I think Richard Snowden was pretty brave and patriotic (though the latter term may have applied differently in Richard’s time) – as one of Maryland’s first industrialists, he paved the way for many great things.
Although opinions may vary, I see a reasonable point of view where both of those terms are accurate. Its more in the realm of a Republican saying tax cuts will help our economy than in the realm of calling Obama a traitor of pushing for the ACA.
Agreed. It’s certainly not everyone’s opinion but it could be reasonably argued that the statement is accurate.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. John Kerry came back from Vietnam, threw his medals at the White House, joined Jane Fonda in opposing the war and giving support to our enemies, and then turned around, wrapped himself in the flag and acted like this big war hero in order to try and get elected.
Sorry Kerry, I’m not impressed.
Talk about a skewed perspective…
You know why he acted like a big war hero? He was a big war hero. His comments about Snowden are stupid because they’re stupid, not because he hasn’t earned the right to make them.
And here’s where I break with apparently most of the rest of the left. I think Kerry’s remarks were absolutely spot-on. IF Snowden had only released information about the NSA spying domestically, which they ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO without a warrant, and IF Snowden had actually gone within the system to report it, he’d be a hero and a whistleblower.
HOWEVER, Snowden instead stole a lot more than that, and His Prophet Greenwald has been releasing a LOT of information about US intelligence operations against foreign countries…WHICH IS THE ACTUAL JOB OF THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES! And which is also vital to national security! And then fled to RUSSIA, of all places?!
Jesus, it’s still hard for me to believe what the majority of the left has managed to swallow as “heroism” in this case. It’s outright sabotage and espionage against your goddamn home country.
In other words, yes, Snowden has brought some very important information about government/intelligence misbehavior to light. But he’s also done a lot more negative along with that which, while it doesn’t make the previous sentence moot, does make it that he’s no hero and actually has done serious damage to national security.
I am not particularly sympathetic to Snowden (though I find it hard to believe he could practically avoid releasing unrelated material if he was going to release anything at all.) I’m referring more to the “coward” part, which is demonstrably untrue.
As is par for the course in this thread, it doesn’t take very long at all after (for once) a stupid liberal idea gets posted for a conservative to remind us why the other thread is about 10 times longer.“Giving support to our enemies”? What, you mean protesting an unjust and pointless offensive war we had no business being involved in in the first place? Yeah, that’s totally “supporting the enemy”. :rolleyes: Kerry did basically the most patriotic thing one could have done. He went to war, served his country, earned a silver star for his valor in combat, came back, and told everyone about how wrong he felt it was there. He WAS a war hero.
I’m sympathetic to your point of view, but you’ll be more convincing if you get your facts straight–Snowden had no intention of fleeing to Russia, but rather was stranded their by American intervention (though not before we’d thoroughly embarrassed ourselves as a nation in the process)
He can always come home and face the symphony he’s composed for himself. He’s not “stranded” anywhere.
No, he fled to *China *then tried to flee to Cuba or Venezuela, but was forced to take asylum in Russia because he became too toxic for anyone to allow him to travel further.
Can you describe to me how Snowden was supposed to do this “within the system”? One of the features of contracting out a shitload of our national security apparatus is that people in his position aren’t protected by the laws protecting similarly situated Federal workers against retaliation for whistleblowing.
And exactly how would his ability to prove his allegations be protected as well?
So, which operations against foreign countries did he reveal that weren’t already known to our enemies?
If the primary recipients of new information concerning our spying were the American people, rather than actual or potential adversaries, I’ve gotta call bullshit.
And yeah, I know about tapping Merkel’s phone, and all that. Boy howdy, that really gave away the game, didn’t it? Numero uno, everyone in the intel biz already knew we spy on our allies. Hell, I knew it, and I’m not someone who follows this stuff closely. Mostly, it got the word out to the American people at large. Numero two-o, this didn’t exactly compromise national security.
Not like he had a lot of choices if he didn’t want to find himself spending a few decades in solitary.
In other words, yes, Snowden has brought some very important information about government/intelligence misbehavior to light. But he’s also done a lot more negative along with that which, while it doesn’t make the previous sentence moot, does make it that he’s no hero and actually has done serious damage to national security.
[/QUOTE]
Again, it’s up to you to point out the “serious damage to national security” and to demonstrate that he’s done “a lot more negative” than positive.
Look, when Scooter Libby & Co. named Valerie Plame as a CIA operative, it probably did compromise actual intelligence sources, because once you have her name, you can start finding out who she’d spent time with, other than fellow embassy staffers. And then you can see which of them might have been supplying her with intel.
Now: who was compromised in a similar manner by Snowden? Let’s hear it.
Well, since none of the liberals on this board will mention it…
Let’s register one more fuckup in a long, long series of fuckups for Obama - the entire Bergdahl fiasco. Bad enough to be negotiating with terrorists, but breaking the law to do it is just…well, to paraphrase Bill Engvall: Obama, here’s your sign.
Now I’m wondering how many of you will jump in to defend this.
What specific law or laws have been broken here, counseler?
Also, defend what? The right for CNN to post an article?
I mean, throw us a bone here.
Here’s a hilarious collection of tweets from people (including Charlie Daniels) criticizing Obama and/or exhorting him to act upon the offer from the Taliban to bring Bowe back, and then essentially immediately turning around and attacking him for negotiating with terrorists. This is supposedly just the tip of the iceberg for this collection of 180 degree conservative flip flops.
Here’s a more direct link to the more extensive collection:
https://twitter.com/MattBinder
Example:
So, Clothahump…you’re advocating for leaving POWs behind? This is the straw that’s going to break the GOP camel’s back. Please, please, PLEASE write your congressman and senators begging them to impeach Obama for returning a POW! PLEASE! It’ll be the end of this current insane nest of vipers that calls itself a political party.
Contra to what some people say, you are a true patriot. I’m sure you’d travel to the North pole to defend the country and not hide behind a Bush.
Well, there is a subhead right there in the article he links to that asks, “Did Obama break the law?”
The answer to that question actually appears to be “Yes.” In fact, from my reading in various sources around the news, there’s considerable consensus on this point. A law signed into effect by Obama just this year requires the President to give Congress 30 days notice before releasing a prisoner from Guantanamo, and Obama didn’t do this.
Now, there are a couple of related issues. When Obama signed the law, he included a signing statement reserving the right to release prisoners like he has done with Bergdahl. But signing statements have no legal force, and plenty of liberals (me included) were critical of Bush’s use of signing statements during his presidency.
There’s also the question of whether the law itself is Constitutional. Some believe that a law like this, which restricts the Commander-in-Chief’s power to negotiate for returned soldiers, doesn’t pass Constitutional muster. But even if it is found unconstitutional by a court, that has happened yet, and Obama did violate the letter of the law.
I think the conservative hypocrisy on this issue is absolutely staggering. The tweets listed in Hentor’s link are just the tip of a massive, brazen iceberg of sheer hubris by asshole conservatives across the country. They have been absolutely shameless in their dishonesty on this issue. And C;othahump fits right in with the disingenuous bleating.
At the same time, though, i think that the administration has handled the whole thing pretty poorly. From a political point of view, i think that the most troubling part of the whole affair is that it points up, again, how pathetic Obama has been about keeping his promise to shut down Guantanamo. There are dozens and dozens of low-value and no-value prisoners in Guantanamo, people who were scooped up based on bad information or personal vendettas, and who had little or nothing to do with terrorist activity. Obama said, during his first election campaign, that he was going to do something about this, but has done jack-shit. He’s continued to force-feed hunger strikers, and has basically given up on any effort to close the camp or to do the things he promised.
And yet now, he’s released five pretty high value people, guys who were clearly actually involved in terrorist planning. I know he did it to get an American soldier back, and i don’t necessarily fault him for doing it, but it does point up how little backbone he has demonstrated over the last six years on one of his key campaign commitments. It’s pathetic.
Did you read the article? Even CNN is all over this: