Friday, August 23, 2013

Greenwald jumps Sharknado

Just when I think I'm about done writing about the hysteria being flamed by Team Greenwald these days, along comes another story that grabs me. Part of my soul-searching about all this has been a recognition that this whole story is like finding yourself in the grips of a mystery novel and getting caught up in trying to guess the ending. So todays' installment is written with a bit of humor at watching the wheels come off the charade.

It all started last night when The Independent published an article touting the latest Snowden revelation that the UK government has a facility that spies on people in the Middle East (yes, quell your shock at that one). The trouble is...they didn't explain how they got access to this leak.

Enter Team Greenwald. He provides a quote from Snowden saying that he is not the source of this leak  and that what is happening here is that the UK government leaked harmful information to The Independent to create the illusion that previous leaks are harmful. Got that? But gets worse.

Greenwald then goes on to try to buttress Snowden's statement by suggesting that this leak is "exactly the type of disclosure the UK government wants but that has never happened before." Wait a Greenwald contradicting Snowden's contention that this leak is harmful? Or is he suggesting that the UK wants harmful leaks to occur?

Oh well, nevermind. The point here is that this is all the government's fault (UK/US? - you decide). Isn't that always Greenwald's point?

What I find interesting is that this is the first time Greenwald has reacted negatively to the publication of leaks about surveillance in places other than The Guardian. He's had no problem with leaks in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Der Speigel, etc. As a matter of fact, he has usually applauded those stories. So why did this story in The Independent spark this attack? It seems that the answer to that question goes back to who did the leaking.

Joshua Foust laid out the 3 possibilities he sees in answer to that question. The 3rd one is the most likely scenario.
A new party, unknown to us, also has control of said documents and is spreading them to new outlets. This would also imply that, contrary to their constant public assertions, Team Greenwald-Poitras has lost control of their cache of source material.
Now, if you want to join me in trying to guess how this mystery novel ends, here are my two guesses about who that "new party" is.

Foust points out that The Independent is owned by Russian oligarch Alexander Lebedev. The dots seem to connect automatically in my head. Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't it possible that the Russian government (now so thoughtfully providing Snowden with asylum) might be involved?

But the other possibility is Julian Assange. Just last week he said this to the Australian press:
Former hacker Assange, who has said the US owes a "debt of gratitude" to Snowden for exposing the surveillance on Internet and telephone usage, hinted at more material from Snowden being made available.

"Hopefully one day, not too far in the future, we will see a WikiLeaks file rollout to media organisations," said Assange.
And in what seemed like a direct swipe at Greenwald/Guardian, Wikileaks (ie, Assange) recently tweeted this:
Could there be division brewing amongst Snowden's handlers? Note the title of the linked article: "Fuck the Guardian." The whole point of it seems to be that the author is mad at Greenwald/Guardian for their slow walk-out of the Snowden leaks (one of the main reasons Assange threatened to sue The Guardian during the roll-out of the Manning leaks).

I suppose we'll have to continue reading this mystery novel to find out. But let it be noticed that Mr. Greenwald just might be having a really bad awful week. First his partner was detained while shuffling Snowden documents between he and Poitras. It is now clear that whatever Miranda was carrying is in the hands of the UK (and likely US) government. And yesterday he finds out that he's losing control of this narrative about the Snowden leaks.

Those of us who have watched how Greenwald reacts are aware that when his narrative is falling apart, he attacks. So it comes as no surprise that people like Joshua Foust are currently on the receiving end of his smears. And when in doubt, he's always good for a ridiculous conspiracy theory about how government is leaking false flag ops against itself.

I'd suggest that Greenwald jumped the shark years ago. Today he managed to jump sharknado. LOL


  1. I saw that tweet yesterday and followed the link and thought, hmm, Julian Assange attacking the Guardian/Greenwald/Snowden axis?

    Who'd win: Assange or Greenwald. Should be entertaining to watch, but, of course, it will lead us no closer to learning what is actually going on at the NSA and/or how it should be reformed.

  2. I said elsewhere that given their personalities, sooner or later Assange and Greenwald were going to be in a fight for the spotlight. It looks like it's happening a little earlier than I thought, but the potential for entertainment is going to be remarkable. I need to invest in popcorn stocks.

  3. Another possibility... The Guardian leaked it to the Independent. One newspaper standing by another.

  4. I wondered why Glennn spelt his name with two n's. It's just short for Glennado. Milt Shook's got it all laid out for ya: