Skip to main content

View Diary: Journalist destroys Greenwald's credibility on NSA "revelations" (823 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's the "facts" that get me. (14+ / 0-)

    Snowden leaked facts.  If he hadn't, no one in the government would care what he (or Greenwald) said.

    It makes the whole premise of this diary (not to mention its details) contra-factual.

    Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

    by Deward Hastings on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 01:42:09 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  If Snowden were lying, he wouldn't be wanted. (19+ / 0-)

      There's a ton of former government employees who claim the government faked the moon landing or that they're hiding aliens or whatever.

      Are they ever charged?

      On those who tell the truth get charged.

      Mr. Universe is a known degenerate Robotophile, and his sources include former Browncoat Traitors. What is their agenda in leaking top secret information about the Reavers and endangering us all?

      by JesseCW on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 02:03:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Really? (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2, poco, Reggid, Tony Situ, Hey338Too, Fogiv

      Sorry but that doesn't make sense. The diary isn't about whether Snowden did or didn't leak facts. It's about whether or not Greenwald is skewing the facts, emphasizing some while de-emphasizing or ignoring others, in order to advance his narrative. That's a separate question that stands independent of the point you raised.  

      Nothing human is alien to me.

      by WB Reeves on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 02:49:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hard to argue with or skew a leaked court document (12+ / 0-)

        giving the NSA carte blanche to suck up every domestic phone call on the Verizon system.

        "There's a conceptual zone within which the romanticized historical past and the immanentizing historical future converge in a swamp of misapprehension and misstep. It's called 'the present'." - David Beige

        by Superskepticalman on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 03:04:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Again, while a legitimate issue on it's own, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Reggid

          it's got nothing to do with the substance of the diary. GG's credibility is a separate issue from the NSA's actions. Conflating the two is a big mistake.

          Nothing human is alien to me.

          by WB Reeves on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 04:53:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The messenger's credibility is only a distraction (6+ / 0-)

            for those who want to avoid the substance of the documents. "Look, squirrel!"

            "There's a conceptual zone within which the romanticized historical past and the immanentizing historical future converge in a swamp of misapprehension and misstep. It's called 'the present'." - David Beige

            by Superskepticalman on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 06:44:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Isn't that what this diary intends to do? (7+ / 0-)

            Conflate GG's journalistic integrity with the abuse the NSA is accused of?

            That's the whole point, right?

            Why tar and feather Greenwald for being a poor journalist if not to protect the NSA?

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

            by k9disc on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:14:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well if so, I'd expect the diary to make that (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poco, Reggid

              connection explicit. Can you point to anywhere in the diary where such a connection is made?

              Why? Perhaps because if NSA critics conflate their criticism with a defense of GG and the latter ends up being discredited, the critics could find themselves discredited as well? Particularly if they are reduced to arguing that any facts tending to discredit GG should be ignored or excluded from discussion.

              Nothing human is alien to me.

              by WB Reeves on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:41:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  For one, the lame FISA court defense that domestic (4+ / 0-)

                spying supporters offer up. While Greenwald reminds us all of what we know about the purpose of the FISA court (and Cesca jumps all over it like a stalker), we also know from other journalists working the story after Greenwald that the protections there are utterly ineffective.

                The defenders of the NSA are a bit like House Republicans: they live in a very epistemically closed world utterly reliant upon their view of reality and a fevered hatred of anyone challenging that dystopia.

                "There's a conceptual zone within which the romanticized historical past and the immanentizing historical future converge in a swamp of misapprehension and misstep. It's called 'the present'." - David Beige

                by Superskepticalman on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 05:17:48 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't see how accurately describing the process (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Reggid, Fogiv

                  is support for anything except accuracy. The FISA courts are part of that process, regardless of what you or I may think of them. There's a good deal of distance between saying that existing safe guards are ineffective and pretending they don't exist. Opting for the latter practically guarantees that you'll wind up appearing either ignorant, duplicitous or both.

                  Can you point to anywhere the diarist says that GG's alleged failings invalidate concerns about NSA spying?

                  Now you can speculate about the diarist's motives but frankly, they're irrelevant. Either GG has been glossing facts inconvenient to his narrative or he hasn't. If he has, that could have steep consequences as time goes on.

