home

Obama Downplays Significance of Edward Snowden

President Obama addressed Edward Snowden at a news conference in Senegal today. Shorter version: He's a 29 year old garden variety hacker.

“This is something that routinely is dealt with....“This is not exceptional from a legal perspective. I’m not going to have one case suddenly being elevated to the point where I have to do wheeling and dealing and trading.”

He rejected the suggestion that he might order the military to intercept any plane that might be carrying Mr. Snowden. “I’m not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker,” Mr. Obama said.

It was thought Snowden might fly to Cuba today. Reports from Ecuador as to whether he will be welcome there are conflicting, but Ecuador today renounced its trade pact with the U.S. saying it would not be blackmailed.

< Aaron Hernandez Investigated for 2 Additional Murders | Zimmerman: Rachel Jeantel Finishes Testimony, For Now >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The good, the bad, and the ugly (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 01:25:30 PM EST
    The good: I won't intercept a plane.

    The bad: This is something that is routinely dealt with. (Really? So there's pretty much a huge insurrection in the ranks? A pretty widespread fear in the community that the American people are being phucked?)

    The ugly: Wheeling and dealing and trading. (Uh, this is what the phuck you do with EVERY other piece of sh*t issue you manage to water down, overcompromise on, or otherwise turn into so much blah. But here, in a case with huge and obvious implications, you're going to ho-hum it? Okay, but, well, don't expect anyone to treat you very seriously.)

    I get the impression (none / 0) (#4)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 01:37:44 PM EST
    he's just "saying that".

    Parent
    Does he ever do anything else? (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 02:13:48 PM EST
    If people don't know by know that "just saying that" is Obama's stock in trade, they haven't been paying attention.

    Parent
    Good for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 01:35:35 PM EST
    Snowdon has a very elevated sense of his own importance.

    Interesting (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 02:12:31 PM EST
    I've never seen "obama" spelled "snowden" before.

    Parent
    If (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 02:34:18 PM EST
    Snowden has an elevated sense of anything it is the sense of awareness that comes with being conscious that the most powerful nation on earth, with a president that has justified killing nationals it doesn't like, and a history of incarcerating indefinitely people it suspects of crimes, has him in its gun-sights.

    Parent
    addendum (none / 0) (#40)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 08:53:50 AM EST
    people it no longer can suspect of crimes

    Parent
    Funny side of this (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 01:36:37 PM EST
    Ecuador supposedly offers asylum to a leaker and then threatens legal action against whoever leaked the information.

    [Ecuador's] Secretary of Political Management Betty Tola told a news conference the safe-conduct pass "has no validity and is the exclusive responsibility of the person who issued it."

    Tola told reporters that Snowden's asylum application hadn't been processed because he was not in Ecuador as required by law. She also threatened legal action against whoever had leaked the document.

    You can't make this stuff up.


    "Nothing to see here...move along," (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 01:50:43 PM EST
    which is Obama-speak for, "you didn't really think we'd let a little thing like this stop up from doing whatever we want, did you?"

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 02:30:09 PM EST
    it's Obama-speak for I-tried-to-get-Russia-and-China-to-do what-I-wanted-but-they-told-me-to-go-fk-myself.

    Parent
    Not to mention (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 02:45:06 PM EST
    Ecua-f'in-dor

    Parent
    It is like shearing a pig (none / 0) (#23)
    by Politalkix on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 09:53:38 PM EST
    nothing to gain for the President and his administration. Lots of important issues remain on the table-immigration and climate change. Hillary and Rand Paul can duke it out in 2016. Snowden thought Ron Paul was "dreamy" and Hillary a "pox on the White House". Hillary can club Rand Paul on national security issues in 2016.

    Parent
    Yeah, yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by lentinel on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 05:44:32 AM EST
    Obama and Co. were making this thing the biggest deal since the Rosenbergs.

    Nobody went for it.

    Yesterday, before Russia and China and everybody else told Obama to cool off and go away, Snowden was the second coming of Tokyo Rose.

    Wails and lamentations.

