======> (20+ / 0-)

    Like Lawrence said--I wouldn't put it past Putin and Snowden--especially if Putin threatened Snowden with expulsion (which Putin would have no guilt doing)--to plan this out just to further embarrass the US and to hurt Obama in any way they can.

    Grain of salt, people.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 10:17:00 PM PDT

  •  Poor naive fool (21+ / 0-)

    Everyone outside Russia already knew, everyone inside of Russia will only see the propaganda Snowden willingly participated in.

  •  This is grasping at straws, I'm afraid (21+ / 0-)

    the damage of appearing to placate Putin is already done. You can't just take this with a grain of salt, you need the entire salt shaker

  •  Yes, I did not understand the "tool" (19+ / 0-)

    interpretation at all.  Vlad is on record now and that is the best Snowden or anyone could do.

    "You cannot win improv." Stephen Colbert (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6tiaooiIo0 at 16:24).

    by Publius2008 on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 10:30:46 PM PDT

    •  The US's 'party line' put online by Stewart Baker (13+ / 0-)

      by 4:17pm Thursday 4/17/14.  The TV show was also aired Thursday (and I hope somebody can do the time=zone math for me).

      Stewart Baker, accoridng to the Guardian, is --

      Stewart Baker, the NSA’s former general counsel, attacked Snowden in a post for Volokh Conspiracy blog on the Washington Post headlined “Snowden self-incriminates”. Baker wrote: “It sure looks as though Snowden is playing the Kremlin’s game here, serving up a pre-arranged softball on demand.

      http://www.theguardian.com/...

      Baker serves up a nicely-scripted 'Snowden is and evil enemy in league with Russia' propaganda piece, which contains a good many of the meme's that peppered Pluto's diary yesterday, and which are being repeated in this thread.  Among those I recognize after just one quick review of Baker's piece are --

      -- that Russia (read: Putin) tightly scripted the TV show
      -- Snowden's questions were a "pre-arranged softball on demand" (boy, there's a lot packed into that phrase, implying collusion in a "message that the Russian government wants to promote.")
      -- This one covers two paragraphs and needs its own blockquote and some unpacking --

      I’ve suspected for a while that Snowden’s objection to mass surveillance point was a phony. . . . Now we can see not just that the “mass surveillance” justification is false but where the falsehood came from: it was almost certainly manufactured by the same Russian government that has now embraced it.
      See that, folks?  Snowden's 'objection' to mass surveillance was 'phony' all along and it was 'manufactured' by the Russian Government so they could 'embrace' it now.

      And those two paragraphs contain the first use I've seen of the term, 'Snowdenistas' -- with its echo of 'Sandinistas' and its implied Reagan-era imagery of t-shirted terrorist rebels with scruffy beards -- to the Pulitzer-winning papers, the Polk-prize winning journalists, and the public witness to the EU Parliament whose statements are changing world's legal opinions and will help shape better laws.

      So, per Baker, Russia manufactured the lie that " “the mass surveillance of online communications and the bulk collection of private records ” is evil."  Why? Because "The Russians can’t match NSA in money or technology . . . . So Russia wants to drastically erode the American advantage in these things."

      Snowden and his 'istas', according to Baker, are circulating the Russian lie to weaken America tha that was Snowden's intent all along.  Here's the nefarious plan:

      If [Snowden] persuades Americans to turn against NSA’s foreign intelligence methods, if convinces our allies to trim NSA’s wings, or if he gets American technology companies to refuse to help their country, well, then Russia’s lack of money, allies, and technology won’t matter anywhere near as much.
      See that?  If the disclosure of the NSA documents by international reporters --
      (1) changes American's perceptions of the NSA, first by making them visible an dpart of public discussion;
      (2) causes other governments and the EU to change their laws and  resist America's long-standing control of surveillance world-wide (as they are doing); and
      (3) causes American IT compalies to reduce its complaince with NSA's use of them to save their businesses (as they are doing) --

      -- Then Russia will have won!!!

      Well, that went beyond isolating memes, but the memes were so woven together that analyzing what whole became the easier thing to do.  But there is on final meme that saw great use here yesterday:

      I’ve said for a while that I thought the jury was out on whether Snowden is a traitor.

      Now I think I hear it filing in.

      How many times did poor little duhban repeat this meme yesterday in Pluto's diary?  Really, how many times?  Would somebody please go count?

      I called yesterday's thread from Pluto's diary the 'Snowden Wars, Part II' -- and I still think that's apt, here at dKos.  But in the wider world, what I think we're seeing is The Anti-Snowden Propaganda Wars, Part II, with Baker sounding the war-trumpet with the new framing:  Making the NSA documents public has been a Russian plot from the beginning, with Snowden as a willing pawn of Russia (and therefore a traitor), and those who publish/publicize the NSA documents/practices (in a negative light) as Snowden's rag-tag rebel band.

      Look for this in theaters near you.

      All Peter Baker quotes from:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      -- which I found linked here --

      http://www.theguardian.com/...

  •  well, this adds a new wrinkle. (11+ / 0-)

    I'm not convinced of his "genius", but if this is true, it's bold and creative.

    Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

    by AaronInSanDiego on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 10:49:39 PM PDT

  •  What about a similar session between Obama... (12+ / 0-)

    ...and a whistleblower like William Binney.  

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 10:51:21 PM PDT

  •  Excellent. I mentioned Soldatov in a comment to (10+ / 0-)

    Pluto's earlier diary. His English language website is:

    http://agentura.ru/...

  •  oh please (22+ / 0-)

    As long as he is beholden to the Russian authorities (ie, Putin), everything Snowden says must be viewed with absolute skepticism. He has demonstrated that he will go to great lengths to avoid facing a trial in the U.S. It is logical to conclude that he would not jeopardize his asylum by challenging Putin and that he might very well be inclined to comply with directives from what we know is a very autocratic head of state.

    That is not to say Snowden was put up to asking the question, but rather, we know how Putin treats Russian dissenters and have no reason to think he would suffer an American dependent on his benevolence to challenge him. If Snowden asked Putin a question, it was because Putin wanted the question asked. If you think it was a spontaneous question that Putin was not told to anticipate, then I think you are very naive.

    This is not Gorbachev's Russia. This is more like the old U.S.S.R., where people go to jail for bucking the regime and where the government keeps its thumb on the media. Reporters have been executed in Russia seemingly by their own government for disagreeing with Putin. He knew what the question was before Snowden asked it and he had the "right" answer ready and waiting, even if it was as blatantly untrue as his assertion that he would not annex Crimea or that Russia had not enacted homophobic legislation.

    If Snowden wants people to believe him, he might want to return home or take refuge in a country that is not led by someone well known as not tolerating any dissent.

    **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

    by CatM on Thu Apr 17, 2014 at 11:21:40 PM PDT

    •  If Snowden wanted people to believe who? (15+ / 0-)

      How does being in Russia or any other country make the information Snowden has revealed any less credible? Is the information he's leaked only trustworthy if he's arrested and thrown in prison or is given asylum in a country that meets your criteria?

      •  Believe what is the better question (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        doroma, Deep Texan

        I am referring specifically to the editorial the diarist linked to in the Guardian. If Snowden wants people to believe the questions he is asking Putin are not planted and are done with the objective of promoting freedom of the Russian people from government abuse, he is more likely to be believed if he asks those questions from a place where he is not beholden to Putin for his well being.

        Your interpretation of whar I said makes no sense. I made absolutely no mention of what Snowden revealed and responded in context of his question to Putin.

        **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

        by CatM on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 12:30:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So if Snowden made the phone call (12+ / 0-)

          from Iceland and asked the very same question it would be suddenly credible because Putin would have answered differently. Or not.

          Got it.

          The motives, stated, hidden, speculated, or otherwise are more important than the fact the question was asked at all.

          •  Do you think before you respond? (0+ / 0-)

            It really does not seem like it. I guess you think your sharp responses are cute and clever, but they are so devoid of insight that they make you look like someone incapable of thoughtful analysis.

            I suggest you read what you just asked me and try to find the problems with it. (I will give you a hint as to where to start: concerns about the credibility of Snowden's question are independent of Putin's answer.)

            If you are at all capable of exercising logic, that should put you on the path to figuring out why your attempt to summarize what you interpreted my argument to mean is devoid of any (logic, that is).

            Good luck! Meanwhile, I am going to bed. If someone with a more rational reply steps up to the plate, I will consider responding, but if your meager offerings are the best the pro-Snowden crowd has got, I have a very good book waiting for me tomorrow.

            **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

            by CatM on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 12:56:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Maybe you should worry less about what (19+ / 0-)

              Snowden and Putin are saying and more about the questions and non-responses at the Senate Intelligence Committee hearings.

              It's because this oversight process isn't working that we have to rely on independent contractors and journalists to get to the bottom of what our government is doing.
            •  Your vehemence is really unnecessary. (13+ / 0-)

              If you think that overreacting with smug insults and dickish comments about logic and pathetic "pro-Snowden crowd" bullshit somehow makes you rational and insightful you are sadly mistaken.

              It doesn't take "thoughtful analysis" and insight to speculate that Snowden is under Putin's thumb. It is just one of many possible and very obvious scenarios under the circumstances but it is all too often the default position for those searching for the quickest and easiest way to discredit him.

              •  Oh, but it is (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CenPhx, jayden, cybrestrike

                necessary, and it will continue until the anti-Snowdens succeed in re-establishing authority.
                 

                Your vehemence is really unnecessary.
                I hope they have lots of patience. Being anti-Snowden is just stupid, after this little episode, IMO ;)

                This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                by lunachickie on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 07:57:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  so simplistic (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Gurnt

                  I wish life were as simple as your "analysis." It sounds so well informed. I cannot help but be impressed at all the evidence you have provided for your far-reaching conclusion.

                  If I wrote my scientific papers as thoughtully as your comment and with such well-formulated logic, I am sure every one of them would make it into JAMA.

                  "X is true because it is in line with my beliefs and anyone who disagrees is stupid."

                  **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

                  by CatM on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 08:20:08 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You haven't been in many (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jayden, gooderservice, cybrestrike

                    diaries where all this shit has been laid out over and over and over again, with endless citation, have you?

