This is Greenwald's debunk of his support for the Iraq war?

[ProSense]

Glenn Greenwald Responds to Widespread Lies About Him (on Cato, Iraq War, and more)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more#

I supported the Iraq War and/or George Bush

These claim [sic] are absolutely false. They come from a complete distortion of the Preface I wrote to my own 2006 book, How Would a Patriot Act? That book - which was the first book devoted to denouncing the Bush/Cheney executive power theories as radical and lawless - was published a mere six months after I began blogging, so the the purpose of the Preface was to explain where I had come from, why I left my law practice to begin writing about politics, and what my political evolution had been..

The whole point of the Preface was that, before 2004, I had been politically apathetic and indifferent - except for the work I was doing on constitutional law. That's because, while I had no interest in the fights between Democrats and Republicans, I had a basic trust in the American political system and its institutions, such that I devoted my attention and energies to preventing constitutional violations rather than political debates. From the first two paragraphs:

I never voted for George W. Bush — or for any of his political opponents. I believed that voting was not particularly important. Our country, it seemed to me, was essentially on the right track. Whether Democrats or Republicans held the White House or the majorities in Congress made only the most marginal difference. . . .

I firmly believed that our democratic system of government was sufficiently insulated from any real abuse, by our Constitution and by the checks and balances afforded by having three separate but equal branches of government. My primary political belief was that both parties were plagued by extremists who were equally dangerous and destructive, but that as long as neither extreme acquired real political power, our system would function smoothly and more or less tolerably. For that reason, although I always paid attention to political debates, I was never sufficiently moved to become engaged in the electoral process. I had great faith in the stability and resilience of the constitutional republic that the founders created.

When the Iraq War was debated and then commenced, I was not a writer. I was not a journalist. I was not politically engaged or active. I never played any role in political debates or controversies. Unlike the countless beloved Democrats who actually did support the war - including Obama's Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - I had no platform or role in politics of any kind.

I never once wrote in favor of the Iraq War or argued for it in any way, shape or form. Ask anyone who claims that I "supported" the Iraq War to point to a single instance where I ever supported or defended it in any way. There is no such instance. It's a pure fabrication.

At the time, I was basically a standard passive consumer of political news: I read The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Atlantic: the journals that I thought high-end consumers of news would read and which I assumed were generally reliable for getting the basic truth.What I explained in the Preface was that I had major objections to the Iraq war when it was being debated:

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.

Nonetheless, because of the general faith I had in political and media institutions, I assumed - since both political parties and media outlets and journalists from across the ideological spectrum were united in support of the war - that there must be some valid basis to the claim that Saddam posed a threat. My basic trust in these institutions neutralized the objections I had and led me to passively acquiesce to what was being done ("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.&quot .

Like many people, I became radicalized by those early years of the Bush administration. The Preface recounts that it was the 2002 due-process-free imprisonment of US citizen Jose Padilla and the 2003 Iraq War that caused me to realize the full extent of the government's radicalism and the media's malfeasance: "I developed, for the first time in my life, a sense of urgency about the need to take a stand for our country and its defining principles."

As I recount in the Preface, I stopped practicing law and pursued political writing precisely because those people who had an obligation to act as adversarial checks on the Bush administration during the start of the war on civil liberties and the run-up to the Iraq War - namely, Congress, courts, and the media - were profoundly failing to fulfill that obligation.

I wasn't a journalist or government official during these radical power abuses and the run-up to the Iraq War, and wasn't working in a profession supposedly devoted to serving as watchdog over government claims and abuses. I relied on those people to learn what was going on and to prevent extremism. But I quickly concluded that those who held those positions in politics and journalism were failing in their duties. Read the last six paragraphs of the Preface: I started writing about politics to bring light to these issues and to try to contribute to a real adversarial force against the Bush administration and its blind followers.

It is true that, like 90% of Americans, I did support the war in Afghanistan and, living in New York, believed the rhetoric about the threat of Islamic extremism: those were obvious mistakes. It's also true that one can legitimately criticize me for not having actively opposed the Iraq War at a time when many people were doing so. Martin Luther King, in his 1967 speech explaining why his activism against the Vietnam War was indispensable to his civil rights work, acknowledged that he had been too slow to pay attention to or oppose the war and that he thus felt obligated to work with particular vigor against it once he realized the need ("Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam&quot .

I've often spoken about the prime benefit of writing about political matters full-time: namely, it enables you to examine first-hand sources and not have to rely upon media or political mediators when forming beliefs. That process has been and continues to be very eye-opening for me.

Like most people who do not work on politics or journalism full-time, I had to rely back then on standard political and media venues to form my political impressions of the world. When I first began writing about politics, I had a whole slew of conventional political beliefs that came from lazy ingestion of the false and misleading claims of these conventional political and media sources. Having the time to examine political realities first-hand has led me to realize how many of those former beliefs I held were based on myth or worse, and I've radically changed how I think about a whole slew of issues as a result of that re-examination.

The purpose of the Preface was to publicly explain that evolution. Indeed, the first sentence of this Preface was this quote from Abraham Lincoln: "I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday." When I still trusted and relied upon the claims of the political and media class - when I was basically apolitical and passive - I tacitly accepted all sorts of views which I've come to see are warped and misleading. I've talked often about this process and am proud of this evolution. I have zero interest in hiding it or concealing it. Quite the contrary: I want readers to know about it. That's why I wrote the Preface.

But anyone using this Preface to claim I was a "supporter" of the Iraq War is simply fabricating. At worst, I was guilty of apathy and passivity. I did nothing for or against it because I assumed that those in positions to exercise adversarial scrutiny - in journalism and politics - were doing that. It's precisely my realization of how profoundly deceitful and failed are American political and media institutions that motivated me to begin working on politics, and it's those realizations which continue to motivate me now.

Think about this claim from above:

I never once wrote in favor of the Iraq War or argued for it in any way, shape or form. Ask anyone who claims that I "supported" the Iraq War to point to a single instance where I ever supported or defended it in any way. There is no such instance. It's a pure fabrication.

At the time, I was basically a standard passive consumer of political news: I read The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Atlantic: the journals that I thought high-end consumers of news would read and which I assumed were generally reliable for getting the basic truth.What I explained in the Preface was that I had major objections to the Iraq war when it was being debated:

He claims he never wrote in support of the war and that he was "a standard passive consumer of political news" who thought "high-end consumers of news" was "reliable."

Really? That's intended to debunk the claim he supported the war? He was clueless and gullible?

From the preface Greenwald links to.

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.

<...>

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.

<...>

The 9/11 attacks were not the first time our nation has had to face a new and amoral enemy. Throughout our history, we have vanquished numerous enemies at least as strong and as threatening as a group of jihadist terrorists without having the president seize the power to break the law. As a nation, we have triumphed over a series of external enemies and overcome internal struggles, and we have done so not by abandoning our core principles in the name of fear but by insisting on an adherence to our fundamental political values.

So if the war was a legitimate defense against the "threats of Muslim extremism," it would have been OK?

Maybe this explains why he's so touchy about other people supporting President Obama.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=95092

Afghanistan and Iraq wars and Citizens United?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100293141

[ucrdem]

1. Translation: I was for it before I was against it and I was absolutely NEVER for it.

I'm starting to see why he washed out as an attorney.

[Progressive dog]

9. +1 nt

[Whisp]

62. Another translation: Lie like A Bagger

It works!

