Those who have Serious Problems with Glenn Greenwald..Is it Him or His Reporting?

[KoKo]

What are the differences? If you dislike the "personality" of a reporter...do you discount anything they say? If you have a friend who might be more vivacious and vibrant in their personality...do you secretly resent them and discount everything they say ....just because you resent their personality?

Or, is there something about Greenwald's views on "Civil Liberties" that bothers you? Some here say he supports the Paul Father and Son and that he's a Libertarian. I don't understand what that's about since I've seen nothing from Glenn getting Political and Urging all of us to support Ron and Rand Paul for any office.

Others say that Greenwald supported Bush in his Iraq Invasion...yet Kerry, Hillary and many Democrats on the VOTE really DID support Bush's Invasion...but, they later claimed they didn't "Support" but only felt that Bush would "Not Use" the Authorization for War against Iraq as a "Real Declaration of War. They say they thought it gave him some backing but not Full Authority. (Is that Believable in hindsight?)

Anyway...we have Blackwater type "Independent Contractors" with Security Clearances (and dubious credentials) now working for "Private" (Not Government Restricted by Laws)Employees who are now there doing For Profit Data Collection which they can sell to Corporations like our Consumer Data Collection Agencies..(Drug Stores, Grocery Stores, Department Stores, Amazon Orders for Books and Goods...and On and On).

So we PRIVATIZE OUR INFORMATION to be Collected by Contractors like Blackwater was in Iraq and we are supposed to TRUST THEM?

What about blackmailing all kinds of people by Corporate Contractors who might have "ENEMIES" they could use this info against"

We have a Small Business in Health Care and we work with International Businesses to license products between America and Europe. If they are monitoring what we do via our SKYPE and Webinars and Interactions with these overseas groups and then sell it off to our COMPETITORS...Are we as a SMALL AMERICAN BUSINESS not at RISK by this Surveillance? How do we know how BIG BUSINESS could use this AGAINST ...Small Businesses by stealing our Clients by monitoring us and selling it off to Wall Street?

I don't know the answer to this. Maybe they ARE NOT DOING THIS....but....WHAT IF...\
They ARE?

These are the issues that need to be discussed and we need as citizens and business people to have our Government Address. It's quite frightening that ALL our Communications are monitored when we as "Small People and Businesses" have such a disadvantage not being able to afford the Big Security that Big Companies have with better Encryption and Safe Guards than WE can ever hope to Afford.

Whatever ...this is too long but we are very concerned that this is going on as Small Business Owners that Obama and our Party are supposed to be encouraging and supporting.

[Enrique]

1. it's not about Greenwald

it's about Obama. Greenwald was not very controversial here before 2008.

[VanillaRhapsody]

2. pppfffffffttttt

[Fumesucker]

4. You forgot the smiley to go with it..

[geek tragedy]

12. No, Greenwald was slobbering over Ron Paul back in 2007

http://www.salon.com/2007/11/06/paul_2/

By far the most significant and interesting political story of the past 24 hours is the extraordinary, record-breaking outpouring of support for Ron Paul’s presidential campaign. Therefore, it is being ignored by much of our establishment press — not a single article about it in The New York Times or The Washington Post (though it is discussed on a couple of their blogs), nor even a mention of it on the websites of CNN or CBS News (which found space to report on Stephen Colbert’s non-candidacy). But MSNBC and Fox News did at least both post the AP article on the Paul story.

Regardless of how much attention the media pays, the explosion of support for the Paul campaign yesterday is much more than a one-time event. The Paul campaign is now a bona fide phenomenon of real significance, and it is difficult to see this as anything other than a very positive development.

There are, relatively speaking, very few people who agree with most of Paul’s policy positions. In fact, a large portion of Americans — perhaps most — will find something in his litany of beliefs with which they not only disagree, but vehemently so. Paul has a coherent political world-view and states his positions clearly and unapologetically, without hedges, and that approach naturally ensures greater disagreement than the form of please-everyone obfuscation which drives most candidates. . . . And Paul is as vigilant a defender of America’s constitutional freedoms — and as faithful an observer of the constitutional limitations on government power designed to preserve those freedoms — as any national political figure in some time.


...

UPDATE IV: The most illegitimate argument against Paul is the attempt to tie him to the views of some of his extremist and hateful supporters. I referenced that fallacy above, and elaborated on it in this comment.

