Is Glenn Greenwald trying to save face?

[ProSense]

Here are his last three posts, all criticizing Obama or anyone who doesn't share his views.

Media, drones and rank propaganda
As usual, the leading spokespeople for government policies are disguised as the nation's Adversarial Watchdog Press

By Glenn Greenwald

Several items today relate to the issue of gross U.S. media propaganda and Obama’s national security policies:

(1) I have an Op-Ed in The Guardian today on how the American media has been repeatedly and willingly coopted in the Obama administration’s propagandistic abuse of its secrecy powers, with a focus on the recent high-profile, Obama-flattering national security scoops from The New York Times.

- more -

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/08/media_drones_and_rank_propaganda/singleton/

Probing Obama’s secrecy games
Will high-level Obama officials who leak for political gain be punished on equal terms with actual whistleblowers?

By Glenn Greenwald

Over the past several months, including just last week, I’ve written numerous times about the two glaring contradictions that drive the Obama administration’s manipulative game-playing with its secrecy powers: (1) at the very same time that they wage an unprecedented war on whistleblowers, they themselves continuously leak national security secrets exclusively designed to glorify Obama purely for political gain; and (2) at the very same time they insist to federal courts that these programs are too secret even to confirm or deny their existence (thereby shielding them from judicial review or basic disclosure), they run around publicly boasting about their actions. Just over the past month alone, they have done precisely this by leaking key details about Obama’s commanding role in the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, drone attacks that have killed allegedly key Al Qaeda figures, sophisticated cyber-attacks on Iran’s nuclear program, and the selection of targets for Obama “kill list”: all programs that are classified and which the White House has insisted cannot be subjected to judicial review or any form of public scrutiny.

- more -

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/07/probing_obamas_secrecy_games/singleton/

Raw Story’s liberal rhetoric
Sliming critics of the President's policies as Terrorist-lovers was once an exclusively right-wing tactic: no more

By Glenn Greenwald

Raw Story is a moderately well-read political outlet that touts itself as “a progressive news site that focuses on stories often ignored in the mainstream media.” It recently began publishing a blog devoted exclusively to venerating the President and sliming his critics: because that’s so edgy, brave and rare; after all, the meek “MSM” would never dare glorify the nation’s most powerful political official and the party in power, so we really need a brave, dissident anti-MSM site like Raw Story to provide that. That blog promptly humiliated Raw Story this week by publishing a totally false and baseless Internet “rumor” that Wisconsin’s GOP Gov. Scott Walker “impregnant[ed] his college girlfriend and, after encouraging her to get an abortion, abandon[ed] her.” Andrew Breitbart might be dead, but his spirit is alive and well at Raw Story. In response, Raw Story‘s Executive Editor Megan Carpentier eagerly (and understandably) disclaimed any responsibility for publication of that blog, insisting (credibly) that the decision to publish it was made by Raw Story ”management.”

- more -

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/06/raw_storys_liberal_rhetoric/singleton/

Yeah, no one can criticize Greenwald. Anyone who does so or doesn't agree with him is "sliming critics of the President's policies."

For a guy who supported a war crime/criminal (http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297462), why the self-righteous attitude? I mean, what the hell was he on when he supported the illegal invasion of Iraq and Bush's idiotic actions after 9/11?

Greenwald is projecting. He seems to want to portray everyone who now supports Obama as being in the same position he was when he supported Bush.

He never mentions his past views in his blog writings. Most people have no idea he once trusted Bush, supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. In fact, support for the Iraq war is used to dismiss a lot of writers, even ones who changed their minds.

It's the ultimate false equivalency to save face.

Here is Greenwald on his support for the Iraq war:

<...>

Soon after our invasion of Iraq, when it became apparent that, contrary to Bush administration claims, there were no weapons of mass destruction, I began concluding, reluctantly, that the administration had veered far off course from defending the country against the threats of Muslim extremism. It appeared that in the great national unity the September 11 attacks had engendered, the administration had seen not a historically unique opportunity to renew a sense of national identity and cohesion, but instead a potent political weapon with which to impose upon our citizens a whole series of policies and programs that had nothing to do with terrorism, but that could be rationalized through an appeal to the nation's fear of further terrorist attacks.

<...>

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

http://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index.cfm?fuseaction=printable&book_number=1812

The Iraq war was launched in 2003. Greenwald's ephiphany came around 2004-2005.

The following assessment is spot on!

<...>

It is little known that Greenwald supported the Iraq War, and the war in Afghanistan before it. He does not mention it in writing anymore and rarely speaks of it. He supported the war for the same reason I did: he believed that Iraq possessed WMD and that the potential consequences of that possession could not be risked. When no WMD were found, it made no difference to Hitchens, who too characteristically belittled the significance of the non-finding, and those to whom it mattered, and continued to promote many other rationales for the war that were forceful and honorable, but for me circumstantially undeterminative. Without a belief in the existence of WMD I would not have supported the war and neither, it appears, would Greenwald have. For Greenwald, however, the knowledge that a government in which he had placed a level of trust, had, at the very least, gotten it so wrong – if not manipulated the nation into war – has led to an abiding campaign of extraordinary vituperation against not just the government officials responsible, but others, outside of government, particularly journalists, who had argued for action and the rightness of it.

http://sadredearth.com/christopher-hitchens-glenn-greenwald-and-the-war-of-ideas/

[Chan790]

1. There's no shock to GG being a hypocrite. n/t

[sabrina 1]

2. Everyone knows, because he told people, that he initially supported the Iraq war and was then

honest enough to oppose it when he realized that we had been lied to. Christopher Hitches was lying. Just because HE did not know doesn't mean most people familiar with Greenwald did not. Hitchens lied about a lot of things, especially concerning Iraq. Not a credible source at all on this subject.

Btw, Hillary Clinton and many Democrats, in fact most through the years, supported and worse, voted for every request in Congress to continue to fund it, even after it became clear that it was all based on a lie.

I mean, what the hell was he on when he supported the illegal invasion of Iraq and Bush's idiotic actions after 9/11?

Do you ask yourself that question about all those Democrats who supported and voted to fund it and still are? Why did none of them, or so few when it was politically expedient, while still voting to fund it, do what Greenwald did and have the decency to do what Dennis Kucinich did, and refuse to continue to support it once it was clear it was a lie.

I always knew Greenwald supported the war initially, so did a lot of people, and I totally respected every one of those who changed their minds once it was clear that we were lied.

Are you saying he should have continued his support even after he found out we were lied to, like so many others?

Thank YOU Glenn for having the integrity to admit when you are wrong, something btw, he is well known for.

These constant attacks on journalists, are not helping the Dem Party at all, just so you know.

[WillyT]

3. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

Apparently... we're gonna have to start a list.

Just found out last night that Eleanor Clift "works for the other side".

Who knew ???

[ProSense]

7. Interesting

"Btw, Hillary Clinton and many Democrats, in fact most through the years, supported and worse, voted for every request in Congress to continue to fund it, even after it became clear that it was all based on a lie...Thank YOU Glenn for having the integrity to admit when you are wrong, something btw, he is well known for."

So you're comparing Greenwald to Hillary Clinton? That's hilarious on several levels.

Greenwald:

Just think about this: Joe Klein is someone who went on Meet the Press in February, 2003 and urged that the U.S. invade Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings.

http://www.salon.com/2009/08/23/joe_klein/

Greenwald also supported the Iraq war, "which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings."


"These constant attacks on journalists, are not helping the Dem Party at all, just so you know. "

Yeah, leave Greenwald alone. Only he is allowed to launch "constant attacks on journalists" or organizations (Raw Story).

