PDA

View Full Version : Naomi Wolf has a Completely Different view about NSA Leaker Edward Snowden




FrankRep
06-16-2013, 01:51 AM
I'm posting this because I know many people here like Naomi Wolf.


http://blogs.longwood.edu/kalex/files/2011/09/naomi-wolf.jpg

Naomi Wolf:


Edward Snowden May Actually Be a Government Agent, Attempting To Spread Mass Fear Of Surveillance. "From the standpoint of the police state and its interests – why have a giant Big Brother apparatus spying on us at all times – unless we know about it?"


My Creeping Concern that the NSA Leaker Edward Snowden is not who he Purports to be… (http://www.globalresearch.ca/my-creeping-concern-that-the-nsa-leaker-edward-snowden-is-not-who-he-purports-to-be/5339161)


Naomi Wolf | Global Research CA
June 15, 2013


I hate to do this but I feel obligated to share, as the story unfolds, my creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports to be, and that the motivations involved in the story may be more complex than they appear to be.

This is in no way to detract from the great courage of Glenn Greenwald in reporting the story, and the gutsiness of the Guardian in showcasing this kind of reporting, which is a service to America that US media is not performing at all.

It is just to raise some cautions as the story unfolds, and to raise some questions about how it is unfolding, based on my experience with high-level political messaging.

Some of Snowden’s emphases seem to serve an intelligence/police state objective, rather than to challenge them.

a) He is super-organized, for a whistleblower, in terms of what candidates, the White House, the State Dept. et al call ‘message discipline.’ He insisted on publishing a power point in the newspapers that ran his initial revelations. I gather that he arranged for a talented filmmaker to shoot the Greenwald interview. These two steps – which are evidence of great media training, really ‘PR 101′ – are virtually never done (to my great distress) by other whistleblowers, or by progressive activists involved in breaking news, or by real courageous people who are under stress and getting the word out. They are always done, though, by high-level political surrogates.

b) In the Greenwald video interview, I was concerned about the way Snowden conveys his message. He is not struggling for words, or thinking hard, as even bright, articulate whistleblowers under stress will do. Rather he appears to be transmitting whole paragraphs smoothly, without stumbling. To me this reads as someone who has learned his talking points – again the way that political campaigns train surrogates to transmit talking points.

c) He keeps saying things like, “If you are a journalist and they think you are the transmission point of this info, they will certainly kill you.” Or: “I fully expect to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act.” He also keeps stressing what he will lose: his $200,000 salary, his girlfriend, his house in Hawaii. These are the kinds of messages that the police state would LIKE journalists to take away; a real whistleblower also does not put out potential legal penalties as options, and almost always by this point has a lawyer by his/her side who would PROHIBIT him/her from saying, ‘come get me under the Espionage Act.” Finally in my experience, real whistleblowers are completely focused on their act of public service and trying to manage the jeopardy to themselves and their loved ones; they don’t tend ever to call attention to their own self-sacrifice. That is why they are heroes, among other reasons. But a police state would like us all to think about everything we would lose by standing up against it.

d) It is actually in the Police State’s interest to let everyone know that everything you write or say everywhere is being surveilled, and that awful things happen to people who challenge this. Which is why I am not surprised that now he is on UK no-fly lists – I assume the end of this story is that we will all have a lesson in terrible things that happen to whistleblowers. That could be because he is a real guy who gets in trouble; but it would be as useful to the police state if he is a fake guy who gets in ‘trouble.’

e) In stories that intelligence services are advancing (I would call the prostitutes-with-the-secret-service such a story), there are great sexy or sex-related mediagenic visuals that keep being dropped in, to keep media focus on the issue. That very pretty pole-dancing Facebooking girlfriend who appeared for, well, no reason in the media coverage…and who keeps leaking commentary, so her picture can be recycled in the press…really, she happens to pole-dance? Dan Ellsberg’s wife was and is very beautiful and doubtless a good dancer but somehow she took a statelier role as his news story unfolded…

f) Snowden is in Hong Kong, which has close ties to the UK, which has done the US’s bidding with other famous leakers such as Assange. So really there are MANY other countries that he would be less likely to be handed over from…

g) Media reports said he had vanished at one point to ‘an undisclosed location’ or ‘a safe house.’ Come on. There is no such thing. Unless you are with the one organization that can still get off the surveillance grid, because that org created it.

h) I was at dinner last night to celebrate the brave and heroic Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Several of Assange’s also brave and talented legal team were there, and I remembered them from when I had met with Assange. These attorneys are present at every moment when Assange meets the press – when I met with him off the record last Fall in the Ecuadoran embassy, his counsel was present the whole time, listening and stepping in when necessary.

Seeing these diligent attentive free-speech attorneys for another whisleblower reinforced my growing anxiety: WHERE IS SNOWDEN’S LAWYER as the world’s media meet with him? A whistleblower talking to media has his/her counsel advising him/her at all times, if not actually being present at the interview, because anything he/she says can affect the legal danger the whistleblower may be in . It is very, very odd to me that a lawyer has not appeared, to my knowledge, to stand at Snowden’s side and keep him from further jeopardy in interviews.

