Smearmaster Glenn Greenwald's smear campaign against George W. Bush

[Douglas Carpenter]

Smearmaster Glenn Greenwald's smear campaign against George W. Bush

AS they say - haters are going to hate and smearers are going to smear. Glenn Greenwald did not begin his smear career with President Obama - he was doing it way back before Obama came to the White House. It seems that he thinks that just because someone is in powerful position - that they are supposed to be criticized - Imagine that!~!


2008 Bill Moyer interview with Glenn Greenwald about the George W. Bush legacy

http://billmoyers.com/content/glenn-greenwald-on-the-george-w-bush-administration-and-the-rule-of-law/

He also wrote three books about the George W. Bush Administration; The New York Times-bestsellers How Would A Patriot Act? (2006) and Tragic Legacy (2007), and his 2008 release, Great American Hypocrites.[/blockquote]

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. Why are you guys trying to re-sell Greenwald's Putin lovin' ass? Something happen?

[Cali_Democrat]

2. Greenwald supported the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision

Why are people trying to re-package Greenwald and sell him here? Especially after the court's decision today removing private money caps in election campaigns. No doubt Greenwald supports that as well.

I ain't buying!

[Tarheel_Dem]

4. There's a good piece on him openly ruminating about some "billionaire" running for....

POTUS, and not being beholden to the two parties. He likes rich folk, and he wrote a really nasty piece about immigrants some time ago as well. He's not a nice person.

[Enrique]

74. "Latin America is but a cyst on the anus of the world"--Tarheel_Dem, 7/5/2013

speaking of puke.

[Tarheel_Dem]

77. Was that in relation to "Latin American" people?

[Luminous Animal]

7. He supports 100% public funding of political campaigns.

He supported SOME parts (not all-as did the the ACLU) because restricting the speech of all corporations would result in restricting the speech of orgs such as Planned Parentood, the ACLU, the NAACP, etc. Those liberal orgs are incorporated.

Will you advocate that their 1st amendment rights be abridged?

[Cali_Democrat]

8. Free speech for corporations via uncapped political donations?

Go sell that right wing tripe somewhere else, I ain't buying.

[Luminous Animal]

11. So no free speech for Planned Parenthood Inc?

So tell me. How would you Constitutionally allow an incorporated entity such as Planned Parenthood engage in political speech but ban Citizen's United?

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Planned Parenthood exists to provide reproductive services to women in need.

It should not be in the business of funneling loads of cash to political campaigns Koch-style.

Like I said, go sell your right wing 'political campaign contributions are free speech' bullshit somewhere else.

[msanthrope]

22. Straight up firebagger theology pushed by Hamsher and the like...

Remember how Hamsher and Greenwald have a PAC together? Follow the money.

[cui bono]

17. So 100% public funding of political campaigns...

so the free speech he supports is not political donations then, not money?

[Enthusiast]

18. He was wrong on Citizens United.

[Luminous Animal]

3. So no comment about the 3 anti- Bush books he wrote

or the years he dedicate on his blog to anti-Bush policies.

Nope.

[Tarheel_Dem]

5. !!!

[Cali_Democrat]

6. So Greenwald supported Bush and his wars until they became unpopular...

http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/glenn-greenwald-supported-president-bush-as-he-signed-the-patriot-act/

To quote Wu-Tang, this is just more proof this guy is all about the dolla dolla bill, y'all $$$$$$

[Luminous Animal]

9. Ah well. No he didn't. As he has clearly stated he was, politically, apathetic.

And then, because of the gross excesses of the Bush admin, he arrived at a political awakening and wrote 3 BEST SELLING BOOKS SLAMMING THE BUSH ADMIN.

You should them. They are very good.

[Cali_Democrat]

10. So he happened to arrive at a "political awakening" when Bush and his wars were extremely unpopular

...and then he managed to make good money selling books slamming the Bush admin.....

Nope....Greenwald is definitely not about the money.

[Larry the Cable Dude]

23. You hate Greenwald even in his popular period

Don't pretend you support the work Greenwald has done ever.