    So now, Snowden is a "hacker" and is as insignificant as any nerd in his basement.

    Obama will have to find some other diversion to show us how tough he is, as he caves on everything that is really important.

    Parent

    there is a good article (none / 0) (#41)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 09:01:35 AM EST
    in the Washington Post today or yesterday on WH handling of Snowden and faux pas -- how it approached the situation as a legal issue using the DOJ only and did not approach it as a diplomatic matter until after HK rebuffed the extradition application.  The comments are very insightful as well.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 02:07:06 PM EST
    Is it common for the US government to threaten non-renewal of trade agreements and request extradition from two countries over everyday 29 year old hackers?  For Senators, Congressmen, the Secretary of State, and many more to comment on the manhunt of common 29 year old hackers?

    Your slip is showing Mr. President.

    Well (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 02:13:09 PM EST
    The US made the same threat to Ecuador last year when it was considering granting asylum to Assange..  Ecuador granted asylum and the US did nothing.


    Parent
    Good Gravy... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 02:59:23 PM EST
    Reminds me of a certain unbelievable character a decade ago that even the Onion couldn't have created using all their best resources.

    Bagdad Berry:

    "No big, we are just trying to leverage everything we possibly can, making over reaching threats and burning all kinds of diplomatic/economic bridges to get him back to the US, but we don't really care one way or another.  By the way, we were going to tell you all about the internet surveillance on all y'all, that we forgot to shut off, even though we said we did, so the Guardian brewha is like the hacker, no big deal."

    A little late, the country is in flames and you ain't keeping the infidels out, Berry.

    Seems like labeling him a hacker only increases his notoriety and fame.

    They were caught flat-footed (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 03:58:45 PM EST
    And now they are embarassed:

    For the first 12 days, the Obama administration's effort to extradite government leaker Edward Snowden from Hong Kong was a by-the-book legal affair -- overseen by the Justice Department and involving few if any diplomatic overtures, according to senior administration officials.

    That legalistic approach has resulted in a political and public relations debacle. By the time U.S. officials had begun applying diplomatic pressure on Hong Kong and Chinese authorities last weekend, it was too late: Snowden had boarded a flight to Moscow in search of asylum.

    The missteps have thrust the United States into a geopolitical confrontation that has embarrassed the Obama administration and strained relations with China, Russia and other countries.



    The New Journalism... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 11:51:27 AM EST
    By the Book Legal Affair ?

    "...according to senior administration officials."

    Coercion and extortion should is not be considered a by the book legal affair, and fricken press should do there job and stop stenographing anonymous sources that are part of the story.

    That quote doesn't need to be anonymous if it's a fact.

    Parent

    Short version (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 04:01:05 PM EST
    I can't do anything so I'll just pretend it's not important.

    Jim, when yer right yer right (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 06:02:48 PM EST
    He's right (none / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 02:37:55 PM EST
    but being logically inconsistent.

    The narrative is supposed to be that Obama knew all along what Snowden was doing and let him. You know: because they both hate and want to weaken America.

    Parent

    Well, I don't know about Snowden but (1.00 / 2) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 01:59:07 PM EST
    I agree about Obama.

    Parent
    Okay, JimakaPPJ (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Zorba on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 06:29:18 PM EST
    One of the very few times I have agreed with you, but I must give you your props here.   ;-)

    Parent
    What the NSA and the... (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 05:50:32 AM EST
    surveillance state is up to in secret is important...which is why we owe Mr. Snowden a thank you, not an international manhunt.

    Parent
    Agreed... (none / 0) (#57)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 11:53:15 AM EST
    But weren't in the 'Snowden is a traitor' not too long ago ?

    Parent
    I felt like everyone who said that (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 09:13:48 PM EST
    Obama would force a plane down just got in trouble for saying outloud in public that Obama would force a plane down :).

    Don't act like you guys didn't discuss it Mr. President :)

    That is Why I Thought Putin... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 11:59:04 AM EST
    ...was being cagey with the 'where exactly is Snowden' questions, he was thinking the same thing.

