General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Re: Attacks on Snowden, Greenwald. How the fuck do people like that sleep at night? [View all]NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... you are asking respectfully - being respectful of others is something you have demonstrated time and again. So not an issue.
Without going back through the entire chronology of the Snowden saga, which now spans eighteen months, it would be impossible to cite details, times and dates, appropriate links, etc. So I hope you will forgive me for being unwilling to go back over more than a year of information in order to be as precise as I could be.
From the beginning, Snowden alleged things that he has never offered any proof of. He (with Greenwald's able assistance) has often conflated what the NSA "could do" with what they "are" doing in a deliberate attempt to confuse and mislead. The "great revelations" included things that were already known by those who pay attention to such things - and yet Snowden/GG persisted in touting them as things not previously known.
When Snowden was revealed as The True Hooha, his own words showed him to be lacking in any empathy for his fellow citizens. He dismissed even those who collected their Social Security benefits - which they bought and paid for - as lazy parasites. These remarks rendered his stated reason for stealing sensitive gov't documents - an altruistic desire to inform his fellow citizens of wrongdoing in their midst - not credible. One doesn't "sacrifice everything", as his adherents would have it, for the sake of people he obviously detests.
Snowden has changed his story on numerous occasions - or Greenwald has changed the story on his behalf.
My take? Greenwald saw Snowden as an "easy mark", someone he could manipulate for his own purposes - those purposes being book sales, movie rights sales, and an ongoing source of revenue. I suspect that Snowden was told he would wind up in a sunny clime somewhere in SA, raking in the moolah that could be generated by writing his own books, giving interviews to newspapers and magazines for year to come. As things turned out, Snowden is sitting in Russia, his ultimate fate unknown, while GG rakes in the bucks.
When one believes they are in possession of documents or information that should be revealed for the "public good", one does not parcel out that information in carefully-timed increments that mean more-bang-for-the-buck in terms of "selling" such information piecemeal. One does not
present such information in terms of promised "fireworks displays" - a phrase more suitably used to describe upcoming tidbits about the latest Kardashian escapade, as opposed to revelations of widespread illegal activities by a US gov't agency.
The Snowden/GG stance, as first presented by both, was focused on alleged domestic spying. And yet they immediately focused on the NSA's spying on foreign entities - which is actually the purpose of the NSA, whether one approves of it or not.
Snowden insisted that he had vetted all documents he released to foreign news outlets, to ensure that individuals would not be at risk. And yet der Speigel declined to publish certain documents provided by Snowden on the basis that on their face, said documents contained information that would identify certain individuals, and put them at risk. So much for Snowden's "vetting" of documents he saw fit to share; so much for his ability to even understand what said documents could unleash in terms of the safety of others.
I actually feel sorry for Snowden. Do I think he is guilty of stealing sensitive gov't documents without true regard for the consequences their revelation might cause? Yes. Do I think his political leanings biased his perception of things, which in turn impacted his judgment AND his motives? Yes. Do I believe he did what he did because he was made to believe that it would lead to fame and its close counterpart, money? Yes.
While I would not excuse Snowden's actions in any way, I believe that Greenwald is the overwhelmingly guilty party here - if one can speak of guilt in terms of degrees. Snowden's crime may be his theft of gov't documents; his fatal flaw, however, was trusting a flim-flam man like Greenwald.
Respectfully, this is my opinion - and my response. I hope it answers your question.