[BlueCaliDem]

64. Exactly! It was also in one of my posts, pointing out that fact

but I got angry responses before it was hidden, using a weak argument that I was a "homophobe" because the GeeGee coven just decided I was based on their own opinion.

However, one response was fairly quick before the GeeGee Clan decided to alert and almost hide the post:

Actually he was 'for' Obama, but don't let that stop you, you're on a roll.

As another poster rightfully pointed out, there's NO evidence whatsoever that GeeGee was "for" Obama. But ample evidence he was FOR Bush - something that poster, of course, wouldn't address. Is it then so hard for a rational person to believe that he was NOT for President Obama? Especially after his FireDogLake-style of attacking the president instead of Republicans?

[ucrdem]

69. Great post. Still up too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3128883

[BlueCaliDem]

87. Thanks, ucrdem.

But the GeeGee Clan was able to hide three other posts of mine, attributing homophobia to me, which was a patently false accusation.

I've posted extensively on DU about my disappointment that Prop 8 appeared to go down in CA. I was devastated when it did because I not only fought to defeat Prop 8, standing at the street corners with my daughter and her gay and lesbian friends, holding up signs, gathering voters to convince them to vote against it, but also the fact that I come from the Netherlands, the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage, and I have a gay brother who is happily married to his husband for nearly a decade. There was no homophobia intended on my part. Not even close. I was referring to his initials since the "i" in the Netherlands is pronounced "ee". But that didn't matter to them.

Unfortunately, there are enough GeeGee fans who will label people whatever they want and then alert and get their posts hidden and THEN continue to respond to it while I can't respond back. Some even launched into personal attacks in blatant violation of the DU ToS, but that's forgiven because it's against someone who they don't agree with.

But thank you for your support, ucrdem. I really appreciate it. I've decided I'm going to put an ignore on all of them. I don't need to read their glorifying posts of the man who would rather see Republicans in Congress and the WH.

[ucrdem]

102. And likewise, BlueCaliDem!

We get it. They don't.


p.s. sometimes I think what happens here doesn't amount to a hill of beans, but then again, it might.

[BlueCaliDem]

105. It's clear that they don't.

But I believe your assessment that what happens here doesn't amount to a hill of beans is correct. I spoke with my 21 year old daughter just now about GeeGee, and she asked, Glenn-who? And she and her attorney boss are very active in politics! Especially her boss, who is a diehard Liberal Democrat who has actually met President Obama and did million-dollar fundraisers for him here in California. He says that Obama is a very intelligent man who deeply and genuinely cares about this country and the plight of the vulnerable people in this country.

This man is an excellent judgment of character {has a success rate of 93%}. He's met with Duhbya for about two hours and believes he's nothing but a puppet for people like the Koch Bros, and has zero brains {this man, himself, has a 190 IQ, a masters in law, has a networth of over $5 billion}. Oh, and he loathes the far-left as much as he loathes Republicans because he says they're no different.

I think we're in good company.

[ucrdem]

112. Now that's music to my ears!

Thanks BlueCaliDem, and please keep 'em coming!

[BlueCaliDem]

194. Your posts are like breaths of fresh air

and I will do my darnedest to keep 'em coming, ucrdem. And just so you know . . . . . . you rock!

[Hekate]

190. ~~*~~

to you

[BlueCaliDem]

193. Thanks, Hekate!

I really appreciate the thumbs up after a day like yesterday, so your post and that of ucrdem are like breaths of fresh air.

[Hissyspit]

109. You would be amazed at what I "get."

[progressoid]

128. Sounds like a lot of our Democratic leadership at that time as well.

And 72% of America.

[baldguy]

2. It's easy for a person to contradict negative assertions against him

When he contradicts himself.

[ucrdem]

3. Kind of like, "I never took a dime from CATO and I made much more money working for the ACLU."

Okay Glenn. . .

[Hissyspit]

113. He never said he didn't take a dime from CATO. More bullshit

from you.

In seven-plus years of political writing, I have written a grand total of twice for Cato: the first was a 2009 report on the success of drug decriminalization in Portugal, and the second was a 2010 online debate in which I argued against former Bush officials about the evils of the surveillance state.

That's the grand total of all the work I ever did for or with Cato in my life. The fees for those two papers and that one speech were my standard writing and speaking fees.

[SidDithers]

4. Greenwald is a clown...nt

Sid

[Scurrilous]

5. He wanted Bush to succeed so much he pretends he did..

"...the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan.."

Does that count as a lie? Or am I too authoritarian to see the truth?

[noamnety]

6. Thank you for providing this valuable information.

Now I support having my phone calls recorded.

[LondonReign2]

18. Indeed

Greenwald once supported a bad position? THEN I GUESS IT'S OK FOR MY GOVERNMENT TO VIOLATE THE 4TH AMENDMENT.

[ProSense]

24. Here's some

"Thank you for providing this valuable information."

...more "valuable information": http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3126302

Notice how the OP I responded to sank like a rock?

[Galraedia]

161. Your phone calls aren't being recorded.

NSA collects meta-data, not voice recordings.

[noamnety]

164. If they were recording the conversations

you wouldn't know, because it would be classified, right?

So what's the basis for your belief?

[Galraedia]

165. Because there's no point to it.

Can you imagine the amount of resources it would take to listen into everyone's phone calls? It's an impossible task. Not to mention boring and completely inefficient.

[They_Live]

199. That's why they just have the phone companies do the recording.

no has time to listen to all that, true. But why not record it all and use your meta-data as a guide map when you do want to locate a particular conversation.

[Cha]

183. Yeah, about those phone calls.. You're still in the ignorant hole you've always been in. nm

[burnodo]

7. So you're questioning Greenwald for doing exactly what the Democratic party did?

John Kerry "I'll kill the terrorists"

IWR support

Not questioning the official Bush propaganda line.

I protested the Iraq war, especially considering the national election had been stolen not two years before. You condemn Greenwald because he did pretty much exactly what the Democratic party establishment did?

[ProSense]

11. I didn't support the Iraq war.

"I protested the Iraq war, especially considering the national election had been stolen not two years before. You condemn Greenwald because he did pretty much exactly what the Democratic party establishment did? "

So did I, and right around the time Greenwald believed this (from the OP) :

"I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration."

There were Democrats calling out Bush for his lies. Kerry condemned Bush the day of the invasion and two week into the war, called for regime change in this country. He pissed off the RW.

Still, are you comparing Greenwald to politicians who you claim supported the war?

I mean, that's not a debunk.

[burnodo]

16. No Democrat did anything to stop the war

And I don't care if you were against it, the people you support balls to the wall supported the damned war.

You're trying to put a stink on Greenwald by ignoring your own complicity in what you accuse him of doing.

[ProSense]

26. "I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration."

Guess who?

[burnodo]

37. If Democrats had "abandoned trust in Bush" why did they support the war?

[Comrade Grumpy]

116. Finish the quote:

Greenwald cited what he saw then as Bush administration successes, then added "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."

He sounds like a typical, uninvolved American. Which is what he was at the time of the Iraq invasion.

[ProSense]

118. The entire quote is in the OP. n/t

[ucrdem]

39. Oh good grief. Did you hear that on Democracy Now?

That show has gone full rat and including its cast of beloved "leftists," beloved by Infowars that is.

[burnodo]

41. Democrats are just as responsible for that war as Republicans

whether you like that or not

Of course, you were probably a big supporter of the invasion.

