Once Obama won and became president, Snowden came to dislike him intensely. He criticised the White House’s attempts to ban assault weapons. The lodestar in Snowden’s thinking, at this time and later, was the US constitution; in this case the second amendment and the right to bear arms. Snowden was unimpressed by affirmative action. He was also against social security, believing that individuals shouldn’t go running to the state for help, even in times of trouble.
A couple of users called him out on this, one posting: ‘Yeah! Fuck old people!’
TheTrueHOOHA responded with fury. He wrote: ‘You fucking retards… my grandmother is eighty fucking three this year and, you know what, she still supports herself as a goddamned hairdresser… maybe when you grow up and actually pay taxes, you’ll understand.’
Another topic made him even angrier. The Snowden of 2009 inveighed against government officials who leaked classified information to newspapers – the worst crime conceivable, in Snowden’s apoplectic view. In January of that year the New York Times published a report on a secret Israeli plan to attack Iran. It said that President Bush had ‘deflected’ a request from Israel for specialised bunker-busting bombs to carry out the risky mission. Instead Bush had told the Israelis he had authorised ‘new covert action’ to sabotage Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons programme.
The Times said its story was based on 15 months’ worth of interviews with current and former US officials, European and Israeli officials, other experts and international nuclear inspectors.
TheTrueHOOHA’s response, published by Ars Technica, is worth quoting in fulclass="underline"
<TheTrueHOOHA>
HOLY SHIT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/washington/11iran.html?_r=1&hp
<TheTrueHOOHA>
WTF NYTIMES
<TheTrueHOOHA>
Are they TRYING to start a war? Jesus christ they’re like wikileaks
<User19>
they’re just reporting, dude.
<TheTrueHOOHA>
They’re reporting classified shit
<User19>
Shrugs
<TheTrueHOOHA>
about an unpopular country surrounded by enemies already engaged in a war and about our interactions with said country regarding planning sovereignty violations of another country
you don’t put that shit in the NEWSPAPER
<User19>
Meh
<TheTrueHOOHA>
moreover, who the fuck are the anonymous sources telling them this?
<TheTrueHOOHA>
those people should be shot in the balls.
<TheTrueHOOHA>
‘But the tense exchanges also prompted the White House to step up intelligence-sharing with Israel and brief Israeli officials on new American efforts to subtly sabotage Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, a major covert program that Mr. Bush is about to hand off to President-elect Barack Obama.’
<TheTrueHOOHA>
HELLO? HOW COVERT IS IT NOW? THANK YOU
<User19>
Meh
<TheTrueHOOHA>
I wonder how many hundreds of millions of dollars they just completely blew.
<User19>
You’re over-reacting. It’s fine.
<TheTrueHOOHA>
It’s not an overreaction. They have a HISTORY of this shit
<User19>
with flowers and cake.
<TheTrueHOOHA>
these are the same people who blew the whole ‘we could listen to osama’s cell phone’ thing the same people who screwed us on wiretapping over and over and over again. Thank God they’re going out of business
<User19>
the NYT?
<TheTrueHOOHA>
Hopefully they’ll finally go bankrupt this year. yeah.
A few minutes later the chat continues:
<User19>
It’s nice they report on stuff.
<TheTrueHOOHA>
I enjoy it when it’s ethical reporting.
<TheTrueHOOHA>
political corruption, sure
<TheTrueHOOHA>
scandal, yes
<User19>
is it unethical to report on the government’s intrigue?
<TheTrueHOOHA>
VIOLATING NATIONAL SECURITY? no
<User19>
meh.
<User19>
national security.
<TheTrueHOOHA>
Um, YEEEEEEEEEEEES.
<TheTrueHOOHA>
that shit is classified for a reason
<TheTrueHOOHA>
it’s not because ‘oh we hope our citizens don’t find out’
<TheTrueHOOHA>
it’s because ‘this shit won’t work if iran knows what we’re doing.’
<User19>
Shrugs
<TheTrueHOOHA>
‘None would speak on the record because of the great secrecy surrounding the intelligence developed on Iran.’
<TheTrueHOOHA>
direct. quote.
<TheTrueHOOHA>
THEN WHY ARE YOU TALKING TO REPORTERS?!
<TheTrueHOOHA>
‘Those covert operations, and the question of whether Israel will settle for something less than a conventional attack on Iran, pose immediate and wrenching decisions for Mr. Obama.’
<TheTrueHOOHA>
THEY’RE NOT COVERT ANYMORE
<TheTrueHOOHA>
Oh you’ve got to be fucking kidding me. Now the NYTimes is going to determine our foreign policy?
<TheTrueHOOHA>
And Obama?
<TheTrueHOOHA>
Obama just appointed a fucking POLITICIAN to run the CIA!
<User11>
yes unlike every other director of CIA ever
<User11>
oh wait, no
<TheTrueHOOHA>
I am so angry right now. This is completely unbelievable.
The ‘fucking politician’ was Leon Panetta, appointed by Obama in 2009 despite his evident lack of intelligence background. The appointment was supposed to draw a line under the intelligence scandals of the Bush years – the renditions, the secret CIA prisons and the illegal wiretapping.
Snowden evidently knew of WikiLeaks, a niche transparency website whose story would later intersect with his own. But he didn’t like it. At this point, Snowden’s antipathy towards the New York Times was based on his opinion that ‘they are worse than Wikileaks’. Later, however, he would go on to accuse the paper of not publishing quickly enough and of sitting on unambiguous evidence of White House illegality. These are somewhat contradictory views.
Certainly Snowden’s anti-leaking invective seems stunningly at odds with his own later behaviour. But there is a difference between what the Times arguably did – reveal details of sensitive covert operations – and what Snowden would do in 2013. Snowden nowadays explains: ‘Most of the secrets the CIA has are about people, not machines and systems, so I didn’t feel comfortable with disclosures that I thought could endanger anyone.’