1 vote

Naomi Wolf: "My creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports to be..."

Naomi Wolf
Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:38 CDT

I hate to do this but I feel obligated to share, as the story unfolds, my creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports to be, and that the motivations involved in the story may be more complex than they appear to be. This is in no way to detract from the great courage of Glenn Greenwald in reporting the story, and the gutsiness of the Guardian in showcasing this kind of reporting, which is a service to America that US media is not performing at all. It is just to raise some cautions as the story unfolds, and to raise some questions about how it is unfolding, based on my experience with high-level political messaging.

Some of Snowden's emphases seem to serve an intelligence/police state objective, rather than to challenge them.

a) He is super-organized, for a whistleblower, in terms of what candidates, the White House, the State Dept. et al call 'message discipline.' He insisted on publishing a power point in the newspapers that ran his initial revelations. I gather that he arranged for a talented filmmaker to shoot the Greenwald interview. These two steps - which are evidence of great media training, really 'PR 101″ - are virtually never done (to my great distress) by other whistleblowers, or by progressive activists involved in breaking news, or by real courageous people who are under stress and getting the word out. They are always done, though, by high-level political surrogates.

b) In the Greenwald video interview, I was concerned about the way Snowden conveys his message. He is not struggling for words, or thinking hard, as even bright, articulate whistleblowers under stress will do. Rather he appears to be transmitting whole paragraphs smoothly, without stumbling. To me this reads as someone who has learned his talking points - again the way that political campaigns train surrogates to transmit talking points.

read more http://www.sott.net/article/262774-My-creeping-concern-that-...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Great call out to John rappaport

Whos snowden article I haven't read (but am about to) should probably be the focus here and have own thread in dailypaul for discussion.

Amen you have provided....

A voice of reason indeed!

Logical fallacies are in full bloom here . . .

including tons of Ad Hominem Attacks, that is attacking an individual, rather than their arguments. Wolf makes a few good points and some of her points are rather dumb IMO. But attacking her personally, doesn't make her actual points valid or not. It would be as though it were 1936 and Hitler told you "Its raining outside, better have your umbrella when you go out." and your thinking was "Hitler is a terrible man. I don't believe its raining. " It would be far smarter to look out the window to verify the weather for yourself. The fact that you think Hitler is terrible has no weight on whether its raining.

Americans used to be taught logical thinking as part of a basic education. This was slowly removed from the schools - as was real history and teaching the foundational principles of the country, starting in the 1890s. (Source: John Taylor Gatto) Jon Rappoport offers a logic class and there are many other sources to learn this. When people don't know how to think logically & how to spot logical fallacies, they are easily manipulated.



9-11 was a panda job.



9-11 was a panda job.

Hey Naomi Con Wolf

That's right Ed is on message just like you were on message when you were putting out dooms day lectures on Bush/Cheney...

I wonder how many thousands of sheep followed you to slaughter and voted for BushBama because you gained their con-fidence as an on message lecturer.

I always new you were a self serving 'princess' if you get my drift.

Pu leeze!

Bob45, Thanks for finding this propagandist and exposing her bullshit.

This is RIDICULOUS---totally ridiculous & illogical

First of all, I would expect Glenn Greewald to have a professional photographer with him, not some low paid one.

Second, I've got news for Naomi, people who are telling the TRUTH....don't struggle for words.

As having worked in Law Enforcement and knowing many officers, he is not a liar, imo. Liars change their story...frequently.

Naomi, shame on you, for publishing this article. Shame on you!


Naomi Wolf has made much of her career in politics a ridiculous exercise in waging war against logic. She had a number of nice little quotable gems from her time working for Al Gore in 2000 that have never left my memory, and someone of her political persuasion has a lot more explaining to do than a person like Edward Snowden.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

I like Snowden

I like Snowden, his "prepared" interview might be a reflection of him and the Guardian agreeing to have it published in a professional manner, as to make him more credible.
I would much rather see an "articulate" and prepared whistleblower than someone fumbling for words...
You know, someone like Dubwa, or...oh, em, whatshisname, you all know what I'm talking 'bout...eerrr, Barry, there I said it.
Looks like Snowden got a good education by dropping out of H.S.
I believe Snowden did what he did because he had enough of the deception and lies he saw with the CIA in Switzerland, the director lying to Congress, and U.S. hacking China via Hong Kong.
I believe he is a real American hero, and wanted to let everyone know what's going on, because he has a conscience. I wish more Americans had his courage, he didn't even wear dark sunglasses or a wig to hide his identity. He's the real deal, in my opinion.
What good will it do for U.S. to tell China we've been "hacking" you guys for 4+ years via Hong Kong?

Naomi is Right - it's part of their plan

Her point is not to discredit Snowden's leaks, but to wake you up to more government deception.

I agree with her and here's why (my comment from the Snowden is a character from the book 'catch22' thread):

First off, the NSA & US intelligence in general are usually all over people that are privy to highly-classified information. Friends I know who know someone or have family who used to work for intelligence claim there is always someone following, watching, or tracking them, even if they have been retired for years.

If that is true, then someone like Snowden surely would have been constantly watched, as well as intensely vetted.