Again I hate to cast any skepticism on what seems to be a great story of a brave spy coming in from the cold in the service of American freedom. And I would never raise such questions in public if I had not been told by a very senior official in the intelligence world that indeed, there are some news stories that they create and drive – even in America (where propagandizing Americans is now legal). But do consider that in Eastern Germany, for instance, it was the fear of a machine of surveillance that people believed watched them at all times – rather than the machine itself – that drove compliance and passivity. From the standpoint of the police state and its interests – why have a giant Big Brother apparatus spying on us at all times – unless we know about it?

tod evans
06-16-2013, 04:10 AM
Good points, Naomi Wolf is no idiot.

Nonetheless I'll continue to keep the only avitar I've ever used here until I'm convinced he's not an actual hero..

TruckinMike
06-16-2013, 04:32 AM
Yes, good points. Even if she is wrong her points can still be remembered for future events. However, I tend to believe that she is wrong OR the NSA has made a huge mistake by doing this. ---- I was having hell convincing folks about the NSA* ---> that is until Edward Snowden came along. He is the smoking gun that can now be shown to everyone. Case closed.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_R55nU59SZNA/TM4sUQntLNI/AAAAAAAAAqk/qTR7CNfx4m0/s200/smokinggun.png

.
.
.
.
.
*back in '06 I learned that the NSA helped Microsoft write part of their kernel for windows

PSYOP
06-16-2013, 04:45 AM
This women campaigned for Bill Clinton and Al'Gore -- thus anything she says in regards to Edward Snowden or anything else political for that matter should be considered irrelevant.

liberty2897
06-16-2013, 05:58 AM
This is in no way to detract from the great courage of Glenn Greenwald in reporting the story, and the gutsiness of the Guardian in showcasing this kind of reporting, which is a service to America that US media is not performing at all.
Agreed.



Some of Snowden’s emphases seem to serve an intelligence/police state objective, rather than to challenge them.
So, lets detract from Snowden's message instead. :rolleyes:

This guy put it all on the line for us. He stated that his greatest fear was that people would hear the message and nothing would change. The only way that his message is going to serve the intelligence/police state objective, is if the majority continues to let these gross violations of the constitution continue. Are we really going to start calling this guy some kind of counter-intelligence operative? If that is the way it is going to go, then we deserve whatever is coming to us.

pcosmar
06-16-2013, 06:13 AM
IT is possible. Others here have voiced that thought.

It is possible that TPTB really don't care about it coming out in the open. Because they know it will not be stopped anyway.

Many of us already knew of this and had been warning about it. We were just crazy conspiracy theorists,, and easily dismissed.
Ron Paul had warned about it.. and was largely ignored.
And even now,, it is being acknowledged.. But instead of outrage there is an attempt to justify it.. To normalize it.

I don't know about Snowden's motives. He has proven the nuts correct. But will it make any difference at this point?

Naomi Wolf comes from the "left side" of things,, but yet she sees the same problems and has warned of some of the same issues.

donnay
06-16-2013, 06:30 AM
I'll take my chances for now and stick with Snowden because as others have said, we already know about the NSA and the hijacked government who are completely and utterly corrupt. Snowden's story shines a light on this corruption, nevertheless.

As far as the polls coming out about the American people being okay with all of this is what I question more. I know how polls have been manipulated and I know how the questions asked have been worded, in such a way, to manipulate the people as well.

pcosmar
06-16-2013, 06:37 AM
I'll take my chances for now and stick with Snowden because as others have said, we already know about the NSA and the hijacked government who are completely and utterly corrupt. Snowden's story shines a light on this corruption, nevertheless.

As far as the polls coming out about the American people being okay with all of this is what I question more. I know how polls have been manipulated and I know how the questions asked have been worded, in such a way, to manipulate the people as well.

Sadly,, many in my circle are indifferent to it, oblivious even. :(

Where there should be public outcry,, and demand that it end and heads roll,, it is more of a "meh"

donnay
06-16-2013, 07:18 AM
Sadly,, many in my circle are indifferent to it, oblivious even. :(

Where there should be public outcry,, and demand that it end and heads roll,, it is more of a "meh"


In my travels people are outraged, but some of them have the mindset of-- "What can we do about it?"

We have to get outraged and stay that way, as you said we need to, "demand that it end and head roll." That is my suggestion as well. FEAR is crippling...both mentally and physically--the PTB know this and that is why they have a stronger grip over us--so they ratchet up the fear daily. This is definitely a psychological war on us and we have to break from this fear!

mrsat_98
06-16-2013, 07:32 AM
Good points, Naomi Wolf is no idiot.

Nonetheless I'll continue to keep the only avitar I've ever used here until I'm convinced he's not an actual hero..

Hero or not, these slippery bastards will use it to their advantage.

Dianne
06-16-2013, 07:39 AM
It's a very interesting theory and seems quite possible they are working only to discourage us from communicating our opinions of the White House Mafia to others'.

