Glenn Greenwald Responds to Carl Bernstein over Edward Snowden

[Catherina]

Published on Jul 18, 2013

Watch the full interview with Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald on Democracy Now! at http://owl.li/n5IES. Greenwald, who has published a series of articles revealing the extent of sweeping National Security Agency surveillance, responds to criticism from veteran reporter Carl Bernstein about his purported statements on Edward Snowden's ability to harm the U.S. government. Bernstein said Greenwald was "out of line" for reportedly saying that Snowden had the capacity "to cause more damage to the U.S. government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States." Greenwald says he was misquoted while trying to make the opposite point: that if damaging the U.S. was Snowden's goal, he could have done so already.

GLENN GREENWALD: Yeah, I think the way that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein went from being aggressive adversarial reporters against the government to insider Washington defenders of the government is a nice illustration for what happened to the U.S. media. My criticism of him was that he relied on a Reuters summary of what I said, rather than taking the time to go read the actual interview. The Reuters summary was a complete distortion of what I said. I made the exact opposite point, that the criticism of Mr. Snowden for being reckless or harming the U.S. is based in complete fantasy, given that what he has could be damaging if he released it, if that were his goal, and yet he has safeguarded that very responsibly to make sure that only what the public should know is learned and that nothing harmful has been released. But it was a 36-hour media frenzy attacking him, attacking me, based on a complete distortion by Reuters. And Carl Bernstein and others were just too lazy to look into what was actually said.

[99th_Monkey]

1. Just WOW

the frenzy continues, as peeps behind the curtain futilely attempt to conceal their
complete horror & desperation.

Very fascinating picture of how the current news cycles around, from ONE DISTORTED
SOURCE, it gets broadcast EVERYWHERE immediately; leaving Greenwald wondering
"WTF just happened?" Very revealing glimpse of what it must be like to be GG right
now.

[hootinholler]

2. Something Twain said about lies and pants comes to mind. n/t

[Catherina]

3. and blue-linked frenzied here, despite having been set straight multiple times n/t

[99th_Monkey]

4. I think they're giving up

Last edited Thu Jul 18, 2013, 03:15 PM - Edit history (1)

I think some tide seems to be turning on DU at least.

Maybe just wishful thinking, but feels like ever since "The DUer Who Shall
Not Be Named" posted that ridiculous OP today there seems to be a refreshing
silence from that quarter.

[Catherina]

8. Probably waiting for the State Department briefing n/t

[JDPriestly]

41. No doubt. No human being is so perfect as the Pro Ponent.

[JoePhilly]

9. Calling out a member of DU by name ...

... in a thread that the DU member has not commented on.

A promising new trend here on DU.

[leveymg]

65. I believe the rule is no calling-out in an OP, not that we can never name another member in a thread

Can someone clarify what the rule is, and whether there really is such a rule?

[Luminous Animal]

5. Kick.

[Progressive dog]

6. "US should be on it's knees begging"

Glenn is funny in making the opposite point.

Greenwald said in an interview this past Saturday that the US should “be on its knees begging” that nothing bad happens to Snowden because the information that would then be revealed would be the country’s “worst nightmare”. According to Reuters, Greenwald was speaking to the Argentinian newspaper La Nacion and Carl Bernstein says he was out of line.

[Luminous Animal]

7. The point being that Snowden has been very responsible with the documents he has leaked BECAUSE

he has very damaging information that he has not and will not leak unless violence is used against him. So it is in the U.S.'s best interests that he remain unharmed.

Reuters cherry picked two sentences from two paragraphs.

HOW REUTERS REPORTED IT:

"Snowden has enough information to cause harm to the U.S. government in a single minute than any other person has ever had," Greenwald said in an interview with the Argentinean paper La Nacion. "The U.S. government should be on its knees every day begging that nothing happen to Snowden, because if something does happen to him, all the information will be revealed and it could be its worst nightmare."

THE TWO PARAGRAPHS FROM THE ORIGINAL INTERVIEW
Thanks to Octafish for the translation

Q: Beyond the revelations about the functioning of the spy system in general, what additional information does Snowden have?

Snowden has enough information with which to cause more damage to the government of the United States in one single minute by himself than any other person has had in the entire history of the United States. But that is not his objective. His objective is to reveal computer programs that persons around the whole world use without knowing that they are being watched and without having consciously agreed to giving up their right to privacy. He has an enormous quantity of documents that would be most damaging to the government of the United States shoudl they be made public.

Q: Is he afraid someone will try to kill him?

That is a possibility, although I do not think that would be of much benefit to anyone at this point. He's distributed thousands of documents and has ensured that various people around the world has his complete archive. Should something happent to him, those documents would be made public. That's his insurance police. The government of the United States should be on its knees every day praying that nothing happens to Snowde, because if something should happen to him, all the informatjion would be revealed and that would make for their worst nightmare.

[Progressive dog]

10. Sure, , he's very responsible but

Greenwald said in an interview this past Saturday that the US should “be on its knees begging” that nothing bad happens to Snowden because the information that would then be revealed would be the country’s “worst nightmare”. According to Reuters, Greenwald was speaking to the Argentinian newspaper La Nacion and Carl Bernstein says he was out of line.

we'd be on our knees begging.
It's tough even for Glenn to walk that back.
BTW: I'm an American and so is Carl Bernstein, this guy threatened our country, not the NSA, not the President, the whole country.

[MADem]

14. He can't walk it back. He said what he said.

The only argument is the translation of the word that was used for begging (could it be PRAYING?).

Either way, he opened his big fat mouth and put his source in danger. Now, anyone who wants to "get" the USA just has to kill one guy. That's an inexpensive proposition, in the big picture.

And GG is distracting the way he always does--"I'm not the bad guy, I didn't fuck up...look at Bernstein...he's an...INSIDER!!!!" Like GG doesn't make his money playing the "fight the power" card.

He's the other side of the same damn coin, while he tries to portray himself as "better."

Craven opportunist.

[DallasNE]

24. If Those 4 Computers Are Properly Secured

There should have been a program that causes the self destruction of the data after a period of inactivity. If not then Booz Allen has more things to answer for with there total disregard for standard protocol for computer design. And government audits should uncover such glitches to the extent that they exist.

Who are the rightful owners of these 4 computers? How could Snowden get them out the door? Why would Booz Allen give possession of 4 computers to anyone. Doesn't anyone there know anything about properly securing hardware and software? Do they really think that passing a NSA background check is adequate security? What planet does Booz Allen live on.

[JDPriestly]

42. Maybe the information isn't just on four computers.

[MADem]

57. All good questions--maybe he hauled most of the stuff out on thumb drives....?

Maybe they are his own computers...?

Don't know the answers, but those are good questions.

[Whisp]

28. so responsible that Snowy one.

I mean if he stole a dirty bomb and didn't actually use it, why, he'd be such a good guy!

But he'd still have that bomb, and maybe one day he's in a bad mood and the good guy leaves. Or maybe someone steals that dirty bomb off him when he's snoring with his head down on the laptop.

[xchrom]

11. Du rec. Nt

[pnwmom]

12. This is just Greenwald, trying to walk back the threats he realized he shouldn't have made

about how the Obama administration should be on its knees before Snowden.

There's no other way to interpret that except as a threat.

[Whisp]

19. I would like to see 'the real' quotes then, if Reuters was making shit up.

Have you come across them?

If so, may I have a link - open invite to anyone to show what words Greenwald used if not the 'threatening knees' ones that make Reuters fantasizing.

[pnwmom]

21. I trust Reuters over Greenwald. But I don't know where the real quotes

could be found, except on a tape recorder, I suppose.

[Whisp]

25. me too. I guess it's convenient that we can't compare. n/t

[Maedhros]

30. As I posted on Monday:

Greenwald published a response to Reuters.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/13/reuters-article-dead-man-s-switch

In it, he notes that if Snowden was really a "traitor" and motivated by a desire to harm America, then he could easily do so by publishing extremely damaging information. However Snowden expressly made clear that extreme care be taken to make sure that no information be released that would damage national security.

My point in this interview was clear, one I've repeated over and over: had he wanted to harm the US government, he easily could have, but hasn't, as evidenced by the fact that - as I said - he has all sorts of documents that could inflict serious harm to the US government's programs. That demonstrates how irrational is the claim that his intent is to harm the US. His intent is to shine a light on these programs so they can be democratically debated. That's why none of the disclosures we've published can be remotely described as harming US national security: all they've harmed are the reputation and credibility of US officials who did these things and then lied about them.

