HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Journalist Tom Ricks 'Beg...

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 01:43 PM

Journalist Tom Ricks 'Beginning To Believe The Worst' About Greenwald And Snowden

Journalist Tom Ricks 'Beginning To Believe The Worst' About Greenwald And Snowden

Tom Ricks has a growing suspicion that Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden...On Saturday, the Pulitzer Prize-winning national security reporter posed a question to Greenwald..."Glenn, any comments from you or Edward Snowden on the recent round of media shutdowns in Russia?" Ricks asked.

After initially referring Ricks to Snowden's representative at the ACLU, Greenwald asked Ricks if he had any comment on "Peruvian police corruption," "corporate waste dumping in E Africa," or a U.S. drone strike from last year that killed 13 people en route to a wedding party in Yemen.

Sure, Ricks said, he'd be "happy to comment," but not before he saw Greenwald denounce Vladmir Putin "and his crackdown."

The next day, after he evidently didn't get the response from Greenwald that he was looking for, Ricks took to Twitter to denounce "Peruvian police corruption and US drones that kill innocents."

"Now (your) turn to discuss Putin," Ricks said...By Monday morning, the silence had distressed Ricks so much that he was ready to suggest a pretty harsh criticism of both Greenwald and Snowden

tom ricks @tomricks1
Follow
The clock strikes 13: The longer @ggreenwald and Snowden remain silent on events in Ukraine, the more I suspect their previous motives.
10:17 AM - 17 Mar 2014

44 Retweets 17 favorites

<...>

In a post published Monday on his blog, Ricks once again seemed to insinuate that Greenwald and Snowden are in cahoots with the Russians.

"Bottom line: I am no longer going soft on Greenwald and Snowden," he wrote. "In fact, rather the opposite, I am beginning to believe the worst about them. If they acting on moral beliefs, now would be the time for both of them to speak out against Putin. It could have a great impact, I think."

- more -

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tom-ricks-glenn-greenwald-edward-snowden


101 replies, 5992 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 101 replies Author Time Post
Reply Journalist Tom Ricks 'Beginning To Believe The Worst' About Greenwald And Snowden (Original post)
ProSense Mar 2014 OP
MADem Mar 2014 #1
FSogol Mar 2014 #2
Democracyinkind Mar 2014 #3
ProSense Mar 2014 #4
Fawke Em Mar 2014 #6
blm Mar 2014 #14
randome Mar 2014 #15
Fawke Em Mar 2014 #97
frazzled Mar 2014 #30
ProSense Mar 2014 #38
Maedhros Mar 2014 #45
ProSense Mar 2014 #52
frazzled Mar 2014 #56
Maedhros Mar 2014 #59
frazzled Mar 2014 #63
Maedhros Mar 2014 #65
Mojorabbit Mar 2014 #86
Maedhros Mar 2014 #88
treestar Mar 2014 #89
VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #101
ProSense Mar 2014 #46
ProSense Mar 2014 #36
DevineBovine Mar 2014 #50
bvar22 Mar 2014 #58
DevineBovine Mar 2014 #93
bvar22 Mar 2014 #95
Number23 Mar 2014 #54
Cha Mar 2014 #71
Rex Mar 2014 #57
Cha Mar 2014 #70
functioning_cog Mar 2014 #81
TwilightGardener Mar 2014 #5
Fawke Em Mar 2014 #7
6000eliot Mar 2014 #8
Hassin Bin Sober Mar 2014 #10
TwilightGardener Mar 2014 #12
Fawke Em Mar 2014 #98
JI7 Mar 2014 #16
Fawke Em Mar 2014 #99
tarheelsunc Mar 2014 #9
fbc Mar 2014 #35
okaawhatever Mar 2014 #43
stevenleser Mar 2014 #11
ucrdem Mar 2014 #41
librechik Mar 2014 #13
jeff47 Mar 2014 #27
Maedhros Mar 2014 #48
Control-Z Mar 2014 #83
treestar Mar 2014 #17
PowerToThePeople Mar 2014 #18
msanthrope Mar 2014 #20
Hissyspit Mar 2014 #21
stevenleser Mar 2014 #24
Hissyspit Mar 2014 #25
stevenleser Mar 2014 #26
treestar Mar 2014 #47
Cha Mar 2014 #79
Cha Mar 2014 #82
Whisp Mar 2014 #44
Union Scribe Mar 2014 #85
Cha Mar 2014 #72
WillyT Mar 2014 #19
johnnyreb Mar 2014 #69
bananas Mar 2014 #77
Hissyspit Mar 2014 #22
Whisp Mar 2014 #23
Cha Mar 2014 #73
LanternWaste Mar 2014 #28
MNBrewer Mar 2014 #29
SidDithers Mar 2014 #31
ucrdem Mar 2014 #32
TheSarcastinator Mar 2014 #37
ucrdem Mar 2014 #39
Cha Mar 2014 #74
Luminous Animal Mar 2014 #53
cantbeserious Mar 2014 #33
OilemFirchen Mar 2014 #78
Warren Stupidity Mar 2014 #87
frylock Mar 2014 #34
ProSense Mar 2014 #40
A Simple Game Mar 2014 #60
ProSense Mar 2014 #61
A Simple Game Mar 2014 #62
Whisp Mar 2014 #42
Maedhros Mar 2014 #49
ProSense Mar 2014 #51
Cha Mar 2014 #67
Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #55
Cha Mar 2014 #68
Cha Mar 2014 #64
Bonobo Mar 2014 #66
Warren Stupidity Mar 2014 #75
arcane1 Mar 2014 #76
functioning_cog Mar 2014 #80
Cha Mar 2014 #84
Octafish Mar 2014 #90
DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2014 #92
Octafish Mar 2014 #94
ProSense Mar 2014 #96
ProSense Mar 2014 #91
Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #100

Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 01:45 PM

1. Don't hold your breath. GG and Snowden won't bite the hand that overfed them. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 01:46 PM

2. {Crickets}

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 01:50 PM

3. "Journalist Tom Ricks fails to goad Greenwald into discussing a strawman" nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 01:56 PM

4. Wait,

"Journalist Tom Ricks fails to goad Greenwald into discussing a strawman"

...Russia's crackdown on the media is a "strawman"?

Russia: Media black-out ahead of disputed Crimea referendum

The Russian authorities have launched a full-scale onslaught on the few remaining independent media in Russia, blocking a number of internet sites in the Russian Federation, Amnesty International said..."The blocking of these sites is a clear violation of the right to freedom of expression. It is an unashamed attack on those who still dare to question the Kremlin-dictated narrative by providing independent, impartial information and offer a platform for free debate,” said John Dalhuisen, Europe and Central Asia Programme Director at Amnesty International.

“In the past months and weeks the Russian authorities have embarked on a campaign to stifle free media. It started with unofficial censorship and self-censorship, and quickly evolved into open gagging of independent media outlets. This is reminiscent of the Soviet-era jamming of radio stations.”

The Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation ordered the blocking of several high profile sites for purportedly making “appeals for illegal activity and participation in mass events, organized in violation of the established order.”

The sites blocked include: Grani.ru, Kasparov.ru, EJ.ru, the blog of the opposition activist Aleksei Navalny on the Moscow Echo radio station website and the Livejournal.com website which hosts many popular blogs.

- more -

https://www.amnesty.org/en/news/russia-media-black-out-ahead-disputed-crimea-referendum-2014-03-14



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 01:58 PM

6. This!

+1,000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 02:50 PM

14. The only straw men were in Greenwald's answer. Ricks' question was appropriate

for the current news and I am surprised that Greenwald could not articulate a relevant position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 02:54 PM

15. It was a valid question.

 

And Greenwald not wanting to answer it is valid, too, if you theorize that he's trying to protect Snowden.

But it was an artless and defensive reply by Greenwald. He has a thin skin and likes to fight with other journalists.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #15)

Wed Mar 19, 2014, 01:08 AM

97. No he doesn't.

He likes to fight with fake "journalists."

So do I.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:02 PM

30. Whenever faced with an inconvenient question ...

I notice that Greenwald's tendency is to pull the "Look, over there!" response, asking back a totally unrelated and often irrelevant question to deflect attention from the inconvenient subject at hand. And of course, then, never answering what he was asked. It's worse: he demands that the interlocutor answer HIS questions first, before he'll answer theirs. Then, when they do, he still refuses to answer. BUSTED!

In fact, it's a ploy I notice here a lot. When posed with the question of whether Putin's invasion of Crimea was justified, some of the diehards are quick to respond with questions about some prior, random untoward US action. And even when they receive responses, they still won't answer whether Putin acted correctly.