[ucrdem]

43. What you actually said was "No Democrat did anything to stop the war."

And that isn't true as I hope you well know.

[burnodo]

47. Could you point out anything any Democrat did to stop the war?

[whatchamacallit]

52. And that ended that.

[ucrdem]

60. Sorry to disappoint but thoughtful answers take a few minutes.

You'd be surprised.

[ucrdem]

58. Watch and learn grasshopper:

Sen. Edward Kennedy's Iraq Speech at the National Press Club:

And Teddy is just one of many Democrats in both houses who voted against the IWR in 2003.

[MADem]

45. Gee Gee's problem isn't that he was hornswaggled, it's that he denigrates others who were

hornswaggled, and holds himself out to be better, smarter, wiser and more pure than them.

All while taking money from the Koch Brothers, too!

It's not the positions he takes, it's the hypocrisy he exhibits.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

8. Attacking the messenger, again with distortions of his actual positions, because you don't like MSG

how typical, predictable, revealing, and deceitful.


Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of the news that Tyranny is coming!

[ProSense]

12. Greenwald's own words are "distortions"?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

29. Not at all, just her charecterizations of them are.

In fact I am glad she posts them as I am sure DUers will actually read them and come to their own conclusions.

[ucrdem]

15. What ProSense doesn't like is tea. nt

[Progressive dog]

23. Another cute picture of Paul Revere

as he gallops toward Hong Kong.

[Bobbie Jo]

31. ROFL

[MADem]

49. Now that's an ultimate DUZy...! nt

[Whisp]

76. HA!

[Iliyah]

110. LOL lol lol lol lol

I truly think all of this is political. GOPers know that they may lose in 2014, especially in Texas. The 5 justices know as well. Don't think that Kennedy voted to strike DOMA was a constitutional reason. Gutting VRA was purely political just like allowing for Citizen's United. The 1% have spent big bucks in securing a corporate nation and damn the 99%.

I still think Greenwald is a paid political hack for the RW or better yet, Ron Paul's groups. Get enough people to not vote or vote against their own interest is the point of then NSA leaks. All that so far is leaked is old ass news. What angers me is leaks regarding security information that may hurt operatives in other countries and leave open attacks on the US.

[flamingdem]

149. Duzy!

Late to the party but laughing

[treestar]

160. that thing takes up a lot of bandwidth!

[JoePhilly]

35. Oh no, not THIS nonsense again. Stop, or I shall mock you a 2nd time.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

50. That is all you ever got... lame, childish 'mock' to try and shut down discussion

Sorry, but that weak typical BS doesn't work on me, I will post my opinions freely, along with the rest of DU, you included, without concern of weak, childish sniping from the cheap seats.

Good day.

[JoePhilly]

54. You aren't discussing anything.

Probably why you had to pull the Paul Revere picture from your prior OP.

[cali]

89. Lord knows, I tangle with the op, but there was nothing deceitful about the op

except for Greenwald's own words.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

101. I disagree. Trying to claim that he supports, Bush, the Iraq war, the Carlye group, is deciteful

As it is not true, and in fact it is just the opposite... most of the smears of GG by this poster, and others try to paint him as somebody he is clearly not, a RW, elitist supporting, non-journalist... it doesn't get more deceitful than that, trying to paint someone as the complete opposite of what they are.

And can you please point to what words GG is being deceitful on?

Thank you

[BumRushDaShow]

140. Paul Revere? WTF?

Was that out of Caribou Barbie's book?

[Union Scribe]

10. You have lost.

Get over it.

[ProSense]

14. I "lost"?

What did I lose?

President Obama won re-election.

"Get over it."

[Union Scribe]

25. You have lost.

And you can post all the smear jobs and laughing smileys (we know you are not laughing) you want, and you will, but you can't alter this issue now. It's beyond your low-level outrage-control tactics. It's global. No spin will make it go away.

[ProSense]

36. LOL!

"You have lost. And you can post all the smear jobs and laughing smileys (we know you are not laughing) you want, and you will, but you can't alter this issue now. It's beyond your low-level outrage-control tactics. It's global. No spin will make it go away."

Is that why you're here trying to attack me? I mean, why not just ignore me?

....

[Union Scribe]

44. Consider it a service to all of DU

The more time of yours I spend, the fewer awful OPs you'll have time to post.

[ProSense]

63. Are you

"The more time of yours I spend, the fewer awful OPs you'll have time to post."

...saying you're obssessed with me?

Good to know.

[Union Scribe]

75. No I'm obsessed with DU

You're just splattered all over it, as unavoidable as dust. But what they say is true - you're quite different on the weekends.

[ProSense]

78. LOL! n/t

[Progressive dog]

20. Who did win the Presidency

and why does it upset you?

[Union Scribe]

28. You should let ProSense handle the "clever" retorts.

Especially if you're just going to repeat her.

[Progressive dog]

57. I liked it so well, it bore repeating NT

[burnodo]

21. lost it

more like

[Vinnie From Indy]

13. Your posts remind of the movie Rainman

Your fixation is quite a thing to behold!

[ProSense]

19. Hey

"Your posts remind of the movie Rainman Your fixation is quite a thing to behold!"

...speaking of "fixation," I'm still LMAO of at this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023087676

[Vinnie From Indy]

22. You know what?

You have finally won me over!

I, like another poster upthread, give in and now accept the total surveillance state and the demise of the 4th Amendment. Your endless posts of slime and smear and misdirection have finally and completely eliminated my concern over these programs. Well done!

Cheers!

[ProSense]

30. LOL!

[Vinnie From Indy]

32. I guess we can add gracious in victory to your resume as well!

Cheers!

[ProSense]

38. Says the person who posts nothing but personal attacks.

I invite you to start another thread calling me out.

[Vinnie From Indy]

53. Nope! Not gonna do it!

As I stated above, you win! Your relentless attacks on Snowden and Greenwald have turned the tide. You have won! I am completely at ease with private contractors and the US Government collecting and archiving every bit of electronic communication on the planet. I am quite sure that in the future when these programs are used for the personal and political goals of those that wield them that it will all be for the best. You have taught me to learn how to love the total surveillance state and the further erosion of the Bill of Rights. As I sit here now, I wonder how I could have ever been so concerned with such programs knowing the things about Snowden and Greenwald that you have so graciously spammed on this forum. I will fully support any future efforts to have the name "Prosense" etched into the history of this great nation and I will even go so far as to recommend that surveyors get busy now to determine the most visible spot on Mount Rushmore for you likeness. Future generations should be made aware of and venerate your contributions to freedom, justice and the American way. You are an icon without peer in regard to re-educating those of us that had the quaint notion that the Constitution was more than just a piece of paper. I see now how foolish I was and I vow to assist you in convincing others to abandon their faith in misguided ideas about the rule of law. Well done!

Cheers!

[ProSense]

56. Good,

As I stated above, you win! Your relentless attacks on Snowden and Greenwald have turned the tide. You have won! I am completely at ease with private contractors and the US Government collecting and archiving every bit of electronic communication on the planet. I am quite sure that in the future when these programs are used for the personal and political goals of those that wield them that it will all be for the best. You have taught me to learn how to love the total surveillance state and the further erosion of the Bill of Rights. As I sit here now, I wonder how I could have ever been so concerned with such programs knowing the things about Snowden and Greenwald that you have so graciously spammed on this forum. I will fully support any future efforts to have the name "Prosense" etched into the history of this great nation and I will even go so far as to recommend that surveyors get busy now to determine the most visible spot on Mount Rushmore for you likeness. Future generations should be made aware of and venerate your contributions to freedom, justice and the American way. You are an icon without peer in regard to re-educating those of us that had the quaint notion that the Constitution was more than just a piece of paper. I see now how foolish I was and I vow to assist you in convincing others to abandon their faith in misguided ideas about the rule of law. Well done!

