Right on cue, Glenn Greenwald turns an ISIS atrocity into an anti-Obama screed...

[Blue_Tires]

Last edited Wed Feb 4, 2015, 08:52 PM - Edit history (1)

(and no, I am not linking to it--although even his most ardent defenders must notice an unmistakable pattern by now)

What kind of alchemy is this? There isn't a single newsworthy tragedy in the world that Greenwald doesn't try to negate with something directly related to Obama or U.S. foreign policy...

Anybody finally want to start admitting I've been right about him and his "brand" of agenda-based slant journalism?


:large

I rest my case...Does anyone still want to defend his "because-America-did-something-once-everyone-else-should-stfu" moral equivocating?

[leftynyc]

1. Of course he did

It's all he ever does. I sure do wish some posters here would own up to reality.

[zappaman]

2. No surprise there.

I'm sure someone will link to it soon.
The fun part is guessing which DUer.
I have my favorite...

[Fred Sanders]

3. Preemptive outrage, that's a new one.

[el_bryanto]

4. Here is a link to the article in question

Here it is.

Bryant

[leveymg]

6. Thank you. The OP is wrong - this is no screed against Obama. It's a clinical analysis

of the incendiary effects of missile warheads on human beings. Since this is primarily about U.S. drones, it's bound to be treated as controversial by some here. Nonetheless, this is information that needs to be considered and debated, but it is not a screed against Obama, per se. In fact, I didn't see the President's name once.

Very misleading, OP.

[markpkessinger]

14. Indeed. n/t

[PSPS]

26. The swooners see anything critical of "USA! #1!!1!" as an "anti-Obama screed."

[alarimer]

50. Put a Republican in office and they'd be doing the opposite.

If that Republican was doing the same things. And Obama's foreign policy is not a lot different, frankly.

[PSPS]

59. Yes. Cult of personality. Was Bush's, now Obama's. You have to summarily dismiss them as irrational.

[leftynyc]

192. I think anyone

that extols Greenwald's constant blaming Pres Obama and the US for all the problems in the world talking about a cult of personality is so un selfaware, it's hilarious.

[Scuba]

195. Not all of them. Some are clearly right-wingers wearing sheep's clothing.

[Skittles]

92. whenever I think they cannot get more pathetic, they find a way

[F4lconF16]

40. +1

Yup.

Edit: also, Obama's name does appear three times on that page: twice, in reference to a speech he was going to give as part of a quoted NYT piece, and once on the side of a page in an unrelated link.

Here's the quoted article:

Mirza Shahzad Akbar, The New York Times, May 22, 2013:

Instead, a few days after [Obama’s] inaugural address, a CIA-operated drone dropped Hellfire missiles on Fahim Qureishi’s home in North Waziristan, killing seven of his family members and severely injuring Fahim. He was just 13 years old and left with only one eye, and shrapnel in his stomach. . . .

Mr. Obama is scheduled to deliver a major speech on drones at the National Defense University today. He is likely to tell his fellow Americans that drones are precise and effective at killing militants.

But his words will be little consolation for 8-year-old Nabila, who, on Oct. 24, had just returned from school and was playing in a field outside her house with her siblings and cousins while her grandmother picked flowers. At 2:30 p.m., a Hellfire missile came out of the sky and struck right in front of Nabila. Her grandmother was badly burned and succumbed to her injuries; Nabila survived with severe burns and shrapnel wounds in her shoulder.

Huge article; small part mentions Obama. Clearly an anti-Obama screed

Edit 2: Also, that article was 3000+ words, and that was the only part that mentioned him.

[Vattel]

43. "Very misleading OP." Big surprise there. Usually Greenwalds detractors are so fair.

[grntuscarora]

62. +1

nt

[99Forever]

63. Lying is what liars do.

[Skittles]

86. critical thinking skills make a difference

[deutsey]

84. Thank you for posting the link n/t

[SamKnause]

111. Thank you for the link.

Excellent article.

I have seen several videos along the same line in the past few days.

Some on Democracy Now and some on You Tube.

[G_j]

5. I don't know what he said, but

Last edited Wed Feb 4, 2015, 07:17 PM - Edit history (1)

The existance of ISIS is most certainly related to US policy going back to Reagan, and further.

[MohRokTah]

7. Why wouldn't he? That's been his MO all along. eom

[Octafish]

8. Glenn Greenwald wanted to throw Bush and Cheney in jail.

Cass Sunstein wanted to let them off the hook.

To whom did President Obama listen?

[OKNancy]

13. Sunstein is a legal scholar, Greenwald is a writer

and Obama is the President.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Sunstein is a lawyer.

I mean, we wouldn't call Jon Yoo a "legal scholar", would we?

And lawyers tend to craft arguments that favor what their clients want to do, rather than telling their clients what to do, unless things are black and white.

[Octafish]

24. Glenn Greenwald vs. Cass Sunstein -- Battle Royal, in their own words!

In this July 2008 interview with Amy Goodman, they discuss Telcom immunity, domestic spying and prosecuting Bush Jr.'s criminality:

How Should the Next President Deal with the Bush White House Crimes?

A debate between two progressive legal experts on the FISA bill and the idea of prosecuting of Bush and White House officials for criminal acts.

The whole article is worth reading. Thanks to "Fair Use" here are a few excerpts...

In this corner, Glenn Greenwald:

The idea that this wasn't a reversal is just insultingly false. Back in December, Senator Obama was asked, "What is your position on Senator Dodd's pledge to filibuster a bill that contains retroactive immunity?" And at first, Senator Obama issued an equivocal statement, and there were demands that he issue a clearer statement. His campaign spokesman said -- and I quote -- "Senator Obama will support a filibuster of any bill that contains retroactive immunity" -- "any bill that contains retroactive immunity." The bill before the Senate two weeks ago contained retroactive immunity, by everybody's account, and yet not only did Senator Obama not adhere to his pledge to support a filibuster of that bill, he voted for closure on the bill, which is the opposite of a filibuster. It's what enables a vote to occur. And then he voted for the underlying bill itself. So it's a complete betrayal of the very unequivocal commitment that he made not more than six months ago in response to people who wanted to know his position on this issue in order to decide whether or not to vote for him. That's number one.

Number two, the idea that this bill is an improvement on civil liberties is equally insulting in terms of how false it is. This is a bill demanded by George Bush and Dick Cheney and opposed by civil libertarians across the board. ACLU is suing. The EFF is vigorously opposed. Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd, the civil libertarians in the Senate, are vehemently opposed to it; they say it's an evisceration of the Fourth Amendment. The idea that George Bush and Dick Cheney would demand a bill that's an improvement on civil liberties and judicial oversight is just absurd. This bill vests vast new categories of illegal and/or unconstitutional and warrantless surveillance powers in the President to spy on Americans' communications without warrants. If you want to say that that's necessary for the terrorist threat, one should say that. But to say that it's an improvement on civil liberties is just propaganda.

In the other corner, Cass Sunstein:

Well, I speak just for myself and not for Senator Obama on this, but my view is that impeachment is a remedy of last resort, that the consequences of an impeachment process, a serious one now, would be to divide the country in a way that is probably not very helpful. It would result in the presidency of Vice President Cheney, which many people enthusiastic about impeachment probably aren't that excited about. I think it has an understandable motivation, but I don't think it's appropriate at this stage to attempt to impeach two presidents consecutively.

