71–80 of 81 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no such thing as "too much" whistle blowing.
Let's assume for a moment that there exists an individual who (via unknown mechanisms) knows about 90% of the hidden affairs of marriages in the world. Should that person "blow that whistle", as it were, suddenly turning almost all relationships "honest"? Or would it cause widespread havoc and upheaval?
Ask the people who are being cheated on. Or spied on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Greenwald just said there was more unpublished material that would be harmful to the US were it to be published. It's right there in the article.
Yes, but he's been saying that since the very first articles and interviews on Snowden. This is not new information.
Slightly off topic: The article mentions a "dead man's switch" set up by Snowden prior to making his disclosures. If he is assassinated, apparently all the documents will be publicly released. Greenwald also mentioned that the totality of what Snowden controls is "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." Let's as…
The biggest threat to the gov is quite possibly that Snowden's courage is contagious and it opens the flood gates on the more secret sides of power, stating with the intelligence and war industry. It could potentially change how government currently works. So far the actions of the Obama administration are quite consistent with walking a line between maximum deterrent and just not too much public uproar.
[1] The WP's "Top Secret America" series quotes 850K+ with Top-Secret clearance: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's assume for a moment that there exists an individual who (via unknown mechanisms) knows about 90% of the hidden affairs of marriages in the world. Should that person "blow that whistle", as it were, suddenly turning almost all relationships "honest"? Or would it cause widespread havoc and upheaval?
> Should that person "blow that whistle" Ask the people who are being cheated on. Or spied on.
My answer is probably odd- I'd want to know if I was the possible jiltee, but I don't know if I'd say that it should be revealed for ALL people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rumsfeld's culpability for what happened in Iraq is extensive.
Perhaps, but only to the extent that Bush would remove him... and, if tried, to the extent that he violated laws. Bush stood behind him, happily letting him take flak from the media and political opponents for years . The buck has to stop with the president. How depressing for our civilization that people get worked up blaming a lower level appointee whose job it was to be operationally in charge of dirty work that w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps, but only to the extent that Bush would remove him... and, if tried, to the extent that he violated laws. Bush stood behind him, happily letting him take flak from the media and political opponents for years . The buck has to stop with the president. How depressing for our civilization that people get worked up blaming a lower level appointee whose job it was to be operationally in charge of dirty work that w…
It's not a zero sum game. Both Bush and Rumsfeld are extensively culpable, as is Cheney and Addington and Wolfowitz and Feith.
In Rumsfeld's case, he was tasked with creating a shitstorm by acting crass and making controversial remarks. It worked flawlessly and diverted tremendous criticism and attention from Bush and the larger policy direction. Eventually when he'd done that effectively for years, his resignation was engineered to help Bush turn over a new leaf.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a zero sum game. Both Bush and Rumsfeld are extensively culpable, as is Cheney and Addington and Wolfowitz and Feith.
I agree. But considering that underlings are used as chess pieces and must have their big picture plans approved by the president, it's folly to focus more than 5% of the attention on them. In Rumsfeld's case, he was tasked with creating a shitstorm by acting crass and making controversial remarks. It worked flawlessly and diverted tremendous criticism and attention from Bush and the larger policy direction. Eventual…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but he's been saying that since the very first articles and interviews on Snowden. This is not new information.
Has he laid out in such stark terms, though? He has been saying the documents could cause "grievous damage" or something along those lines, but that's a far cry from "more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. But considering that underlings are used as chess pieces and must have their big picture plans approved by the president, it's folly to focus more than 5% of the attention on them. In Rumsfeld's case, he was tasked with creating a shitstorm by acting crass and making controversial remarks. It worked flawlessly and diverted tremendous criticism and attention from Bush and the larger policy direction. Eventual…
Rumsfeld was the architect of the military strategy that resulted in the Iraqi civil war, and was one of a few very loud voices in the administration in the aftermath of 9/11 militating for an invasion in the first place.
Without hindsight bias, and considering that selling a cheap war was critical to getting buy-in from congress, Rumsfeld architected a great plan.
I'd argue that Rumsfeld is an incredible intellect and expert tactician who made zero mistakes.