How far have we sunk as a party that we will now attack Ellsberg?

[last1standing]

I've just read a thread on this site filled with smears, lies and misdirection against a man who should be accounted a true hero by every person who loves liberty and justice, Daniel Ellsberg. How can we as a party, or a forum, even be entertaining such a despicable enterprise?

I have to ask if those who now smear Ellsberg have no respect for what he has done for this country and for the people? It does nothing to hurt Snowden or Greenwald to spread rightwing, pro-war, lies. It only serves to give credence to the very people this site, and the majority of the Democratic party, has stood against from the beginning.

I don't want to attack anyone and I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings. I am only saying that I don't think I've ever been as disappointed with DU as I am today. I very much hope that those who have done this will rethink their positions.

[Octafish]

1. It's getting harder and harder not to sound like Republican these days.

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.

[last1standing]

8. Even most republicans agree that Ellsberg is a hero.

It is only the very worst of the hawks and authoritarian republicans who still attack him. It is the birchers and the heritage fundies. That is why I'm so saddened to see their smears posted here.

[Mojorabbit]

47. Well there are some so called Democrats on this board doing that very thing.

I have lost any respect for these people. They tarnish everything this party is supposed to stand for. The behavior is the lowest of the low.

[duffyduff]

66. It's not about tearing down Ellsberg as it is defending Obama

The cult of personality needs to stop.

[merrily]

111. Yes, it is a cult of personality, but it also is

tearing down Ellsberg rather than defending Obama.

Defending Obama would be justifying his actions with facts and sound reasoning. Going ad hominem on Obama's critics is different from that.

[kestrel91316]

242. The Obama "cult of personality" thing is a RW talking point, AFAIAC.

And no, I do not support everything he has done, so don't throw that slur at me, either.

[cui bono]

322. Unfortunately it absolutely is not.

One need only read many, many posts on this board that "defend" him no matter what he does, even when it is clearly not in the citizens' or constitution's interest, but in the interest of big money.

[Octafish]

226. Excellent point. No DUer wants to see any bandwidth go toward smearing Obama.

What I object to is when Obama acts like a Republican and certain of his supporters make anyone who objects to his policies feel "Left? Out!"

FWIW (adapted from a previous post): Not how I really feel, but how it seems...

We're all Republicans now.



If you're for Social Security, you're not in tune with being a modern Democrat.

If you're for justice for Gov. Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy, you're not in tune with being a modern Democrat.

If you're for government creating jobs for the jobless, you're not in tune with being a modern Democrat.

If you're for taxing Wall Street and the rich, you're not in tune with being a modern Democrat.

If you're for protecting the environment for future generations, you're not in tune with being a modern Democrat.

If you're for peace in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen and any war zone else currently fueled by American firepower, you're not in tune with being a modern Democrat.

If you're for creating a New Deal for the 21st Century, you're not in tune with being a modern Democrat.

If you're for any of those things, you're no longer really a Democrat at all. You're a leftist, as "Left" means Socialist. And Republicans won't have that.

So call me a commie or a socialist or an old-time FDR-JFK Democrat -- I don't care. Just don't call me a Republican or a "Modern-Day Democrat."

[fredamae]

234. Nailed It!

"So call me a commie or a socialist or an old-time FDR-JFK Democrat -- I don't care. Just don't call me a Republican or a "Modern-Day Democrat.""
You are where I am.

And since When does a Dem Ever Have to stay silent when we recognize a "conflict" amongst our own?
That Was one trait that separated us from the GOP-We Never had to "Tow Party Lines"-and could Always critique our own.
Todays Dem Party seems MORE to the Right than the GOP in the '60's-(Yes, I'm old enuf to Remember)-I will continue to speak out--whether its Dems/GOP/Indies/TP or whatever.
The Leadership in the Dem Party Used to give a Genuine shit about what folks like you and I had to say/what our observations were--today? You can't even get a call or an email response...
You Will however be Guaranteed lots of emails from them Asking for Money--It a Total One Way Communication Process!

It'sa whole new Democratic attitude: "Give us your money and No We Don't Give a Crap whether you like "it/them" or not--now Thanks but go sit down and Be Quiet"--imo

[Fantastic Anarchist]

281. I am a socialist and proud if it.

[chimpymustgo]

345. This should be it's own OP. Thanks for this post (I'm late getting around to reading through it).nt

[merrily]

108. It's as easy as it ever was not to sound Republican.

Just sound like a Democrat.

Saying Obama should have kept his campaign promise about a strong public option in Obamacare is nothing like saying Obamacare is a Socialist takeover of health care.

Anyone who thinks criticizing Obama from the left is the same as criticizing him from the right is a maroon.

What they are really saying is "Wahhhh. My Party's President should not be criticized by anyone, ever, for anything."

Now that sounds very like something a Republican would say.

[villager]

146. You forget "worship of the power structure is 'underground'"

n/t

[Rex]

309. Some have left for their proper site.

I hope the rest follow them. This site is for Dems, not corporate bots.

[aquart]

2. Never attacked Ellsberg in my life.

But he didn't tell our allies we were spying on them. Damn, that makes a difference.

[last1standing]

4. I promise this thread isn't indirect propaganda for Snowden.

It means nothing more, or less, than what I've posted.

[kenny blankenship]

17. South Vietnam wasn't our ally? How about other ASEAN countries?

The Pentagon Papers revealed that we supported the coup that ousted and led to the assassination of S. Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem. It told the other countries that we called our allies that we were capable -as an "ally"- of quite a bit more than just opening their letters and reading them.

[virgogal]

158. Kennedy was blamed by many to being the

force behind Diem's assassination. Who knows?

[Octafish]

244. Who changed the coup into the murder of Diem, Nhu and a Catholic priest?

From The Secret History of the CIA by Joseph Trento

Who changed the coup into the murder of Diem, Nhu and a Catholic priest accompanying them? To this day, nothing has been found in government archives tying the killings to either John or Robert Kennedy. So how did the tools and talents developed by Bill Harvey for ZR/RIFLE and Operation MONGOOSE get exported to Vietnam? Kennedy immediately ordered (William R.) Corson to find out what had happened and who was responsible. The answer he came up with: “On instructions from Averell Harriman…. The orders that ended in the deaths of Diem and his brother originated with Harriman and were carried out by Henry Cabot Lodge’s own military assistant.”

Having served as ambassador to Moscow and governor of New York, W. Averell Harriman was in the middle of a long public career. In 1960, President-elect Kennedy appointed him ambassador-at-large, to operate “with the full confidence of the president and an intimate knowledge of all aspects of United States policy.” By 1963, according to Corson, Harriman was running “Vietnam without consulting the president or the attorney general.”

The president had begun to suspect that not everyone on his national security team was loyal. As Corson put it, “Kenny O’Donnell (JFK’s appointments secretary) was convinced that McGeorge Bundy, the national security advisor, was taking orders from Ambassador Averell Harriman and not the president. He was especially worried about Michael Forrestal, a young man on the White House staff who handled liaison on Vietnam with Harriman.”

At the heart of the murders was the sudden and strange recall of Saigon Station Chief Jocko Richardson and his replacement by a no-name team barely known to history. The key member was a Special Operations Army officer, John Michael Dunn, who took his orders, not from the normal CIA hierarchy but from Harriman and Forrestal.

According to Corson, “John Michael Dunn was known to be in touch with the coup plotters,” although Dunn’s role has never been made public. Corson believes that Richardson was removed so that Dunn, assigned to Ambassador Lodge for “special operations,” could act without hindrance.

SOURCE:

“The Secret History of the CIA.” Joseph Trento. 2001, Prima Publishing. pp. 334-335.

My 2-cents: 'Arrogant' CIA Disobeys Orders in Viet Nam

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6918706

[virgogal]

313. Thanks for that information.

[HardTimes99]

86. You really need to check out the thread in question, imho. It's really low, gutter-type

stuff, worthy of Joseph McCarthy or Tricky Dick.

They're attacking Ellsberg not for his ideas, but for his associations. Just like Tailgunner Joe going after Fred Fisher for his membership in the National Lawyers Guild.

Really jaw-droppingly despicable.

[sabrina 1]

198. Neither did Snowden. Ellsberg released information, same as Snowden, that our 'enemies'

were able to read also, which is what Snowden did, and was attacked as a traitor at the time also.

Ellsberg on Snowden: He is the man we have been waiting for, for 40 years.

[NineNightsHanging]

3. You're going to see much, much worse

Talk to anyone who lived through fascism

[last1standing]

10. I truly hope not.

n/t

[NineNightsHanging]

26. doesn't take nostradamus...what DO you call this?

Increasing militarization of the police

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/10/obama-police-militarization_n_3566478.html

Drones

http://breakingdefense.com/2012/03/08/faa-takes-first-step-to-allow-uavs-to-fly-in-u-s/

New Utah NSA data center

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/14/nsa-utah-data-facility

The NSA shadow government

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-tirman/nsa-deep-state_b_3569316.html

new legislation trying to criminalize protest, to allow multinationals to sue states etc etc I don't feel like listing it all


You apologists who think you're immune? You might be in for a very rude awakening one day.

[snappyturtle]

31. +1 I agree....those praticipating in blind allegiance are not immune. nt

[Live and Learn]

45. It is really depressing when you start putting it all together. nt

[leveymg]

82. All that it's going to take is another major war, and poof, we'll be a police state, if indeed

the U.S. hasn't already become one.

America isn't that exceptional, we're just big, heavy and slow to move off dead-center. Once we get rolling down that slope, however . . .

[Civilization2]

189. An excellent summary,. however not "one day" more like tomorrow, the changes are in place NOW!

As you show with those links and the many more we both know also show the same exact trend,. the once free and open democratic society (if this ever was the case, seems to always be on the decline in my lifetime) is becoming a closed, secrete, and corporate-military totalitarian one.

It is intellectually interesting to watch, however sad and pathetic it is to experience first hand.

Thanks for the great post.

[HardTimes99]

214. Those apologists will inhabit the same cell blocks as we radicals. The apologists

for the national security state would do well to examine the French Revolution and, specifically, the Reign of Terror (1793-95), when even radicals like Robespierre and Danton were eventually consumed by the very forces they had helped to unleash.

[MisterP]

331. well, they genuinely think they're saving the Party from Robespierre wannabes

back in '06 there was a wave of rightyDem paranoia about "purges" in the party now that they'd taken the House: the underperformers would get dumped because there was a majority anyway

funny thing is, this was the time that *Emanuel and Pelosi*--not "purists" (remember *that* phrase?!) like Grayson and Kucinich--started whittling away at the top 10%, starting with McKinney (remember when the Capitol Police harassed her and DU's official line was to STFU "until all the facts had come in"?)

[HardTimes99]

338. "They" (meaning the Dem apologists for the National Surveillance State) need

to imagine those dreadful powers in the hands of a President Santorum or Palin if they think they have somehow innoculated themselves from the perils of the state. Since I, a Democratic Socialist, will have been swept up in the first wave of round-ups, there will be no one left to speak for them. And then it will be too late.

[MisterP]

344. they will be at the forefront--the moment Jan. 2017 rolls around

they'll be pretending they and the party were always against this spying--though they'll still somehow manage to blame critics for the loss of 2016 (if that happens, I mean)
actual consistency is not their strong suit

[deurbano]

5. Pretty low. (It's sad to witness.)

[rhett o rick]

264. The tent got too big. Too many conservatives, escaping from the other party decided to bring their

ideology with them and join the party. They will be thrilled when Chris Christie switches parties. I see it now. Christie vs. Bush III in 2016. The OligarchCabal will be ecstatic as will their minions.

[forestpath]

6. K&R

[Luminous Animal]

7. From the same thread... Apparently, Democracy Now! is also suspect.

And please don't be too disappointed... look at all the other DUers who stood up against that idiocy.

[Scurrilous]

9. Why should Ellsberg be off-limits to free speech feet to the fire truth to the power etc etc? n/t

[last1standing]

15. You seem to misunderstand 'free speech.'

I haven't suggested the government ban anyone from smearing Ellsberg, I have stated my disappointment with reading such lies here.

It has only been those who have spread this muck who have suggested limiting free speech.

[arely staircase]

132. Does simply disagreeing with him count as "smearing"? nt

[last1standing]

135. Not at all. How can we learn if we never disagree? n/t

[Hissyspit]

302. No, but posting that he is a racist without any evidence does.

[arely staircase]

346. What does that have to do with me? nt

[Hissyspit]

347. People have been smearing him,

not just disagreeing with him. That is what the OP is about. Wasn't saying you had done it. Sorry for any confusion.

[arely staircase]

348. OK. Thanks for clearing that up.

I disagree very strongly with him on the subject of Snowden but I admire the man personally.

[think]

28. Don't worry. The only ones with gag orders are the whistle blowers.

[merrily]

128. Why should Ellsberg be off-limits to free speech feet to the fire truth to the power etc etc? n/t

Why should Ellsberg be off-limits to free speech feet to the fire truth to the power etc etc?

What power does Ellsberg have over you or me or America? Which prisoners has Ellsberg tortured? Which civilians has Ellsberg killed?

What are you holding Ellsberg's feet to the fire for? For saying that what Snowden and Manning did is not different from what he (Ellsberg) did?

Why isn't his criticism of Obama an exercise of Ellsberg's own freedom of speech? Why should any private citizen get his feet held to the fire for exercising his first amendment rights?

Are you trying to make a false equivalency between Obama and Ellsberg?

[geek tragedy]

187. So, only the President should be criticized? nt

[sabrina 1]

201. Is Ellsberg an elected official? Why are all Liberal authors, Whistle Blowers, like Ellsberg and

Civil Liberties Groups, plus news organizations like Democracy Now suddenly being attacked the same way they were attacked by Republican Bush supporters all of a sudden? What kind of Democrat would attack people who have earned a reputation as trustworthy over decades on the facts?

My opinion, NO Democrat would be running around doing this. No Democrat would be attacking every single Progressive Liberal voice who is speaking out against Bush policies.

Who would? I know who would because I remember them well. And had the exact same discussions with them then we are having now with these supposed 'democrats'.

I wonder who they think they are fooling?

[geek tragedy]

202. When you call for the impeachment of a Democratic president, you make

yourself every bit the enemy that the Teabaggers are.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden were duly elected in free and fair elections by a majority of the voters. Wacko extremist ideologues want to nullify that election, with no showing of any violation of criminal or other federal laws. Fuck them.

[Bluenorthwest]

229. Show a quote. Link. Something other than endless characterizations.

If there is a quote that burns you so, why are you not plastering it everywhere?
Also 'speaking truth to power' involves people with power, not activists who speak truth to power.

[geek tragedy]

236. So, you're on the "Ellsberg didn't say it side" as opposed to

"Ellsberg is right to call for impeachment side."

He's done so in multiple interviews.

See, e.g.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3221971

[Bluenorthwest]

239. Ah, so you are on the 'make up some crap and pretend Dan said it' side.

Got a quote from Dan? You offer a link to a DU thread without a quote with an 8 minute video you want me to sift through to find that which is upsetting you so much you can't even quote it?
I'm not able to watch your videos right now, and it is not my job to watch 8 minutes of bullshit because you can't support your assertions with a simple quote.
You know what he really said, and you are loathe to type it out because it makes your claim look dubious.
He has said that Obama and the last several Presidents could be impeached for things they are doing. Those officials work for us. We should not be forcing each elected President to commit impeachable offenses because that's just the way things are rolling. If we support the President, we should seek to make his job ethical and fully legal as well as acceptable to the people of the nation. It should not please anyone who likes this or any other President to find that the job basically requires them to do that for which they could be called to account. Remember, Republicans will both require your action and indict you for that action.

[geek tragedy]

241. That video starts off with "do you think Obama should be impeached"

Ellsberg says yes, for multiple reasons.

He also said that John McCain should be impeached for speaking out in favor of the NDAA, which shows him to be an utter ignoramus on the constitution.

[Bluenorthwest]

253. But you said this was said in 'multiple interviews' but you offer this video clip only.

And you again fail to quote Dan, you give a characterization. Why not quote him, as asked oh so many times? We all know why, same reason you can't quote from one of the 'multiple interviews' you claimed to have on hand.

[geek tragedy]

257. Move the goalposts much?

First, you claimed he didn't say it, now you're complaining that I linked to only one such interview where he explicitly says it.

[Bluenorthwest]

260. He absolutely does not say what you claim. Which is why you refused to quote when asked to quote.

You claimed unasked that you has heard him say this in 'multiple interviews' so those are YOUR goalposts.
Where are the other interviews? Maybe one of them says what you claim. This one sure doesn't.
Do you know what 'explicitly' means? Do you know what 'says' means?

[Bluenorthwest]

259. I went and got my earphones. The first question is not as you say and Dan does not say what

you claim. He says the President has committed impeachable offenses, not that he thinks he should be impeached. The question asked of him is 'would you support his impeachment' and Dan sure does not say yes as you claim, much less yes for multiple reasons.
Amazing the lengths you need to go to to get yourself all riled up.

[geek tragedy]

267. He is asked whether he would support impeachment, and his response is that Obama

has committed impeachable offenses.

If he disagreed, he certainly did not say so.

Similarly, when asked in April "why do you think Obama should be impeached" he said that Obama had committed impeachable offenses, but that it wouldn't happen because Democrats controlled Congress and would thus let him get away with it. Start viewing around 5:00 mark

[spooky3]

278. Those are two different things.

Saying a Pres has committed impeachable offenses is NOT the same as advocating that he/she should be impeached.

[bvar22]

279. Saying that Obama has "committed impeachable offenses",

...andCalling for his impeachment.
The video does NOT support your original claim.

[Marr]

292. Just show a bit of character for once and apologize, for crying out loud.

It's fucking sickening.

[geek tragedy]

298. You think that's an egregious twisting of words compared to

"Obama wants to starve granny and murder schoolchildren?"

Puh-leaze. He was asked if Obama should be impeached and he rattled off a number of reasons to impeach Obama. Read between the lines.

[Marr]

301. God, stop squirming and lying. It's gross.

I certainly never said Obama "wants to starve granny", and I seriously doubt that you would've considered such a remark acceptable, so it's hardly an excuse. That's assuming it actually ever was made on DU at all, of course, which is probably giving you more credit than you deserve. You seem to be pretty casual with flat-out lying.

Ellsberg did not make the shocking statement you claimed. That's just a fact-- no "reading between the lines" needed. Just apologize like an adult and move on.

[geek tragedy]

303. That's your interpretation.

Certainly, if someone asks me if someone should be punished, and I respond by rattling off a list of reasons why they should be punished, someone could infer my position.

[Marr]

306. It's not an interpretation, it's a fact. You claimed he said a thing that he did not say.

It isn't complex.

Have a nice day, I'm done with this.

[fascisthunter]

326. no kidding

[sabrina 1]

285. He didn't call for the impeachment of Obama, and you didn't answer my question.

[hueymahl]

275. Great Post!!

+1000

[rhett o rick]

263. We should be able to be critical of everyone, especially those that are elected.

That's the point. Seems like some here get very upset when anyone is remotely critical of the president. Ellsberg is just swell until he speaks out in support of Snowden, then all of a sudden he become a goat. As with Ms. Plame and Mr. Wilson. And Rep Grayson, Sen Wyden, and Sen Udall. None of these people are out to get the President. They are not racists or TeaBaggers. They, as a lot of us, want more transparency in our government and some get a little upset with those that are pulling out all the stops to shut off discussion. Especially those that claim to be "politically liberal" posters here in DU.

Here's a thread about the Patriot Act. So far none of those that call others racist and TeaBaggers have posted here. That is not unusual. They can not discuss an issue like the Patriot Act. Please feel free to prove me wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023220667

[burnodo]

182. Why should Obama be off-limits?

Nt

[HiPointDem]

11. kr

[UTUSN]

12. *or* is Daniel attacking *me* (I realize, NOT "us") n/t

[treestar]

13. So we've found your saint/hero?

Why should we bow to his opinions? Why can't he be criticized as anyone else can?

[last1standing]

18. If you can only post insults we have little to say to each other.

If you want to try rephrasing that question, I'll gladly answer it.

[treestar]

49. You seem to be saying there are certain people who should never be

criticized. Why?

[last1standing]

53. Much better, but that is definitely not what I'm saying.

The problem with that thread is that it uses rightwing slurs to smear Ellsberg for no purpose other than to cause readers to become less informed. If someone wants to criticize Ellsberg for publishing the Pentagon Papers, great. That's an honest, if unfortunate, opinion. But to load up a post with half-truths, innuendo, lies and loaded words is beneath the Democratic party and this site. It is no better than emphasizing the "Hussein" in Obama's full name or making sure to mention that MLK was an adulterer. Is this really where we want to go?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

104. Him suggesting that Snowden should be in fear for his life was a bit over-the-top IMHO.

Not to say that anybody should smear him though

[last1standing]

109. And that's a great way to criticize Ellsberg.

Maybe it was over the top. I really don't know at this point, but it's certainly a valid opinion to disagree with Ellsberg on it. I don't know why so many can't stop there and discuss the actual opinion instead of smearing a great man.

[treestar]

130. the word "criticism" and the word "smear"

seem to be what people vacillate between depending on whether they like the negative evaluation or not. Whether they are supporting that person or not.

[last1standing]

138. Can you honestly read that other OP and the posts supporting it and tell me those were valid...

criticisms? All I ask is that you change 'Ellsberg' with 'Obama' and 'Greenwald' with 'Holder' or some other admin official you generally support. If you can then say that you wouldn't call those comments smears I'll take you at your word.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

25. This is the same shit the rabid dogs used when they attacked Congressman Grayson in these pages

What kind of low-life knuckledraggers attack people like Grayson and Ellsburg?

[Scurrilous]

44. It would be helpful to have a list of those who are above criticism pinned to the top of the forum.

[treestar]

50. Amen!

And of course those same people would never say supporting or defending the President was anything less than blind following of a leader! It is said we can't take criticism of him! Little did I know that concept is applied selectively!

[totodeinhere]

100. The OP didn't even mention the president. This is about slandering Ellsberg, not Obama. n/t

[treestar]

122. And I was stating that many people

talk about their right to criticize the President and yet now we have someone saying there is a personage that we should not criticize.

[last1standing]

145. I hope you don't mean me with that post because I never said or insinuated that.

n/t

[think]

153. Do you have a specific criticism of Ellsberg or just a general one?

[HardTimes99]

341. The sound of those chirping crickets is . . . positively

deafening, 24 hours later.

[Maedhros]

273. Nobody is saying Ellsberg shouldn't be criticized.

They are saying that the criticism should be legitimate and presented in good faith, rather than simply posting ad hominem attacks and insults.

[HardTimes99]

342. Specifically, criticize Ellsberg for his actions long ago or his ideas. But

criticizing Ellsberg for his associations or his age is gutter-type stuff that would make a Joe McCarthy or Tricky Dick smile with approval.

[rhett o rick]

159. I see you are using the group emoticon. How loyal. nm

[Warren Stupidity]

184. The Official Authoritarian ROFL.

It should have a little crown on its cute little head.

[treestar]

200. You can talk?

You are loyal to something too you know.

My point was that blindly accepting what Ellsberg says is just as bad anyway. Perhaps worse, as he was never elected to anything.

[rhett o rick]

166. Here is a thread you should enjoy. A whistle-blower didnt get away from the authoritarian state.

That should make you guys ecstatic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023220775

"We must treat anyone that criticisms the authoritarian state quickly and harshly. I hate to think how excited you must have gotten when the police beat up the Occupy protestors."

It is unclear to me why you guys post on a Democratic board.

[SidDithers]

235. I think it's Assange, Greenwald, Snowden and now Ellsberg...

The Axis of Purity.

Sid

[mike_c]

40. I KNEW I'd read that sort of language somewhere....

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cultural_revolution.htm

Red Guards (groups of youths who banded themselves together) encouraged all the youth in China to criticise those who Mao deemed untrustworthy with regards to the direction he wanted China to take. No-one was safe from criticism: writers, economists and anyone associated with the man Mao considered his main rival – Liu Shao-chi. Anyone who was deemed to have developed a superior attitude was considered an enemy of the party and people.

[treestar]

52. I don't understand.

Are you saying if we criticize anyone on the approved list, we are Maoists, with Mao being President Obama?

Who is on the approved list besides Ellsburg?

[rhett o rick]

161. Do you ever discuss issues or just insult people? nm

[treestar]

207. What was insulting about that?

I was discussing the issue. You're the one making it about me.

The issue is why can't Ellsberg be criticized like anyone else? Saying someone should not be criticized is blind hero worship and authoritarian following.

[rhett o rick]

258. I want the Patriot Act repealed, do you agree? Here's a thread discussing the issue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023220667

[SomethingFishy]

284. You aren't having a discussion.. You made up a "fact"

That the OP says you cannot criticize Ellsberg and then ran with it. The OP said no such thing. Nowhere in this thread does the OP say or even insinuate that Ellsberg is beyond criticism, yet you keep defending this position that no one is arguing against.

[sibelian]

174. Is he an attention seeker? nt

[sabrina 1]

204. Why do you think that when people respect the actions of an individual that person is their

saint/hero? Do you realize how ridiculous and childish that sounds, and how when people make themselves sound like children, it only confirms how correct those they are hurling insults at, actually are? Did you know that Bush supporters used to use that exact same childishness against Progressive Democrats and it was as ineffective then as it is now?

Eg, I remember how many times I was told that 'Clinton is your hero' or 'We get it, Clinton is a saint and can do wrong'.

Shudder, it brings back memories, that's for sure and makes me wonder where I am sometimes.

[Trajan]

14. SWEEPING GENERALIZATION ALERT!!!

The entire Democratic party it's attacking Daniel Ellsberg!

We are so bad!

[Bonobo]

16. It is axiomatic.

"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

-Nietzche

[Spitfire of ATJ]

33. Feel free to quote me...

Go ahead and stare into the abyss.

Then tell the next punk who thinks he's really hot shit, "I've seen worse."

-- Spitfire of ATJ

[Bonobo]

37. I like that!

And I have stared into some pretty deep holes.

[Dragonfli]

75. That is good /nt

[BrotherIvan]

140. He was a nutter, but he said some truly deep shit

And that's my signature and I'm sticking to it.

[HardTimes99]

219. I can only hope that such ("He was a nutter, but

he said some truly deep shit&quot is my epitaph.

Even if it does somewhat smack of damning with faint praise

[BrotherIvan]

265. Perhaps the highest praise there is

The older I get, the more I see of this world, the more I take pride in being a nut. One can not participate fully in this clown ride and keep one's sanity.

[HardTimes99]

266. If you get a chance, you might want to read Erasmus' "In Praise of Folly". Erasmus

makes a solid case for the wisdom fools can offer, especially in a world gone insane.

Do remember, though, that Pride ("the more I take pride in being a nut&quot is the foremost of the 7 Deadly Sins.

[BrotherIvan]

268. I have read some Erasmus but not that. I will check it out

Perhaps Project Gutenberg which is a damn miracle in my book (no pun intended). I've been enjoying all of Somerset Maugham this month, and strangely enough, in The Razor's Edge, there is a short passage that convinced me that apart from humanity, there is no evil in the universe. So the Puritans with fire and brimstone would have little effect on me!

[TransitJohn]

19. It aint' the whole party

just the faction that's been 'in charge' since the 90s. The faction that decided the party needed fatcat corporate cash and have gotten the party beholden to the same vile forces that the Republicans are beholden to.

[zeemike]

91. Yep

And now want to keep it that way because they get fat that way.

[ucrdem]

20. ETA: If Ellsberg is going to insert himself into the political process he's fair game.

Last edited Fri Jul 12, 2013, 12:38 AM - Edit history (1)

For some time I've suspected Ellsberg's bona fides and his ongoing anti-Obama campaign, which as I've shown elsewhere preceded the NSA scandal and had him calling for Obama's impeachment two weeks before the Nov. 2012 election, does not make me less suspicious:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3219145

Frankly I don't know exactly who Ellsberg really is, who he works for, or what he stands for, but I don't think he's telling the truth and I'm trying to sort it out now. What I've found so far does not look good.

......................
Updated to avoid intentional misinterpretation. Incidentally Nixon's plumbers never did find his psychiatric file according to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg

[last1standing]

24. Please tell me that was sarcasm. Please.

If it wasn't, I'm truly disgusted.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

27. Sit the hell down and learn some respect

Your statement is atrocious, and not fit for human consumption.

[Pharaoh]

78. DU has been so infiltrated

by seemingly paid or perhaps just insane right wing zealots that is difficult to visit this board anymore. I do believe, there should be a jury system to tombstone, after a gathering of comments of a member and a democratic vote to do so. Otherwise DU is likely doomed to become a shithole, which I might not like to visit much longer.

[NineNightsHanging]

84. some of them ARE PAID the gov't admits to doing this

in more polite terms...

http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=15287

[Pharaoh]

89. I do believe though

The Admins,Skinner you listening?

Like on Facebook, you could "like" a comment on a particular thread. That way, individuals cannot hijack a thread into a bunch of red herring gibberish, thus rendering the initial point of the OP mute.

[Swagman]

179. I truly belive you are right and it's a real worry

divide and rule

[navarth]

218. I am inclined to agree

...it has become increasingly difficult to read DU.

[cherokeeprogressive]

60. Not much learnin' goin' on in Riverside I see...

[Swagman]

178. you mean my secrets surely

[LondonReign2]

192. Please keep posting

You are amongst those doing your side the most harm

[suffragette]

233. This is one of your more illuminating statements

Really goes to the core of how you think people, and perhaps the State, should be thinking and acting these days.
And it makes me wonder who's next on your and their list.

[Ken Burch]

329. Did you just DEFEND the break-in at Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office?

If so, what did you mean by "he should have kept his yap shut"?

Are you saying that Ellsberg shouldn't have released the Pentagon Papers, OR thatt he shouldn't have gone to a therapist when he needed one?

Either way, a pretty despicable post, buddy.

What did Daniel Ellsberg ever do to you?

[iandhr]

21. So some posts on DU now speak for the entire party?

[last1standing]

23. It is those who would put party before policy who are smearing him.

I apologize if that was not clear. I didn't spend much time on the OP, just wanted to express my intense disappointment.

[grahamhgreen]

180. There's a bunch of paid right wing 'persona's' here self promoting each other, disguised as Dems

[silvershadow]

282. ^^THIS.

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. I'm sure if Jesus came out against the surveillance state we would be hearing terrible things about

him too.

[Egalitarian Thug]

29. Just more evidence for the pile that reinforces what Gore Vidal said over 40 years ago.

"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently… and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties."

We have people that honestly believe (IMO) that they are liberal, yet make the kinds of whacked out, crazy arguments you've written about. When a people are so far gone onto fantasy land that they can twist their minds into accepting the crazy shit that passes as "the way it's always been" these days, the tipping point is behind you.

We're entering the endgame and if you want any say in what happens to you, you better have the tools and resources at hand.

[Mojorabbit]

76. ^THis^ nt

[BrotherIvan]

144. ^^This!^^

[whatchamacallit]

196. +1

Yep :/

[bread_and_roses]

199. Vidal nailed it

The one "Property Party" indeed.

[iamthebandfanman]

314. The right did a great job

defining the label 'liberal'...

now anyone whos a democrat automatically thinks.. hey im a liberal!


just not the case..

they called Bill Clinton a liberal too and it stuck just as it stuck to president Obama..
but liberals don't sign welfare reform acts (1996) that hurt poor people..
nor do they sign trade agreements that send jobs out of country like NAFTA..
and they definitely don't sign discriminatory legislation like DOMA...
and they most certainly don't help to repeal all the damn laws we created in the 30s to prevent economic disasters (1999)!

[Egalitarian Thug]

321. Exactly, and I trace this right back to 1968. n/t

[think]

30. One whistle blower smeared that supports Snowden so many left to go.....

Last edited Wed Jul 10, 2013, 11:19 PM - Edit history (1)

[snappyturtle]

35. Really? Will Russell TIce be smeared? How about William Binney? nt

[think]

43. Don't forget Drake, Wiebe, & Edmonds. Might as well smear Vallerie Plame while we are at it too

[Aerows]

185. I think that already happened

There was a thread where Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson's comments about this were made and of course, predictably, somebody had to wander in and stink up the thread.

[snappyturtle]

93. I'm rethinking my first response to you. Did you forget the sarcasm tag? nt

[think]

98. Sorry. I was being extremely sarcastic. Smearing Ellsberg disgusts me.....

[snappyturtle]

106. Whew! I thought I generally agreed with you until 'that' post...thanks.

I hate the smearing too. No reason.....to smear anyone. I'm sick of this trend.

[think]

113. I thought the sarcasm would be obvious but in hindsight

after seeing some of the posts here lately I can see where one might not be sure.

So I'm glad you asked. I will add a tag as I certainly don't want to be misunderstood.

[snappyturtle]

116. Sorry I was so dense....but you're right....sometimes I can't tell anymore.

[think]

118. It's almost gotten to the point where reality is giving the Onion a run for it's money

[snappyturtle]

137. LOL! It's borderline surreal. nt

[mike_c]

32. this....

+1

[stevenleser]

34. There is no sacred cow or human being incapable of doing something wrong or despicable.

I say that as someone who supports the President, but attacked him for two weeks straight on my radio show and in an appearance on FNC for the chained CPI debacle.

I haven't read the Ellsberg thread because in general, I am done with discussing the NSA issue on DU, but Ellsberg is not above being held to account if he did something wrong. No one is.

[last1standing]

38. I would suggest you read the thread then decide for yourself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023217281

No one is above criticism but attacking someone who has done so much for this country with rightwing smears is not criticism, it's the worst form of propaganda.

[stevenleser]

71. OK, so without doing further research, are any of the allegations in the OP provably false?

Are Greenwald and Ellsberg on the same board of some institution?

Did Ellsberg assert that there is "no way" that Snowden would be out on bail?

[last1standing]

73. Are you really asking me to prove that Ellsberg is innocent?

I know we hold different views on the Snowden affair but can't we at least agree that rightwing hits on Ellsberg are as bad as smearing MLK for being a Communist and an adulterer?

[stevenleser]

96. No, I am asking if two very specific allegations in that OP are true or not as a starting point.

You want me to dismiss that persons allegations, right? I'm asking if two particular accusations are true. I think that is a fair starting point.

All you have done so far is level a very vague claim that the other persons contentions are "right wing smears/hits". I don't really understand what that means in the context of the other person's OP. I am not seeing suggestions about left/right ideology in that other OP.

[last1standing]

102. No, I'm asking if his opinion is a reason to attack him with lies and smears.

Not only in the OP but in the supporting posts that follow. Why does it matter if Ellsberg has worked with Greenwald? Why should his opinion cause a group of people to demand that his integrity be impeached? If you don't see that as a problem then I really don't know what to say.

[cherokeeprogressive]

115. If you look at Steve's first post in this thread, he gives up the whole gig.

For that bunch, it's not about Snowden and it's not about Daniel Ellsberg. It's about protecting President Obama. Look how he begins his reply:

I say that as someone who supports the President, but attacked him for two weeks straight on my radio show and in an appearance on FNC for the chained CPI debacle.

Why was it important to mention President Obama AT ALL? This thread wasn't and isn't about President Obama.

[stevenleser]

136. OK, so please point out the lies in that other OP.

I listed the only two asserted facts I could find in that other OP and you are telling me they don't matter, which I guess means that they are true, but you keep mentioning "lies".

Is it fair to say that the person who posted that other OP did not lie, but that you feel that the allegations are unfair characterizations of the association?

Because if that's true, then we're getting into a more subjective territory. Do you think it's unfair to suggest that if two people are associated with each other that its likely that one will defend the other if the other is attacked? Whether its correct or not is one thing, but I think an association makes that defense more likely.

I would prefer people not attack Ellsberg in general but I can understand why some people would. He seems to defend anyone exposing any government information regardless of the surrounding facts. I personally don't put much weight in his defense of people for that reason, but I am not going to write an article or OP attacking him nor will I attack him on my show.

[last1standing]

139. Just like you, I won't play that game.

If you don't see the lies and the smears you don't want to. I'm pointing out a low point in the behavior of certain DUers that rivals the best the republicans can offer. If you don't agree then you don't agree.

[questionseverything]

245. bail seems to be a thing of the past for whistle blowers

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023220775

[questionseverything]

247. from that article

Hammond has already been in jail for 15 months without bail at the Manhattan Correctional Center in New York City. He has been denied family visits and was held for weeks in solitary confinement.

[Maedhros]

277. @stevenleser "Are Greenwald and Ellsberg on the same board of some institution? "

https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/about/staff

Yes - the Freedom of the Press Foundation. A full roster:

Daniel Ellsberg
Glenn Greenwald
John Cusack
John Perry Barlow
Josh Stearns
Laura Poitras
Rainey Reitman
Trevor Timm
Xeni Jardin

From the wiki:

The Freedom of the Press Foundation is a non-profit organization founded in 2012 to fund and support free speech and freedom of the press. The organization is headed by both mainstream and alternative journalists such as Daniel Ellsberg and Xeni Jardin as well as activists, celebrities, and filmmakers.

The mission is to help "promote and fund aggressive, public-interest journalism focused on exposing mismanagement, corruption, and law-breaking in government",[2] and it offers a way to crowd-source funding for WikiLeaks and independent journalistic organizations.[3] Supported organizations includes WikiLeaks, MuckRock News, the National Security Archive, The UpTake, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the Center for Public Integrity and Truthout.[4]

The Freedom of the Press Foundations selects organizations and individuals to support based on four criteria: 1. Record of engaging in transparency journalism or supporting it in a material way, including support for whistleblowers; 2. Public interest agenda; 3. Organizations or individuals under attack for engaging in transparency journalism; and 4. Need for support. The foundation's goal is to prioritize support for organizations and individuals who are in need of funding or who face obstacles to gaining support on their own.

In May 2013, The Freedom of the Press Foundation began crowd-funding donations to hire a professional court stenographer to take transcripts during the trial of Pfc. Bradley Manning, after the government refused to make its transcripts available to the public.

I support the Foundation's goals 100%.

[mimi85]

324. To see Greenwald's name next to

Ellsberg is truly nauseating.

[Maedhros]

328. Not to Ellsberg [n/t]

[mimi85]

335. Maybe his name

DOES belong next to Greenwald. Back in the 70s, he was a hero of mine. Greenwald, Snowden and Assange are most assuredly not.
I guess I was just naive and didn't understand Ellsberg's inflated ego.

[cherokeeprogressive]

70. Ooooh! You criticized him three whole times? Ain't YOU got some creds...

This isn't about the President, Mr. Leser. It's about the NSA. It's about the Fourth Amendment. It's about SPECIFICITY.

You though... you just came to the President's defense for no reason whatsoever. You just gave away the whole game. For people like you, it's not about the NSA, it's not about Edward Snowden, it's about President Obama.

[stevenleser]

72. Someone else replied to me, but whoever you are, you are on ignore. Sorry, can't read what you wrote

why do I have the feeling whoever it is just justified why they are on ignore?

[cherokeeprogressive]

88. Okay Steve, let's go to the tape, shall we?

You posted THIS:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3169150

I replied with THIS:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3181101

A little fluff from you, not a response actually:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3181187

I can only try to draw you out, if you don't REALLY want to talk...:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3181265

And since you weren't sincere with your OP in the first place... you made up a fib to justify putting me on ignore:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3181271

You got nothin'. Nothin'.

[Marr]

261. WOW.

That... was good.

[Electric Monk]

105. Using the ignore feature like that just makes you look willfully ignorant. nt

[stevenleser]

114. Using it like what? You have no idea why I put anyone on ignore. Your assumption is ignorant. nt

[Electric Monk]

129. I don't care *why* you put him on ignore. The fact is, everyone but you can see him making a fool of

you, but you've got your blinders on. This is a perfect example of why I'm not fond of the ignore feature.

[stevenleser]

269. Somehow, I doubt that.

The folks I put on ignore aren't the best at putting facts together logically.

[nilram]

310. Not ignorant, we saw the thread in question. It's in this post --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3221584

[Union Scribe]

149. Please stop doing that.

No one gives a shit that you're ignoring people. No one needs it advertised every time one of them replies to you and you can't see it. The whole point of ignore is to...ignore.

[bahrbearian]

194. Your talking to someone on my Iggy List, who is that you are talking too.

[Marr]

262. He's under the impression that he's a celebrity, I think.

And being ignored by him is some kind of punishment. lol.

[reusrename]

270. Thanks for dropping the NSA issue from your agenda.

It's an important topic and you can make a huge difference in how this stuff is perceived. I hope you continue to study the subject.

[stevenleser]

272. I've dropped it here on DU because the discourse coming from the other side is lacking.

I still talk about it on my radio show every week.

[LiberalLovinLug]

288. If it is lacking, why not step up and defend your position?

It sounds like you don't really have much faith in your own opinion and you'd rather speak about it on a forum where no one can dispute you, or at least you have the final say and can decide who speaks and for how long.

I guess its no wonder you use the Ignore feature. The feature that DU had to put in for the easily offended and those that prefer to live in a bubble so that they can never see anyone disagree with them or heaven forbid, actually make a good counterpoint to their arguments. I never understood why anyone would ever use this feature. You create a situation where those that disagree with you can attack your positions without any defense ability to come back, because they are invisible.

[stevenleser]

317. Oh I have. An no one has been able to refute any of my points. Instead, what I get back

can be illustrated by this sample dialogue I posted. The people that disagree with me are illustrated by the Hair on Fire members. http://www.democraticunderground.com/110211839

[LiberalLovinLug]

320. Disagree with you about WHAT? Refute what POINTS?

You don't have a position to disagree with. Your only "position" is that the "other" people that have reached their own position that the NSA has gone too far are acting like their hair is on fire.

Seriously that OP you linked to, which I had never seen before, is childish. "I know you are but what am I?"

Please tell me what is your main point about the NSA civilian spying network? Because I haven't a clue.
You like it and think we are all safer and that if we don't have anything to hide we shouldn't be worried? I have no idea.

Mine is that this is a slippery slope.

The USA had 35% of workers unionized in 1954, today it is at 11%

The USA had a 90% tax rate for top earners in 1945, today it is at 39% and only 15% on capital gains...putting the tax burden more and more on the middle class.

Before you say it, no, none of these have anything to do with domestic spying, but they are examples of Conservatives slowly chipping away at more liberal institutions. I could ad more like public school funding, national park protections...the latest is the reversing of the Voting Rights Act.

No we are not like the former East Germany, but I'm sure there was a time before the Soviet Union takeover when an East German would have been shocked to know what was to come.

It seems like its you and your ilk that uses the ignore feature to block out voices you don't want to hear that are in the most danger of your hair catching on fire while you have your fingers in your ears shouting "la la la la la la la la"

[stevenleser]

323. You are over a month behind. I posted two or three OPs like this one when the issue first came out

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981244

I got no responses from anyone capable of refuting any of my points. When I raised items of fact that contradicted other folks' posts, I got stuff like this in response: http://www.democraticunderground.com/110211839 so I eventually created that OP to dramatize those kinds of responses.

[LiberalLovinLug]

340. Ok, thanks for that link

At least I see you have thought this out. IMO a little naively, but you definitely have an opinion on the matter. I wish you'd shared a little earlier on this thread.

I understand that having a FISA court to oversee it is at least better than nothing, but the fact that all appointments are made by a BushCo. appointed chief judge and that history has a way of telling us that if the slope is slippery...we are all gonna be sliding downwards. And if I don't trust a Democrat to oversee this, I sure as hell am frightened to death if/when a Rethug gets back in. By then technology will have advanced even further and so to the ability to take whatever they want.

I'm not so much concerned about them listening in on terrorist sympathizers, its about the further ability to eavesdrop on any political, union, health, educational, or protest organization at any time. The FISA court hasn't rejected a request yet from what I've read. Do you have confidence this Republican in the Chief Justices chair would reject a partisan (non terrorist related) request from some future GOP administration?

Or a request by some top corporate donor to the White House for personal data to better hone in on potential customers?

[fascisthunter]

327. oh puhlease

[magellan]

36. k&r

I have no one on ignore (although I was mightily pressed to do it the other day) just so I can see what's being said and by whom. As someone else put it, you can disagree with a DUer on a few things and still find insight in their other contributions. However, insight is a neutral word. The thread you mention is insightful, and not for good reasons.

[cali]

39. What does a piece attacking Ellsberg on DU have to do with anything?

It has to do with DU and that's all. And Ellsberg has nothing to do with what shape the party is in. Do you actually think that most dems even know who he is?

[last1standing]

41. It's those who put party before policy who are smearing Ellsberg.

n/t

[cali]

51. I think the smearing of Ellsberg is despicable, but you extrapolated far too much

from the posting of that op.

[last1standing]

55. It's what I felt at the time (and still do).

Sorry if you don't agree.

[HardTimes99]

92. As usual, cali, your post displays an inordinate amount of wisdom. My salute! - nt

[HooptieWagon]

42. We're going to need a bigger bus.

Its getting crowded under here.

[otohara]

46. Could You Post The Thread Where "We" Sunk

to a new low?

I'd like to see if I posted in this thread you speak of.

[last1standing]

48. Sure.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023217281

[Scurrilous]

58. You're mistaken, it was this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023080227

[otohara]

74. Whew...So He Called For Impeachment of POTUS Obama?

and I'm supposed to admire him and hate our president?

Yeah, that's not going to happen. I'm sick of the hating on this president.
I learned last night while watching Gasland II that I am an "insurgent" - the oil/gas industries called
in experts in psyops and they came up with terminology to deal with us activists. Every time I look up
something on the internet - bang, there are ads in my face based on my search. We spill our beans on the
internet and then act surprised that someone's lurking.

This is the right's wet dream, for all Dems to hate the president as much as they do and if
that's what you're seeking - InfoWars might be a site you'd like.

[last1standing]

81. Ellsberg did NOT call for Obama's impeachment.

He said that Obama could be impeached for his actions - as could several other past presidents. What he said is not untrue if one takes the 4th amendment at face value and provides electronic information the same protections as regular mail or landline telephone calls. Obviously it wouldn't happen, just as it didn't happen to Carter, Reagan, Clinton or either Bush.

It was a case of taking the word 'impeach' and running with it out of context.

[FSogol]

54. Disagreeing with Ellsberg is "smears, lies and misdirection"?

Careful, your rhetoric got out and is running up and down the street.

[last1standing]

56. No, but posts like yours are definite misdirection.

As was the OP mentioned and many of the supporting posts.

[FSogol]

61. You don't list a OP in your OP. Are we supposed to guess?

Sounds like misdirection from you.

[last1standing]

62. Now you've changed the focus onto me. That's misdirection.

Where have I seen that before...?

[FSogol]

64. WTF? Do you have a link or are you just blowing smoke?

[last1standing]

65. Ask politely and I'm glad to provide it.

I don't usually jump when confronted by rudeness.

[last1standing]

69. And now the insults begin.

Goodbye.

[Hissyspit]

296. Post have accused him of things without evidence and one I saw called him a racist.

That's what the OP is talking about.

[DevonRex]

57. I think it's sad when old dudes who did something good a long time ago

feel the need to interject themselves into stuff happening today without finding out the facts first. I call that attention seeking behavior. Maybe part of a midlife crisis. It tarnished what he did then. Back then he was brave and honorable. Now? Just another guy trying to relive his past by hitching a ride with a younger, more hip, current story. And the young ones still don't know what he did, still don't care, still think he's a has-been - except to toss his name around when it suits them.

Don't believe that? Just ask one of them in an actual conversation, face to face, what the Pentagon Papers were and how they changed the conversation that was happening at the time. Then watch their faces go completely blank, then watch their brains work to come up with something, anything intelligent to say. And then watch the look of defeat come over them when they can't manage it.

[last1standing]

59. "Maybe a midlife crisis." This is exactly what I posted about.

I know I can't change your opinions, I just find them very sad.

[DevonRex]

79. I am sad. Because I think what he did then was brave and honorable, as I said.

I also know for a fact that he wasn't certain what would happen to him when he published. But he did it anyway. And he did NOT run. He was willing to sacrifice his very freedom for something he believed in. For that I will always respect the man. Always.

I also have more respect for Manning because he didn't run. Even though I don't see his purpose, at least he stayed. He could have run like Snowden. He had more reason to since he knew exactly what he would face. Everyone in MI knows. I was in MI so I can say that with absolute certainty.

Snowden? He's nothing like Daniel Ellsberg. And Ellsberg should know that. I think he realizes it and now has to find a way to justify his initial reaction; thus the piece he wrote, which fails on so many levels. It disappointed me immensely and makes me sad for him.

[last1standing]

85. Then disagree with Ellsberg. I respect that.

But suggesting it's because of a midlife crisis or belittling his opinion when he doesn't agree with you shows a lack of respect for the service you claim to honor.

I've disagreed on some point with every public figure I've known. I won't try to smear them for our differences.

[DevonRex]

110. I was trying to find a reason for his

lack of judgment IMO in this case. I can understand the need to relive the past, the need to be relevant once again. It's a shame that older Americans aren't valued. But it is true. And it hits men the hardest in their work and in their sex lives. Driving forces for us all, sure. But it's how men are taught to value themselves in our culture, too.

[last1standing]

119. Why does there have to be a reason other than a difference in opinions?

You disagree with Ellsberg (and me) on an issue. That doesn't make him an old man just seeking attention and it doesn't make you or me bad people. We just disagree because different life experiences have formed our beliefs.

Ellsberg's opinions are informative because he has experienced life as a whistleblower, something few of us can say. I'm not going to take his opinions as gospel but I will lend them the credence that his experiences and intellect have rightly deserved.

[sibelian]

175. Aaaaaaaaaah.

Splat.

[FSogol]

63. +1 n/t

[Bonobo]

83. The second you said "old dudes" so contemptuously...

You forever blew your reputation with me.

People who do not respect older people and the wisdom accumulated by seeing patterns over and over are fools.

The wisdom gained with age is no myth, it is no fable. It is simply learning to see patterns.

So you compound the bigotry of ageism with the arrogance of youth and add a healthy dose of obnoxious contempt for your elders ---a perfect trifecta of nauseating sneering behavior.

[Art_from_Ark]

157. +1

[Puglover]

274. +1000!

[HardTimes99]

99. Man, just when I thought it couldn't get any lower than McCarthyism, it

descends . . . into ageism???

No, don't attack Ellsberg for his ideas or for his actions long ago. Don't even attack him for his associations. Instead, attack his age.

Forget under the bus. There needs to be a bigger gutter.

[Bluenorthwest]

103. A midlife crisis? Dan Ellsberg is 82 so if this is his midlife, he's going to break some records...

Your ageist wise cracks belie your text.

[kenny blankenship]

121. He's still ten times sharper than any of the fascist clowns trying to smear him.

[HardTimes99]

143. + Infinity! - nt

[Bluenorthwest]

237. Of course. Also it is obvious the smearing poster knows very little about him if they think he's

in 'mid life crisis' when he is in fact an elder. They are just typing stuff.

[Ken Burch]

112. Ageism much?

(I really wish we had a "Jesus H. Christ on a crutch" smilie for times like this).

[Lucinda]

127. Not a smilie...but it might come in handy:

?zz=1

[Ken Burch]

147. Nice one. Interesting that He's wearing a cross on His Robe.

Does this mean He KNEW what the Romans were gonna do to him the whole time? Or was he just a SPARTACUS fan?

[Lucinda]

151. ROFL

I didn't even notice!
I'll go with psychic!

[HardTimes99]

224. LOL! That gives a whole new meaning to the notion of omniscience. - nt

[think]

148. Ellsberg is a huge opponent of the provisions in the current NDAA

that allow for the indefinite detainment of Americans. He has been actively working together with a group to get this law repealed.

Got an opinion on that?

Or you wanna just dismiss this as part of his mid life joy ride?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

155. In other words, what you're saying is, "I used to like him until

he criticized Obama. Now I don't like him anymore."

[Iggo]

188. Exactly.

[NorthCarolina]

190. Yep, that's pretty much it. nt

[LondonReign2]

193. Bingo

It doesn't matter who it is, or what they've done, if they dare criticize Obama in even the mildest tones it becomes time to fire up the smear engine. Its pathetic and sad to see coming from Democrats.

[QC]

197. Happens every day around here. n/t

[HardTimes99]

223. It's actually worse than that. DevonRex is saying, "I used to

like him until he got old. Now I think he's crazy."

[Arctic Dave]

67. This place has an infestation of piece of shit authoritarians and

Last edited Wed Jul 10, 2013, 11:14 PM - Edit history (1)

apologist at all cost.

Fuck them.

[rhett o rick]

160. Seriously, put them on ignore. nm

[DeSwiss]

77. Fear makes one say some awful things.....

''The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.'' ~Morpheus

K&R

[Divernan]

183. Agreed. Not to mention personal gain.

[HardTimes99]

80. I was going to post a similar OP but held off because I did not want to

Last edited Wed Jul 10, 2013, 11:37 PM - Edit history (1)

violate the proscription of "no whining about DU."

That said, I wish I could recommend your OP to infinity and beyond.

They do not attack Ellsberg's ideas (perhaps because they cannot), so instead they stoop to attacking him for his associations. It's despicable and McCarthyism, v. 2.0 and someone needed to call them out about it.

So, bravo! You said what many of us have been thinking today.

[ReRe]

87. Seriously!

K&R

I think this sight should change it's name to "DemocracyUnderground.com." Or do something to deal with this. Back in the old days, when people of a little church community had different religious ideas being floated by certain individuals in the church, those people would split off and start their own church. That's what I think should happen here. One or the other group needs to split off. Or DU needs to have two different branches. Or something! Something should be done about this. How can those folks call themselves Democrats? They are clearly NOT! Democrats love democracy, the constitution, people. animals, air, water, learning, love and PEACE. I'm a paltroon and I don't want to fight!

[davidwparker]

90. Yes, we continue to throw FDR (D)'s under the bus.

When the crimes of Nixon are now surpassed by a (D), you know how far we've sunk. All Nixon did was was escalate a war for war profiteers and break into an office.

Bush Jr., Obama, Hillary(?) ..... some much more.

[Bluenorthwest]

94. Dan's a great guy and the folks attacking him lack coherent arguments so they do ageist

and homophobic full tilt crazy like they always do. They loved Rick Warren, they hate Dan Ellsberg.

[MotherPetrie]

95. K&R.

[Purveyor]

97. Let the Demcratic candidates be on notice. Your position on the NSA spying will influence many

as whether to support or just stay home come Nov. '14.

Just saying and take heed.

[Waiting For Everyman]

101. I was thinking the exact same thing as your subject line earlier today.

When some nitwit schmo wannabe blogger, who probably couldn't pass a civics test if his life depended on it, is believed without question no matter what nonsense he spouts, over a man like Daniel Ellsberg...

Well, it's an easy way to notice how many people are lacking in character and intelligence these days. Duly noted, detouring around the riff raff is a real time saver.

[marmar]

107. That thread to which you refer was one of the most pathetic, desperate things I've ever seen on DU.

nt

[struggle4progress]

117. "I can never ever disagree with a person who has done something I really admire"? No thank you!

[last1standing]

123. May I ask who you are quoting? My OP never said that so I'm not sure where it comes from.

I know I have repeatedly said the opposite in my responses to people and I just re-read the OP to make sure I didn't imply that you could never disagree with Ellsberg. I respect your opinion if you disagree with him or me. In fact, I'll respect you unless you do or say something that gives me reason to do otherwise.

[frylock]

120. look at the source of that flamingpile of a post..

seeing that poster accuse anyone of shilling is laughable.

[NorthCarolina]

191. Please feel free to elaborate. nt

[frylock]

280. that poster has zero credibility..

none whatsoever. all that poster does is shill for Obama and the party. she denies any US involvement in the morales affair, and still insists that not one country involved in that fiasco has issued an apology. when presented with facts, that poster will not respond, opting to move on and start other threads posting the same bullshit that was totally debunked.

[Bluenorthwest]

124. It's not the Party, it is a tiny faction of DUers

They panic as they see the halcyon days passing them by, irrelevance coming and the dry 'moderate center' of this Party rejoining the Republicans as they same lot did after their stint as 'Reagan Democrats'.

[last1standing]

133. It's those who put party before policy.

You said something very interesting earlier in this thread - something about supporting Warren while trashing Ellsberg. I almost made it an OP because I wonder if those posters consider themselves Democrats based on our platform or support anyone/anything the Democratic leadership suggests without reflection.

[bobduca]

125. Link a sore asses

you presume they "think" at all. They are mccarthyite shitbags, no thinking required, no ethics or morals required. Just blind loyalty and the ability to collect links all day and smear official two minutes of hate.

And they are fucking failing.

[boilerbabe]

126. yes. DEMS are just the other right wing party except they like gay campaign contributions.

[Bluenorthwest]

131. Your post has 80 rec's the other has 21. That's a wide margin of victory for reason and defeat

for McCarthyism 2013, Electric Boogaloo.

[babylonsister]

134. SO? Oye. He's a man probably many have

never even heard of. He's not everyone's hero either.

[last1standing]

141. How would you feel if that post read 'Obama' in place of 'Ellsberg?'

I think we both know the answer to that and I would agree with you if you were to post a similar OP as mine under those circumstances. There's no reason disagreement should lead to trashing someone most of us (hopefully) believe is indeed a hero.

[babylonsister]

154. Hero?

Not to me-why? He's an activist who has done things I admire, sure.

And Obama is the president; different kettle of fish.

[last1standing]

156. Obama is a different kettle of fish because he's your hero.

No one is above criticism, not even Ellsberg or Obama, but I believe we should try to not smear either of them with lies and innuendo. I hope you can agree with that.

[treestar]

205. We've had plenty of those

How can you not acknowledge that Obama gets tons of criticism on DU? And if we even try to question it or defend him, Gods forbid! Though this board is for Democrats, that's not on and we hear a ton about it. In fact, isn't Ellsberg criticizing Obama now? So do we have no right to push back in this case? Why is Ellsberg allowed to criticize Obama but the President's supporters can't find him in the wrong in this case?

It's like people are making a sacred cow of him and saying look you Obama supporters, NOW you can't defend Obama, because someone sacred has deemed Obama in the wrong.

Ellsberg did his thing before the NSA and when there were NO whistleblower protections. It's really ironic he would defend run-away Eddie. We don't have to agree with Ellsberg now.

[last1standing]

299. Are you seriously trying to say that two wrongs make a right?

I agree that Obama get's attacked in very a personal, mean-spirited manner by some DUers and that isn't something I support. That doesn't mean it's therefore fine to attack others in the same way.

And as I've stated to you previously in this thread, I have in no place asserted that you have to agree with Ellsberg. disagree with him all you like and I'll respect your opinion. Please don't suggest that I've said otherwise as you've done in two other posts now.

[Hekate]

142. It's more like how far have we sunk as a site, rather than as a party

This site is, thank gods, not the Democratic Party.

[JI7]

150. i don't think most Democrats know who he is

[Iggo]

152. They've painted themselves into a corner.

It's never pretty when that happens.

[MisterP]

162. that means they have only one pol left to turn on

2017 will look *quite* funny

[Ken Burch]

163. The attacks come solely from the "It's ok when OUR guy does it" wing of the party.

The ones who would automatically defend anything done by any Democratic president(even Bill Clinton's refusal to let the Haitian refugees come here and get asylum from the Tonton Macoute at the time of his swearing-in, a decision that was morally indistinguishable from FDR's refusal to allow Jewish refugees to come here and have sanctuary from Hitler, even though FDR knew this country could easily have accomodated all of them and given the able-bodied men among them military training as anti-Nazi combat brigades for the war).

Our only hope is to hold our OWN party to the same standards we would hold any other. If we condemn a Republican president for something, we have a moral obligation to condemn a Democratic president when she or he does the same. If not, then we stand for nothing at all.

[last1standing]

165. Spot on!

I can't condone double tap drone strikes just because the guy I voted for authorized them just as I won't criticize a republican when they vote for equal rights (on the very rare occasion that happens). I've never believed in absolute truths but I don't believe in absolute relativism, either.

[hrmjustin]

164. What exactly did members say about him that upset you.

[last1standing]

167. I'll give you a few choice bits...

&quot Ellsberg) has chosen to shill for an extreme front group..."

"Wow, who knew Ellsberg sat on this Board with Greenwald even though he sounded like he was in their pocket with all his fawning over Nothing? What a downfall.. way to ruin your legacy over Greenwald and Snowden, Daniel Ellsberg."

"Brother CATO and brother RAND backing brother Booz-Allen, now there's a surprise spooks of a-feather . . . "

"Ellsberg has found his stupid soulmates in Greenwald and Snowden..."

"...fuck Ellsberg's cloudy thinking and his "enraged" yearning for Impeachment."

"Yep. Ellsberg is a hero to the Infowars.com crowd it seems. . ."

"And just like Sara he can see Russia from his "house""

"Career activist trying desperately to stay relevant."

There's much, much more but those cover the lies, smears and misdirection I mentioned along with some good old-fashioned childish insults thrown in for good measure.

Also, it's not about upsetting me, it's about using the exact same comments used by the John Birchers and the Heritage Foundation to negate the work and bravery of a true hero of democracy (notice the little "d&quot . Ellsberg risked everything to expose corruption and lies by our government, he deserves better from us. Disagree with his positions, fine, but don't try to destroy his reputation.

[hrmjustin]

168. That is sad that these things were said. The man is clearly a hero for what he did.

I am not aware of who he works for but I don't think he is a shill or in the pocket of anyone. You don't have to agree with everything he says but he should be shown respect.

I will say it again, The real story is the NSA and what they did. Snowden and the whole where he is and going drama is red meat for the media.

Just remember most people here no matter what they think of Snowden and the NSA think Ellsberg is a hero.

[backscatter712]

255. I'm actually fine with Snowden being a lightning rod.

He's become a symbol of resistance to government overreach, he's got a wild story that people can't resist retelling, and he's become hooked at the hip with NSA abuses. You can't tell his whole story without telling why he did it, and what he revealed: NSA abuses!

The people bashing him were hoping to throw him in the trash bin of history, but they did the exact opposite.

[last1standing]

305. Very true.

While it's sad to think that more people know who Justin Bieber is than Daniel Ellsberg, that's just the nature of life. However, for those who do know what Ellsberg has done for this country, calling him an activist for pay or a racist just because they disagree with something he said is disgusting. It not only shows a lack of class but disrespect for everyone in this forum.

But you're also right in saying that the real story is in the NSA abuses, something the character assassinations are meant to obscure. Thanks for bringing that up.

[senseandsensibility]

169. You're right. This is disgusting.

K and R'd.

[leftstreet]

170. DURec

[cyclezealot]

171. You are a call to reason.

Why do we show interest in politics. Is it for the betterment of society or are we just members of a political machine .

[blkmusclmachine]

172. This is the creep of "moderate" Republicans into the DEM Party.

Wolves in sheep's clothing.

[bvar22]

286. Some of those "creeping" are NOT in any sense "moderate".

They are the Hard Core Real Thing.

[sibelian]

173. Could you... POINT ME ... in the direction of this thread, please?

Many thanks....

[HardTimes99]

230. Here is a link to the thread to which this OP, I and

many others fervently object:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023217281

[Zorra]

176. DU has been inundated with center-right militarists claiming to be liberals. nt

[QC]

210. +1

[Le Taz Hot]

177. It's why I detest partisanship.

It's all so onesy. Our side: "Rah Rah!" Their side: "Boo!" "Everything WE do is PERFECT and everything THEY do is wrong!" It's a simple way to deal with the world for those unwilling/unable to actually rub two brain cells together and get a spark.

[renie408]

181. JESUS! PEOPLE! They are called 'PARTIES' for a reason!

They are gatherings of many people with generally aligned agendas who are capable of holding disparate individual beliefs. 'We' as a 'party' never attacked anybody. SOME members of the DU do not revere Daniel Ellsberg to the same degree you do.

OH NOES!!!

Instead of assuming that one Ellsberg bashing thread means that the whole party has turned on him, why not just argue with the individual who made the comments you disagree with?

And this is an internet message board. 'Disappointed with the DU'? Jeez...

[geek tragedy]

186. No one is above criticism in a free society. Why should Ellsberg be so privileged? nt

[JustAnotherGen]

206. +1

[sabrina 1]

208. Why wasn't Ellsberg criticized during the time when Bush was doing what is going on now?

Lol, I actually love watching all this. Exposure and sunlight is always a good thing for a democracy and we sure are getting truck loads of exposure these days and not just from Snowden.

[geek tragedy]

209. Because he's advocating impeaching a President who's not committed any crimes nt

[sabrina 1]

212. Then argue against his argument. That's what I did when Bush Supporters

attacked Clinton and I never needed to attack the person, I gave them facts. It's much more difficult to argue against facts than to argue against ad homs. That's what made Bush Supporters so much fun to fight with. They simply insulted people and had zero facts to defend their positions with.

[geek tragedy]

216. The kind of people who want to impeach Presidents not out of criminal conduct

but out of policy disagreement are not interested in dialogue, since they think their ideology trumps democracy itself.

That's the mentality that guided the Clinton impeachers in 1998, and the same mentality guiding the impeach Obama nutters on the left and right these days.

Fortunately, the impeach Obama crowd is thoroughly marginalized.

[JoePhilly]

215. Ok, let me explain ...

See, its not about Snowden, except when it is about Snowden, but currently, its not about Snowden ... its currently about Ellsberg ... at least until it is not about him.

So for the mean time, please stop persecuting those who agree with what Ellsberg said by disagreeing with what Ellsberg said.

And don't use excessive hyperbole if you do disagree, or snark for that matter, or you will be proving that you are an actual totalitarian who voted for Hitler, and you will be called out for same (and in all seriousness).

Sometimes this place is just too hilarious.

[geek tragedy]

217. And they call other people cultists. nt

[JoePhilly]

220. My PhD is in Psychology and if I was going to go back

to graduate school, I'd redo my dissertation using DU threads.

The level of paranoia displayed here recently is fascinating.

[geek tragedy]

221. recently?

General Discussion used to be about 25-50% 911 Truth discussions.

[JoePhilly]

222. LOL ... true.

[Hissyspit]

297. One OP had vague uncertified slander against

Ellsberg and another I saw called him a racist.

The OP is not about being above criticism or disagreement. It is about diliberate slander/libel noise with no justification being posted here.

[Bluenorthwest]

225. Well folks are free to offer 'criticism' and others are free to answer that with disgust.

You seem to be claiming that posters making absurd attacks on a great American are above criticism, why do you think they are so privileged? They should not hear what others think of their McCarthyite trip? Because they are so preciously moderate?
A very ironic post.

[geek tragedy]

228. Ellsberg did one great thing.

He's not John Lewis or Harvey Milk.

He gets routinely elevated here as the authority in fallacial appeals to authority--"Daniel Ellsberg says Bradley Manning is the savior of manking--it must be true."

If people are going to continuously hold up Ellsberg as the absolute moral authority on all things regarding the constitution, it's more than fair to point out he advocates blatantly unconstitutional stuff like impeaching Senators for voting for the NDAA, and thus has no real idea what is and what isn't constitutional.

Can't use him as a sword and a shield. If people are going to use his words as the foundation for attempts to delegitimize the current President, they put him in play.

[HardTimes99]

232. Funny, but I don't see you condemning DUers who attack Ellsberg for

his age (right here in this thread) or his associations (in the thread in question).

So methinks GeekTragedy doth protest too much.

Now I could argue that your silence in the face of ageist attacks upon Ellsberg makes you ageist yourself or that your silence in the face of McCarthy-ite guilt-by-association attacks upon Ellsberg makes you an adherent of McCarthyism.

But I won't. Still, one is entitled to ask, why don't you condemn those inappropriate attacks upon Ellsberg?

[geek tragedy]

238. I haven't seen them.

Ellsberg is worshipped as a god here, doesn't need me hunting down every unfair comment towards him.

The fact that Ellsberg wants to nullify the 2012 elections and impeach Obama makes him a first rate discredited crank in my book, along with Inhofe, Gohmert etc.

[HardTimes99]

240. Strawman Ellsberg much? Jeesh, what's with the over-the-top

hyperbole: "nullify the 2012 elections"? You're beginning to sound like that DUer in the other thread who claimed (uproariously) that Ellsberg wanted Nixon to be elected (in 1968) and re-elected (in 1972), so he made sure the PP only covered the years up until 1967.

[geek tragedy]

243. What do you think impeaching and removing the President from office amounts to?

Sorry, but Ellsberg and every one else who wants to nullify the decision this country made last November can go fuck themselves.

They don't respect democracy.

[Bluenorthwest]

251. What do you think 'quote' means? It does not mean 'make up editorial characterizations'.

Quotes.

[Bluenorthwest]

246. God the hyperbole is nearly suffocating. 'Worshipped as a god'? How do you type that without

bursting into gales of laughter? The need to so hugely characterize those who dare disagree with you is glaring.
Linkless, quote free characterizations are always a give away.

[geek tragedy]

248. This thread is bemoaning the fact that Ellsberg is getting criticized.

He's held up routinely as the absolute authority on the constitution as well as whistle-blowing.

Turns out he's a crank who thinks Senators can be impeached for saying the wrong thing and that DOJ lawyers can be impeached for defending a federal statute in the courts.

So, why should we take what he says seriously again? Because of something he did 40 years ago?

Heck, Joe Lieberman was doing civil rights marches 40 years ago.

[Bluenorthwest]

250. Again, how can you type such fact free hyperbole without howling at the straw construction?

Look. If you wish to hang a man for his words, you need to make the effort to use that man's actual words. This business of you blathering out what you think you heard is called gossip. You refuse to offer quotes because they do not make the case you wish to make.
Anyone who wants to criticize what a person has said needs to quote what that person said, not do some improvisational riffing and characterizations.
So amazing that you still can not provide an actual quote from Dan that upsets you. Should be easy to do, you are very upset about something. Perhaps you inferred many things that were not said? That would explain the lack of Dan's words in your posts about how awful his words are. You use your words in an attempt to indict another. Sleazy tactic.

[geek tragedy]

256. Elsewhere, I produced a quote where he said John McCain could be impeached for arguing

on behalf of the NDAA.

Apparently, your buddy is such a dedicated constitutionalist he never read Article 1, Section 5 (Each house solely able to judge qualifications of its own members), Article II, Section 4 (governing impeachment), or the freaking first amendment.

[last1standing]

312. Alright, Ellsberg said something that was wrong about impeaching senators.

Just as you said something that was wrong about him calling for Obama's impeachment. Does this mean both of you should be subjected to character assassination? Should you both have lies spread about you? I'm sure you wouldn't want to create a double standard.

Personally, I think personally attacking either of you for your political beliefs is unacceptable.

[Bluenorthwest]

249. Who the fuck has said he's the absolute moral authority on all things'? You, that's who.

That's you, typing up some material to argue against. Straw. I see, shockingly, quotation marks in this post, but unsurprisingly it is not a quote at all, it is again material you are making up, pretending someone else said, so you can argue with it. Straw.
Just fyi, I've known Dan for years, you are some hyperbole merchant on the internet that does not even know a big about Dan other than the Pentagon Papers.
The characterizations and hyperbole are just pathetic.

[geek tragedy]

252. Oh, you're his friend so the stuff he's actually said doesn't count.

It really says to me, at last, I think, that President Obama, who was a constitutional teacher, like Professor John Yoo, Y-O-O, of Berkeley, who authored most of these torture memos in the first place—I think that, like Yoo, Obama has to be seen as either a rotten constitutional lawyer or a man who, like Yoo, believes that the Constitution simply does not bound an American prisoner in any way in an indefinite law of torture. And either way, I believe we have here impeachable offenses by all of the people arguing this case, including the three senators—McCain, others—who will be arguing today on this.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/5/daniel_ellsberg_ndaa_indefinite_detention_provision

Your friend advocates impeachment in a downright frivolous and unthinking manner, to the point the thinks Senators can be impeached (!) for exercising their free speech rights (!).

So, no, he absolutely does not deserve to be taken seriously, given his lack of interest in the actual constitution.

[whatchamacallit]

195. Anyone who believes the 24/7 attacks on the left

are just opinions from the other side of the big tent, is high. This place is overrun with propagandists and provocateurs.

[geek tragedy]

203. The left doesn't call for impeaching Obama. Only a few random cranks do nt

[Bluenorthwest]

227. You are very correct.

It is amazing how freaked out they are.

[Marr]

293. I don't know about overrun-- I think there are about 30 of them.

But they post constantly and spend most of their time trolling, so they seem more numerous. They're like little dogs with loud voices that just never stop barking.

[whatchamacallit]

304. Yeah, you're probably right

but their ranks have been swelling.

[ananda]

211. I have no issue with Ellsbert. He also wrote a blog piece on Snowden on June 10th.

Sometimes, secrets just need to be revealed and someone will come along and do that.
He also wrote this blog piece on Snowden last June where he uses the phrase "United
Stasi of America." See:

http://www.ellsberg.net/

He says Snowden's leak is the most important leak in United States history, even more
so than his own leak of the Pentagon Papers.

[Autumn]

213. It's not the party doing it.

It's a defense mechanism by some people.

[allin99]

231. How far have progressives sunk that they're for extended surveillance?!

lol. It's creepy!!

[backscatter712]

254. A-fucking-men! The continued McCarthyism is fucking despicable. n/t

[heaven05]

271. lots

of republican lite people on this site disguised as democrats, from the zpig apologist to attacks on a man who let the truth be told. Ellsberg. SHAMEFUL.

[backscatter712]

315. What do you mean "lite"?

They're going for full-flavor.

[heaven05]

332. yep

couldn't agree more.

[polichick]

276. The sooner we understand that this party is no longer the people's party...

the sooner we can either reclaim it or get on with plan B.

Threads like the one you mention hopefully serve to wake up a few voters.

[WillyT]

283. Yep... Both Parties Fight Over, And For... The 1%...

It sickens me.

[Progressive dog]

287. Disagreeing with someone is not "smearing" him,

it is not attacking him, he is entitled to his position and so are we.

[bvar22]

289. If you can't tell the difference between a Swift Boating Smear Attack,

and "disagreeing" with someone,
then you belong over on that other thread.

[Progressive dog]

291. A swift boating smear attack is not the same as disagreeing

I have seen Ellsberg treated more gently here than the President has been treated.

[Hissyspit]

300. You win.

Despite the posts accusing Ellsberg without any evidence, you used a rolling laughing smiley, so you win.

1. It's possible Ellsberg is right and the President is wrong.

2. President Obama has a hell of a lot more power than Ellsberg does.

3. Just because you haven't seen the swift-boating posts doesn't mean they're not there.

[Progressive dog]

311. " It's possible Ellsberg is right and the President is wrong. "

No it isn't.

President Obama has a hell of a lot more power than Ellsberg does.

So what, if the President had less power then he shouldn't be swift boated?

Just because you haven't seen the swift-boating posts doesn't mean they're not there.

I have seen the Obama attacks.

[Hissyspit]

318. "No, it isn't."

Well that absurd absolutism tells everyone everything they need to know.

"So if the President had less power then he shouldn't be swift boated."

I never said anything of the sort.

"I have seen the Obama attacks."

So have I. But apparently that's all that you've seen, also known as '"seeing only what you want to see (see 'confirmation bias')."

[Progressive dog]

319. Yes it is, and it is what you said

unless it was just random thoughts, unrelated to my post.

[last1standing]

294. I agree with everything you just posted.

Disagreeing with someone is not smearing him just as smearing someone does not necessarily mean you've disagreed with the truthfulness or accuracy of what that person has claimed.

The OP and subsequent supporting posts in the referenced OP don't just disagree with Ellsberg, they purposely smear him by association, by character assassination, by omission, by misdirection and by downright lies. If you support doing this to a person who has risked everything so that you could be more informed about what is being done in your name, I don't know what else I can say.

[Hissyspit]

295. No, but making stuff up about him, and calling him a racist without evidence, are.

Both of which I've seen here.

[Doctor_J]

290. The party has moved from FDR/JFK/LBJ to "an inch to the left of the baggers"

the party movers and shakers have decided that's the winning line. IMO that is going to backfire but it's their world - I just have to live in it.

[upaloopa]

307. My guess is that those who attack him were not around when

the Pentagon papers were released.
It makes me wonder what kind of future young people are creating for themselves when they attack the very people who are really fighting for their freedoms.
I doubt future generations will have the stuff it takes to live in a true democracy.

[punkin87]

308. Saw a disgusting post about Ellsberg, but didn't want to kick that piece crap.

Hope it sinks.

[alsame]

316. The People's View

again?

Pieces from that site get posted here as flypaper threads with the usual pile on against anyone who disagrees.

Read some of the comments after any piece on that site - they are not liberals, probably not even Democrats.

[fascisthunter]

325. the party is run by the wealthy class

and most of the voices you here denigrating him are paid shills. Most.

[kath]

330. Can I rec this thread a hundred times? puh--leeeeeeze?

the Democratic Party as our parents and grandparents knew it is pretty much gone. infiltrated from top to bottom ( incl the White House)by DLCers, ThirdWay-ers, corporatists, DINOs, and various other assholes.

[Conium]

333. There should be an investigation.

Why is our government giving people like Snowden access to our top secret information?

[last1standing]

334. Why an investigation?

We know what's wrong, we just need to fix it by hiring real employees instead of contractors and by not violating our laws and Constitution to begin with.

I'll leave the investigations to Daryll Issa. He seems to enjoy spinning his wheels.

[bobduca]

339. Nothing to see here folks, move along. n/t

[Conium]

349. Yep.

That's for sure. But whose idea was it to Halliburtonize national security? That's who should be investigated, then tried for treason.

[jazzimov]

336. So, just because one person

posted a thread attacking a DU icon, you assumed that all of DU was against him?

Personally, I admit that everyone is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. I tend to compare the "rights" vs the "wrongs" and see if I can see a pattern.

Just because someone is a "hero" because of one position they took, doesn't mean that they are infallible and always right. However, I will give them more credibility if they have a track record of being accurate.

But situations change quickly, and if someone tends to phrase things in terms of old paradigms that have sense changed - I tend not to believe them in terms of the new paradigm.

But, icons tend to misquoted. I don't know if that's what happened, or if Ellsberg wanted to extend his 15 minutes of fame and appear relevant when his opinions were based on out-dated operations.

[blackspade]

337. I'm glad I missed that thread.

Attacking Ellsberg? Seriously?
That's just pathetic and sad.

That makes no logical sense why any liberal would attack Ellsberg.

[MrMickeysMom]

343. Well, I sure missed it, and I won't be back for a few days...

Maybe by the time I return, we'll have a kum-baya experience and everyone will realize how nuts that was.

[woo me with science]

350. Democrats across the country aren't.

The government propaganda machine is.