In terms of holding Bush administration officials accountable for illegality, any crime has to be taken quite seriously. We want to make sure there's a process for investigating and opening up past wrongdoing in a way that doesn't even have the appearance of partisan retribution. So I'm sure an Obama administration will be very careful both not to turn a blind eye to illegality in the past and to institute a process that has guarantees of independence, so that there isn't a sense of the kind of retribution we've seen at some points in the last decade or two that's not healthy.

SNIP...

Well, there has been a big debate among law professors and within the Supreme Court about the President's adherent authority to wiretap people. And while I agree with Senator Feingold that the President's position is wrong and the Supreme Court has recently, indirectly at least, given a very strong signal that the Supreme Court itself has rejected the Bush position, the idea that it's an impeachable offense to adopt an incorrect interpretation of the President's power, that, I think, is too far-reaching. There are people in the Clinton administration who share Bush's view with respect to foreign surveillance. There are past attorney generals who suggested that the Bush administration position is right. So, I do think the Bush administration is wrong -- let's be very clear on that -- but the notion that it's an impeachable offense seems to me to distort the notion of what an impeachable offense is. That's high crimes and misdemeanors. And an incorrect, even a badly incorrect, interpretation of the law is not impeachable.

So. Who demonstrates INTEGRITY in the above example?

One of my favorite OPs: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002797594

[MannyGoldstein]

29. Sunstein shows great integrity

over any principle his patrons want.

[G_j]

34. that's the truth

unpleasant as it might sound..

[Ykcutnek]

18. In La La Land, job titles only discredit you.

You have to be a sanitation worker with a blog hosted on Blogspot to get any credibility with the residents of La La Land.

[leveymg]

20. Sunstein is a legal hack and token "liberal" at Univ of Chicago Law.

I looked forward to reading a book by him at one point, given the hype that preceded the fellow. I got a couple chapters into it, and really couldn't find much in the way of substance or style. It was so bland, I can't even remember the title.

He's also no friend of the U.S. Constitution, as his later pronouncements show.

[Ykcutnek]

27. We need more like Sunstein working for the federal government.

Glenn Beck and many on the far right despise the man.

[leveymg]

32. Sunstein really seems too vacuous and low wattage to be truly despicable.

[frylock]

38. that's an awfully low bar you've set there

[Ykcutnek]

41. Ditto to Greenwald fans. nt

[Long Drive]

45. 4 hidden posts

keep going.

[Ykcutnek]

46. Want to explain to the site admins why you can view a hidden transparency page?

Keep going.

[Long Drive]

48. Want to get a clue?

Your profile is open to anyone.

[Ykcutnek]

49. Not the transparency page.

Until 5 posts have been hidden.

[zappaman]

52. You are mistaken.

Click DETAILS next to CHANCE OF SERVING ON JURY.

[Long Drive]

53. I can see clearly that you have 4 hidden posts

So can anyone else. You need to brush up on your DU.

[Ykcutnek]

56. I hope to one day have enough DU knowledge as a zombie. nt

[Long Drive]

60. Ah Honey

Had a bad day?

[Hissyspit]

157. LOL

[Long Drive]

69. The hidden post tangent wasn't working?

[L0oniX]

207. It's magic I tells ya ...magic

1240 total posts: +12
113 days of membership: +11
20 or more posts in the last 90 days: +20
Not a Star member: +0
4 posts hidden in 90 days: -80
TOTAL: 0

Your profile

[Capt. Obvious]

216. LOL!!!

[Ichingcarpenter]

225. just got the fifth

so i guess its vacation time.

[QC]

226. I'm sure he's already back in the saddle.

No true maverick would let a mere suspension keep him down!

[frylock]

68. can you kindly point me to an example of the bar that "Greenwald fans" have set..

or can I expect another junior-high level retort from you?

[Long Drive]

74. Holy Shit that made me laugh!

[Octafish]

22. It also was Greenwald who called out Bush and Cheney on illegal NSA spying back in 2007.

If the rest of the press had carried half as much water as Greenwald, these two would have long ago been in front of a Grand Jury.



Here's what Greenwald wrote on the subject of NSA abuse by them, when the story broke in 2007. In his story, Greenwald raised questions about the Comey visit to Ashcroft that have still to be answered -- six long warmongering profiteering years later:

Comey’s testimony raises new and vital questions about the NSA scandal

The testimony yesterday, while dramatic, underscores how severe a threat to the rule of law this administration poses.

BY GLENN GREENWALD
WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2007 06:16 AM EDT

The testimony yesterday from James Comey re-focuses attention on one of the long unresolved mysteries of the NSA scandal. And the new information Comey revealed, though not answering that question decisively, suggests some deeply troubling answers. Most of all, yesterday’s hearing underscores how unresolved the entire NSA matter is — how little we know (but ought to know) about what actually happened and how little accountability there has been for some of the most severe and blatant acts of presidential lawbreaking in the country’s history.

SNIP...

The key questions still demanding investigation and answers

But the more important issue here, by far, is that we should not have to speculate in this way about how the illegal eavesdropping powers were used. We enacted a law 30 years ago making it a felony for the government to eavesdrop on us without warrants, precisely because that power had been so severely and continuously abused. The President deliberately violated that law by eavesdropping in secret. Why don’t we know — a-year-a-half after this lawbreaking was revealed — whether these eavesdropping powers were abused for improper purposes? Is anyone in Congress investigating that question? Why don’t we know the answers to that?

Back in September, the then-ranking member (and current Chairman) of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller, made clear how little even he knew about the answers to any of these questions in a letter he released:

For the past six months, I have been requesting without success specific details about the program, including: how many terrorists have been identified; how many arrested; how many convicted; and how many terrorists have been deported or killed as a direct result of information obtained through the warrantless wiretapping program.

[font size="6"][font color="red"]I can assure you, not one person in Congress has the answers to these and many other fundamental questions.[/font size][/font color]

CONTINUED...

http://www.salon.com/2007/05/16/nsa_comey/

Instead, six years and who-knows-how-many lives later, Bush and Cheney and the rest of their election thieving warmongering bankster oilmen posse continue merrily on their way, unpunished for lying America into war and making huge profits in the process.

Remember, it was Greenwald who stood up to Cheney and Bush. He covered the story and asked "Why?"

I find it odd to see DUers hating on the guy now.

[stevenleser]

51. A year after others had already broken the story. Yeah, amazing journalist job that.

[Luminous Animal]

128. Except for that pesky fact that he was writing about in 2005 on his blog, "Unclaimed Territory"

You can confirm that for yourself "journalist" Leser.

[stevenleser]

151. Ah so the entire world thinks another journalist broke the story but it was Greenwald all along?

And it was such a big deal at the time that the administration was furious about it in 2006, even though it had been broken a year earlier?

This is hilarious stuff.

[Luminous Animal]

161. Greenwald has never claimed that he broke the story. Nor has anyone else. You are woefully inept at this.

"Journalist" Leser.

[stevenleser]

162. You just did in your previous comment to me. Nt

[Luminous Animal]

163. Really. "Journalist" Leser. Quote me where I claim he broke the story. Use your best "journalistic"

skills.

[stevenleser]

166. Here's the link. Do we really have to play these silly games?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026180297#post128

Now own up to it and let's move on.

[Luminous Animal]

172. So extraordinarily dishonest. Nothing there about me or him claiming to break any sort of story.

Merely said he was writing about the NSA 2005. Two years before you said he was writing about it. "Journalist Leser". And please link to your 2005 "journalism" where you were reporting on the same subject.