Let's be frank: this is CHILDISH. It's like when Mom catches you with your hand in the cookie jar and your defense is, "Yeah, well Tommy pooped in his pants!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #30)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:18 PM

38. How many times

Whenever faced with an inconvenient question ...

I notice that Greenwald's tendency is to pull the "Look, over there!" response, asking back a totally unrelated and often irrelevant question to deflect attention from the inconvenient subject at hand. And of course, then, never answering what he was asked. It's worse: he demands that the interlocutor answer HIS questions first, before he'll answer theirs. Then, when they do, he still refuses to answer. BUSTED!

...has he pulled this: Say something, and then when criticized, attack the person, offer up a false equivalency or claim his perfectly clear statement doesn't mean what he people are saying it means.

Greenwald can dish it, but he whines like a baby when he's the subject of criticism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #30)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:40 PM

45. The "Look over there!" response -

 

is that similar to this:

Greenwald: "Here's a bunch of information about what the NSA is doing."

Ricks: "But what about Russia?!?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #45)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 05:41 PM

52. LOL! Yeah, ignore that Ricks asked the question and Greenwald dodged it. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #45)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 06:17 PM

56. So what you're saying is ...

Greenwald is the only person in the universe who gets to set the topic of discussion. Everyone must focus on his topic, always and in every situation, and nothing else is to be discussed. Harumph.

Ricks has written plenty about the NSA and the Snowden revelations, so it's not HIM that was being asked the question. He started the conversation by asking a single question about media shutdowns in Russia. This is not some question out of left field for Greenwald, given his interest in first amendment rights and the protection of journalists from censorship. Game, set, match.

Sorry, but you can't turn the tables yet AGAIN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #56)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 06:35 PM

59. Greenwald is allowed to decide on what he gets to write.

 

He doesn't write about Russian or Brazillian politics, because that's not what he is interested in. He is first and foremost interested in what his own country, the United States, is doing, and so he focuses his efforts on those topics involving the United States.

Ricks tweeted this:

The clock strikes 13: The longer @ggreenwald and Snowden remain silent on events in Ukraine, the more I suspect their previous motives.

— tom ricks (@tomricks1) March 17, 2014


The events in the Ukraine have little or nothing to do with the NSA's abuse of power. Ricks' tweet implies that because Greenwald/Snowden haven't commented on the Ukraine situation, they must be lying about the NSA. That is a decidedly non sequitur argument.

Ricks has no evidence to back up his claims that Greenwald and Snowden are "working for the Russians," so he uses this classic bit of whataboutery to cast aspersions on their character, knowing that the weak-minded will eat it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #59)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 07:30 PM

63. When you are on the Bd. of Directors of ...

an organization called the Freedom of the Press Foundation, it would seem that you have placed yourself in the position of being legitimately asked about issues regarding **Freedom of the Press** by a member of the press. No matter where those issues arise. There's simply no way to wiggle out of that one.

https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/about/staff

PS: Don't pull the tweet that is way down the line in this conversation to try to prove your point. This was 13 hours after Greenwald refused a simple question about a subject he purports to care about: namely, freedom of the press.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #63)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 07:44 PM

65. And the question was being used (incorrectly) to try and undermine his credibility

 

with respect to his reportage on the NSA, by a member (Ricks) of the CNAS (a defense policy think tank) with a vested interest in disparaging Greenwald's character.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #59)

Tue Mar 18, 2014, 02:56 AM

86. It seems to be the latest talking point. I posted in

a thread yesterday with a similar sentiment. I don't understand why Snowden needs to comment on Russian politics at all or why some people have the need for him to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #86)

Tue Mar 18, 2014, 12:37 PM

88. Yes, indeed. A quick tour of Google shows a number of right-leaning bloggers

 

who have posted something similar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #59)

Tue Mar 18, 2014, 04:35 PM

89. He still looks pretty lame for deciding that he's only going to address US issues

when other countries have similar issues or are worse. There is an irony of Snowden going to Russia and calling it a protector of freedom. Maybe for him but not for the Russians generally.

