Greenwald tries to attack Elizabeth Warren on twitter - Uses right wing source

[Cali_Democrat]

by SpaceCityDemocrat

Libertarian Glenn Greenwald has a long history of attacking Democrats and Progressives.

Now that Elizabeth Warren is gaining support as a Democratic Candidate for 2016 he has decided to begin taking aim at her.

<...>

Shortly after her speech at Netroots Nation a man named Joe Schoffstall tried to catch the Senator in a "gotcha" moment by asking her about the Israel / Gaza issue while she walked to her next engagement.

Warren declined to answer. A perfectly acceptable decision considering the situation.

Being the opportunist that he is Greenwald attempted to exploit this interaction and take a swipe at Senator Warren.

This is a blatant hit piece by Stephen Gutowski of the Capitol City Project.A man who's bio brags about being cited by The Drudge Report, Fox News,The Blaze etc

<...>

Read more:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/19/1315043/-Greenwald-tries-to-attack-Elizabeth-Warren-on-twitter-Uses-right-wing-source#

[MohRokTah]

1. Keep your head down as the GG Bigade prepares to attack!

[Cali_Democrat]

3. I never keep my head down. It's not my style. I always go in gunz blazing...

[Bohemianwriter]

32. Ever done that in real life?

[DocMac]

48. Do you have a point to make?

[Major Hogwash]

49. Really? I always go in with blazing saddles.

I try not to take it all so seriously . . . knowing that tomorrow something else will occur that is much worse, like Glen Beck talking on his radio show . . . or something even worse, like Rick Perry holding a live press conference.

[Hissyspit]

72. Didn't you mean to say GiGi?

[MohRokTah]

111. No

[The Magistrate]

2. People Need To Get It Through Their Heads, Sir: Greenwald is Not a Leftist

He is not one of us, he is a right libertarian.

[Skidmore]

4. Absolutely.

K&R

[jeff47]

6. But he did stuff I like! Therefore he must agree with me on everything!!!

[iandhr]

8. There is a minority here who are vocal and brainless.

[cui bono]

165. You realize that what is happening here is exactly that, just the opposite POV.

So while you attempt to ridicule others who aren't even doing what you post about, there are plenty who have decided they must smear him and hate him simply because he said something they did not like.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Indeed. nt

[MADem]

16. Succinct. Profound. Accurate!

The Magistrate NAILS it!!!

[anti partisan]

80. I die a bit inside every time someone claiming to be a "liberal" or "progressive"

takes a page out of the climate deniers' book and arrives at the conclusion completely contrary to all the evidence, because it fits their political agenda.

Really, this "Greenwald is a libertarian" movement is maybe even a few steps below the denial movement because you don't even have to wade through scientific papers to know that is wrong.

[MADem]

98. All you're doing is crying about it. You might start by looking at the man's history.

The proof is in the pudding.

[MADem]

113. It's uncivil to call people trolls. Welcome to DU, I recommend you read the ToS. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

153. GG readily amits that he is a ...

civil liberties extremist ... which is a strain of Libertarianism, No?

[deurbano]

172. Yes... a civil liberties extremist-- like the ACLU.

[1StrongBlackMan]

173. And your point? ...

BTW, those are his words, not mine.

[deurbano]

174. Agreeing that is the type of "libertarian" he is-- civil libertarian, like the ACLU.

[1StrongBlackMan]

175. So I'm wondering why there is so much ...

"debate" as to whether he is a Libertarian or not?

[deurbano]

176. At the beginning of this thread, Greenwald was called a "right libertarian" ...

and that's why there is so much "debate." Is he a Ron Paul-type Libertarian... or an ACLU-type civil libertarian? As you said, he is the latter, but it is more damning to call him a Paulite (or Paulbot) than to accuse him of being an ACLU-ite. Ron Paul and the ACLU share some common philosophical ground (similar to the common ground someone like Patrick Leahy and Rand Paul have found on sentencing reform), but that obviously doesn't make the ACLU a "right libertarian" organization. (And it doesn't make Leahy a Pauljunior-ite.)

http://www.salon.com/2011/03/27/koch_2/
SUNDAY, MAR 27, 2011 07:28 AM PDT
Billionaire self-pity and the Koch brothers
The libertarian tycoons explain why they are the true victims of America's political culture
GLENN GREENWALD

<<…For billionaires to see themselves as the True Victims, to complain that the President and the Government are waging some sort of war against them in the name of radical egalitarianism, is so removed from reality — universes away — that’s it’s hard to put into words. And the fiscal recklessness that the Kochs and their comrades tirelessly point to was a direct by-product of the last decade’s rule by the Republican Party which they fund: from unfunded, endless wars to a never-ending expansion of the privatized National Security and Surveillance States to the financial crisis that exploded during the Bush presidency. But whatever else is true, there are many victims of fiscal policy in America: the wealthiest business interests and billionaires like the Koch Brothers are the few who are not among them. ..>

[1StrongBlackMan]

177. Point taken. eom.

[Tarheel_Dem]

20. Thank You! It's amazing the credibility he's given here, when he has none. n/t

[Mojorabbit]

103. Actually he does have credibility unlike many here.

I could give a sh#t about his politics. I am interested in his revelations about NSA spying. The multiple attempts to distract the board from a conversation about the subject is absolutely breathtaking.
There are a lot of posts downthread that would fit right on an elementary school board.
He is a "right libertarian!!!! Do you know how ridiculous those posts are? Is that supposed to give me the vapors or something?

[Tarheel_Dem]

126. !!!

[MADem]

146. I guess touting the work of a Newsbusters-Breitbart-CNSNews lackey passes for "credibility"

nowadays--who knew?