And here is Markos Moulitsas — no Naderite he — on Paul’s fundraising explosion (h/t Lambert): “This is the single biggest example of people-power this cycle.” Markos adds that though he wishes it were a Democrat doing this, “it’s nevertheless a beautiful thing to behold.”

http://www.salon.com/2007/11/12/paul_3/

That isn’t to say that nobody can ever be deemed extremist or even crazy. But I’ve heard Ron Paul speak many times now. There are a lot of views he espouses that I don’t share. But he is a medical doctor and it shows; whatever else is true about him, he advocates his policies in a rational, substantive, and coherent way — at least as thoughtful and critical as any other political figure on the national scene, if not more so. As the anti-Paul New York Sun noted today, Paul has been downright prescient for a long time in warning about the severe devaluation of the dollar.

...

On another note, I wrote in my prior post concerning Paul that I found the efforts (by Neiwert and others) to smear him by linking him to some of his extremist and hate-mongering supporters to be unfair (for reasons I explained here). Neiwert responded and compiled what he thinks is the best evidence to justify this linkage here.

For reasons I’ll detail at another time, I found virtually all of that to be unpersuasive, relying almost entirely on lame guilt-by-association arguments that could sink most if not all candidates (the only arguably disturbing evidence in this regard is this 1996 Houston Chronicle article, which Neiwert didn’t mention, and the pro-Paul response is here). Everyone can review the evidence — all of which is quite old and very little of which relies on any of Paul’s own statements — and make up their own minds.

..

Have Bruce Fein and Naomi Wolf been concealing a neo-Nazi agenda which they are finally able to express through the Ron Paul campaign, or are they simply impressed by the obvious convictions and intense (though rare) passion he brings to issues which they seem to think are of vital importance — restoration of our constitutional framework and the rule of law, along with principled opposition to America’s imperialistic and militarized role in the world?

[Enrique]

23. and no one here cared

here are all the Greenwald references I could find during the year 2007. None of them are critical, let alone attacks on him.

No one cared about what Greenwald said about Ron Paul until they needed to discredit him, i.e. when they needed to defend Obama.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22glenn+greenwald%22+site%3Awww.democraticunderground.com&safe=off&biw=1920&bih=881&sa=X&ei=hai3UaXtKoLY9QSy0oDoCA&ved=0CBwQpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2007%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2007&tbm=#q=%22glenn+greenwald%22+site:www.democraticunderground.com&safe=off&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/2007,cd_max:12/31/2007,sbd:1&ei=DKm3UYWoJ4fW8gTKiYCYBQ&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47810305,d.eWU&fp=1a54bdd78f48051b&biw=1920&bih=881

[OilemFirchen]

35. He was a puny blogger back then, no?

Now he's sullying the Guardian.

[geek tragedy]

40. Nobody cared about Glenn Greenwald period back then--very few hits.

Not sure what you're trying to prove.

[Whisp]

46. I think he was with FireDogLake at that time

with Jane Hamsher (who hated democrats and took such delight if there was bad news that could hurt them. She just couldn't suppress her joy).

Around that time I started hearing Greenwald's name. But am not sure, don't care really.

[Luminous Animal]

49. He's never been with Fire Dog Lake.

[AtomicKitten]

69. He was on FDL's payroll.

(FDL) Accountability Now collected $113,695 in donations during 2009, as it reported to the FEC, and spent $169,992 that year on nine consultants. Six of those people managed the committee: The PAC paid Hamsher $24,000, another $24,000 to PAC cofounder Glenn Greenwald of Salon.Com, $65,710 to two executive directors and $38,047 to two management consultants.

link: http://workbench.cadenhead.org/news/3604/jane-hamsher-spends-her-pac-money

[Luminous Animal]

74. Um no. That was a PAC started by Hamsher and Greenwald. The PAC paid them.

[AtomicKitten]

75. Bzzzzz. Wrong answer.

Hamsher's PACs, one of which GG is a co-founder, fuel FDL. Hamsher's FEC filings have sent a few down a rabbit hole, so I'll spell it out for you from the link already provided. He was paid $24K for "strategic consulting" in 2009; Hamsher paid herself the same.

Follow the money ...

The FEC reports show that Hamsher's PACs are a significant source of income for Firedoglake, but my experience trying to question her about them suggests that she's not big on transparency.

- snip -

The PAC also paid $4,000 to Firedoglake for "rent," according to its FEC filings. This expenditure is difficult to understand. Hamsher has operated her web site out of post office boxes at UPS Stores in Los Angeles and Falls Church, Va.

- snip -

Hamsher's exceptionally good at getting people to put their money where her mouth is. But because Firedoglake is a blog that's dependent on financial support from PACs, it makes me wonder how much of her outrage is real and how much is driven by the constant need to fire up donors.