    Or they just ask the airlines to land at some US-friendly airport for an 'emergency' and snatch Snowden off the plane.  Better yet, get one of the spooks to fake a heart attack over friendly airspace.

    Parent

    Downplaying while grinning is a felony, no? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:30:09 PM EST
    Transparently, of course.

    Army reportedly blocking all access to Guardian coverage of NSA leaks

    The Army is blocking all access to The Guardian newspaper's reports about the National Security Agency's sweeping collection of data about Americans' email and phone communications, an Army spokesman said Thursday.

    The Monterey (Calif.) Herald reported that employees at the Presidio of Monterey, an Army public affairs base about 100 miles south of San Francisco, were unable to gain access to The Guardian's articles on former NSA contractor Edward Snowden and his professed leaks of classified information about the intelligence programs.

    Late Thursday, an Army spokesman told The Herald by email that the newspaper's NSA reports were, in fact, being blocked across the entire Army. He wrote that it's routine for the Defense Department to take "network hygiene" action to prevent disclosure of classified information, The Herald reported.

    "I am not a crook!"

    Tis true (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:38:40 PM EST
    If it is classified, even in being leaked it is scrubbed from access via military supplied channels.  I do believe that wikileaks is scrubbed too, some political sites too because the military is supposed to be apolitical, at least while you are at work.

    My spouse has requested that I never use his computer to access and read anything that is leaked also.  He is not supposed to seek out or read classifed leaks and he makes an effort to not do that.

    When it is all over CNN, MSNBC, and Fox though that gets kind of hard to comply with.

    Parent

    If the US Government has nothing to hide (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:41:28 PM EST
    they should have nothing to fear.

    Parent
    Fear is for the little people (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:49:46 PM EST
    I see that General Cartwright is being investigated for "leaking" to a journalist, but on CNN it was speculated that that leak had to be an "approved" leak of classified info.  Approved by someone who resides at 1600 :)

    I'm assuming that was one of those good leaks that the Republicans were having a fit about because it made Obama look formidable on national security, and that they are behind the initiation of the investigation.

    It would appear that all classified leaks and leakers are not equal in the eyes of the??? Law ????

    Parent

    More on approved leaks (Hullabaloo) (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 07:55:10 AM EST
    Senator Mark Udall's quote bears repeating here:

    As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I am concerned to see news reports about the CIA's response to the Committee's Study of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program before the information was provided to the committee. Committee members have not yet seen this response, which we have been expecting for nearly six months.

    The American people's trust in intelligence agencies requires transparency and strong congressional oversight. This latest leak-the latest incident in a long string of leaks from unnamed intelligence officials who purport to be familiar with the Committee's Study and the CIA's official response to it-is wholly unacceptable. Even as these reports emerged today and over the past several months, the CIA and the White House have repeatedly rejected requests to discuss the Committee's report with Members or Committee staff.

    The continual leaks of inaccurate information from unnamed intelligence officials are embarrassing to the agency and have only hardened my resolve to declassify the full Committee Study, which is based on a review of more than six million pages of CIA records, comprises more than 6,000 pages in length and includes more than 35,000 footnotes. The report is based on CIA records including internal memoranda, cables, emails, as well as transcripts of interviews and Intelligence Committee hearings. The Study is fact-based, and I believe, indisputable.

    The U.S. intelligence apparatus is selectively leaking material that it finds "appropriate," using secret judgments none of the rest of us are privy to, while condemning leaks from outside the system. That makes a mockery of the universal rule of the law. Either all leaks are OK, or none are. There's a debate to be had about that question, but intellectual consistency demands taking one side or the other. One simply cannot support these government-sanctioned leaks while opposing Snowden's without falling back on plainly totalitarian logic that justifies whatever the government does in the name of national security. There's no space here between the Peter King right and the pro-Administration pseudo-left if one does not roundly denounce the government's selective leaks. David Atkins

    Mark Udall is not some lowly blogger or nutty computer geek. He's a US Senator and he's he's saying outright that your government is lying to you. Worse, it is lying to your face through ongoing leaks, even as it has declared war on anyone who leaks in ways that are unflattering.