Love that mag cover...never gets old!

[Tarheel_Dem]

147. Credit goes to Whisp, who's a genius.

Thanks to Cha for finding this one. ^^^^^^

[MADem]

149. That one never gets old! nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

150. Does it bother anyone else that these are our "secrets", but GG's the only one getting rich? So much

for "the public good".

[Mojorabbit]

186. This is exactly what I am talking about. Third fkin grade.

It makes this board suck. The attempt to distract from any discussion of the issue is just amazing and obvious.

[Tarheel_Dem]

187. Right back atcha Rabbit!!!

[ColesCountyDem]

29. Precisely! n/t

[stonecutter357]

41. libertarians strike me as very odd.

[DocMac]

51. I agree,

like Han Solo frozen in carbon.

[MannyGoldstein]

46. Certainly, *somebody* needs to get *something* new into their heads.

Many of us can agree on that, sir.

"Glenn Greenwald is not just the American Left's most fearless political commentator; his fearlessness is such that he has shifted the expectations for everyone else, too. His rock-ribbed principles and absolute disregard for partisan favor have made U.S. political discourse edgier, more confrontational, and much much better."
- Rachel Maddow

"The first thing I do when I turn on the computer in the morning is go to Glenn Greenwald's blog to see what he said. He is truly one of our greatest writers right now."
- Michael Moore

"The most important voice to have entered the political discourse in years."
- Bill Moyers

[AgingAmerican]

135. There ya go messin' stuff up again

nt

[Mojorabbit]

188. Thank you! nt

[anti partisan]

76. Very insightful comment, sir!

Clearly Greenwald is a right libertarian, because you said so, even though all the evidence points in the other direction.

[sabrina 1]

77. Actually he's not, but let's say he was, is one's political affilation a crime now

here? I assume HE knows his own political affiliations better than anyone else. He has responded to the 'he's a Libertarian' claim himself. Can I ask you something, during the Bush years, from 2005, Greenwald most certainly was considered 'one of us', whatever that means, did you suspect him then, or ever state it here on DU, that he was a 'Libertarian' and 'not one of us'?

[The Magistrate]

78. Back Then, Ma'am, I Liked Him No More Than I Do Now

There has always been an over the top quality to his writing and commentary that I do not like in any one.

"Once you have gilded it, it no longer is a lily."

[sabrina 1]

85. Well, I wasn't asking you what you thought of his writing style, I was asking if you

(and these other DUers who I don't recall back then at all) had spoken out against him, warned us that he was a Libertarian, which he isn't just to be clear, and whatever else the claims are because I have no recollection of any antagonism towards him then, mostly he was viewed as a good blogger who 'told the truth about Bush'.

Too bad, if he's as bad as is being made out now, that no one WARNED us don't you think?

[The Magistrate]

89. No Idea, Ma'am: I Have Been Here A Long Time, Made Many Posts

I do not make an issue out of everyone and everything I do not particularly like, there being limits to time and energy. There were a good many people who some hailed as 'telling the truth about Bush' I thought were useless and worse, people like Alex Jones ( once very popular here on the wilder left ), Justin Raimondo, with his 'anti-war.com' site, and a good many others I cannot be troubled to recollect this late at night.

[sabrina 1]

91. Airc, most intelligent people were always wary of people like Alex Jones.

Greenwald however was another matter. There has been a sea change by some regarding Greenwald, so much so it is remarkable, and raises many questions.

Have a good evening, thank you for your responses.

[The Magistrate]

93. Good Evening To You, Ma'am

And I will repeat in parting, my opinion of Mr. Greenwald is now what it was then.

[anti partisan]

79. If the best these "trolls" have to go on in their quixotic quest...

to defend the NSA programs, is to (very contrary to evidence) claim that Greenwald is a "libertarian" (oh no wait, even more specific, a "right libertarian"!), that shows how pathetic their cause is.

Not only is the claim ludicrous, but Greenwald also had absolutely nothing to do with the operation of the NSA programs, something that these trolls also never seem to acknowledge.

A failure on so many different levels indeed.

PS: I heard Greenwald wears striped socks too.

So now, how 'bout that NSA?

[sabrina 1]

83. I know, it's so transparant, not to mention we KNOW that a contract was out on

Greenwald to Security Contractors, to conduct a 'smear' campaign against him in order to 'discredit him'. So we know where it's all coming from. And of course it isn't working which must be extremely frustrating for them, especially if a lot of money has been spent on it.

NSA crimes are what they are trying to distract from, but the world is not interested in Greenwald's political affiliations, they are outraged, see Chile eg, now developing their own internet to protect themselves from the NSA, at the intrusion into their country's privacy.

[anti partisan]

87. Dear Chile,

Don't worry that you are getting brutally spied upon. I'm sure that if you knew that the man who revealed the NSA's intrusive programs is a right-libertarian, you would no longer worry about such tomfoolery.

Sincerely,
The Cha-Cha Crew on behalf of the NSA

[bobduca]

88. but this thread is so consensus-y

how could you, not one of DU's turd-way scions dissent?!?!?!?!

[anti partisan]

90. You're right

All we've gotta do is prove that Greenwald is a child molester and the NSA will stop its abuses. Isn't that how it works?

[JDPriestly]

102. Does it matter?

Greenwald had the courage to support Snowden in letting the American public know how the NSA is violating our privacy.

Who cares what he thinks about other issues.

Each of us is entitled to and should make up his/her own mind about each separate issue.

I fully support Greenwald with regard to his statements and writings about the NSA.

I am not authoritarian enough in my personality to insist that he or anyone else agree with me on every issue.