- snip -

I posed that question to David Ferguson, who used to be in charge of Firedoglake's "Late Night FDL" feature under his pseudonym TRex. He replied, "I would hope that Jane wouldn't be so cynical as to exploit her readers in any way. I do know that working for her, there was a constant sense of crisis. Everything was always a blazing, four-alarm emergency, and I think some of that is what comes through on her blog. I don't know whether that's something she's working for effect or if that's just the way she is. Some of her alliances over the last year have genuinely surprised me, though, particularly with regard to the flap over the health care bill."

[geek tragedy]

39. Ron Paul is right about some issues. He's also a foul racist enabling nutjob.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ron-paul-civil-rights-act_n_1178688.html

WASHINGTON -- Despite recent accusations of racism and homophobia, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stuck to his libertarian principles on Sunday, criticizing the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it "undermine[d] the concept of liberty" and "destroyed the principle of private property and private choices."

"If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can't do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms," Paul told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union." "And that's exactly what has happened. Look at what's happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses ... And it was started back then."

Ron Paul: Champion of constitutional rights (for white guys with money and guns).

[geek tragedy]

65. Greenwald was outspoken in denouncing

'Smears' against Ron Paul over racism. Greenwald is over the top in his praise of Paul to the point of gushing,and resistant to acknowledging just how awful Paul is to the point of willful blindness.

Case in point: Paul is not a champion of constitutional rights and liberties--he is a property rights fetishist who has zero problem using the power of the state to infringe on the constitutional right of people who are not privileged white men.

This is all basic stuff that Greenwald gets wrong because his concerns don't typically include those issues that disproportionately affect women and people of color.

Thousands of words denouncing the solitary confinement of Bradley Manning before he uttered one word about how black men are victimized by the prison industrial complex. Etc etc etc.

[geek tragedy]

71. I quoted directly.

...

On another note, I wrote in my prior post concerning Paul that I found the efforts (by Neiwert and others) to smear him by linking him to some of his extremist and hate-mongering supporters to be unfair (for reasons I explained here). Neiwert responded and compiled what he thinks is the best evidence to justify this linkage here.

For reasons I’ll detail at another time, I found virtually all of that to be unpersuasive, relying almost entirely on lame guilt-by-association arguments that could sink most if not all candidates (the only arguably disturbing evidence in this regard is this 1996 Houston Chronicle article, which Neiwert didn’t mention, and the pro-Paul response is here). Everyone can review the evidence — all of which is quite old and very little of which relies on any of Paul’s own statements — and make up their own minds.

Greenwald has a ton of personal character-related compliments--"prescient, principled, dedicated" for Paul etc that he has not and will never have for a Democratic Presidential candidate. And then when people point out Ron Paul selling white supremacist literature, he denounces those efforts as a 'smear.'

[Kelvin Mace]

77. Yes, all the criticisms

were considered legitimate when directed at Bush. Now that Obama is the sinner, the mob turns.

[pnwmom]

3. His reporting is often very sloppy and that is true in this case.

He made claims about what the slides meant that turned out not to be true.

[SidDithers]

14. This...

Everyone should always wait a week before reading a Greenwald piece. At that point, he should be done with the updates, corrections and clarifications on his original article.

Sid

[baldguy]

15. +1000

It's as if he's shown us a fleck of paint on a sliver of wood, then claims to have the Mona Lisa hanging in his bedroom. And when someone points out the wood is ash, not poplar like the real painting, and that the paint seems to be latex, he insults them and tries to change the subject.

Unfortunately, too many here are unquestioningly accepting his claims at face value, and are too ready to jump on the anti-Obama bandwagon.

[Whisp]

48. I've heard this a couple time here and haven't seen what it is about.

can you summarize or have a link handy for me?

who disproved his claims?

[pnwmom]

50. This is one example of his overblown "reporting."

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1306/07/sp.02.html

GLENN GREENWALD, COLUMNIST, "THE GUARDIAN": There is a massive apparatus within the United States government has been building this enormous structure that has only one goal to destroy privacy and anonymity not just in the United States but in the world. That is not hyperbole. That is their objective.

_______________________

He's also associated with the Koch brother's Libertarian "Cato Institute." That should make any progressive cautious about anything he has to say.

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

4. Glenn Greenwald claiming he only wrote “2 freelance articles” for the Cato Institute is offensive it’s so utterly absurd. We know it. Glenn knows it. For one thing, one of those “free-lance articles” was nothing resembling a “freelance article”—it was a major policy whitepaper, a one-year massive report that included numerous speaking engagements on behalf of the Koch-founded Cato Institute. And let’s not forget, the Cato Institute was originally founded as The Charles Koch Foundation of Wichita. We merely copied the phrase “Glenn Greenwald of the libertarian Cato Institute” from the description used by numerous mainstream media outlets across the country over the past few years. For example:

Here: http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/will-republicans-take-lessons-from-british-conservatives-1.169415

“Glenn Greenwald of the libertarian Cato Institute, endorsing the California measure, notes that…”

Or here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8207584/Politicians-should-say-what-they-really-think-about-drugs.html

“Judged by virtually every available metric,” says Glenn Greenwald of the Cato Institute, a libertarian US think tank, “the Portuguese decriminalisation framework has been a resounding success.”