How could he have snuck out of the country, to China of all places, without help from some powerful people on the inside?
Why would they knowingly hire a Ron Paul supporter to spy on Americans?

Think about it.

We know, and they know, what Ron Paul stands for; Freedom. TPTB certainly do not. Yet they hired this guy to spy on Americans, and gave him the ability to leak this information? Do you really think they don't watch these people even more closely than the rest of us, to prevent others from doing the same, every day?

Do we really trust the media that much, still?

I say there is no way he got out of the country without help from high up.
All this info about the NSA & gov't spying on everyone was already well known about (or at least suspected) among the Liberty community and even mainstream America. TPTB might as well admit to it, and so it becomes OK. It is now the Status Quo. It is now Normal.

So the 4th amendment gone, is the new normal. Also, telling the truth about the criminals in gov't, gets you labeled a traitor. And in case you didn't know it is those Ron Paul supporters who are the traitors, like Snowden.

Also; Media has covered-up, ignored and ridiculed many previous reports and leaks of the same exact type of spying. They normally buried this kind of thing. But instead they are on 24 hour news cycle letting you know this is all normal, there is nothing you can do about it, your cell phone provider is selling you out, you are a traitor if you speak out, and by the way it's Ron Paul's fault.

Now Snowden is a character in a book ("Catch-22") about tyrannical gov't who is murdered same way as the Patsi, disemboweled? Sounds like this whole thing is a gov't Psy-Op complete with NWO mafia symbolism.

America is gone, the NWO is here. So it begins.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Why the -Minus votes?

I'm not trying to in any way discredit the info that Snowden leaked, nor it's significance to the fact we are turning into a 1984 NWO!

I'm saying she's correct when she says Big-Brother is a lot more powerful when everyone is afraid of big-brother because they know it's watching them. Then people comply without TPTB even having to force them. Out of fear of eventual force brought to bear.

Why should we put it past the ever progressing ever encroaching NWO to do something like this to DISCLOSE the surveillence state?

Those who -minused my comment...
Did you read my comment in full, or just the title? Why not reply to my comment countering my points with your own if you feel you have a point and it seems correct and is consistant with liberty? Or are you just another one (or 5) of the many Government infilth-traitors who were exposed in this leak, here to cover for the big-picture?

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

I read your whole comment and down-voted it.

And the reason for doing so is simple, as the old bible quote goes, "A House Divided Cannot Stand". If a legit conspiracy is actively undermining its own secrecy, it speaks to the incompetence of the conspirators, not to any ingenious method of confusing a handful of paranoid people who see conspiracy absolutely everywhere they turn.

Naomi Wolf is playing interference for politicians that she supports (Obama, among others). When you utilize Occam's Razor, it's pretty clear that the "once a statist progressive, always a statist progressive" rule holds true, and progressives of her sort of fanatical bent have proven quite adept at lying about what they believe in order to infiltrate opposing groups.

I have no history of Snowden lying about anything or supporting questionable political causes, meanwhile I have an extensive history that leads me not merely to question Naomi Wolf's motives, but also at times her very sanity.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

She's got some good points

She's got some good points but it seems she neglected to consider the possibility that he carefully planned when and how he was going to release this information with a view to increasing exposure and protecting himself legally. He didn't just dump the info and he probably learned a thing or too from Manning and Assange's treatment. It has been noted that he made contact first with the film maker for the very fact that he considered her history of government harassment. Naoimi's suspicions are good but I think she dropped the ball here.

She's got some good points, and some of them are just dumb IMO

but I think her warning about being careful about what you accept as true,is a good one.

Lt. Col. Roy Potter has stated their are warring factions

within the government. No evidence has been made public, but I think it's possible that Snowden made some friends who have been thinking about this for a long time.

I lost respect for Naiomi as

I lost respect for Naiomi as she basically has been a bystander during the Obamba Tyranny.

my creeping concern is that

Naomi Wolf is not who she purports to be...


on the Wolf in sheep's

LOL! Absolutely perfect


Absolutely perfect response to this garbage. I shouldn't have wasted as many words as I did below.

Well played, RonzdaMan, well played indeed.

It's OK Naomi...Totally distrust

then try to verify. No sweat and no need to be sorry. Knock yourself out in fact...while looking this gift horse in the mouth...

Get over Snowden. Ever heard of Karen Hudes...Catherine
Austin Fitts?

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

Valid question

This was my thought from the beginning. We all agree the MSM is controlled, utterly, so how is this story front and center for days on end if it's so harmful to TPTB? Have we forgotten our whole experience with the reporting of the presidential election(s)?

Is it realistic to think the MSM suddenly got religion for this one issue?

It's quite possible that this story is being advanced by the establishment in anticipation of some kind of civil unrest, in order to have a chilling effect on activity and speech.

Is it realistic to think the

Is it realistic to think the MSM suddenly got religion for this one issue?

Are you suggesting -- as it seems you are -- that MSM has covered this fairly? If so, how do you figure?

And if not, then it's clear that MSM has not found religion after all.

It can't be both.