    What we are dealing with is the fact that government believes leaks are just fine as long as they show the government in a good light. And that is what is otherwise known as propaganda:  people in this country should know only what the government wants it to know. And it is ruthlessly punishing anyone who deviates from prescribed authorized leaking. Is that really necessary to keep the nation secure from terrorists?
    digby

    Chris Hayes on the leak double standard (via digby)

    Right on Chris Hayes. Barbara Starr and David Gregory can spout all the classified information they choose without fear of being arrested. But then they only disseminate the classified info that makes the government look good so it's just fine. *The whole show was really good, actually. Worth spending some time to watch if you missed it.



    Parent
    Law is for little people, too... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:52:39 PM EST
    Lawlessness is for the big people (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:53:23 PM EST
    A Catch-22 (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 10:57:44 AM EST
    Link:

    Cartwright could be indicted under the Espionage Act, putting him in the same predicament as Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning. If so, he'd be Obama's ninth such target--and among the highest-ranking officials ever to be charged in the law's 96-year history.

    But Obama may have unwittingly put himself in a compromising position by going after Cartwright. The retired general has on his side the White House's former top legal adviser, Greg Craig. Craig served in both the Clinton and Obama administrations before being forced out in 2009, in part over his unsuccessful attempt to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

    It'll likely mean huge headaches for Obama if he chooses to battle Craig, who represented Clinton during his impeachment trial and John Hinckley Jr., who allegedly carried out the Ronald Reagan assassination attempt. Both cases led to acquittals.

    As daunting a challenge as it might be to try Cartwright, it could be even worse for Obama if he ultimately decides not to. Anything short of an indictment would open the president up to accusations that he only pursues leaks when it involves ordinary federal employees and not distinguished public servants.



    Parent
    Except, uhhhmmm... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:44:36 PM EST
    World's Most Evil and Lawless Institution? The Executive Branch of the U.S. Government

    Executive Branch leaders have killed, wounded and made homeless well over 20 million human beings in the last 50 years, mostly civilians.

    At least we now know who the terrorists are, without any doubt.

    You and me, apparently...

    Parent

    And they have all my phone calls recorded (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:51:52 PM EST
    For years and years, but could not catch the Boston bombers :(

    Parent
    House of, ummm, mirrors? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:53:49 PM EST
    The Beginning of Desert Storm... (none / 0) (#60)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 12:18:20 PM EST
    ...was scrubbed.  Out only news was the military news.  So we had to go off base to catch the news.

    IMO, it's a good idea, people who are expected to follow orders and put their lives on the line don't need to be caught up in the politics or the disillusionment.  It's one area that needs blind faith to be its most effective.  It's no democracy inside.

    I have always thought is was weird that they totally de-promote politics in the military, yet allow you to vote knowing damn well they information you are getting is anything but balanced.  You can also vote absentee for most of the home state elections as well, even though you may not have been there in years, may not even be stationed in the US.

    Parent

    During the Iraq War they were a little bit (none / 0) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 06:28:06 PM EST
    afraid of the soldier vote during Bush's second quest for gold.  There were all sorts of SNAFUs in the war zone that many felt were a symptom of someone not "taking the soldier vote very seriously".  I think that might have been on purpose.  Two years later, SNAFUs magically fixed for different election cycle.

    I don't know how anybody agrees to the blackout that soldiers agree to.  And only someone who serves or has served seems to be able to grasp the whole of all that and the whys of all that.  I could never serve, not ever, I do not trust anyone to that degree and cannot even convince myself to.  And I love my country, but no crazy phuckers are going to have a possibility of owning me :)  I just cannot find the trust, and Iraq sure didn't help me with that.

    I have a deep respect for the many women who serve and have served in these recent wars.  To be a female and blacked out....whew.  I told one of them I met last week thank you for your service and my husband whispers to me, "You have never said that to a dude soldier you have met in front of me."  I'm working on it :)

    Parent

    As You Well Know... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 11:55:36 AM EST
    ...the military is anything but a democracy.  Look to Congress if can't understand why varying points of view would not be conducive to an running effective fighting machine.

