NSA Bombshell Case not standing up to scrutiny

[TexasTiger 13,559]

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/nsa-story-falling-apart-under-scrutiny-key-facts-turning-out-to-be-inaccurate/

[AURaptor 1,137]

Seems someone is towing the party line.

[DKW 86 7,727]

Seems someone is towing the party line.

Wow, another third level blogger reciting the talking points. i am so impressed...not. <eyeroll>

[homersapien 11,812]

Seems someone is towing the party line.

Wow, another third level blogger reciting the talking points. i am so impressed...not. <eyeroll>

Well, it's hardly surprising you would call facts you don't care for "talking points". :-\

[autigeremt 6,970]

Seems someone is towing the party line.

Wow, another third level blogger reciting the talking points. i am so impressed...not. <eyeroll>

Well, it's hardly surprising you would call facts you don't care for "talking points". :-\

The facts haven't come out yet. Have you ever thought of that?

[homersapien 11,812]

Seems someone is towing the party line.

Wow, another third level blogger reciting the talking points. i am so impressed...not. <eyeroll>

Well, it's hardly surprising you would call facts you don't care for "talking points". :-\

The facts haven't come out yet. Have you ever thought of that?

Well, you could be right.

Meanwhile, how about pointing out the substantive lies in that piece, even if just suspect?

[autigeremt 6,970]

Seems someone is towing the party line.

Wow, another third level blogger reciting the talking points. i am so impressed...not. <eyeroll>

Well, it's hardly surprising you would call facts you don't care for "talking points". :-\

The facts haven't come out yet. Have you ever thought of that?

Well, you could be right.

Meanwhile, how about pointing out the substantive lies in that piece, even if just suspect?

When I see more than the opinion of a blogger crunched in with some "news" I'll respond. When bloggers go into opinion using the news of others as a backdrop how can you actually give them credit for something other than what they read, provided opinion of, and typed on their website? Let us see where this leads before we accept one story over another. The actions of this government provides a lot of circumstantial evidence over the last 10 plus years but I'm going to see where this leads before I say for a FACT this or that took place.

[homersapien 11,812]

Seems someone is towing the party line.

Wow, another third level blogger reciting the talking points. i am so impressed...not. <eyeroll>

Well, it's hardly surprising you would call facts you don't care for "talking points". :-\

The facts haven't come out yet. Have you ever thought of that?

Well, you could be right.

Meanwhile, how about pointing out the substantive lies in that piece, even if just suspect?

When I see more than the opinion of a blogger crunched in with some "news" I'll respond. When bloggers go into opinion using the news of others as a backdrop how can you actually give them credit for something other than what they read, provided opinion of, and typed on their website? Let us see where this leads before we accept one story over another. The actions of this government provides a lot of circumstantial evidence over the last 10 plus years but I'm going to see where this leads before I say for a FACT this or that took place.

I wasn't referring to opinion, I was referring to "substantive" facts. Here are some examples:

1. Google, Facebook, Dropbox, Yahoo, Microsoft, Paltalk, AOL and Apple all announced in separate statements that not only were they unaware of any PRISM program, but they also confirmed that there’s no way the government had infiltrated the privately-owned servers maintained by these companies. Furthermore, Google wrote, “Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday.” Google also described how it will occasionally and voluntarily hand over user data to the government, but only after it’s been vetted and scrutinized by Google’s legal team.

2. Business Insider reported that the Washington Post had revised its article. The article no longer reported that the tech companies “knowingly” cooperated with PRISM. But, more importantly, the phrase “track a person’s movements and contacts over time” in the article’s lede was revised to “track foreign targets.”

3. As of Saturday, Greenwald, unlike the Washington Post, hadn’t corrected or revised his reporting to reflect the new information, and, in fact, Greenwald continued to defend his reporting on Twitter.

4. Meanwhile, TechCrunch‘s Josh Constine reported on Saturday, “[T]he NSA did not have direct access or any special instant access to data or servers at the PRISM targets, but instead had to send requests to the companies for the data.”

The above claims represent the substantive "facts" claimed by the article. Like you said, everything else was pretty much opinion. But those claims of fact are certainly not "talking points" which was my point.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Believe what you will. Be led down that path if you like. I won't be. I see this as a crossroads. You and I are on different spectrums.

[AURaptor 1,137]

For all the Wiki-leaks and NSA whistle blower stuff, we STILL don't know what/who crashed in Roswell, NM, back in 1947.