On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 07:28 Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:
more proofs:here is a link where laura poitras admits she pressured snowden to go on filmi 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 assangeshe 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 wanthere 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 branchshe 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 infothese 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 whateveri am not saying unions are so perfect but the issues there are just too much of a crossed linepeople point fingers at the corrupt government then are corrupt in their own lives?++++++++++here is glenns iraq invasion support admitting not admitting postpreface 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."he also discusses afghanistan in the preface... take a look at it for that info heres a linklet me know if you have questionsOn Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:thanks for askingwe had a big argument on the list about it at one point but maybe it was more about glenn greenwald, jeremy scahill and pierre so the intercept did not come up for you as the targetmy distrust is about numerous things but primary about authoritarian capitalism and the capitalist nation building of the USApierre omidyar gave over 1 million dollars to usaid programs in the ukraine before the 'revolution'in case you dont know - usaid is a front group for the cia - they stomp around the globe and either utilize uprising activists or create them for their own use ie authoritarian capitalismif you need to know about that whole history of the cia then i highly recommend you look into the work of naomi klein - she is an economist based out of canada - there are tones of videos on the webs of her speaking her films - she writes books but sort of puts them to film- if you need me to point you directly to information from her let me know -but there are a lot of things the cia does and has done thru various front organizations like NED etcit is kind of like the whole thing with soros that supports a lot of activism that may seem great on the surface but there are serious issues his money supports which creates more problems but this is whole huge other thing having to do with russia and other things ... caspar bowden also had criticism of soros which will explain to you the deeper issues regarding fundingi said at the time and numerous times before i would never work for dick cheney making fly fishing lures which essentially means it is a difficulty to retain ethics while taking money from the corrupt comparmentalizing out that you personally didnt drop a bomb on a child is an argument of willful blindnessof course these are not black and white issues but there are levelsthe ideology that the USG engages/enforces is a horror - the powers are parasitic and plant parasites in the people and if you think that is not an issue for the living then i would urge you to educate yourself+++glenn greenwald wrote a book long ago whereby he claimed support for the iraqi invasion and afghani invasion after 9/11stating something strange like he trusts the US authorities to be doing the right thing or some crapthe profound lie of the connection to 9/11 and iraq didnt seem to be an issue for himif this wasnt enough to dissuade anyone from hailing his brain function he refuses to acknowledge this support of the invasion and apologize for it as if he never wrote such insanity+++jeremy scahill took a selfie with a murdered body in a morgue on a slab in mogadeshu for his little film dirty warsthis is unconscionableif someone thinks this is not unconscionable then they dont know enough about journalism human rights or respect for that matterhe as a journalist for me is highly compromised because of his attachment to authoritarian capitalism that he engages
+++laura poitras is a capitalisti have issues as a journalist with her being embedded with the military in the iraq invasion - which interestingly jeremy scahill was not embedded as there was a huge ethics breech for journalists that agreed to the embed at least in my realm of journalism which is as an activist journalisti think they held onto the snowden files for capitalist reasons moreover especially at the beginningfrom the files she has produced articles out of german press a lot and i am not sure americans are as aware of them but she retains high levels of redaction - wanted by the US government - which i find disgustingshe has admitted - on camera - to pressuring snowden numerous times to be filmed in hong kong and as he was under incredible pressure it cannot be stressed enough that this crosses a journalistic ethical lineprotection of the source was not even a thought it seems - there was i think an idea that thru laura's connection to assange snowden would have safe passage... excruciatingly naive...+++from many security people i have been told over and over > trust no one but i think it is really up to individuals to educate themselves regarding funding issues behind orginazations etc and make decisions for themselvesif you dont know a lot about journalistic manipulation i would urge you to look into the church committeeplease look into the subsequent 'blowback' of EO 12333 (known as twelve triple three) by ronald reaganOn Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:10 PM, Sean Lynch <seanl@literati.org> wrote:On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:05 AM Cari Machet <carimachet@gmail.com> wrote:the intercept will never fucking "step up" and fuck you for writing such propagandaCari, I've dug through my mail archives to try to figure out what it is you have against The Intercept, and while I can't claim to have closely read every hit for your name and "intercept," I have been unable to find any reason you've given for your hatred. I did see a mention of a friend in prison, which seems like it may be somehow related?I'm genuinely curious, because I don't have direct experience with anyone involved beyond their public reputations in relatively mainstream sources, so if there is a reason I should not be trusting them or Glenn Greenwald, it would be very helpful to know that. Of course, since I don't have any more reason to trust you than to trust Glenn, I'd appreciate anything you can provide that I can verify without too much effort.--Cari Machet7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187
NYC 646-436-7795
carimachet@gmail.com
AIM carismachet
Syria +963-099 277 3243
Amman +962 077 636 9407
Berlin +49 152 11779219
Reykjavik +354 894 8650
Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet>
Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the
addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this
information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without
permission is strictly prohibited.--Cari Machet7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187
NYC 646-436-7795
carimachet@gmail.com
AIM carismachet
Syria +963-099 277 3243
Amman +962 077 636 9407
Berlin +49 152 11779219
Reykjavik +354 894 8650
Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet>
Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the
addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this
information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without
permission is strictly prohibited.