                    None of it needs be "scientific", either, so please do spare the discussion of the political this nifty "association" with research papers to make your feeble defense. Obviously, the commenter was right, and then some.  

                    Your vehemence is really unnecessary.
                    And your authority is non-existent.

                    This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                    by lunachickie on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 09:07:32 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  And there you go (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Gurnt, doroma

                reaching for your pat, dickish insults. I am not personally vested in Snowden and do not need to "look for the quickest and easiest way to discredit him." Why would I have such a personal goal? Not believing he is the saint you imagine him to be--the flawless hero who has saved us all--does not mean I feel a personal need to discredit him.

                Perhaps I am skeptical of his motives, especially now, because there are reasons to be skeptical of them. If it were my own son who had taken been given refuge by Putin in Russia as a last resort--because his other choice was to come back and face jail time--I would be skeptical of his public pronouncements. Not because of some perverse need as you insultingly suggested I harbor regardin pg Snowden, but because Putin is not a benign dictator and Russia is much worse than the United States right now about repressing its people and controlling its message.

                That is what I mean about thinking before you speak. Every time upyou respond to me, you credit me with perspectives or feelings I do not have. You loosely and thoughtlessly misinterpret what I wrote to fit this narrative you have created about anyone who dares to criticize your hero.

                I do not view everyone as saints or sinners. We are all flawed human beings, and often our actions have good and bad consequences. Few people have purely altruistic intentions. And people in difficult situations more readily succumb to the temptation to compromise their principles for their safety and well being. That does not make them bad--it makes them human.

                Why don't you actually try listening to what someone says who disagrees with you instead of launching some rapid fire garbage response that shows you either did not think about what the person wrote or that you are just in the conversation to score imaginary points and get a few high fives from your buddies?

                **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

                by CatM on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 08:14:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Your passion for Snowden greatly exceeds mine. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gooderservice, blueoasis

                  Especially considering you pull unsupportable comments like this

                  Not believing he is the saint you imagine him to be--the flawless hero who has saved us all--does not mean I feel a personal need to discredit him.
                  out of your ass in a lame attempt to define a viewpoint I have never stated. By all means, please point to where I have made any such claims about Edward Snowden.

                  And you best look in the mirror because you're projecting your own actions onto me with bullshit commentary like this in which you reveal your hypocrisy within two sentences

                  Every time upyou respond to me, you credit me with perspectives or feelings I do not have. You loosely and thoughtlessly misinterpret what I wrote to fit this narrative you have created about anyone who dares to criticize your hero.
                  And what narrative is that? I don't recall writing one so please show me where to find it. To use your own words, you are crediting me with perspectives and feelings I do not have.

                  I'm not here to score points with some imaginary buddies you've concocted in your head or follow some bizarre narrative you've created out of thin air. Just because you don't like my responses or disagree in some way doesn't give cause for the fabricated nonsense you've been spewing in a feeble attempt to justify your increasingly obvious obsession for Edward Snowden.

            •  Great deflection. (0+ / 0-)

              Dallasdoc: "Snowden is the natural successor to Osama bin Laden as the most consequential person in the world, as his actions have the potential to undo those taken in response to Osama."

              by gooderservice on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 11:46:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  So you don't care that opposition journalists (14+ / 0-)

          in Russia have explicitly said this is a good thing? That they literally say the opposite of what you say. Do you think Russians can't read things from outside Russia?

          And I'm confused about who is doing this believing. Are you talking about someone other than yourself? Russians? Americans?

          No War but Class War

          by AoT on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 05:53:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't care if the question was a plant or not. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jayden

          I care about the information that Snowden was brave enough to collect and disseminate to some journalists who would then alert the public.

          And I wish Snowden a long healthy and happy life.

          Dallasdoc: "Snowden is the natural successor to Osama bin Laden as the most consequential person in the world, as his actions have the potential to undo those taken in response to Osama."

          by gooderservice on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 11:46:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The first time Russia got a look at the (18+ / 0-)

      mysterious man who had been stuck in the Sheremetyevo transit zone for three weeks, he was photographed sitting between two women. You may have seen the picture. It's in a comment I posted earlier at this link:

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      On the right side of the photo is Tanya Lokshina, a  well-known and recognizable outspoken human rights activist, occasional political commentator, and media manipulator. For Snowden, this wasn't the safest way to introduce himself, but he made a statement about where he stands.

      Human rights ideology is entrenched now. There were mass protest demonstrations that turned into a police riot in Moscow the day before Putin began his 3rd term, May 2012. For now, Russia's leaders grudgingly give human rights just enough room to move.  If Putin perceives a public relations advantage from playing along, he will.

      Perhaps the assassinations of Anna Politkovskaya and Natalia Estemirova in 2006 and 2009 make people assume at atmosphere of constant brutal repression. I don't minimize what happened to them. At the same time there are many outspoken voices of dissent.

      Putin's story is that Snowden communicated his intention to work for human rights soon after his arrival in Moscow. He wasn't sympathetic. Here's the link if you want to read the rest.
      http://eng.kremlin.ru/...

      •  Forgive me (7+ / 0-)

        for not putting any stock in what Putin says and instead looking at what he does. Constant brutal oppression is not the only means of getting your message across, as Mikhail Khodorkhovsky, the members of Pussy Riot, and some Green Peace activists can tell you. (Not to mention some gay people, including one who was threatend by a legislator that he would adopt her children away from her.)

        Human rights ideology can also be unentrenched, in part by convincing one's supporters that the activists are on the wrong side of righteousness. Putin still enjoys a lot of support in Russia.

        Many of Russia's wealthy have reportedly agreed not to interfere in Putin's attempts to lock down the country in exchange for the government giving them a lot of regulatory latitude. The powerless are just that--relatively powerless. The Russian propaganda machine is cranking and has succeeded in convincing many Russians that gays really do deserve to be punished and to favor less freedom in exchange for what they perceive as greater stability.

        The truth is that no one knows what the real conditions are for Snowden being allowed to stay in Russia. Was it in exchange for the classified material? Was it on the condition that he tell the world as he did in February what a great government Russia has and how protective it is of the people's freedoms? Or was it that he ask Putin silly questions that give him an opportunity to paint himself as a true man of the people in front of an international audence at a time when he needs it most?

        We just don't know. I don't believe Putin, and I certainly don't believe the man who knows Russia is is only hope right now of avoiding a free poane ride back to the U.S. and a new residence in a 10 x 10 room with bars.

        **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

        by CatM on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 01:15:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree that watching what people do is a more (15+ / 0-)

          reliable way to judge than listening to what they say.

          I've been writing about Russia for a while. Before Snowden.
          I'm more interested in delivering factual information than writing opinion/editorials. That's why I read transcripts from original authoritative sources. It's research to be evaluated, not taken at its word. I gather tons of information before coming to a conclusion.

          One of my topics is the development of a Digital Habeas Corpus in the EU to protect the privacy of citizens. No US study or investigation compares to the work done by the EU and most Americans have no clear idea what the issue is. They can't get past the preliminary info about the individuals involved. Snowden asked a routine question and Putin gave a routine answer but it's all a distraction from what really matters.

          •  Thank you for a very thoughtful post. I'll be very (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CroneWit, CatM, Mark Lippman, poco

            interested and will respect your contribution about the EU Digital Habeas Corpus. I've only heard a very vague bit about it, but any of your info on it here I will certainly read with interest, as well as your contribution by comment or diary on any relevant topic. I really respect your thoughtful process in your comment, thanks. You're showing people by doing it right how it's done, by good example, how to do research with integrity, and ask questions and try to be informed. I appreciate it. I hope I'm not stepping into some bigger dispute on other topics around here, as there are so many voices I like, respect, and am fond of, and I don't want to alienate anyone needlessly or get involved in disputes I don't understand. There are disputes I don't mind to get involved with, but I know there's plenty of disagreements over Snowden, Putin whatever, but I don't want to step into that here.

            •  For the problems our country faces, I think (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poco, BMScott, doinaheckuvanutjob

              it's wiser to make friends and allies than enemies. I know this is the internet but it would be a shame if it can't be leveraged for the common good. It has to have a greater purpose than a place for people to bicker about inconsequential matters under cover of anonymity.

              You can click on my name, to go to my profile. Browse the list of diaries. The European Parliament passed a package of measures for the Digital Habeas Corpus/Privacy rights on March 12 and I posted on or near that date. The diaries are listed chronologically and the best pieces on this topic are in late January to late March. I hope you find something worthwhile.

        •  I do the same thing with every politician: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nota bene
          for not putting any stock in what Putin says and instead looking at what he does.

          Dallasdoc: "Snowden is the natural successor to Osama bin Laden as the most consequential person in the world, as his actions have the potential to undo those taken in response to Osama."

          by gooderservice on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 11:52:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Great idea. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybrestrike

      Petition the Administration to give him his passport privileges back.

      If Snowden wants people to believe him, he might want to return home or take refuge in a country that is not led by someone well known as not tolerating any dissent.
      As far as returning home, that's torture and a death sentence for him.  No way he'd get a fair trial, ever.

      Dallasdoc: "Snowden is the natural successor to Osama bin Laden as the most consequential person in the world, as his actions have the potential to undo those taken in response to Osama."

      by gooderservice on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 11:44:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  OK, so naive fool is Snowden then. (21+ / 0-)

    He gave Putin a chance to get up on his soapbox and talk about what a great defender of human rights he is.  And his answer isn't for OUR consumption, but for Russians' public consumption.  Sure WE know Putin is full of it, but the Russian people eat his bull like flies eat crap.

    Ever since Putin began persecuting LGBT, invading Ukraine, spewing anti-West rhetoric, his approval ratings have gone through the roof.  Putin knows his people, knows how to push their buttons.  Snowden's stunt served no purpose (what does Putin care about some journalist revisiting the issue?), all it did is provide a platform for Putin to push the Russian people's buttons again.

    Let Snowden retract his "Russia is first [among nations] to stand against human rights violations by the powerful rather than the powerless" statement, then maybe his stunt can be taken seriously.  As it is, his stunt is self-serving, self-aggrandizing, self-congratulatory theater.