I like Obama. I don't like his NSA policy. I don't like many of his appointments. But I still support him. I don't like everything Greenwald thinks, says or does, but I still support him.

That's what makes me a liberal, a progressive. I think for myself and care about liberty and my fellow human beings.

I have been reading Greenwald's book No Place to Hide. It is great. I strongly recommend it. In fact, I don't think anyone on DU should comment on Greenwald without first reading that book.

The book is not about Greenwald. It is about Greenwald's meeting Snowden, about the NSA's programs and activities, about why the NSA's programs and activities are objectionable and dangerous and how the American media repeats propaganda and is rewarded for doing so.

It's worth reading.

[AzDar]

170. ^ This.

Well-put, JDPriestly.

[whatchamacallit]

122. Really?

He's a registered libertarian with a long history of right-wing stances?

[muriel_volestrangler]

179. Sir, do you think the right libertarians are pro-Palestinian?

Here's Greenwald on the current conflict:

NBC News Pulls Veteran Reporter from Gaza After Witnessing Israeli Attack on Children

Mohyeldin recounted how, moments before their death, he was kicking a soccer ball with the four boys, who were between the ages of 9 and 11 and all from the same family. He posted numerous chilling details on his Twitter and Instagram accounts, including the victims’ names and ages, photographs he took of their anguished parents, and video of one of their mothers as she learned about the death of her young son. He interviewed one of the wounded boys at the hospital shortly before being operated on. He then appeared on MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes, where he dramatically recounted what he saw.
...
Over the last two weeks, Mohyeldin’s reporting has been far more balanced and even-handed than the standard pro-Israel coverage that dominates establishment American press coverage; his reports have provided context to the conflict that is missing from most American reports and he avoids adopting Israeli government talking points as truth. As a result, neocon and “pro-Israel” websites have repeatedly attacked him as a “Hamas spokesman” and spouting “pro-Hamas rants.”

Last week, as he passed over the border from Israel, he said while reporting that “you can understand why some human rights organizations call Gaza ‘the world’s largest outdoor prison,’”; he added: “One of the major complaints and frustrations among many people is that this is a form of collective punishment. You have 1.7 million people in this territory, now being bombarded, with really no way out.”

Gazans may have no way out of Gaza, but at this point, Mohyeldin seems to have no way back in. After several requests, NBC executives have not yet provided any on-the-record statements; they will be added if provided.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/17/nbc-removes-ayman-mohyeldin-gaza-coverage-witnesses-israeli-beach-killing-four-boys/

I ask you to consider what is currently in your head, and to consider a fresh look at what Greenwald actually says. I think you've chosen a side without enough evidence.

A Greenwald opinion from 2 years ago: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/21/israel-gaza-us-support

4 years ago: http://www.alternet.org/story/147087/glenn_greenwald_clobbers_eliot_spitzer_in_debate_on_the_gaza_flotilla

8 years ago, on Lebanon, when Bush was in power: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/neoconservatism-and-white-house-still.html

[The Magistrate]

180. Two Words, Sir: Ron Paul

http://www.ronpaul.com/tag/palestine/

[muriel_volestrangler]

181. But Ron Paul wouldn't be wanting a position from Warren on the subject

Greenwald points to Warren ducking a question because he wants his position expressed by a Democrat.

[The Magistrate]

182. That Would Depend, Sir, On Whether He wanted To Make Trouble For Democrats At The Moment

Greenwald is looking to make trouble or Democrats at the moment. As a general rule, I do not like people who try and make trouble for Democrats; it invariably helps people who are worse....

[muriel_volestrangler]

183. Greenwald is a fan of Warren, when it comes to financial regulation

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, there’s this—one of the best parts about the financial regulation bill, maybe the only truly meaningful part, is the creation of this agency, which is the idea of Professor Elizabeth Warren at Harvard to essentially police the ability of Wall Street to put fine print into mortgage and credit applications that lure the consumer into extremely one-sided and imbalanced transactions that they don’t know about, because they lack the sophistication, they don’t have lawyers to do it. And the idea of the progressive base was that she is the person who ought to be heading this agency, because she is genuinely committed to the idea of limiting Wall Street abuses. She’s a crusader for economic justice and for protection of consumers, exactly the kind of person that this administration needs but doesn’t have in important financial positions.

And the problem was, progressives were demanding it, but their real constituency, which is Wall Street and business, are horrified by the idea of Elizabeth Warren, and they needed to find some solution, because if they didn’t nominate her, progressives would be in revolt before the election. And so, what they did was they created this hybrid solution, where they pretended that they were going to appoint her, even though she has no real authority—she’s just an adviser to the President—to set up the agency, but not to run it, and meanwhile they’re telling Wall Street, "Oh, don’t worry, she’s not really going to have any authority. She’s not going to be the person who’s running it." And it’s these kind of symbolic gestures in the last several weeks that I think are almost more offensive, as they try and pretend that they are something that for the last two years they haven’t been.

http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/5370-glenn-greenwald-on-iran.html

Meanwhile, new laws to legalize both same-sex marriage and marijuana use were enacted in multiple states with little controversy, an unthinkable result even a few years ago, while Obama's late-term embrace of same-sex marriage seems to have resulted only in political benefit with no political harm. Democrats were sent to the Senate by deeply red states such as Indiana, Missouri and North Dakota, along with genuinely progressive candidates on domestic issues, including Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts and Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin, who became the first openly gay person elected to the Senate. As a cherry on the liberal cake, two of the most loathed right-wing House members – Rep Joe Walsh of Illinois and Allen West of Florida – were removed from office.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/07/obama-progressives-left-entitlements

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025041922#post10

He is not a right libertarian.