Moreover, as Greenwald himself knows better than anyone, his ties to the Cato Institute and the Koch-funded libertarian nomenklatura go deeper than this. For example, Glenn Greenwald was one of the keynote speakers at an elite “Cato Benefit Sponsors” event, featuring Glenn and Cato fellow P.J. O’Rourke and winger Michael Barone. Who among progressives is invited as a top entertainer for the elite Cato Institute Benefit Sponsors event? Glenn Greenwald, that’s who.

[Whisp]

54. thanks for that link and quote. yep, wee bit over the top.

lots of that lately.

[Luminous Animal]

58. He made no claims about the slides. He reported precisely what they said with no personal viewpoint

expressed whatsoever:

There was zero lying. It was straightforward reporting from source documents. If there is a lie in there, take it up with the NSA.


This information is right in the articles headline:

• Top-secret Prism program claims direct access to servers of firms including Google, Apple and Facebook
• Companies deny any knowledge of program in operation since 2007

From the article: (emphasis mine)

The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

The document claims "collection directly from the servers" of major US service providers. the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.

Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Here is a classic DU Greenwald bashing thread chock full of insights

"I have found out that Greenwald is Gay, and I know from a lot of posts here at DU that many of the LGBT community here at DU are disenchanted with Obama. I find that interesting, because all of the LGBT community outside of DU strongly - and I mean STRONGLY - support him!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=97376

[geek tragedy]

9. Not a Greenwald fan, but I feel like taking a shower after reading that post

Dripping with homophobia

[Bluenorthwest]

10. It was hosted happily in GD for nearly a week, why?

Greenwald is hated and those who hate him have no scruples. That OP was bait.

[geek tragedy]

13. Eh, when he started promoting Ron Paul that was enough for me to dismiss him

as a crank.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. I stopped reading him when he supported the Iraq war, DU brings him up constantly

so I come across his material here. My dislike of much of his work does not mean I think that McCarthyite attacks are warranted. It is interesting to me that many who dislike him and claim it is because of his Iraq war support are ardent defenders of Hagel and Comey and other actual Republicans who actually voted for and carried out that war and they will gladly quote Andrew Sullivan, who cheered for the war. Somehow, they hold against one what they praise in another, I don't care if I hate both parties, that's very strange behavior.
I have no idea if he promotes Ron Paul, I don't read him. He was for the war, like Sullivan. To me that means they should both be rejected from the discourse in future. But some say that only applies to Greenwald.
It's not about him, it is for me about the tactics used against him, the homophobia, the bizzare use of his war support against him by Sullivan quoting Hagel supporters.
No one has shown me any actual promotion of Paul that he's done. I'd be interested to see that if you know where to find it. I'm a big Ron Paul opponent, long time. A friend alerted to me back in his printed newsletter days, I read several of those racist, batshit, homophobic broadsides. I have no use for that sack of dung. Then again, I have no idea what Greenwald has said about Ron Paul.

[geek tragedy]

24. I linked to a few examples upthread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2995403

Classic "Ron Paul is tireless champion of constitutional freedom, the only principled candidate running for president, is an exciting phenomenon, and has totally done nothing to indicate he supports racism. Why do you say I support him?"

He was also a Tea Party type on immigration in 2005:

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

he parade of evils caused by illegal immigration is widely known, and it gets worse every day. In short, illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone. Few people dispute this, and yet nothing is done.

A substantial part of the GOP base urgently wants Republicans, who now control the entire Federal Government, to take the lead in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws. And yet the GOP, despite its unchallenged control, does virtually nothing, infuriating this sector of its party. The White House does worse than nothing; to the extent it acts on this issue at all, it is to introduce legislation designed to sanction and approve of illegal immigration through its “guest worker” program, a first cousin of all-out amnesty for illegal immigrants.

GOP inaction when it comes to illegal immigration is at once mystifying and easily explainable. There is a wing of the party – the Wall St. Journal/multinational corporation wing – which loves illegal immigration because of its use as a source of cheap labor. And while that wing of the party is important because of the financial support it provides, it is a distinct minority when it comes to electoral power.

The real reason Republicans treat the need to address the illegal immigration problem like a trip to the dentist -- as something they want to avoid at all costs -- is because they have been convinced that adopting an aggressive stance on illegal immigration will cost them too many votes among the nation’s ethnic minorities and legal immigrants. And that is what brings us to Sanchez’s Op-Ed, which illustrates just how unconvincing and baseless that alarmist view really is.

With absolutely no hard data or even evidentiary inferences of any kind, Sanchez emphatically announces that the reason GOP candidate Jerry Kilgore lost the election in Virginia is because he was too strident about the evils of illegal immigration. And she warns other GOP candidates that they will face a similar fate unless they modulate their tone and soften their position. Here is the crux of Sanchez's warning:


Republicans nationally should draw a number of lessons from the party's unsuccessful effort to take back the Virginia governor's mansion this month. . .

When it comes to immigration, dropping the word "illegal" into any anti-immigration proposal is not likely to work electoral magic. . . . Republicans embrace anti-immigrant fervor at their peril. The party is perilously close to adopting as its immigration policy the hanging of a "closed" sign on the border. To do so would be a gross mistake that would oversimplify the problem and set back all the efforts of President Bush to build bridges to America's growing population of Hispanics while finding a workable solution to a complex problem, one with far-ranging political consequences for the party over the long run.


The “substance” of this claim is facially ludicrous and easily dismissed. There already is a “closed sign on the border” when it comes to illegal immigration. It’s called the law. The problem is that the “closed sign” isn’t being enforced because the Federal Government, which has its interfering, power-hungry hands in virtually everything else, has abdicated its duty in one of the very few areas where it was actually meant to be: border security.

While her policy argument is easily dismissed, Sanchez’s political analysis is odious in the extreme, as this line of thinking is what has brainwashed countless spineless Republicans to steer clear of illegal immigration, even while the crises intensifies every day. But the political warnings Sanchez issues is without substance, and for years has been misleading Republicans into a self-destructive fear to tackle this problem.

To “support” her warning to Republicans to back away from illegal immigration (is it even possible for most Republicans to go back any further? What is less than zero?), Sanchez asserts, without a shred of evidence, that large numbers of Hispanic and Muslim suburban voters in Virginia were turned off by Kilgore’s use of the term “illegal immigration”:

And of course gets all angry when people point it out.

Dude's been a progressive for less than 8 years, and sees fit to appoint himself as pope of what it means to be a progressive.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. That counts as promotion in my book.

But as I said, I don't read Greenwald, I read people typing about him. Quoting him is better. But this week I keep seeing posters who rail about his support for the war who also quote Sullivan, also big early war supporter. I reject them all, gladly. The pundits who were so wrong about the war have no credibility at all. Not just one of them, all of them. To me, it is about consistency and how we criticize those we do not agree with.

[geek tragedy]

31. Nice thing about quoting Sullivan is that if you change your mind you can

just rely on a different quote from Sullivan.

The only thing he hasn't changed his mind on is the sanctity of white supremacist studies like The Bell Curve.

[Luminous Animal]

51. He wasn't writing when he supported the Iraq war. Please read this. I'd really appreciated it.

In the lead up to the Iraq war, Glenn was a private citizen. He didn't have a blog (he started one in 2005-2006). He hadn't written a book. He hadn't appeared on TV. He had no national or international voice to influence public opinion.

I wanted to shed some light on one of the current smears against Greenwald. The man wrote 3 books and thousands of blog posts against the Bush regime, the surveillance state and the erosion of our civil liberties. But he didn't get to that point naturally or easily. Below is an excerpt of the preface to the book "How Would A Patriot Act?" A book in which he unrelentingly exposes the Bush admin and the lying warmongers and the architects of the imperial presidency. It's a rare person who can admit that they were wrong (and I applaud those high-profile Democrats in government and the media who supported Bush's invasion of Iraq - those that did actually have the power and the platform to speak out publicly against the Iraq war - who have subsequently apologized for their support) and I admire Greenwald for openly admitting his political evolution.


How Would A Patriot Act?: Defending American Values from a President Run Amok
By Glenn Greenwald 2006

(Emphasis mine)

Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence (*my note - about the Iraq War), I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president's performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.

It is not desirable or fulfilling to realize that one does not trust one's own government and must disbelieve its statements, and I tried, along with scores of others, to avoid making that choice until the facts no longer permitted such logic.

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.

And in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion came a whole host of revelations that took on an increasingly extremist, sinister, and decidedly un- American tenor. The United States was using torture as an interrogation tool, in contravention of legal prohibitions. We were violating international treaties we had signed, sending suspects in our custody for interrogation to the countries most skilled in human rights abuses. And as part of judicial proceedings involving Yaser Esam Hamdi, another U.S. citizen whom the Bush administration had detained with no trial and no access to counsel, George W. Bush began expressly advocating theories of executive power that were so radical that they represented the polar opposite of America's founding principles.

With all of these extremist and plainly illegal policies piling up, I sought to understand what legal and constitutional justifications the Bush administration could invoke to engage in such conduct. What I discovered, to my genuine amazement and alarm, is that these actions had their roots in sweeping, extremist theories of presidential power that many administration officials had been advocating for years before George Bush was even elected. The 9/11 attacks provided them with the opportunity to officially embrace those theories. In the aftermath of the attack, senior lawyers in the Bush Justice Department had secretly issued legal memoranda stating that the president can seize literally absolute, unchecked power in order to defend the country against terrorism. To assert, as they did, that neither Congress nor the courts can place any limits on the president's decisions is to say that the president is above the law. Once it became apparent that the administration had truly adopted these radical theories and had begun exerting these limitless, kinglike powers, I could no longer afford to ignore them.

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

[Luminous Animal]

52. I had a melt down when that post was allowed to stand and had a melt down in Meta..

I may have had 5 posts hidden in one night.

Fortunately, another DUers reached out and helped me calm down.

[William769]

22. No surprise there.

Same shit, different day.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. To be fair that is a golden oldie, but that thread changed the way I think of DU.

It is also the same shit...same as it ever was.

[geek tragedy]

30. General rule is that if it's possible to be an asshole on a given subject,

someone will do it at DU and have a jury bless it.

Misogyny, homophobia, etc.

[QC]

26. Be sure to check out the recommends on that thread.

No surprises in that list.

[geek tragedy]

6. Greenwald is an opinion writer, not a reporter.

That doesn't mean he's any less entitled to first amendment protections, but his purpose is to persuade, not to inform.

In terms of "is it him" Greenwald is downright nasty towards pretty much anyone who disagrees with him in public.

[Raine1967]

32. ^ I am of this opinion as well^

Greenwald has an agenda. That's fine -- I just happen to disagree with it.

[randome]

7. He comes across as wanting to be 'right'.

A good journalist should only care about being 'correct'. He seems to have an agenda to me.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[noise]

8. He has integrity

and thus doesn't hold one party to a different standard.

[pnwmom]

16. He's a Paulite/Libertarian. He hates both the Dems and the Rethugs. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

56. He is neither...

Everywhere you see the word "here", he has a link to back it up.
http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html

I don't really care what labels get applied to me. But - beyond the anti-war and pro-civil-liberties writing I do on a daily basis - here are views I've publicly advocated. Decide for yourself if the "libertarian" label applies:

* opposing all cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (here and here);

* repeatedly calling for the prosecution of Wall Street (here, here and here);

* advocating for robust public financing to eliminate the domination by the rich in political campaigns, writing: "corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture" (here and here);

* condemning income and wealth inequality as the by-product of corruption (here and here);

* attacking oligarchs - led by the Koch Brothers - for self-pitying complaints about the government and criticizing policies that favor the rich at the expense of ordinary Americans (here);

* arguing in favor of a public option for health care reform (repeatedly);

* criticizing the appointment of too many Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street officials to positions of power (here, here and here);

* repeatedly condemning the influence of corporate factions in public policy making (here and here);

* praising and defending the Occupy Wall Street movement as early and vocally as anyone (here, here and here)

* using my blog to raise substantial money for the campaigns of Russ Feingold and left-wing/anti-war Democrats Normon Solomon, Franke Wilmer and Cecil Bothwell, and defending Dennis Kucinich from Democratic Party attacks;

* co-founding a new group along with Daniel Ellsberg, Laura Poitras, John Cusack, Xeni Jardin, JP Barlow and others to protect press freedom and independent journalism (see the New York Times report on this here);

* co-founding and working extensively on a PAC to work with labor unions and liberal advocacy groups to recruit progressive primary challengers to conservative Democratic incumbents (see the New York Times report on this here);

To apply a "right-wing libertarian" label to someone with those views and that activism is patently idiotic. Just ask any actual libertarian whether those views are compatible with being a libertarian. Or just read this October, 2012 post - written on Volokh, a libertarian blog - entitled "Glenn Greenwald, Man of the Left", which claims I harbor "left-wing views on economic policy" and am "a run-of-the-mill left-winger of the sort who can be heard 24/7 on the likes of Pacifica radio" because of my opposition to cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

[pnwmom]

63. Then why did he take money from the Cato Institute for his white paper? And why

does he allow himself to be posted as a contributor on Cato Unbound?

And why is he such a supporter of the Citizens United decision treating corporations the same as human beings?

http://open.salon.com/blog/steven_rockford/2012/01/05/greenwalds_identity_crisis


The main point that Greenwald felt he made was:

It is clear that Congress shall make no law abridging free speech… The clear Constitutional prescriptions of the First Amendment in allowing the government to ban or regulate corporations from speaking out on elections, to me, seem very problematic.


http://www.cato-unbound.org/contributors/glenn-greenwald

[Luminous Animal]

68. He took money for the precise reason he said. To write a paper about drug

decriminalization. The "drug war", it's inherent racism, the incarceration of millions of people, is important. That report ended up in major MSM news which is a good thing. You should read it. It's findings have empowered the anti-drug movement with oodles of important information. He's also taken money from the ACLU and he's spoken at the national Socialist convention. As he has said, he would speak anywhere to advance liberty and justice. Hell, I am an atheist but I've worked closely with nuns on homeless issues... what does that make me?

He supported a very narrow interpretation of citizens united (as did the ACLU). The radical activist court went well beyond the what both Greenwald and the ACLU advocated.

Do you realize that, if we restrict the political voice of corporations, that unions, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, etc., would have been barred under the same rules? Why? because they are registered corporations. Greenwald argued this point many times in his column. Do you want Planned Parenthood, NOW, the AFL-CIO to be banned from political speech before an electon? Both Greenwald and the ACLU believe that there are better solutions than restricting speech that would harm both the left and the right.

[baldguy]

17. Deliberately printing falsehoods ≠ integrity

[Luminous Animal]

57. +1

[KoKo]

11. Secret Blackwater Contractors Surveying all of us and Small Business...

Gives Advantage to the BIG GUYS ...but not us small struggling businesses and those like US who depend on bringing International Medical Products to the USA. WE are supposed to be the Entreprenuers that Obama Supports!

[ucrdem]

18. Look who "progressives" are making common cause with:

That's right, the Koch brothers. Small world ain't it?

[flamingdem]

19. So he's a Paulite, libertarian, that explains

some of the connection to his source.

Tsk tsk. What a surprise when Rand Paul held up his hand to delve into this

[Luminous Animal]

55. He is neither a Paulite or a libertarian.

Everywhere you see the word "here", he has a link to back it up.
http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html

I don't really care what labels get applied to me. But - beyond the anti-war and pro-civil-liberties writing I do on a daily basis - here are views I've publicly advocated. Decide for yourself if the "libertarian" label applies:

* opposing all cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (here and here);

* repeatedly calling for the prosecution of Wall Street (here, here and here);

* advocating for robust public financing to eliminate the domination by the rich in political campaigns, writing: "corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture" (here and here);

* condemning income and wealth inequality as the by-product of corruption (here and here);

* attacking oligarchs - led by the Koch Brothers - for self-pitying complaints about the government and criticizing policies that favor the rich at the expense of ordinary Americans (here);

* arguing in favor of a public option for health care reform (repeatedly);

* criticizing the appointment of too many Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street officials to positions of power (here, here and here);

* repeatedly condemning the influence of corporate factions in public policy making (here and here);

* praising and defending the Occupy Wall Street movement as early and vocally as anyone (here, here and here)

* using my blog to raise substantial money for the campaigns of Russ Feingold and left-wing/anti-war Democrats Normon Solomon, Franke Wilmer and Cecil Bothwell, and defending Dennis Kucinich from Democratic Party attacks;

* co-founding a new group along with Daniel Ellsberg, Laura Poitras, John Cusack, Xeni Jardin, JP Barlow and others to protect press freedom and independent journalism (see the New York Times report on this here);

* co-founding and working extensively on a PAC to work with labor unions and liberal advocacy groups to recruit progressive primary challengers to conservative Democratic incumbents (see the New York Times report on this here);

To apply a "right-wing libertarian" label to someone with those views and that activism is patently idiotic. Just ask any actual libertarian whether those views are compatible with being a libertarian. Or just read this October, 2012 post - written on Volokh, a libertarian blog - entitled "Glenn Greenwald, Man of the Left", which claims I harbor "left-wing views on economic policy" and am "a run-of-the-mill left-winger of the sort who can be heard 24/7 on the likes of Pacifica radio" because of my opposition to cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

[flamingdem]

61. He left out his

campaign contributions, where the money is and all that

[olddots]

21. I'll be perfectly honest

I don't like the way he looks and don't like the way all humans look .

[99th_Monkey]

27. If Greenwald's reporting is inaccurate, then show exactly where & how that is true.

otherwise, please STFU for Christ sake, with the personal attacks on Greenwald,
who's only the "messenger" who gets proverbially quashed.

[KoKo]

36. I know...many of us ask what IS IT ABOUT GREENWALD? Reporting or Hate of Him?

[blue neen]

29. Yes.

.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. He's a troublemaker who doesn't toe the party line. We need more like him.

[Ikonoklast]

60. He does the bidding of the Koch Brothers.

And so many are easily fooled by him because he says what they want to hear.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. But, does he have a girlfriend in Hawaii?

Who does the NSA do the bidding of?

[Ikonoklast]

64. Boiled down to it's very essence...you.

At the very least, in your name as a citizen of this country.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

67. Not really. I never voted for a surveillance state.

How about you?

[OilemFirchen]

34. I'll desnark for a moment.

Though never a practicing journalist, I am a long-ago J-School grad. Taught by one of the finest gumshoe reporters I've ever had the pleasure to know. The studies were demanding and required precision. This was back when type was actually set, so, for example, the course on Headline Writing required that the work product be explanatory, interesting, succinct AND the correct number of characters and kerning to fit the column-inches available. Likewise, our reporting required a similar level of diligence, following established dictates of the profession. And then, of course, ripped to holy shreds by an editor.

So I guess we Luddites are offended when individuals represent themselves as journalists while not only failing to follow any of the regimens of the art, but, in some cases openly flouting them. Yeah, Greenwald is, ostensibly, an opinion writer, but that doesn't excuse him from the same standards expected of conventional journalists. More so, journalists are never to be the story, but Greenwald always is.

He's not alone, BTW. Tons of upstart pischers are flooding New Media - many of whom can't compose a comprehensive thought, most of whom have absolutely no regard for any journalistic rigors. Posting links does not a reporter make, especially when said links seem to be constantly recursive.

<resnark>

Plus, he's a lying dickwad.




ETA: Goddamned open tags. Bargle bargle bargle...

[Skidmore]

41. What OilemFirchen said, especially the

lying dickwad part and adding that any friend of the Paul dynasty is no friend of mine.

[nomorenomore08]

37. I guess partly what others have said - too much opinion, not enough journalism.

That said, while I don't think he's always right, I've never felt the need to personally attack him. Perhaps he becomes a bit of a scapegoat for people's frustrations?

[FarCenter]

42. Greenwald is now more of a Left Anarchist than Right Libertarian

At any rate, he is anti-government and possibly anti-American due to problems with his domestic situation.

I could somewhat sympathize with the anti-government anarchist/libertarian point of view, since all governments are essentially protection rackets.

But I recognize that we need one and only one protection racket that is kept relatively small and restricted in its scope, but powerful enough to maintain a monopoloy. Otherwise, you get Somalia, Libya, Bosinia, etc.

[DesMoinesDem]

43. It's about not worshipping Obama.

The attacks are always about him, not what he wrote. And the people attacking him are the people that defend every single thing Obama does. The Obama apologists hate principled people.

[eissa]

44. I feel the same way about him as I did

Chris Hitchens, which is to say not much. I can admire their writing and intellect without agreeing with a lot of it. Both libertarian neo-cons who are (or was, in Hitchens case) very enamored with themselves.

What really pisses me off about Glenn's tactics in this case is his statement that he will be revealing "significant" information on this story over the course of the next few "weeks and months." To just keep dripping for a long period in order to ensure that (a) he remains in the spotlight, and (b) attempt to damage this administration leading into 2014. What an ass.

[Blue_In_AK]

45. I've never had a problem with Glenn Greenwald,

personally, or his reporting. He reports stories as he sees them, and I am free to believe or not believe whatever I wish.

[southernyankeebelle]

53. I have never like this guy. Long before all this secret stuff came out because he is never happy

and always has bad things to say about this country.

[Chan790]

59. Both. I consider them inseparable.

I don't like the man. I also don't like his attitude or the inherent bent of his "journalism" career.

[b.durruti]

66. He speaks truth to power, which makes many uncomfortable -nt-

[reformist2]

72. He's abrasive, confrontational, always looks tired from overwork.... I like that.

[cherokeeprogressive]

73. All he needs to do is write a few columns about how handsome Barack Obama is.

Include some flattering pictures of Michelle and he's a favorite once again.

[The Link]

76. It's because he is gay.

[jeff47]

78. I dislike him because of your post.

His reporting is sloppy. He loves to conflate different programs so that he can make a more sinister sounding story. He's also radically changed his position on several topics, yet insists he never has.

As a result, we get people claiming Blackwater is actively spying on their business in order to destroy it on behalf of big business. That's several light years away from reality, but it gets Greenwald more hits.