    Putin pre-screened this question, created an answer he knew would give the Russian people the warm and fuzzies, and then allowed Snowden to ask it on state-controlled TV.  And Snowden is naïve enough to think he struck a blow for freedom or something. lol

  •  One wonders if Snowden is under the impression (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CatM, doroma, Deep Texan

    he will be able to capture a public microphone whenever he likes to peddle whatever he wants.  

    I'm reminded of the senior military officers who retire to think tank sinecures. They tend to last until their contacts 'in the building' move on, and with rare exceptions, their value goes over the cliff.

  •  God, what an idiot. (11+ / 0-)

    I guess he's smart enough to realize how bad it looks.

  •  This is my favorite part of Putin's reply. (8+ / 3-)
    "Mr Snowden, you are a former agent, a spy, I used to work for the intelligence service, we are going to talk one professional language," Putin said, according to translation by state-run broadcaster Russia Today.
    "Our intelligence efforts are strictly regulated by our law so...you have to get a court permission to stalk that particular person.

    "We don't have as much money as they have in the States and we don't have these technical devices that they have in the States. Our special services, thank God, are strictly controlled by society and the law and regulated by the law."

    He added: "Of course, we know that terrorists and criminals use technology so we have to use means to respond to these, but we don't have uncontrollable efforts like [in America]."

    In other words: I've just implied that you were a spy, and now? ... you're my biotch!
  •  The scariest thing to me is that very few, if any, (16+ / 0-)

    of the defenders of the surveillance state here are actually paid to pretend that they believe that this is all an anti-American plot by somebody.

    No, they actually believe it.

    They have jobs, raise kids, and are often somebody's boss.

    Think about that for a bit and you'll see how easy it is to get the authoritarians whipped up to rally around almost anything, no matter how obviously absurd.

    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

    by Greyhound on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 02:14:33 AM PDT

    •  Gawd can we put this one (18+ / 0-)

      to bed?

      People here are whining because kossacks are saying mildly insulting things about Snowden, comparing them to insulting fellow kossacks.  

      Now Snowden is some sort of 11th dimensional chess player, and if you don't wholly agree with that then you are a "defender of the surveillance state" and an "authoritarian".

      Sure.

      I can't believe anyone actually believes that Snowden is so clever as to fool Putin into playing into his hands!  A genius who saw so many moves ahead that he fooled a world leader into unwittingly participating in a con whereby both Putin AND Obama look bad!!

      Naive true believers who actually think that Vladimir Putin lets people surprise him with embarrassing questions in public - and they actually have jobs, raise kids, and are often somebody's boss!

      Naw, think about that and see how easy it is to get anyone whipped up to rally around almost anything, no matter how obviously absurd.

      •  It's pretty hilarious really (13+ / 0-)

        Snowden finally denounces Russian surveillance like so many of his detractors have been calling for and it's just another example of how bad Snowden is.

        And Putin telling the world that Russia is too poor to do surveillance on everyone is not embarrassing.

        This isn't 11 dimensional chess, it's not even chess, it's basic advocacy. Snowden got Putin to go on record about surveillance. That's a step forward. Only someone who knows very little about Russian politics would think otherwise.

        No War but Class War

        by AoT on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 06:29:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Snowden didn't denounce Russian surveillance. (12+ / 0-)

          All he did was tee up a question.  Putin denied it,and then post hoc Snowden wrote an editorial saying someone else will find out if it's true or not.

          The idea that putting Putin on record is somehow going to bite Putin in the ass, someday, might be a hope, but so far, all that Snowden's done is remind everyone of his attacks on the US.  Which Putin gladly made part of his answer.

          The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

          by Inland on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 06:44:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  from link (8+ / 0-)

            I blew the whistle on the NSA's surveillance practices not because I believed that the United States was uniquely at fault, but because I believe that mass surveillance of innocents – the construction of enormous, state-run surveillance time machines that can turn back the clock on the most intimate details of our lives – is a threat to all people, everywhere, no matter who runs them.

            Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

            by greenbastard on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 06:46:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Doesn't say Russia has such practices. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jdsnebraska, sweatyb, Gurnt, Deep Texan

              I suggest that Putin is perfectly happy to have Snowden leave it at "no matter who does them" as long as Russia isn't identified as a "who".

              The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

              by Inland on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 06:55:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  you're not trying very hard (6+ / 0-)

                yes he does. Did you read the article?

                He notes the systems are in place and links to this article:

                http://www.theguardian.com/...

                For example, journalists might ask for clarification as to how millions of individuals' communications are not being intercepted, analysed or stored, when, at least on a technical level, the systems that are in place must do precisely that in order to function. They might ask whether the social media companies reporting that they have received bulk collection requests from the Russian government are telling the truth.

                Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

                by greenbastard on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 06:59:48 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  "Someone else might ask" (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  doroma, jdsnebraska, sweatyb, Gurnt, Deep Texan

                  isn't an accusation. It's not even an implication.

                  The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

                  by Inland on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 07:07:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  for example (5+ / 0-)
                    For example, journalists might ask for clarification as to how millions of individuals' communications are not being intercepted, analysed or stored, when, at least on a technical level, the systems that are in place must do precisely that in order to function. They might ask whether the social media companies reporting that they have received bulk collection requests from the Russian government are telling the truth.
                    the systems that are in place must do precisely that in order to function

                    the systems that are in place must do precisely that in order to function

                    the systems that are in place must do precisely that in order to function

                    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

                    by greenbastard on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 07:10:25 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  that's a pretty weak link (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Tony Situ
                  the systems that are in place must do precisely that in order to function
                  Snowden "accusation" here is that the internet works in Russia the same way it does in the United States.

                  You're expanding that into the implication that because Russia has the internet, the FSB is spying on everyone just like the NSA.

                  That's a huge leap. And Snowden is definitely not making it with you. No matter how many times you repeat it in bold.

                  •  you should rad the article (0+ / 0-)

                    he's not talking about the internet

                    geez

                    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

                    by greenbastard on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 09:08:49 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  it's all the internet (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Tony Situ

                      Maybe that's why you think what Snowden said is significant; perhaps you don't understand technically what is going on. Snowden does. Putin does. Apparently you don't.

                      "Wiretapping" is an anachronistic phrase that implies that for each communication there's a discrete wire and "tapping" that wire will access only that communication. (Person A calls Person B on Line C, so to listen to Person A and Person B talking, just listen to Line C.) That's not how things work anymore.

                      The design of modern communications equipment is such that if you can intercept one communication across a device, you can just as easily intercept the entirety of communications across that device. And, in fact, you must intercept all communications to determine which one is the thing you're interested in.

                      That's a physical reality of internet technology.

                      And that's the entirety of Snowden's "accusation"; that Russia uses the internet. Which is also part of the reason why Putin is able to laugh at Snowden and treat him as a joke.

                      •  I doubt that Russia actually has (0+ / 0-)

                        electronic switching implemented across the board. They probably have at least a few old crossbar systems. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a majority of older systems.

                        No War but Class War

                        by AoT on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 10:37:02 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  That was part of the joke Putin made (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          AoT, Deep Texan

                          That whole thing about not having the technology was a wink-wink-nudge-nudge moment, with the implication being that a modern and prosperous Russia (that Putin is ushering forth) will obviously have that kind of capability.

                          A domestic spying program that every Russian can be proud of!

                          And, as with everything Putin does, it would only be used for the betterment and improvement of Mother Russia.

                          That's why I think Snowden's defense is so ludicrous. He's sitting in Russia thinking that he can embarrass Putin by suggesting he spies on his citizens. (Which, I think was another part of his joke: Ahem, former KGB agent.)

                          What embarrasses Putin is that the United States is better at spying on its citizens than he is. That is Putin's great shame.

                          •  So Putin blatantly lying about something that (0+ / 0-)

                            everyone presumably knows he's lying about, but which he has refused to comment prior to this is some sort of PR coup? This seems like a gigantic stretch.

                            I wonder if there's any receipts for sales to Russia from Booz Allan Hamilton in the documents that Snowden liberated.

                            No War but Class War

                            by AoT on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 11:33:05 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  missing the point (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Deep Texan, Tony Situ

                            Putin allowed Snowden's question for far different reasons than Snowden agreed to ask it. (aka. Snowden got played)

                            The PR coup for Putin is changing the subject from Russia's violations of international law in Ukraine to Edward Snowden saying how evil the United States is.

                            Is there anything related to Booz Allan Hamilton in Snowden's docs? I haven't heard or seen of it. So I'm guessing not.

                            And at the risk of getting sidetracked, there's not need to torture the English language. Liberated means "freed from imprisonment, slavery, or enemy occupation." I'm not sure that applies to classified powerpoint slides and the like.

                            Jean Valjean didn't "liberate" the bread for his family. Snowden didn't "liberate" those documents.

                          •  For the record (0+ / 0-)

                            I always use 'liberated' in a snarky fashion since we 'liberated' Iraq. Probably should have been more clear on that one;)

                            Is there anything related to Booz Allan Hamilton in Snowden's docs? I haven't heard or seen of it. So I'm guessing not.
                            There hasn't been anything revealed publicly, but it seems almost certain that there had to be something in there. The company is horrible enough. He might have just absconded with stuff on the NSA solely though, but the contractors and the NSA are so tied together these days that who knows.
                            The PR coup for Putin is changing the subject from Russia's violations of international law in Ukraine to Edward Snowden saying how evil the United States is.
                            I highly doubt this will have any significant effect on obscuring the violence in Ukraine by Russia and it's surrogates. And seriously, when you've got human rights advocates in Russia saying this is a good thing it seems foolish to act as if Snowden got played.

                            No War but Class War

                            by AoT on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 12:21:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Booz had better internal controls than the NSA (0+ / 0-)

                            I think Putin got exactly what he wanted from Snowden.

                            And, as I've explained, I don't think Snowden got anything from Putin. (And because of that failure, Snowden was forced to explain himself in an op-ed.)

                            Therefore (accepting the premise that Snowden's interests are antithetical to Putin's) it's hard to avoid the impression that Snowden was played.