That OP, like this one, is an attempt to attack Greenwald by saying "look, he doesn't agree with DU darling Elizabeth Warren". What the OPs hope people won't notice that in both cases, Greenwald's position is on the left, and Warren is either being hawkish or just avoiding giving an opinion. Whether the Kossack who wrote it is an Obama-can-do-no-wrong-so-Greenwald-Delendum-Est die-hard who realises this, someone not intelligent enough to realise it, or even an NSA plant (yes, we should accept that the NSA, like GCHQ, will try to infiltrate online forums to alter opinion), I don't know. But I didn't think you would fall into any of those categories.

[The Magistrate]

184. So He Tries To Undercut Her Somewhere Else, Sir

Neither support for legalization of marijuana or for gay marriage indicates a reliable left orientation. Any number of younger libertarians support both things. Whatever his actual views on corporate regulation, he still concentrates fire away from the chief opponents of proper regulation. He presses all fights currently as if the real problem were Democrats and President Obama. That is a false analysis, and people who press it are not friends of anything but Republican reactionaries. He is part of the problem, not part of the left.

[muriel_volestrangler]

185. Greenwald on single payer and the public option:

The public option, of course, all along was already a compromise from what most progressives wanted, who wanted single payer and were told by most Democratic politicians for a long time that single payer was the optimal course. The public option was already a means of doing nothing other than at least providing some competition to the private health insurance industry. And all year long, Democratic senators and the White House pretended that they were in favor of the public option. They kept insisting, “We’re behind the public option. We want the public option,” even though there was all sorts of evidence that the White House was secretly negotiating with the health insurance industry to make sure that it would be excluded from the final bill.
...
Well, now you have a situation where everybody is talking about doing healthcare reform through reconciliation, where only fifty votes, not sixty votes, are required. And what does the President do? He immediately, when he finally unveils his first bill, excludes the public option from the bill, even as he says we’re going to use a process that will only require fifty votes. And you even saw Senator Jay Rockefeller, who spent the year pretending to be so devoted to the public option that he said he will not relent in ensuring that it gets passed, that there is no healthcare reform without a public option, now that it can actually pass and become a reality, he turns around and says, “I’m not inclined to vote for it in reconciliation.”
...
Well, first of all, one of the things that’s most amazing is that single payer and the public option both poll infinitely better than the healthcare bill itself, than the Senate healthcare bill that the President is advocating. And despite that, what you see all the time when they talk about bipartisanship is shifting the terms of the debate onto, essentially, the right-wing playing field to accommodate Republican views, which basically means there should be no healthcare reform, and excluding views that are to the left of anything that is essentially a conservative idea.

And so, Anthony Weiner and Dennis Kucinich have both been the leading — two of the leading participants in the healthcare debate from the very start, but because they want to move the healthcare debate into the area that’s actually popular, which is providing either single payer or at least a robust public option, they’re excluded from the start. And this is the Democratic White House excluding anything to the left of conservative ideas in defining what the scope of the debate is. And, of course, that’s something that happens in issue after issue.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/25/glenn_greenwald_dems_hiding_behind_filibuster

Yet again, Sir, he is not a right libertarian.

"he still concentrates fire away from the chief opponents of proper regulation"

Where? Don't just assert stuff, Sir. It's beneath you. He supports regulation, and you're reduced to pretending he doesn't. This won't do.

[randys1]

5. What was she suppose to do, stop and resolve the Middle East Crisis, right then and there?

[iandhr]

9. Apparently.

[dsc]

10. I went and looked at the kos link

and one of the headlines being complained about from that website was one about Hillary Clinton and her defense of the man who was accused of raping a child. Now, unlike many here, I am going to be consistent. It is wrong to use those sources to attack both Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren.

[Cha]

11. Greenwald? An "opportunists"!? Shocking!

No, it isn't shocking.. it's expected out of that ratfucker. But, what happens to his fan club when GG attacks Elizabeth Warren who is strongly supported(and I can see why)?

[madokie]

53. What you said

is spot on.

[Cha]

56. Thanks madokie!

[anti partisan]

84. How about those NSA surveillance programs?

Are they spot on too?

I think that's going to be my new motto - "how 'bout that NSA?"

Seems like the last thing the NSA fans actually want to talk about - the NSA programs themselves.

[leftynyc]

106. Just to clarify something

Because he used Edward Snowden for his own ends in order to report a story you feel is important, Glenn cannot be questioned or pushed back on ever again for the rest of his life? That you think someone cannot, at the same time, think the NSA is a completely out of control agency and is getting the attention it deserves and also think Glenn is a complete asshole is really nobody else's problem but yours. He's gotten especially pissy since the Obama administration ignored his press tour here rather than harassing and arresting him like he was hoping. I'm glad the Pres didn't make him a freeking martyr.

[Cha]

109. How about you Not trying to hijack threads with your stupid motto?

Like MADem suggests below and very eloquently.. start your own damn thread on the NSA.. and quit trying to change the subject of the OP.

[AgingAmerican]

138. It's OK if you don't wish to discuss it

We understand.

[Cha]

162. Start your own thread..and in the mean time thanks for kicking the thread on Greenwald

attacking Elizabeth Warren. GG's such a GD fuckup.

[AgingAmerican]

164. It's OK

...we understand...

[mimi85]

167. Wow, did I ever get jumped on for stating my opinion on GG and friends.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5242484
Stating my opinion appears to be verboten here. Of all places.

Hey Cha, ¿qué pasa?

[Cha]

168. Haha.. Consider the sources sweet mimi!

Esta Bien.. ¿que pasa contigo? I am actually watching episodes of a Spanish tv series right now.. with subtitles and all. It's pretty good. Good ol Netflix.

