Ellsberg: Journalists Who Attack Glenn Greenwald Are "Tools"

[99th_Monkey]

Not to mention people who are not journalists.

Daniel Ellsberg: Journalists Who Attack Glenn Greenwald Are 'Tools' Who Do 'the Work of the Government'
America’s most famous whistleblower slammed the journalists attacking Greenwald and Edward Snowden.
August 26, 3013 * AlterNet * By Alex Kane

America’s most famous whistleblower criticized the journalists attacking Glenn Greenwald in an interview with the New York Times. Daniel Ellsberg, the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1969, slammed journalists Jeffrey Toobin and Michael Grunwald during a conversation with the Times’ media columnist David Carr.

“With Snowden in particular, you have a split between truly independent journalists and those who are tools — and I mean that in every sense of the term — of the government. Toobin and Grunwald are doing the work of the government to maintain relationships and access,” Ellsberg said.

Ellsberg was reacting to recent comments made by both CNN’s Toobin and TIME magazine’s Grunwald about Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange. Toobin recently said that Snowden belongs in prison and that David Miranda, Greenwald’s husband, was the equivalent of a “drug mule” for transporting documents between Berlin and Greenwald. Miranda was arrested by British authorities in Heathrow airport and held for nine hours.

Grunwald recently said on Twitter that he couldn’t “wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange.”

Carr also interviewed Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, who likewise criticized journalists taking on Greenwald. “I think the people in our business who are suspicious of Glenn Greenwald and critical of David Miranda are not really thinking this through,” said Rusbridger. “The governments are conflating journalism with terrorism and using national security to engage in mass surveillance. The implications just in terms of how journalism is practiced are enormous.”

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/daniel-ellsberg-slams-jeffrey-toobin-and-michael-grunwald

[grasswire]

1. there will always be collaborateurs and quislings.

The task is to marginalize and expose them.

And we try.

[99th_Monkey]

21. Yes, but so-o-o many?

so-o-o called "Journalists" that is.

[kelliekat44]

86. Greenwald is a "tool" himself. nt

[Vanje]

101. An amazing point!

Your incisive logic, combined with your extensive documentation, and polished debating skills...The artful prose you employ.......

Yet, astoundingly, I fail to be entirely convinced.
Maybe if you'd used all CAPS.

That would have probably won me.

[grasswire]

107. of whom? nt

[Mojorabbit]

115. +1000 nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

2. Because, of course, no-one could possible arrive at different conclusions to Ellsberg independently.

This kind of arrogance always makes me laugh.

[totodeinhere]

27. Nobody said that there cannot be other conclusions. But Ellsberg is well respected

and he did this country a tremendous service so I think it's worth taking his opinion into consideration. But of course there are other opinions.

[99th_Monkey]

32. Thank you. eom

[leftynyc]

123. He's also on the same board

on an organization set up by Greenwald so forgive me for seeing he has some skin in the game and may be just the tiniest bit biased:

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/07/daniel-ellsbergs-stunning-fall-trifecta.html

snip

Last week, I highlighted the connections between Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden, Wikileaks and the Freedom of the Press Foundation, a front-group that was conveniently set up by Greenwald and his cohort Laura Poitras (who interviewed Edward Snowden on camera) just a month before Snowden began contacting Poitras and Snowden. Greenwald and Poitras are both board members of this front group, as is Daniel Ellsberg of the Pentagon Papers fame.

Ellsberg penned an op-ed in the Washington Post yesterday defending Snowden's flight from justice, canonizing Snowden and dutifully serving up accolades to Greenwald and his employer (The Guardian), without once mentioning that he has at least a professional connection to Glenn Greenwald that could serve as a potential conflict of interest: Ellsberg sits on the Board of this front group with Glenn Greenwald. So much for transparency, I guess.

[totodeinhere]

134. Oh that Peoplesview website again.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023466122#post26

[leftynyc]

136. That's hilarious

I bet you're one of the people who was screaming crap about shooting the messenger when some didn't fall on their knees and worship Eric Snowden. Don't like the source? Think it's lying about the organization and the fact GG and Ellsberg are in bed together? How pathetically predictable.