    You need everyone towing the same line, dissent is good for a democracy, not good in the ranks during a battle.  

    It's why I hated it to the core, but I also understand that's is necessary evil, or I used to, before Bush and Obama, now I wish the military could question orders, refused to die for BS, or just quit and walk away.

    Parent

    That "served" word is a little over used (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 03:33:38 PM EST
    is anyone going to tell me that some non-military person who, say, provides selfless hospice care to the dying isn't "serving"? Or, that one of those rare, truely great, teachers isn't serving?

    I used to argue about this with one of our conservative regulars all the time..

    Parent

    This is what we get (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 09:05:31 AM EST
    when our armed services and intelligence services are combined.

    Parent
    The NSA has always been a part (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 11:55:46 AM EST
    of the military branch.  I did not know that they were a military extension until more recently though.  For whatever reason, whenever I have read about the NSA it is left out that they are part of the military establishment.  And the military that I know never brags that the NSA belongs to them.  Nobody says a damned word about the NSA ever, it is like it doesn't even exist :)

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#68)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 02:21:17 PM EST
    for the info.  

    Parent
    "The Criminal NSA" - more lawyers opine (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 11:39:44 AM EST
    with a New York Times op-ed.

    We may never know all the details of the mass surveillance programs, but we know this: The administration has justified them through abuse of language, intentional evasion of statutory protections, secret, unreviewable investigative procedures and constitutional arguments that make a mockery of the government's professed concern with protecting Americans' privacy. It's time to call the N.S.A.'s mass surveillance programs what they are: criminal.


    And this: (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by shoephone on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 06:55:51 PM EST
    The government claims that under Section 215 it may seize all of our phone call information now because it might conceivably be relevant to an investigation at some later date, even if there is no particular reason to believe that any but a tiny fraction of the data collected might possibly be suspicious. That is a shockingly flimsy argument -- any data might be "relevant" to an investigation eventually, if by "eventually" you mean "sometime before the end of time." If all data is "relevant," it makes a mockery of the already shaky concept of relevance.

    Reminds me of the contortions police go through to explain why they could possibly need to collect a DNA sample from every single person they hold, whether arrested or not, and regardless of whatever type of activity they are suspected of.

    Parent

    What (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by lentinel on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 09:17:05 PM EST
    Obama is doing is just trying to change the narrative from the criminal activity of the NSA - which he endorses - to Mr. Snowden.

    The issue is not Snowden.

    The issue is an out-of-control government.

    And I must say that Mr. Obama's statement,

    "I'm not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker," Mr. Obama said.

    is barely coherent. It is borderline idiotic.

    Would he "scramble" jets to get a 30 year-old hacker? What is the age he would consider appropriate for some jet scrambling?
    Is "hacking" the issue? What activities are on the table for a little scrambling of jets carrying civilian passengers?

    Holy Hat Hannah!

    From his perspective (none / 0) (#74)
    by Edger on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 10:52:14 PM EST
    it appears to be not idiotic in the sense of being effective - although it being effective is idiotic in itself - but in fact appears to help him continue to snow his supporters.

    I haven't seen any more recent ones, but these poll results from June 12 don't look good - except maybe to idiots...

    54 percent of Americans believe Edward Snowden "did a `good thing'" by exposing government surveillance programs, a new Time poll says. 53 percent nonetheless "said he should be prosecuted for the leak," Zeke J. Miller reports.

    58 percent of Democrats said they approved of the snooping. Only 39 percent of Republicans said the same.

    But then...

    scholars often disagree on a precise definition of fascism. Even so, they tend to agree on its common characteristics such as:

    • Absolute Power of the State: Fascist regimes have a strong centralized state, or national government. The fascist state seeks total control over all major parts of society. Individuals must give up their private needs and rights to serve the needs of the whole society as represented by the state.