[redqueen]

12. ... and absolutely no one is surprised. nt

[Spazito]

13. Oh oh, this is going to be interesting....

Many posters who love Greenwald also love Elizabeth Warren, hmmmm, which one will they defend or will it be 'crickets' on this. I'm betting 'crickets'.

[sheshe2]

14. Now you did it, Cali_Democrat.

[MADem]

15. Uh-oh! I think we're going to see some cognitive dissonance happening in a big way on this board!

I could be a little shit and say things about "the usual suspects" or fan clubs, but I won't go down that road.

Suffice it to say that a few people are going to be VERY conflicted upon reading this little tidbit.

GG is sucking up to the libertarian crowd--but no surprise there, he's d'accord with his favorite subject, now residing in Moscow, who has frequently and rather vociferously expressed similar, selfish views.

[sheshe2]

17. I see conflict...

many GG fans are EW fans also. Hmmm...

[KoKo]

22. Oh my.....

That's quite a revelation....

"I could be a little shit and say things about "the usual suspects" or fan clubs, but I won't go down that road.

ETU....

And....no...not conflicted...but open minded...unlike your first sentence of your post and what follows.

But.....Hey....we should really try to get along...shouldn't we? Why is it that we can't play together in the same playground here?

Isn't Peaceful discourse better than "Name Calling" and "Snark?"

[MADem]

40. It sure is, but it's not easy when a guy touted as a hero is shown to be the Libertarian

weasel that he's always been.

If I have to "choose" between Warren and Greenwald, I don't even have to sweat the choice. I pick the one I voted for...

[KoKo]

50. But....he isn't running again......so...what do you do?

"Hillary?" Is that what this is all about in the end? Pumping for Hillary? It would not be unusual to see this. But, you should just declare now.

And, NO ....Greenwald is not a true Libertarian... The True Libertarians are those giving big Bucks to the Dem Party...in case you haven't noticed. Silicon Valley...

[sheshe2]

55. Ummm, KoKo.

Post #40

MADem

If I have to "choose" between Warren and Greenwald, I don't even have to sweat the choice. I pick the one I voted for...

Go back and read it, MADem is from Massachusetts as am I. MADem was referring to having voted for our Great Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren.

[greatauntoftriplets]

59. I got it and I'm not from Massachusetts.

[sheshe2]

63. That's why I luv ya, greatauntoftriplets!

[greatauntoftriplets]

64. Same here, she.

I thought that MADem's intent was quite clear.

[1StrongBlackMan]

129. But why read ...

What was written when you have an argument to make?

[MADem]

58. I think you need to reread what I wrote in my post.

You are inventing context that just isn't there.

[anti partisan]

92. Yeah he was shown to be a "Libertarian" all right

Climate change has also been proven to be a liberal lie, vaccines cause autism, and the government keeps us all under control through a combination of water fluoridation and chemtrails.

Oh, I forgot what we were talking about... Glenn Greenwald... isn't he the guy who revealed those NSA abuses?

So how 'bout that NSA? You must know a bit. Opinions?

[MADem]

97. Your accurate subject line was followed by a host of CT claims.

Lumping them all together in the hopes that CT will rub off on that verifiable fact in your subject line is a rather poor and obvious ploy. Sorry, no sale.

[Union Scribe]

26. Not really.

A lot of us, strangely enough, can generally like what a person says and disagree with them sometimes. Crazy right?

[MADem]

36. Yeah....like Obama!

Funny...no matter what he does, "a lot of" folks say "It's not ENOUGH!!!!!!!"

[sheshe2]

65. Well....

It's not enough, he has betrayed me~



I wanted my pony~



Not good enough dammit



Please~



MADem~

[MADem]

101. Those are ... EPIC!

[sheshe2]

120. Thanks....

[Tarheel_Dem]

131. She, I think you made me wet myself. "Somebody Sedate Me"?

[sheshe2]

163. Snort~

[Larkspur]

18. If Warren ever plans to run for Prez, she needs to get some foreign policy experience

That's why I don't think she will run for Prez. She's great on the Wall Street and domestic economic stuff, but she has no experience with foreign policy.

If she decides to run for Prez, then she can not run away from any question about I/P. Until the, she does not have to answer it.

[MADem]

37. She has "PLEDGED" to not run, so there's that little hurdle, too. nt

[madokie]

54. If I remember right neither did Obama

and he's doing one hell of a good job in spite of that.

Anyways that argument is tired

[Sancho]

115. Actually, he's not doing too well on foreign policy (in my view)....

and the same weakness occurs with Warren. She's not running.

At any rate, it's tiresome to continue seeing these "shoot the messenger" threads about GG, Snowden, etc. I don't really care who reports, writes, or reveals. I only care about the actions and policies of the ones I vote for or against.

[zappaman]

19. I predict

[MADem]

38. Between that, and "Why, we would NEEEEVER...." I think you're right.... nt

[mountain grammy]

21. He's what he's always been; an opportunist who's all about Glen Greenwald

[betterdemsonly]

23. She is good on economic policy.

Foreign policy is area she tends run away from or she takes the establishment line. The democratic party itself is not leftist, and the world is not run as a Du or Dkos board. The establishment line is currently trending pretty neocon.

[anti partisan]

86. Agreed, I have had these same concerns about Warren

And foreign policy IS a BFD.

[Chathamization]

134. Yes, and this has been known for some time. But some like sticking their head in the sand. N/T

[krawhitham]

24. I did not know you could speak ill of Greenwald here

[KoKo]

25. Oh Yes! You can post whatever disinformation you want about Greenwald Here!

You are Welcome! And, if you don't find this place your home go to the "Discussionist" and Let Loose if you have a problem with Greenwald. But, you will find it much more fun to do Greenwald Bashing here, I think. It's a more "comfy place" where you can feel at home.

Welcome to DU or Welcome Back to DU...whatever floats your boat.

Here's a link to that site you also might be comfortable posting on:

http://discussionist.com/

[Dr Hobbitstein]

28. There's a vocal minority who frowns upon that...

But in general, it's quite OK to disparage libertarians here.

[MADem]

39. He's not a Democrat, he's as Magistrate describes him--he gets no special protections here.

And he doesn't deserve them, either.

He was with Bush, before he was agin' him, after all...!

[KoKo]

45. The Body of Evidence by those who post Articles and not just Commentary...

here on "DU" kind of leaves a bit of you begging, though. And the others who seem to delight in "name calling" with epithets to try to put them as TROLLS for RW on DU.

And, you know better than that...yet.....

[Dr Hobbitstein]

27. And his true colors are shining through...

[archaic56]

30. questions you guys can bat around

First I didn't know Greenwald was a,libertarian> Now I understand why the Guardian chose to ignore the uK marches.. I am going to leave some questions I have been pondering.NOT asserting at all I am right..but you guys have been so welcoming , open minded and kind..that I feel comfortable asking these questions here..

1. why didn't Snowden come out during an earlier time? What was the exact timing of his leaks and what was going on at the time.I ask this because what I have noticed..
is this.. the ptbs like to create a distraction and or a new wrinkle when something they do create too much public backlash

2. Why did the Guardian go after our President but does not say a word about Cameron killing thousands of their own people. They stand for his rights but not anyone else? something is fishy here


remember the media..all of it is owned by six rich men

One thing I've learned about the news.. is to ask "why this story and why now.. what is underneath that rug..they stand on and what was swept under it? What and who can and news story benefit? is also a good question to ask

[Cali_Democrat]

31. Cameron killed thousands of his own people?

You're saying British Prime Minister David Cameron killed thousands of his own people?

[archaic56]

42. yep

it's still happening They are doing BENEFITS reform in such a way as to eliminate all disabled, poor elderly, etc.I've been for three years very involved with the activists there.I suppose I shall have to go there and dig out the article ..cause I know you will want links..BUT yes.. more than 100,000 is the estimate.Cameron took down the death stats two years ago when it reached 10,000. The Tories are like the REPUBLICANS on steroids. I have lost so many friends.. Many folks who are terminally ill have been removed from benefits. The methods are right out of Hitlers playbook.DEmonization of the disabled in the press as "scroungers" have seen hate crime raise 75 percent. It's not unlike our welfare reform that created so many working poor but far worse. There is even a new censorship law.I had myself a post criticizing Cameron off an AMERICAN companies social network.I'll be starting a thread and you will get tired of all the links believe me. I have never in my life seen anything like it.. I am in such fear for my friends..

Bear with me on the links.. I will get them here
they also figure 26,000 old folks died last year cause of no heat.I suppose in America we are so used to allow the poor to die we take it for granted..BUT this is a privatization of NHS meant to make the UK system like ours and thin the herd at the same time.. The lovely men of ALEC (GINGRICH) Tauight the Tories when they lost the election.. determined to have their way I suppose

[bobduca]

33. kos discussion is way better than this thread.

Thanks for linking to a site with critical thinking!

[Hissyspit]

73. Yup.

[Peacetrain]

34. You cannot trust a libertarian as far as you can throw them

Been saying that for years..

[randome]

35. And you've been right for years.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[stonecutter357]

43. this

[Thinkingabout]

57. Good Post, I agree, lots of the information given appears to be trying to hurt the DNC, what gives.

[archaic56]

137. IT's

about power control and money. dividing the left while gathering the right has resulted in a very very divided adversary..I'd say the far right spent their money well and have attained their goal.. Left of centers as I have seen are as critical of each other and willing to reject folks for disagreement .I've never seen such a state..since the seventies.. except now it''s worse..
May I share with you what the HOPIS say it's relevant to what is needed..: " stay in the middle of the river keep your head above water and help who you can" seems good advice to me

Balance is sorely needed

[anti partisan]

75. Greenwald is not a libertarian

If you have been saying that about Greenwald for years, then you've probably been corrected for years, and if you still think you are offering enlightening input, what does that make you?

[Tarheel_Dem]

132. As Hartmann used to say, "A libertarian is just a Republican who wants to get laid & smoke dope".

He was right. They're rightwingers at their core. Look no further than the Paul family. "States' Rights", my ass.

[Peacetrain]

139. I have never understood the I've got mine

by what ever luck of the draw, or opportunists that they had and took.. from public schools to public roads moving produce and goods down the road.. to their idea that if everyone is responsible just for themselves and nirvana will happen.. To the core right wing for sure!

[BumRushDaShow]

44. ...

[MannyGoldstein]

47. And what, exactly did Greenwald say about Warren? nt

[Iggo]

123. Like that matters.

[Chathamization]

136. He said she was one of the "genuinely progressive candidates on domestic issues"

And because she's good on domestic issues, we shouldn't question where she stands on foreign policy.

[madokie]

52. Greenwald sucks

Need I say more

Thanks for the post, other wise I would have missed this

[wyldwolf]

60. Geez, now some on the left have some soul searching to do.

[anti partisan]

95. Says an unabashed Third-Wayer with a Bill Clinton avatar!

Or we could still like what Warren has to say about the economy and social justice, while simultaneously not liking what the NSA is doing.

But of course that'd be too easy!