Move on, indeed. As is your custom, you will concede by your silence. You've no credibility here anymore, "journalist" Leser. Witness the recs on Blue Tireds posts and Manny's re Greenwald's post. Your propagandists squirts have run out of air… mostly because they are dull. Blinking and bleating, like a Charlie Brown cartoon adult on Fox News may get you an audience with the over 64 crowd but it gives you scant respect here and gives you barely enough cred to cuddle Greenwald's pant cuffs.

[stevenleser]

174. Greenwald has no cred except among anti-us nationalists

And I am quite happy not to be held in high esteem by nationalists of any stripe. It's important to have the right enemies, and I do not cater to nationalists like yourself.

Let me get something else straight, first you defend Greenwald by saying he was reporting on the NSA in his blog a year before the NY Times broke the story, then you deny you said it, then you claim I couldnt prove you said it but then repeat the very same words.

Do you not understand the words you write?

[Luminous Animal]

178. No."Journalist" Leser. I plainly said that he was reporting on the NSA story 2 years

before YOU claimed he was reporting on it. My words were clear and never once claimed he was reporting on it before the NY Times broke the story. Please direct me to the post where I made that claim and please direct me to the links when YOU were reporting on the NSA story in 2005.

[stevenleser]

180. You just proved me right. The NY times broke the story in mid Dec 2015, nearly 2006

You said Greenwald was reporting it in 2005. The NY times first breaking article on the subject was December 15 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 I.e. The very end of the year

So you claimed Greenwald beat them to it. Own up to it.

[Luminous Animal]

186. Not once said he beat them to it. Quit lying. Merely said he was reporting on it. Where are your

reports? Link please…..

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/bushs-unchecked-executive-power-v.html

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/new-york-times-complicity-in-bushs.html

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/finally-punishing-wrongdoers-in-nsa.html

[stevenleser]

181. Own up to what you wrote. Nt

[MrMickeysMom]

230. For someone who wishes to be taken seriously as a journalist, you're highly subjective...

Why would you resort to use labels to deride those who have followed the war party since the "war on terror" began?

You can't be taken seriously, but you sure can be heard (insert gratuitous plug here).

[bigtree]

132. wtf does that matter?

...what an amazingly bitter criticism.

Do you really see no value in amplifying issues in print or otherwise? remember, I've read your own writings.

[stevenleser]

150. So let me get this straight, you demand he get credit for breaking an already broken story?

one that thousands of other journalists were already taking about by the time he got around to it including me?

Who knew, I guess thousands of us deserve a Pulitzer, or perhaps even a Nobel prize?

[Luminous Animal]

167. Send me the links where you were reporting on NSA abuses in 2005 "journalist" Leser.

So sorry that the Pulitzer committee overlooked your committed endeavors for the advancement of civil rights and awarded that poser instead. I can just imagine your nightmares… "Damn you, Greenwald! I coulda been a condenda!"

[stevenleser]

169. I'm tired from already linking to something you said then denied.

And my post was sarcasm. Do try to keep up.

[Luminous Animal]

173. Quote me. You can't. Quote me in your subject line. "Journist" Leser. There will be crickets.

Because you cannot. Someday, Mr. Leser. You will grow up to be a real boy.

[stevenleser]

176. See my #174. Own up to what you wrote. Nt

[Luminous Animal]

179. Nope. Not any where ever have I made the claim he broke the story. Pure fabrication "journalist"

Leser.

[stevenleser]

182. Own up to what you wrote. Nt

[Luminous Animal]

183. Quote what I wrote in your subject line. "Journalist" Leser. Quote where I said he broke the story?

Now you are getting dull and repetitive and unnamable to produce. And precisely why are well suited to Fox News.

[stevenleser]

184. I've quoted you several times now. Own up to it or retract it.

Own up to what you wrote

[Luminous Animal]

187. Your credibility is a shit clogged toilet. Quote me in subject line where I said he broke the story.

You can't because I haven't.

[deurbano]

188. 1/30/06- Digby:"Glenn Greenwald has been the go-to guy in this [illegal NSA wiretaps/hearing Qs]"

Not that it will persuade someone mistakenly (shall we say) accusing you of saying Greenwald "broke" the NSA story...

But as you mentioned, Greenwald did write about the NSA several times at the end of December, 2005... and a mere month and a half after the NYT broke the story, there was this from Digby:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/10-questions-by-digby-as-we-absorb-our.html
Hullabaloo
Monday, January 30, 2006
10 Questions
by digby

<<As we absorb our latest loss --- it sucks being in the minority, you hardly ever win --- we need to keep our eye on the ball and remember that we have hearings coming up on the illegal NSA wiretaps. Glenn Greenwald has been the go-to guy in this and he's compiled ten questions that he'd like the Judiciary Committee to ask Alberto Gonzales. Glenn says:

I believe the paramount objective with these hearings is to force out into the open the theories of Presidential power which the Administration has embraced in order to justify its transgressions of FISA -- not just as applied to eavesdropping but with respect to all decisions broadly relating to the question of how this country will respond to the threat of terrorism. Thus, the questions posed to Attorney General Gonzales should absolutely not be confined strictly to the question of the NSA eavesdropping program, but must explore how the Administration’s theories of its own power apply generally.

The Committee, with its questioning, must make clear to the public that this scandal is not about whether we should be eavesdropping on Al Qaeda, because everyone agrees that we should and must do that. That is why we have a law -- FISA -- which specifically authorizes eavesdropping on terrorists. Nobody opposes eavesdropping. The scandal is about -- and these hearings must therefore emphasize -- the scope of the President’s claimed powers, and specifically his claimed power to act without what the Administration calls "interference" from the Congress or the courts, even including -- literally -- engaging in actions which are expressly prohibited by the criminal law.


Read the entire post and look at the questions. Glenn is looking for feedback on this. He received some major media attention this past week from Knight Ridder, the NY Times and The Washington Post for his outstanding catch of the administration's 2002 objection to loosening the FISA laws. He is in a position now to advance this another step. >>

[bigtree]

190. where did he ask for that kind of accolade?

...the notion is just an invention of your bitter mind.

[rhett o rick]

54. "I find it odd to see DUers hating on the guy now." Give them credit for being flexible.

They didn't like the shit Bush did until Obama did it.

[Octafish]

124. The War bits. The Bankster bits.

And the "money trumps peace" is OK now. That bit is really, really, really, really loathsome.

[L0oniX]

206. Money wins elections so we're ok with oligarchy big money now.

[hunter]

78. Sorry Octafish, I think Greenwald is a tool.

Life sucks.

[Maedhros]

114. Well that is certainly insightful analysis.

Fortunately, your opinion of Greenwald is irrelevant to the facts he presents.

[hunter]

123. Reality often surprises me.

I'm okay with that.

Greenwald is somewhere between my most trusted and least trusted resources.

That's not a bad place to be.

[frazzled]

235. But he wrote in his book that he supported Bush

and thought the Iraq invasion was a good idea. (Until he found, I guess, there was no money in it).

Where, I ask, does he get the credentials to write about foreign policy or world events at all? His opinion is zero more informed than yours or mine. But he sure has his fan club.

I, for one, ignore such charlatans. Pontificating from the beaches of Ipanema.

[bvar22]

242. Our current Sec of State believed Bush & the Invasion of Iraq.

Is he a "charlatan too?

Will you vote for the "Charlatan" if she wins the Democratic nomination?

[frazzled]

243. I called him out on it, too (in person)

I actually exchanged words with the then-Senator (at a backyard campaign event in NH during the early stages of the primary race, in 2003.)