Too funny.

[sabrina 1]

26. Failed attempt to twist my words. Look again. YOU claimed that it was villainous

to have supported the war. I asked, and you refused to answer, if you held that view of every Democrat who supported it.

I can see why you would not want to answer that question though. I wouldn't either, as I would want to be consistent in my judgement of people.

So you're comparing Greenwald to Hillary Clinton?

Of course not, Greenwald withdrew his support for the Iraq War, Hillary never has. Which is why I never supported her for the WH.

It's odd that you did not know of Greenwald's initial, although reluctant support for that war. It would be hard to miss, since he wrote about it in his book, a very critical attack on the Bush Administration 'How Would a Patriot Act'. The book was published in 2006 presumably written in 2005, the year he started his award-winning blog.

Btw, Greenwald has been praised by many Democrats who do not share your view of him. One of them being Russ Feingold, another Chris Dodd, and Democrats have cited him on the floor of Congress.

And no, you are not doing Democrats any good by joining the few websites, the rightwing mostly, who hate him.

He is widely respected for his work, even among those who don't always agree with him.

Here are a few examples of how he is viewed in the world of Journalism, I hope those who are critical of him are as highly respected, otherwise they look small and petty, as if they can't take it when someone doesn't agree with them all the time. And frankly the few I've bothered to look at are generally among the most unpopular people in the progressive blogosphere:

On August 24, 2008, the day before the start of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, which was held in Denver, Colorado, Dan Amira of New York magazine ranked Greenwald as number 36 in his list of "top 40" most popular American political pundits.

On January 22, 2009, Forbes named Greenwald one of the "25 Most Influential Liberals in the U.S. Media". The magazine placed him at number eighteen, just below Hendrik Hertzberg and just ahead of Andrew Sullivan.

On July 6, 2009, former MSNBC host Dan Abrams launched a new site, Mediaite, reporting on media figures. The site ranked all print and online columnists in America by influence. Greenwald was ranked # 9, immediately behind Charles Krauthammer.


In August 2009, the Web search engine Technorati ranked Glenn Greenwald's Salon.com blog as number 45 in its "Top 100" list of "the most popular 100 blogs based on Technorati Authority" (in its case, 2,056 blog links in the past six months).

In November 2009, The Atlantic launched a new site, TheAtlanticWire.com, and named America's 50 most influential political pundits ("The Atlantic 50&quot . Greenwald was ranked #22 on the list.

In December, 2011, Business Insider named him one of the Politix 50: The Only Pundits You Need To Pay Attention To Between Now And The Election.

In January, 2012, the British political journal New Statesman named Greenwald one of America's Top 20 Progressives

He has received so many awards for his coverage of such stories as the Valerie Plame Affair, eg. Too many to add here.

So here's my advice, if you want to discredit Greenwald, prove him wrong. He has a strong reputation for admitting when he is wrong.

He is far too highly respected for his work to be affected by a few disgruntled bloggers sniping at his heels. It's always better to argue the facts. I thought we on the left knew this.

[ProSense]

28. No

YOU claimed that it was villainous to have supported the war. I asked, and you refused to answer, if you held that view of every Democrat who supported it.

I can see why you would not want to answer that question though. I wouldn't either, as I would want to be consistent in my judgement of people.

So you're comparing Greenwald to Hillary Clinton?

Of course not, Greenwald withdrew his support for the Iraq War, Hillary never has. Which is why I never supported her for the WH.

...I pointed out that Greenwald supported the Iraq war. The OP has nothing to do with Hillary.

On January 22, 2009, Forbes named Greenwald one of the "25 Most Influential Liberals in the U.S. Media". The magazine placed him at number eighteen, just below Hendrik Hertzberg and just ahead of Andrew Sullivan.

On July 6, 2009, former MSNBC host Dan Abrams launched a new site, Mediaite, reporting on media figures. The site ranked all print and online columnists in America by influence. Greenwald was ranked # 9, immediately behind Charles Krauthammer.

Holy crap!

[sabrina 1]

30. Oh there's much more, that is just the lightweight stuff which I though you might be interested in.

Not to worry, I have been thinking of writing an OP about Greenwald, as he is a very interesting person and if I do, I will post the rest of his many accomplishments.

Another thing, anyone that has ten dogs, all strays which he and his partner keep bringing home, is okay by me. Even if I sometimes don't agree with them. That's life, I don't agree with the people I love all the time either.

And as I said, prove him wrong and I know if you do, he will acknowledge it. It's a better way to discredit someone, honestly.

[joshcryer]

34. Haha, that's perfect. I would place him there, actually.

[SidDithers]

44. BBI was called "highly respected" too...nt

Sid

[Bobbie Jo]

64. Exactly.

Great judge of character there.

[sabrina 1]

154. You're 'naut' series are you?

Oh, the irony.

[SidDithers]

155. Irony. You keep using that word...

Sid

[woo me with science]

8. Well said.

What a ludicrous argument, that he should be condemned for admitting he was wrong. Not to mention that it begs the question of what the people attacking him for that do when THEY are wrong...

[pennylane100]

18. Well he is given credit for acknowledging his mistake about the war.

However, I remember the period before the war and I was absolutely sure that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I remember the inspectors on the ground had not found any evidence of them and were forced to leave before they completed their search.

There were many good journalists that saw through the lies of the Bush administration. It was their hard work that convinced people like me that Bush was lying. They knew that if the cast of characters leading the charge included the likes of Rumsfeld and Cheney were very motivated to invade Iraq even before 9/11. Unfortunately Greenwald was not one of them. Those of us who felt betrayed by the illegal war and the lies that got us into it have every right to remember and discuss all the inconvenient facts of that shameful time in our past. If telling the truth is an attack on our party, we must be republicans.

[sabrina 1]

29. He wasn't comfortable with his support as he explains in his book, because things struck him as not

sounding right. However, he was not engaged in politics the way we were back then. He did not become a blogger until 2005. His interest in politics came, like many other people, during the Bush administration. I know many very intelligent people, lawyers, doctors etc who had a similar reaction. Many of them Democrats. But they loved their country and assumed that no president, even a Republican would use that tragic event to lie this country into war.

It is my feeling that they were so honest themselves, as is Greenwald, they could not imagine someone, even someone they would not vote for, committing such a horrific crime. I believe that is how Greenwald described himself at the time.

I remember myself, when Bush was inaugurated, how devastated I was that he had won. But watching it on TV, I did try to get over it and told myself, despite the uneasy feelings that man always gave me, that the weight of the office would make him a better person. I guess I wanted to believe it, but it was hard, and then came 9/11 and yes, I knew he would use it. But Greenwald was not politically involved so his perspective was different.

[pennylane100]

52. Yes, I also remember the awful time when Bush became president.

It also took me many week to come to terms with it. What I hated most was that he was not the winner of the race, he was handed it by the Supreme Court. I knew it would be downhill from there. I believed that he was not emotionally capable of becoming a better person and the awful people he surrounded himself with only reinforced that feeling.


While Greenwald had made a mistake about the war, unlike many people who were reluctant to admit they had been fooled and that certainly gives him some credibility. However, I do think we have a right to examine his decision making process when critiquing his work. Support for an illegal war that many of our NATO allies were against and Nelson Mandela called "A threat to world peace
is a very hard thing to justify. That is why I did not support Hillary in the democratic race.

I am also very disturbed that our drones are killing innocent people and that the program is being done clouded in secrecy. We need the press to keep the public informed when we go around the world murdering innocent civilians. However Greenwald's role in the Iraq becomes relevant when he attacks Raw Story for defending the president. He used a totally unrelated report about Scott Walker, that turned out to be false, to justify his position. He should have defended his point on the strength of the facts. After all, he had been terribly wrong himself about Iraq when even I knew that Bush had intended to invade Iraq before almost as soon as he became president. He is, by implication, saying if you are wrong about one thing, you are less credible. We certainly have the right to hold him to his own standards. This in no way relates to our support of the democratic party.

[joshcryer]

32. I've seen people throw Juan Cole under the bus for much less than Greenwald.

Greenwald had Fisk's reports, the reports from the UN inspectors (David Kelly's suspicious suicide later on), the knowledge that the UN was against it, the fact that Bush wanted to invade unilaterally, Colon Powell's ludicrous presentation to the UN? And yet he still agreed to it? C'mon!

I totally respected every one of those who changed their minds once it was clear that we were lied.

Absolutely no respect for Greenwald after learning how he was "duped." No respect for anyone who bought into the war. I have no friends who actually wanted to invade Iraq. I guess I must be a special case.

Are you saying he should have continued his support even after he found out we were lied to, like so many others?

I think if you're going to throw other liberals under the bus for much less, Greenwald deserves a bit more scrutiny if you're going to respect him.

[cali]

50. I still don't get how anyone with half a brain could have supported that shit.

and yeah, that certainly goes for dems in Congress who supported it.

[Robb]

69. You are saying Greenwald was more gullible than EVERYONE WHO WAS ON DU.

I was here. Precisely ZERO DUers bought the bullshit your Libertarian anti-union asshole buddy says duped him.

[coalition_unwilling]

73. GG should have done what John Kerry did in 2004, i.e., say he would still have

supported invading Iraq even if he knew Iraq did not have WMD. I knew Kerry had lost the GE when I heard those words leave his lips, as soon as I could pick my jaw up off the floor anyway.

With friends like Kerry, who needed enemies?

[inna]

4. thank god for Glenn; thanks for the thread btw

[sabrina 1]

39. Oh I threw Juan Cole under the bus long before that, when he turned around and supported the Iraq

Last edited Sun Jun 10, 2012, 05:17 PM - Edit history (2)

War AFTER having written extensively about all the reasons why he opposed it. He did the opposite of Greenwald, he supported something he knew was most likely a crime.

His claim to fame is that he is an expert on the ME and Islam, he knew Saddam Hussein would never have been associated with terrorists. He wrote brilliantly and courageously about the reasons for terrorism, stating that it was a result of Colonial Interference, but then he flipped on Iraq and supported it. A completely incomprehensible position to take by someone who knew the lies they were telling. Then flip flopped again, and opposed it later. It's hard to know where he stands on anything.

And then, the 'anti-colonialist' flip flopped once again on Libya, and supported the very symbol of Colonialism to African nations, NATO, invading, bombing, killing, and making Libya's oil available to the old Colonialists. A complete betrayal of his very own 'beliefs'.

I fully stand by that comment. And I'm flattered you go so much trouble on my behalf.

And those are some if the reasons I do not link to him, on Iran eg. Yes, his position right now on Iran is 'no war with Iran'. But, his record shows he cannot be trusted to maintain that position should the US decide to go to Iran, does it? Seems he doesn't want to go against the tide when it really matters.

Cole is a good writer, he sounds good, sounds 'liberal' but when the Imperial states go to war, they can count on him for his support. Until later .... maybe .... who knows.

Sorry to spoil your 'gotcha' moment.

Edited to add, Democrats had those facts you listed, yet they supported that war. Greenwald was not involved in politics at that time, like so many other Americans so you have zero idea of what he knew. Yet you post your certainty without a shred of evidence. But we do have evidence about what our elected officials knew. And we know that their support had actual consequences. A private citizen's reluctant support had no influence at all. At that time, no one had ever heard of Greenwald. Try posting facts from now on, I have little interest in biased opinion.

Edited to say that this comment was meant for joshcryer. Not for Inna.

[inna]

58. great post (as always), Sabrina; i'm sure it was meant to be directed at someone else

rather than me, though. I think I even know who it was directed at.

[woo me with science]

5. Thank you, Glenn Greenwald. nt

[girl gone mad]

6. What purpose does it serve to continually attack liberal journalists?

It certainly does not help the President correct his many policy errors and get our economy back on track.

It doesn't help the party win back the hearts and minds of progressives who feel betrayed by Obama's record.

It doesn't help channel liberal anger and frustration toward a better target, the Republican candidate.

What's the point of continually promoting these inter-party divisions through relentlessly irritating ad hominem bluster?

[ProSense]

9. Well,

"What purpose does it serve to continually attack liberal journalists?"

...you consider Greenwald a "liberal journalist." I don't.

Even if he was, he isn't the "liberal journalist."

Is Greenwald above criticism in your view?

Also, ever heard of free speech?

[girl gone mad]

10. Yes, I consider Greenwald to be a liberal journalist.

Please answer my question.

What are you trying to accomplish by attacking liberal journalists day in and day out?

[ProSense]

11. This

"What are you trying to accomplish by attacking liberal journalists day in and day out?"

...is hyperbole, fact-free.

And I repeat: Greenwald is not a "liberal" journalist.

[ProSense]

12. For example,

Greenwald support Citizens United. I do not consider that a liberal position.

What the Supreme Court got right

By Glenn Greenwald

The Supreme Court yesterday, in a 5-4 decision, declared unconstitutional (on First Amendment grounds) campaign finance regulations which restrict the ability of corporations and unions to use funds from their general treasury for “electioneering” purposes. The case, Citizens United v. FEC, presents some very difficult free speech questions, and I’m deeply ambivalent about the court’s ruling. There are several dubious aspects of the majority’s opinion (principally its decision to invalidate the entire campaign finance scheme rather than exercising ”judicial restraint” through a narrower holding). Beyond that, I believe that corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture. But there are also very real First Amendment interests implicated by laws which bar entities from spending money to express political viewpoints.


I want to begin by examining several of the most common reactions among critics of this decision, none of which seems persuasive to me. Critics emphasize that the Court’s ruling will produce very bad outcomes: primarily that it will severely exacerbate the problem of corporate influence in our democracy. Even if this is true, it’s not really relevant. Either the First Amendment allows these speech restrictions or it doesn’t. In general, a law that violates the Constitution can’t be upheld because the law produces good outcomes (or because its invalidation would produce bad outcomes).

One of the central lessons of the Bush era should have been that illegal or unconstitutional actions — warrantless eavesdropping, torture, unilateral Presidential programs — can’t be justified because of the allegedly good results they produce (Protecting us from the Terrorists). The “rule of law” means we faithfully apply it in ways that produce outcomes we like and outcomes we don’t like. Denouncing court rulings because they invalidate laws one likes is what the Right often does (see how they reflexively and immediately protest every state court ruling invaliding opposite-sex-only marriage laws without bothering to even read about the binding precedents), and that behavior is irrational in the extreme. If the Constitution or other laws bar the government action in question, then that’s the end of the inquiry; whether those actions produce good results is really not germane. Thus, those who want to object to the Court’s ruling need to do so on First Amendment grounds. Except to the extent that some constitutional rights give way to so-called “compelling state interests,” that the Court’s decision will produce “bad results” is not really an argument.

