I saw that same show and I was similarly disappointed with it. However, my impression was that all of the guests and Maher himself were under-informed. Possib

I saw that same show and I was similarly disappointed with it. However, my impression was that all of the guests and Maher himself were under-informed. Possibly even misinformed because there were echoes of talking points "Snowden is neither a hero nor a traitor." "Hong Kong is, after-all, China," "Snowden is delusional," "Snowden is a publicity seeker" etc. Last week, when the story first broke, Maher was ambivalent about it and he justified his ambivalence by focusing on nuclear weapons - as in because nukes can kill so many people the risk is just too great so we need to do everything and anything to stop them. Obviously he didn't know enough about the situation to understand that dirty bombs are the only nukes that it is even plausible to consider being used by terrorists (rather than foreign governments) and that dirty bombs are all about the dirty and not so much the bomb - fallout over a couple of city blocks and not an explosion that could destroy a city hiroshima style. Still enough to kill hundreds, maybe thousands if an attacker gets everything just right, but not the existential threat that obliterating Manhattan would be. I'd like to see Greenwald on his show, Greenwald did a pretty good job of calling Maher on his BS regarding the arab spring the last time he was on there. Since he's right in the middle of this story I'm sure he'd do even better. The only "liberal" group I'm particularly disillusioned with is mediaite - everything I've seen from them on the topic has been despicably underhanded apologisms.