Brian Coulter
06-16-2013, 07:52 AM
The fact that an MSM source reported the Snowden story at all struck me as odd. The Guardian is no different than CNN or Fox in the age of global media, and their normal modus operandi for stuff they don't want us to know is to pretend like it never happened. This, and now tools like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck feigning outrage has the dial twitching on my BS meter.

Do I believe they're watching all of us to the full extent of their capabilities? Most definitely, and they have been for some time but this story feels contrived.

juleswin
06-16-2013, 07:57 AM
I call bullshit on this conspiracy theory

Ever wonder if Naomi Wolff is the operative here? For a woman who sees a ridiculous conspiracy theory in brave patriot exposing government crime and at the same time sees nothing with a govt who can monitor all our online communication failing to stop the Boston bombings where the alleged perpetrators visited Chechnya, Al Qaeda websites, checked out how to make pressure cooker bombs and on top of that were warned by the Russians about potential terrorist activities. Dont even get me started with a London butcher who only happened to get his hands but not cloths bloody

Not buying it and to the person that suggested that this was just an attempt to get Americans to self censor because of online spying, then why are they building the massive data storage center in Utah? Why build up all that storage system and then sabotage it by getting Americans to censor themselves.

Naomi Wolff has blown her cover as a controlled opposition. This is also coming from a woman who always tries to conflate capitalism with disaster capitalism. Please do not listen to a word this woman says

juleswin
06-16-2013, 07:58 AM
The fact that an MSM source reported the Snowden story at all struck me as odd. The Guardian is no different than CNN or Fox in the age of global media, and their normal modus operandi for stuff they don't want us to know is to pretend like it never happened. This, and now tools like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck feigning outrage has the dial twitching on my BS meter.

Do I believe they're watching all of us to the full extent of their capabilities? Most definitely, and they have been for some time but this story feels contrived.

Who do you trust more, Naomi Wolff or Glenn Greenwald?

puppetmaster
06-16-2013, 08:10 AM
Oh the possibilities...... I also have concerns but at this time no way of proving one way or the other. But this really isn't about Snowden......

moostraks
06-16-2013, 08:15 AM
This is where the media starts to make the previous conspiracy theorist out to be completely mental as they are forced to decide which of the factions that are claiming to be for liberty actually are for it. Then the discussion doesn't seem to be the issue that what is being done is wrong but look at those insane conspiracy theorists.

Having said that this reminds me of relationships I have seen in the upper middle class where one spouse is a serial adulterer. For years the spouse commits adultery and hides it, claiming the accusing spouse is a nut case and has no basis for their accusations. Then it becomes abundantly clear to anyone with eyes or ears that the accused spouse is indeed an adulterer. The ultimatum is then well if you don't like it leave but when you do try to leave I can guarantee your life is going to be a living hell. So the couple stays together with the cheating still being done but this time more in your face.

So is it a possibility Snowden is gov owned? Yep. The plus side though no matter how you look at it is validation that in one more matter some of us aren't nutty conspiracy theorists but actually aware while other folks live with their heads in the sand. This just gives credibility to those who are trying to prove the narcissistic control freak behavior of government.:)

undergroundrr
06-16-2013, 08:18 AM
Great article. But I've also heard people say Naomi Wolf is a plant. And especially that Assange is a plant, who she doesn't question at all.

If TPTB were orchestrating it, wouldn't they make it "look right" with the lawyers by his side? But then again, Snowden isn't analagous to Assange. He's in the Bradley Manning role. And Manning didn't have an army of lawyers escorting him.

Snowden is interesting because he seems to be a kind of vain, self-absorbed whistleblower with a materialistic streak. The hot babe in Hawaii is almost a caricature. But Assange certainly had a good time with a blonde Swedish girl or two. I can't shake the sense that Snowden feels like in the end he will personally benefit from this risky gambit. Same with Assange, although the end of the tunnel is a long way away for both of them.

I'm still thinking whistleblower and gutsy guy. Not quite as gutsy as Manning and so far much more fortunate. I hope Snowden will speak very clearly in support of Manning before long.

enhanced_deficit
06-16-2013, 08:18 AM
Although she is probably not in bed with Obama puppet's masters, she never spoke out against little Afghan children killed by Obama drones?


http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Admin/BkFill/Default_image_group/2012/9/10/1347280264234/Naomi-Wolf-at-home-in-New-010.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=gD601fh0teJ4fM&tbnid=Wd2FGQwNpPt1MM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fbooks%2F2012 %2Fsep%2F16%2Fvagina-biography-naomi-wolf-review&ei=ZMm9UaP-LofS9gTBkoGgAw&bvm=bv.47883778,d.eWU&psig=AFQjCNG2wVHm8Li-UjGr0N-3iy2NPN0Qdw&ust=1371478580845967)

http://images.smh.com.au/2012/09/14/3634773/an-Vagina-20a-20new-20biography-20by-20Naomi-20Wolf-20120914122340310908-300x0.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=h6ZpYMRPuo6RBM&tbnid=1gJxT6T9tXi3yM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smh.com.au%2Fentertainment%2F books%2Fher-twist-in-the-knickers-20120914-25wyh.html&ei=nMm9UYzCOIzC9gTj_4HYCQ&bvm=bv.47883778,d.eWU&psig=AFQjCNEkqo0gY923gIe8dXZi-L0kN3Rx6A&ust=1371478805601909)

pcosmar
06-16-2013, 08:19 AM
Who do you trust more, Naomi Wolff or Glenn Greenwald?