[AgingAmerican]

135. You are linking to the most bizarre

whacked out website I've seen in a long while.

[leftynyc]

137. Fine - how about these

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_Press_Foundation You can see the key people on the right side of the page

How about the website for the Freedom of the Press Foundation which I've helpfully linked to their board of directors:

https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/about/staff

Anybody want to stop bitching about the source and comment about how Ellsberg has a vested interest in seeing GG look good?

[Maedhros]

39. "This kind of arrogance makes me laugh."

Is there an "Irony" smilie?

[Zorra]

42. I imagine all the tools are making up and spewing their different conclusions

right now.

[Leopolds Ghost]

87. Well, certainly we can all agree that a drone strike on Edward Snowden...

Would be a waste of resources, according to the President.

[U4ikLefty]

3. I can see Ellsberg is already being thrown under the bus

by the DU tool-brigade.

[HardTimes99]

82. Someone on DU over the weekend called Ellsberg a 'dickhead,' thereby elevating

the discourse several levels:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023512489#post32

Way to keep it classy, DU.

[RC]

89. A very descriptive term.

DU tool-brigade

Of which we have many.

[sabrina 1]

4. So that's where the 'mule' term that we saw here on DU came from.

I had a feeling it was a paid-for smear word, because when they pay for a smear campaign, you ALWAYS see the same words being spread around, whereas if it's just someone's opinion, it rarely goes beyond their own article.

I guess the paid for smear campaign on Snowden, by some 'brilliant' Private Security Employee was to include 'Drug War Language'.

They are so incredibly stupid, as we saw with the smear campaign against Greenwald in the emails that were exposed from HB Gary. They sound like grade schoolers. I hope they are working cheap because some of the money for this comes from our tax dollars and I could do a better job, IF I were a person of zero ethics.

[Hydra]

9. They didn't do it subtly

I laughed a lot of times, because all I had to do was read a few posts that just came out from the usual suspects, and they were all using the same new smears at the same time.

Personally, I think they think we're idiots or something. We aren't like them- we don't gobble up talking points and opinions, we gobble up facts. We put our own stamp on what we call it. We're the dreaded "individuals."

[sabrina 1]

14. When two pundits use the same off-the- wall terminology, what

are the odds that they both coincidentally chose those completely inappropriate terms considering the topic, independently??

Toobin also used the term 'mule'. I wonder which Private Contractor got the Snowden Smear Campaign contract?

Talking points are so easily recognized now that they have lost all effect.

They may think we are stupid, but the feeling is mutual.

And I think I know who is right in this instance.

[Maedhros]

47. As I've said before, the hyena pack is not interested in engaging in reasonable debate.

They are not posting because they are trying to convince us we are wrong. On the contrary, they know that we are right. They are posting for one of two reasons:

1. They are in denial about Obama's motivations RE: the NSA and are trying somehow to convince themselves that it's not as bad as it looks.

2. They are trying to distract and misinform casual readers so as to give the impression that liberals think the NSA's actions are acceptable and only "far Left purists" object to the surveillance.

[Hydra]

52. I think it's mostly #2

The intent is not to find/defend the truth, but to poison the well. Inject doubt into the discussion.

The whole Moralez thing was textbook that way. Even when the facts were clear, they were busy smokescreening for the US.

Some of the posters have even dropped defending the President in a sideways fashion. They don't say they're doing that, but they are arguing against high level information releases from this admin. Someone else also pointed out that a fair number of them seem to be spooks- they're defending their livelyhood.

[Maedhros]

61. I believe there are some who are just diehard partisans.

I have a friend who has been conditioned to HATE THE REPUBLICANS!!! so much that he is willing to accept literally anything Obama does as long as it can be construed as somehow humiliating Republicans.

Some of our posters here are the same. They defend the NSA not because they believe in it's mission and activities, but because the agency's bad acts reflect upon the President. Since nothing can be allowed to reflect negatively on the President, the bad acts must be made to seem perfectly okay. Because Obama wouldn't do something wrong, would he?

And yes - of course a whole slew of them are Stratfor socks.