    • Rule by a Dictator: A single dictator runs the fascist state and makes all the important decisions. This leader often uses charisma, a magnetic personality, to gain the support of the people.

    • Corporatism: Fascists believe in taming capitalism by controlling labor and factory owners. Unions, strikes, and other labor actions are illegal. Although private property remains, the state controls the economy.

    • Extreme Nationalism: The fascist state uses national glory and the fear of outside threats to build a new society based on the "common will" of the people. Fascists believe in action and looking at national myths for guidance rather than relying on the "barren intellectualism" of science and reason.

    • Superiority of the Nation's People: Fascists hold up the nation's people as superior to other nationalities. They typically strengthen and unify the dominant group in a nation while stifling dissent and persecuting minority groups.

    • Militarism and Imperialism: Fascists believe that great nations show their greatness by conquering and ruling weak nations. Fascists believe the state can survive only if it successfully proves its military superiority in war.

    -- Constitutional Rights Foundation


    Parent
    Isn't (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 09:46:17 AM EST
    it marvelous.

    58% of Democrats agree with the government snooping on us.

    The party of liberalism.
    The crusaders for civil rights.

    R.I.P.

    Parent

    Sure.. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 11:46:19 AM EST
    "We're at war"..etc etc

    And a lot of liberals loved the reactionary Churchill during WWII..

    And the marketers insult our intelligence everyday because they've discovered that Ameerican's baser emotions all-too-often override their higher ideals and critical intelligence..

    Parent

    Liberalism having a party. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 12:10:49 PM EST
    I vote for the democratic party
    They want the U.N. to be strong
    I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
    He sure gets me singing those songs
    I'll send all the money you ask for
    But don't ask me to come on along
    So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

    Once I was young and impulsive
    I wore every conceivable pin
    Even went to the socialist meetings
    Learned all the old union hymns
    But I've grown older and wiser
    And that's why I'm turning you in

    So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

    -- Phil Ochs, 1965



    Parent
    Fear and chronic anxiety (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 12:19:53 PM EST
    don't make people any smarter.. all those states do is consume energy and leave one overwrought and vulnerable and prey to a thousand illusions and delusions..

    But yet, we still love that masochistic, Protestant no-pain-no-gain, what doesn't-kill-you..ethic over here..Suffering is good for you..

    God will reward us for our trevails..

    Parent

    I believe I have (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Zorba on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 01:08:58 PM EST
    used this quote before, but it bears repeating:

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

    H. L. Mencken

    Parent

    The eternal promise of the eternal reward (none / 0) (#82)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 12:21:49 PM EST
    "Eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions god's infinite love."
    ― Bill Hicks


    Parent
    Children burning forever in the Lake of Fire.. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 12:33:21 PM EST
    I'm sorry, but in my admitedly totalitarian world,
    people who believe that not only aren't allowed to vote, they're not allowed to reproduce (mandatory, possibly reversible, vasectomies), and they sure as hell aren't allowed to have guns..

    If their God is a monster, what are THEY capable of?

    Parent

    don't get me started (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 12:34:12 PM EST
    I'd be willing to bet that a significant (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 11:19:30 AM EST
    percentage of those who say they approve of the "snooping" have no idea - other than what they've heard from the mainstream - the extent of what's been collected, the extent of the lying about it that's pervaded the whole program, how little Congress really knows about it, and the likelihood that no one other than those who dare to expose it will ever be held accountable.

    Polls, schmolls.

    Parent

    That may be (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 12:12:12 PM EST
    the purpose of polls.

    It's certainly the purpose of what passes for journalism.

    Parent

    Is Snowden still in the Moscow airport? (none / 0) (#5)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 01:39:47 PM EST


    "We hope" (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 02:10:46 PM EST
    "it's not happening".

    Multi-dimensional (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 04:48:19 PM EST
    meta chess

    General Cartwright under investigation by DoJ (none / 0) (#22)
    by Politalkix on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 09:41:35 PM EST
    link.

    In order for us to know about this investigation (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:50:29 PM EST
    Someone had to leak that fact!