Not about trust or distrust. She may have a point,,but then it is only her opinion and perspective.

She has already warned of these things.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/ten-steps-to-close-down-a_b_46695.html


4 Set up an internal surveillance system

In Mussolini's Italy, in Nazi Germany, in communist East Germany, in communist China - in every closed society - secret police spy on ordinary people and encourage neighbours to spy on neighbours. The Stasi needed to keep only a minority of East Germans under surveillance to convince a majority that they themselves were being watched.

In 2005 and 2006, when James Risen and Eric Lichtblau wrote in the New York Times about a secret state programme to wiretap citizens' phones, read their emails and follow international financial transactions, it became clear to ordinary Americans that they, too, could be under state scrutiny.

In closed societies, this surveillance is cast as being about "national security"; the true function is to keep citizens docile and inhibit their activism and dissent.

Neil Desmond
06-16-2013, 08:22 AM
Maybe she's the one presenting herself as something other than what she actually is.

enhanced_deficit
06-16-2013, 08:27 AM
Maybe she's the one presenting herself as something other than what she actually is.

That was not intention of this btw. That was probably just older photo.


Although she is probably not in bed with Obama puppet's masters, she never spoke out against little Afghan children killed by Obama drones?


http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Admin/BkFill/Default_image_group/2012/9/10/1347280264234/Naomi-Wolf-at-home-in-New-010.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=gD601fh0teJ4fM&tbnid=Wd2FGQwNpPt1MM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fbooks%2F2012 %2Fsep%2F16%2Fvagina-biography-naomi-wolf-review&ei=ZMm9UaP-LofS9gTBkoGgAw&bvm=bv.47883778,d.eWU&psig=AFQjCNG2wVHm8Li-UjGr0N-3iy2NPN0Qdw&ust=1371478580845967)

http://images.smh.com.au/2012/09/14/3634773/an-Vagina-20a-20new-20biography-20by-20Naomi-20Wolf-20120914122340310908-300x0.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=h6ZpYMRPuo6RBM&tbnid=1gJxT6T9tXi3yM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smh.com.au%2Fentertainment%2F books%2Fher-twist-in-the-knickers-20120914-25wyh.html&ei=nMm9UYzCOIzC9gTj_4HYCQ&bvm=bv.47883778,d.eWU&psig=AFQjCNEkqo0gY923gIe8dXZi-L0kN3Rx6A&ust=1371478805601909)

tod evans
06-16-2013, 08:29 AM
Hero or not, these slippery bastards will use it to their advantage.



Only if we let them.

One thing that's a safe bet, the truth will not be found in the "Newz"....

Neil Desmond
06-16-2013, 08:53 AM
That was not intention of this btw. That was probably just older photo.
My comment had nothing to do with any photos. What I'm trying to say is that she seems to be arguing that he's actually a "double agent" but maybe he isn't and she is.

Brian Coulter
06-16-2013, 09:02 AM
Who do you trust more, Naomi Wolff or Glenn Greenwald?

I "trust" neither. I thought the story was odd a week ago. I do believe the NSA and every other government and some corporate agencies are spying on us, but why would they tell us? The Guardian is assumed to be part of "they".

July
06-16-2013, 10:04 AM
I think it's true in general, that very idea of being watched can itself be used as a tool for social control, to motivate people to self censor and encourage them to become informants on each other (see something, say something). I think it is already happening though, as more and more of our lives and opinions are online, on facebook, twitter, etc. People will modify their behavior if they think their employers, friends, and family are always watching everything they say online, out of fear of peer pressure or losing their job, etc.

On the other hand, it is also true the government also uses secrecy to squelch dissent and get around the legality of what they are doing. In this case, nobody has been able to sue or challenge it since they haven't been able to prove they are being targeted, etc. Senators and congressmen can't do much to challenge it either, if there is gag order and they can't even talk about it. So making everything classified effectively squelches opposition, even if the people already suspect it is going on anyway.

I think it's also true, that the idea of manufactured scandals and conspiracy theories can be used to squelch dissent as well. For example, if you look at many liberal leaning sites right now, a lot of Obama supporters seem to think Republicans are behind all the recent scandals, and are just manufacturing them (making them up), basically to discredit and take down Obama. People tend to ignore scandals if they think they are just being pushed for partisan reasons for political gain, etc. I think this has already happened to some extent with the Benghazi thing, and explains why so many seem to be giving Hillary a pass.

And then again, sometimes scandals are blown out of proportion in the media, or one scandal is used to distract the people or hide another bigger scandal going on, or some other agenda taking place (misdirection). Some have raised the theory that this is all being done to distract people from the immigration bill, etc. I think that might be possible, but could just as easily be opportunism.