I have to admit, I don't

I have to admit, I don't watch TV, so I can't say for sure. But the 5 minutes I've spent looking at MSM the last couple of days, Snowden's face has randomly appeared.

The goal would be to get the knowledge into circulation. Message from the fascists: You are being watched all the time. We can target you just like that.

The arguments about this on the MSM would just enhance awareness of the message. The details would be irrelevant.

Then, when the day comes for weeding out dissidents, a climate of fear prevails and control is easy. Everyone has a guilty conscience and just hopes they aren't reviewed, found to be a menace, and dragged off or droned....More or less how Stalinism worked.

accidental double post

accidental double post

So really her main problem is that Snowden is too prepared

smart and articulate?

Seeing pols like Feinstein, Peter King and John Boehner stroke out while throwing around terms like treason and traitor is enough for me to take the young man's story at face value.

Naomi is no dummy

Gotta admit her analysis is compelling...if she's correct it will take this whole thing in a surreal direction.

There is nothing strange about having a bar of soap in your right pocket, it's just what's happening.

All this surpased surreal a long time ago... it's all sublime

now. I trust Greenwald, a little, tho.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

E tu, Brute?Pray tell, what

Et tu, Brute?

Pray tell, what do you find compelling about her hollow speculation? I came to quite the opposite conclusion. My comment is below a few.

Interested in your thoughts.

Wolf brings up good points but moot

As a Snowden supporter, I tend to believe that our current government would rather hide behind a veil of secrecy than intention expose themselves.

I find her point about Snowden having legal counsel as a moot point. As a contractor for the NSA, I'm sure there is a protocol for diligence in investigating contractors that happen to consult with a lawyer or journalist while still on the job. That's why he wouldn't risk bringing in the assistance of a lawyer on his sensitive matter that early in his movements. Snowden reaching out to Greenwald was a carefully considered decision given his background as a former New York attorney and expatriate and in keeping with someone treading cautiously; wouldn't it be reasonable for him to believe Greenwald would frame the interview in the best possible light given his vulnerability? And it doesn't take a talented film maker to shoot an interview in a hotel room with good sunlight illumination. As for his choice of Hong Kong, I tend to agree with others that suggest it was a rational choice for someone who was familiar with how other free countries fold in compliance to the US government and the new complication that China would bring to the picture would give him a chance to cause an actual debate in the US that would not simply get buried under the 24hour media news cycle. Also, the revelation that Hong Kong people were being spied upon would certainly draw popular support from the people there which is positive if you're relying on them to help keep your movements from the government.

A final note: there is a certain trade off with retaining a lawyer for the express purpose of doing interviews: if you do not want to disclose your location, having a lawyer presents certain complications. How can you trust any lawyer not to compromise your location? Even something as simple as getting the lawyer to meet at a TV station for the purpose of assisting with your interview means the government can simply track the movements of the lawyer to eventually find you. In the case of Assange, his location is known and so it is not terribly difficult to consult with lawyers.

To be kind, this is a load of

To be kind, this is a load of uninformed crap. She obviously has not read much of the info available, because much of what she said has already been explained at length and renders the great majority of her article completely obsolete (again, being very kind). Addressing her points sequentially:

A) He tried to contact Greenwald. This failed due to GG's lack of tech savvy as pertains to installing encryption software for communication. Only then did he go to Poitras, whom GG has spoken of often in his articles (Snowden was a reader of his) and who also serves together with GG on the board of their Freedom of the Press Foundation. He went to her, essentially to get back to GG. It is absurd to insinuate he was seeking out a talented filmmaker. Moreover, that he was organized and planned this out is to be expected. If you worked in the NSA and planned on smuggling out information, you'd sure as shit better be organized about it, lest you get sloppy and get disappeared.

B) Of course he knows his talking points! Any of us in here would, too. That's the reason he came forward! They're not "talking points" by the way; they're called "principles." Though I can understand how this may be a foreign concept for many, these are things all of us in the liberty movement have been discussing for years and so naturally there are numerous main themes which flow from the tongue with ease, let alone from someone who is as plainly intelligent as is Snowden.

C) He is a GG reader. These are the issues as it pertains to whistle-blowing that GG has covered at length, and for YEARS, particularly with respect to Obama's unprecedented war on whistle-blowers using the espionage act. What would be unusual is if he were UNAWARE of the possibilities as a GG reader and did NOT discuss them.

D) "It is actually in the Police State's interest to let everyone know that everything you write or say everywhere is being surveilled.." Not in a purportedly democratic society when the program is SECRET and ILLEGAL and elected officials careers can end overnight if it is discovered and public opinion swings. What an asinine point from Naomi here.

E) Baseless. Stupid.

F) This has been discussed at length by people far more knowledgable about the issues at play when it comes to extradition and Hong Kong. She cites not a single one of them.

G) So what? The media speculates baselessly on his unknown whereabouts, and this reflects on Snowden??

H) How do we know he doesn't have a legal team? Because he's not holding public press conferences? The first step was to release the documents. That only JUST happened. We have no idea where he is, what he's doing, or what steps have been taken otherwise.

This entire article was pure rubbish, from the headline to the very last word. Utter trash.