...because the personal attack was pathetic, and the above is quite lame.

[Vinnie From Indy]

65. Hey! When are we going to start smearing and sliming

Thomas Drake and William Binney? I am quite sure that we can dig up something on those guys too! There is no reason that we can't throw these guys into the grist mill is there? I mean c'mon, what kind of name is Binney anyway? Any guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

cheers!

[ProSense]

77. Does that

"When are we going to start smearing and sliming Thomas Drake and William Binney? "

..."we" mean you're considering it after this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023087676

I mean, the hypocrisy!

[Vinnie From Indy]

96. I'm totally with you now Prosense!

C'mon boss! Surely you have something on these guys as well. How in the world can we let Thomas and Binney run around saying many of the same things that Snowden has revealed?

Please forgive me! I just realized that you undoubtedly have a grand plan and that it just isn't time yet for the Binney/Thomas phase. I will defer to your expertise in these matters and try not to be the too eager new convert. Again, please forgive my impertinent questions. It is just that I feel re-energized and renewed now that I have seen the light.

You just let me know when it is time to start smearing those guys and I will be right there with you on the front lines. I may need some time anyway to get my arm back into feces throwing condition. I wouldn't want to let down the cause by getting injured because I didn't train.

Cheers!

[OilemFirchen]

137. Binney again?

Binney: Certainly he performed a really great public service to begin with by exposing these programs and making the government in a sense publicly accountable for what they’re doing. At least now they are going to have some kind of open discussion like that.

But now he is starting to talk about things like the government hacking into China and all this kind of thing. He is going a little bit too far. I don’t think he had access to that program. But somebody talked to him about it, and so he said, from what I have read, anyway, he said that somebody, a reliable source, told him that the U.S. government is hacking into all these countries. But that’s not a public service, and now he is going a little beyond public service.

So he is transitioning from whistleblower to a traitor.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/

[Vinnie From Indy]

158. Woo Hoo! Now that's the spirit!

So, we now that we have started calling Binney a traitor, what about Thomas? We can't leave him unslimed can we? Where is Prosense? I need some guidance here! She has become my Yoda!
Cheers!

[BklnDem75]

180. Did you read the quote? Binney is referring to Snowden.

Q: There's a question being debated whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor.

Binney: Certainly he performed a really great public service to begin with by exposing these programs and making the government in a sense publicly accountable for what they're doing. At least now they are going to have some kind of open discussion like that.

But now he is starting to talk about things like the government hacking into China and all this kind of thing. He is going a little bit too far. I don't think he had access to that program. But somebody talked to him about it, and so he said, from what I have read, anyway, he said that somebody, a reliable source, told him that the U.S. government is hacking into all these countries. But that's not a public service, and now he is going a little beyond public service.

So he is transitioning from whistle-blower to a traitor.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/

[OilemFirchen]

182. That was Binney discussing Snowden.

Kinda fucks with your narrative, huh?

[Progressive dog]

17. Good research

[Hissyspit]

27. Oh, for Christ's sake, give it up.

Many of us have known this for years.

At least he wasn't in Congress voting for it like...

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/15100-democrats-share-the-blame-for-tragedy-of-iraq-war

http://americablog.com/2013/03/in-memoriam-the-iraq-war-how-they-voted-in-the-senate-why-you-should-care.html

YEAs — 77
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

[ProSense]

33. Greenwald is not a politician, and no I will not "give it up."

I know having to stare at Greenwald's own words is uncomfortable for some, but there they are.

[Hissyspit]

42. I'm not uncomfortable with his words.

It's hypocritical repetetive flinging of any irrelevant shit anyone can find, I have a problem with.

[ProSense]

46. No,

"It's hypocritical repetetive flinging of any irrelevant shit anyone can find, I have a problem with."

...it's the fact that anyone dare calls out Greenwald that you "have a problem with."

[MADem]

55. Indeed...the hypocrite who is flinging shit here is Greenwald. That's what's bugging some!

And you have 'the noive' to point it out...how dare you!

[Hissyspit]

66. Wrong.

[progressoid]

125. And we'll soon see your posts condemning these people too then....

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

[L0oniX]

73. ^^^this^^^

[progressoid]

121. +1

[woo me with science]

34. You are the one with the consistency problem.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2461323

ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

Greenwald is right. Snowden is considered a great threat, and that is why he must be smeared and destroyed.

[ProSense]

40. Can't quit

being disingenuous, huh: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122617

Do you stand by this post, Prosense?

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't be changed to make that legal.

ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

Yup, stand 100 percent behind it.

Ever heard of the PAA: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023026724

By all means, go on pretending you never received a response.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122942
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3133739
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3125366
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122700
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122561
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3133739
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3133751

You know I'm going to post this everytime you post your failed gotcha, don't you?

[woo me with science]

48. People aren't that stupid, Prosense.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2461323

ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

[ProSense]

51. You're right, woo me with science.

You got pwned!

[Hissyspit]

72. What is it with the asinine Rolling on the Floor smilie

that makes some people use it thinking it proves they won the argument?

[ProSense]

74. .

[Hissyspit]

98. Yeah, just like that...

See, asinine and content-free.

Glad to see you agree with me by demonstrating the point.

[ProSense]

100. See

"See, asinine and content-free. "

...someone pissed off at someone else's opinion.

Attacking smilies now, are you?

[Hissyspit]

106. No.

Attacking obnoxious, pathetic use of smilies, as I already qualified to you on a previous post. And, no, it's not your opinion I'm attacking.

[ProSense]

111. Hey,

"Attacking obnoxious, pathetic use of smilies, as I already qualified to you on a previous post. And, no, it's not your opinion I'm attacking."

...you're entitled to your opinion. I mean, I know a few posters who use this in every comment.



...they must really annoy you. Oh well!

[Hissyspit]

114. This:

:Shrug: is a request for clarification or defense.

This: in certain contexts, is an obnoxious admittance that you have no substance.

[ProSense]

117. Yeah,

"This: :Shrug: is a request for clarification or defense.

This: in certain contexts, is an obnoxious admittance that you have no substance."

...the "certain contexts" being opinions you don't agree with.

[Hissyspit]

120. As I previously said...

it's not people having opinions that I have a problem with. It's the falseness, misrepresentation, and tactics. See Post #3 as example.

[whatchamacallit]

59. What a twisted web you weave...

You really ought to try honesty sometime, you might like it.

[ProSense]

61. Ah,

"You really ought to try honesty sometime, you might like it."

...the old "say anything" personal attack laced with hypocrisy and irony.

[whatchamacallit]

80. The reason, despite your prodigious efforts, you're mostly ineffective

Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2013, 02:46 PM - Edit history (1)

is because people don't trust those who are incapable of introspection or growth. You're like a robot shark chewing through everything in its path; voracious, singleminded, without conscience or regret. Who trusts the word of someone who is never wrong? I'm sure your response will only reinforce this.

[ProSense]

82. Say anything and pretend to speak for everyone. LOL! n/t

[whatchamacallit]

88. Your views:recs ratios of late

tell the tale. But that won't stop the robot shark.