I guess it could theoretically be any of these possibilities.

I think the way the media is reacting offers a clue, though. So far MSM has been keeping all the focus on Snowden, the hero versus traitor debate, the "will he or won't he" be extradited question, how he managed to get a security clearance, his girlfriend, his online comments as a teenager, the war on terror, etc.... basically talking about everything else they possibly can. I think that suggests they really don't want to talk about it, but feel compelled to. Perhaps the corporations involved are putting on the pressure to address it and calm public fears in order to protect their reputations.

Brian4Liberty
06-16-2013, 11:06 AM
No actual evidence presented to support her hypothesis. Most of her points are unconvincing.

Carson
06-16-2013, 11:16 AM
"Naomi Wolf:

Edward Snowden May Actually Be a Government Agent, Attempting To Spread Mass Fear Of Surveillance. "From the standpoint of the police state and its interests – why have a giant Big Brother apparatus spying on us at all times – unless we know about it?""


Good point.

It's been troubling me a bit. The governments seem to have the information but dole it out when ever it serves them. They seem to pull the strings that make us jump.


Then again the both the men, Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald, seem to me to be quite genuine. I think we are going to have to rely on what our hearts say more and more in the coming days. (Check out Syrian girl.) (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?415810-Syrian-girl-on-why-Al-Qaeda-is-Al-CIAda)



I did see something new,,,

well I saw them leading into this but now they are adamant (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adamant)on it.

They are trying to make a point of whether Greenwald was a reporter, reporting a story or someone that's a columnist expressing an opinion. I'm can't remember the exact name for the pigeon holes they were trying to stuff him into. Anyway it seemed a little unfair. Once a reporter reports the facts the discussion would seem to move to uncovering more facts or the expressing of opinions on them. I think at least two of the sides of this story have moved to expressing opinions and perhaps that is where this story needs to go now.


If people are going to insist it is in the countries best interest to allow unconstitutional eavesdropping, not that I condone it, but I can't help but wonder what information we already have stored in regards to the 9-11 plot. Lots of weird things happened around that time. People were in odd places before and after the event. Odd insurance policies were set up before hand. Lots of questions. Also there have been lots of opportunities for people to look back into the data for years and years. I wonder if any that information will come forward?

FrankRep
06-16-2013, 11:17 AM
Hitting the news....


Naomi Wolf Thinks Edward Snowden and His Sexy Girlfriend Might Be Government Plants
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/naomi-wolf-edward-snowden-false-flag-conspiracy.html

Naomi Wolf Is a Snowden Truther
http://gawker.com/naomi-wolf-is-a-snowden-truther-513470303

Now Naomi Wolf Has 'Creeping Doubts' About Edward Snowden
http://www.thedailybell.com/29250/Now-Naomi-Wolf-Has-Creeping-Doubts-About-Edward-Snowden


Naomi Wolf: My Creeping Concern That The NSA Leaker Is Not Who He Purports To Be
Update: Even AP Admits that Prism Is Chicken Feed Compared to What We Learned Years Ago About Mass Intercepts
http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=35659

Carson
06-16-2013, 11:42 AM
Naomi Wolf | Global Research CA
June 15, 2013


"I hate to do this but I feel obligated to share, as the story unfolds, my creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports to be, and that the motivations involved in the story may be more complex than they appear to be.

This is in no way to detract from the great courage of Glenn Greenwald in reporting the story, and the gutsiness of the Guardian in showcasing this kind of reporting, which is a service to America that US media is not performing at all."



She has been watching the way the governments have been yanking our chains for a long time. Are you familiar with her book, The Shock Doctrine (http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/the-book)?

In it she documents the governments use of a crisis to jam through their own plans. They seem to have changes for us all planned out ahead just waiting... I just don't think they have much patience. Besides isn't this the 100 year anniversary of a certain central bank?

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/the-book

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
06-16-2013, 11:46 AM
Hero or not, these slippery bastards will use it to their advantage.


Yep. He could even be an unintentional hero. Maybe he was purposely set up, and the surveillance state got more backlash than they expected. Hero or not, he's certainly a symbol at this point.

What if the NSA came out tomorrow and said Snowden was their asset and they made the leaks on purpose, with or without his knowledge of being their tool? Now what?

We'll see who gets prosecuted for perjury. We know they'd throw Snowden under the bus whether he was supposed to be on their team or not.

Brian4Liberty
06-16-2013, 11:49 AM
Were all of the other whistle-blowers who have been prosecuted and persecuted really just shills too? Thomas Drake, for example?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?418302-Even-Bush-never-invoked-Woodrow-s-Wilson-s-Esponiage-Act-but-Obama-has-abused-it

talkingpointes
06-16-2013, 11:50 AM
The fact that an MSM source reported the Snowden story at all struck me as odd. The Guardian is no different than CNN or Fox in the age of global media, and their normal modus operandi for stuff they don't want us to know is to pretend like it never happened. This, and now tools like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck feigning outrage has the dial twitching on my BS meter.

Do I believe they're watching all of us to the full extent of their capabilities? Most definitely, and they have been for some time but this story feels contrived.

4 of the 6 took what they got straight to the NSA. That wouldn't make sense.

Anti Federalist
06-16-2013, 11:59 AM
Sadly,, many in my circle are indifferent to it, oblivious even. :(

Where there should be public outcry,, and demand that it end and heads roll,, it is more of a "meh"

Of course there is.

Then when the enforcement hammer of this system falls, there will be much wailing and weeping and rending of garments.

Cleaner44
06-16-2013, 12:01 PM
This women campaigned for Bill Clinton and Al'Gore -- thus anything she says in regards to Edward Snowden or anything else political for that matter should be considered irrelevant.

This is a foolish position that dismisses a person for past mistakes and seems to assume that people don't learn. There was a time in my life when I thought the government was doing good, there was a time when I was much more ignorant. I once believed Bush and Powell when they told us that Iraq was involved in terrorism and must be invaded. I once believed that Bill Clinton was a good president. I can remember back around 1990 thinking that Al Gore would make a great president because he seemed have common sense and not be like a typical politician.

I was mistaken.

I have learned better.

I have grown.

Others do too.

Anti Federalist
06-16-2013, 12:16 PM
Totally off topic, but she is cute, chubby.

That is all.

robert68
06-16-2013, 12:58 PM
"Why I Am Not Impressed with the Edward Snowden NSA Leaks, So Far (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/)"



...
What caused my thinking to go in this direction is the fact that earlier whistleblowers had warned about NSA spying on Americans and MSM paid little attention. Yet, Snowden providing information that would do little damage to the spying network, that is, the information that the NSA was collecting phone numbers from Verizon, was given major coverage from MSM. Who the hell didn't already know something like this was going on?
...

Greenwald has reported that there are more Snowden leaks to come. Let's see what the nature of those leaks are. Will they truly provide shocking revelations or just more unimpressive repackaged news? This may provide the best clue as to whether Snowden is a new generation anti-state cyber-warrior hero or a cleverly crafted state operative in play to advance a very dangerous new totalitarian grab of control over the people.

UWDude
06-16-2013, 01:08 PM
EVEN if Snowden is CIA/NSA, he is making the "conspiracy theorists" who wore tin foil hats because the government is watching us, look legit.
Nobody is surprised the US government is spying and data mining at will. So the official announcement only makes it a known truth, not something to be debated.

The United States has again taken a HUGE blow to its image as a free nation, here and across the world, because of this.

I just am starting to doubt Snowden is anything but the real deal. I had my doubts, but it's kind of like a lot of conspiracy theorists who think Alex Jones is a shill or whatever. Alex Jones may be NSA/CIA, but if he is, he is doing a lot of damage to the reputation of America now. Same with Snowden, the damage has been immense.

In other words, even if he were a shill agent, what he says is still true, and truth is all that is left that can set the world free.

UWDude
06-16-2013, 01:12 PM
I think the way the media is reacting offers a clue, though. So far MSM has been keeping all the focus on Snowden, the hero versus traitor debate, the "will he or won't he" be extradited question, how he managed to get a security clearance, his girlfriend, his online comments as a teenager, the war on terror, etc.... basically talking about everything else they possibly can. I think that suggests they really don't want to talk about it, but feel compelled to. Perhaps the corporations involved are putting on the pressure to address it and calm public fears in order to protect their reputations.

This is the best way to determine fact from fiction.
Seriously, using the tool above is the best way, use it often.
It is the way the media is reacting which makes my gut go towards snowden is the real deal. July explains why well.

green73
06-16-2013, 01:16 PM
Totally off topic, but she is cute, chubby.

That is all.

And will probably die early of heart disease.

fearthereaperx
06-16-2013, 01:24 PM
EVEN if Snowden is CIA/NSA, he is making the "conspiracy theorists" who wore tin foil hats because the government is watching us, look legit.
Nobody is surprised the US government is spying and data mining at will. So the official announcement only makes it a known truth, not something to be debated.

The United States has again taken a HUGE blow to its image as a free nation, here and across the world, because of this.

I just am starting to doubt Snowden is anything but the real deal. I had my doubts, but it's kind of like a lot of conspiracy theorists who think Alex Jones is a shill or whatever. Alex Jones may be NSA/CIA, but if he is, he is doing a lot of damage to the reputation of America now. Same with Snowden, the damage has been immense.

In other words, even if he were a shill agent, what he says is still true, and truth is all that is left that can set the world free.

Alex Jones is a sensationalist and muckraker. He's a successful business man because he is the real deal, and truly believes in the product of which he is selling.

thoughtomator
06-16-2013, 01:29 PM
Wolf's theory is interesting, but she doesn't have enough evidence to persuade. She's not someone to ignore lightly though, except when she's doing the whole I'm-obsessed-with-my-vagina thing.

