here is a link where laura poitras admits she pressured snowden to go on film
i have other issues with her as i see her as an idealogue which is low level thought... but this has to do with many convos i had with her on twitter regarding her blind devotion to assange
she has deleted her account on twitter @x7o so i would only be able to provide my side of the twitter convo but here you can look at some stuff here if you want
here is one highly redacted report from laura which i find particularly problematic because of the jeremy hammond case but overall its just not ok to align so much with the executive branch
she stated at ccc that they get a lot of complaints about the slowness of the information coming to the public regarding the snowden docs and glenn said they have asked eff to take on some of the task but eff declined so maybe they are doing better at at least trying to get others to work on it still there is a reason that wikileaks is open ... i mean that decision wasnt just out of nothing
++++++++++++++++++++++
i worked at democracy now where jeremy worked as well at the time he was kind still a correspondent (that was waining) so i didnt work directly in the office but there are issues regarding democracy now and the union they have there ... him and numerous others that worked there before me for years did not confront these issues ... i was part of a group that confronted the union issues there which partially remain unsolved from my current info
these are bizarre issues to hit when you are reporting on stories about walmart having issues with maltreatment of employees and not facing the issues of the very place reporting it ... so odd ...
i wont elaborate on all of this union stuff but i will say if it isnt clear why there is a capitalist corruption within this then whatever
i am not saying unions are so perfect but the issues there are just too much of a crossed line
people point fingers at the corrupt government then are corrupt in their own lives?
++++++++++
here is glenns iraq invasion support admitting not admitting post
preface issue:
"During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11. Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president's performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.
It is not desirable or fulfilling to realize that one does not trust one's own government and must disbelieve its statements, and I tried, along with scores of others, to avoid making that choice until the facts no longer permitted such logic.
Soon after our invasion of Iraq, when it became apparent that, contrary to Bush administration claims, there were no weapons of mass destruction, I began concluding, reluctantly, that the administration had veered far off course from defending the country against the threats of Muslim extremism. It appeared that in the great national unity the September 11 attacks had engendered, the administration had seen not a historically unique opportunity to renew a sense of national identity and cohesion, but instead a potent political weapon with which to impose upon our citizens a whole series of policies and programs that had nothing to do with terrorism, but that could be rationalized through an appeal to the nation's fear of further terrorist attacks."
Soon after our invasion of Iraq, when it became apparent that, contrary to Bush administration claims, there were no weapons of mass destruction, I began concluding, reluctantly, that the administration had veered far off course from defending the country against the threats of Muslim extremism. It appeared that in the great national unity the September 11 attacks had engendered, the administration had seen not a historically unique opportunity to renew a sense of national identity and cohesion, but instead a potent political weapon with which to impose upon our citizens a whole series of policies and programs that had nothing to do with terrorism, but that could be rationalized through an appeal to the nation's fear of further terrorist attacks."
he also discusses afghanistan in the preface... take a look at it for that info heres a link
let me know if you have questions