[ProSense]

90. "Your views:recs ratios of late tell the tale"

Yikes!

Do you work for the NSA?

[whatchamacallit]

92. You mean the rogue agency you're carrying water for?

[ProSense]

99. Oooh, that's deep.

[Katashi_itto]

67. Another Explanation

&list=FLQ_8IaT-Wbt7aj43vt2csDQ&index=1

[Hissyspit]

70. Yeah, that's me.

[BlueCaliDem]

68. GeeGee is a liar and a fake

and it surprises me that he has so many followers here on Democratic Underground. Go against their opinion, and you're a partisan hack (uh- duh! I'm a Democrat on Democratic Underground) or worse!

With each passing day, we get to know this charlatan and whose side he's really on, but those who fell for his lies just because he conformed to their idea that Big Gubmint is Eveeeeel without taking into account the world we live in now, are too prideful and too embarrassed to acknowledge it. So they choose to attack the people who have pegged him from the get-go instead.

[noamnety]

93. So having been called out for repetitive homophobic name calling

- referring to Greenwald as gigi - you've decided to get around that by spelling it geegee now?

It still looks like a dog whistle to me. Some unsolicited advice - you might do better just dropping that altogether because at this point all it does is serve as a reminder that you've got that history of using female names to demean gay men.

[L0oniX]

71. I got to wonder why you are working so hard to smear people.

It doesn't change what the NSA is doing. It only helps to fracture the conversation on DU. Apparently we are not all going to focus on the abuses of and by this government. All one of these assholes has to do is talk about the smoking gun of a mushroom cloud to panic the sheep into what ever they want and then smear the protestors as unpatriotic.

[Warren Stupidity]

79. Do you oppose the mass surveillance of ordinary people by government agencies?

[ProSense]

84. "We have ways of making you talk!" Maybe,

"Do you oppose the mass surveillance of ordinary people by government agencies?"

...you should ask the person who keeps posting my quote that question.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3134399

It has nothing to do with the OP, though.

[Warren Stupidity]

91. so you cannot answer the question?

interesting.

[ProSense]

97. LOL!

"so you cannot answer the question? interesting."

Did you read the part where I'm opposed to illegal spying? I'm opposed to illegal spying. I'm also opposed to distortions of what is actually taking place.

I mean, I guess you can't accept my opinion of the situation, but I'm clear about it.

There is no Obama policy of spying on everyone and no domestic spying
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022971026

I'm not anti-NSA.

I don't think the Church Committee recommendations should be abandoned.

Introduced in the Senate as S. 1566 by Edward Kennedy (D–MA) on May 18, 1977
Committee consideration by: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee on the Judiciary
Passed the Senate on March 20, 1978 (95-1)
Passed the House on September 7, 1978 (246-128)
Reported by the joint conference committee on October 5, 1978; agreed to by the Senate on October 9, 1978 (Without objection) and by the House on October 12, 1978 (226-176)
Signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 25, 1978

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was introduced on May 18, 1977, by Senator Ted Kennedy and was signed into law by President Carter in 1978. The bill was cosponsored by nine Senators: Birch Bayh, James O. Eastland, Jake Garn, Walter Huddleston, Daniel Inouye, Charles Mathias, John L. McClellan, Gaylord Nelson, and Strom Thurmond.

The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon’s usage of federal resources to spy on political and activist groups, which violates the Fourth Amendment.[4] The act was created to provide Judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security. It allowed surveillance, without court order, within the United States for up to one year unless the "surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". If a United States person is involved, judicial authorization was required within 72 hours after surveillance begins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

If the Patriot Act is repealed, should the secret FISA Court be abolished?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022999502

[Warren Stupidity]

138. You still have not answered the question I asked.

Do you oppose the mass surveillance of ordinary people by government agencies?

A simple yes or no would suffice.

[ProSense]

139. Oh brother

"Do you oppose the mass surveillance of ordinary people by government agencies? A simple yes or no would suffice. "

Yes!

Also, your question still has absolutely nothing to do with the point of the OP.

I suppose you thought this was a brilliant gotcha moment, huh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3134844

[Warren Stupidity]

143. Gotcha moment? No. I did not understand if you supported or opposed

Massive surveillance of the American people. Now that I understand that you do oppose such activities, I will be looking forward to your posts opposing these programs. I'm thrilled to have somebody as prolific as you joining in on the side of the supporters of 4th amendment rights to oppose the egregious overreach of the Bush era programs, programs that continue under the Obama administration, that violate those rights by engaging in massive surveillance of ordinary people, which you of course, as we all now know, strongly oppose.

[ProSense]

145. Are you

"Gotcha moment? No. I did not understand if you supported or opposed. Massive surveillance of the American people. Now that I understand that you do oppose such activities, I will be looking forward to your posts opposing these programs. I'm thrilled to have somebody as prolific as you joining in on the side of the supporters of 4th amendment rights to oppose the egregious overreach of the Bush era programs, programs that continue under the Obama administration, that violate those rights by engaging in massive surveillance of ordinary people, which you of course, as we all now know, strongly oppose."

...serious? It's like you're inventing your own straw man, and then relishing in some notion you have.

I offered more details on my positon here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3134844

You couldn't accept that.

Here are more opinions:

Another misleading media report implies that warrantless wiretapping is legal.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023026724

Remember whistleblower Thomas Tamm?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023032225

[Warren Stupidity]

146. So your position is that nothing like a massive surveillance of the American people

Is going on in this administration?

[ProSense]

151. May I

"So your position is that nothing like a massive surveillance of the American people Is going on in this administration?"

...direct you to my comment here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3134844

Again, you ignored the comment, and now you're asking a question that is clearly answered there.

I answered your other question with a "yes" here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3135545

I mean, do you want to keep going around in circles?

[Warren Stupidity]

154. So that would be a "yes" your position is that there is no massive

Surveillance of the American people being conducted by our government under this administration?

There is no Obama policy of spying on everyone and no domestic spying.

That is your position, right?

And if there is clear evidence that there is massive domestic surveillance going on, you will stand up and start posting here in firm and unambiguous opposition to such programs?

[ProSense]

155. No.

So that would be a "yes" your position is that there is no massive

Surveillance of the American people being conducted by our government under this administration?

There is no Obama policy of spying on everyone and no domestic spying.

That is your position, right?

And if there is clear evidence that there is massive domestic surveillance going on, you will stand up and start posting here in firm and unambiguous opposition to such programs?

Clearly my pointing to my opinion is not my "position." I was pretending that was my position when I wrote it and cited it a couple of times in this thread as being my position.

Good grief.

Are you going to address the OP or are you going to continue hijacking the thread with your pointless interrogation?

[Warren Stupidity]

169. So you will be posting here against the Obama administration

If there is evidence that this administration has been conducting a mass domestic surveillance program?

I'm sorry to have to keep asking these questions, but I am still a little confused about your exact position on this issue.

[ProSense]

171. Yes,

"I'm sorry to have to keep asking these questions, but I am still a little confused about your exact position on this issue."

...I do agree that you appear to be "a little confused."

[Warren Stupidity]

172. Some of my confusion has to do with certain ambiguities in your replies.

Now for example, I don't understand if your "yes" meant you will be posting your famous ops in opposition to the Obama administration's massive domestic surveillance programs, should that be established as a fact. Did it?

[ProSense]

173. On edit,

...here's one of my "famous ops": http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023134060

That's the one you're attempting to hijack with your pointless interrogation.

[Warren Stupidity]

174. Once again you seem to be avoiding a direct answer.

It's odd, as it seems to be such a small issue. Given evidence that the Obama administration is engaged in a massive domestic surveillance program, will you be posting here in opposition to such a program?

[ProSense]

175. Here:

"Once again you seem to be avoiding a direct answer. It's odd, as it seems to be such a small issue. Given evidence that the Obama administration is engaged in a massive domestic surveillance program, will you be posting here in opposition to such a program?"

...enjoy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3134700
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3134746
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3134767
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3134844
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3135508
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3135545
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3135768
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3135797
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3135827
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3135930
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3135967
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3135992
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3137241
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3137315
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3137340
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3137349

[Warren Stupidity]

176. It is a simple yes or no question.

If there is evidence that the Obama administration has been conducting a massive domestic surveillance program, while you post here in opposition to that program?

[ProSense]

177. "It is a simple yes or no question."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3137586

Thanks for kicking the thread.

At some point you'll realize that the lame interrogation attempt is a FAIL!

[Warren Stupidity]

178. So you are refusing to answer this simple question in order to keep your thread kicked?

Ok. Fair enough. Lets keep it kicked.

Given evidence that the Obama administration is engaged in a massive domestic surveillance program, will you be posting here in opposition to such a program?

[ProSense]

179. No, I'm LMAO. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

192. That again does not appear to answer the question.

If there is evidence that the Obama administration has been conducting a massive domestic surveillance program, will you post here in opposition to that program?

It seems a simple enough question to answer yes to, given that we have established that you are unambiguously opposed to massive domestic surveillance programs. Why would you not just put an end to this tedious interrogation?

[ucrdem]

187. It looks like ProSense answered you 81 posts ago, in reply #97. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

191. No actually in that post she claimed there was no massive domestic surveillance

Program under the Obama administration. I know it is difficult to follow all of the nuances of her responses, but in fact she has so far failed to unambiguously answer the very simple question I've asked. One has to wonder why.

[woo me with science]

86. She opposed it vociferously under Bush:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023134060#post34

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2461323

ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

We have always been at war with Eastasia....er, Eurasia.

[ProSense]

95. Can't quit

being disingenuous, huh: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122617

Do you stand by this post, Prosense?

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't be changed to make that legal.

ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

Yup, stand 100 percent behind it.

Ever heard of the PAA: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023026724

By all means, go on pretending you never received a response.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122942
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3133739
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3125366
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122700
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122561
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3133739
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3133751
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3134370

You know I'm going to post this everytime you post your failed gotcha, don't you?

I was expecting you: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3134746

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

141. "Oh. Only commie stooges, huh?"

[ucrdem]

81. And the swarm descends.

Right on schedule.

[UTUSN]

83. Here's my favorite GREENWALDism from the same link, which I will use on his fans who call names

The ones who call those who DISAGREE with them "authoritarians." Like the name-calling from CHAVISTAS.

Bye the bye, my disagreement with SNOWDEN/GREENWALD has nothing to do with defending nefariousness on the part of this or any other government. It is totally intuitive that these two fellows have suspect methods and motives, are totally NOT altruistic.

*********QUOTE********

http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html

[font size=5]"Frequently Told Lies (FTLs)[/font]

by Glenn GREENWALD

.... I'm a right-wing libertarian
Ever since I began writing about politics back in 2005, people have tried to apply pretty much every political [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]label[/FONT] to me. It’s almost always [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]a shorthand method to discredit someone without having to engage the substance[/FONT] of their arguments. It’s the classic [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]ad hominem[/FONT] fallacy: you don’t need to listen to or deal with his arguments because he’s an X. ...."

**********UNQUOTE**********

[cali]

85. No doubt about it, that's truly lame and those are weasel words.

I don't see how anyone can argue with that.

[Hissyspit]

103. Not really, it sounds he's explaining his growth,

but what does it have to do with anything, anyway? You also agreed it is like Greenwald to call someone like Joy Reid an "Obama operative," which may be true, but I could never find any instance where he did and no one showed me one. There's no reason to buy into these tactics. It's not that I agree with Greenwald on everything (I don't), it's not that he's never been wrong (he has), it's not that he's above criticism (he isn't, no one is), it's about the misrepresentations, it's about Attack the Messenger no matter the validity, it's about things being proven false or fallacious to a poster and then seeing it get repeated by the same poster again the next day and the next day after that.

[ProSense]

115. "he's explaining his growth"?

He claimed:

I never once wrote in favor of the Iraq War or argued for it in any way, shape or form. Ask anyone who claims that I "supported" the Iraq War to point to a single instance where I ever supported or defended it in any way. There is no such instance. It's a pure fabrication.

Clearly, that's utter nonsense. That's not "explaining his growth." That's pretending that his past support didn't exist when his own words show otherwise.

[Comrade Grumpy]

123. I admit I haven't read every word Greenwald has ever written.

Can you please show me where he supported the Iraq war, other than that comment in the preface you quoted? It seems to indicate he was, like most Americans, relatively uninvolved in the debate during the run-up to the war and, like most Americans, assumed his leaders were acting in good faith and with the national interest in mind.

Thank you.

[ProSense]

126. You mean

"Can you please show me where he supported the Iraq war, other than that comment in the preface you quoted?"

...that wasn't enough?

"It seems to indicate he was, like most Americans, relatively uninvolved in the debate during the run-up to the war and, like most Americans, assumed his leaders were acting in good faith and with the national interest in mind."

Yeah, I guess you buy the claim that he was clueless and gullible.

[Comrade Grumpy]

142. So you can't.

Well, if "clueless and gullible" worked for so many elected Democrats, I don't see why it wouldn't have worked for Greenwald.

Did Greenwald write in support of the Iraq war, say, during the run-up to it? I don't know. He says he wasn't even blogging until 2006, I think.

I read him as explaining his evolution in that piece. I don't see him cheerleading the war.

And I see this attack on him as fundamentally devious and dishonest. I think you would do better to stick to explaining why all that NSA spying is not such a bad thing. At least then, you would me making an argument and not just engaging in gutter-level character assassination attempts. They don't show you in a good light.

[ProSense]

144. Well,

"So you can't. Well, if "clueless and gullible" worked for so many elected Democrats, I don't see why it wouldn't have worked for Greenwald."

...I did, but you apparently can't accept that. Again, what's with comparing Greenwald to Democrats? Greenwald isn't a member of Congress. I mean, if you want to compare him to a member of Congress to justify his then support for the war, go ahead.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

157. x2 n/t

[Hissyspit]

124. Wow.

Remember what I said about misrepresentation.

[ProSense]

127. Wow, talk about a non-response.

Greenwald wasn't "explaining his growth." He was denying he supported the war.

[Hissyspit]

129. No, he said

"I never once wrote in favor of the Iraq War or argued for it in any way, shape or form."

I'm still looking for an example of where he did.

[ProSense]

130. No, he said

I never once wrote in favor of the Iraq War or argued for it in any way, shape or form. Ask anyone who claims that I "supported" the Iraq War to point to a single instance where I ever supported or defended it in any way. There is no such instance. It's a pure fabrication.

Clearly that's bullshit. You're claiming his denial is "explaining his growth."

[Hissyspit]

132. "Clearly, it's bullshit." No, it's not.

As for the second part of your message, I don't understand it.