HOLLYWOOD
06-16-2013, 01:34 PM
...which is why I am not surprised that now he is on UK no-fly listsWhat did Eduard Snowden ever do to the UK? That's discrimination on numerous scales. Oh, I kept forgetting the UK government is Washington DC's "bitch".


Totally off topic, but she is cute, chubby.

That is all.Huh? Naomi Wolf has gained a lot of weight... she needs to lay off the 'HOT POCKETS'.

That said... Naomi spelled backwards is, I MOAN

Carson
06-16-2013, 01:53 PM
Something else is different about this story coming out this time.

In about 2004 I heard about this locally and it seemed pretty odd that it didn't take over the air waves. Just fizzled out.

This time the exposure is world wide. Though it could be dangerous it is also at a time when it give the globalist government shills around the world an excuse tool to join forces against the, "We the People's" of the world.

Krzysztof Lesiak
06-16-2013, 02:36 PM
I'm not sure about this. I still contend that Snowden is a genuine hero until I read up more about this.

tod evans
06-16-2013, 02:42 PM
Wolf's theory is interesting, but she doesn't have enough evidence to persuade. She's not someone to ignore lightly though, except when she's doing the whole I'm-obsessed-with-my-vagina thing.

I've always been very appreciative of women who are obsessed with their vaginas....

heavenlyboy34
06-16-2013, 02:59 PM
I've always been very appreciative of women who are obsessed with their vaginas....
How did you like The Vagina Monologues?

Occam's Banana
06-16-2013, 03:49 PM
Meh. I see lots of speculation about possibilities. I see absolutely zero actual evidence being offered for anything.

Exactly the same technique could be turned upon Wolf (or anyone - including you and me) for purposes of casting aspersions and sowing doubts.

For example - why does she "go easy" on Greenwald (even praising him for "gutsiness"). Why should he be given such an easy pass?

Maybe he's just as "in on it" as Snowden might be. Maybe Wolf is letting Greenwald "off the hook" because she and he are both "lefties."

But Snowden has presented himself as something of a "Ron Paul guy" - something that will stick in the craw of many "lefties."

So - she's providing cover for Greenwald while casting aspersions on Snowden. Well played, Naomi. Well played.

Of course, everything I just said is bullshit - but then, that's just the point.

Stuff like this is just destructively nihilistic. It obliterates the distinction between possibility and actuality and paralyzes our ability to effectively distinguish between the two.

fearthereaperx
06-16-2013, 03:54 PM
Naomi sounds miffed that all her work on the subject couldn't break the mainstream masses as Greenwald's story did.

UWDude
06-16-2013, 04:07 PM
No need to project intentions on the woman.
She is being paranoid, and rightfully so. I certainly had (and still have a bit) of doubts about Snowden.
However, regardless of his intentions, he speaks truth, and truth is our greatest weapon.

gwax23
06-16-2013, 04:11 PM
Naomi wolf is a partisan hack and a crazy radical feminist. She is not our friend nor a friend of freedom. Shes happy to speak out against abuses that stem from the Bush administration but has remained particularly silent regarding similar if not worse abuses of power coming from the Obama administration.

Now all of a sudden a HUGE government program that disregarded the freedoms and privacy of millions of americans is uncovered by the Hero (and yes he is a fucking hero I dont want to hear otherwise) Snowden and shes so quick to point out hes not a hero but actually the complete opposite.

She has no evidence, just her meandering thoughts and pointless conjectures.

Shes just trying to remain relevant. She should instead stick to her area of expertise and write a couple of more books about vaginas.

tod evans
06-16-2013, 04:12 PM
How did you like The Vagina Monologues?

Never read it, never had occasion to be around a woman who was obsessed about writing about their vagina....;)

UWDude
06-16-2013, 04:17 PM
Shes happy to speak out against abuses that stem from the Bush administration but has remained particularly silent regarding similar if not worse abuses of power coming from the Obama administration.


bullshit.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/14/obama-presidency-verdict-naomi-wolf
She ends this article with this quote, "If I could ask Obama one question, I'd ask him this: how do you sleep at night?"

That was just the first in a google search, I saw plenty more of her criticisms of Obama in the search results:
Her is one from 2009:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLSeD19m3UE

So, try Googling next time before slandering.

Dogsoldier
06-16-2013, 04:45 PM
This is a foolish position that dismisses a person for past mistakes and seems to assume that people don't learn. There was a time in my life when I thought the government was doing good, there was a time when I was much more ignorant. I once believed Bush and Powell when they told us that Iraq was involved in terrorism and must be invaded. I once believed that Bill Clinton was a good president. I can remember back around 1990 thinking that Al Gore would make a great president because he seemed have common sense and not be like a typical politician.

I was mistaken.

I have learned better.

I have grown.

Others do too.



AMEN!!!! I supported George Bush at 1 time.

She is libertarian now. She supported Obama up to a point. When Obama continued Bush policies and then DOUBLED DOWN on them she turned libertarian.

I am libertarian now too.

Anti Federalist
06-16-2013, 05:19 PM
And will probably die early of heart disease.

Well, goddamn, ouch.

Sorry, but this is not "unhealthy".