It would be like me saying the Russians do much worse, so what the NSA does is negligible and perfectly OK. I doubt you or Glenn are going to think that's OK. Yet that's what he's doing here. Saying he will pontificate on a subject and judge one country, but refuses to consider similar fact patterns of other countries, because they might disturb his conclusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #89)

Wed Mar 19, 2014, 11:24 AM

101. Its worse than lame...it denotes an agenda!

 

that is in direct opposition to the motive that GG and Snowden have been proclaiming...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #30)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:41 PM

46. Still no response, but he's laughing at the TPM piece.

Glenn GreenwaldVerified account‏@ggreenwald·
This genuinely makes me laugh: the innuendo, the smear tactics, the logical idiocy http://t.co/jv0H1EswPt

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/445613101191143424

LOL! This from a guy who does nothing but innuendo and smear, and when all else fails tries to deflect.

Greenwald: Snowden Charges Show Obama’s ‘Vindictive Mentality’...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023068613

Glenn Greenwald Justifies Snowden’s Fear He Will Be Killed: U.S. ‘Targeted’ Americans In The Past
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023035095

Greenwald tries to do damage control
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023244823

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:15 PM

36. No one

"Ricks' question was appropriate for the current news and I am surprised that Greenwald could not articulate a relevant position."

...is supposed to question Greenwald. I believe some think that's in the Constitution.

If you're critical of Greenwald, you're "attacking the messenger," but it's OK to attack someone who asked Greenwald a question and called him out for his non-response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:48 PM

50. I completely agree

 

Thank you Democracyinkind,

I believe Snowden, Greenwald, and company are our last hope at getting this nation back on track. I'm excited by the collaborative efforts of these folks (The Intercept) in providing a worthy source where the corporate media has chosen to ignore (or more accurately - deceive).

I'm saddened by the small band of on-queue, blind party loyalists here on DU, and those who spend every waking breath, clawing for smear material in order to defend the indefensible. In my tent, there's no room for this, or similarly Karl Rove.

The current administration has, in no small measure, failed. What was once the political party I felt really cared about those they claim to represent has morphed into something very ugly and unrecognizable. One word captures this transformation quite effectively - criminal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevineBovine (Reply #50)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 06:29 PM

58. Someone alerted on your post.

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

The Obama administration is "failed" and is "criminal?" "Blind party loyalists?" The only group this person seems to dislike more than the president are his supporters. Suggesting that this administration is criminal is unreal

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 17, 2014, 05:19 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The poster may have got carried away with the rhetoric but the underlying message of that post is a legitimate one.

Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Yet another in a long line of posts designed to depress voter turn out. These attack all Democrats/Democratic administration, are a plague on this site.

Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not guilty.

Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate?
I don't see it.


Walking the Walk of lobbying for Transparency in Alerts and Jury Service,
I will disclose that I am Juror #6.
I've been a DEMOCRAT for a long time.
When we, as a Party, exempt our Party Leadership from criticism like the Republicans have done,
then I will no longer be a DEMOCRAT.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.

Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right.

Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. [font size=3]To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.[/font]"

T. Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star,
May 7, 1918


---bvar22

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #58)

Tue Mar 18, 2014, 06:38 PM

93. Thank you!

 

I've been following this site since The Dark Days of GW, but remain shy in joining in on the discussion. Essentially I feel that others are more eloquent in articulating my position - much like yourself

Thanks for sharing the jury information with me, as well as the opportunity to live and learn.

Peace

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevineBovine (Reply #93)

Tue Mar 18, 2014, 08:57 PM

95. Your post #50 was a eloquent as any here on DU.

You have a talent for expressing your opinion in a clear, unequivocal manner.

I appreciate your directness.
Please post more here at DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 06:10 PM

54. How in god's name is that a strawman???! Good Lord

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #54)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 08:13 PM

71. It's called Deflection. What Greenwald is infamous for and his

fans have learned from the head..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 06:19 PM

57. It is funny, guess he flip flops a lot...this is from a January statement.

 

"I especially am becoming more sympathetic to Snowden the more current and former American intelligence officials talk about killing Snowden and holding forth in other ways. Bart Gellman, one of the reporters who has broken a lot of Snowden's news, wrote of a confrontation with a self-righteous general last summer, who angrily said to him, "We didn't have another 9/11 [because intelligence enabled warfighters to find the enemy first]. Until you've got to pull the trigger, until you've had to bury your people, you don't have a clue."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 08:11 PM

70. Greenwald Is The slick as an Oily Weasel strawman.

<<<Greenwald

Talking Points Memo ✔ @TPM

To TPM, Greenwald quotes Chomsky—"My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state" http://bit.ly/PJ6LFU
Bobfr @Our4thEstate
Follow
@TPM Wonder how #Greenwald's FSB handlers will respond to him referring to Russia (aka CCCP 2.0) that way. #Crimea pic.twitter.com/Ivq3DtI8QV
9:31 AM - 17 Mar 2014
1 Retweet
Reply
Retweet
Favorite