                  Who do you think is defending NSA spying?  

                  Nothing human is alien to me.

                  by WB Reeves on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:00:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And then there's this: the XKeyscore system... (4+ / 0-)

                    My, my.

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

                    US officials vehemently denied this specific claim. Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, said of Snowden's assertion: "He's lying. It's impossible for him to do what he was saying he could do."

                    But training materials for XKeyscore detail how analysts can use it and other systems to mine enormous agency databases by filling in a simple on-screen form giving only a broad justification for the search. The request is not reviewed by a court or any NSA personnel before it is processed.

                    XKeyscore, the documents boast, is the NSA's "widest reaching" system developing intelligence from computer networks – what the agency calls Digital Network Intelligence (DNI). One presentation claims the program covers "nearly everything a typical user does on the internet", including the content of emails, websites visited and searches, as well as their metadata.

                    "There's a conceptual zone within which the romanticized historical past and the immanentizing historical future converge in a swamp of misapprehension and misstep. It's called 'the present'." - David Beige

                    by Superskepticalman on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:30:34 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Frankly, you're doing well now appearing ignorant (4+ / 0-)

                    and duplicitous.  Essentially, you're defending the indefensible by appealing to mere legality. Heck, what tyrants do under their own law would pass that test.

                    Which hardly justifies such acts, would it?

                    "There's a conceptual zone within which the romanticized historical past and the immanentizing historical future converge in a swamp of misapprehension and misstep. It's called 'the present'." - David Beige

                    by Superskepticalman on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:36:34 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Frankly, you appear to be making it up as you (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Reggid, Fogiv

                      go along. You seem to want to attack me for defending NSA spying, something which I have not done. Why you choose to invent a phony narrative and attribute it to me I can't say, unless flailing at straw men is your preferred tactic.

                      Or do you really believe you can read minds?  
                       

                      Nothing human is alien to me.

                      by WB Reeves on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:29:47 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You are, in essence, are defending NSA spying by (4+ / 0-)

                        asserting that existing statutory protections are effective simply by existing, despite the established fact that they are not effective in application.

                        Don't have to read minds to reach that conclusion, only your words.

                        "There's a conceptual zone within which the romanticized historical past and the immanentizing historical future converge in a swamp of misapprehension and misstep. It's called 'the present'." - David Beige

                        by Superskepticalman on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:37:27 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  My words? (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Reggid, Fogiv

                          Where, pray tell, did I say anything remotely like that?

                          Nothing human is alien to me.

                          by WB Reeves on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:42:20 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Above... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Words In Action, kharma, DeadHead
                            Opting for the latter practically guarantees that you'll wind up appearing either ignorant, duplicitous or both.
                            Own your words.

                            "There's a conceptual zone within which the romanticized historical past and the immanentizing historical future converge in a swamp of misapprehension and misstep. It's called 'the present'." - David Beige

                            by Superskepticalman on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 08:31:08 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Are you kidding? (0+ / 0-)

                            I sure hope so because

                            Opting for the latter practically guarantees that you'll wind up appearing either ignorant, duplicitous or both.
                            In no way resembles
                            You are, in essence, are defending NSA spying by asserting that existing statutory protections are effective simply by existing, despite the established fact that they are not effective in application.
                            The sentence cited contains no defense of NSA spying, much less a claim that safe guards are effective. What it refers to is the dangers of editing reality when talking about NSA spying. If you don't understand the difference I doubt I can explain it to you.

                            What's clear is that you can't point to where I made any of the arguments that you attribute to me. All you've done is take a single sentence out of context and misrepresented it. I don't know whether this is due to confusion or conscious deception on your part but in either case it is a transparent falsehood.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 12:55:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  After all, you first asserted "ignorant,... (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Words In Action, kharma

                        duplicitous or both."

                        Own your words.

                        "There's a conceptual zone within which the romanticized historical past and the immanentizing historical future converge in a swamp of misapprehension and misstep. It's called 'the present'." - David Beige

                        by Superskepticalman on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:39:00 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I made no assertion (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Reggid, Fogiv

                          I suggested that taking a position that obliged you to ignore or obscure inconvenient facts practically guaranteed that you'd wind up  appearing ignorant or duplicitous. If you doubt that, try it and find out for yourself. People tend to resent it when they discover they haven't been given all the facts.