But no, he's not a charlatan because his work is (and has been for many decades) in the area of foreign policy. I don't have to agree with someone to respect their right to voice a wrong opinion.

But I do have to respect someone before I consider their opinion. I completely dismiss the machinations of some ex-lawyer, ex-blogger turned self-styled publicity hound opinionator (no, not a journalist by any stretch of the imagination) who spouts opinions about US policy out of some circus of a failed media outlet bankrolled by some crackpot billionaire libertarian, from the beaches of Copacabana, the "Outlaw's Paradise."* He has the right to his opinions ... but I have the right to say he is blowing them out of his bunda.

* Have a fun read at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/opinion/vanessa-barbara-brazil-the-outlaws-paradise.html?_r=0

[Comrade Grumpy]

9. What a BS OP.

Greenwald notes the hypocrisy in our outrage over people being burned to death when our war machine does it on a regular basis.

Anti-Obama screed? I think the critique goes deeper than the guy sitting in the White House right now. Anyone who wasn't blinded by partisanship could see that.

[Blue_Tires]

232. Do you believe the U.S. is better or worse than ISIS?

A simple, direct question...

[Ykcutnek]

10. What a smug prick.

I'd rather be tied to a chair and forced to watch Richard Quest talk about plane crashes for 24 hours than ever hear another thing this piece of shit has to say.

[Long Drive]

47. Anger issues?

[grasswire]

75. maybe just homophobia nt

[Puglover]

91. Oh I dunno.

I think the post is somewhat mavericky.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

97. As in NJ? It seems more Pretzeley to me. nt

[QC]

98. Are they still snowed in up there in Jersey?

Gotta find some way to pass the time until the thaw, you know.

[Skittles]

88. you poor thing

perhaps you may find the BOG more agreeable to your delicate senses

[davidpdx]

234. I don't know

Being forced to listen to Richard Quest for 24 hours would have me wishing that I could die quickly. He gets on my nerves.

[SidDithers]

11. Bit of a one trick pony, isn't he...nt

Sid

[elias49]

23. You ought to read the article before you comment.

Just saying.

[MrMickeysMom]

229. An entire article journey begins with the first sentence…

Naaaaaahhh

[elias49]

12. No.

Unless you start admitting that you'd hate him if he saved a cat from being run over in the street.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Is your complaint that the US drone program shouldn't draw complaints?

Or that Greenwald shouldn't exploit the horrible ISIS situation as a teaching moment to show us that our policies result in much the same horror?

[G_j]

58. ---

[msanthrope]

16. He's a terror apologist. nt

[bigtree]

36. this is apologizing for terror?

"It is true that ISIS seems to have embraced a goal – a strategy – of being incomparably savage, inhumane and morally repugnant. That the group is indescribably nihilistic and morally grotesque is beyond debate."

[msanthrope]

102. Two lines followed by an entire screed of false moral equivalence?

Yes....that's apologia with a veneer of ass-saving platitude in passive voice...."seems to have embraced a goal?"

Please....Mr. Greenwald's shtick is disgusting--- but he has a history of cozying up to the morally reprehensible. Equating people who crucify children with our troops? Fuck Greenwald.

[bigtree]

127. false moral equivalence? that's one opinion

...really just an excuse, a throw-off line for not bothering to address the inhumanity of the issue of drones.

Nowhere did Greenwald 'apologize' for terror. Nowhere does Greenwald 'cozy-up' to the 'morally reprehensible' by discussing his opposition to collateral killings by drones.Your dodge falls flat. It's a lie, actually.

What I find 'morally reprehensible' is the political motivation highlighted in the op's criticism behind refusing to address the issue. There's no candidacy to defend; just a political image, or, perhaps, a legacy. That's a shallow and reprehensible excuse for refusing to even consider the possibility that killing almost indiscriminately from the air and it's collateral consequences could be wrong.

[stevenleser]

159. An opinion everyone except anti-US nationalists agree with.

Here is a hint that you are an anti-US nationalist. If no wrongdoing by another country or terrorist group can be discussed without you or your favorite journalist jumping in and saying "But... But... But the U.S. did x,y,z" then you are a negative nationalist with the U.S. being your target antagonist.

[NanceGreggs]

171. Right.

On.

[bigtree]

189. I don't think you or anyone else holds the morality card on when it's appropriate to speak out

here's the thing, Steve, since you conveniently changed the subject away from what I responded to, it's more of a concern to me that the op couldn't address the issue without making their objection a political defense of a politician.

We have more of a responsibility to speak out against atrocities committed by the politicians that we pay for and vote for, than we do moralizing on someone outside of our country's behavior. If you can't wrap your head around that, I don't know what to say to you and the rest of the knee-jerk defenders of this presidency. That's what this is about, a shallow defense of President Obama, and no one here is fooled or cowed by the ridiculous moralizing about 'equivalencies' or any other finger-wagging ploy y'all use to deflect criticism from the actions of this administration; this administration which is the responsibility of the American people, first and foremost.

[stevenleser]

220. It has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with nationalistic thinking. As Orwell pointed out.

By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’(1). But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.
.
.
.
It is also worth emphasising once again that nationalist feeling can be purely negative. There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist — that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating — but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also — since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself — unshakeably certain of being in the right.

http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat

[bigtree]

222. no. It's about your cheap, petty labeling

...in a reprehensible attempt to justify your shallow, political defense of the politician in the WH by belittling and moralizing against the critics arguing against his policies.

[G_j]

219. "My own Government, I can not be Silent.”

“The greatest purveyor of violence in the world : My own Government, I can not be Silent.”

― Martin Luther King Jr.

[bigtree]

223. on point, G_j

...much more from Dr. King on this. I'm grateful to see you offer this quote.

[G_j]

224. the King speech few want to acknowledge,

[F4lconF16]

152. Yes, we just make movies about men who kill children

And call them heroes. The US has done some seriously, seriously fucked up things in the world. We have done far more damage in the Middle East than ISIS ever could hope to. We have terrified more children than they did--children literally fear clear blue skies now, because they don't know if a drone will kill them. We have killed far more than they have in our imperialistic assault on Middle Eastern nations for reasons so utterly worthless it's not enough to call them lies. Our president and other senior executive powers conducted a program that tortured human beings to death, and as a society we condone that with ever moment they're still free. And that's just a few of the things we've done.

If you can't understand what Greenwald is trying to say, I don't know what to tell you. I just hope it's rank stupidity and ignorance rather than purposeful amnesia, because that says a whole lot worse about you.

[redgreenandblue]

191. "our troops" eh? I take it you are a Chris Kyle fan then?

[msanthrope]

228. Yes..when i likened

American Sniper with Triumph of the Will...I declared my fandom.

[Number23]

19. Some of his acolytes here can do the same thing. A thread about a president picking up a hitchhiker

is somehow MAGICALLY transported into an anti-Obama screed complete with exceptionally well characterized "blue links of madness."

Would love for you to link to the Greenwald article though.

Edit: Just saw that another poster upthread posted a link.

[Bobbie Jo]

121. "blue links of madness"

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Number23]

122. Oh, giftedgirl hit the jackpot when she came up with. What made it so perfect was that it is so

INESCAPABLY true. I told her it sounded like the name of an awesome new band but I think your photo captures the sentiment as well.

