Obama will speak with Putin Friday; White House says Snowden "not a dissident"

“Mr. Snowden is not a human rights activist or dissident,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said today, adding that “providing a propaganda platform” for the National Security Agency leaker was “counter to the Russian government’s previous declarations of Russia’s neutrality.” In a previously-scheduled call, US President Barack Obama will speak with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.… READ THE REST

1 Like

I’m just a lowly I.T. guy. When I went to college, it wasn’t to study English. I have to say though, that if Snowden doesn’t meet the exact definition of what a dissident is, then I’m lost.


No no, you misunderstand. When the person leaking the information makes us look good, they’re a ‘dissident’. When it makes us look like laughable bumblef*cks, liars, or ‘bad’ in general, then they’re an ‘enemy combatant’, ‘turrorist’, ‘pedophile’, ‘marxist’, or whatever the scare-word of the age happens to be.


I oppose labeling people as dissidents.


If only I worked for the NSA, I could listen to that phone conversation.


Jesus H Christ. It shouldn’t come as any surprise at this point that Obama isn’t taking a principled stand against secrecy and surveillance, but I’d always thought he was savvy and pragmatic enough to not double down on a loosing bet like this. Just politically, going after Snowden is a horrible idea — he has the support of over half of the country for god’s sake. Being this strident just makes Obama seem like an out of touch martinet. Very disappointing.


This kind of statement always makes me wonder who they are talking to.

I mean, the administration has an interest and a desired outcome here (that I completely disagree with and am hugely disappointed in), but how does a statement like this advance their agenda?

He’s not a human rights activist or a dissident? That’s their text on this? Really?

I just don’t understand how that statement works even as coldhearted glinty-eyed realpolitik.


He’s not a dissident? Then why are they worried about his ‘propaganda’?


What gets me is that Russia is okay with keeping members of Pussy Riot in prison (because women aren’t supposed to protest, they’re supposed to be stay-at-home moms) away from their children, but they’re okay with letting Edward Snowden stay in their country. Please, someone explain how that makes sense.

1 Like

Time for a reboot of the whole meaning of ‘security’ and 'intelligence. Obama is failing on this one in every respect, and I am losing what little faith I had.

I’m sure he thinks his intentions are good, laudable even. But as with all well intentioned expansions of power, it isn’t the initiators who we need to worry about. It’s 10 years from now when Michelle Bachmann or some other proto-theocrat takes power and has all those tools at their disposal. It’s being abused under Obama, it will be downright ugly under the wrong successor. And Obama is doing everything in his power to enable that future despot. Moron.


It is sad that even with the support of half the country, he would still be easily convicted. The US judicial system is rigged, and Obama is acting like a tyrant.


It makes perfect sense. Putin wins in both cases.


You misunderstood. The President called him a “proper gander.”

1 Like

Yeah. He’s not causing problems for Russia, he’s giving them an excuse to rub the nose of the US government in it’s own shit.

Putin, and Russia, are much “If it helps me, it’s good, if it doesn’t, it’s bad”… and it seems, to be honest, like the USA isn’t much different.

Remember, the only thing that can protect a troublemaker is assuring someone in power that you’re making trouble for the OTHER guys, so it’s in their own best interest to protect you.

1 Like


Too bad Snowden isn’t a house Republican, then Obama would just fold and let him have his way.


Or, ‘narcissist’ - that’s pretty popular with plastic lawn salesmen.

Do a quick search using the name of your favourite modern dissident and that word.

I’d really like to have the President I voted for back.

I’d also genuinely like to know what’s happening in Obama’s head. It’s easy to imagine that he was always a cynical tyrant glibly lying to get into power, but I think he really meant what he said as a senator and on the campaign trail. Something since then has caused him to change his mind. I would give a lot to know what it was.


So do we have to return all the defectors who spilled their guts about the USSR’s secrets in the past?


Hmm, I wonder why Obama looks like an out-of-touch martinet??? It isn’t exactly a head scratcher.