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. :)