This thread, huh? You could cut the rage and spittle with a knife. Even the Temper Tantrum Tag Team (4T for short) showed up to wail and bash from the sidelines as usual. But I love the Rah Rah "response" thread from the same crowd that crows so loudly about how their entire BEING encapsulates "critical thought" and how much they despise cheerleaders!one

[markpkessinger]

21. If it's a screed against anything, it's against U.S. militarism in general . . .

. . . and his only mention of Obama comes is a passage quoted from a New York Times article. What's more, he mentions not only drones, but also white phosphorous used by Israel (manufactured in the U.S.), and points to numerous examples of things that occurred in the Bush administration and even prior. He did not single out President Obama. But neither did he exempt President Obama for the role he has played in this same, hypocritical militaristic moralism.

If it hasn't been declared already, I think we have a new syndrome: GDS (Greenwald Derangement Syndrome).

[elias49]

25. OP fail. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

28. OP on point!

Greenwald is tooo predictable...

[elias49]

37. How so? Please try to explain.

On second thought, never mind.

[VanillaRhapsody]

39. Nevermind is right.....

[DisgustipatedinCA]

104. Nothing says vacuuousness like cheerleading an unspecified/unlinked claim.

People with a head full of Greenwald hatred aren't generally able to see how foolish they look when they leave reality and rational thought at the door and just scream hate. It results in threads just like this one.

[Long Drive]

136. BRAVO

Falcon air is in full flight in this thread.

[deutsey]

85. Big time

[Blue_Tires]

221. Did I fail to make my point?

Was I incorrect in my assessment?

[bigtree]

30. Greenwald wants to spark a discussion about collateral killings from U.S. operated drones

...I'm not particularly impressed by your own outrage about his leveraging the ISIS atrocity to highlight our own nation's barbarous military practices, complaining about an 'anti-Obama screed'.

See, Blue_Tires, President Obama will fare an article by Glen Greenwald just fine. He's not running for any political position and is secure in the one he has now. There is no real injury in making the comparison, except, possibly, to your political sensibility and your apparent desire to protect this president's political image.

Sure, Greenwald has made a leap here to highlight what he believes is an outrageous and dangerous abuse of power. I find a 'slant' in the way you've attempted to avoid discussion of any comparison in barbarity by failing to explain the substance behind Mr. Greewald's complaint. Where do we find the opportunity to discuss our own nation's barbarous practices of war? Is there a special forum for those where they can get the attention and debate that opponents of such practices believe they deserve?

You know, somehow, I think you'll survive this 'anti-Obama screed'. It's a question, though, whether we'll find room in that defense of the president to initiate or garner your participation in a discussion of the negative consequences of collateral damage done by our military. Maybe after we've relegated those to history, I don't know. We'll see...

It may well be that there is no moral equivalent between state-sanctioned defenses which inflict collateral injury and death. I suppose that it's a matter of opinion - likely less of an academic question if you or your family is caught in the way of U.S. missile-inflicted retribution. I'm almost certain it makes little difference at all to the victims and the families, and those who remain at risk from errant drone attacks what righteous cause Americans may use to justify such barbarity.

I like the first comment to his article:


BenjaminAP
04 Feb 2015 at 5:13 pm

ZINN
These words are misleading because they assume an action is either ‘deliberate’ or ‘unintentional.’ There is something in between, for which the word is ‘inevitable.’ If you engage in an action, like aerial bombing, in which you cannot possibly distinguish between combatants and civilians (as a former Air Force bombardier, I will attest to that), the deaths of civilians are inevitable, even if not ‘intentional.’ Does that difference exonerate you morally? The terrorism of the suicide bomber and the terrorism of aerial bombardment are indeed morally equivalent. To say otherwise (as either side might) is to give one moral superiority over the other, and thus serve to perpetuate the horrors of our time.

Inevitability is intentionality, over time.

“The Lakota had no language for insulting other orders of existence: pest, waste, weed …”

But what about “bugsplat”?

..according to a 2003 Washington Post story, it’s the name of a Defense Department computer program for calculating collateral damage

, as well as, apparently, casual terminology among Pentagon operation planners and the like to refer to the collateral damage itself … you know, the dead civilians. CIA drone operators talk about bugsplat. The British organization Reprieve calls its effort to track the number of people killed by U.S. drone strikes — in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen — Project Bugsplat.

In the opening days of the invasion of Iraq, they ran computer programs, and they called the program the Bugsplat program, estimating how many civilians they would kill with a given bombing raid. On the opening day, the printouts presented to General Tommy Franks indicated that 22 of the projected bombing attacks on Iraq would produce what they defined as heavy bugsplat — that is, more than 30 civilian deaths per raid. Franks said, ‘Go ahead. We’re doing all 22.'”

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-01-01/news/bs-ed-koehler-20120101_1_civilian-toll-civilian-deaths-drone-strikes

Calculation is inevitability. Inevitability is intentionality. Intentionality is justification.

Arendt’s analysis of “banality” didn’t minimize evil. On the contrary, it intensified it. Human horror “means well”. There are no evil ‘doers’.

[grasswire]

79. bugsplat -- ugh that's so revolting of them. nt

[F4lconF16]

147. Excellent post.

You've given me a lot to think on. I especially like this:

Inevitability is intentionality, over time.

That sums up the consequences of our drone program pretty well, I think.

[Blue_Tires]

233. Just trying to point out his hypocrisy and anti-U.S. myopia...

And Greenwald can start in his own backyard: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/post/amazon-girl-burned-alive-by-loggers-one-story-among-hundreds-of-unreported-deaths/2012/01/12/gIQAnbWatP_blog.html

It's not just this story -- Charlie Hebdo, Ottawa, MH17, Yemen, Syria, etc....Greenwald always has a "Yeah, but the U.S. does X-Y-Z" column up the next day...In some ways I can understand and appreciate his point, but this long-assed demonstrated pattern of his not only sounds like a broken record every time he trots it out, it diluted and undermines his original point

[bigtree]

236. what do you know about how he feels about the U.S.

...you interpret his dissatisfaction and objections to U.S. policy as 'anti-U.S.' and it's an amazingly short-sighted leap.

Mr. Greenwald is an American citizen - an expatriated one, but, an American citizen, no less. As far as reporting on Brazil. he's been recognized for several of his stories there - some bearing many of the same criticisms he levels at U.S. policy.

Glenn Edward Greenwald (born March 6, 1967) is an American lawyer, journalist and author.

Greenwald was named by Foreign Policy magazine as one of the Top 100 Global Thinkers of 2013. Four of the five books he has written have been on The New York Times Best Sellers list.

Greenwald has received awards including the first Izzy Award for independent journalism, in 2009,and the 2010 Online Journalism Award for Best Commentary. In June 2013 Greenwald became widely known after The Guardian published the first of a series of reports detailing United States and British global surveillance programs, based on classified documents disclosed by Edward Snowden. The series on which Greenwald worked, along with others, won the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. His reporting on the National Security Agency (NSA) won numerous other awards around the world, including top investigative journalism prizes from the George Polk Award for National Security Reporting, the 2013 Online Journalism Awards, the Esso Award for Excellence in Reporting in Brazil for his articles in O Globo on NSA mass surveillance of Brazilians (becoming the first foreigner to win the award), the 2013 Libertad de Expresion Internacional award from Argentinian magazine Perfil, and the 2013 Pioneer Award from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Greenwald lives in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the hometown of his partner, David Michael Miranda. Greenwald has stated that his residence in Brazil is the result of an American law, the Defense of Marriage Act, barring federal recognition of same-sex marriages, which prevented his partner from receiving a visa to reside in the United States with him. Greenwald has also cited fears of arrest should he move back to the US.


