The NSA Said Edward Snowden Had No Access to Surveillance Intercepts. They Lied.

[NanceGreggs]

22. I have rarely posted here ...

... for the past four years. So the idea that I spend enormous time and energy on Snowden, or any other topic here, is rather ridiculous on its face.

"... dissecting every little comment Snowden has made for total accuracy ..."

I believe that when someone asserts that the NSA, or any other gov't agency, is engaged in illegal activity, accuracy in supporting those assertions is a necessity. If Snowden can't be totally accurate when it comes to the facts underpinning his accusations, he should never have made such serious accusations in the first place.

Snowden didn't accuse a gov't-run cafeteria of serving stale breadsticks. He accused a gov't agency of breaking the law. Given the seriousness of the accusations, being TOTALLY ACCURATE would be in keeping with the allegations made.

"NSA's extreme law breaking is the issue, Snowden is not."

And yet when asked point-blank by Brian Williams in a recent interview about the alleged law-breaking by the NSA, Snowden could not cite a single instance of them having done so.

" ... anyone who simply attacks Snowden without acknowledging how important his revelations have been IS AN NSA GROUPIE."

Thus far, Snowden has not disclosed any NSA activity that was not previously known - nor has he been able to pinpoint any illegality. Again, questioning Snowden's credibility when he makes accusations he can't back-up is not an attack - it is merely pointing out the facts.

" ... you never seem to post anything critical of the NSA."

There are many, MANY posters here who have consistently posted scathing comments about Obama and Democrats, but have never posted anything critical of the GOP. They claim they are good Democrats. By your way of thinking, they must ALL be lying RW trolls - because if they were really Democrats, they would be attacking the GOP as vociferously as they attack their own party. And yet they never do - and if you can provide links to your posts calling those posters "RW groupies" by virtue of their never having done so, I'd be fascinated to see them.

What it comes down to is this: It is the Snowden groupies, to borrow your phrase, that have ignored the inconsistencies in his stories, ignored the fact that he can't PRODUCE any facts to support his claims, and ignored the idea that if one is going to accuse a gov't agency of illegal activity they should be able to cite a single instance of said illegal activity, at the very least.

I trust you are on some super-duper-secret email list of Eddie's - so that when he finally remembers what illegal activity the NSA is engaged in, you can be one of the first to know.

Maybe someday he'll come up with proof that he could access Obama's emails, that the NSA can read my thoughts as I type them, that he can see my on-line purchases as I make them. But so far, nada. And if expecting proof of those allegations is "dissecting every little comment Snowden has made for total accuracy", then so be it. Without proof, his allegations are meaningless, and if he fears his statements "being dissected for accuracy", he might apply to FOX-News for a job - I understand they're very big on their statements not "being dissected for accuracy" either.