And, as usual, in an attempt to demonize the messenger so as to distract from the issue of blanket surveillance the Reuters article misrepresented what Greenwald actually said. The transcript from the interview with La Nacion:

"Q: Beyond the revelations about the spying system performance in general, what extra information has Snowden?

"A: Snowden has enough information to cause more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States. But that's not his goal. His objective is to expose software that people around the world use without knowing what they are exposing themselves without consciously agreeing to surrender their rights to privacy. He has a huge number of documents that would be very harmful to the US government if they were made public."

The bolded portion was conveniently left out of American reports.

And here is the original La Nacion interview:

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1600674-glenn-greenwald-snowden-tiene-informacion-para-causar-mas-dano

So your trust in Reuters is misplaced.

[Whisp]

37. That is still a subliminal threat.

Come on, we are a bit beyond reading comprehension Grade 3.

What is someone said:
I have the ability to ----- up the -------!!! (something big and awful)
and then qualifies it by saying:

but I won't, honest.

phffft. more weasel words.

[JDPriestly]

43. What do you expect?

The moment Snowden made his announcement in Hong Kong, members of the Senate and the President were calling for his return to the US. They caused the Bolivian plane carrying the Bolivian president Morales to land in Vienna in violation of diplomatic agreements and protocols.

In fact, since that first government reaction, members of Congress, quite number of them are admitting that Snowden brought to their attention programs that are in violation of our laws and our Consitution.

Snowden has done something very positive for our country, perhaps saved us from a dictatorship, perhaps not. But the reaction in Congress yesterday was a welcome change.

[Whisp]

53. congress is proven to be filled with morons.

if they weren't aware of the powers of the NSA, then that's their damned fault for not paying attention in the first place. Were were they when the Patriot Act came about? How many of those same morons stood up against it back then?
It's just a cya convenience for them, and to stick it to Obama in yet another slant.

fuck 'em.

and no, I'm pretty sure Snowden didn't save America from a dictatorship. He can't even save himself from himself.

[Maedhros]

47. Meh.

Readers of this thread can make up their own minds.

[Le Taz Hot]

61. All of this has been given to The Pro Ponents

already. All to no avail. They have an agenda and that agenda is to ensure never a discouraging word is said, either directly or indirectly, against Dear Leader and if it takes endless irrelevant blue-links, distortion and character assassination, so be it. There are very few of them left as most people, even people who were initially skeptical about Snowden and Greenwald, have changed their minds after reading the irrefutable evidence. I think the saddest thing is that they seem to be unaware that they've turned into the resident DU jokes because of it.

[leftynyc]

67. Dear Leader?

Why are you using a right wing hack term for the President? That's straight from the freeper sewer. And DU jokes are in the eye of the beholder.

[Maedhros]

68. I didn't post it for the Pro Ponents.

They are not looking for, and will not respond with, reasoned good-faith arguments. They are seeking to flood any thread discussing the NSA program with polemic screeds designed to mislead casual readers into thinking that Democrats love the security state.

I posted it (in this thread and elsewhere) so that the casual reader can read for themselves and decide which argument has the most merit. I'm pretty confident that most at-least-nominally-educated visitors to this site can see through the smoke and mirrors.

[pnwmom]

69. Yup. That's Greenwald, trying to walk back his threats. He's not denying saying that

the US government should be on its knees begging. He's just trying to take the focus off of that.

[Maedhros]

72. You certainly have the right to post in any thread that you wish.

However, as a courtesy to the rest of the DU readership, it would be nice if you were to stop being disingenuous. Greenwald has nothing to walk back. He said:

Snowden has enough information to cause more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States. But that's not his goal. His objective is to expose software that people around the world use without knowing what they are exposing themselves without consciously agreeing to surrender their rights to privacy. He has a huge number of documents that would be very harmful to the US government if they were made public.

He is not making a threat - he is simply stating a fact in response to the claim that Snowden's motivation is to harm the United States. The bolded portion, which is Greenwald's retort, was deliberately left out of what was reported by Reuters specifically so that people like you could use it to impugn Greenwald's character.

[pnwmom]

73. And he ALSO said the US government should be on its knees to Snowden, begging.

And here he's bragging about how much damage Snowden could do if he wanted to. "Snowden has enough information to cause more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States." That's another barely-veiled threat. And so is, "He has a huge number of documents that would be very harmful to the US government if they were made public."