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

[Blue_Tires]

240. Cesca makes my point a bit more eloquently here:

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/02/isis-burns-jordanian-pilot-alive-naturally-greenwald-condemned-u-s-worse/

[bigtree]

241. I actually agree our politicians use these tragedies and atrocities for their own political purpose

...so, I'm not as willing to condemn him for making the comparisons based on the complaints in the article. It tracks its complaint very much like your own and my defense of his effort still stands. In fact, I think the article twists and stretches to make its complaint; assuming, as your post does, that there's some selfish motive for Greenwald's efforts, or that there's something approving or condoning of terrorist acts in his comparisons and contrasts.

I'm always turned off by the attempts to denigrate his work. Attacking Greenwald's credibility and motive is a tactic used by defenders of this administration, and conversely, others who don't deserve the support and cover of anyone here. I think his recognition by his peers speaks for itself and is a curious contrast with those who belittle his journalistic efforts.

[arcane1]

31. Was the article untrue? Or just unflattering?

[leveymg]

33. It wasn't even about Obama. It dealt with blast effects on human tissue. Not flattering,

in either case.

[AtomicKitten]

35. Opportunistic but not untrue.

[Tarheel_Dem]

42. Expect the TigerBeat crowd to be suitably outraged in 3.....2.....1

Oh wait, I was too late.

[bvar22]

44. DURec for Greenwald, unrec for the OP...

..who has completely distorted the content of the article.
I encourage everyone to go to the source and read the article itself,
and then note the screen name of those who are willfully distorting this article.

The most immediate consequence of drone strikes is, of course, death and injury to those targeted or near a strike. The missiles fired from drones kill or injure in several ways, including through incineration[3], shrapnel, and the release of powerful blast waves capable of crushing internal organs. Those who do survive drone strikes often suffer disfiguring burns and shrapnel wounds, limb amputations, as well as vision and hearing loss. . . .

In addition, because the Hellfire missiles fired from drones often incinerate the victims’ bodies, and leave them in pieces and unidentifiable, traditional burial processes are rendered impossible.



https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/04/burning-victims-death-still-common-practice/

[Long Drive]

57. Reading the recs

Had me howling.

[SidDithers]

158. ...

Sid

[Blue_Tires]

231. So you agree with Greenwald that the U.S. is no better than ISIS?

I just want to see you type that...

[stevenleser]

55. Anti-US screed anyway. Greenwald fanboys are zeroing in on the Obama in your OP

The fact is that he turned an issue where ISIS atrocities were being discussed into an anti-US piece.

That's the hallmark of Greenwald and his sycophants. Wrongdoing by anyone else in the world cannot be discussed by itself. They and Greenwald MUST try to minimize the wrongdoing by others and thwart any attempt to do something about it by immediately adding "But! But! But America does X,Y,Z!!!!11!!1!1!!11elevens!

As I have begun to say with some frequency to these folks, the answer to wrongdoing by others is not "US Bad!"

[rhett o rick]

67. I get the impression that you would like to eliminate all anti-USA "screed". Maybe Fox Noise is

for you. I don't think they allow any anti-USA "screed". Or maybe you prefer the Corp-Media where never a discouraging word is heard. "USA, USA, USA"

From the article:
"All of the white phosphorus shells that Human Rights Watch found were manufactured in the United States in 1989 by Thiokol Aerospace, which was running the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant at the time. . . . The United States government, which supplied Israel with its white phosphorus munitions, should also conduct an investigation to determine whether Israel used it in violation of the laws of war, Human Rights Watch said."

Now if that's not true, it should be exposed, but if it is true, we should be reading it.

I don't support the haphazard drone killing that includes ten innocent victims for every "suspect". I would hope that all "politically liberal" persons would agree with me.

[stevenleser]

71. Nice try at changing the subject, but no. The answer to wrongdoing by others is not "US Bad"

It just isn't no matter how much you and other Greenwald fans seem to want it to be.

[rhett o rick]

103. The linked article reveals a side of the USofA that some wish to pretend

doesn't exist so they attack the messenger.

I like Greenwald because he speaks truth to power and I would hope all "politically liberal" persons would feel the same.

[stevenleser]

156. The linked article is the latest attempt by Greenwald and fans to minimize ISIS and

other similar groups atrocities, and distract from them by saying "but the U.S. is bad".

It's the article equivalent of a logical fallacy.

We can't stop ISIS because some other country, who cares which one because it really doesn't matter, did bad things.

Again, the answer to some other group or country doing bad things is not "US bad"

[G_j]

168. a text book example of intellectual dishonesty?

"X" brings attention to war crimes by "Y", thus, "X" is accused of excusing war crimes by "Z".

[rhett o rick]

197. Could it be CT?Greenwald and fans conspiring to minimize ISIS atrocities by revealing US atrocities.

So according to your logic, we can't discuss US atrocities because it would minimize ISIS atrocities. Maybe some want an excuse to deny US atrocities. You do agree that drone killing innocent people including children just to get a few terror "suspects" (I think the ratio is 10 innocents for every "suspect&quot is an atrocity, don't you?

[G_j]

76. unfortunately, the two are directly linked.

Last edited Wed Feb 4, 2015, 09:01 PM - Edit history (1)

to think otherwise, is to ignore all context of history.

[G_j]

64. care to dicuss the actual substance of the actual article?

though one might notice that others have discussed the actual content of the piece here.
You would not even include the link to the article, while you want people to pat you on the back for being right.

From your brief statement, it sounds like you are defending American militarism. If that is true, maybe you can explain why. Though you have not responded to a single comment in this thread. I won't hold my breath.

[rhett o rick]

100. Discuss with substance? Not a chance. nm

[AverageJoe90]

65. *Fuck you*, Glenn Greenwald. nt

[riderinthestorm]

66. I can see why you wouldn't link to it since it isn't anything like your OP

Pretty embarrassing... For you.

[Marr]

73. +1

[Autumn]

77. The truth is hell. And they can't handle it. This fangirl is laughing her ass off

that they think this is an anti Obama screed. It"s almost as bad as watching the stupid spin on Fox from the fox idols.

Greenwald!!!!! Bad!!!! Obama !!!!! X,Y,Z!!!!11!!1!1!!11elevens!

[Puglover]

87. Right on cue.

A totally misleading Greenwald screed from the OP with the usual suspects lining up to, God I don't even know what???
It's like dealing with people from another dimension.


Thank the Lord I don't have to actually "deal" with them. Just read their laughable incoherent outrage.

[Autumn]

93. It's all so predictable.

[Puglover]

94. It's honestly not funny.

The disconnect is disgusting.

[Autumn]

95. I can only see it as performance art. It has to be.

[Puglover]

96. I sit in my comfortable living room

pissed that I have to take my doggie out for a cold pee walk.

And this kind of stuff is happening to a lot of people in this world.

And these clowns can only see it through the Tiger Beat eyes of vapid fan bois. Because of course. EVERYTHING goes back to President Obama.

Geez.

[QC]

101. It's like somebody put up the bat signal.

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

112. Yeah, just like that.

Except not a single person whose comments in this thread chafe your orthodoxy posts at the site you're so fond of childishly slagging.

[Puglover]

133. Aw it looks like a few of my besties

has a sad up thread!

Somewhere an angel just got their wings!

[yowzayowzayowza]

145. LOL!

[NanceGreggs]

149. Most of the people who post there ...

... don't post here.


So your point would be - well, exactly what?