                          Nothing human is alien to me.

                          by WB Reeves on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:58:21 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Problem is that your "side" insist on ignoring (4+ / 0-)

                            facts and concentrate on disparaging the messenger, whether it be Manning, Snowden, or Greenwald.

                            That's all that "Reggid" has done with this diary, a diary that your tipped.

                            "There's a conceptual zone within which the romanticized historical past and the immanentizing historical future converge in a swamp of misapprehension and misstep. It's called 'the present'." - David Beige

                            by Superskepticalman on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 08:34:08 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What facts have I ignored? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Fogiv

                            You are simply creating a strawman, a fake windmill against which you can tilt.

                            The point of this diary is that Greenwald suffers from "truthiness" -- he uses some true facts to create a picture, but he ignores or twists other facts such that he fails to give us an accurate picture.

                            I mean, what does it say about his commitment to telling us the "truth" about a lack of safeguards in these programs when he completely ignores the existence of current safeguards?

                            We can then have a discussion about the sufficiency of such safeguards, but that is a far cry from failing to even mention that there are safeguards.

                            Before reading Cesca's column and the comments there, did you know there were front-end data-filters?  Did you know the Obama DOJ conducts compliance audits of the NSA programs?  Did you know the analysts themselves are subject to key-stroke audits to insure they're not doing anything they shouldn't?  Don't those all sound suspiciously like . . . safeguards?

                            Again, you can argue about whether such measures are sufficient, by why has Greenwald failed to mention them entirely?

                          •  Your problem is that you have no clue (0+ / 0-)

                            as to what I'm talking about. Possibly because you assume that you already know.

                            I've no idea what "side" you think I'm on since my point has always been that the question of GG's credibility is entirely separate from the issue of NSA spying and that it is foolish to conflate them.

                            You can either deal with what has actually been said or you can continue shadow boxing with your own imaginings. If the latter, don't pretend that you're drawing on anything I said, because you clearly are not.      

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 01:29:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And your point is utterly irrelevant. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DeadHead

                            Greenwald's credibility about anything has absolutely nothing to do with the fact and credibility of the documents released.

                            What is so f*cking hard about that?

                            "There's a conceptual zone within which the romanticized historical past and the immanentizing historical future converge in a swamp of misapprehension and misstep. It's called 'the present'." - David Beige

                            by Superskepticalman on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:48:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There's nothing hard about it. (0+ / 0-)

                            So why are you and others so hell bent on connecting the two? Even to the extent of smearing anyone who wants to examine GG's credibility as "defending NSA spying"?

                            You can't have it both ways. You can't claim on the one hand that the two issues are completely separate and on the other claim that any critical discussion of GG is a defense NSA spying. At least not without looking ridiculous. Particularly if you compound the error by slandering people as defenders of NSA spying based not on their expressed opinions but on what you imagine their "secret" opinions to be. All this in an apparent, misguided attempt to shut down discussion.

                            At this point I have only one question: Why? If you really believe that one has nothing to do with other, why confuse them in such a hostile, self destructive fashion? How are people suppose to distinguish the distinction between the two if you and others insist on behaving as though it doesn't exist?  

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 02:35:06 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "We" are not; you ARE: on your own and when (0+ / 0-)

                            defending Reggid. Criticism of GG is the attempt to divert attention at the revelations that Snowden has made with the documents released.

                            Criticism of GG and Snowden avoids the point of the omnipresent domestic spying being done by the NSA.
                            Reggid conflates the two; you are supporting that confusion. Criticism of those complaining about Greenwald or Snowden is not conflating the issues: it's objecting to those who are doing so.

                            Do you understand that?

                            As noted above, what is so f*cking hard about that?

                            "There's a conceptual zone within which the romanticized historical past and the immanentizing historical future converge in a swamp of misapprehension and misstep. It's called 'the present'." - David Beige

                            by Superskepticalman on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 06:04:08 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You still can't have it both ways (0+ / 0-)
                            Criticism of GG is the attempt to divert attention at the revelations that Snowden has made with the documents released
                            .