    Parent
    The company that does background checks (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 07:05:30 AM EST
    USIS, now under investigation for allegedly misleading the government about those very background checks.

    After conducting an initial background check of a candidate for employment, USIS was required to perform a second review to make sure no important details had been missed. From 2008 through 2011, USIS allegedly skipped this second review in up to 50 percent of the cases. But it conveyed to federal officials that these reviews had, in fact, been performed.

    The shortcut made it appear that USIS was more efficient than it actually was and may have triggered incentive awards for the company, the people briefed on the matter said. Investigators, who have briefed lawmakers on the allegations, think the strategy may have originated with senior executives, the people said.

    SNIP

    The broader concerns about background checks are not limited to USIS. McFarland's office has 47 open investigations into alleged wrongdoing by individuals in the background checks industry, according to a statement from the inspector general's office. Separately, since 2006, the watchdog has won convictions in 18 cases in which employees claimed to have verified information that ultimately turned out to be false or not even checked.

    I think in the end, there are going to be more than a few people who lose their jobs over this sh!t storm Edward Snowden kicked up.

    Parent

    Snowden's Father (none / 0) (#38)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 08:01:31 AM EST
    believes his son is being manipulated by Wikileaks.

    Could be some negotiations taking place between father/son/and government on his possible return. That could explain the reported hiring of a US lawyer recently.

    According to AP (none / 0) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 09:08:35 AM EST
    The elder Snowden hasn't spoken to his son since April ....

    Parent
    Which I suspect would be his father's answer (none / 0) (#47)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 09:51:37 AM EST
    whether he has or hasn't.

    Parent
    Of course that is possible (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 01:09:03 PM EST
    It is also possible that his father is telling the truth about not talking to his son since April.

    In regards to your statement

    That could explain the reported hiring of a US lawyer recently.

    When searching for information regarding "hiring a U.S. attorney for Snowden," all links that I've read indicate that it was Wikileaks who hired Snowden a U. S. attorney.

    WikiLeaks denies reports that it is no longer assisting Snowden and claims that it has hired the NSA whistleblower a US attorney.


    Parent
    I Would Think... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 02:03:06 PM EST
    ...with the US Government after his A, he's not in contact with anyone he doesn't want dragged into this his nightmare.

    What sucks about this whole mess is we are flipping the tab for the government to go after the guy who divulged information American's have the right to know about.

    Parent

    I would tend to agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 02:56:43 PM EST
    ...with the US Government after his A, he's not in contact with anyone he doesn't want dragged into this his nightmare.


    Parent
    The most important person (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 08:34:57 AM EST
    entering government (that you never heard of)

    [Nicole] Wong is serving as a top deputy to the White House's chief technology officer, Todd Park, according to OSTP spokesman Rick Weiss. Beyond that, Weiss wouldn't elaborate on what Wong will be doing. He did say, however, that characterizing her simply as a "chief privacy officer" doesn't fully describe her role.

    In the very least, Wong's appointment appears to be part of an effort by the Obama administration to reassure citizens that their privacy rights will be protected. The White House has been under the gun about the government's role in data mining and surveillance, thanks in part to controversy over its PRISM spying program. "The fact that this position exists reflects the importance we attach to the issue," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters last week. "I would point you to everything I just said about the president's views on the balance that we need to strike between our national security interests and protecting the American people, as well as protecting our values and our privacy."



    Are you sure your link is not to (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 09:48:27 AM EST
    a satire site like the onion? ;0)

    Somehow the public is to be reassured that their privacy rights will be protected by appointing someone to a position whose actual duties are either not defined or too secret to discuss.

    ...Wong's appointment appears to be part of an effort by the Obama administration to reassure citizens that their privacy rights will be protected....

    Wong is serving as a top deputy to the White House's chief technology officer, Todd Park, according to OSTP spokesman Rick Weiss. Beyond that, Weiss wouldn't elaborate on what Wong will be doing.