[Tarheel_Dem]

34. Well, as long as he's "popular", that's all that matters! Let's ask a real "whistleblower".

"Checkbook Journalism: What is Greenwald Covering Up"?

[Chathamization]

25. He also wrote about his "Bush support" when Bush and his wars were extremely unpopular

If he was only cynically against Bush to go with the flow, why would he tell everyone that he had personally thought well of Bush during his apathetic years instead of just omitting it?

[msanthrope]

24. Politically apathetic? He was running for offfice at age 17. Worked for a Wall Street

law firm. Why should any of us accept his biographical details without question?

Being Matthew Hales patent attorney didn't make him a civil rights attorney either.

[brush]

33. So what was he doing before his awakening?

Just politically asleep?

So now he's got all this great zeal against whoever's in the WH — sort of a johnny come lately, where have you been all your adult life kinda guy?

No grown person in this day and age should ever admit to being "politically apathetic".

Hmmm . . . there's a word for that even . . . let's see, kinda of rhymes with . . . no, no, not that . . . ah, wait, wait . . . I've got it . . . pathetic!

[msanthrope]

35. Working for Wall Street. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

65. And defending White Supremacists. n/t

[msanthrope]

66. Defending their intellectual property... as a criminal defense attorney

I certainly understand having clients who are undeniably repugnant. But you defend them and you defend them with fervor because we are all equal at the bar of the court.... we are all innocent until proven guilty and deserve a righteous defense. And the idea that someone repugnant but Innocent should go to jail is disgusting....

But then you have cases of choice.... Cases where the defendant is not facing loss of liberty but loss of money.

Greenwald decided to become Matthew Hale's intellectual property attorney because of course another neo-nazi group was suing him. Then he chose to represent Matthew Hale when he was sued civilly by shooting victims.

This apparently is his basis for the claim that he's a civil rights attorney.

[Tarheel_Dem]

67. I get that everyone deserves a defense, but I wouldn't take the case of a Neo-Nazi. Sorry. nt

[madfloridian]

73. No, he didn't. That is not the truth.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024692240

[Tarheel_Dem]

78. Perhaps he's just misunderstood?

[sabrina 1]

14. Lol, no one has to sell Greenwald, apparently he is much in demand as a truth telling journalist and

I believe [b]he owes a lot to those who have tried so hard to smear HIM.

He was just a small blogger on the Left who was not known to anyone outside of Liberal Blogs and the Right Wingers who detested him. They STILL do, which of course is a real tribute to anyone, when you are hated by Right Wingers.

But then a strange thing happened. Anonymous got into a dispute with Security Contractor HB Gary. Anonymous doesn't like to be threatened by morons so they hacked into HB Gary's emails! And, side from all the other stuff we learned about how these 'security contractors use our tax dollars, what did they find?

Lol, they found emails from HB Gary to BOA, bidding on a CONTRACT TO SMEAR GREENWALD!

Imagine that, BOA was so angry that a blogger, not a major news outlet mind you, but a blogger, like US, had been writing about them and the corruption of the Big Banks that they were willing TO PAY TO SMEAR Greenwald.

Well, guess what happened? Suddenly Greenwald became nationally known then Internationally known. He was invited to a far BIGGER venue where he continued to slam the Big Banks, then he was offered an opportunity to go even further.

Lol, it's obvious that SOMEONE got the Contract to Smear Glenn Greenwald even if HB Gary had to drop it.

And the more they try, the bigger audience Greenwald gets.

So, I have a feeling Greenwald thanks you and the rest of those who continue to obsess over him personally.

YOU are helping to sell Greenwald. Which is the irony of all this. Lol!

I love Greenwald threads.

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. Any links yet for the "50 million US households" claim? You know what I mean. I'd prefer you.....

bother someone else until you can back up these wild claims you make. You've gotten away with this grandiose crap for too long. And yes, I'm sure you love these threads, it brings out all the Assange-anistas!

[sabrina 1]

57. Hey, if I wanted to refute a claim someone else was making, I would have done it by now. I am

amused at your whining about something you COULD have refuted, but can't seem to be able to do it. Until you do, I stand by those statistics. Let's see you prove them wrong. 5 million households, that's impressive considering how long it took for Al Jazeera to even get on the air here.

I do love these threads. You have no idea how informative they are.

[Tarheel_Dem]

62. Is it a secret? You can't share your source for those numbers? You claimed 50 million viewers, not 5

sabrina 1.....
"RT is watched now by over 50 million US households. It is the ANTI-FOX network".
Which is why I have serious questions about those who are attempting to discredit and still claiming to be 'liberals'.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4363923

Nice try, but slyly changing 50 million to 5 million isn't worthy of even you. As far as you & "informative"? Hope springs eternal.

[sabrina 1]

71. Still can't refute it, I see. It's possibly more by now, that was a while ago. Worldwide, of course

it's way, way more. One of the most popular news media online also.

You're a bit obsessive over this, aren't you, kind of creepy actually.

50 Million households. And this is why people are no longer dependent on the Corporate Media. How many viewers does CNN have btw? Lol!

Oh, and when you can refute it, let me know.

[Tarheel_Dem]

75. Yup. It's weird how "50 million" became "5" in the blink of an eye.

[Number23]

72. Man, Houdini wouldn't have even tried that slight of hand!!

Nice try, but slyly changing 50 million to 5 million isn't worthy of even you.

I am CRYING.

[Tarheel_Dem]

76. Girl, does she have NO shame? None at all? I have to "refute" what she can't support.

How does one go about disproving a blatant falsehood? It's a tactic used by Fox. Make shit up, and let the viewer disprove it. She tried to pass off a 2005 Wiki entry as proof, but it didn't support her claim either. She, somehow, managed to conflate "availability" with "viewership", and got caught. At that time, AJ was "available" to 50 million US households. I can't even find where anybody keeps track of their viewership, and they ain't reporting it. Nielsen obviously don't know they're on the air, or like most Americans, they don't give a shit. Must be pretty bad.

Being fact checked doesn't seem to bother the poster in the least. Oh, and "Dennis Kucinich is hugely popular in Europe". It's been nearly 4 years, and I'm still waiting on the link.

[Oilwellian]

54. Sabrina, they are amusing

If one were to use their illogical way of thinking, hating Greenwald means they love BOA. LOL You can't make this stuff up.

[sabrina 1]

56. That's what it means to me whenever I see the feeble attempts to continue what HB Gary

was planning. After all that is what BOA was accepting bids on, to try to silence those exposing their corruption. I sure wouldn't be helping them.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. RE-SELL GREENWALD? Damn, I'm trying to expose him for what he is - a loudmouth troublemaker

who badmouths and back talks both Republicans and Democrats. What kind of democracy is it when people can get away with always stirring up trouble for those in authority regardless what party they are?

[Larry the Cable Dude]

21. You could have scolded Moyers, but you scolded "you guys"

Because you find it uncomfortable to note that a great liberal is defending Greenwald.

[NCTraveler]

37. While I believe my opinion of Greenwald differs greatly from yours....

That was a great first post to the op. Truly had me laughing. And while I am sure our opinions of the man probably differ, there is a lot of truth to your comment.

[Tarheel_Dem]

41. I'm sure our opinions vary GREATLY, but you know what they say about a stopped clock.

[AgingAmerican]

12. This sounds familiar

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024473601

[SunsetDreams]

16. !!

[ananda]

19. Umm, how can you smear someone like George W Bush,

whose whole life and mind is one big smear.

[Doctor_J]

20. can't be. I read on du that he never criticized Bush

and that his bashing of Obama's domestic spying program is based primarily on racism

[tridim]

26. Rand and Daddy Paul are the only politicians Glenn doesn't smear.

Because he thinks they're just peachy, and smart too!!!!11

[MannyGoldstein]

27. "There’s no question that Ron Paul holds some views that are wrong, irrational and even odious."

"There’s no question that Ron Paul holds some views that are wrong, irrational and even odious."
- Glenn Greenwald

[tridim]

28. And yet oddly he supports both Pauls.

And speaks at Kochhead think tanks.

He is a fraud and a contradiction. A sad, little man.

[el_bryanto]

29. What did he talk about at those think tanks?

And if you know the answer to that question, why aren't you sharing it?

Because smearing Greenwald is more important that being clear and accurate?

Bryant

[tridim]

30. I am only pointing out that Greenwald supports the Pauls and speaks at Koch run think tanks.

Both of which are true.

I know Libertarians don't care about the truth. So deal with it however you want.

I will NEVER defend the fraud Greenwald like you and Manny do.

[el_bryanto]

31. So, like libertarians you also don't care about the truth?

Or don't you know? What did he speak at the Cato institute on?

Bryant

[msanthrope]

36. Actually..he toured for Cato, was a donor premium, and wrote whitepaper for them....

Lots of pundits speak at lectures and symposiums for CATO....but can you name another one who has done for CATO what I've listed???



http://exiledonline.com/glenn-greenwald-of-the-libertarian-cato-institute-posts-his-defense-of-joshua-foust-the-exiled-responds-to-greenwald/

I wonder why Greenwald was against TSA unionizing...right when the Kochs were.

[el_bryanto]

39. And what did he write those papers on? What subject did he find common ground with the

Cato Institute on? Why won't you say it?

It's a pretty big part of the story and yet you and this exiledonline site don't seem interested in saying it out loud. Why not?

Bryant

[msanthrope]

40. He wrote a paper on drug policy in Portugal. Easy way to funnel cash to Greenwald, and

certainly, he is not the only pundit the Kochs have bought off that way--CATO whitepaper has long been a source of rightwing welfare.

I mean, let's face it....you take a Wall Street litigator who has retired to Brazil and you ask him to 'write' a paper on drug policy in Portugal? Because he's an expert? Because he has any experience? No--you have him write whitepaper--doesn't matter the subject.

[el_bryanto]

42. Finally - so was he in favor of tighter or looser drug policies?

Also using the term retired with Greenwald isn't exactly accurate is it? He's a journalist. He's been a journalist/opinion writer for quite a while now.

Bryant

[msanthrope]

44. Mr. Greenwald's license to practice law in NY State is suspended--and given

his NYState tax default and his IRS lien, I would say that it would be kindness to call him "retired" from the bar.

Look--I am not going to read CATO whitepaper for you. If you think Mr. Greenwald actually wrote that bit of Koch welfare, and if you think contains anything to inform the debate over drug policy in America, you let us know....

But please....a former Wall Street litigator is an expert on Portuguese drug policy? Hey, it's nice work if you can get it.

[el_bryanto]

45. You don't have to read the whole paper - look i'll clear up the mystery you are working so hard to

preserve. Much of the Cato Industry is in favor of looser and more humane drug policies - they have a lot of bad points about them, but on this particular issue they are somewhat better. And Greenwald is in favor of looser and more humane drug policies.

So he agreed with people with whom he agreed on this particular issue. Pretty weak.

Bryant

[msanthrope]

46. What mystery? Are you honestly trying to tell us it's okay to take Koch Brother's money as long

as you think smoking pot is okay? What kind of logic is that?

And you seem to completely gloss over the fact that Mr. Greenwald is no expert on drug policy.....have you seen this 'study' actually cited anywhere for use? It is nothing more that a CATO--Koch brothers bit of rightwing welfare that allowed Mr. Greenwald to avoid paying his tax liens in America.

Why on earth would you defend that?

Bryant--if you agreed with the Koch Brothers on any matter (and I can't imagine one!) would you take their money?

[el_bryanto]

47. Look - you keep throwing the Koch name around as if they personally wrote him a check

I understand that due to your disdain for the man you have a vested interested in painting this particular episode in as dark a light as possible, but it's really not that sinister. He agreed with people he agreed with.

Also if you think that the criticism of our drug policy, which incarcerates thousands, boils down to thinking that "smoking pot is ok." you are really uninformed.

Bryant

[msanthrope]

48. CATO was founded by Charles Koch. You have pictures of Greenwald attending the donor benefits...

and you have him touring for, and writing whitepaper for them.

You know what is sinister, Bryant?

Protection of elites like the Kochs by co-opted 'civil libertarians.' I mean, I get that everyone thinks Greenwald is brave to take on the President in mostly specious arguments, but haven't you noticed he never, ever attacks the truly powerful? Not the 1%--thus the support of CU. And now, he has another billionaire bankrolling him.

How is any of that Progressive? It's not--it's Libertarian nihilism.

[Douglas Carpenter]

49. just like that slimy Al Franken used to invite the Cato Institute on his radio program all the time

The libertarians are all over the place. We need to make an agreement that anyone who has given them aid and comfort needs to be shunned. A whole lot of liberals need a good purging.

[msanthrope]

50. Did Franken take a dime from them? I mean, you debate the Koch Brothers, but you certainly don't

latch on to their rightwing welfare programs...

Heck, Franken debated Ann Coulter. Doesn't mean he got paid by her....

[Douglas Carpenter]

51. well if the two Koch boys personally wrote him a check - he should give it back.. and everyone else

who has ever bought any products or accepted a single penny from any Koch connected enterprise.

[msanthrope]

53. Your use of hyperbole indicates I've made a point you can't refute--there's no excuse for Greenwald

taking rightwing welfare from the organization Charles Koch founded.

Douglas, I will ask you the same question I asked Bryant....if you agreed with the Kochs on something, (and I can't imagine what that would be!) would you take money from them?

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. no,and would have never invited them on my radio show over and over again and given them free

publicity like Al Franken did. Well actually he didn't anymore than the Koch brothers gave Greenwald money. But if there was a Republican in the White House now - we would all be united in praising Greenwald and nobody would be the least bit concerned about how lots of liberals like Greenwald have spoken at or had speakers from the Cato Institute like Al Franken.

[msanthrope]

58. I am glad you agree with my point that Greenwald should not have taken Koch money, but disagree

with you with regards to Al Franken...

Specifically, you seem to be arguing that money and speech are the same thing, and I do not agree with that.

And I've always thought Greenwald was an asshole, even back during Bush....back when he was calling shooting victims "odious and repugnant."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211

Back when he was being interviewed by the FBI for breaking SAMs for Matt Hale, accusing Patrick Fitzgerald of wrongly imprisoning his Neo-Nazi client--

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/09/national/09hale.html?pagewanted=print&position=&_r=0

[Douglas Carpenter]

59. no, I'm just saying that I would not like Al Franken constantly have the Koch brothers on my radio

show and give them free publicity - like all the time. But to be perfectly honest, if the Cato Insitute wanted to invite me to speak on a subject of interest and I was in no way censored - I might accept the offer. I need the money.

[msanthrope]

60. Speaking at CATO is generally gratis. In order to get their money, you have to do more--like

produce whitepaper.

[Douglas Carpenter]

61. well, I have spent a good deal of my professional life working for some pretty odious characters

[MADem]

79. Retired? Jumped before he was pushed?

http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneySearch#search_result

Suspended ... not his finest hour. How ironic that he engaged in a form of illegal surveillance, too, by unethically, deceitfully and wrongfully taping conversations, thus violating the civil rights of witnesses.

I guess "listening in" is OK if you're the one doing the recording...?

[MannyGoldstein]

32. In what way does Greenwald support them?

Also, Bill and Hill have made millions speaking on Wall Street. Do you similarly feel that this makes them Wall Street tools?

[Oilwellian]

63. Manny, I hate to inform you...

but the Third Way Democrats also support the Koch Brothers.

The Rightwing Koch Brothers Fund the DLC

XL, Koch Brothers, and Third Way

[MannyGoldstein]

69. I'm shocked. Shocked. nt

[ForgoTheConsequence]

64. You won't get an answer.

...

[MannyGoldstein]

70. Seems to be the case.

The easiest way to end these discussions seems to be by asking for specifics.

VWOOP. Conversation over.

[NCTraveler]

38. Duplicate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024473601

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. Libertarians...pffffffttttttt!!

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. Feuding personality cults.

Bo-ring.