[MNBrewer]

74. You see, Greenwald's partner is from South America, that's why "mule" is funny!

I'm surprised they didn't also call him a "wet back", just to further the smear.

[Leopolds Ghost]

100. I dunno. If Greenwald is in a gay marriage like the article indicates (?)

Then labeling his husband a "drug mule" has unfortunate homophobic connotations.

[forestpath]

5. K&R

[KittyWampus]

6. Greenwald's outright lies and lies of omission have been documented. They are undeniable.

Sad Ellsberg is so wrong about the matter, but there it is.

[LeftyMom]

8. DU's resident Cartographer declares Ellsberg "wrong" and "sad"

I'm sure he'll cry himself to sleep over your assessment.

[KittyWampus]

15. I'll stake my 1 map vs. Catherina's catalog of errors any day. And that you haven't bothered

to check any other sources regarding Greenwald's lies says quite a bit about you.

[99th_Monkey]

23. I guess one doesn't need to be a journalist to be a tool eom

[Maedhros]

51. But the evidence you provide for Greenwald's supposed "lies" is not compelling.

And the evidence for the other side of the debate, that the NSA's surveillance program is broader and more invasive than previously believed, is very strong and has been corroborated by a large number of credible individuals including U.S. Senators, former intelligence professionals and respected journalists.

So who should be believe more? A growing cadre of knowledgeable, credible individuals or a pack of shrieking hyenas on the Internet?

[nashville_brook]

81. eggsactly.

[LeftyMom]

83. :headpat: It's nice that you're trying.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

10. Post some Greenwald lies. It's not as if lots of us haven't been asking for proof for months

But we only ever hear that he's a liar...we never seem to get documentation of those lies. There's a reason for that.

[Vanje]

44. You got that right.

I've heard, "Liar" , but I haven't been shown the "lies".

[Maedhros]

53. Well, there's apparently some kind of map that is supposedly "evidence"

and some sort of semantic nitpicking about the words "direct access."

Oh - and countless links back to previous threads with links back to previous threads...

[sabrina 1]

11. Well, if they've been documented, how about something to

prove it rather than these vague 'he lied' comments. I've seen plenty of smears and vague references but nothing at all to back them up.

If he's lying, then the NSA has nothing to worry about it, right?

They seem awfully worried to me.

[KittyWampus]

17. Easiest lie to post- Greenwald saying Miranda was held because he was his spouse.

2nd easiest lie to post- Miranda wasn't given access to a lawyer.

[frylock]

22. 1) pure opinion

2) he was not granted access to his OWN counsel.

what else you got?

[KittyWampus]

24. Yes he was. And that you would accept Greenwald's lie about Miranda being detained solely

because he was related to Greenwald… well. Whatever.

Oh, and specifically, Miranda was offered council which he rejected because he didn't trust them and it then took hours for his own lawyer to show up. Those are the facts.

[frylock]

25. linky?

[frylock]

58. why would he trust their lawyer?

really?! would you? so far, your "documented" lies are less than impressive, or as cut and dried as you'd like to believe. surely there are other instances of Greenwald's lies that you can present as evidence.

[KittyWampus]

71. So you admit he lied. LOL! Which is it. Either he was offered a lawyer or he wasn't. He either had

his own lawyer eventually show up or he didn't.

[frylock]

73. no, i didn't admit he lied. i asked why he would trust their lawyer..

and explained that I wouldn't trust their lawyer either. he was granted access to his own attorney after being held for 8 hours. continue to spin this any way you'd like, but it's not gaining any traction, as evidenced by the continued requests for "documented" lies. you can provide the "documented" evidence to these lies, or you can continue to dig this hole you started on two months ago. your call.

[frylock]

20. perhaps a link to said documentation is in order?

[Fuddnik]

31. Look! A screwdriver!

[blackspade]

117. LOL!

[ljm2002]

7. "and I mean that in every sense of the term"...

...ha ha, perfect!

K&R

[WillyT]

12. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[Autumn]

13. Daniel Ellsberg. American patriot.

rec

[sabrina 1]

18. Yes, and Toobin, hypocrite beyond belief, who himself stole classified

material from Laurence Walsh's office dares to even comment on this topic.

