Naomi Wolf is taking a lot of flak this week from supporters of alleged NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden for her suggestion (via Facebook post) that Snowden may “not be who he purports to be” and that his “emphases seem to serve an intelligence/police state objective, rather than to challenge them.” The upshot, of course, being that perhaps Snowden isn’t blowing a real whistle against the state, but instead disseminating disinformation on the state’s behalf.
One particularly nasty response, from David Lindorff at Counterpunch, charges Wolf with “wild-eyed speculation,” “baseless and libelous accusations” and — oh, the humanity! — “self-promotion and grandstanding.”
On the one hand, I’m not sure that Wolf is really on to anything here. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a whistleblower really is someone who’s seen too much and thinks the world needs to see it too.
On the other hand, I don’t find Wolf’s musings outrageous. A bit paranoid, perhaps, but who can blame her? We’re well past the point where it’s become obvious that yes, they really ARE out to get us. ,,,
I don't see it. I'm not saying that it isn't possible that US intelligence agencies fabricate news for their own ends, but does the government really need to make an example of what happens to whistleblowers in this way? Is this the most logical way to do it if that were the case? Wolf's evidence is very weak. Basically, her strongest argument is that it could happen. Sounding prepared in your first interview to leak classified information doesn't seem suspicious to me. Maybe Wolf is the plant. :)
Potential whistleblowers are more than aware of what happens to them. This doesn't pass the smell test to me. Under Naomi's hypotheses, the intended audience for this government sponsored charade isn't yet adequately aware of the message they are trying to send. In reality, they are the ones tying to educate everybody else on the very message imo. There is a long history of this, but if you're not familiar and/or you lack the ability to soak in the obvious, you still don't have to look any further than Assange.but does the government really need to make an example of what happens to whistleblowers in this way?
She makes some valid points. This has been extremely well executed from a media standpoint. It looks and feels "slick." But is there really a strong precedence for what a whistleblower should behave like? Could it not just be that it's a new era, when young people are more media savvy? Could it be that Snowden is mentioning his girlfriend, house, earnings etc because he's a bit narcicistic and not as a way to throw the media in that direction? I read Wolf's piece and I would recommend others do too.
Link to her post: https://www.facebook.com/notes/naomi-wolf/my-creeping-concer... Link to her follow-up post: https://www.facebook.com/notes/naomi-wolf/some-aspects-of-sn...