    Parent
    I had to check (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 09:58:23 AM EST
    Now that you mentioned it:

    Are you sure your link is not to a satire site like the onion? ;0)

    But no, no satire.  The WaPo has it too.

    :)

    Parent

    I Think... (none / 0) (#61)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 12:24:50 PM EST
    ...the stire line was because:
    Somehow the public is to be reassured that their privacy rights will be protected by appointing someone to a position whose actual duties are either not defined or too secret to discuss.

    Not because she though the site was actually a satire site, just that the actual news read like one.  

    Parent

    No, I understood (none / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 12:26:45 PM EST
    It just occurred to me when she wrote that, that I blindly posted an article I read that someone sent me.  An article from a place I hadn't heard of before and I should have done due diligence.

    But it's all good -  she was just funnin' me.  :)

    Parent

    Great! Just what we need - the (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 09:57:27 AM EST
    cyber equivalent of Baghdad Bob...someone who can blow smoke and bamboozle and okey-doke away all of our concerns.

    Because, as we know, the problem is that we need a better way to deliver the message that there's nothing wrong, and someone to help us keep the blinders in place so we can only look ahead.

    I suppose it's nice work if you can get it, but I'm pretty tired of these kinds of things being handled this way.  I don't need a pat on the head - I need answers, and not the kind Baghdad Barbara is likely to be authorized to provide.

    Parent

    Baghdad Babs? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 10:07:19 AM EST
    Ugh. It's too old to be this early out. Heh.

    Parent
    We Already Have Baghdad Berry... (none / 0) (#62)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 12:26:37 PM EST
    ...telling us the Snowden leak is no big deal.

    Parent
    Is There Any Doubt... (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 12:30:51 PM EST
    ...she is there to stop the leaks ?

    Like anyone believes she is there for our protection.  Who exactly do we need protecting from, right, the folks that just hired her.  

    Come On !!

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edger on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 09:27:22 AM EST
    "I solemnly swear to explain what I do in my new job when the moment is right."

    "chief privacy officer"

    White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters last week. "I would point you to everything I just said about the president's views on the balance that we need to strike between our national security interests and protecting the American people, as well as protecting our values and our privacy."

    Most transparent administration in history.

    Parent

    LO Double L... (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 09:51:33 AM EST
    We care about privacy, look we got a privacy czar making 6 figures and everything...that's as good as privacy.  What's wrong with you people? ;)

    Parent
    Most transparent administration in history (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 09:56:43 AM EST
    getting more and more transparent by the day.

    Heh. What's not to like?

    Parent

    Linky no worky.... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 10:02:49 AM EST
    Must be the NSA...damn they're fast!

    Parent
    Ooops. It's early out this morning ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Edger on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 10:05:02 AM EST
    "Never mind..." (none / 0) (#67)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jun 28, 2013 at 02:17:53 PM EST
    - White House Spokesperson Emily Latella.

    Russian idiot tube wants to shape public opinion (none / 0) (#78)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 11:55:17 AM EST
    link

    "One program featured a panel of legendary counterintelligence agents, including a man famous for meeting with Lee Harvey Oswald a few months before the assassination of
    President John F Kennedy.

    Their discussion often turned to the subject of US spying on Russia. Korotchenko, one of the guests, made the case that most of the major US consulting firms in Moscow were actually "structural units of American intelligence," including the National Security Agency.

    "The NSA is a global electronic vacuum cleaner, which monitors everything," he said "Look at the top two floors of the new building of the US Embassy - it's a huge antenna, which listens to the Moscow air."

    Similar themes were sounded a few hours later on Channel 1, when the pro-Kremlin analyst Vyacheslav A Nikonov warned that the United States, through its dominance over the Internet, could "strongly undermine the security of other states."

    "The Internet is an invention of the US Ministry of Defense," Nikonov said. "Where is the Internet? Physically, it is in the United States. What is the Internet? It's an American nongovernmental organization which is, of course, connected with the intelligence services of the United States.""

    Correa praises Biden's good manners (none / 0) (#86)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 01:56:27 PM EST