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Admin/BkFill/Default_image_group/2012/9/10/1347280264234/Naomi-Wolf-at-home-in-New-010.jpg

http://images.dailylife.com.au/2012/09/17/3641030/naomi-wolf-353-300x0.jpg

bolil
06-16-2013, 06:26 PM
It had crossed my mind. I hear more, "Good they are keeping us safe from ourselves." than ," This is an outrage against the fourth and humanity in general."

anaconda
06-16-2013, 06:53 PM
This women campaigned for Bill Clinton and Al'Gore -- thus anything she says in regards to Edward Snowden or anything else political for that matter should be considered irrelevant.

I think her positions have evolved since then. She said the bailout was an actual full blown coup in this country. And she said it the day after congress passed it.

UWDude
06-16-2013, 07:02 PM
Well, goddamn, ouch.

Sorry, but this is not "unhealthy".

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Admin/BkFill/Default_image_group/2012/9/10/1347280264234/Naomi-Wolf-at-home-in-New-010.jpg

http://images.dailylife.com.au/2012/09/17/3641030/naomi-wolf-353-300x0.jpg
You know she is good in bed too, which counts for a lot.

Anti Federalist
06-16-2013, 07:52 PM
You know she is good in bed too, which counts for a lot.

LOL, I don't know that...

UWDude
06-16-2013, 07:57 PM
LOL, I don't know that...

Watch some videos of her talking about sex, or pornography.

Of course this discussion is misogynistic, or, maybe, objectifying, more accurately, lol, so she wouldn't like that.

Anti Federalist
06-16-2013, 08:08 PM
Watch some videos of her talking about sex, or pornography.

Of course this discussion is misogynistic, or, maybe, objectifying, more accurately, lol, so she wouldn't like that.

Oh really, I didn't know she talked about sex issues, I just know her for her political stances.

nobody's_hero
06-16-2013, 08:27 PM
I don't think it's quite so complicated a scenario.

Maybe the whole Snowden thing is just cooked-up, but I'd be more inclined to believe a reason for that would be to see if the American people give a shit.

What I mean is:

They're not trying to make an example of whistle-blowers, as Naomi suggests. They're trying to see if the American people even care if they make an example of whistle-blowers.

Murray N Rothbard
06-16-2013, 08:47 PM
Working in the field I do I have learned to get a good read on people...tell what types of stuff they're thinking, feeling, when they're bullshitting. And in that video interview I have no doubt Snowden was 100% authentic, from the way his premeditated answers rolled off his mouth to how he described his beliefs on government. It's not rehearse-able stuff, for any actor, it was real and he's real. I would bet my life on it.

eproxy100
06-16-2013, 09:02 PM
Glad to see there's some suspicion on Ed Snowden now.

Why did the NSA admit to all the spying when all the companies strongly denied it?

Why is MSM blasting out the story when they can easily choose to ignore it like many other groundbreaking stories of the past?

Why haven't they already captured Snowden and put a lid on him if he really has gone rogue?

There could be many other reasons why the NSA/CIA chose to spread this info or disinfo. It could be a distraction from something else.

Carson
06-16-2013, 09:03 PM
Working in the field I do I have learned to get a good read on people...tell what types of stuff they're thinking, feeling, when they're bullshitting. And in that video interview I have no doubt Snowden was 100% authentic, from the way his premeditated answers rolled off his mouth to how he described his beliefs on government. It's not rehearse-able stuff, for any actor, it was real and he's real. I would bet my life on it.

That was the impression I got also... though I suspect your wager is pretty safe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard) at this point.

KingNothing
06-16-2013, 09:09 PM
That is a very interesting thesis. I generally dislike her, and I do disagree here, but I think the point is interesting.

Thor
06-16-2013, 09:39 PM
I don't think it's quite so complicated a scenario.

Maybe the whole Snowden thing is just cooked-up, but I'd be more inclined to believe
a reason for that would be to see if the American people give a shit.

What I mean is:

They're not trying to make an example of whistle-blowers, as Naomi suggests.
They're trying to see if the American people even care if they make an example of whistle-blowers.

.................................................. ................. .... about a tyrannical, monitored existence.

.................................................. .................

RickyJ
06-16-2013, 09:46 PM
One point favoring that this might be a planned leak was the lack of emotion he displayed when leaking this story. I don't see how you can report something this big and barely get above a whisper. I am not saying that it was planned, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. Either way they have admitted they are spying on us, and that is a very big deal. We got to show them that we are not going to accept this with mere protests, we are going to take their illegal spy network on Americans down.

jllundqu
06-17-2013, 11:51 AM
Who knows anything anymore... I'm tired

dannno
06-17-2013, 12:16 PM
My big issue is that I turned on Fox News and Rand was on about it and Hannity and all the talking heads were taking Rand's side.

I think Naomi may be on the right track that this may have been leaked on purpose, or that it was handled this way on purpose, but I don't think it was done to make the government seem scarier than they actually are - I think it may be done as a distraction to some other type of surveillance system they have, or something along those lines.