                            That is an opinion, not a fact and you have no business treating it as a fact, especially when it leads you into slander.

                            Criticism of GG and Snowden avoids the point of the omnipresent domestic spying being done by the NSA.
                            It does nothing of the kind, unless you allow/enabled it to. Which is what insisting on this linkage does.
                            Reggid conflates the two; you are supporting that confusion. Criticism of those complaining about Greenwald or Snowden is not conflating the issues: it's objecting to those who are doing so.
                            Where does the diary do this? Hmm? If it doesn't, you and others are the ones doing the conflating, not Reggid and certainly not myself, since I've made the point that these are separate questions repeatedly.

                            The bottom line is that you don't want people to discuss this issue. You want to suppress that discussion. That is a lousy position to be in, particularly when it's based on nothing more than assumptions rooted in political prejudice.

                            Bluntly, even if your accusations were correct, you'd still be enabling what you claim to be opposing. Nothing could suit the supporters of the current policy more than to have it's critics wrangling over GG's credibility and flinging slanders at anyone who dares so much as raise questions about it. Even worse, you appear to be trying to stifle a public debate.

                            You're behaving like suckers.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 12:56:46 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No last word for you. You're in Ari Fleicher mode (0+ / 0-)

                            arguing that those who opposed the Iraq war should prove themselves by enlisting in it.

                            Nope. You're done, and I don't mind coming back to this thread to ensure you never get the last word.

                            "There's a conceptual zone within which the romanticized historical past and the immanentizing historical future converge in a swamp of misapprehension and misstep. It's called 'the present'." - David Beige

                            by Superskepticalman on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 01:54:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Say's the one issuing retaliatory HR's (0+ / 0-)

                            What a punk move. You're not worth the trouble.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 02:37:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Neither are you, but, unlike you, last word. n/t (0+ / 0-)

                            "There's a conceptual zone within which the romanticized historical past and the immanentizing historical future converge in a swamp of misapprehension and misstep. It's called 'the present'." - David Beige

                            by Superskepticalman on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 03:48:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Chuckle N/T (0+ / 0-)

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 04:19:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nope. n/t (0+ / 0-)

                            "There's a conceptual zone within which the romanticized historical past and the immanentizing historical future converge in a swamp of misapprehension and misstep. It's called 'the present'." - David Beige

                            by Superskepticalman on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 05:59:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I see you removed the Hr (0+ / 0-)

                            You deserve credit for that.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 03:17:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Yes... (0+ / 0-)

                        you are a defender of illegal activity by the NSA with your actions.  Just like the right-wingers smearing the weapons inspectors in Iraq, you try to distract with inanities.  Your obsession with Greenwald is frighteningly unhealthy.  

                        •  Oh I get it, I'm "objectively" on the other side (0+ / 0-)

                          because my "actions" don't meet with your approval. In other words, anyone who so much as discusses the question of GG's credibility is on the "other side". An enemy.

                          I have little interest in dictating what is or isn't to be discussed by others and less regard for those who wish to do so. Particularly when they insist on substituting their opinions for fact.

                          I can't recall the last time, if ever, I commented on GG prior to this diary. That inconvenient fact doesn't stop you from a ridiculous pseudo diagnosis of "obsession" though. I don't suppose you think there's anything "unhealthy" about that.

                          Nothing human is alien to me.

                          by WB Reeves on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 02:07:42 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

            •  What abuse are they accused of? (0+ / 0-)

              That's kind of the point.  What abuse?  Warrantless surveillance of Americans?   Warrantless eavesdropping on calls and emails?  What is the abuse?  Greenwald has yet to say.

              •  You may not value your privacy, but that does not (4+ / 0-)

                give you leave to devalue everyone else's. Greenwald has already said plenty concering the loss of privacy at the hands of government in the name of national security.

                "There's a conceptual zone within which the romanticized historical past and the immanentizing historical future converge in a swamp of misapprehension and misstep. It's called 'the present'." - David Beige

                by Superskepticalman on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 05:11:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site