[nationalize the fed]

70. This thread shows the real divide

Not just in the US but all over the world.

It's not R vs D, or Blue vs Red or "Liberal" vs "Conservative"-

It's Authority vs. Truth

And Truth Cuts Like a Knife

[grasswire]

80. Question Authority

Always.

[Maedhros]

116. All is for the best, believe in what we're told.

Blind men in the market buying what we're sold.

Believe in what we're told until our final breath.

While our loving President loves us all to death.

[Marr]

72. It's truly gross that the only thing you saw in that article was Obama's name.

I realize you love the president immensely and feel a need to defend him, but the article is not about him. There are other people in the world, believe it or not.

The actual article, again, for those who may have missed it up thread. The OP's description is dishonest in the extreme.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/04/burning-victims-death-still-common-practice/

[Thinkingabout]

81. Go figure, the more he comes out with his crap the clearer the picture becomes.

Now the Ron Paul paper is on to the interview. It is becoming related, I thought this is where the chatter was coming from and now dear ok Dad is going to trump up. I do not know how they will be able to complete their mission, not with me. Rand doesn't have it either.

[Comrade Grumpy]

82. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[Thinkingabout]

110. If you "understand" Greenwald then I dont know if you are following the truth.

[whatchamacallit]

89. What crap, historical fact?

What, nu dems only want to know about atrocities that support their agenda?

[Thinkingabout]

109. He does not report historical facts, impossible to get the facts from him

[whatchamacallit]

115. So you reviewed the media entries in the article

and found them all to be lies? Doubtful... My guess is you're just having a foamy pavlovian fit.

[Thinkingabout]

117. After someone tells different tales on the same subject I mark them off on

The ability to tell the truth. It is like climbing a tree to tell a lie when the truth sounds better on the ground.

[whatchamacallit]

118. Brilliant!

Thanks for sharing!

[Oilwellian]

90. Well, alrighty then!

Although I don't see the clear picture you, uh, describe.

[Thinkingabout]

107. I do not believe anything he has to say, zero confidence in his reporting.

[whatchamacallit]

83. What a piece of shit

this OP is.

[L0oniX]

129. ^^^THIS^^^ add: very stinky too.

[TheKentuckian]

105. I was going to ask if you were ashamed of your misinformation/propaganda but I see you are by

the way you omitted the "anti Obama screed" which of course was bullshit.

[scarletwoman]

106. Unbelievably dishonest - you don't link to the article you're criticizing, you just expect

everyone to take your word for what it says.

Surely, even you can see how completely absurd that is! Have you no shame?

[Bonobo]

108. The article is a painful reminder of the thousands of innocents killed by Obama's drones

Look at it. It's our killing too.

[SamKnause]

113. The Truth is Ugly.

Your anger is misplaced.

[MrMickeysMom]

119. Well, this is a rather disingenuous OP, empty of validity...

I see no connection between what is written by Greenwald describing the kind of incineration and morbidity felt by innocent populations who are drone struck, and Obama screed. Where do you get this? You weren't forthcoming with the article. Fortunately someone else was.

If your OP was meant to serve as character assassination of Greenwald, well, then congratulations. You don't like his writing/reporting/taking up oxygen. But, if you feel that way, at least have the decency to relate it to one thing that is, as you say, "Obama screed".

Give me something I have to defend, or go read a good book. Better yet, study some history of how we and other so called democracies start setting examples of how to avoid setting bad examples.

Why don't you start with this analysis of Greenwald's -

Unlike ISIS, the U.S. usually (though not always) tries to suppress (rather than gleefully publish) evidence showing the victims of its violence. Indeed, concealing stories about the victims of American militarism is a critical part of the U.S. government’s strategy for maintaining support for its sustained aggression. That is why, in general, the U.S. media has a policy of systematically excluding and ignoring such victims (although disappearing them this way does not actually render them nonexistent).

Why don't you examine how wars of aggression do little more than extract natural resources and create more and more horrifying acts of terrorism?

[guillaumeb]

209. no can do

because to do so would conflict with the image of the US as always acting from the best of intentions and with the noblest of motives.

[Man from Pickens]

120. US black ops - 130+ countries last year

When we actually do have a hand in every mess, it is easy and correct to blame us for it.

We created ISIS. We are responsible for the consequences of creating them, even if we no longer control them.

[grasswire]

125. I admit it - I see a trend.

Truth trumps party.

[merrily]

130. I sense a couple of other possible trends.

One is the accusation of being un-American. Where that accusation is going to fall in the pantheon of "You must be a Republican," "You must be a Paulyte" and "Surely, you are a libertarian 'from the left," remains to be seen. It may be simply that the mood of the moment will decide.

The other is placing skepticism of what we are told by government and/or media right along side of "whacko conspiracy theories." And, of course, claiming that all of that, too is RW. Because, of course, the left has traditionally been known never to criticize or question government actions or media.


Anyway, that is my sense of what may be coming down the pike next, to stand proudly by the "not electable" meme..

[SaveOurDemocracy]

126. Post BS and run?

... and all the usual names rush in to defend a totally bogus OP because ... GREENWALD!!

[KG]

134. enjoy every crumb.

[UTUSN]

135. Of course, Glenn, how's that PUTEEN doing (yes I know it's SNOWjob in Russia)?!1 n/t

Last edited Sat Feb 7, 2015, 07:56 PM - Edit history (2)

[guillaumeb]

137. Moral equivalence?

If a Nobel Peace Prize winning, former constitutional law lecturer turned moderate Republican President orders the drone execution of Anwar al-Awlaki and follows up with the drone execution of al-Awlaki's 16 year old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, are the executions not criminal acts?

And no, people should protest barbarous acts and war crimes whenever they occur. The war crimes of Bush and Obama do not excuse the war crimes of ISIS militants.

But when the US denounces a group for actions that the US itself engages in one must allow for a little questioning of sincerity. War crimes are war crimes whether they are large scale, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, genocide against the First Peoples of this country,
or whether they are small scale, like the killing of the Jordanian pilot.

[G_j]

142. well said

& to excuse one war crime, is to condone all war crimes,

[moondust]

138. "our" govt??

I thought he lived in Brazil.

[progressoid]

199. There are 6 million Americans who live abroad.

[Major Hogwash]

140. Which government is Greenwald referring to?

Since he no longer lives in the United States.

[bigtree]

237. nice of you to chide him for leaving the U.S. (he is still an American)

Greenwald lives in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the hometown of his partner, David Michael Miranda. Greenwald has stated that his residence in Brazil is the result of an American law, the Defense of Marriage Act, barring federal recognition of same-sex marriages, which prevented his partner from receiving a visa to reside in the United States with him. Greenwald has also cited fears of arrest should he move back to the US.

[Major Hogwash]

238. Does he pay taxes?

Did he vote in the mid-term elections last fall?

[bigtree]

239. irrelevant

...except, I'm certain, in your own mind...any cheap shot is fine, I guess, to defend politics and politicians over principle.

Have YOU been denied the basic right to marry the person you love? Is the government threatening you with political arrest?

...neverthefuckmind.

[nakocal]

141. Where was Greenwald when Bush was in Office

Isn't it amazing that the wonderful Mr. Greenwald never said a fucking word when Bush was president. And suddenly, when a black democratic man is elected president all of the policies that were enacted by the previous administration and kept on the books by republicans through there votes and filibusters, are President Obama's fault. And you have dumb ass liberals staying at home during a mid term election to punish President Obama who is not even running. Thus allowing more republicans to be elected and do even more heinous stuff.