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 11:06 PM

81. No. As an advocacy journalist making big $$ on sitting in judgement

 

Of what he describes as authoritarian tactics of US, England, and other western nations...his silence on such a huge geopolitical move by one of the G8 and UN security council permanent member is pretty ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 01:57 PM

5. Now, what would REALLY impress me is Snowden and Greenwald stealing

documents and expounding on the government secrets, surveillance and nefarious deeds of China and Russia. Then I would say, "those guys really are courageous--and they're consistent!" Think it will ever happen? Of course not, because that's not their job. Their job is to undermine the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 02:00 PM

7. You do realize they don't have access to that like

Snowden did when he worked for BAH, right?

My guess is that if someone - far less known than Snowden is these days - were to get that information from Russia and/or China, Greenwald would print it upon verification. Not a stretch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #7)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 02:03 PM

8. He won't even criticize Putin, and you believe he would do this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #7)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 02:06 PM

10. I can't believe that has to be pointed out on DU.

Jesus, DU is starting to look like the comments section of YouTube.

*derp, derp, derp, Snowden should steal some commie USSR Soviet commie docs!!! aree-huh-duh-derrrr!!!!!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #7)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 02:31 PM

12. Riiiight. They would organize such a thing, but too bad, no access!

Uh huh. That's why they're not doing it. Plus, it's all their patriotic LOVE for this country (that neither live in) that makes them focus their efforts solely on the US. Goddamn, the gullible and easily influenced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 19, 2014, 01:13 AM

98. You stay. I'd prefer to leave this fascist place, myself, as well.

Can't afford to. Too "old" to get a job offer elsewhere.

Talk about gullible and easily influenced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #7)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 02:55 PM

16. he wont even criticize putin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 19, 2014, 01:15 AM

99. OK.

Why does that matter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 02:06 PM

9. I thought Snowden was planning to eventually head on to Latin America.

Seems he's gotten pretty comfortable in the Kremlin's shadow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tarheelsunc (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:14 PM

35. The US revoked his passport.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fbc (Reply #35)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:23 PM

43. He wouldn't need it. Brazil won't give him asylum. He can go to Cuba, though. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 02:13 PM

11. Snowden and Greenwald are negative nationalists with the US as their envisioned antagonist.

They aren't principled and have no real values in their politics.


http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html

... By "nationalism" I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled "good" or "bad." But secondly -- and this is much more important -- I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.

... It is also worth emphasizing once again that nationalist feeling can be purely negative. There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the USSR without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist -- that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating -- but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also -- since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself -- unshakeably certain of being in the right.

... (examples of) NEGATIVE NATIONALISM

1. ANGLOPHOBIA. Within the intelligentsia, a derisive and mildly hostile attitude towards Britain is more or less compulsory, but it is an unfaked emotion in many cases. During the war it was manifested in the defeatism of the intelligentsia, which persisted long after it had become clear that the Axis powers could not win. Many people were undisguisedly pleased when Singapore fell ore when the British were driven out of Greece, and there was a remarkable unwillingness to believe in good news, e.g. el Alamein, or the number of German planes shot down in the Battle of Britain. English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong. As a result, "enlightened" opinion is quite largely a mirror-image of Conservative policy. Anglophobia is always liable to reversal, hence that fairly common spectacle, the pacifist of one war who is a bellicist in the next.
.
.
.

more at above link

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:21 PM

41. They've been dining out for 10 months on one lousy warrant

and a perfectly legal one at that, so I think you might have a valid point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 02:35 PM

13. Let's see, couple of journalists who have been blacklisted by US Media are supposed to be

shocked by an authoritarian state's suppression of the media? And while in the iron clutches of that state, they are supposed to take umbrage as if there were moral ground to stand on and they were just refusing to do so?

I dunno. Yeah, goading i what it is. And who is to sat Ricks isn't just another embedded military stooge for the national security establishment?

If I were them, I would never respond to random attacks, just keep on script. They didn't invade the Crimea, after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #13)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 03:55 PM

27. How is Greenwald "in the iron clutches of that state"? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #13)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:41 PM

48. Is Ricks dating Judith Miller?

 

I bet they'd get along splendidly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #13)

Tue Mar 18, 2014, 02:33 AM

83. How was Ricks' question

a random attack?