[ProSense]

133. Yes, it's bullshit. Thanks, I fixed the second part. n/t

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

166. Link please

Thank you

[sheshe2]

104. Oh gee, G.

You threw off your cloak of apathetic indifference to become the messenger of truth. Hallelujah!

~Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.~

We're saved!

and Rec, ProSense!

[Hissyspit]

107. Is there something wrong with that?

[bvar22]

108. Meh.

[div class='excerpt"]"He claims he never wrote in support of the war and that he was "a standard passive consumer of political news" who thought "high-end consumers of news" was "reliable."

That is essentially the same excuse the entire "Centrist" Democratic party leadership gave at that time for Authorizing the Military Invasion and Occupation of Iraq,
except for Hillary.
She STILL insists that she made no mistake in supporting the invasion of Iraq.

Didn't you just cringe every time Bush-the-Lesser smirked into the cameras
and said, "The Democrats voted FOR It too!"?

Are you really going to attack Greenwald for aligning with the Democratic Party Leadership at that time?

I guess if one lacks the internal compass for consistency, then its easy,
but reversing polarity that quick would make me dizzy.

[OilemFirchen]

119. Not since the very dead Breitbart...

have I witnessed a "journalist" invest so much energy into lashing out at criticism, instead of actually doing some useful work.

Lots of other comparisons, BTW - most notably the insipidness of their fan bases and their vapid personalities.

[Hissyspit]

122. Not since the Bush administration

have I seen so much energy invested in trying to catapult the propaganda and destroy a journalist.

[OilemFirchen]

131. Not since the advent of the Purity Progressives

have I seen a leftish group so utterly enamored with a Libertarian hack, possessing no discernible talent, posing as a "journalist".

[LondonReign2]

147. Not since the rise of the Sensible Woodchucks

have I seen folks relentlessly attacking the messenger and somehow thinking that make the government's violation of the 4th Amendment A-OK, at least while our guy is in charge.

[boilerbabe]

134. jesus christ prosense half the clowns in this admin you adore supported the iraq war. nt

[ProSense]

135. Are you saying Greenwald is a "clown" for supporting the Iraq war? n/t

[whatchamacallit]

148. This is why you fail

The purpose of your thread is to concoct a way to continue to beat on GG for supporting the Iraq War. When it's pointed out to you that many democrats you respect did as well, you put your fingers in your ears and make loud, meaningless sounds. Face it, your partisan zeal blinds you to the truth.

[ProSense]

150. Actually,

"This is why you fail

The purpose of your thread is to concoct a way to continue to beat on GG for supporting the Iraq War. When it's pointed out to you that many democrats you respect did as well, you put your fingers in your ears and make loud, meaningless sounds. Face it, your partisan zeal blinds you to the truth."

...that comment is a big FAIL.

I'm not the one comparing Greenwald to Democrats. You on the other hand are trying to dismiss calling out Greenwald for his claim that he didn't support the war by insisting that so did "many Democrats."

I didn't support the war.

[whatchamacallit]

152. Actually nothing

As expected, you danced right around boilerbabe's point. Whoever taught you how to argue failed you.

[ProSense]

153. LOL!

"As expected and danced right around boilerbabe's point. Whoever taught you how to argue failed you. "

Did someone teach you to argue with a photo?

[whatchamacallit]

156. You know the story of the Red Shoes don't you?

If anyone should, it's you...

A peasant girl named Karen is adopted by a rich old lady after her mother's death, and grows up vain and spoiled. Before her adoption Karen had a rough pair of red shoes, and now she tricks her adoptive mother into buying her a pair of red shoes fit for a princess. Karen repeatedly wears them to church, without paying attention to the service. She ignores the anger of her adopted mother and disapproving stares that even the holy images seem to express at her wearing red shoes in church. Her adoptive mother becomes ill, but Karen deserts her, preferring to attend a party in her red shoes. A mysterious soldier appears and makes strange remarks about what beautiful dancing shoes Karen has. Soon after, Karen begins to dance and she can't stop. The shoes take over; she cannot control them and they are stuck to her feet. The shoes continue to dance, through fields and meadows, rain or shine, night and day, and through brambles and briars that tear at Karen's limbs. She can't even attend her adoptive mother's funeral. An angel appears to her, bearing a sword, and condemns her to dance even after she dies, as a warning to vain children everywhere. Karen begs for mercy but the red shoes take her away before she hears the angel's reply. Karen finds an executioner and asks him to chop off her feet. He does so but the shoes continue to dance, even with Karen's amputated feet inside them. The executioner gives her a pair of wooden feet and crutches, and teaches her the criminals' psalm. Thinking that she has suffered enough for the red shoes, Karen decides to go to church in order for the people to see her. However her amputated feet, still in the red shoes, dance before her, barring the way. The following Sunday she tries again, thinking of herself at least as good as the others in church, but again the dancing red shoes bar the way. Karen gets a job as a maid in the parsonage, but when Sunday comes she dares not go to church. Instead she sits alone at home and prays to God for help. The angel reappears, now bearing a spray of roses, and gives Karen the mercy she asked for: it is as though the church comes home to her and her heart becomes so filled with sunshine, peace, and joy that it bursts. Her soul flies on sunshine to Heaven, and no one there mentions the red shoes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Shoes_(fairy_tale)

[Robb]

136. Not one DUer supported the Iraq invasion. Not one.

Zero. Zip. Zilch.

None of us thought it a necessary war on radical Islam. Not one of us supported Bush the Dumber, nor did any of us think his speeches more than the stammerings of a drunk.

Greenwald is asking us to believe he was/is a bigger idiot than ANYONE on DU at the time.

[bvar22]

167. Then how do you explain that 1/2 of the Democratic Party,

..INCLUDING the "Centrist" Party Leadership supported the Invasion & Occupation of Iraq?
Most of them have since recanted,
with the exception of Hillary, who STILL insists that invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

Even IF Greenwald supported the invasion, and I tend to believe him over you,
are you going to condemn him for agreeing with Hillary, John Kerry, and the Democrat the majority of the Democratic Party at that time?

Are you saying that NO ONE at DU supported Hillary & John Kerry back then,
because I remember it quite differently.

[Robb]

170. Party, schmarty. None of us were fooled.

None of us praised Bush*'s speeches. None of us saw radical Islam as a threat best addressed through invading Iraq.

None of us. Greenwald would've been booted off as a Freeper had he posted here what he says he believed.

[bvar22]

195. And you have a selective memory.

There has NEVER been a time when 100% of DU stood in OPPOSITION to the Democratic Party Leadership.
NEVER!
To insist that this happened is surreal.

I remember it quite differently.
The conservative DU members were perfectly happy to go along with Hillary, John Kerry,
and the Centrist Party Leadership with the invasion of Iraq, and only later tried to pretend that they didn't....kinda like now.

There were even gang attacks on the Anti-War Left at DU...kinda like now.

By some of the same members....kinda like now.

Unfortunately, the archives aren't searchable from the time period,
but here is a post I put up at DU regularly,
and got attacked by the same crowd...kinda like now:

Posted at DU shortly after the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq was passed on Oct 2, 2002:

The Democratic Party Honor Roll
These Democrats should be remembered for their principled stand against the WAR Machine.

Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq
Iraq War Resolution (IWR)

United States Senate

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)


United States House of Representatives

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu

[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

(Apologies for the formatting errors.
The file became corrupted through the transfer to the succession of computers I have used since 2002.)