[Union Scribe]

99. ...why? nt

[Enrique]

61. she's a U.S. Senator

asking her to comment on the Israel situation isn't in and of itself an offense, even if it was a RWer doing the asking.

[conservaphobe]

62. Greenwald and his fan club are inconsequential, quite frankly.

We don't need a single one of their votes to win an election.

Hell, we probably don't get them anyway.

[Tarheel_Dem]

133. "Hell, we probably don't get them anyway". Another truth. This is a great thread.

[msanthrope]

66. We knew GG was a Libertarian asshole years ago...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211

[anti partisan]

94. You must have very low standards of evidence...

in order to mentally categorize as knowledge the fact of him being "Libertarian".

[Jamaal510]

67. Are we sure his name is "Glenn Greenwald" and not "Jack Kass"? nt

[blackspade]

68. Smear fail....

But keep trying.

Is there some reason why he can't be unhappy with Warren for not answering the question?
By the same token, Warren may not have formed an opinion that she is comfortable with, so how is not answering a problem?

How are either positions a big deal?

Nuance and differences of opinion seem to be a lost art these days.

[Cha]

74. Nobody has "to smear" Greenwald. Him and his stupid "Gotcha" moments do that all on his own.

[anti partisan]

82. Very clever, so how 'bout that NSA? Opinions on the topic? (nt)

[Cha]

96. Yeah, Greenwald is his own worst enemy.. a freaking opportunist always ready to ratfuck Dems.

[cui bono]

166. Funny, I could have sworn the question was if you had any opinion on the NSA.

[leftynyc]

107. But the NSA was NOT the topic

it was Glenn Greenwald and Elizabeth Warren. YOU want to make it the topic whenever something comes up that shows Greenwald is not the liberal G-d you wish him to be. Blaming someone else for changing the subject is nothing but projection.

[blackspade]

117. It didn't seem to be a 'gotcha' moment....

At least not in my view.
I would have liked a strong ststement from Warren, but I don't feel that she has to answer every question put to her.

[Dawson Leery]

69. GG is a libertarian.

Libertarians are never that hard on Rethugs because they keep taxes low on the rich.

Elizabeth Warren will be far more effective in bringing about reforms than GG ever will.

I wonder what GG thinks of Vladimir Putin's thugs shooting down a civilian aircraft.

[Archae]

70. Libertarians...

[anti partisan]

81. Funny pic, now how 'bout that NSA? (nt)

[MADem]

100. No one is preventing you from starting a thread on that topic--but in this thread, the topic is

Greenwald with his Libertarian proclivities and how he attacks Democrats who are leading on issues like the unfairness in banking and on Wall Street, and how the middle class cannot get a break.

Perhaps you missed the lead-off post to this thread?

Greenwald tries to attack Elizabeth Warren on twitter - Uses right wing source

It's a tough subject....understandable that some might want to avoid it or try to change the subject.

By their works we shall know them--and attacking Elizabeth Warren? That's a doozie.

[Hekate]

104. +1, MADem

[Cha]

108. ..

Thing of beauty, MADem. I'm going to have to remember the template you've laid out for someone trying to a thread.

the poster pulled that shyte with me, too.. Twice it turns out.. and I just went on talking about the OP like he hadn't even changed the subject to "NSA ".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5274137

Not only did greenwald attack Elizabeth but with a rw source. how stupid can you get? Oh, that's right.. it doesn't matter with GG. His fans will twist it to try and make him look like the righteous one.

Wonder how Elizabeth feels about his dumbass "gotcha ya".

[snooper2]

124. how about cheese puffs!

You eat one, then another, then another, soon your teeth are stuck together!

[MADem]

160. And everything you touch turns Boehner orange!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Major Hogwash]

148. Excellent response!

I was told many years ago that the Libertarian party didn't differ very much from the Republican, except for the fact that they are the whacko wing of the GOP for their undying love of guns, and that they want to smoke pot.

If Greenwald ever had any credibility, he lost it just as soon as he teamed up with that gal from FireDogLake, who was rabidly against the ACA in 2010, and she was interviewed many times just railing against the passage of the ACA bill that President Obama wound up signing in to law.

However, now Greenwald has tied his wagon to Snowden, and he thinks that will make him a star.

It's sort of funny in a way, ever since Snowden moved to Russia, and recently applied for citizenship after his 1st year visa was about to expire, and then Greenwald decides he should go after someone like Senator Warren to begin with.

One thing that I noticed quite a while ago is that Greenwald hardly ever criticizes the loony tune GOP Senators in the Senate, like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or John Cornyn.

[Marr]

105. What did he say?

I see a repeated claim, and I see a lot of people who tend to defend corporate Democrats and the NSA back-slapping each other.

What I don't see is a relevant quote from Greenwald.

[MADem]

110. Click on the link, and scroll down just a few lines; GG's offending tweet leads the parade. nt

[Marr]

121. I still don't see any comment by Greenwald.

Can you quote his offending remarks?

[MADem]

144. I'll take your apology for your snark and snide comments downthread anytime.

Here's a screenshot of a portion of the page--still having trouble, are you?



The way you "discuss issues" here leaves a LOT to be desired. You really should take a look in your mirror, particularly when you're dead wrong--like you were in this instance.

[Marr]

151. That is a link, not an "attack". For the third time,

Either quote this "attack" or retract the claim. This is very simple.

Your suggestion that you deserve an apology is ludicrous, as is your (apparent) citing of a video as an attack. Warren was asked a reasonable question, and she chose not to answer it. That is a fact, not an "attack".

[questionseverything]

128. all i see is a video of warren not answering the question

is that what u are calling an attack?