<...>

I’m also quite skeptical of the apocalyptic claims about how this decision will radically transform and subvert our democracy by empowering corporate control over the political process. My skepticism is due to one principal fact: I really don’t see how things can get much worse in that regard. The reality is that our political institutions are already completely beholden to and controlled by large corporate interests (Dick Durbin: ”banks own” the Congress). Corporations find endless ways to circumvent current restrictions — their armies of PACs, lobbyists, media control, and revolving-door rewards flood Washington and currently ensure their stranglehold — and while this decision will make things marginally worse, I can’t imagine how it could worsen fundamentally. All of the hand-wringing sounds to me like someone expressing serious worry that a new law in North Korea will make the country more tyrannical. There’s not much room for our corporatist political system to get more corporatist. Does anyone believe that the ability of corporations to influence our political process was meaningfully limited before yesterday’s issuance of this ruling?

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/22/citizens_united/

[girl gone mad]

16. You disagree with Greenwald on one position: therefore he is not a liberal journalist?

This is not good logic.

[ProSense]

18. Wait,

"You disagree with Greenwald on one position: therefore he is not a liberal journalist?"

...where does it say that it's one position? It was an example. See the OP for more. He's also a Ron Paul fan and a libertarian. He's not liberal. It's my opinion. Yours may differ.

[girl gone mad]

79. Can you answer the question, please?

What do you gain by constantly attacking and insulting left-wing writers?

What's your angle here? Many people absolutely loathe the Obama administration because of "supporters" like you.

[GarroHorus]

81. Greewald is a LIBERTARIAN writer, not a left-wing writer

Get it straight. Liberalism and Greenwald have nothing in common.

[girl gone mad]

85. What is this, the schoolyard?

If you want to comment on a political forum, you should learn some of the fundamentals of politics. Many people on the left are civil libertarians. They are still part of the left wing, and are in fact, traditional liberals.

[GarroHorus]

90. Put Greewnald's picture right on top of Gingrich

That's where the asshole fits.

[girl gone mad]

99. That would be an inaccurate placement..

seeing as how Greenwald is an economic populist.

[sabrina 1]

37. The Civil Liberties Union had the exact same position as Greenwald on Citizens United.

Do you consider them to be a Liberal Organization? Do you know what their position was btw?

[SidDithers]

45. Would be kinda hard for him to comment on Wisconsin...

given his support for CU.



Sid

[GeorgeGist]

49. And so did the ACLU

[JDPriestly]

40. I suspect that the attack on Greenwald is motivated by jealousy.

Also, a few DUers excuse things Obama does that they would condemn very strongly if any other president did them. Some DUers seem to consistently take Obama's side no matter how obviously wrong Obama is about something.

I don't think that serves our President well at all.

We are told on the one hand that we should keep the President on his toes. Obama himself has invited us to do that, to express our honest opinions to him. But then along come a few DUers who become incensed at the suggestion that Obama, like most mortals, has faults and makes mistakes and should be held to a reasonable standard of behavior with regard to human rights.

I wonder why a person would support Obama so consistently even when there are clearly inconsistencies in Obama's current position and his promises in 2008. But were I to wonder out loud on DU . . . . . . Please finish my sentence for me.

[frazzled]

48. GG is a Libertarian, not a liberal, writer

And BTW, note that I do not use the word journalist. He's a formerly practicing lawyer (we could go into that, too) who writes opinions.

[GarroHorus]

61. Wasn't he disbarred? n/t

[frazzled]

63. Not that I know of. /nt

[GarroHorus]

65. I did a search and discovered/remembered his infamy as an attorney, Defense attorney for a Neo-Nazi

MAtthew Hale, who gained infamy in 2005 when he contracted the murder of Federal Judge Joan Lefkow but hey instead murdered her husband and mother.

I've never trusted that bastard, Greenwald.

[Capt. Obvious]

147. That's a hell of a sliming you posted there

One of Greenwald's most notable First Amendment clients was Matthew Hale, a leader of the organization now known as the Creativity Movement. On April 6, 2005, Hale was sentenced to a 40-year prison term for soliciting an undercover FBI informant to kill federal judge Joan Lefkow.[20] and was incarcerated in the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado.[21] Although he "represented Hale and his organization in several civil cases" and was not involved in Hale's criminal defense case, after the subsequent killing of Judge Lefkow's mother and husband while Hale was incarcerated for the earlier conviction, Greenwald was approached by Hale's mother, Evelyn Hutcheson. She asked Greenwald to deliver a purportedly "encoded message" from the imprisoned Hale to one of his supporters on the outside; Greenwald declined to do so.[22][23]

In his entry in Unclaimed Territory for July 10, 2006, Greenwald states, "I decided voluntarily to wind down my practice in 2005 because I could, and because, after ten years, I was bored with litigating full-time and wanted to do other things which I thought were more engaging and could make more of an impact, including political writing."[19]

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

I know, it was hard to find this information.

[GarroHorus]

148. Yeah, the truth is now "sliming"

Hale was a piece of shit and Greenwald was a piece of shit to defend the piece of shit.

[Capt. Obvious]

149. So, lies and what can be best described as half-truths are now truth

Fascinating

[GarroHorus]

152. TRUTH: Greenwald defended HAle

TRUTH: Hale ordered the MURDER of a federal judge.

TRUTH: Greenwald did not quit his law practice until Hale ordered the murder.

Paint it any way you like, Greenwald is FUCKING SLIME.

[Capt. Obvious]

153. You've made inuendo an art form

I'm impressed.

[Tarheel_Dem]

161. That would be a righteous SmackDown!

[Luminous Animal]

164. Only if you believe that the accused are not entitled to a defense and

only if you believe that all defense lawyers are slime.

[Luminous Animal]

163. Truth: Greenwald defended Hale in a First Amendment civil rights case...

Truth: Greenwald declined to defend Hale in is criminal trial.

Defendants in this U.S. of A. are entitled to mount a defense when accused in a court of law. You seem to think otherwise and you seem to think that those who defend the accused are slime.

[GarroHorus]

60. He isn't attacking a liberal journalist. He's attacking a FAKE liberal journalist. n/t

[girl gone mad]

109. You don't even seem to know what a liberal is..

yet you deem yourself arbiter of true v. fake liberalism.

Good luck, kid.

[jeff47]

112. Perhaps you should ask Glenn. (nt)

[Lionessa]

13. If you don't want someone writing these truths about Obama, talk to Obama about not

doing them.

[ProSense]

15. There is

"If you don't want someone writing these truths about Obama, talk to Obama about not doing them. "

...free speech. I don't care what he writes, but I will express my opinions of his obvious bias and hypocrisy.

[Hillary is 45]

35. You mean you will express the opinions your boss tells you to

...based on how much he pays you.

Luckily there can't be more than a handful on this site who take your paid shill NonSense seriously.

Thank god for the likes of Greenwald helping to keep the country honest.

[Tarheel_Dem]

41. Welcome back? That's quite a personal attack on a longtime DU member from someone who.....

just joined us today. You speak with such familiarity, and your writing style seems oddly familiar as well.

[Hillary is 45]

51. I notice you are not saying I'm wrong

We all know it's impossible to agree with and defend any person's record 110% at 100% of the time as the group of people behind this particular user does. It's just astroturf and it is not helpful. They alienate more people from Obama than they can ever possibly turn on with this behavior, and it makes DU suck.

[ProSense]

103. I'm saying

"I notice you are not saying I'm wrong...They alienate more people from Obama than they can ever possibly turn on with this behavior, and it makes DU suck."

...goodbye. Evidently, you had fans.