There was a very vocal contingent at DU insisting that we should stand with the Democratic Party Leadership on IRAQ....kinda like now.

For you to insist that this split on DU did NOT happen is blatant revisionism,
and, frankly, CYA fiction.

[Robb]

196. Horseshit. Show me one post.

One post where a DUer who lasted more than a few weeks here supported the invasion of Iraq.

You can't, because none of us did. And you're willing to debase DUers to defend Greenwald. Classic.

[bvar22]

197. Those archives don't exist, (except maybe at the NSA),

...but are you REALLY going to insist that Greenwald would have been booted off of DU as a Freeper for standing WITH the Democratic Party Leadership???!!!!

You either have a very poor memory,
or are more than willing to sacrifice your self-respect for some illusion of partisan gain.

[font size=4]
According to Robb,
100% of DU stood in OPPOSITION to Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and the Democratic Party Leadership in 2002 when Bush-the-Lesser invaded Iraq with the support of the Democratic Party Leadership.

[/font]

Robb has NO memory of the parade of Big Name celebrity Democrats who supported the Iraq Invasion filing past the TV Cameras several years late with BIG crocodile tears whining that:
Bush Fooled Me.
He told LIES, but I believed him.
Its not MY fault.
...with the exception of Hillary Clinton, who TO this DAY still agrees with Bush.

But, of course, there is NO support for Hillary on DU, is there Robb?


And, of course, NO DUer would STAND with Hillary back in 2002, because they
would be "booted off of DU as a Freeper", according to Robb.

...and ALL of DU was much smarter that the entire Democratic Party Leadership
back in 2002.
Nobody here stood with the Democrats back then, did they,Robb?

Hey, Robb.
Did YOU cringe inside every time Bush-the-Lesser smirked into the TV Cameras and said,
"The Democrats voted FOR it too?",
because I sure did.


Here you go, Robb.
Check out this site:
http://www.cebria.com/
and then go back to your fantasies.

No charge.

[Robb]

198. First of all, the Iraq invasion was 2003, not 2002.

I'll set aside how amusing it is you're calling my memory hazy.

Instead, I'll point to this, two days after the bombings began, and my memory -- this is how we all felt:

Statement on the War in Iraq
March 21, 2003
By the Editors

We oppose this war.

We find it difficult to believe George W. Bush's claim that he has attacked Iraq reluctantly.

This administration has spent months attempting to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein is in some way responsible for 9/11. It has spent weeks in front of the U.N. arguing for war, going so far as to offer false information at key presentations. It has consistently ignored the reports of Hans Blix and the U.N. weapons inspectors. In the hurry to conquer Iraq, this administration has vilified nations and people who would urge caution.

We are told that we must invade Iraq to prevent further terrorist attacks, when top intelligence officials agree that an invasion will likely increase the possibility of such attacks. We are told that we must invade Iraq to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, when evidence of Iraq's possession of such weapons is unclear. We are told that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator and we must liberate his people, when there are many brutal dictators around the globe who are are guilty of the same crimes — the Bush administration even considers some of them our allies.

The United States stands virtually alone in the world right now. The actions of George W. Bush — supposedly a uniter, not a divider — have alienated the vast majority of people on this planet and caused turmoil, division, finger-pointing and anger against the United States. Anti-American terrorists must be dancing for joy.

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, but we believe that the U.N. inspections should have been given more time. The United States sets a dangerous precedent when we attack first — a precedent which, sadly, our enemies will likely be only too happy to exploit.

We strongly support our troops, who are bravely putting their lives on the line in Iraq. They did not choose this war, nor are they responsible for it. We hope and pray that they can return home safely to their families as soon as possible. We hope casualties on both sides can be minimized, especially among civilians.

For the moment, we are taking a break from publishing articles on our homepage. We will resume publication when we feel it is appropriate, so feel free to submit articles. The message board will remain open.

We expect the traffic to this website to increase dramatically as a result of this war. In an effort to minimize our bandwidth, we have removed many of the graphical and design elements from our pages. Once traffic decreases somewhat, DU will return to the way it looked before.

— The Administrators of Democratic Underground

http://web.archive.org/web/20040517092138/http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/03/21_statement.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/03/21_statement.html

I was and am proud of DU for this.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

159. Greenwald, through his early support for Bush as many Americans were after 9/11, did less

through his general indifference regarding the Iraq War than the Senators who actually supported the War by voting for the Iraq War Resolution, including 29 Senators who were Democrats.

The only Democratic Senators who refused to vote for the Iraq War Resolution were Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).

If the 9/11 attack caused Greenwald to support Bush at the time, he was with the majority of Americans.

[Galraedia]

162. Glenn "The Lyin Libertarian" Greedwald praised the Citizens United decision...

Because he's nothing but a right wing-libertarian Koch sucker. He doesn't care about civil liberties, he cares about making money off of being able to bitch about them.

[deurbano]

184. Then trash the American Civil Liberties Union, too.

The ACLU has worked hard in support of the First Amendment, voting rights, racial justice, reproductive rights, disability rights, marriage equality, LGBT rights, drug law reform, prisoner rights, privacy rights, due process (etc.)... and to oppose capital punishment, torture (etc.). Not exactly Koch-inspired, right wing libertarian causes.

Greenwald's positions tend to be in line with ACLU positions, and for the same reasons... although I'm sure there could be some exceptions.

http://www.aclu.org/aclu-history
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united

[Waiting For Everyman]

163. Yep, Greenwald debunked that meme very tidily.

The major point you succeeded in making, was the entent of your desperation to smear the man. That really doesn't reflect well on your own credibility.

[ProSense]

168. Yeah,

"The major point you succeeded in making, was the entent of your desperation to smear the man. That really doesn't reflect well on your own credibility."

...there's no "desperation" in your comment.

[Kolesar]

181. He had no curiousity about NAFTA, Bush v. Gore, Telecommunications Act, the World Bank, climate, etc

I think those are reasons to pay attention to electoral politics. I don't believe that he really was such a low information dullard before the Padilla case.

[Cha]

185. Oh, Greenwald is definitely "touchy about other people supporting PBO" just don't

anyone get touchy about him supporting bush.. or Glenn starts babbling.

Hair trigger mouth get his ass in trouble again?

[Cha]

186. P.S. Greenwald doesn't mind all "the creepy reverence"

to his mouth though does he?

[Cha]

188. The Hypocrisy of Glenn Greenwald, Iraq War edition

The absurd comparison to Martin Luther King aside, what’s notable about Greenwald’s screed is that it omits the key portions of the preface that reveal him to be a bald-faced liar at worst, and at best, a man trying to distract his avid fans from the truth.

Greenwald includes the following passage from his Preface in his “FTL”:

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

Soon after the invasion he “reluctantly” concluded that the administration had veered off course? He writes that he was not politically active until 2004. That places his “come to Jesus moment” well after George Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” moment. Again — yikes.

Yet there Greenwald sits on Twitter, calling people “gross” and “repellent”:

http://thisweekinblackness.com/2013/03/19/the-hypocrisy-of-glenn-greenwald-iraq-war-edition/

He wanted bush to succeed and he'll do anything sleazy to attempt to bring down Pres Obama. Greenwald's going to "succeed" like bush did. "The swift removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan"? Yeah, that'll work .. let's get the fuck over to Iraq, bozo.

[ucrdem]

189. QFT - Quote for Truth!

p.s. also, for a good laugh