As for other citizens wanting to believe Snowden is on the up-and-up and that Greenwald is absolutely honest, refusing to consider critical questions that’re justified, well, consider how most voters were in 2008 with respect to Obama. Many, perhaps most of them behaved as if they believed he was totally honest and would definitely bring about good and needed changes, improvements, corrections in Washington policy-making. They elected him. He then proved to be a war criminal President, as well as very roguish with respect to domestic policies. And they still voted to re-elect him again in 2012.

What was the excuse in 2012 for re-electing him? They feared his Republican opponent? Well, an option was to vote for none of the main, “leading” candidates. Most voters fear doing this and they repeatedly elect and re-elect CRIMINALS, after which, they stick their heads in the sand and hope that life will become better by the time they take their heads out of the sand to look around again. They can say that repeating the same error or very similar ones over and over again is dumb, but they do it anyway and then live in denial; sometimes wittingly, albeit while also working to suppress their awareness of this.

Obama had clearly proven himself to be criminal and they re-elected him. Some might not have realized that he was guilty of being criminal, but I imagine that many of his 2012 supporters did. How could that many people be so damn ignorant that none of them would’ve been able to realize that he proved, of himself, to be a criminal?

If some of these “lefties” realize that there are things to question about Snowden and Greenwald, then maybe they’re going to behave like the “lefties” who re-elected a known crirminal as U.S. President in 2012 and will deny that he’s a criminal, suppressing knowledge of the opposite being the truth. In the case of Snowden, I’m not prepared to say that he’s proven to be criminal; but, he’s definitely questionable and has very poor judgment.

I learned of the following article tonight from a reply Kevin Ryan posted at his blog to a user’s comment.

“In 2009, Ed Snowden said leakers “should be shot.” Then he became one
In Internet chat, Snowden opined on travel, short-selling — and national security”
by Joe Mullin, June 26 2013
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009-ed-snowden-said-leakers-should-be-shot-then-he-became-one

He also opined about the Obama presidential campaign, saying it’d be great if Obama would run with sick John McCain for running mate for V.P. Ha.

He was angry about the NYT having reported about Washington trying to covertly work on sabotaging Iran’s nuclear weapons development. Iran didn’t provably have such a program, but this doesn’t matter to the roguish individuals who run Washington … unconstitutionally, hypocritically and hegemonically, either. Snowden clearly believed that Iran had this program when the CIA analysts reported years earlier that there was no evidence at all of Iran having such a program any longer.

He was pro-NSA spying on citizens.

He clearly had very poor judgment and he then hands NSA documents he purportedly “lifted”, all by himself, to Greenwald and Poitras, plus some msm corporate “news” media, which any sufficiently aware person knows to publish lies, etc.

If he’s innocent, that is, being honest, not having ill will, which he doesn’t appear to have, then he has poor judgment. He handed the documents over to the wrong parties. Some critics of Greenwald’s behavior in this have said that it’ll take 40 years before we have all of the documents. I wonder if we’ll have them all even by then.

If the Snowden-Greenwald-Omidyar-…-NSA, and possibly CIA, game is to be exposed for the stage show that it clearly is, then substance is required. After all, the aim shouldn’t be to preach to the choir. It should be to try to help people who want to expose this whole stage show to have real arguments or explanations to present to people who’re taken in by this show of charlatan making. Don’t tell someone naive that they’re being misled by a charlatan. Instead, back that up with sufficiently substantial explanation. If you talk to them in kid-like way, then it definitely won’t be easy to be persuasive. Again, the aim is to try to help naive people to wake up; not to preach to the choir.

That’s an assumption based on appearances. It’s very possible that the journalists realize that it isn’t credible that Snowden carefully studied or examined all of the documents, but these journalists clearly aren’t aiming to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Journalists who lie like this can certainly seem dumb, but they or most of them surely know that they’re lying. One reason is to hold onto their jobs and incomes, as plenty of critics have stated. F.e., plenty of journalists who tow-the-Washington-line about 9/11 surely realize that the official story doesn’t hold up to careful scrutiny, but they want to hold onto their jobs and incomes, so they play along to keep their jobs.

Yellow journalism surely is often or usually done by “journalists” who know that they’re lying.

https://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone

As for the “Wizard of Oz”, one source says it is a five year old girl in Fargo, North Dakota, the other appeals that the position is open, they are still taking applications…its a tough job though Mike, the negative feed back alone will turn your bowls to water and age you ten years in a day.

Michael

“Best to keep your head down, and put a Bindi dot the size of a dinner plate on your forehead.”

Yeah, it’s a testimony to how lazy and dumb the press is that not even Snowden’s detractors have crunched the numbers here. We know from the New York Times that the trove consists of at least 50,000+ documents, since that’s the reported size of just the subset the Guardian gave them for safekeeping. Also, by Greenwald and Co’s own usage, which conforms to most popular usage, ‘document’ does not equate to ‘page.’ Gellman has referred to the 41 PRISM slides as ‘a document.’ In his testimony to the Brazilian Senate, Greenwald described the documents as ‘very long.’

So even if we go by just what the Times has, and we hypothesize a conservative two pages per document, we’re looking at a number of documents that would be impossible to go through, even if Snowden began harvesting them in 2009 when he went to work for Dell. And that’s no even considering that he would have reviewed a number of documents that didn’t meet his criteria for inclusion in the leak. The story is just preposterous and especially reprehensible considering how Snowden, Greenwald and Gellman have used it to disparage Chelsea Manning, promoting government legends about her recklessness that at least Greenwald knows to be entirely false. They started in with this stuff from the beginning, and as late as the December hagiograpy in Rolling Stone, were still at it.

Voters continue to vote for criminals anyway. Obama’s supporters pretend to be peace-niks, anti-war, etc., yet the Obama Administration isn’t said to be worse than the predecessor for no reason and he concretely proved to be a real war criminal during his first term, but his peace-nik supporters wanted more of the same, so they voted for him again. Yeh.

Only a small number of people who vote don’t vote for either of the two main parties. By far most voters do and plenty of these people are considered anti-war, etc. Ha, again.

It’s a win-win situation for the “elites” and a lose-lose situation for the population that followed the perversioning, say, of the society because the “elites” like it that way. Some peace-niks pretended that voting for Obama was to choose the “lesser evil”, and I argued about that, for lesser or greater, evil is still evil. Many Obama supporters said that Obama, in 2002, opposed recourse to war on Iraq, so I asked some of these people to provide proof that this is truly what he did. Replies? Only one and it’s a well known “leftist” writer who said that voting for Obama was like choosing the “lesser” of two evils. Ha. I asked for proof. Response? Silence!

The society has developed such a disease of socio-psychological deformation or disorder that most voters need to be rehabilitated by putting them through a school of real re-education. After all, one minute they pretend to be anti-war, pro-justice, etc., and then they do or choose the opposite when voting. Most voters apparently don’t have a clue what it means to be truly consistent or integral.

The country is very, very ill.

It might be a good time to head for the hills and become hermits. But then the NSA will still be able to watch you anyway. Hooray