From Isokoff on Toobin re his theft of classified material:

Toobin, it turned out, had been using his tenure in Walsh’s office to secretly prepare a tell-all book about the Iran-contra case; the privileged documents, along with a meticulously kept private diary (in which the young Toobin, a sort of proto-Linda Tripp, had been documenting private conversations with his unsuspecting colleagues) were to become his prime bait to snare a book deal. Toobin’s conduct enraged his fellow lawyers in Walsh’s office, many of whom viewed his actions as an indefensible betrayal of the public trust. Walsh at one point even considered pressing for Toobin’s indictment.

And from Walsh's Memoirs:

During our negotiations over the timing of the book’s publication, Toobin and his publisher surprised us with a preemptive suit to enjoin me from interfering with the publication or punishing Toobin for having stolen hundreds of documents, some of them classified, and for exposing privileged information and material related to the grand jury proceedings. I could understand a young lawyer wanting to keep copies of his own work, but not copying material from the general files or the personal files of others.

He needs to remove himself from commenting on 'the theft of documents' and consider him lucky that he never went to jail. He certainly made money from his own theft of classified material. He is no position to be commenting on this.

[Autumn]

19. Toobin is beyond disgusting.

[Vanje]

57. This is amazing.

[KittyWampus]

26. American patriot who is woefully uninformed regarding Greenwald and his serial lies.

[Autumn]

29. That's the opinion you have. I'm fine with that. My opinion differs.

[totodeinhere]

33. We are still waiting for you to document those alleged lies. n/t

[Maedhros]

54. You must have drawn the "Keep posting that Greenwald is lying" item

from the hat.

[sabrina 1]

110. Several people now have asked you for a list of these lies you speak

of. Did I miss it? If not, please provide it. Repeating this over and over without backup won't make it true.

For now, I reject your claim completely.

[Autumn]

37. Hey, I looked at your web site.

http://www.democratsforprogress.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=3967

But unlike some of your members I don't consider DU a cesspool I didn't bother reading too much.

[Autumn]

40. Very welcome. Again.

[Violet_Crumble]

124. How is it diffferent to others like Old Elm Tree or Progressive Independent?

Both of those had sections devoted to moaning and complaining about DU. And both of those had lots of members who thought DU was a cesspool. The only difference between them and this one is that those two were pretty anti Obama, while this one looks to be really supportive of Obama

[Puglover]

126. BINGO!

And run by a Tombstoned mega troll that calls DU a cesspool. Yep, big difference.

[Violet_Crumble]

128. I'd be calling a bad bingo on that one...

Heard of Hawkeye X? He's one of the ones who runs OET. While I like the guy on a personal level, he's a tombstoned mega troll and multiple returned zombie who's said a lot of nasty stuff about DU. So, what's the difference again?

I'll give you a pretty irrelevant difference. I was a member of Progressive Independent, still am a member of OET, and going even further back hung out at People for Change, where there was also a whole lot of disgruntled tombstoned DUers venting and complaining about DU. I'm not a member of the forum Autumn linked to, mainly coz I don't think I've seen it till now, and I don't think I'd fit in ideologically there

[Puglover]

129. There isn't any.

I was wholeheartedly agreeing with you Violet.

Oh and no, can't say I recall Hawkeye. I just never got into lurking on any of these other sites. I don't spend more then 30 min a day on DU on most days. However the pompous,clueless gasbaggery of DFP and the guy that runs it is worth of a cheap shot every now and then.

[Violet_Crumble]

131. Oops. I need to read slower! Sorry...

I found the bitterness and pointless anger aimed at DU at its many offshoot sites to get tiring, which is why I never hung round much. Those and seeing this one in this thread made me realise that if ever I'm nuked I'd fade quietly into the sunset and not rage about it. Back in the old days at DU, a few friends got tombstoned and ended up on other sites getting obsessed about DU, and it came across as kinda pathetic to me. Most of the time I enjoy DU. but there have been times I've thought parts of it (I/P and the gungeon) are cesspools, so I just avoid those bits of DU now

[Puglover]

133. Exactly Violet.

It's a website that I enjoy. Most of the time. And yeah, I have gotten sucked into the drama however the older I get the more other things become important. I appreciate the info this site gives me. I enjoy some of the posters. And yeah, the whole obsession schtick is rather pitiful.

I must admit using the "I support President Obama no matter what and if you don't you are no Democrat" argument can piss me off fast. Thus my feelings about that website. But hey, I hope the people over there enjoy the heck out of it. Better there then here.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

138. Wow...

I've lurked DU for 10 years. NJMaverick and NanceGreggs were once highly respected posters here...

[Vanje]

149. Maverick was a troll, rightfully TS'd. I believe NanceGreggs is still a member

in good standing.
While I frequently disagree with her, she challenges with well-written posts and well -thought out arguments.

[Autumn]

130. It isn't any different.

[LondonReign2]

48. Wow, what a lovely little board you have there

And I quote:

"I look at it this way, DFP serves a purpose that far exceeds the sad little cyber cess pool that is DU. Skinner screwed up his website because he was looking to maximize his profit. <snip> So DU is an isolated echo chamber... the last thing we want them to see is us wasting time venting about a bunch of losers. Our board is about getting Democrats elected and helping them achieve progress." DFP is an oasis for Democrats who support the party and the President"

[99th_Monkey]

56. an "oasis" of authoritarian apologists for embracing a Surveillance & Security State. Sieg Heil!

thanks for posting this. very informative & helpful.

[Vanje]

64. An Oasis of TS'd zombies

[MNBrewer]

79. Some are still here, "alive and well"

which is unfortunate.

[Autumn]

60. They do have a nice, real time chat room.

I imagine that would come in handy.

[QC]

112. That explains a lot. n/t

[Vanje]

113. Ah Memories!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=140941

[Puglover]

127. One of my favorite days of being a moderator!

[QC]

132. Just imagine...a place where Ole Mav is the house intellectual.

The mind reels.

[HardTimes99]

85. You know so little about Ellsberg, your arrogance and ignorance are what's really incredible. If you

seriously think that Ellsberg has 'never been wrong about anything ever,' then you don't have the faintest idea what led him to leak the Pentagon Papers in the first place.

I'd suggest you STFU until you have read Secrets, Ellsberg's autobiography, Neil Sheehan's A Bright Shining Lie and Stanley Karnow's Vietnam. But opinions are like assholes . . . everyone has them.

[zentrum]

16. Tell Bob Cesca

On Huffington Post whose on a rant about the disaster at The Guardian.

[Bluenorthwest]

102. Cesca is one of the most willfully and pridefully dishonest people I have ever encountered

He lies and when corrected says he did not say it then when you show him a quote of his lies he says 'so what'.
He maligned Dan Choi because Dan criticized the President. Fuck that McCarthyite liar.

[railsback]

30. Ellsberg: "Journalists Who Attack Glenn Greenwald Are 'Tools'..."

..said The Tool.

[totodeinhere]

34. It's really sad that one of the great patriots of our time is called something

like that right here at DU. Disagree with him if you wish. That's fine. But Daniel Ellsberg is nobody's tool.

[railsback]

45. Ellsberg compared his own actions to Manning's

He's clearly lost his mind. It happens.

[Fuddnik]

49. Read his memoirs.

You'll learn just how brave he was.

He made a conscious decision to go to prison if he had to, to stop the war. And expose Nixon's real plan to expand the war.

I'd love to see another whistle-blower expose all the jackals in Washington, and their plans.

[railsback]

55. Ellsberg didn't document dump

End of story.

[bvar22]

63. Ellsberg didn't have access to 21st Century Digital Technology,

so you bucket holds no water.

[railsback]

66. LoL! Wow. Manning said he didn't know the details of what he released

I never implied that Ellsberg was, or would have been, a complete idiot, which you seem to be implying.

[bvar22]

70. Ellsberg took what he could carry.

So did Manning and Snowden.

Knock yourself out!

[railsback]

72. Ellsberg released what he worked on

Submitting that he would have taken more is accusing him of being an idiot.

