Glenn Greenwald MUST be stopped.

[NanceGreggs]

275. Yes, I am the 'old' NanceGreggs ...

... 'old' both literally and figuratively. And thank you for your kind words.

A problem I have had from the outset of the Snowden/Greenwald show is the manner in which Snowden's 'revelations' have been meted out. He and GG started with Snowden's claims that he could have read anyone's email including the president's, that he could trace anyone's on-line activities, that the NSA could "read people's thoughts as they typed them", etc.

Those were just the kinds of explosive headline-grabbers that are crafted to attract attention, and persuade the gullible that their emails are being read, their phone conversations are being listened to, their internet activities are being monitored. Of course, none of those assertions have been proven, and were carefully couched in terms of what "could be done", with no evidence that any of those things ARE being done - and presumably, both ES and GG knew that many readers/listeners would skip the "could do" and go immediately to "does do", thus establishing an audience struck with fear and willing to be further misled.

Let's remember that Snowden's claimed motive was to inform his fellow citizens of the "domestic spying" that is ongoing within the NSA. And yet he seems to be more intent on revealing the NSA's perfectly legal spying activities with respect to foreign entities. What our machinations are with respect to spying on the Chinese does not serve as any proof that illegal domestic spying is taking place. So one is left to wonder what Snowden thought to accomplish.

From the get-go, GG has treated what should be a matter of serious discussion as his personal cash cow. He wrote a book on the topic, is discussing movie rights, and landed a job with The Intercept - which I'm sure paid handsomely for someone they believe to be in possession of "explosive revelations" - which now, it seems apparent, are nothing of any substance.

GG has described such revelations as "fireworks displays" - and yet his last display ("naming names" that turned out to be five people targeted pre-2008 when FISA was amended) garnered little notice from even his most ardent fans. The man keeps promising - but fails to deliver.

The fact that Snowden is now down to "NSA workers routinely pass around nude photos" speaks for itself. Again, he makes a statement that he has no evidence to support - which has become his MO. After declaring for almost a year that he had not raised his concerns with his superiors because he thought it would be pointless to do so, he now claims that he did. One would think he would at least have secured his own CYA emails if they existed; he has no explanation for why he didn't do so.

For these reasons - just to name a very few - I find both ES and GG to be less than credible.

The meme that seems to have taken hold here on DU is that the NSA has been known to lie, therefore Snowden is telling the truth. It is not an either/or situation. I've been a court reporter for 30 years, and it is commonplace that witnesses on BOTH sides of a lawsuit are caught exaggerating, stretching the truth, obfuscating, or outright lying. No sane judge would ever determine that if the Plaintiff is caught in a lie, the Defendant, by default, is to be taken as consistently telling the truth.

What has amazed me in watching this entire story play out on DU is that people who have held themselves out as possessing a healthy skepticism about everything demonstrate absolutely NO skepticism where ES and GG are concerned. Whatever either man says is accepted as gospel. No questions are raised, no evidence is asked for.

" ...a large and substantive difference between giving those two the benefit of a doubt, and summarily dismissing anything and everything they allege because of who they are."

It is not a matter of "who they are". It is a matter of assertions being made without evidence. It is a matter of their behaviour throughout the piece, which smacks more of "let's put on a show" than it does of "let's get the truth out there". In Greenwald's case, "let's see how much money I can make off this" seems to be the overwhelming motivator.

In addition, both have been completely irresponsible in their handling of highly sensitive documents, the disclosure of which could have very real and very harmful consequences - but, as they say, that's a whole 'nother topic, too lengthy to get into here.