[G_j]

143. He wrote three books about the George W. Bush Administration

How Would A Patriot Act? (2006) and Tragic Legacy (2007), and his 2008 release, Great American Hypocrites.

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/

[QC]

144. Yeah, but except for those three books

and a bunch of articles and tv appearances and blog posts, he never said a damn word!

[Major Hogwash]

146. Was that before or after Greenwald endorsed the Iraq War?

Seems like some people have short memories around here.

[Hissyspit]

154. No they don't. They just see through misleading bull crap when it's posted.

It was after. And there was a lot. Greenwald has said he was wrong and came out thoroughly and completely against the war and the Bush administration.

[whatchamacallit]

164. Let see how good your memory is if Hillary is the nominee

[QC]

196. All will be forgiven then, of course.

And let's get real here. Given what we have seen of the president's attitude toward war, I'm not so sure he would have voted against the war if he had been in the Senate in 2003.

My guess is that he would have said something about having to stand behind the president in the face of terrorism and then voted with Hillary, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and the other sensible, pragmatic centrists.

It's easier to speak against a war when you're a state senator.

[guillaumeb]

208. easy decisions

It is very easy to change positions when you have no real position. See Obama, Hilary, Kerry et al. They are all weather vanes who turn with the prevailing winds.

The only constant among most of them is their enormous ambition accompanied by a conviction that they are the only people who have the answers.

Much has been made about the relative intelligence difference between Bush and Obama, but intelligence in service only to ambition is meaningless. When smart people make decisions, think Obama and what he decided about Libya, Syria, and drone killings, they seem to think that their intelligence will enable them to avoid the inevitable blowback that accompanies bad decisions.

[cpwm17]

201. When did he "endorse" the Iraq War.

He said he first supported the war, before he was deeply involved in politics. The only reason we know this fact is that he said he did. There was no endorsement.

[Hissyspit]

153. Wow. You may want to delete this post.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

[stevenleser]

185. No, they shouldn't delete. It took a long time for Greenwald to realize Bush was

As bad as he was. Greenwald sycophants try to counter that by saying "well, he really wasn't in journalism and all of that.

Bullshit. Few DUers are journalists of any sort and well figured out how bad Bush was from the getgo

[Hissyspit]

227. Hunh?

So what? That doesn't have anything to do with what I posted. The poster said Greenwald didn't say word one. "Mr. Greenwald never said a fucking word when Bush was president." This is completely AND ridiculously false. The poster clearly doesn't have a clue.

And you defend that falsehood just because you don't like him.

[xocet]

148. ...

[Hissyspit]

155. "Anybody finally want to start admitting I've been right about him and his "brand" of agenda-based"

"slant journalism?"

No. And for good reason.

[Warpy]

165. He's got a point

Our army felt no compunction about burning civilians in Falluja alive with white phosphorus.

The problem is feeling outrage over ISIS's savagery while ignoring our own.

[stevenleser]

170. Almost. He might have one if the Obama administration had dropped white phosphorous

He wants to distract from ISIS atrocities and pint the finger at the U.S. so badly he is distracting with the acts from a prior administration.

That's a tell right there of what Greenwald is about.

[Warpy]

175. I didn't see it as anti Obama, specifically

as anti the MIC that is always looking for places to test their new weapons. Obama's hands are bloodied, too, although I doubt even the most vehement anti Obama/warmonger would think that McCain would have been any better. Grampy thinks the answer to every problem is sending in the military.

War is never the answer, it always ends up setting the world up for the next one.

[stevenleser]

177. Nor did I, as I noted in my #55 above.

Greenwald fans jumped all over that but I don't think that's really what the OP meant or was concentrating on.

The use of ISIS int that article and then focusing the reader on the U.S. actions of 11 years ago was a cynical and dishonest tactic, IMHO.

[stonecutter357]

193. K&R!

[Scuba]

194. "Did something once"? In case you haven't noticed, we're still doing it.

[progressoid]

198. Huh?

Seems more like a screed against the American military industrial complex and war in general. Didja see the part in the middle about the Israel and white phosphorous?

[Autumn]

200. To be fair, it did mention Obamas name in the article.

And there were no cute fuzzy pictures of him with the dog or his shirt off.

[progressoid]

203. That's because Ellen has Bo.

[Autumn]

204. Obviously the secret service detail has failed again.

[Orsino]

202. He may not be on cue, but yes, he is indeed right.

MSM outrage over ISIS atrocities ought to be taken in context with all the violence the MSM deliberately ignores or downplays. America didn't just "do something once," and the MSM has been there to assist nearly every step of the way.

I'm all for criticizing Greenwald, but you picked a liser of an argument this time.

[Act_of_Reparation]

212. No, he's not right.

His tweet is a textbook example of a tu quoque fallacy.

People are right to be outraged over something clearly outrageous, regardless of how they've behaved in the past.

[Orsino]

213. His tweet could be called a broad brush...

...but is a correct diagnosis of the uglier end of our public discourse. I do not believe he actually means to say that there is no sincere outrage anywhere.

[Act_of_Reparation]

214. Or it can be called a tu quoque.

Because that's what it is.

The future holds no obligation to the past. What the MSM said yesterday about the United States does not make them wrong about ISIS today. It's wholly irrelevant.

Greenwald should have said something to the effect of "it would be nice to see the MSM treat American foreign policy to the same scrutiny". It would have gotten the point across nicely without providing cover for terrorists. But he didn't.

So he's wrong.

[Orsino]

218. Greenwald impugned motives, not factual errors.

A label of tu quoque is a non sequitur in this case.

He's telling us why we shouldn't trust MSM. He's not saying it's wrong to decry atrocities.

[Arkana]

205. Why is no one allowed to feel indignation over ISIS

brutally beheading innocent people?

[Peacetrain]

210. That is an excellent question!!

[Capt. Obvious]

211. The blatant racism is dripping through that tweet

[rhett o rick]

215. Then point it out. nm

[rhett o rick]

217. This OP is a huge fail. Mr. Greenwald wrote an article pointing out the hypocracy

of our "exceptional" government. You made a valiant attempt to turn it into an aniti-Obama issue apparently to rally the pro-Obama friends. They love the distraction from actual issues like the TPP and fracking.

Mr. Greenwald DID NOT MENTION THE PRESIDENT and he did not minimize the atrocities of ISIS.

I find it distressing that some here professing to be liberals, attack the messengers (ad hominem), whether they are journalists, protesters, or whistle-blowers, because they don't want to hear anything bad about their authoritative heroes.

If the Republicans were committing these atrocities we'd be hearing a different tune from the anti-Greenwald group.

Only conservatives swim in the river of denial.

[Blue_Tires]

244. He didn't minimize, he equivocated

but making this about U.S. foreign policy...

And Obama is mentioned by name twice in the pieces he cited...

[rhett o rick]

245. So.....do you agree with the OP or not? I am not sure of your point.

It is quite a long article and it isn't at all about Pres Obama. It may be about US foreign, but not limited to this administration.

You said: "And Obama is mentioned by name twice in the pieces he cited..." Obama's name was mentioned twice in the article but not by Greenwald.

The OP tried to make the article an anti-Greenwald screed. Fail!

[Cha]

246. Right, GG.. we shouldn't feel anything about ISIS because of what you think. Got It, ********.

He always sounds to me like he's so ******* jealous of President Obama that it's dripping off his keyboard.

[Cha]

247. K&R

[Cha]

248. K