[totodeinhere]

65. That's not the end of the story. Yes his methods were slightly different than the methods

used by Snowden, but the end result was similar. And to suggest that he has lost his mind is ridiculous. Have you heard him speak lately or read any of his recent writings? Yes he is in his eighties now but he is articulate and sharp as a tack. I wish I had half his intellect. It seems that certain posters will gladly go down into the gutter to try to discredit this great man. Calling him a tool or calling him crazy is out of bounds and beneath this forum. I come here for intelligent discourse, not juvenile name calling and character assassination.

[railsback]

69. So, Ellsberg is the new Howard Beale

[HardTimes99]

88. Hahaha. Shows how little you know about the actual Pentagon Papers. Ellsberg didn't have to

'document dump' (as you put it), since Ellsberg co-authored the PP at Defense Secretary McNamara's suggestion. But Nixon and Kissinger sure reacted as though Ellsberg had document dumped and were scared shitless he had the goods on their little adventures in Cambodia.

Unbeknownst to Nixon and Kissinger, Ellsberg's review had covered 1945-68 (LBJ's final year in office). But given Nixon's and Kissinger's crimes re Cambodia, they had damned good reason to worry.

[Fuddnik]

35. Look! A wrench!

[99th_Monkey]

41. Like I said upstream

BEING A TOOL <-- not just for shwarmy journos anymore. anybody can play.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

36. There we are. He was under the bus, but now Ellsburg is under railsback's clown car.

[railsback]

43. Wow. Ellsberg is now under a clown car?

Well, we all watched Woodward go wayward. Its plausible.

[Leopolds Ghost]

98. What an ignominious fate.

[Fuddnik]

46. Didn't a guy named Railsback play Charles Manson in "Helter Skelter"?

[Bluenorthwest]

103. Steve Railsback who is also in the very wonderful film 'The Stuntman'

He's still around.

[blackspade]

118. Thanks for smearing an American hero.

NOT.

Pathetic.

[railsback]

119. Coming from the 'Love All Things Greenwald/Snowden/Manning' crowd

That's a compliment.

[blackspade]

121. How do you figure that?

[Douglas Carpenter]

50. knr -

[bvar22]

62. bvar22 AND Ellsberg:

[font size=3]"Journalists Who Attack Glenn Greenwald Are 'Tools'..."[/font]

[Phlem]

67. your a bad boy/girl

me like.

-p

[struggle4progress]

68. "Everyone who disagrees with me is a tool" is a stance for ideologues and true believers:

it has no place in any practical political toolkit

Whether one wants to do electoral work or grassroots organizing, the name of the game is to make gains among the unconvinced. And taking the view "Everyone who disagrees with me is a tool" guarantees that won't happen much -- in fact, it's disruptive and guarantees losses from the already-convinced side

[Cha]

76. yeah, he sounds like he's channeling greenwald and groupies.

Just because Ellsberg said it doesn't make it so. Makes me immediately think he's some kind of freaking "tool".

[Vanje]

106. Devastating argument!

You used the , I know you are, but what am I?" argument.
How many years did you study debate?

[99th_Monkey]

77. Yes, the gloves have been off for quite awhile on this issue.

regarding all things Manning-Snowden-Greenwald-Surveillance & Security State ..

Yes, people are taking strong stands, and framing their language accordingly,
precisely because what's at stake is so huge and the time is so short.

I suggest you get used to it, at least until this sorry-ass NSA Security State mess
has been resolved sufficiently.

I don't think Ellsberg did the cause any damage whatsoever with his bluntness.
Actually "tool" is pretty mild compared to some other insults I've seen tossed
around lately.

[deurbano]

78. Alternet headline a bit misleading, and Ellsberg didn't call everyone who disagrees with him a tool.

<<"By no means was I treated as a hero when I first came forward. I was indicted and spent two years in court,” Mr. Ellsberg said in an interview. “But in those days, journalists were not turning on journalists. With Snowden in particular, you have a split between truly independent journalists and those who are tools — and I mean that in every sense of the term — of the government. Toobin and Grunwald are doing the work of the government to maintain relationships and access.”>>

From original article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/26/business/media/war-on-leaks-is-pitting-journalist-vs-journalist.html?pagewanted=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Why Toobin and Grunwald?