[Tarheel_Dem]

125. Thank goodness for the TOS. A jury let the post stand, but Skinner took out the trash!

[Tarheel_Dem]

108. You still didn't explain how you know the inner workings and posting histories of DU members.....

having just joined us today? That's what "makes DU suck".

[SidDithers]

46. Come back soon, again...

Sid

[sufrommich]

53. A jury let this stand...unbelievable. nt

[girl gone mad]

77. It's what virtually everyone believes..

for good reason.

[Bobbie Jo]

78. It must be gratifying

knowing a troll agrees with you.

[girl gone mad]

83. You probably can find better things to do with your time..

than to post snide comments on DU. So why do it?

I really would like to understand the mentality that drives a handful of people on this forum to act out in a passive aggressive manor toward liberals with whom they supposedly have honest disagreements. There must be better options, a more reasonable and pleasant way to share your thoughts and opinions than through rude, angry barbs.

Unfortunately, too often what I see is snark and derision, ad hominem insults that appear deliberately designed to pick a fight rather than start a conversation. The motivations behind these posts are still unclear to me. This is clearly not having the effect of winning people over as the results on DU3 speak for themselves.

[Bobbie Jo]

89. And this post was different, how?

"It's what virtually everyone believes..
for good reason."

Sorry, the self-righteous (we're better than you) tactic isn't going to work. I notice you can always be found dropping one-liners on ProSense. So perhaps a little self-reflection is in order here....surely you have better things to do.

Predicting the arrival of the High Horse Brigade in 3...2...1..

[GarroHorus]

92. +1,000,000,000,000 n/t

[girl gone mad]

105. I was responding to the fact that a jury let the post stand.

My response contained no personal opinion, snark, ad hominem, or rude insinuation, unless you believe it's a bad thing for a political organization, party staffer or think tank to post on DU.

ETA: I'd still like to know why you continually choose to be insulting and rude rather than allowing your engaging, sparkling personality to shine through.

[ProSense]

106. Is this

"My response contained no personal opinion, snark, ad hominem, or rude insinuation, unless you believe it's a bad thing for a political organization, party staffer or think tank to post on DU."

...creative speculation?

[girl gone mad]

114. Its simple analysis based on all available evidence.

going back over many years as both an observer and a participant in thousands of discussions with you.

Consider it not a judgment or a criticism but merely a conclusion based solely in observation.

[ProSense]

115. So

Its simple analysis based on all available evidence.

going back over many years as both an observer and a participant in thousands of discussions with you.

Consider it not a judgment or a criticism but merely a conclusion based solely in observation.

...in other words, it's creative speculation.

I love it: Links!!! Paid!!! Shill!!!

None of these responses change the simple fact that Greenwald is a hypocrite.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=794700

[Bobbie Jo]

143. Yeah, I see what you did there.

Last edited Mon Jun 11, 2012, 09:01 AM - Edit history (1)

It was a jerkish response to a jerkish post by a PPR'ed troll. Period.

What, no Tourette jokes today?

[Tarheel_Dem]

142. And by "virtually everyone" you mean the anti-Obama left at DU? How's this? Why don't we all...

just post who we suspect at having ulterior motives here at DU? If I were to come out and call you a "paid shill" for Rmoney, despite your posting history, would that be okay? I mean, I'm ready to start a list of those who I think are "paid shills". You game?

[sufrommich]

146. "virtually everyone"?

Did you poll the members of DU?

You don't speak for all of us.

[ProSense]

102. I wish

"Luckily there can't be more than a handful on this site who take your paid shill NonSense seriously."

...you could see the James Brown moves I'm doing.

[politicasista]

157. Ha! You Feel Good.

[Lionessa]

56. Changing your mind when facts change isn't hypocrisy. However,

continuing with the same opinion in the face of changing facts is entirely stupid. So I guess that means you prefer stupid over rational.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[LeftyMom]

14. Is there a reason you obsess on journalists and bloggers who fall to the left of you?

First Jane Hamsher, now Glen Greenwald. You quit posting about her, did she get a restraining order or something?

Seriously, your level of obsession is a bit creepy.

[ProSense]

17. Is there

"Is there a reason you obsess on journalists and bloggers who fall to the left of you?"

...a reason I should like Jane Hamsher, who partnered with Grover Norquist? I mean, I haven't mentioned Hamsher since 2010. What's the basis for your comment?

[LeftyMom]

18. Sorry, double posted.

Wonky connection? DU bug? Who knows.

[ProSense]

22. And

You have a pattern of picking a journalist who is critical of Obama

and running them down obsessively for months on end. Is there a reason for doing so? Because to be honest it looks irrational and obsessive to the point where if I knew the party you're targeting I'd seriously be concerned about them, safety-wise.

...your problem is that I have an opinion?

If you're not trying to set off somebody's stalker alarm maybe you should tone it down.

The funny thing is that I have no idea about your posting pattern, speaking of "stalker."

[LeftyMom]

23. Starting a skillion threads about some journalist who offended you is obsessive.

And creepy.

People are going to disagree with you about issues and be critical of politicians you're fond of. They're allowed to do that. Take a deep breath and let it go.

[ProSense]

25. Do you

"Starting a skillion threads about some journalist who offended you is obsessive. And creepy. "

...have links to the "skillion threads"? Speaking of "creepy," is that more than a brazillion?

[Tarheel_Dem]

31. "some journalist who offended you is obsessive". You probably didn't intent it, but....

you just described Glenn to a tee.

Many "journalists" have been sacrificed on the tip of his poison pen. Either you didn't actually read the o.p., or you're just a blind fan. The o.p. illustrates his venom for "journalists" and news outlets who disagree with, and rebut his "obsessive" foolishness.

[LeftyMom]

18. Nobody's saying you have to like anybody.

But constant threads for months about some journalist or blogger who has offended you in some way? If you don't mean it to look obsessive and stalkery you might want to knock it off, because that's the impression you're giving off.

[ProSense]

24. Seriously,

"But constant threads for months about some journalist or blogger who has offended you in some way? "

...what the hell are you talking about? Step away from the red herrings and straw men. To quote you: "it to look obsessive and stalkery you might want to knock it off."

Seriously, consider not focusing on me.

[girl gone mad]

117. "Seriously, consider not focusing on me."

But, seriously...

If you don't want to elicit this type of response, why do you repeatedly start these types of threads?

Your numerous attacks on progressive and liberal writers always elicit these types of responses. In fact it's the single most consistent reaction that you manage to evoke.

By now you must anticipate this reaction, prosense.

Yet you still start these threads, and then you still complain when you get this same response for the 83,000th time.

Consider not picking at scabs if you don't want the wound to bleed. Unless of course that's your objective.

[ProSense]

121. Wait

If you don't want to elicit this type of response, why do you repeatedly start these types of threads?

Your numerous attacks on progressive and liberal writers always elicit these types of responses. In fact it's the single most consistent reaction that you manage to evoke.

By now you must anticipate this reaction, prosense.

Yet you still start these threads, and then you still complain when you get this same response for the 83,000th time.

Consider not picking at scabs if you don't want the wound to bleed. Unless of course that's your objective.

...are you serious?

Are you claiming that by criticizing Greenwald, I'm inviting personal attacks?

Is that a threat: Don't attack Greenwald, or you'll be attacked?

When someone criticizes President Obama or other Democrats/pundits, should they be warned that these criticism will lead to personal attacks?

I mean, "picking at scabs"? Greenwald is a fucking asshole, a hypocrite and, despite your insistence, he is not a liberal. Again, even if he was, he is not above criticism.

The premise of your comment is absurd.

It's my party and I'll criticize Greenwald freely.

