Skip to main content

View Diary: Not at all making himself the story, Greenwald to make shocking NSA revelations . . . in a book (157 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I would hazard a guess (8+ / 0-)

    that some of the material that the Guardian and the us media won't print, Greenwald might be intending to find a way to publish it.

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


    "Justice is a commodity"

    by joanneleon on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:47:38 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Apparently, only the author of this diary has... (8+ / 0-)

      ...the clairvoyance needed to know whether or not Greenwald and Snowden had already determined their strategy about this matter prior to moving forward. What a JOKE this diary is. Pathetic!

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:49:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Clairvoyance? Nope. QUESTIONING, yes. (0+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Hidden by:
        Victor Ward

        Or are Glenn Freaking Greenwald's motives and agenda so pure as to be unassailable and even unquestioned?  He has a long, consistent history of being viciously anti-progressive.  So, please, O Bob of The Greenwalds, forgive my, your most humble of servants, for daring to raise the ethical and even legal concerns that arise from this affair.  For yes, Bob, I dare to question not only the timing of the roll-out of this book, but the genesis of the entire underlying story.  Or are we at Kos now taking the word of anti-progressive writers at face value now?  

        •  Questioning to what end? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Victor Ward

          In the final analysis, Greenwald's motivations and political leanings are irrelevant.  He will be judged by the accuracy of his reporting on the issues for which he advocates.

          I see nothing nefarious about how he has approached this particular issue...even if all your rhetorical questions are eventually confirmed to be true wrt what motivates Greenwald.  If he was making this shit up, that would be one thing.  I just don't see, wrt THIS story, where he has been wrong...where he has been inaccurate.  If you can point to any fabrications, falsehoods, or inaccuracies wrt his reporting, I would be very interested in those.  Until then, I'll continue to read his columns with an eagerness to be informed about the government's ability to spy on me in secret.

          What's your point?  I accept your skepticism wrt what you believe motivates Greenwald.  

          Now allow me to ask you a question:  

          How does the fact that I agree with you that Greenwald is an anti-progressive hack whose only motivations are to damage the current administration and profit from that destruction mean that what he has written is false?

          all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

          by 4kedtongue on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:53:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Completely disagree -- we don't know much yet (0+ / 0-)

            You're making a major assumption -- how do you know that any/some/much of what he has written/will write isn't false, slanted, or missing critical caveats/disclaimers/further explanation?  I mean, the broad outlines of what he's "revealing" were pretty much already known/suspected.   So why the sudden outrage just because Glenn Freaking Greenwald decrees it?  Has there been a trial?  Have you seen all the documents?  Do you know exactly what he NSA is doing, why, how, and with what safeguards?  Has or will the NSA or the WH ever comment on the specifics of the allegations beyond outlining broad concerns and broad programs as has been done so far?  Beyond the type of broad statements they've made in the hasty hearings so far, do you think the NSA will or should get into fighting with Glenn Freaking Greenwald about the specifics of what he has alleged?   I doubt it -- neither the WH or the NSA would or should at this stage, if ever.  You think they ever would or should get into a he-said/he-said in public with Glenn Freaking Greenwald about their programs?

            And what of al the OTHER materials Snowden stole -- what of Greenwald's threats about the release of such materials and harm to the US?   Are we trusting blackmailers now?

            Personally, I trust neither the message, the messengers, or he manner and method of delivery.

            So, I'll ask a question back at you -- if Rush Limbaugh or Drudge were the one with this story (and for the record, I think Greenwald is worse, because at least they aren't hiding what they are), but otherwise it was EXACTLY the same as has been presented by Greenwald, are you seriously claiming you wouldn't have legitimate questions about their motives, agenda, and even their veracity?

            •  I make no assumptions... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JohnWKelly, Victor Ward

              ...about anything he has yet to write.  Until my crystal ball is repaired (MalWare infestation -- had to take it in the the Witch Squad to have its hard drive repaired), I no longer have the ability to determine if what he has yet to write is true or false.  It puts me at a distinct disadvantage when pre-judging something that has yet to happen.

              May I ask how you have overcome this disadvantage?

              I mean, the broad outlines of what he's "revealing" were pretty much already known/suspected.   So why the sudden outrage just because Glenn Freaking Greenwald decrees it?
              Because Greenwald's reporting isn't taking place in a vacuum.  Bart Gellman at The Washington Post is reporting on the very same issues.  He has access to the documents Snowden leaked.  He knows things about the NSA that were heretofore kept secret -- and officially denied (the outrage being expressed is not just about having suspicions about spying confirmed, but also because, for some silly reason, people don't like being LIED to by their elected / appointed officials).

              As unpleasant as it is to come to terms with the fact that Intelligence officials of this administration have been called out for lying in Congressional oversight testimony wrt the scope and type of spying going on, your skepticism regarding Greenwald's ability to accurately disseminate information is misplaced.  We already know who has been spyin' then lyin' and who has been truthin'.

              all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

              by 4kedtongue on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:53:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site