With his statement, Greenwald was making a Tony Soprano type threat. It's like Tony had said, "He has enough plutonium to blow up all NYC. But that's not his goal. His objective is to expose (FILL IN THE BLANK). He has a huge number of bombs that would be very harmful to the US government if they were set off in public." Any reasonable person hearing this would recognize it as a threat, despite the pro-forma disclaimer.

[Maedhros]

74. You can interpret it how you want.

I have confidence in the ability of the DU readership to see through the coordinated smear attempts.

[pnwmom]

78. I think the DU readership is smart enough to recognize a barely veiled threat when they see one. n/t

[leveymg]

66. I believe you continue to misread it as a threat by Greenwald. He clarified so that

anyone who continues to label it as a threat by Greenwald is intentionally misrepresenting the original statement.

The transcript from the original interview with La Nacion:

"Q: Beyond the revelations about the spying system performance in general, what extra information has Snowden?

"A: Snowden has enough information to cause more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States. But that's not his goal. His objective is to expose software that people around the world use without knowing what they are exposing themselves without consciously agreeing to surrender their rights to privacy. He has a huge number of documents that would be very harmful to the US government if they were made public."

The bolded portion was conveniently left out of American reports.

And here is the original La Nacion interview:

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1600674-glenn-greenwald-snowden-tiene-informacion-para-causar-mas-dano

[pnwmom]

70. That part doesn't negate the other part of his statement, which WAS a threat. n/t

[leveymg]

71. How can Greenwald threaten anything of the sort when he doesn't have the key?

You're not making sense, just throwing around pie-in-the-sky speculation about some sort of conspiracy to harm the US you allege Greenwald and Snowden entered into. You imply that Greenwald has the power to release information reportedly held by Snowden and there is no evidence for that. There is no factual basis for your accusations.

[pnwmom]

79. How do you know who has the key? Presumably Snowden is the one

who would pull the trigger, if anyone does. And Greenwald, whether he was authorized to or not, was speaking about Snowden.

[leveymg]

80. I know Greenwald doesn't.

Glenn isn't stupid, and he isn't insane. There are probably only a couple keys, but not a few copies of the dox out there.

Greenwald has firewalled himself, and is only the messenger at this point.

[pnwmom]

81. You know nothing. It's all on faith.

No one knows what he has or how he's "protected" it. Some of us just have more faith in him than others.

[leveymg]

82. But, at least, I'm right.

[xiamiam]

15. a few nights ago greenwald gave an interview

at the very end of the interview, I sensed a certain alarm, as if threats had been made against snowden, he basically said that he could not say any more about it. My guess that moment, was that something rattled him. I've watched just about every Greenwald lecture or interview for the past several years and i'm a supporter and am familiar with his style, there was a brief moment when I sensed that something was out of sync. Its back to normal now but this was around the same time Reuters came out with their story.

[Whisp]

20. Greenwald just then got an update on his cash grab, that's why?

and was pleasantly surprised that more money than he expected was coming in when he used those threatening words? Look for more in the near future - he's got to ratchet it up more.

that's my guess.

[Luminous Animal]

16. Days ago Bernstein said that he was going to give a full response about his comments re Greenwald...

so far, crickets.

[avaistheone1]

17. k&r

[meegbear]

18. K&R

[WillyT]

22. K & R !!!

[sabrina 1]

23. They outright lie, which is why, when something doesn't sound right, people should never

take what they read in the Corporate Media with anything but a grain of salt.

Greenwald is a fighter, he doesn't let them get away with the lies, correcting each and every one, which is why they hate him so much.

[Whisp]

26. do you have the original transcript?

Greenwald is saying Reuters lied about what he said.

A link to what he said would be only fair, to compare. Wouldn't it?

[Maedhros]

35. See my post #30 above

And here is the original La Nacion interview:

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1600674-glenn-greenwald-snowden-tiene-informacion-para-causar-mas-dano

[ProSense]

27. That's just

"I made the exact opposite point, that the criticism of Mr. Snowden for being reckless or harming the U.S. is based in complete fantasy"

...Greenwald covering his ass.

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

Again, why is he giving interviews talking about documents he can't or has no intention of publishing? He also did an interview with AP.

He is not helping Snowden by declaring that he is in possession of stolen documents that have the potential to harm U.S. national security.

Despite their sensitivity, the journalist said he didn't think that disclosure of the documents would prove harmful to Americans or their national security.