"Glenn, any comments from you or Edward Snowden on the recent round of media shutdowns in Russia?"

Oh my gawd! Horrible, vicious attack!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 02:58 PM

17. Eddie I will excuse

He's there - saying something could land him in jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #17)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 02:59 PM

18. I was about to post the same, CYA. eom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #17)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 03:31 PM

20. I can see that--but you'd think that nothing would hold GG back. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #17)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 03:37 PM

21. So, by extension, Greenwald is excused? Protecting his source?

That's your logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #21)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 03:45 PM

24. No, that is not protecting a source. Greenwald could say anything he wants without impacting Snowden

He might never be able to talk to Snowden again afterwards because I am sure Putin and his goons would cut off access, but he isn't protecting his source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #24)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 03:49 PM

25. Protecting his source's interests, not his identity.

That was the initial argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #25)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 03:50 PM

26. The initial argument where? Whoever said it is wrong. No one in this thread seems to have said it

except for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #21)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:41 PM

47. Huh?

Ed is in Moscow. Glenn is not. Glenn is where he can say what he thinks of Putin without reprisal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #47)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 10:55 PM

79. But, Greenwald is too busy Deflecting and collectiing straw.. and you won't hear him say

one peep against Putin. Good, because where it was just an educated guess before.. now there's proof that Glenn's lips are zipped when it come to saying anything negative about snowald's Russian benefactors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #79)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 11:14 PM

82. "OK, I've Had It With The Moral Posturing of Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden"..

snip//

"He did mockingly tweet this morning, "Has Snowden condemned the earthquake in LA yet?"

His point being, I suppose, that Greenwald and Snowden are not required to comment on all events. My point being that the LA earthquake has not enabled Snowden's actions."


http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/03/17/ok_i_have_had_it_with_the_moral_posturing_of_glenn_greenwald_and_edward_snowden

Greenwald and Snowden don't stand up to scrutiny.. it's a good thing for them they have so many fans who don't give a shit what they say or do. Anti-America First.. and the rest of the world can do whatever the fuck it wants. "Moral Posturing", Indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #17)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:27 PM

44. It's looking more and more like Eddie is getting shafted by Greenwald and Co.

 

He is pretty well stuck in Russia and GG and Poitras and all the others can sell Snowden's contraband to whoever for the best price. So far they got a good deal with Omidyar - I doubt so very much they'd get that offering if they didn't have all those documents.

How utterly shameful. The idea that people can support this kind of deceit is .... well it pretty well proves why we can't have nice things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #44)

Tue Mar 18, 2014, 02:35 AM

85. It's awesome how you guys are on a first name basis

What do GG and Eddie call you? Whispy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #17)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 08:14 PM

72. And, mr cut and run is not about to go to jail if he can help it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 03:08 PM

19. Journalist... And Member Of The Center for a New American Security

 

The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) is a Washington, D.C.-based think tank established in 2007 by co-founders Michčle Flournoy and Kurt M. Campbell which specializes in U.S. national security issues. CNAS's stated mission is to "develop strong, pragmatic and principled national security and defense policies that promote and protect American interests and values."[1] CNAS focuses on terrorism and irregular warfare, the future of the U.S. military, the emergence of Asia as a global power center, and the national security implications of natural resource consumption. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg has called CNAS "an indispensable feature on the Washington landscape."[2] Speaking at the CNAS annual conference in June 2009, U.S. Central Command Commander GEN David Petraeus observed that "CNAS has, in a few years, established itself as a true force in think tank and policy-making circles"[3]

The Obama administration has hired several CNAS employees for key jobs.[4] Founders Michčle Flournoy and Kurt Campbell currently serve as the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, respectively. In June 2009 The Washington Post suggested, "In the era of Obama...the Center for a New American Security may emerge as Washington's go-to think tank on military affairs."[4] CNAS scholars include John Nagl,[5] David Kilcullen, Andrew Exum, Thomas E. Ricks, Robert D. Kaplan,[6] and Marc Lynch. CNAS is led by CEO Robert Work, former Under Secretary of the Navy.

CNAS is relatively small, with around 30 employees and a budget under $6 million.


Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_a_New_American_Security

***********************************************************************************

Thomas Edwin "Tom" Ricks (born September 25, 1955)[5] is an American journalist who writes on defense topics. He is a Pulitzer Prize-winning former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. He writes a blog at ForeignPolicy.com[6] and is a member of the Center for a New American Security,[7] a defense policy think tank.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_E._Ricks_(journalist)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #19)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 07:54 PM

69. Oops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #19)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 10:36 PM

77. Tom Ricks is "a member of the Center for a New American Security, a defense policy think tank."

I'm beginning to suspect the worst about him!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 03:39 PM

22. Oh, goody. Another TPM completely evidence-free pissing-contest piece.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 03:40 PM

23. Greenwald's boss Omidyar had some background dealings during this Ukraine crisis

 

if someone has more information on that I would appreciate a link.

Something tells me this has something to do about Greenwald's avoiding that question.

This from Feb. 26:
http://pando.com/2014/02/28/pierre-omidyar-co-funded-ukraine-revolution-groups-with-us-government-documents-show/

Wheeler is partly correct. Pando has confirmed that the American government – in the form of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) – played a major role in funding opposition groups prior to the revolution. Moreover, a large percentage of the rest of the funding to those same groups came from a US billionaire who has previously worked closely with US government agencies to further his own business interests. This was by no means a US-backed “coup,” but clear evidence shows that US investment was a force multiplier for many of the groups involved in overthrowing Yanukovych.

But that’s not the shocking part.

What’s shocking is the name of the billionaire who co-invested with the US government (or as Wheeler put it: the “dark deep force” acting on behalf of “Pax Americana”).

Step out of the shadows…. Wheeler’s boss, Pierre Omidyar.

Yes, in the annals of independent media, this might be the strangest twist ever: According to financial disclosures and reports seen by Pando, the founder and publisher of Glenn Greenwald’s government-bashing blog,“The Intercept,” co-invested with the US government to help fund regime change in Ukraine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #23)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 08:16 PM

73. Thanks for this Whisp.. I may have something different..

I'll check it out when I return.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 03:55 PM

28. I guess a lot of people require that their conversations on A be predicated on...

" he'd be "happy to comment," but not before he saw Greenwald denounce Vladmir Putin "and his crackdown..."

I guess a lot of people require that their conversations on A be predicated on the wholly different topic B. I'm further guessing that they even pretend to have a valid reason to do so... like in this instance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 03:59 PM

29. The Greenwald/Snowden haters keep sinking to new lows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:04 PM

31. DU rec...

for causing the Snowden and Greenwald fanbois and fangrrls to petulantly flail their tiny fists.



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:05 PM

32. Didn't Greenwald initially support the coup and denounce Putin?

And then it transpired that Omidyar was secretly funding the protests, and now Glenn doesn't want to talk about it?

Hmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #32)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:17 PM

37. I heard that Greenwald drinks the blood of children.

Also, he has boxes in garage....or is that the other guy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheSarcastinator (Reply #37)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:18 PM

39. I realize that it's hard to discuss the subject objectively

but let's try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheSarcastinator (Reply #37)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 08:18 PM

74. Actually no.. your Deflection needs work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #32)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 06:06 PM

53. Its never been a secret. It was publicly broadcast on omidyar's website

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:08 PM

33. Ever More Character Assination

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #33)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 10:46 PM

78. Assination?

Not presently, no. Assanexpat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #78)

Tue Mar 18, 2014, 06:35 AM

87. by assphyxiation.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:13 PM

34. is tom hicks circulating a loyalty oath?

are you kidding with this NonSense?! better luck tomorrow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #34)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:21 PM

40. "are you kidding with this NonSense?!"

Leave Greenwald alone.

I think some people believe the Constitution bans criticism of Greenwald or even asking him a question. LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #40)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 07:08 PM

60. I'm not sure about the Constitution and Greenwald, but

I think the separation of powers may ban the spying of one branch of government on another branch.

WAIT, look over there, Putin!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #60)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 07:11 PM

61. FYI,

"I'm not sure about the Constitution and Greenwald, but I think the separation of powers may ban the spying of one branch of government on another branch. "

..."separation of powers " doesn't apply to criticism on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #61)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 07:19 PM

62. Maybe not DU but it says a lot about the NSA defenders on DU. WAIT, look over there, Putin! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:21 PM

42. Greenwald is using stolen classified documents for his own use

 

he is selling that 99% that has not yet been released to his boss Omidyar basically, and profiting nicely from it I'm sure all under the guise of saving freedom of speech and lollipops and free journalism around the globe.