<<Ellsberg was reacting to recent comments made by both CNN’s Toobin and TIME magazine’s Grunwald about Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange. Toobin recently said that Snowden belongs in prison and that David Miranda, Greenwald’s husband, was the equivalent of a “drug mule” for transporting documents between Berlin and Greenwald. Miranda was arrested by British authorities in Heathrow airport and held for nine hours.

Grunwald recently said on Twitter that he couldn’t “wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange.”>>

From the Alernet (OP) article

[Bluenorthwest]

104. Except for those who can read he clearly uses the actions of individuals as standard for calling

them 'tools' , it is not disagreement with Daniel that is the metric. 'People who waste their money are fools' means that I think they are fools for wasting money, not for disagreeing with me about money.
You must be seriously hard up for something to type if that's what you came up with. This is English we are working in here.

[Vanje]

105. " ideologues and true believers"

You probably don't even know that that is funny.

[Blue_Tires]

75. I missed the part where Greenwald was 100% pure and totally above any scrutiny or criticism...

The folks who think he's infallible and walks on water are headed for a pretty ugly crash sooner or later...

[MNBrewer]

80. Nice straw man you have there

It would be a shame if anything happened to it.

[Blue_Tires]

84. I'm at least glad the NYT cut a deal to get access to some of the data

I'd just as soon see this story (potentially story of the year) reported on properly without the baggage of Greenwald's self-congratulatory attention-seeking circus...

[blackspade]

120. And reporters at the NYT don't have some of the same 'baggage?'

Don't they get 'paid?'
Aren't some of them arrogant?
Some of them don't seek attention?
The NYT doesn't want to make money for its corporate masters?

[Leopolds Ghost]

90. Since former NSA Executive Thomas Drake is the person who first "dumped" the docs on this program,

Should we be expecting self-respecting Democrats to label him a traitor shortly?

Oh, no, wait, they can't because they tried to ignore the story when it first came
out over 5 years ago, and Drake is the equivalent of Ellsberg in terms of access
and contacts.

Thomas Andrews Drake (born 1957) is a former senior executive of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), a decorated United States Air Force and United States Navy veteran, and a whistleblower.

[Leopolds Ghost]

91. This whole Glenn Greenwald wank-fest is ignoring the fact that Barton Gellman broke the story

And has been releasing new info in the front page of the Washington Post ever since.

So why did he get scooped by Greenwald?

Because he couldn't guarantee that the Post higher-ups (Don Graham and Fred Hiatt and Bob Woodward) wouldn't quash the story

before it went to press, thereby (supposedly, in Snowden's opinion) putting his life and liberty in danger,

and indeed the Post refused to run with the story until it got scooped,
because they take pains to represent whoever has real authority in Washington.

Snowden told Gellman he would no longer get an exclusive the day Gellman told him there might be some delay in getting it published. Then he released it to Greenwald and the very same week, the Guardian went with the story. The Post rushed Gellman's piece into a short article below the fold the same Thursday in order to avoid being scooped.

This is according to Gellman himself in a news analysis piece, btw.

[99th_Monkey]

93. Interesting stuff. I wonder if Gellman even WANTS any credit for breaking story

given what Greenwald has had to put up with, in terms of harassment & ridicule
by the Big Lie Factory.

[Leopolds Ghost]

95. At one point Washington Post itself came out with piece asking if Greenwald is liable for espionage.

And then took pains to add "nobody is asking similar questions about Barton Gellman, who broke the story for the Washington Post."

This was in a news analysis article as well. I.e. "news analysis" about whether a rival agency's reporter is a traitor, in fine tradition of the Post's own Howard Kurtz, who destroyed the careers of CBS newscaster Dan Rather and his entire team over documents brought to light by DU's own Walt Starr that called into question then-President Bush's war record at a time when Kurtz and Bob Woodward were lobbying heavily to get in the President's good graces.

[99th_Monkey]

97. Isn't the Post kind of 'wanting it both ways'

wanting some credit for 'breaking' story it refused or delayed printing it own self?

[Leopolds Ghost]

99. It seems to me it wants Greenwald to take all the credit, even while its own journalists assiduously

continue to report on the story, much to the consternation of Fred Hiatt and the insider set. what do you want to bet Gellman never gets offered advancement in the Washington Post? He'll probably have to move to another paper or online in order to get promoted. Like Hollywood, Washington eats its own.

[Blue_Tires]

94. Of course NO reporter can "guarantee" that the managing editor or publisher won't kill a story

and it's not even his place to make any such assurance...If that's what Snowden was truly asking for, then he should have contacted the publisher directly

[Leopolds Ghost]

96. Yeah, but knowing the Post's current editorial leadership, it likely would have been buried.

Don Graham is a Reaganite. Good riddance. Anypony is better than him, even the founder of Amazon (a man who, although he's essentially the modern William Randolph Hearst and singlehandedly responsible for bringing down the book publishing industry, is allegedly a liberal, nobody ever made that claim about Don Graham.)

[LittleBlue]

92. Hahaha owned

The government's pet journalists should be ashamed.

[Supersedeas]

108. Toobin might even concede that...for him, it beats practicing law

[David Krout]

109. Why did you use quotation marks in your title? nt

[99th_Monkey]

114. I went and fixed it

It was bothering me too, so thanks for goading me to correct it.

[David Krout]

125. you're welcome nt

[Jake2413]

111. We need more people to stand up to government abuse of power

Edward Snowden is very courageous.

[blackspade]

116. A big K&R for Ellsberg.

[idwiyo]

122. K&R

[DontTreadOnMe]

139. Elisberg say we shold trust all journalists

Evidence Number One: Fox News

There are so many "journalists" today that want to be celebrities, or future "book" writers....

Whatever happened to "trust the evidence"... not the writer.

[Vanje]

150. No. He doesn't say we should trust all journalists

Ellsberg says people acting on the government's or corporation's behalf, shouldn't act to silence or intimidate them.

[wildbilln864]

140. k&r! n/t

[Babel_17]

141. Ha, Ellsberg is making himself a formidable roadblock

The road to trashing Greenwald has a big stumbling block. It's tough to write comprehensively about what's going on while ignoring Ellsberg's opinion.

It's like that scene from the movie Annie Hall with the guy pontificating while on line behind Woody Allen.

[99th_Monkey]

143. That clip is too funny. thanks. nt

[felix_numinous]

142. I like the term 'tools'

--it denotes and agenda, which we all actually have. But I think it is important to take a look at what you are ultimately 'tooling' for--is is the good of the all or is it the good of a few?

I think the mistake some people make is that to agree with the disclosure of corruption and the conspiracies of the few and powerful to control and rule over us instead of Representing us-- means that we are worshipping the messengers.

We are SO beyond that line of thinking that it has become actually hard to relate to that old argument. It would be best to keep up--here's a clue:

We are all on in the same boat, the same planet, and we who are disturbed by the loss of liberties and the creeping police state are fighting for YOU--whether we agree with all the petty personality talking points or not. I find it most useful to blame propaganda as a cultural virus, whose aim is to divide us--and leave it at that.

We are adults and should be able to agree to disagree on the small stuff, and unite on the big stuff--that is to do what we think is right and get out of our egotistical need to win in petty ways.

Peace~~Felix

[99th_Monkey]

145. Nicely put. Would make a good OP imho. eom

[felix_numinous]

147. Unfortunately

my wifi keeps going out today but you can steal it & post it 99th_Monkey!

[99th_Monkey]

148. thanks. nt

[Vanje]

152. ...or at least take some pride

and a little time to study up and become better tools.

The tool caliber around here is quite poor.

[iamthebandfanman]

144. Glen couldnt even

post a real picture to go along with one of his stories so he just threw some computer parts on a table and took a picture.. and youre surprised not everyone is on pins and needles to hear what he has to say next?

what a joke

[Vanje]

153. Most adults read the actual story.

We can generally understand the written word without pictures.

[silvershadow]

151. Queue the "Ellsberg is a tool" folks. nt