                          •  Maybe *after* anonymous hacked them (0+ / 0-)
                            And, as I've explained, I don't think Snowden got anything from Putin. (And because of that failure, Snowden was forced to explain himself in an op-ed.)
                            A giant lie that everyone knows is a lie isn't nothing. Simply talking about surveillance is a victory of sorts. Although I suppose we'll just have to disagree on that.
                            And because of that failure, Snowden was forced to explain himself in an op-ed.
                            Or because people who already didn't like Snowden took it as an opportunity to attack Snowden, as happens every time he does anything or any of the info he gave to reporters is released. He could have literally stabbed Putin and some folks would attack it as a PR victory for Putin. "Well, Putin looks terribly sympathetic now."

                            No War but Class War

                            by AoT on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 12:41:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  that's silly (0+ / 0-)
                            Or because people who already didn't like Snowden took it as an opportunity to attack Snowden
                            Nothing Snowden says will impress those people and Snowden has never tried to appeal to them before. So why is he doing so now? Why did he wait until after he was roundly criticized from all corners for his blunder?

                            It wasn't a blunder! I caught Putin in a lie! Or maybe not, because I don't actually have any new information and cannot say whether what Putin said was true or false. And so, my "accusation" was completely neutered before I made it, but I made it anyways, because... well... maybe someone sometime will investigate something and... er... find out... something... um... yeah... have I mentioned how evil the NSA is... or well... was.

                            That sort of thinking is why Putin was able to tell his little spy joke. Snowden thinks he's a spy now, but Putin showed that he's not. He thought he was being clever, but Putin made him look like a fool.

                          •  Honestly (0+ / 0-)

                            I saw absolutely no shift in people's thinking one way or the other after he asked the question. Except that it reinforced what they already believed.

                            And Snowden clearly pointed out at least one problem with Putin's complete denial.

                            Why did he wait until after he was roundly criticized from all corners for his blunder?
                            But he wasn't criticized from all corners, not at all.

                            No War but Class War

                            by AoT on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 01:31:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Snowden seems to disagree. He says the (0+ / 0-)

                          "systems are in place" to do mass surveillance and indeed says they "must" be in place in order for the internet to work at all.  Which is at the heart of lots of Snowden's accusations:  The very existence of the internet necessitates implementing systems that allow mass surveillance.  Well, no shit.  And Snowden goes on from that obvious fact to, "This would allow the government to do this and that and other, and the government can track everyone's thoughts as they form, blah blah blah", while then saying under his breath, "But I concede that they aren't actually doing that."

                          Basically no matter how many laws are put in place to ban mass surveillance, the core of Snowden's accusations will still be in effect: The capability to do mass surveillance will still be in place, because the capability to do mass communication will be in place.  Both here, Russia, and any other place that has cybercommunications (internet, cell towers, digital landlines, satellite communications).

          •  He wrote an article denouncing it and (6+ / 0-)

            pointing out that "There are serious inconsistencies in his denial".

            He's denounced surveillance in general and he points out in the oped the parts of Russian surveillance we do know exist. Go read the oped before you comment please.

            No War but Class War

            by AoT on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 06:55:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Didn't say Russia has such practices. (4+ / 0-)

              So it's pretty clear he's not denouncing Russian practices.

              he points out in the oped the parts of Russian surveillance we do know exist.
              No, he doesn't. He just says someone should look into whether it exists.

              The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

              by Inland on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 06:58:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  since you are repeating this again (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cybrestrike, AoT, CenPhx, aliasalias, nota bene
                For example, journalists might ask for clarification as to how millions of individuals' communications are not being intercepted, analysed or stored, when, at least on a technical level, the systems that are in place must do precisely that in order to function. They might ask whether the social media companies reporting that they have received bulk collection requests from the Russian government are telling the truth.
                and he links to this article:
                http://www.theguardian.com/...

                Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

                by greenbastard on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 07:02:27 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And since you're repeating the "Someone should ask (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  doroma, Gurnt, Deep Texan

                  " again, I'd note that Snowden is leaving the issue open for someone else to determine in every sense of the word.  He's not taking a stand, except to have someone else risk their own skin by looking into it.

                  The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

                  by Inland on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 07:08:25 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Way (9+ / 0-)

          to misread.

          There is a huge gap between

          Snowden is a fucking genius!

          and

          Snowden is "bad".

          Snowden is NOT a fucking genius.  He is not a saint.  He is not flawless.

          Neither is he wholly "bad" or totally wrong.

          Tell us that we are being spied on - good

          Continue to hold back and threaten to release additional stuff (instead of releasing it all on our behalf) - bad

          Pointing out NSA overreach (to put it mildly) - good

          Pointing out NSA spying tactics to the rest of the world - bad (and naive, saying stuff like "we shouldn't spy on [North Korea] unless we are at war")

          Criticizing leaders for surveilling us - good

          Playing with fire (Putin) - bad, and dangerous.  

          Putin allows Snowden freedom(ish) of expression right now because it serves Putin.  Putin is not stupid, nor is he kind nor appreciative of Snowden as a human being.  Snowden is useful because Putin thinks his presence in Russia tweaks Obama's nose.  Eventually Snowden will not longer serve Putin's purpose and he could be reigned in hard.  

          That Kossacks have lost the ability to see any sort of nuance in this situation is sad commentary.

          •  Snowden hasn't threatened to release anything else (5+ / 0-)

            He doesn't have anything else. This is why we can't have conversation here, because people make shit up to attack Snowden.

            No War but Class War

            by AoT on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 06:53:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  He has (6+ / 0-)

              said there is more.

              http://www.foxnews.com/...

              Edward Snowden possesses data that could prove far more "damaging" to the US government but the fugitive leaker has chosen not to release them, said a journalist who first broke the story.

              Glenn Greenwald told Argentina's La Nacion paper that Snowden, who is currently stranded in Moscow, had only sought to alert people that information they thought was private was being exploited by US intelligence agencies.

              "Snowden has enough information to cause more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States," he told the paper in an interview published on Saturday.

              "But that's not his goal," said Greenwald, who published a series of stories in Britain's Guardian newspaper based on top-secret documents about sweeping US surveillance programmes that were leaked by Snowden.

              Yeah, it's Faux news.  

              Quoting GREENWALD.

              •  wait (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cybrestrike, Don midwest

                who threatened that?

                you even bolded it.

                but you should have bolded this:

                "But that's not his goal,

                Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

                by greenbastard on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 07:03:24 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sure. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  doroma, Gurnt, Deep Texan

                  That's not a veiled threat.

                  Greenwald is completely genuine when he says "that's not his goal".  

                  I have no intention of doing it, but by the way, I can fucking FRY you.
                  All very innocent.
                •  I'm replying to a (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Deep Texan

                  comment that says "he doesn't have anything else" and accuses me of "making shit up".

                  If I didn't have to go to work I'd find Snowden saying pretty much the same thing as Greenwald.

                  He has more.

                  •  No, you wouldn't find Snowden saying that (3+ / 0-)

                    Because it was Greenwald who said it, not Snowden. You conflated the two people pure and simple.

                    No War but Class War

                    by AoT on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 08:53:02 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Keep reading (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Deep Texan

                      Reading is fundamental.

                      Apparently so is ignoring facts, words, visuals, audio.

                      •  I read plenty (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Don midwest, poco

                        Snowden gave the information to reporters. He has made statements about how reporters will reveal more, but he has been clear that he doesn't have the documents.

                        No War but Class War

                        by AoT on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 11:30:21 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Yep, (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Deep Texan, Tony Situ

                          it was one hard copy of the documents.

                          Now that he has given it to reporters who for some reason aren't interested in reporting it, he is completely and utterly incapable of getting the information out to reporters who ARE interested in reporting it.

                          Because, you know, he gave his only copy to the reporters who won't report it.

                          I bet he wishes someone would invent some sort of digital technology for sharing information (which was obtained digitally) and some sort of machinery that could duplicate documents so you could give them to other people and still keep a copy of them for yourself.

                          Maybe someday.  For now, Snowden will have to sit by helplessly while others have his only copy but won't release it.

                          I'm sort of wondering why Greenwald indicated that he is holding back some stuff because Snowden decided there was some extra super-duper damaging destroy-US-government stuff he didn't want reported.

                          It seems almost like Greenwald said that Snowden didn't even give the media that really bad stuff.  

                          How could he do that if he's not controlling what is being reported?

                          •  What are you even talking about? (0+ / 0-)

                            Reporters that aren't interested in reporting it? What does that even mean? Reporters are reporting it. There have been new releases based on the files he's given them over and over again. Are you not paying attention at all?

                            You do realize that not releasing all the revelations at once is part of the plan. Snowden knows that. The reporters involved are letting new information trickle out every couple of months as a media strategy to keep the subject in the news.

                            You have no clue what's been happening, do you? You're just throwing out random attacks and hoping they stick.

                            It seems almost like Greenwald said that Snowden didn't even give the media that really bad stuff.  
                            Well, if you want to make shit up whole cloth, then sure. If you want to be reasonable then what Greenwald said was that there was a lot of information that could be very damaging in what Snowden gave reporters and some of them would release that damaging information if anything happened to Snowden.
                            For now, Snowden will have to sit by helplessly while others have his only copy but won't release it.
                            Because nothing has been released? What are you, living in a cave?

                            No War but Class War

                            by AoT on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 12:05:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Try to pay attention (0+ / 0-)

                            Who in hell every said that "nothing has been released"?  

                            1.  I said that for the good of the country Snowden should not be promising additional releases and just release it all now.

                            2.  In response someone commented that he did not have anything additional to release.

                            3.  I pointed out that Greenwald, Snowden's father, and Snowden himself said there was more to come.  Greenwald said there was some really harmful stuff that Snowden himself decided to hold back, and hadn't given to the press.

                            4.  In response someone commented that Snowden didn't "have" anything because he'd given it to the media.  And that it was the MEDIA holding stuff back, not Snowden's fault.

                            5.  I point out that (a) Greenwald SAYS that Snowden requested that he hold certain items back, and that he hadn't given everything to journalists.