Oops, I feel a song coming on.

[girl gone mad]

124. So then that is your objective.

You should have been more upfront about it.

[ProSense]

127. What?

"So then that is your objective. You should have been more upfront about it."

It wasn't clear to you that the OP was a criticism of Greenwald?

Again, are you saying that criticizing Greenwald is an invitation to be personally attacked?

[dionysus]

55. and some DUers seem to have an obsession with Prosense. go figure.

[grantcart]

27. Glenn who?

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. You're a brave soul for tangling with the "Leave Glenn Alone" contingency!

And what's with his defense of Scott Walker? Did he ever write anything in support of the unions? I nearly pee everytime I see someone describe this asshole as a "liberal". There's a great piece over at The People's View that describes his fawning over Gary Johnson, who definitely isn't a friend to labor, and doesn't mind going all Scott Walker on their asses.

[dsc]

62. what defense of scott walker

your link leads to amazon and a musician.

[politicasista]

158. That's just nasty n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

160. Thank you. We try.

[politicasista]

162. You all do good

The attacks on ProSense are a trip.

[whatchamacallit]

36. Greenwald Derangement Syndrome

has you foaming.

[JDPriestly]

38. I'm with Greenwald on his criticisms of Obama.

I too believed the Bush administration's lies when Colin Powell presented bogus information about WMDs to the United Nations.

I did not see Powell's speech. I only heard it on the radio on my way to work. And I saw nothing in the MSM at the time caused me to question the fabrications that Bush presented to justify his war.

At that time, I naively thought that no American president could be so vile as to lie about WMDs just to have an excuse to invade another country. I knew that Johnson had lied prior to the Viet Nam War, but knowing the state of communications and information at the time, I thought it was probably an error and an overreaction, not a knowing lie.

The fact that I fell for Bush's lies is what makes me scrutinize much more carefully what I hear from my government and the American media -- whether it is from Obama's administration or from the Republican opponents of Obama.

As long as our government is keeping so much secret from us, as long as the media prostitutes itself and repeats the government lies in order to confuse me and the rest of the public, as long as the need to protect National Security is an excuse for lying and hiding the truth, I will not trust any American government unless they prove that they are telling the truth. We have just seen one lie after the other and all of those lies have caused disaster to the American people.

Obama should know that many, many Americans feel as I do and should make a bigger effort to be honest. Before he was elected in 2008, he promised transparency. Where is it? He could and should change a great deal more if he wants people to trust him.

Of course, we have no alternative but to vote for Obama. And I will not just vote for him. I will work to get him elected. But I will continue to state my opinion openly -- that Obama needs to make his administration far, far more honest and transparent.

I can't say much at all about the Walker illegitimate baby story. I never thought there was much to it, but then there have been so many similar stories that turned out to be true. Time will tell.

[Thomas4]

42. Spam deleted by Morning Dew (MIR Team)

[SidDithers]

43. K&R. Greenwald is a clown...nt

Sid

[Junkdrawer]

47. Sooner or later that Third Way Shit will stick...

Keep flinging it...

[otohara]

54. He Believed Their Lies?????

I wasn't reading anyone who bought into the bullshit lies the Bushies were telling us. and I'm not fan of GG now. I can't believe this genius fell for the BS. They weren't even good liars.

Wow, what a dummy - this makes me laugh.

I still have my NOT ME bracelet - for those of us who never believed one word of the WMD lies.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Should Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or John Kerry be chastised for their commentary on Obama?

Not only did they stand with Bush for the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, but voted for it, and continue to vote for the funding of those lost wars.

[GarroHorus]

59. Greenwald is a Republican in "liberal" clothing

The guy is a sham and a con artist.

Screw the fucker. He's worse than Limbaugh

[DisgustipatedinCA]

87. You've just proven that you're not to be taken seriously.

Thanks.

[GarroHorus]

91. Iraq war supporter and opposes anything Obama says or does

That's pretty damned Republican Party Line if you ask me.

Add defender of a Neo-Nazi to the list and the fucker is anything BUT liberal.

[Tarheel_Dem]

119. +1. "Add defender of a Neo-Nazi to the list and the fucker is anything BUT liberal."

Which leads to whole new line of specualtion on why he is so virulently anti-Obama. GG's opposition to anything Obama may run deeper than anyone cares to delve into.

[GarroHorus]

128. I.am firmly convinced.Glenn Greenwald is a Libertairian White Supremacist

Nobody had been able to show me he isn't.

[Tarheel_Dem]

131. And guess what? I agree with you. His affection for Ron Paul style politics is a dead giveaway.

"I'm not a racist, but I have racist fans" seemed to be Paul's explanation when caught editing a racist newsletter. Same for Greenwald, except GG has managed to coopt a handful of tools on the left.

[GarroHorus]

135. +1,000 n/t

[struggle4progress]

66. Glenn's a blowhard nitwit, like much of the professionally-opinionated class

[morningfog]

67. Character assassination OP. Glen Greenwald is a journalist and nothing more.

He doesn't make policy. His opinion is right sometimes and wrong others.

Just like Obama's policies. Sometimes he is right, other times wrong. Obama is wrong on his drone doctrine. We will pay for it through the well understood reality of "blowback". The sooner we stop bombing others, the sooner the rally point of hatred against the US will weaken.

[GarroHorus]

70. He is NOT a journalist

He's a bloviating right wing libertarian pundit.

[morningfog]

72. lol.

Whatever you call him. He gets it right some, and wrong some. He is right on the drone war critique.

[GarroHorus]

74. He supported drones,...

when he supported the Iraq war in 2003.

He's a rightwing tool. He supported Neo-Nazi Matthew Hale. He's worse than Limbaugh.

[morningfog]

76. Supported or represented Hale? There is a difference, you know.

Were we using drones in countries other than Iraq in 2003?

I don't see drones as separate from any other act of war. If I were to support a war with a given population, I would not see drones as anything different or special from piloted bombings. I have a problem with drones in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and other places because I see them as acts of war when war has not been declared. There are issues of war by the Executive Branch/CIA on sovereign nations. I didn't support any action in Iraq. Nor do I support any actions in Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia (or Afghanistan).

You say Greenwald supported the Iraq War. Okay. If he supported drones in Iraq, that is a consistent position with support for the overall war. Are you suggesting he supported drone strikes on other countries, like Pakistan and Yemen while he was supporting the Ira war? Did the US carry out drone strikes in countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003?

[GarroHorus]

80. He supported every drone strike of Bush in more countries than IRaq

He finally saw money in going against Bush after he realized nobody wanted to hire the defense attorney for a neo-Nazi who issued a murder order on a federal judge.

[morningfog]

94. Link to support of drone strikes outside of Iraq?

I see you confirm he represented Hale, not supported.

[GarroHorus]

95. No difference, IMO n/t

[morningfog]

97. Did you not read my previous post?

There is a difference. I laid it out.

Link to where Greenwald supported drone strikes outside of Iraq in 2003. That was YOUR claim. I would be interested in seeing a link to his support of drone strikes anywhere in 2003. You made the claim. Surely there is an article to support it somewhere, right?

[Number23]

68. Rec

He has messed up on so many issues so many times I think it would be impossible to save face.

I've mentioned before that alot of folks in the Hispanic community (the nine of them that have actually heard of Glenn Greenwald and care about him) are still smiting over the fact that he was gobsmacked that the Repubs didn't consider making kicking illegal aliens out of the country their number one priority above all others.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com.au/2005/11/gop-fights-itself-on-illegal.html

And you have to love his "explanation" at the beginning of the piece... that it was mean old "Obama cultists" twisting the words he typed before the world and he only typed what he wrote because no one was reading his blog at the time. The fact that he considers "Obama cultists" to be such a problem kind of tells me everything I need to know. He sounds just like the GOP.

[GarroHorus]

71. It's not surprising from a guy so connected to Matthew Hale, Neo-Nazi murderer.

He was Hale's defense attorney. He quit the attorney biz right after Hale had a feeral judge's husband and mother murdered.

[dsc]

75. The ACLU also defended NAZIs I suppose they are racist too.

[GarroHorus]

82. The ACU is not a right wing Libertarian organization.

Greenwald is a rightwing Libertarian, though.

He supports Ron Paul (snicker).

[dsc]

116. actually the ACU (American Conservative Union) is a right wing organization

but my central point is you can't use his representation of David Hale to say he is right wing since that is a lawyer's job.

[Tarheel_Dem]

130. Thank You!

His prior positions, on a whole range of issues, belie his sudden conversion. He's an asshole, and a jerk, who's lucky enough to have a small following who support ($$$) his ass.

If he's as smart as his cult think he is, why did he fall for the Bush/Cheney okey doke? I'd love to find some of his writings from that period to see which actual "liberal" journalists were sacrificed at the tip of his poison pen. No real "liberal" that I know of, fell for that shit. There were thousands in the street before we went to war in Iraq. Where the f**k was Glenn?

[Octafish]

84. He doesn't need to. He's doing his job.

Which is reporting the truth, no matter who's president. Here's Greenwald from 2008:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3680401

Gee. I had hoped President Obama eould have chosen to prosecute the crooks who lied America into two illegal, immoral, unnecessary and disastrous wars.

[GarroHorus]

93. All he writes are LIES

Nothing he says is the truth.

Not a fucking word.

[Octafish]

98. Really? Here he discusses Telcom immunity and domestic spying with Cass Sunstein...

Last edited Sun Jun 10, 2012, 11:09 PM - Edit history (1)

...It's from a Democracy Now interview with Amy Goodman in 2008. I stand with Greenwald, anyday.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/92829/how_should_the_next_president_deal_with_the_bush_white_house%27s_crimes?page=entire

PS: You ever hear of Amy Goodman before now?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

86. A paid, amoral shill with the mind of a savant & the heart of a robot

Greenwald, on the other hand, is a great journalist.

[ProSense]

100. Thus far

A paid, amoral shill with the mind of a savant & the heart of a robot

Greenwald, on the other hand, is a great journalist.

...the "great journalist" has more blood on his conscience than any DUer and likely most progressives.

Greenwald:

Just think about this: Joe Klein is someone who went on Meet the Press in February, 2003 and urged that the U.S. invade Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings.

http://www.salon.com/2009/08/23/joe_klein/

Greenwald also supported the Iraq war, "which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings."

Still, good to know you're fan.

[girl gone mad]

107. The journalist with an opinion has blood on his hands..

but not the droner engaged in two going on three or four wars?

[ProSense]

110. Hey

"The journalist with an opinion has blood on his hands..but not the droner engaged in two going on three or four wars?"

...Greenwald isn't the President. It's not like he's Obama, Clinton, FDR or LBJ, who, despite their flaws, were/are actual Democrats.

Still, why the constant equating Greenwald's actions with those of politicians? Is it the fact that by comparing him to the average DUer, he comes off like a gullible tool who fell for Bush's lies?

[Marr]

122. I would think that the relevance of the comparison was obvious.

Compared to a lot of regular citizens, his support for the Iraq invasion early on seems incredibly naive, yes. But it seems even worse from the politicians you excuse for the very same position.

The politicians had much more access to information than the rest of us had, so if anyone should've known better it was them. Greenwald was only a journalist-- his "support" for the idea meant little compared to politicians who voted for invasion and continued to shill for it and fund it for years.

You excuse the politicians and want to crucify the journalist for the same thing. Your double standard doesn't make sense.

[girl gone mad]

123. "he comes off like a gullible tool who fell for Bush's lies"

He admitted as much and has redeemed himself in my eyes. Who amongst us has not been a gullible tool at some point in life?

"...Greenwald isn't the President. It's not like he's Obama, Clinton, FDR or LBJ, who, despite their flaws, were/are actual Democrats."

This is where you lose a lot of credibility. Calling oneself a Democrat should never entitle a politician to run roughshod over human rights, hand over the national treasure to corporate looters, or generally act like a Republican ass. You are employing a tactic designed to appeal to reptilian brain authoritarian type, and very few liberal-minded people will go for it. Which is, I suspect, why your attempts generally fall flat.

[ProSense]

129. What

"He admitted as much and has redeemed himself in my eyes. Who amongst us has not been a gullible tool at some point in life?"

...a great defense of Greenwald.

This is where you lose a lot of credibility. Calling oneself a Democrat should never entitle a politician to run roughshod over human rights, hand over the national treasure to corporate looters, or generally act like a Republican ass. You are employing a tactic designed to appeal to reptilian brain authoritarian type, and very few liberal-minded people will go for it. Which is, I suspect, why your attempts generally fall flat.

You cannot be serious. Is this say anything to defend Greenwald?

He comes close to being a "Republican ass." He is not "liberal-minded." In fact, he is a smug and self-righteous hypocrite.

Just think about this: Joe Klein is someone who went on Meet the Press in February, 2003 and urged that the U.S. invade Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings.

http://www.salon.com/2009/08/23/joe_klein/

Greenwald also supported the Iraq war, "which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings."

(I would just link to this response elsewhere in the thread instead of reposting it, but you know the anxiety links seem to cause.).

[girl gone mad]

132. Let me ask you this, prosense..

Had Greenwald been writing in the 40s, would he have been in the right or in the wrong to contemporaneously condemn FDR for the internment of Japanese Americans?

What you are doing in this thread is defending crappy policy by attacking a journalist who criticizes bad policy. It's an admission on your part that the policy is truly indefensible.

As much as I like contributing to economic activity by keeping you in posts, I have a real business to run. Sayonara, prosense.

[ProSense]

133. Unlike you

Let me ask you this, prosense..

Had Greenwald been writing in the 40s, would he have been in the right or in the wrong to contemporaneously condemn FDR for the internment of Japanese Americans?

What you are doing in this thread is defending crappy policy by attacking a journalist who criticizes bad policy. It's an admission on your part that the policy is truly indefensible.

As much as I like contributing to economic activity by keeping you in posts, I have a real business to run. Sayonara, prosense.

...I refuse to engage in creative speculation. Also, in addition to bad judgment, your entire premise is wrong: I'm not "defending crappy policy." I'm criticizing a smug, self-righteous and hypocritical asshole.

[girl gone mad]

139. "I'm not "defending crappy policy" I'm criticizing a smug, self-righteous and hypocritical asshole."

Uh, prosense... re-read my post.

That was my premise. You can't defend Obama's crappy policy, so you attack the liberal journalist who criticizes Obama's crappy policy.

[ProSense]

140. Again,

"That was my premise. You can't defend Obama's crappy policy, so you attack the liberal journalist who criticizes Obama's crappy policy."

...Greenwald isn't a "liberal journalist," and the OP is about Greenwald's constant attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with him. Like I said, for a guy who supported a war crime/criminal, his hypocrisy knows no bounds.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=794700

[Number23]

141. It literally Blows my mind that the post calling you an "amoral paid shill"

is allowed to stand while the post calling that person out is the one that gets hidden. Unfreakingbelievable.

I'd take a paid shill over someone "disgustipated" (what a revoltingly apt user name) any day of the week.

[rhett o rick]

111. I dont mind you calling Greenwald or other public figure names, but I am hoping you are

not calling the OP author names. I am not a fan of the OP author but we dont call each other names here.

Plez give us some clarification.

[quaker bill]

88. Anyone who looked at it rationally and thought it through knew there were no WMD

It was never that hard to figure out. Greenwald was apparently not trying very hard.

Saddam had no WMD because:

They are expensive to make,

Difficult and expensive to secure and maintain, and

completely useless against American forces.



Saddam had a great many tons of WMD during Desert Storm, and did not deploy any of them against US forces. The reason for this is not precisely clear, it could be that he thought they would not work, of it could be that he was sure we would kill him if he did. Either way, WMD were useless to him.

He instead spent the money he had on millions of tons of conventional explosive ordinance, which was allowed under the sanctions. Part of the reason we were there so long was that the explosive ordinance disposal contractors estimated that it would take roughly 10 years to dispose of the stockpiles, and curiously we were there for almost 10 years....

[rhett o rick]

113. My rational was that if Bush said they had WMD then I was convinced they didnt. It's actually

an easy formula. Republicans lie. The fact that some Democrats pretended to believe him was actually worse in my book.

[quaker bill]

144. By that point I had stopped listening to Bush at all

It was pretty easy to guess he was lying whenever his lips were moving, and I just could not even stand the sound of his voice.

Thinking on my own and simply understanding that Saddam was a very self-interested a**hole were all the tools I needed. He had no motive to obtain WMD, as all they could possibly do was end his life earlier.

There is one skill that is common to brutal dictators who stay alive and in power for decades. They have an extremely good understanding of which actions keep them alive and in power, and have an uncanny ability to avoid actions which do not serve this purpose. They have a dependable amorality, if summary executions without cause improve their chances of survival, they are done. If the oppression and/or slaughter of ethnic or political minorities serve this one goal, it is done. Such things are all part of the basic brutal dictator skill set.

As a fairly normal brutal dictator type, Saddam's actions were quite a bit more dependable and predictable that Bush's words. He did not have WMD because they were more of a threat to his survival than they were useful against his enemies. If he felt they they really would have extended his lifespan, he would have had many tons stored in many places. No brutal dictator type survives 25 years in power by being stupid about things like this. The stupid ones die young and are replaced by someone who has the basic skill set.

The only thng one had to trust about Saddam was that he was every bit the effective amoral brutal dictator he appeared to be. Bush* was a rank amature by comparison who would not have made it a whole month in that sort of job. Cheney on the other hand, would probably have done just fine.

[GarroHorus]

101. Thank you for this post

You've helped me to flesh out my ignore list with people whose opinions I could care less about.

[AtomicKitten]

104. GG lost all credibility when he gave a thumbs-up to the Iraq War and Citizens United.

[Marr]

118. How can you attack a liberal journalist for something you excuse in Democratic politicians?

[ProSense]

126. Conversely,

"How can you attack a liberal journalist for something you excuse in Democratic politicians?"

...how can you attack Democratic politicians for something you excuse Greenwald for supporting?

Let's look at Kerry. He voted for the IWR, but spoke out specifically against the war before Bush launched it. He made several appearances with Kennedy calling on Bush to refrain from war. He vehemently criticized Bush in the first weeks of the war.

Greenwald had his epiphany approaching 2005.

As I said in another comment:

Greenwald isn't the President. It's not like he's Obama, Clinton, FDR or LBJ, who, despite their flaws, were/are actual Democrats.

Why the constant equating Greenwald's actions with those of politicians? Is it the fact that by comparing him to the average DUer, he comes off like a gullible tool who fell for Bush's lies?

Also, Greenwald is the ultimate hypocrite: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=794700

[Marr]

134. How can you attack a liberal journalist for something you excuse in Democratic politicians?

I'll answer your question. Please answer mine.

I can blame politicians for supporting the Iraq invasion while forgiving Greenwald for the same because:

1. Few, if any, ever admitted to having been so flatly wrong as did Greenwald. They continued to fund it, and were quite anxious to "move forward" and not deal with the lies that led us into that occupation.

2. Their "support" actually meant something, as they could vote for it.

3. If so many regular citizens could figure it out, they certainly should've known, as they had both greater access to information and a vastly greater responsibility to make the right call.

So again, how can you attack a liberal journalist for something you excuse in Democratic politicians?

[ProSense]

136. You

I can blame politicians for supporting the Iraq invasion while forgiving Greenwald for the same because:

1. Few, if any, ever admitted to having been so flatly wrong as did Greenwald. They continued to fund it, and were quite anxious to "move forward" and not deal with the lies that led us into that occupation.

2. Their "support" actually meant something, as they could vote for it.

3. If so many regular citizens could figure it out, they certainly should've known, as they had both greater access to information and a vastly greater responsibility to make the right call.

So again, how can you attack a liberal journalist for something you excuse in Democratic politicians?

...completely ignored the points I made.

Greenwald isn't a politician. His obligations are not that of a member of Congress.

"If so many regular citizens could figure it out," why couldn't Greenwald the Smarter?

I mean, Obama (not yet a member of the U.S. Congress) figured it out. He was against the war.

[Marr]

137. Again, you don't answer.

I'm not interested in playing the Bump My Thread game anymore, so I'll just leave you to it.

[ProSense]

138. It's there, you're simply ignoring it. n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

120. Greenwald is a right wing turd masquerading as left to enlist the useful idiots

His record is clear as day.

There's a (leftwing) sucker born every minute, apparently.

[Enrique]

145. Raw Story apologized to Greenwald

along with AngryBlackLady, who also fired the guy who slimed him.

Good for them. Too bad there's no chance of DU apologizing for the slime that continues here.

[ProSense]

150. Good for them.

Fortunately, I don't owe Greenwald a damn thing. He's still a hypocrite. He went after Raw Story. It would be like going after Salon for Greenwald.

Raw Story’s liberal rhetoric
Sliming critics of the President's policies as Terrorist-lovers was once an exclusively right-wing tactic: no more

By Glenn Greenwald

Raw Story is a moderately well-read political outlet that touts itself as “a progressive news site that focuses on stories often ignored in the mainstream media.” It recently began publishing a blog devoted exclusively to venerating the President and sliming his critics: because that’s so edgy, brave and rare; after all, the meek “MSM” would never dare glorify the nation’s most powerful political official and the party in power, so we really need a brave, dissident anti-MSM site like Raw Story to provide that.

Raw Story, the organization, obviously has class.

[Enrique]

151. if anyone from Salon slimed anyone on Twitter

then Salon would take responsibility for it. Because they are a reputable organization.

[sabrina 1]

159. Well now that we know one of the sources of all this vitriol, that site where a banned troll from

another democratic site,hangs out spewing vitriol as he always did, it explains everything. Greenwald should sue them, it would be worth it just to find out who is funding this and if the 'work' done for BOA by HBGary is being put to use. If so, I believe that would be a crime since Congress has been asked to investigate if the FBI was involved, illegally, in assisting BOA. The discovery phase would be interesting.'

He definitely could sue having seen some of the libelous trash that emanated from that site. No wonder ABL decided to distance herself from them.

[politicasista]

156. Kick

He should try running for office, dealing with a gridlock Congress with party saying "NO, NO, NO" to everything, putting you and your family's life and privacy on the line, and getting 50-100 death threats a day.

Yep. Talk is cheap.