"I think it would be harmful to the U.S. government, as they perceive their own interests, if the details of those programs were revealed," said the 46-year-old former constitutional and civil rights lawyer who has written three books contending the government has violated personal rights in the name of protecting national security.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/greenwald-snowden-docs-nsa-blueprint-19665239

Greenwald: Snowden Docs Contain NSA 'Blueprint'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023259203

Consider this disclaimer from a July 1 piece by Der Spiegel:

SPIEGEL has decided not to publish details it has seen about secret operations that could endanger the lives of NSA workers. Nor is it publishing the related internal code words. However, this does not apply to information about the general surveillance of communications. They don't endanger any human lives -- they simply describe a system whose dimensions go beyond the imaginable. This kind of global debate is actually precisely what Snowden intended and what motivated his breach of secrecy. "The public needs to decide whether these policies are right or wrong," he says.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/secret-documents-nsa-targeted-germany-and-eu-buildings-a-908609.html

Snowden turned over information that could "endanger" lives, and Greenwald spends the weekend making implicit threats.

[Whisp]

31. How can Greenwald say This:

Despite their sensitivity, the journalist said he didn't think that disclosure of the documents would prove harmful to Americans or their national

and also say he's got thousands of documents he hasn't shifted through yet.
and also say that he didn't have them any more, that the Guardian did?

this guy is a lie machine. How can anyone believe this jerk?

[JDPriestly]

46. Nonsense. The big threats are cutting food stamps, cutting Medicare and Social Security,

raising interest rates on student loans, another housing boom, bank fraud that has not been properly charged and sentenced, too many guns in the hands of crazy lunatics like Zimmerman, and having the world shun American internet products because the US government uses them for international spying.

Those are the problems. Not whatever Greenwald or Snowden do.

[Maedhros]

48. It's the new talking point that was dispersed to the hyena pack.

"Greenwald is issuing threats."

Nice to see that they can all stay on message.

[JDPriestly]

58. Yes. It is, isn't it. Thanks.

[ProSense]

49. No, the

Nonsense. The big threats are cutting food stamps, cutting Medicare and Social Security,

raising interest rates on student loans, another housing boom, bank fraud that has not been properly charged and sentenced, too many guns in the hands of crazy lunatics like Zimmerman, and having the world shun American internet products because the US government uses them for international spying.

Those are the problems. Not whatever Greenwald or Snowden do.

..."nonsense" is comparing apples to oranges: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022987698#post7

Snowden's case has nothing to do with those issues.

[Enthusiast]

59. Thank you!

Real threats vs threats to the corporate interests.

[Joe Hyperion]

29. Bernstein was lazy

He criticized what he thought Greenwald said based on a misleading Reuters article.

[Whisp]

32. where is the original unReuterized version? n/t

[Maedhros]

36. Do I have to follow you and post this every time?

And here is the original La Nacion interview:

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1600674-glenn-greenwald-snowden-tiene-informacion-para-causar-mas-dano

[woo me with science]

38. Yes, because their goal is demonstrably *not* truth.

It is spreading the lying propaganda everywhere they possibly can.

[bunnies]

33. "given that what he has could be damaging if he released it"

What?!

“I think there’s a real misconception over whether he’ll continue to leak,” Greenwald said. “He turned over to us many thousands of documents weeks and weeks ago back in Hong Kong and we’ve been the ones deciding which stories get published and in which order."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023286691

Does Snowden control the information or not?

[Luminous Animal]

39. There are two separate issues.

1) Snowden has handed over thousands of documents to selected journalists. Information that he expects will be vetted and published.
2) Snowden has sent encrypted "insurance" documents to unknown people to which he does not have access to or even know the key. (That is, he couldn't expose them even if he wanted to - thus the he can't be tortured comment.)

[bunnies]

40. Im still confused.

So is Greenwald referring to the documents in your #1 list? Meaning that Snowden still has them and could release them un-vetted?

And are the insurance documents different than the ones in the #1 list?

PS. Thank you for taking the time to answer my question(s).

[Luminous Animal]

44. I don't think Snowden has anything anymore.

I think he's given everything to journalists that he is going to give including the ones he gave to Greenwald and the encrypted insurance documents are not under his control.

I am speculating that the insurance documents are different. They could be the same or some overlap but given his aversion to document dumps, I believe that they are select documents that won't cause harm to individuals but rather, they would cause the exposure and thus destruction of some surveillance systems.