                            Who gives a shit what the media plan is?  For the good of the country it should all come out.  Do you think that Mother Jones would hold back information for a year or so if they had it all?  

                            You can't say he doesn't have anything more to release because he himself is holding stuff back - according to Greenwald - and it would be the height of ironic bullshit for anyone here to claim that Greenwald isn't reliable on this after claiming he's infallible for a year.

                            If Snowden felt the media was wrong to hold back, he could just release it to dozens of outlets until someone just spit it all out.

                            Bottom line, all this disingenuous word wrangling and purposeful misinterpretation aside:

                            Snowden should release everything at once instead of releasing it a bit at a time for maximum impact.  If that is happening because of the media (which I don't believe), then he has other options, other media he can give it to.

                            Instead, he is coy, and talks about more stuff to come, and if you are correct he is playing along with the media's "maximum impact, keep the story alive" game instead of doing what's best for the country, which is to get it all out there and push for change.  

                          •  Snowden isn't promising to release anything (0+ / 0-)

                            You are so incredibly confused about this.

                            You can't say he doesn't have anything more to release because he himself is holding stuff back - according to Greenwald - and it would be the height of ironic bullshit for anyone here to claim that Greenwald isn't reliable on this after claiming he's infallible for a year.
                            No, not at all. You clearly don't understand the difference between information being released and Snowden releasing information. Apparently the fact that reporters have released information is beyond your understanding. Snowden gave it to reporters and reporters are releasing it to the public. real simple.

                            You're probably confused because he's actually read what they're releasing and talks to the reporters and knows there's more to be released. But note that he doesn't say he's releasing more information. Because he doesn't have it, as he's said again and again.

                            No War but Class War

                            by AoT on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 05:10:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your (0+ / 0-)

                            Entire post is nonsense. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say with so much tripe.  

                            There is more. More that he has already given to the press and more that he has not given to the press.

                            He can give the stuff the press is according to you parsing out for maximum effect to someone who won't parse it forever if he wished.  He's complicit in the delay for impact game they are playing according to you.

                            This isn't complicated so I can't see why you keep reaching the wrong occlusion about what I'm saying.

                            This is my last word on this. It's tiresome to respond to someone who insists on being obtuse, and rude about it as well.

                          •  Typing on iPhone (0+ / 0-)

                            With autocorrect is crap. " conclusion "

              •  Glenn Greenwald is not Edward Snowden (7+ / 0-)

                Edward Snowden has said again and again that he does not have any information anymore.

                No War but Class War

                by AoT on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 07:39:30 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  But wait (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Deep Texan

                  First, Greenwald doesn't have to BE Snowden to know he has more.

                  And then there is THIS guy, who presumably knows what Snowden has

                  http://www.businessinsider.com/...

                  Oh, and then this:

                  "There are absolutely more revelations to come," he said. "Some of the most important reporting to be done is yet to come."
                  http://www.zdnet.com/...

                  http://www.eweek.com/...

                  Here he is on VIDEO saying there is more to come.

                  http://advisorperspectives.com/...

                  I presume that this is enough to refute anyone saying that he "doesn't have anything else" and "doesn't intend to release anything else".

                  •  Snowden doesn't have the info (6+ / 0-)

                    He isn't the one revealing things, the Guardian, among others, is the one revealing things. Snowden knows there is more information that the reporters have yet to report. That's why he says that "the most important reporting to be done is yet to come."

                    He doesn't have the info because he gave it to reporters. He doesn't need the info and is safer without it. Just because the reporters haven't revealed everything doesn't mean that Snowden has it.

                    No War but Class War

                    by AoT on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 09:07:11 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  that still doesn't prove your orginal claim (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Choco8

                    about snowden

                    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

                    by greenbastard on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 09:09:48 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Okay (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Deep Texan

                      wTF Twilight Zone.

                      SNOWDEN says that there is more.  Let's quibble now as to whether that "more" is in his hard drive or has already been given to Greenwald but being held back - because Snowden himself has asked Greenwald to hold it back.

                      He "HAS" more.  And he intends to have it come out.  

                      Your bullshit delusional and/or disingenuous attempts to deflect aside.

                      There is more.  It will be coming out.  

                      That is my only claim.  That there is more (and puhleeze, anyone who said "he doesn't have more" because he gave it to Greenwald and told him to hold it is full of shit, sorry, frankly just delusional), and that he intends for more of it to come out.

                      Greenwald says there's more, very damaging stuff.  Snowden's Dad says there's more and that his son should reveal it all.

                      Snowden says there's more and it will be coming out.

                      My "original claim" is that Snowden has not simply revealed it all, which in my opinion is better for the country.

                      If he wanted it out now, for the good of the country, he could send it all to every cable and print news outlet.

                      Let's not blame the Guardian, et al.  This is Snowden's game.  There isn't a news outlet on the planet that wouldn't report it if he sent it to them.

              •  Greenwald is not Snowden (4+ / 0-)

                Snowden is not Greenwald.

                Greenwald and others have the docs, and are controlling the flow of stories. It's completely out of Snowden's hands.

                •  Yes you are SO (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Deep Texan

                  right!

                  So he could send it to CNN and they wouldn't report on the stories?

                  There is NO outlet he could send this all to, not Mother Jones, not Faux News, nowhere that would print the stories verbatim like rabid coyotes?

                  If Snowden really wanted to do what's best for the country, pull the bandaid off quickly, he could do it in a heartbeat.

                  Give me a break.

      •  So it's ok for (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CenPhx, Don midwest, cybrestrike

        the President to be one of these, but heaven forfend anyone else try it?

        Now Snowden is some sort of 11th dimensional chess player
        The cognitive dissonance around here is unbelievable...

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 08:03:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You won't find me (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan

          saying that.

          Peddle that to someone who has actually said that.

          There is NO cognitive dissonance since I don't believe either human being is an 11th dimensional chess player.

          I believe I probably argued against any of that crap, since I can't remember anything he's done that I think remotely smacked of cunning strategy.

          I don't think anyone is that clever.  I recall O'Donnell going on about this shit about Obama fooling the GOP or some such nonsense and then Obama blinked and made LOD look like a fool.

          So again, peddle your sarcastic "cognitive dissonance" bullshit where it might actually make some sense.

          •  Am glad to see that (0+ / 0-)
            There is NO cognitive dissonance since I don't believe either human being is an 11th dimensional chess player.
            Please pardon me if I slapped you with some paint, there, then--if you're not one for which "cognitive dissonance" is a standard affliction when it comes to Edward Snowden, more power to you. But there's plenty of it to burn around here.

            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

            by lunachickie on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 11:58:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Whether there is or there isn't (0+ / 0-)

              has no relevance to the fact that you said it to me for shits and grins, lol, hahaha.

              Bottom line is that Snowden isn't the President and the President isn't Snowden.

              Even IF I thought the President played 11th dimensional chess, it would be completely irrelevant to my opinion of Snowden.

              I still have no idea, after all these months, why my opinion of Snowden has anything to do with my opinion on the President, and vice versa.

              Utter nonsense.  Yet it persists.

        •  Usually, peolple that talk of Obama being an (0+ / 0-)

          11th dimensional chess player are his detractors.  And you know that.

      •  Mildly insulting? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nota bene
        People here are whining because kossacks are saying mildly insulting things about Snowden
        Traitor and whore are "mildly insulting?"

        Dallasdoc: "Snowden is the natural successor to Osama bin Laden as the most consequential person in the world, as his actions have the potential to undo those taken in response to Osama."

        by gooderservice on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 11:59:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not at all. What you/they say about Snowden is (0+ / 0-)

        irrelevant. That they use disparaging him in order to divert or discount the crimes he exposed is the point of it.

        "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

        by Greyhound on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 02:42:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I agree (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybrestrike, CenPhx, lunachickie

      though it seems some people are just merely, party before country, people. If something or someone tarnishes the party or the President, then that person or thing is their enemy, and anyone who doesn't fall in line, they denigrate.

      I guess some people believe the best thing is to preserve the party, and they trust the party to right things. Others look to right things, and move the party.

      Other people I think are just contrarians.

      I don't know. It is interesting. Strange gangs.

      I'm sure there are those, as you suggest as well.

      All kinds of people up in here.

      Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

      by greenbastard on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 06:30:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am not! (0+ / 0-)

        ;-D

        I really thought this whole thing was done months ago, but I came back and find this still going on...

        Do people know that no one else outside the US gives half a shit about Snowden? The crimes he exposed are a BFD, but even that merely confirmed what everybody always suspected.

        I think what they are really upset about is the inescapable conclusion that we are the evil empire and that President Obama and the the party leadership not only want to keep it that way, they are among it's beneficiaries and strongest supporters.

        Sadly required disclaimer: This does not mean nor imply that Putin is anything but another scumbag authoritarian, nor that Russia is the better country, nor that we are the only evil on earth, nor that republicans are better than Democrats. There, I think that covers it.

        "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

        by Greyhound on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 10:24:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I have no idea how many of them are paid to do it, (0+ / 0-)

      how many are doing it for the sake of Obama's reputation, and how many are truly authoritarian.

      I'm guessing many of them wouldn't have done the same for George W. Bush, so that might mean you can put away one anxiety (rampant authoritarianism) and replace it with another (too great doses of partisanship or loyalty to a leader poisoning the brain).

      Sure once I was young and impulsive, I wore every conceivable pin. Even went to socialist meetings, learned all the old union hymns. Ah, but I've grown older and wiser. And that's why I'm turning you in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 12:25:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Edward Snowden important for US & the world (14+ / 0-)

    Standing up for the truth

    With courage

    Articulate words

    Helping Americans be brave enough to face the truth

    American exceptionalism hides the real America

    I have hope that America can have its sins exposed and survive. In fact, only that is enough for the country to face up to the real problems that we face.

  •  Snowden several moves ahead of us (13+ / 0-)
    Snowden, however, has said from the beginning, that this story has never been about him, and he accepts that the end result of his starting the process may not be good for himself. He's made it clear that he was willing to effectively sacrifice himself to get this debate going -- and having done it once, he apparently has decided he can do it again in another context. While I was confused by this move 24 hours ago, I'll admit it was because I never thought Snowden would go this far (and so quickly) to criticize Russia while he was there. Already, given what Snowden did in releasing the NSA documents, he's shown that he's much braver (and in many ways, patriotic to the public) than just about anyone. In now questioning --and then calling BS on Putin's answer -- he's shown that bravery was not a one time thing, but a position he intends to live by going forward.

    Snowden likely made a lot more powerful enemies today -- including more who could make life very uncomfortable for him very soon. But he also showed why the public, around the globe, owes him an incredibly large debt of gratitude, one which it's unclear we'll ever be able to pay off.

    Snowden Calls BS On Putin's Answer: Says He Was Playing The Role Of Ron Wyden
    •  Who has done as much to preserve civilization? (3+ / 0-)

      I'd say Newton or Einstein, but that's science. Not that celestial mechanics didn't finally put paid to certain fantasies about Earth's origins.

      Snowden has changed the world's view of the interactions between technology, technocrats with money, and everyday life. Clearly NSA as operated under Clapper is a threat to human freedom on a par with Naziism and Mao's "Cultural Revolution" inside China -- give it a century running on its own for the final proofs.

      Darwin. That's the guy.

      He changed the world's view of life itself. We became responsible for what we do, denied the prior Acts of God for excuses.

      We have to get control of our governments.

      "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- Ryan Paul von Koch

      by waterstreet2013 on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 07:28:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Two peas in a pod. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DEMonrat ankle biter

    I'm not paranoid or anything. Everyone just thinks I am.

    by Jim Riggs on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 05:04:13 AM PDT

  •  Be careful, diarist! (10+ / 0-)

    You're spinning so hard, you might tumble and hurt yourself.

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 05:13:40 AM PDT

  •  Greenwald - Snowden criticism of Putin same brave (8+ / 0-)
    Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald  21m

    Writing an op-ed criticizing Putin's response while needing asylum is as brave an act as the initial whistleblowing, & shows same integrity

  •  Why is everybody so angry at each other? (9+ / 0-)

    All of the comments in this thread seem to be people attacking each other and questioning other people's motives. Can't we be kinder? I thought we were all on the same side. Can't we disagree without believing the worst about the other person?

    Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

    by Matt Z on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 05:39:37 AM PDT

    •  DKos has a significant (11+ / 0-)

      pro-Clapper faction.

      … the NSA takes significant care to prevent any abuses and that there is a substantial oversight system in place,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), said August 23.

      by mosesfreeman on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 06:18:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, (14+ / 0-)

        it really doesn't. It has a significant number of people who aren't as vehement or single-minded about the NSA as you are. But almost none of us think that domestic spying is a good thing, or want to defend James Clapper (I think he should be out of a job months ago).

        •  I truly dislike James Clapper. (8+ / 0-)

          I'm ambivalent about Snowden but Clapper should have been fired.

          Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

          by Matt Z on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 06:33:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  There will never be consequences (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lunachickie, aliasalias, nota bene

          for Clapper, ever! Nor will there be for any other charter members of the Deep State.  They are permanently unaccountable because no one in government has either the power or the balls to do squat to them.

          They rule us with impunity, and no elected person can stop them.

          … the NSA takes significant care to prevent any abuses and that there is a substantial oversight system in place,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), said August 23.

          by mosesfreeman on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 06:42:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, it really does (6+ / 0-)

          because if you're not incensed about the NSA and what they are doing, then you are indirectly supporting that guy.

          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

          by lunachickie on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 09:40:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Love it or leave it mentality, indeed. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Deep Texan, Matt Z

            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

            by raptavio on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 10:11:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  In other words, (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Matt Z, AaronInSanDiego, Deep Texan, poco

            to quote one of George Lucas' worst lines of dialogue (and that's saying something) "if you're not with me, then you're my enemy!" I also seem to recall liberals being called "objectively pro-terrorist" a few years back, with similar rationale.

            As for me, I've said I don't support the NSA domestic spying. I think the FISA system needs major reform, not cosmetic reform. I think Clapper should have been out of a job a while ago. If you want to pretend I'm pro-NSA because I don't scream about it 24/7, or because I think there are other important issues and I won't renounce my support for Democrats based on the NSA issue, fine, go ahead.

        •  "not as vehement" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Little

          well, yes. I remember 2002-3, and I remember that there was (ahem) some variation in the degree of vehemency about opposition to the proposed occupation of Iraq. This is the same clash between Dirty Fucking Hippies and Very Serious People. Paranoid authoritarianism and bellicose nationalism aren't limited to the right wing.

          This aspect, at least, is very simple; if you think Snowden is a tool of foreign influence, or is a traitor, or does not fit some precise definition of "whistleblower," then you are making it less likely that others will come forward to reveal what they know, and are thus complicit in the defense of the surveillance state. Perfunctory lip service about how naughty Clapper and the NSA have been won't change that.

          One of Snowden's key assertions the entire time he's been public is that the only way democracy can tear down either the surveillance state or the MIC is through whistleblowing; the politicians will not go near this. Certainly No-Drama Obama doesn't want anything to do with this project, and would rather everyone just forget about all this so we can get back to the real work of trying to make (mostly) incremental gains around the margins of social and economic policy.

          You WANT me on that server! You NEED me on that server!

          by nota bene on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 05:25:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly right. The issue of whistleblowing inside (0+ / 0-)

            all of this is a very big one. How Dems have treated it is disheartening. Basically shiting on the very concept of whistleblowing, thereby discouraging future whistleblowers. Very hard to get.

      •  Possibly, but more likely it's a question (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gulfgal98

        of who is (perhaps nominally, I hope in fact) Clapper's boss.

        My guess is they don't give two shits about Clapper and would have been cheering Snowden on had this happened under the Bush administration.

        Sure once I was young and impulsive, I wore every conceivable pin. Even went to socialist meetings, learned all the old union hymns. Ah, but I've grown older and wiser. And that's why I'm turning you in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 12:27:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not on this subject, (10+ / 0-)

      apparently.

      Not if your disagreement has anything to do with Snowden.

      You either see him as a brave and saintly hero (and a genius!!?) or you're accused of defending the NSA.

      Any mention of a Snowden flaw (like why in heck does he keep threatening that there is more to come - isn't it better for the country if he just puts it all out there?) and you are automatically suspect - an authoritarian defender of the surveillance state and a fawning sycophant of Obama.

      It's ridiculous now and it has been from the beginning.

      •  But it's not just the pro-Snowden people (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        middleagedhousewife, raptavio, poco

        attacking. Everyone is. I think we all need to chill out.

        You are a very good example of being a cool person, delphine. I wish everybody here was a little more like you.

        Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

        by Matt Z on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 06:32:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lol (9+ / 0-)

          Well I have not always been cool on this subject.  In the early stages of this stupid kos-war, I wandered into a regular diary (one that is no longer around) and oops assumed it was open to everyone and not as insular as it was.  Swarm ensued.  I ended up saying "fuck you" or something, got an HR, blah blah.

          I watched others be savaged here, I've been savaged myself, and I've given up on doing anything at this point except continually trying to point out the ridiculous nature of this all-or-nothing argument.

          Despite all evidence to the contrary, you will actually hear people who have written dozens of diaries and posted 100s of comments whining that they aren't allowed to say bad stuff about Obama.  

          Because, you see, criticizing Snowden means you idolize Obama . . . not sure where this logic comes from.

          Your comment will likely be jeered mercilessly, but thanks for the sentiment.  I wish I were more like how it portrays me.

          •  I had hoped this stuff would have stopped (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            doroma, delphine, Gurnt, Deep Texan

            when Ray Pensador left. I'm bummed that it didn't.

            I know. I'm a sap. But I will never apologize for believing the best about people.

            Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

            by Matt Z on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 10:02:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  this has always happened here (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Matt Z, Don midwest, poco, cybrestrike

              And most likely always will.

              It goes in cycles.

              We're due for another calm period I think.

              No War but Class War

              by AoT on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 10:04:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I didn't even know (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Deep Texan, Matt Z

              he left.

              Didn't a few people leave and come back?

              I haven't been posting here very much lately.

              This stuff turned my stomach as well.

              And now I am here, irritated at my sputtering computer (hello, work?  2003 called and want their shitty-ass computers back!) etc., and I've got these folks who are so entrenched they aren't even acknowledging links with you know, quotes and video from several different sources.

              And it's pissing me off - not so much about Snowden or whomever but because come the fuck on people, do you really want to do this?  Do you really want to pretend the evidence and facts are not the evidence or facts and throw snark and sarcasm at people instead of dealing with the evidence and facts head on?

              Me -Snowden has more stuff.  I think he's wrong not to release it all.

              -No, you're just "making shit up", he doesn't have any more.

              ME-Link to Greenwald saying there is MUCH more, really damaging stuff, but SNOWDEN doesn't want it to be released.  But he has sent it all over creation to be released if anything happens to him.  [translation:  Snowden is controlling the flow of information]

              -That's Greenwald, not Snowden!

              ME-Link to quote from Snowden's DAD saying there is more and that he should release it.

              ME-Link to quote and VIDEO of Snowden saying that there is more and more will be reported.

              Response:  "Oh, no, it does seem like Snowden hasn't released everything."

              No wait . . .!

              Actual Combined Response:  Snowden doesn't have the additional information because he gave it all to Greenwald!  And it's Greenwald's fault it hasn't all been released!  And by the way, let's poke at Delphine for the fuck of it!  

              And apparently, although Snowden would certainly do the right thing and release it all for the good of the nation instead of holding our privacy hostage for his own protection AND for the big bang of each additional revelation, he can't do it because he can't find a media outlet that would report it!  Snowden haz a sad!

              Can't we just be honest with one another here?  Does there have to be a clique of people who will cleave to even the lamest argument and apply sarcastic bullshit to cover it all up?

              I mean, are we supposed to remain polite in the face of this behavior?  As for me, I'm not great at doing that.  "The sky is blue!"  "No, it's not!  It's really Green minus Yellow!"

              sheesh!

              And That is why I have stopped posting much here lately.

