Cat’s Out of the Bag
Is he a hero or a traitor? A patriot or a defector? All the buzz today is about Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower who stepped forward as the guy who leaked info on the massive surveillance gathering operation by the government: Intel Considering NSA Whistleblower ‘Potential Chinese Espionage’ He’s taken “refuge” in Hong Kong, making it all look too suspicious. My thoughts:
- He should have gone through proper channels
- He’s convinced the agency/government were over-reaching and doing wrong
- I admire and chastise him
- I doubt he will ever return to the US and I’m sure the Chinese will protect him. They have a lot to gain from his knowledge.
- Time will tell if what Snowden has done will ultimately endanger us.
This sums up my thoughts perfectly – A Snowden Job
We’ll admit there is something not quite right with Edward Snowden and his story. But the optics of this story are just terrible for the administration: Fast and Furious, the “green” technology spendapalooza and subsequent bankruptcies, Benghazi, the IRS, and now the NSA. Yeah, the NSA was organized in 1952 under Truman; yeah, every President has used it since. Sure, technology has ramped up the agency’s abilities. But this is yet another Constitutional crisis on Obama’s watch, another story about an administration with a penchant for abusing their authority and treating citizens like subjects. The young Mr. Snowden seemed to demonstrate a keener sense of what is un-American and un-Constitutional than almost any elected official presently “serving” in Washington.
Interesting Side-Note: We lived near Fort Meade and the NSA in the 1980s-1990s. You used to be able to drive right up to the nondescript building. Whenever the parking lot was full you knew something major was going on.
Dictatorships are amazing things. In the begining its not what you say, or your behavior that makes you unworthy of the state’s support. It’s the state’s changing definition of what constitutes a threat over time. Especially true of so-called useful idiots:
The term has been used to refer to Soviet sympathizers in Western countries. The implication was that, although the people in question naïvely thought of themselves as an ally of the Soviet Union, they were actually held in contempt and were being cynically used. The use of the term in political discourse has since been extended to other propagandists, especially those who are seen to unwittingly support a malignant cause which they naïvely believe to be a force for good.
Obama is not inherently more amoral than his predecessors, only more exempt from charges of amorality. He appreciates that this latitude has never been extended to any other president in modern memory. The result is that there is no longer such a thing as presidential ethics.
If he (Obama) can’t convince the American people that they can trust him, he could end up damaging the legacy he has worked so hard to control and shape — and be remembered, even by those who once supported him, as the very opposite of the different type of leader he promised to be.
GOD BLESS AMERICA – PASS THIS ON!!!
- Limbaugh: ‘We are in the midst of a coup’… (rushlimbaugh.com)
- Leaker of NSA program: ‘I can’t in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy’ (boston.com)