And you are welcome!

[bunnies]

45. Do you also think there are some things Snowden kept for himself?

Im still trying to make sense of what Greenwald said by "if he released it".

If Greenwald has all of the documents, and the encrypted docs are somewhere else, then what is the "it" Snowden could still release?

Im not trying to be thickheaded. I swear. I just feel like Im missing something. Maybe Im just parsing words too much. I have a tendency to do that.

edit: or maybe he means Snowden could cue the release of the "insurance" ???

[Luminous Animal]

50. "or maybe he means Snowden could cue the release of the "insurance"

I believe that is exactly what he means.

I think the "it" is the keys to the insurance docs.

[bunnies]

54. Thank you.

Now it makes sense. Phew. I was beginning to feel like a dunce.

[Luminous Animal]

55. There is so much information flying around and Greenwald himself

hasn't been made aware of the mechanisms or contents of the insurance files, it is easy to get confused.

[bunnies]

56. oh, wow.

I didn't realize that either. If even Greenwald doesnt know, I guess I dont feel that bad.

[Luminous Animal]

77. I think you'd be interested in this..

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/07/18/what_if_snowdens_laptops_hold_no_secrets

What If Snowden's Laptops Hold No Secrets?

At first glance, the message seems like more braggadocio from a man who has appeared to lay it on thick before, from his self-proclaimed ability to bug the president to his claims of being able to "shut down the surveillance system in an afternoon." It's widely assumed in both the business and the intelligence communities that any electronics brought into Moscow (or Hong Kong, for that matter) are going to be compromised by the country's spy agency. Perhaps he is underestimating the technical prowess of the Russian security services; perhaps he is overestimating his own.

But there's a third possibility: that Snowden is telling the truth. That there really is no way for him to give up any more information, other than the stuff in his head. Snowden may have left the United States with "four computers that enabled him to gain access to some of the U.S. government's most highly-classified secrets," as the Guardian put it. But he may not have those secrets now. The laptops could very well be empty -- and the secrets could be somewhere else.

Ever since Snowden's leaks began to appear in the press, Washington has been debating whether the former systems administrator is a whistleblower or some sort of spy. The latter position appeared to be radically strengthened when Snowden appeared in Hong Kong (where, presumably, the Chinese could get access to his laptops) and then in Moscow. Even if he didn't willfully cooperate with the governments there, they would drain his laptops of every last file. If those files were encrypted, that might slow things down -- but eventually, the secrets would be theirs.

The interpretation relies on Snowden, a veteran of a host of American intelligence agencies, being completely oblivious to Russia and China's well-known capacities to hack - or planning from the start to be an agent of a foreign power. Neither seems likely. Spies don't ask for asylum in a couple dozen countries. And former counterintelligence pros like Snowden aren't that out to lunch. As Snowden told Humphrey, "one of my specializations was to teach our people at DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] how to keep such information from being compromised even in the highest threat counter-intelligence environments [like] China."

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. knr

[99Forever]

51. Woodard and Berstein are worthless sellouts.

They sold their credibility, ethics, and believability long ago.

Turncoat tools of the worst variety.

[Enthusiast]

60. One wonders how they so completely lost their sense of ethics and justice.

There are a lot of turncoats now. Feels like Vichy France.

[Hosnon]

63. They cashed in as talking heads.

Disappointing given their history.

[Catherina]

64. Or were they sell-outs from the beginning whose job it was to minimize the Pentagon story?

Octafish (I believe) had a good OP about that a few years ago.

[Laelth]

52. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[DeltaLitProf]

62. I've long grown weary of Gleen Greenwald's schtick . . .

. . . and I'm pretty sure he said exactly what Reuters has him down as saying. Snowden's revelations have never struck me as being all that revealing in light of what James Bamford and others have already told us about the NSA. Yes, NSA needs to take a step back, stop with the large dragnetting of millions of communications. Yes, the FISA court needs to NOT be a rubber stamp and its proceedings need to be made public in some form. But Snowden's been to both China and Russia now. Had he wished to be an honorable whistleblower he would have stood trial in this country.

Greenwald's gotten too much wrong and been corrected too often (by the Washington Post and others) to be able to preach to Carl Bernstein about what journalism is.

[polichick]

75. Excellent! I've long thought it pathetic what happened to Woodward and Bernstein.

[Segami]

76. K&R