            •  There have been a lot of lies written in this (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cybrestrike, nota bene

              in this diary.  I don't believe "the best about people" who lie.  I won't ascribe motive, but I do have my guesses which I'll keep to myself.

              Dallasdoc: "Snowden is the natural successor to Osama bin Laden as the most consequential person in the world, as his actions have the potential to undo those taken in response to Osama."

              by gooderservice on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 12:08:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Well...we could just stop arguing. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cybrestrike, nota bene

              And allow a party line to exist unchallenged, regardless of what inconsistencies and untruths might form its building blocks.

              Sure once I was young and impulsive, I wore every conceivable pin. Even went to socialist meetings, learned all the old union hymns. Ah, but I've grown older and wiser. And that's why I'm turning you in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 12:28:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Didn't have a problem with it yesterday (6+ / 0-)

    Feel the same today.

    I think it's hilarious that he tried to match Wyden's question, and that he notes the responses of Clapper and the President in relation to Putin.

    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

    by greenbastard on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 06:20:09 AM PDT

  •  Snowden's response shows him naive or disingenous (11+ / 0-)
    to invite either an important concession or a clear evasion.
    Of course, Snowden knows, or should know, that a single open ended question ALSO invites a denial.  The choices aren't just concession or evasion.  

    Notably, Snowden himself doesn't hold freewheeling interviews, where someone is able to follow up on a denial or able to probe: he knows or should know that a one off question without a follow up is not a threat.   In that way, both he and Putin recognize questions are not, as the diarist thinks, implicit attacks or implicit statmetns of doubt, but ways to tee up an answer that will not be challenged.

    The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

    by Inland on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 06:21:24 AM PDT

    •  You've been denying EVERY salient fact about... (11+ / 0-)

      ...this story since the beginning of June of last year, when the public first heard the name: Edward Snowden.

      The cognitive dissonance has reached pathological levels amongst some in this community, and those individuals--such as yourself--are easily identified by their 1950's/60's, "better-dead-than-red" mentality in the comments of posts just like this, and just like the one to which I'm responding now.

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 06:47:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Seems my comment was right on. (8+ / 0-)

        The stridency of the made up ad hom attack, without a single reference to my comment, and in fact deployed by bob as a sort of form smear, proves there's no valid criticism.

        The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

        by Inland on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 07:05:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  LOL! (4+ / 0-)

          Yeah, because Snowden can do this in Russia any time he wants:

          Notably, Snowden himself doesn't hold freewheeling interviews, where someone is able to follow up on a denial or able to probe:
          Perhaps bobswern simply knows how hard it is to get through some folks' wall of denial. But some of us will keep pointing out how silly and baseless that denialism is at this point, and actually bother to be specific, even though it's as pointless as the day is long--for some walls of denial are clearly quite thick.

          If it pleases you, though, some of us will do our level best to try to do so going forward with a wink and a smile. Would that help? ;)
           

          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

          by lunachickie on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 09:46:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I love the inherent conflicts (5+ / 0-)

            Snowden himself doesn't hold freewheeling interviews...

            yet somehow he remains a "narcissist", according to his detractors.

            Ed Snowden: Reclusive Narcissist.

            That's a neat trick.

          •  And she steps on her own toes. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            doroma, Gurnt, Deep Texan
            Yeah, because Snowden can do this in Russia any time he wants:
            Certainly you're not implying that Snowden is under some sort of control or duress?  

            I think it's pretty funny that the only part of your comment that isn't a personal attack based on your pronouncement of denial actually give reason to believe that Snowden was acting as a Russian pawn.

            But nobody ever accused you of being good with the  issues.  Stick to your strong suit.

            The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

            by Inland on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 10:03:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  How feeble (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bobswern, cybrestrike
              you're not implying that Snowden is under some sort of control or duress?  
              Are you saying he's living freely at all times? Come now, let's stop talking in circles, inland.

              This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

              by lunachickie on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 10:20:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Derp. nt (0+ / 0-)

                The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

                by Inland on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 10:43:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thank you for clearly stating (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TheMomCat, bobswern

                  the extent of your "argument".

                  Derp.  
                  I've suspected as much for quite some time, and I know I'm not the only one. Thanks :)

                  This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                  by lunachickie on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 10:50:21 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The sad think about Inland... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    lunachickie

                    ...is he always says and does whatever he can to make it appear as if he made his point. But, looking at the sum total of his comments, he says very, very little. In fact, I don't think I've ever seem him offer up a fact, via a credible link, in a single trollish comment (and there have been countless trollish comments) in someone else's post in all the years I've been reading their bullsh*t. (And, yeah, that's exactly what it is. This is a personality thing with Inland. It has abso-f*cking-lutely nothing to do with facts or genuine conversation.)

                    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

                    by bobswern on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 03:57:52 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Think should be "thing." But, now that I... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...think about it (heh), generally speaking, their comments at times like this are more akin to a muscular/reflexive response. Devoid of thought and quite reflexive.

                      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

                      by bobswern on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 04:00:32 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  it's sad, all right (0+ / 0-)

                        that's about all I have to say about it ;)

                        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                        by lunachickie on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 04:48:40 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  For Inland a fou and too many others it (0+ / 0-)

                          would really do DKos a world of good if they just cut and pasted the very same comment into diaries on this issue. (On a lot of issues, really.) It is NEVER about honest assessment of things as they move and grow, it is ALWAYS about trying to prove and/or support an opinion they formed a long time ago.

                          That is very tiring.

      •  Unbelievable. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gurnt, Deep Texan

        An entirely fact-free reply full of insults, that has the chutzpah to accuse the other of denying facts.

        It's a Zen koan of self-unawareness.

        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

        by raptavio on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 10:10:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  HUAC Central! (0+ / 0-)

        Are you now, or have you ever been, a Snowdenista?

        I need to change my sig code back:

        Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

        Sure once I was young and impulsive, I wore every conceivable pin. Even went to socialist meetings, learned all the old union hymns. Ah, but I've grown older and wiser. And that's why I'm turning you in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 12:31:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  if u don't think this was staged by putin then u (5+ / 0-)

    are naive

  •  Likely to be revisited by journalists? (10+ / 0-)

    Give me a break.

    In Russia, leader asks the journalists questions.... or sometimes his thugs beat the crap out of the journalists, no questions asked.

    I said this yesterday -- either Snowden is an idiot or a vainglorious dude with an inflated sense of self-importance...or both

    Now, I'm going with "both."

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

    by FischFry on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 06:24:56 AM PDT

  •  Anti-Snowden folks love chasing shiny objects (11+ / 0-)

    Easier to ignore the big picture when one chases after the Snowden rainbows. Four years ago, it was all about Jane Hamsher. Before that it was the People's Judean Front.

    Remember, it's not about runaway domestic spying. It's really all about you.

    And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

    by Pale Jenova on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 06:39:27 AM PDT

    •  If he'd just stop providing us soooo many of them! (7+ / 0-)

      Seriously, the man has foot in mouth disease of EPIC proportions.

      One might almost think he's a tool.  (especially in light of recent events.)

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 07:13:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I sense a new meme (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gooderservice, Pale Jenova

        here lately, which goes something like this:

        "As long as Snowden talks about the NSA, it's okay if we point out shiny objects. Because he keeps talking about the NSA and, well, we  can't talk about that. So....Look! Something Shiny!!!"

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 09:53:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The fact that he uncovered the biggest scandal (0+ / 0-)

        since the Nixon years, well . . .

        After all, Snowden was happy sitting in Hong Kong until the Obama administration sent the Keystone Klowns after him.

        And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

        by Pale Jenova on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 07:47:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Pro-Snowden folks (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma, Gurnt, Deep Texan, Pale Jenova

      seem to move from the theory that we can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

      Snowden can be a tool AND the NSA can be out of control. These are not mutually exclusive concepts.

      Snowden can have brought the NSA's out of control nature to light AND he can be providing PR assistance to Vladimir Putin. These are not mutually exclusive concepts.

      And talking about one does not preclude talking about the other.

      Why do some people seem to think in such binary terms that they cannot conceive of doing both?

      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

      by raptavio on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 10:07:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I doubt, however, that Putin cares about PR (0+ / 0-)

        Certainly not PR in this country--we have little to no influence over Russian affairs, no matter how much John McCain insists we go to war with them. And does Putin really need PR with the Russians? He has the neo-fascist Ukrainian junta on his border if he wants to ratchet up Russian patriotism.

        And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

        by Pale Jenova on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 07:45:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Facts refute your theory. (0+ / 0-)

          If Putin cared not for PR, he wouldn't have committed the farce of an interview he just did.

          "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

          by raptavio on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 08:19:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe he just wants to rub Obama's face in it? (0+ / 0-)

            Or maybe he just wants to bare his chest?

            In any case, Snowden wouldn't be in Russia if the 'Murkans hadn't yanked his passport. We reap what we sow, indeed.

            And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

            by Pale Jenova on Sat Apr 19, 2014 at 07:44:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  And Cenk. Don't forget Cenk. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybrestrike, Pale Jenova

      Dallasdoc: "Snowden is the natural successor to Osama bin Laden as the most consequential person in the world, as his actions have the potential to undo those taken in response to Osama."

      by gooderservice on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 12:12:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Also Matt Taibbi (0+ / 0-)

        He said some mean things about banks. That set off the Center Right.

        And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

        by Pale Jenova on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 07:41:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well said, but it's unlikely it has anything to do (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pale Jenova

      with being distracted; the attack seems, rather, quite concerted.

      Sure once I was young and impulsive, I wore every conceivable pin. Even went to socialist meetings, learned all the old union hymns. Ah, but I've grown older and wiser. And that's why I'm turning you in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 12:36:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think both the diarist and Snowden are (16+ / 0-)

    terribly naive when it comes to Russia.

    Who exactly is going to investigate the Russian security state and who exactly is going to publicize it to a wide audience when virtually all of Russia's popular media has been turned into something akin to Faux News?

    Russia isn't like the U.S. where the internet can be used to lift topics into mass media:

    All the same, these attempts to limit free expression on the Internet have failed. It has been far more effective to persecute bloggers for "extremism." Several have already been sentenced to fines or jail terms. Threats have forced others to flee the country. At present, there is a case against journalist Boris Stomakhin, who faces up to eight years in prison for alleged "extremism." He is accused of a long list of "criminal acts," from "inciting hatred of Orthodox believers by using an insulting term for the Almighty" to "justifying the actions of the terrorists who killed Tsar Alexander II,| which took place in 1881.

    snip

    What is not in doubt is that the increase in Internet censorship moves Russia closer to a totalitarian state. Igor Yakovenko, a media analyst, wrote: "When creating his authoritarian power vertical, Putin began by destroying the main private television channel, NTV. The authoritarian regime allowed a few small information niches that let the thinking public satisfy their need for diverse information. Independent thinking was not encouraged, but it was not persecuted. Today, the country is sliding toward totalitarianism, which ends when the authoritarian regime is transformed into a totalitarian regime."

    http://www.themoscowtimes.com/...

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 06:49:15 AM PDT

  •  As I said yesterday, doesn't really (11+ / 0-)

    matter who/what Snowden is. But now that he's put to bed anti-Snowden conspiracy theories, can we get on with the business of fighting the security state?

  •  The East Germans that endured Stasi know very (7+ / 0-)

    well what State Spying is.  Merkel grew up under that.

    What really toasts my bagel is that his lawyer (and fellow dKos member Jesselyn Radack responded to the Daily Beast:

    Jesselyn Radack, one of Snowden's American lawyers, said, "Unfortunately it can play into the incorrect meme that he is some how being controlled by Russia." Radack added however that Snowden's question should not be judged by Putin's response. "The public is capable of making their own determination of whether they find Putin or Obama credible. It’s not that bizarre or sensational that he asked the question."
    My response is [cough] BULLSH*T [cough].  That's an attempt to make lemonade post mortem.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 07:11:56 AM PDT

  •  I listened to John Fugelsang (15+ / 0-)

    on the Stephanie Miller show this morning and he pretty much summed up my thoughts.

    To paraphrase:

    I don't understand why people have to believe that Snowden is either a hero or a villain, one or the other. I am very glad that he brought to light serious problems of abuse and oversight with the United States government's security apparatus. I also think he's a vainglorious opportunist who allowed himself to be a set piece in Putin's propaganda play. These are not mutually exclusive concepts and can exist together in one delicious smoothie in my mind.

    To add my own thoughts:

    His splainaway here sounds like the elaboration of a bad liar. If he were really so courageous in his interview with Pooty-poot, he'd have had the spine to follow up on that response with a little pushback.  Putin was in control of that interview, and nobody can credibly claim otherwise. Its net effect will be in Putin's interests, both within Russia and without.

    Putin remains a homophobic thug with aspirations of expanding his borders by force, if necessary. He has invaded a sovereign nation in violation of the very treaties Russia signed to persuade Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons, and is continuing to try to find a pretext to capture more territory.

    And Edward Snowden, his protests notwithstanding, is providing Putin valuable PR assistance.

    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

    by raptavio on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 07:18:55 AM PDT

  •  He hasn't proven anything. The claim was that (7+ / 0-)

    Putin pre-approved the question. Snowden didn't address this claim at all.

    •  Whether it was pre-approved or not (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jdsnebraska, FG, raptavio, Deep Texan, sweatyb

      There was no chance of it serving anyone's purpose besides that of Putin and Snowden.    

      He had classified information from the US that he exposed.  He doesn't have any classified information on the Russians and he never will.  So it's just theater.  

      Putin's stagecraft looks clumsy and obvious to a Western audience because it is.  This is Russian propaganda.  It's Putin bareback on a horse.  It's Putin "discovering" ancient Russian relics.  It's Putin "rescuing" Ukraine.  That's how they roll.  

      Now Putin has publicly confronted the "spy" who exposed the corruption of America.  The fact that Americans are going to say, "He's lying," doesn't have anything to do with it.  That's just par for the course.  

      When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

      by Sun dog on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 08:05:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sigh, are people still falling for his excuses? (7+ / 0-)

    Really? The guy is a traitor.

    President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

    by askew on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 07:49:13 AM PDT

    •  When all else fails, look world-weary and (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybrestrike, Don midwest

      condescending and use the word "excuses."

      Sure once I was young and impulsive, I wore every conceivable pin. Even went to socialist meetings, learned all the old union hymns. Ah, but I've grown older and wiser. And that's why I'm turning you in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 12:38:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  this absolutely does NOT put to bed the "useful (9+ / 0-)

    idiot" theory.

    This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

    by mallyroyal on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 07:51:46 AM PDT

  •  NYT: In Scripted Surprise, Putin Answers Snowden (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma, Sun dog, Drocedus, raptavio, Deep Texan
    In Scripted Surprise, Putin Answers Snowden on Spying

    MOSCOW — The setup could not have been more perfect.

    --snip--
    One of the program’s hostesses then said: “We have an unexpected, I would even say sensational, video message. We received it from a man who created a true information revolution by exposing the surveillance of tens of millions of people around the world.”

    And there he was: the fugitive former National Security Agency contractor Edward J. Snowden.

    In a stunningly bold poke at the White House, the Kremlin arranged for Mr. Snowden, who is wanted on espionage charges, to ask Mr. Putin about Russia’s surveillance practices. Told there was a question from Mr. Snowden, Mr. Putin responded slyly, saying, “Well, how could we do without this?”

    ---snip--

    “Mr. Snowden, you are a former agent,” the president replied. “I used to work for an intelligence service. Let’s speak in a professional language.”

    --snip--

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/...=

    Isn't he dreamy, folks? My hearts' all aflutter with his principled, stoic stance for freedom!

    Imagine the most profound idea ever conceptualized occupying this space. Now expect exactly the opposite. You'll never be disappointed.

    by Gurnt on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 08:02:57 AM PDT

  •  This stuff is embarassing (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sviscusi, raptavio, Deep Texan
    Edward Snowden - bravo, my friend. Bravo, and be safe.
    Holy hell, he's a self-centered little twit.  

    He has no inside information on the Russian government and he never will.  If he did he probably would have had an "accident" by now because that's how they roll.  And the Russians don't give half a damn whether Westerners watch this and say "Putin's lying."  There's no accomplishment here for anyone besides Putin and Snowden who, incredibly, has these ridiculous fans here.  

    Snowden has allowed himself to become a little patsy for the Kremlin.  A way to try to put America more on the defensive as Putin plays 20th Century style Conquering Dictator.  He's a disgrace.  

    When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

    by Sun dog on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 08:13:12 AM PDT

  •  Intentions sometimes can be misdirected. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tony Situ

    I thought, when I heard about the question and event, it would most likely, currently, serve Putin's interests especially with his intentions regarding Ukraine and other countries coveted by Russia. The exchange pointed out the US's own troubles with trust when Putin's veracity was being challenged internationally in regard to his current intentions. It may have served more to bolstered his support among those who what to bring Russia back to the USSR days and undermine the EU and the US in their efforts.

    I don't think Russians and the the people involved in the Ukraine situation do care about private citizen surveillance. Its seems more like a western-centric concern.

    For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.” J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

    by Maroon watch on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 08:13:38 AM PDT

  •  Doesn't have to be one or other (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fabienne, raptavio, poco

    I don't have any doubt whatever that Putin knew exactly what Sowden's question would be and that he had his response rehearsed. It's absurd to think otherwise. The question was video taped for crying out loud.
    I also think it's absurd to think Snowden wasn't aware of all this.
    However, that doesn't mean that Snowden was not completely sincere in his belief that the question needed to be asked and that asking it served a purpose.
    They are not mutually exclusive.
    The plain fact is that it will probably have next to no effect either way. Certainly the Russian people were not fooled into believing Putin's answer, they are not fools, they know what sort of government they live under, but it still gave Putin a chance to tweak Obama's nose by mocking the US surveillance program.
    It also is possible that by allowing that question to be asked so openly that Putin mat have opened a can of worms he didn't intend to. He obviously doesn't think so, feeling like he has the situation under complete control, but world leaders in the past have fallen victim to their own arrogance, and just perhaps Putin may find that he was a little too quick to take a cheap shot and that this backfires on him.
    Really folks, only time will tell, but my guess is that this will all turn out to be much ado about nothing and the impacts of this, positive or negative, will be negligible.
    So, can we please stop calling each other names and labelling each other as idiots and fools when the fact is none of us really know the end result of this?

  •  Peas in a Pod (7+ / 0-)
    In fact, Putin's response was remarkably similar to Barack Obama's initial, sweeping denials of the scope of the NSA's domestic surveillance programs, before that position was later shown to be both untrue and indefensible.
  •  Proven? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma, Gurnt, Deep Texan, Sun dog

    It's not effective propaganda for Putin unless Snowden maintains the appearance of independence.  Maybe Snowden isn't working for Putin directly, but Putin played him by taking the call, and by letting Snowden say his piece now.  Either way, one person's uncorroborated, self-serving response is not proof of anything, let alone beyond "all doubt."

    The difference, Mr. Snowden will find, is that the U.S. is willing to take his leaks seriously, and Russia is willing to jail people for much, much less.  

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 10:09:02 AM PDT

  •  Done. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BradyB, Little, cybrestrike, Don midwest
    “Before this question both Snowden and Greenwald refused to talk about surveillance in Russia,” he said. “Now we can ask Greenwald about this. Now we can start the debate. This is extremely important for Russia. I suspect Kremlin propaganda wanted to play Snowden, nevertheless this was a positive thing because it helps us to start the debate about the mass surveillance in Russia.”
    Done. Sorted. That statement comes from a dissident within Russia, a critic of Snowden and no fan (obviously) of Putin.

    Nobody on this side of the pond who wants to make political hay out of the exchange between Snowden and Putin has a leg to stand on from here on out.

    Sure once I was young and impulsive, I wore every conceivable pin. Even went to socialist meetings, learned all the old union hymns. Ah, but I've grown older and wiser. And that's why I'm turning you in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri Apr 18, 2014 at 12:05:14 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site