///////////////////////////

Tye is but the latest surveillance whistleblower, though he took pains to distinguish himself from Snowden and his approach to dissent. "Before I left the State Department, I filed a complaint with the department’s inspector general, arguing that the current system of collection and storage of communications by U.S. persons under Executive Order 12333 violates the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures," Tye explained. "I have also brought my complaint to the House and Senate intelligence committees and to the inspector general of the NSA."

These steps—which many say Snowden should've taken—produced no changes to the objectionable NSA spying and wouldn't be garnering attention at all if not for Snowden's leaks. It is nevertheless telling that another civil servant with deep establishment loyalties and every incentive to keep quiet felt compelled to speak out.

[Marr]

154. The insults don't help your argument. And you can't quote this "attack".

A link to a video is not an 'attack'. That happened. Unless it's your contention that he did it with editing and special effects.

It seems like you consider simple acknowledgement of any facts that reflect poorly on your perceived allies as an "attack". Isn't that what we used to mock neocons and Bushbots for?

I consider myself a big supporter of Elizabeth Warren, but no one is above criticism, and no politician deserves the kind of deference you seem to expect.

[MADem]

141. Get your computer repaired--the tweet by Glenn Greenwald FORWARDS the video.

Glenn Greenwald ✔ @ggreenwald
Follow
Elizabeth Warren on Israel/Gaza

… (via @RaniaKhalek)
10:17 AM - 18 Jul 2014

[questionseverything]

158. that is not an "attack"

a video of ew not answering a question is not an attack,sorry

[MADem]

159. Now you've gone from "I don't see anything" to "That is not an attack."

Sure, whatever.

GG is "attacking" EW by gleefully retweeting a video of a Brietbart-Newsbuster asswipe badgering her. Why? Because her Democratic POV doesn't marry well with his Libertarian agenda, and he wants to take her down a peg.

But hey....hunky dory! Under the bus with you, Liz! Must....defend....GG!!!!!

[questionseverything]

161. i do not see it as an attack,sorry

still love ew

i kind of like folks that think before they speak so i have no problem with her not answering

guess you have nothing to say about the new whistle blower that claims this illegal activity has been going on over 30 years?

that he pursued every proper channel and got nowhere?

[Historic NY]

114. "Mr Opportunist"

[Douglas Carpenter]

116. 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.

[TheKentuckian]

118. What a load of...ahem...misleading crap starting at square one. What attack?

Asking a sitting US Senator about a political situation, and a big one?

"It isn't her area of expertise" is silly bullshit, she doesn't have to test out on expertise before she votes on matters. She is not the Secretary of Treasury or even a Governor who by definition is mostly tasked domestically but rather a Senator she doesn't get to dodge to "specialty" she has none other than the affairs of the US Government both foreign and domestic.

There can be no "gotcha" The woman is like 65, highly educated, and a Senator by definition she has a position. Now was the venue the best or even reasonable? Perhaps not, it wasn't some debacle not to answer either but the question and calling on not responding is fair game.

These attacks of Greenwald are silly and getting more so by the day, flogging lies and dubious strains of logic.

[Orsino]

119. No, it's not a "blatant hit piece."

A gotcha, sure. But that story contains little more than the fact of Warren ducking the question. I knowm we're supposed to decide here that either Greenwald (or Warren) is a villain, but there's nothing wrong with asking, nor with ridiculing a politician for quailing.

I have a lot of respect for Warren, and would have expected her to lead in this sensitive subject, rather than fleeing.

[Autumn]

125. I love Elizabeth. Where's the attack? I see someone asking a perfectly acceptable question.

She didn't answer it but she might later. That's something politicians do. What part is the attack? I just don't get that from the twitters feed.

[Cleita]

127. +++

[Autumn]

130. WTF huh? What a stupid non attack.

Last edited Tue Jul 22, 2014, 02:18 PM - Edit history (1)

A reporter asks her a question, she doesn't answer and it's tweeted and that an attack.

[MADem]

145. Why don't you google that "someone" and then come back with how "reasonable" he is.

The guy is a right-wing commentator-hitman. EW knew what apparently a lot of people trying to minimize the guy's insinuations don't.

[Autumn]

152. Is that question an acceptable question? Joe Schoffstall is a fucking ass

but it's still a perfectly acceptable question. I think it's an acceptable question for anyone to ask of a politician.

[MADem]

155. Go on ahead and mitigate his attempt at a sandbag. Surprised he didn't try to buttonhole her in the

ladies' room....

Gee, would that be fine with you too?

Time and a place for everything--and that was neither the time, nor the place, and his purpose was entirely clear.

[Autumn]

156. Gee, did the SOB buttonhole her in the ladies' room?? If he didn't I see no reason to discuss your

what an asshole might have done scenario. You have a nice day.

[MADem]

157. You do the same! nt

[whatchamacallit]

143. These playground aspersions

only make Greenwald detractors seem pathetic and desperate. You wouldn't need to pull duplicitous shit out of your ass if he really was the devil you claim. Fail.

[Puzzledtraveller]

169. They have their orders.

I mean,why do they keep bringing it up? The board can have no discussion that mentions Greenwald in anyway, good or bad and here they come anyway, maybe I'm paranoid but I think some people have an interest that is more than just hanging out on a political discussion forum.

[whatchamacallit]

171. So it would appear

[muriel_volestrangler]

178. A 6 second video of an unanswered question is now 'right wing'?

It's pretty clear that Greenwald is on the left, as far as the fighting in Gaza goes: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/17/nbc-removes-ayman-mohyeldin-gaza-coverage-witnesses-israeli-beach-killing-four-boys/

He'd like Warren to take a stand - on the left. He's pissed off she didn't.