What a fucking weasel. The slowest leaker in history. Maybe when his new book comes out he will feed out just enough bait for more sales. jaysuz, how some can't see through this charlatan is a sad mystery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:48 PM

49. Can we create a forum called "Two Minute Hate"?

 

We can use it for all the hit pieces directed at people who don't clap loudly enough for the national security state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #49)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 04:56 PM

51. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1259

It would be a great place for the leave Greenwald alone types to call out anyone who criticizes Greenwald.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #51)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 07:51 PM

67. Yeah, why's he asking you? He should go straight to ATA and see if there can

be a Leave GG ALONE Group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 06:16 PM

55. Greenwald has been using that tactic forever

The only way he knows how to answer a tough question is to ask that person a few 'tough' questions which have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic on hand...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #55)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 07:52 PM

68. I know.. that's why I asked in post below.. "What Took him?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 07:33 PM

64. What took him? Greenwald thinks he slickest oiliest weasel on the block.

Talking Points Memo ✔ @TPM

To TPM, Greenwald quotes Chomsky—"My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state" http://bit.ly/PJ6LFU
Bobfr @Our4thEstate
Follow
@TPM Wonder how #Greenwald's FSB handlers will respond to him referring to Russia (aka CCCP 2.0) that way. #Crimea pic.twitter.com/Ivq3DtI8QV
9:31 AM - 17 Mar 2014
1 Retweet
Reply
Retweet
Favorite


<<<Greenwald

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 07:49 PM

66. A tragically stupid way to evaluate. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 10:15 PM

75. uh-oh, this op can only mean one thing:

 

DAMAGE CONTROL EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 10:23 PM

76. Even now, I don't know who, or what side, to trust in all of this.

 

I've been doing a pretty good job of not trusting anyone


(not directed specifically at this OP, I just haven't had much to say about the topic so I thought I'd say that)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 11:03 PM

80. Lol. We knew this would be the case.

 

Greenwald took the hypocritic oath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to functioning_cog (Reply #80)

Tue Mar 18, 2014, 02:35 AM

84. It wasn't

brain surgery, cog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Tue Mar 18, 2014, 05:50 PM

90. Thomas Ricks? The guy's on this year's PNAC...

...the Center for a New American Security.

Just when you thought PNAC was gone.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2100758

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #90)

Tue Mar 18, 2014, 06:32 PM

92. You'll get nothing but crickets until the fax machine warms up. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #92)

Tue Mar 18, 2014, 06:39 PM

94. LOL! More cats!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #90)

Tue Mar 18, 2014, 09:45 PM

96. Ricks opposed Bush's illegal invasion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Tue Mar 18, 2014, 06:31 PM

91. Just in time...another announcement:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024685289#post56

In a surprise appearance via satellite robot at the 2014 TED conference in Vancouver, Snowden said there is still a lot of reporting to be done, including diving deeper into the accusation that the NSA tricks companies into building backdoors into their systems that make data vulnerable to hackers across the world.

Breaking: Snowden to rehash stuff and pretend it's new, again.

Greenwald and Snowden can't admit that they're recycling information, each time with a new spin.

The problem for them seems to be what Greenwald alluded to previously : Snowden may have a lot of information in his possession, but much of it is irrelevant to domestic spying.

After talking about documents they can't or has no intention of publishing, that's all they can do is rehash and spin.

Remember this:

"I realize Carl Bernstein hasn't done any actual reporting for a couple decades now, but he should nonetheless take the time to read what he's opining on," he wrote. "The Reuters article he's referencing is a complete distortion of what I actually said in that interview. The point I made is the opposite one: that Snowden has been as responsible as a whistleblower can be in ensuring that only information the public should know is revealed, but not gratuitously harmful information."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/07/carl-bernstein-greenwald-out-of-line-168286.html


Greenwald tries to do damage control
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023244823




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Mar 19, 2014, 11:15 AM

100. At the bare minimum, Greenwald needs to come clean

about whatever deal is in place with the Russian Gov't to guarantee Snowden's safety, along with feeding, clothing and housing him -- Because the question isn't going away no matter how much he ducks, evades, and re-directs....

The first condition of the deal (no criticism or negative comments of Russia's domestic and international policies) is *clearly* obvious by now...I've been wondering how many more conditions were agreed to, and what they might be...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread