The Real Snowden Story Isn't About The NSA. It's About China.

June 12th, 2012

by F. Grey Parker

Image via Policy Mic

The public discussion over the NSA'a massive and ongoing invasion of American privacy is essential. 

It's also long overdue. 

This is because not much of the information which 29 year old former intelligence contractor, Edward Snowden, has revealed is actually new.

More than seven years ago, USA Today broke the story:

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added."

The fact that we now know this longstanding program is called "PRISM" and we've seen the NSA's shoddy Power Point presentation outlining its purpose doesn't change the fact that this is old news.

Some are wondering where the outrage was seven years ago when those of us who tried to raise the alarm were savaged for doing so. Nevertheless, everyone seems to care all of a sudden. Welcome to the party, kids.

Snowden has become a hero to some, a villain to others, and the discussion is turning to whether or not the NSA revelations amount to treason. I tend to think they do not.

However, Snowden didn't just leak information regarding domestic security and privacy. Using the Guardian's Glenn Greenwald as his conduit, he also managed to reveal our nation's covert strategy to counter China's massive and ongoing cyber-attacks against our nation's business and government internet servers.

Following the lead of his source, Greenwald published this classified information at precisely the time President Obama was meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. What made this all the more jaw-dropping was the publicly announced agenda for this summit.

Via Reuters:

"Meeting at the luxurious Sunnylands estate near Palm Springs in California, Obama will seek Xi's assurance that he takes seriously accusations of growing Chinese cyber spying, including snooping on advanced U.S. weapons designs.

"All nations need to abide by international norms and affirm clear rules of the road," a senior U.S. official told reporters. "That's the backdrop to the discussions that the two presidents will have."

Instead of heading into this meeting with some advantage, Snowden ensured that our President was proceeding from a position of weakness.

The China leak was of no benefit to the American people. It was utterly unrelated to domestic privacy. It had no impact on our personal freedoms. But, it sure was a victory for the People's Republic.

When Snowden outed himself two days later, he did so from a hotel in Hong Kong.

The optics aren't just shady, they're shocking.

It appears that Edward Snowden may have ginned up new interest in an old story, however serious, in order to pave the way for the release of information that dramatically damages America's foreign policy.

Today, the AP reports:

"The former CIA employee who leaked top-secret information about U.S. surveillance programs said in a new interview in Hong Kong on Wednesday that he is not attempting to hide from justice here but hopes to use the city as a base to reveal wrongdoing."

So, he intends to continue leaking covert information.

It will be very interesting to see who actually benefits from this.

PRISM is a travesty and a violation of our basic principles. It must be stopped.

But Snowden is not only no hero, he may be something much worse.

Mitt Watch - The Man Without A Plan

July 1st, 2012

While everyone is justifiably preoccupied with the SCOTUS decision regarding the ACA in its potential political impact, it's worth remembering that the upcoming election is meant to select our Commander in Chief. On that count, we are still faced with a choice between Obama's frustrating pragmatism and absolute disaster.

Fred Kaplan writes:

"What is Romney’s position on drone strikes? What’s his position on Afghanistan? During the Republican debates, he once said that his position was not to negotiate with the Taliban but to defeat them. What does that mean? Does he want to keep tens of thousands of U.S. troops there after NATO’s 2014 deadline? To what end? Doing what? He also once said that military spending should consume at least 4 percent of gross domestic product. Obama’s most recent military budget ($525 billion, not counting the cost of the war in Afghanistan) amounts to 3 percent. So Romney intends to raise the budget by one-third, or by about $175 billion a year—by more than $1 trillion in the next six years. Where is he going to get the money? What’s he going to spend it on? No details. None.

Is Romney an extremist? Or, in keeping with the GOP approach to politics in general these days, has he simply calculated that it’s best not to agree with Obama on anything? Either way, one thing is clear: He is not a serious man."

You don't have to support Obama's foreign policy. You just have to be smart enough to reject its opposite. And vote accordingly.

The Real Threat Is Pakistan, cont...

Feb 28th, 2012

I have argued for some time that the already nuclear-armed nation of Pakistan is a far greater threat to our interests and international stability than Iran with a bomb could ever be. Here's more proof via RT:

"Senior officials in Pakistani military intelligence knew of Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts and arrangements for his safe house – that’s the implication of confidential Stratfor files disclosed by WikiLeaks. Pakistan has dismissed the allegations.

The leaked information from the rent-a-spy agency published on the WikiLeaks website on Monday shows that Osama bin Laden was in routine contact with several senior figures from Pakistan's military intelligence agency."

Unfortunately, the GOP seems to have little interest in this "ally." Discussions of foreign policy in that party's presidential "debates" devolved into little more than the candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, promising to drag us to war in Iran. The few mentions of U.S.-Pakistan relations there have been were ill-informed at best.

Santorum's Foreign Policy

Feb 9th, 2012

Daniel Larison let's him have it:

"Even though Santorum is far closer in his views to how Obama actually conducts foreign policy than Paul could ever be, he states those views with adversarial partisan contempt, which can be emotionally satisfying for voters opposed to Obama. That said, Santorum uses the usual talking points about Iran, for example, but then runs with them so far that no one outside of a limited circle of hawkish pundits and activists can listen to him without wincing. As Alex Massie said earlier, “he makes George W Bush’s record seem mild and benign,” which is what I’ve been saying for a while now. According to Santorum, Bush’s record was mostly all right, except that he thinks it wasn’t aggressive or bold enough. According to Santorum, Bush had a foreign policy that was too humble, and he aims to correct that." EMPHASIS HIS

The sudden Santorum Surge presents new and terrible risks for the establishment choice on these points. If Romney winds up at the convention without the necessary 1,144 delegates, as Philip Klein discussed yesterday, there is a distinct possibility that Mitt will have to adopt a number of Santorum's politically suicidal positions to appease the base. If the Super Delegates simply hand him the nomination, it will be ugly.

Condi Is Getting Nervous

Nov 21st, 2011

Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is expressing some alarm at the utter lack of foreign policy savvy being shown by the GOP hopefuls.

Perry Watch - Foreign Policy Nonsense

Sept 23rd, 2011

There isn't really an issue in foreign policy that should currently concern us more than the potential insecurity of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Except, of course, the prospect that a President Perry would have to deal with the situation. Gov. Perry has been legitimately savaged for his response to a question on that topic during last night's debate.


Kevin Drum writes that the answer was little more than a "Palinesque bit of word salad." I think this is unfair to Palin. So obtuse was his response that it should end his candidacy. First of all, Perry is wrong on the facts of our strategic arms agreements with India. Second of all, what the hell good does a "relationship" with India do in the event that the Taliban actually gains control of one or more warheads? Lastly, trying to score points with his party's old school hawks by bringing up arms sales to Taiwan simply made no damn sense.

One of Romney's advisors is quoted by the Weekly Standard as having described the statements as "completely unintelligible." That didn't stop Perry's biggest backer, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, from piling on in his defense

"You gotta have a relationship to know what’s going on. I’ve worked with the Pakistanis, and particularly in Pakistan you need a relationship, because the country’s a pretty unstable place, and it’s run by the army. You gotta know the guy that’s the head of the place."

Mkay. Except the "relationship" Perry discussed was with India.

Team Perry, mired in stunning yokelism, has no business running an American state much less the Armed Forces.