Here are some lies you can tell about Glenn Greenwald.

[Karmadillo]

This comes from SuperBowlXX at DailyKos and covers six frequently told lies. Make sure you ignore Greenwald's responses or it might interfere with your ability to righteously propagate the lie of your choice.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more#

From a Post by SuperBowlXX:

Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:12 AM PST.

Glenn Greenwald Responds to Widespread Lies About Him (on Cato, Iraq War, and more)

If you're a regular reader of Glenn Greenwald's like I am, you may have occasionally come across some rather vicious lies about his character - that he's a right-wing libertarian and that he supported the Iraq War, among others. I don't know where these claims originated, but I've read plenty of blog posts and comments propagating them during the past few years - both on Daily Kos and elsewhere - and I had hoped for a long time that he would write a comprehensive post debunking them.

On Saturday, Glenn responded to each of these lies and others. You may have missed it since he didn't post it in his regular Guardian column, so I obtained his written permission to reprint his response here in its entirety. It's a bit lengthy, and while I think it is more valuable to discuss the actual issues about which Glenn writes on a daily basis (civil liberties, war, government secrecy, the surveillance state, the state of journalism and the mainstream media) rather than attacks on his personal character, I still believe it's well worth reading why particular claims circulated about him are false. I've added a couple of thoughts of my own at the end of the diary.

Frequently told lies (FTLs)
by Glenn Greenwald
January 26, 2013

Anyone who develops any sort of platform in US political debates becomes a target of hostility and attack. That's just the nature of politics everywhere. Those attacks often are advanced with falsehoods, fabrications and lies about the person. In general, the point of these falsehoods is to attack and discredit the messenger in lieu of engaging the substance of the critiques.

There are a series of common lies frequently told about me which I'm addressing here. During the Bush years, when I was criticizing George Bush and the GOP in my daily writing and books, there was a set of lies about me personally that came from the hardest-core Bush followers that I finally addressed. The new set comes largely from the hardest-core Obama followers.

I've ignored these for awhile, mostly because they have never appeared in any consequential venue, but rather are circulated only by anonymous commenters or obscure, hackish blogs. That is still the case, but they've become sufficiently circulated that it's now worthwhile to address and debunk them. Anyone wishing to do so can judge the facts for themselves. The following lies are addressed here:

1. I work/worked for the Cato Institute
2. I'm a right-wing libertarian
3. I supported the Iraq War and/or George Bush
4. I moved to Brazil to protest US laws on gay marriage
5. Because I live in Brazil, I have no "skin in the game" for US politics
6. I was sanctioned or otherwise punished for ethical violations in my law practice

______

I work/worked for the Cato Institute

I am not now, nor have I ever been, employed by the Cato Institute. Nor have I ever been affiliated with the Cato Institute in any way. The McCarthyite tone of the denials is appropriate given the McCarthyite nature of the lie.

In seven-plus years of political writing, I have written a grand total of twice for Cato: the first was a 2009 report on the success of drug decriminalization in Portugal, and the second was a 2010 online debate in which I argued against former Bush officials about the evils of the surveillance state.

I not only disclosed those writings but wrote about them and featured them multiple times on my blog as it happened: see here and here as but two examples. In 2008, I spoke at a Cato event on the radicalism and destructiveness of Bush/Cheney executive power theories.That's the grand total of all the work I ever did for or with Cato in my life. The fees for those two papers and that one speech were my standard writing and speaking fees. Those payments are a miniscule, microscopic fraction of my writing and speaking income over the last 7 years. I have done no paying work of any kind with them since that online surveillance debate in 2010 (I spoke three times at Cato for free: once to debate the theme of my 2007 book on the failure of the Bush administration, and twice when I presented my paper advocating drug decriminalization).

I have done far more work for, and received far greater payments from, the ACLU, with which I consulted for two years (see here). I spoke at the Socialism Conference twice - once in 2011 and once in 2012 - and will almost certainly do so again in 2013. I'll speak or write basically anywhere where I can have my ideas heard without any constraints. Moreover, I'll work with almost anyone - the ACLU, Cato or anyone else - to end the evils of the Drug War and the Surveillance State. And I'll criticize anyone I think merits it, as I did quite harshly with the Koch Brothers in 2011: here.

more...

[ucrdem]

1. I believe this belongs in the religion forum. --UPDATED--

Last edited Sat Jun 29, 2013, 04:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Greenwald is a tax-cheat pornographer among his other dubious accomplishments and to give any credit at all to anything he says takes a tremendous act of faith. I respect faith but religion is against the GD SOP as we are frequently admonished.
......................................

EDIT: GREENWALD'S CAREER AS TAX CHEAT AND PORNOGRAPHER

TAX CHEAT:

Filings also show he’s had some money problems — his law license was suspended for failing to pay his registration fee in 2009. He’s said he started winding down his law practice in 2005 to focus on writing, but he still has some financial ghosts from his previous career.

The New York County Clerk’s office shows Greenwald has $126,000 in open judgments and liens against him dating to 2000, including a $21,000 from the state Tax Department and the city Department of Finance.

There’s no record of those debts being paid, but Greenwald said he believes he’s all caught up — although he’s still trying to pay down an old IRS judgment against him from his lawyer days.

Records show the IRS has an $85,000 lien against him.

Greenwald lives in Rio, because that’s where his boyfriend is. His tax problems didn’t drive him away.

“We’re negotiating over payment plans,” he said.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/greenwald-reporter-broke-nsa-story-lawyer-sued-porn-biz-article-1.1383448#ixzz2XdZn4QFf

. . . AND PORNOGRAPHER:

Greenwald was enjoying a career as a litigator when friend Jason Buchtel offered him a partnership in his consulting company, Master Notions Inc., back in 2002.

Court papers show that one of the company’s clients was then known as HJ — short for “Hairy Jocks” — and that Greenwald was the one who negotiated their deal.

Owner Peter Haas “had this pornographic company he wasn’t able to maintain,” Greenwald said.

Greenwald and Buchtel agreed to help Haas in return for 50% of the profits.

In the two months the companies worked together, “Haas made more money than he ever made before in his entire life,” Master Notions’ filings say.

But Haas refused to pay the company its share of the profits, which led to a nasty legal battle.

Haas said he called the deal off because Greenwald was “demanding changes to the content of the videos which were and are unacceptable.”

He also accused Greenwald of having bullied him into signing the deal, citing several twisted emails that he said were from Greenwald, whose email address was, “DomMascHry31.” In one, Greenwald allegedly called Haas “a little bitch” and “a good little whore.”


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/greenwald-reporter-broke-nsa-story-lawyer-sued-porn-biz-article-1.1383448#ixzz2XdZvMWvA

[BlueCaliDem]

4. Yep. You've got to have FAITH to believe anything GiGi says these days.

A LOT of faith.

[Hissyspit]

12. Um, you are responding to a post

that is almost completely slanderous/libelous ad Hominem fallacious crap. There is no particularly valid reason to agree with it.

[BlueCaliDem]

16. Thank you for your opinion. You're entitled to it.

My opinion is, I agree with the poster, his post, and the content, so there IS a valid reason to agree with it. Because I can.

If you want to continue to defend or deify GiGi, have at it. I'm not conforming. Sorry to disappoint you.

[Hissyspit]

33. Glenn Greenwald is not a tax cheat,

just some one who need to make payment arrangements, and not really a pornographer, just an investor.

There isn't really any particular reason to be talking about those issues, either, but the poster is insistent about throwing whatever shit at the wall he can find at the wall to see what sticks and then, when shown that it is not sticking, to keep on throwing it anyway.

The charge that I am deifying or have deified Greenwald is absurd, and it is the tactics being used against Greenwald that I am defending against more so than Greenwald himself.

As I have mentioned before, I tell my students, "an opinion based on crap is a crap opinion.

[ucrdem]

45. Actually, he is. And a pornographer. See above. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

57. Oh man, that guy's a nasty little bugger. Eeuw.

Thanks for the info, ucrdem.

[sabrina 1]

80. Glenn Greenwald, one of the best investigative journalists around today. This point

is proven daily by his 'enemies'. 'bugger'?? Really?

[ucrdem]

138. Saying it doesn't make it so, and an "investigative journalist" GG is not. nt

[sabrina 1]

142. Of course 'saying' something wouldn't 'make it so' nor did I say that. He has a body of work to

prove it, where's yours btw? He has a record of being targeted by the Big Banks contractors for a smear campaign to try to shut him up. This isn't the firse smear campaign that has tried to silence him or to turn others against HIM. It has failed in the past as people remained focused on what they are trying so hard to point away from by pointing at the messenger.

Didn't you know that tactic was worn out long ago and that the opposite happens now. When people see an all out attempt to smear someone who has done nothing wrong other than report news items or post their political opinions, even those who dislike them, find it to be disgusting. Because we know where most of it is coming from now.

[ucrdem]

146. I've seen it. It has nothing to do with investigative reporting.

He's basically a propagandist using information provided by actual investigative reporters.

[Puglover]

141. Glen Greenwald is gay.

You seem to like calling a gay man by a feminine name "Gigi".

And now you call him a nasty "bugger" One of the meanings of "bugger" is to practice sodomy. Frankly I think I know which one you are referring to here.

In short, I think your hatred of Greenwald is taking you to a really bad spot.

[Puglover]

167. I'm not really sure who you are.

I invite you to do a search on my posts to support your crazy claims. My oh my how did I survive as a moderator for 3 years? Amazing Skinner didn't suss me out as the libetarian mole that I am.

Seriously I couldn't give two shits about how much you hate Greenwald. You start with homophobic bullcrap and we have problems.

[BlueCaliDem]

172. And I don't care who you are.

I don't have any interest in doing a search on your posting past or your elevated status as a Mod. I'm not that interested in you. I'm only interested in your current posts and I make my assessment of you by them.

Exactly! If you start homophobic bullcrap with me, we WILL have problems. Deal?

[Enthusiast]

178. Damn.

Well said. You libertarian mole, you.

[Enthusiast]

177. It ain't taking

anywhere he wasn't already.

[pintobean]

192. If you were the alerter

or, to whoever alerted, I apologize for not reading the replies. I would have definitely voted to hide, had I done so. The poster didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

[Puglover]

193. I didn't alert.

I want this shite out there for all to see.

[Quantess]

194. It was me.

Considering the context and the intent, I found it worth alerting.
But now I see that person has already had several hidden posts.

[pintobean]

196. Sorry

I usually look at what leads up to the alerted comment. The intent was clear in what came after. Live and learn, I guess. It's not the first time I've made a mistake.

ETA - I was juror #1

[Hissyspit]

119. I read the fucking article the first time.

And I, and many others, just explained why you are full of shit, on this and the other stuff you continue to post.

[dsc]

50. and I bet it was gay porno too

which I bet is your real problem with it.

[BlueCaliDem]

61. You'd lose that bet.

That said, look at the updated post above. It's not hard to find. Post #1.

So GiGi WAS a pornographer. Maybe not in his mind, but surely in the mind of his business partners and their legal documents. Still believe GiGi is a credible source?

[dsc]

71. I really don't care if he was a pornographer or not

Larry Flint was certainly dead right about Livingston back in 1998 to name one example. I don't consider pornography all that big a deal frankly.

[sabrina 1]

82. Yes, more than ever I believe he is a very credible source. The more I see these disgusting attempts

to smear I KNOW he is a credible source. This only happens to Credible Sources. No doubt this is also proof that they ARE spying on the American People.

Have you checked the investment portfolios of some of your heroes, btw? You might be quite surprised at what people invest in. I'd be careful about the feigned outrage, in today's surveillance state, it often comes back to haunt people.

[Enthusiast]

179. Yes. There are a few credible sources hanging by a thread.

This thread is actually evidence of the paid propaganda effort. All tax payer funded.

[idwiyo]

111. OMG! Pornographer! OMG! Because you know, THAT is much worse than protecting torturers, war

criminals, bailing out banks, and fucking spying on everyone.

Yeah, I believe he is a credible source. Much more credible than majority of the government combined. Make it two governments combined (I am throwing in UK government who is as guilty as yours is).

[BlueCaliDem]

166. I'm happy for you if you find solace in a proven liar. Doesn't say much about you, though, does it?

[idwiyo]

219. Maybe you should stop projecting. :)

[DisgustipatedinCA]

147. Nice week to display your homophobia on DU.

[Puglover]

151. I am super careful where I point that particular finger

but this is gobsmacking.

[BlueCaliDem]

161. Nice week to ASSume I have homophobia.

Now go outside and run with a pair of scissors. You'd be more productive that way.

[chervilant]

207. I truly appreciate

my IL. It's so much better on DU without all you homophobes (not to mention the misogynists, and those unfortunates who seem to think that sarcasm and derision is funny or adds something meaningful to a discussion...).

(Perhaps I'd better stress that you're now on my IL. PLEASE don't trouble yourself with a response.)

[Puglover]

144. Given the fact his poster is calling a gay man by a feminine

name "Gigi" and now refers to him as a "bugger" I would say you are 100 percent spot on. Wow just wow.

This place has finally descend to Yahoo message board status. Unreal.

[Enthusiast]

180. They are employees.

Hey, it has become a employment opportunity!

[sabrina 1]

181. You noticed it too. It used to be more overt re Greenwald, but those were right wingers when

he was writing about Bush. But to see it here is, as you say, 'gobsmacking'. Although to be honest, I am far from surprised anymore. Considering those still here no matter the admitted bigotry, and then the games being played, still, nothing shocks me anymore. Saddens would be a better way to describe it I suppose.

[azurnoir]

53. GiGi interesting thing to call a Gay man

I'm sure it's just a reference to his initials though, right?

[BlueCaliDem]

62. Now you're being petty.

But you knew that.

[azurnoir]

69. no point in fact

but maybe you think it's a petty thing

[BlueCaliDem]

162. No. Petty. But maybe you

like petty attacks on Democrats?

[azurnoir]

190. oh dear are you a Democrat? well it's a big tent I guess and you do post here

so we must assume so albeit ncalling other Democrats petty is rather well it speaks for itself

[Hissyspit]

120. It's deliberately derogatory. Calling him GiGi is petty.

[BlueCaliDem]

164. Only in the mind of his Defenders. You should take that up with his parents.

I'll do as I please. Thanks.

[Hissyspit]

168. Yes, by all means, keep doing it.

Keep calling a gay man Gigi.

His parents named him Glenn Greenwald. There are no fucking "i"s anywhere to be seen.

[Hissyspit]

175. "Projecting your closeted biases"

Now you're just getting ridiculous.

[sabrina 1]

85. Not the only interesting things being used to slam Greenwald.

[azurnoir]

114. I've seen plenty of things used to slam Greenwald over the years

but it is unusual to see it upstairs here

[QC]

118. +1

[sabrina 1]

67. Did you even briefly scan the OP before commenting? I think maybe it's always a good idea to read

before responding. It saves a lot of embarrassment later on.

[rhett o rick]

208. You should lose your "politically liberal" card.

"... attacks often are advanced with falsehoods, fabrications and lies about the person. In general, the point of these falsehoods is to attack and discredit the messenger in lieu of engaging the substance of the critiques."

Attacks on Greenwald's character are childish and typical of those that lack substance to discuss.

Those that follow a leader's every word with unbridled adoration are the religious. Faith is unbridled acceptance.

[leveymg]

7. Why, because it violates your own brand of political mythology and witchhunting?

Greenwalds is a tax-cheat pornographer

Throw him in. If he floats, burn him. If he sinks, at least we gave him a fair trial. Right?

Hate to be blunt, but, man, you asked for that.

[99th_Monkey]

8. No, Greenwald walks on water!!!

Excuse me, but your hyperbolic slip is showing.

"tax-cheat pornographer"? really?

Greenwald was widely respected by progressive democrats when he was uncovering
the misdeeds and crimes of the Bush "Administration"; but now because "our guy" is
in the WH, everyone's supposed to suddenly demonize and vilify Greenwald, while we
look away from obvious unconstitutional over-reach by the NSA, et. al..

[BlueCaliDem]

17. Yes, but that's before we knew he was FOR Bush before he was AGAINST Bush.

The irony is, he has never been FOR Obama.

He was FOR Ron Paul before he was for that Libertarian/Constitutional Party ex-Republican, Gary Johnson.

GiGi has zero credibility with Democrats who know him. It's a self-inflicted wound. Sorry.

[99th_Monkey]

26. "GiGi has zero credibility with Democrats who know him"

Such as? Precisely who are these prominant progressive Democrats that think GG has "zero credibility"?

Can you name even one? Two? Who and how many?

[sabrina 1]

127. Actually he was 'for' Obama, but don't let that stop you, you're on a roll.

[ucrdem]

133. I notice you provided no support whatsoever for that statement. nt

[sabrina 1]

134. As a Democrat I'm surprised you didn't know that. Anyone following his blog in 2008

knew he was glad to see the end of Bush and had high hopes for Obama after his nomination.

[ucrdem]

135. I still don't see any support. nt

[Enthusiast]

182. I'm inclined to believe Sabrina.......nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

197. this one was almost hidden:

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

GiGi again. He's been told it's a homophobic slur several times and continues to use it in order to hurt people. I've checked the TOS box and urge admin to read all of this thread.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 30, 2013, 08:06 AM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The alerter needs to explain how Gigi is homophobic cuz I am just not getting it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: GiGi is over the top, hurtful and seems homophobic.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: HIDE IT. and I hope misogynist slurs are hidden, too. Enough is enough. HIDE IT.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The only person the poster is hurting is himself, eventually he'll wind up on everyone's ignore list. Flamebait does not need to be taken seriously all the time

[sibelian]

10. Oh, believe what you like then...

[Demit]

13. Show us why he is a tax cheat. Show us why he is a pornographer.

You know, you're lucky this is only a discussion forum & you didn't publish that in a more prominent venue. That is clear-cut libel.

[ucrdem]

41. I just did. You're welcome. nt

[Demit]

108. No you didn't. Still libel.

You are inferring things from those articles that they do not say. You've proved that you draw iffy conclusions to be deliberately malicious, is all you've proved.

[sabrina 1]

128. No you didn't, you linked to a bunch of .deceptions and distortions. If you have something

factual, then please post it. Eg, we do have actual tax cheats in this country, many of them. They don't make any arrangements to pay their taxes until they are caught. Does the name Geithner ring any bells with you? Apparently it's not a problem to be a tax cheat. Some of them have been elected, appointed to powerful positins such as Treasury Secretary eg.

You'll have to try harder on this one. If that's all you got on Greenwald he's practically pure as the driven snow compared to some of those currently in powerful positions in our government.

Sorry, these smears were not worth the money whoever it was, paid for.

[ucrdem]

137. "The New York County Clerk’s office shows Greenwald has $126,000 in open judgments and liens."

If that is a "deception and distortion," please explain exactly how and why, thank you. Oh, and provide a source please.

[sabrina 1]

139. Listen, you're just not getting it. His personal trivia which is not different to the personal

trivia of the average American, and frankly he appears to be squeky clean compared to many of our elected officials and others in powerful positions, is of no concern to those who have more important things on their minds.

The issue is and will remain the vast and expanding Surveillance state we find ourselves living in. That is a CRIME, not a CIVIL matter, a CRIME against the Constitution. And you can keep posting all the trivia you want about the messenger, and the next messenger which I'm sure you will, it will not alter this fact one tiny bit.

All your attempts to focus on the messengers only make me wonder 'why is this Democrat so unconcerned about our Civil Rights. That seems extremely odd to those of us who have been trying to get attention for this issue since Bush first began these anti-Constitutional programs. Nearly every Democrat I know has in the past and remains in the present concerned only about the fact that these programs are an anathema to a democracy. They were opposed and still are by some of this country's most credible Elected Officials, Civil Libertarians and most of all, Democrats, including some more rational Republicans and definitely Independents.

So, why is you never discuss the actual issues that most people care about and are posting trivia about a journalist??That is all your comments do for me. Raise questions as to your own 'agenda'.

[ucrdem]

140. So the information in the article is accurate. Thank you. nt

[sabrina 1]

159. So you don't respond to comments, why is that?

I am very familiar with all the attempted smears against the messengers but have zero interest in them, true or false, and most of them ARE false btw. I am interested in what we know about our massive surveillance state and what is going to be done to stop it.

We have discovered that we are being stalked, every single American, by the US Government, THAT is a crime, against the law, and it's way past time to start investigating it, as requested now by several Democrats thankfully, and put a stop to it.

We elected Democrats to end these Bush policies not to expand them. THAT is all I and I can assure you, millions of Americans, are interested in.

You can post your links until you grow tired of doing so, it will not change a single mind.

The next messenger, and there will be more, will be similarly smeared and the smears similarly ignored.

Until one day those responsible for violating our rights will have no choice but to stop the games and start facing the reality, that Americans want to know what their GOVERNMENT is up to, and could give a rats ass about what taxes or what porn, or whatever the distraction du jour may be, the messenger may or may not have engaged in.

I don't know why you keep trying to do the impossible, to defend the indefensible.

Let me put it to you this way. Suppose of the messengers turned out to have evaded taxes. What crime is of more consequence to the American people? A relatively unknown individual evading taxes, or the US Government breaking the law and violating the rights of every single American citizen? If you don't know the answer to that question, then I get why you keep posting irrelevant nonsense.

[Enthusiast]

185. distraction du jour

[sabrina 1]

189. I know, I meant it when I said I hope whoever got the HB Gary contract isn't paying

a whole lot of our tax dollars for this childishness.

[Enthusiast]

186. This is OP worthy.

Let me put it to you this way. Suppose of the messengers turned out to have evaded taxes. What crime is of more consequence to the American people? A relatively unknown individual evading taxes, or the US Government breaking the law and violating the rights of every single American citizen? If you don't know the answer to that question, then I get why you keep posting irrelevant nonsense.

[Enthusiast]

184. Oh, baby!

I love you, sabrina. You kick ass!

[Enthusiast]

183. Exactly...nt

[flamingdem]

23. Yes, he's not a right wing Libertarian psst he's a left wing libertarian

correction made!

Note how the article is written to absolve him of being a Libertarian by using "right wing libertarian".

[Hissyspit]

121. Is he a member of the Libertarian Party?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)

Do you know that as a fact?

Do facts even matter?

"Resistant to applying ideological labels to himself, he emphasizes repeatedly that he is a strong advocate for U.S. constitutional 'balance of powers' and for constitutionally-protected civil and political rights in his writings and public appearances.[6]"

[sabrina 1]

78. Are you aware that you are on a DEMOCRATIC forum which has consistently opposed the Right Wing

Republicans attempts to censor Porn, anywhere? Did you think that this would have any impact on any Democrat here, whether true or not?

Did you know that Democrats generally believe that people have a right to engage in all legal activities regardless of whether the Right Wing Hypocritical Moralists think they do or not?

This would go over better on a site where attempting to use 'OMG, PORN' (never mind their own proclivity for it) would have some effect?

What utter garbage.

I've said it before and will repeat it here, even though HB Gary never got the Contract to SMEAR GREENWALD, it is obvious by the childishness of these feeble attempts to distract from the issues, that SOMEONE got that contract.

I hope they didn't pay much for it because I've never seen a smear campaign back fire so spectacularly.
.

[Marr]

125. You said it-- *someone* clearly got the contract. /nt

[Enthusiast]

187. The childishness of these feeble attempts...nt

[Marr]

123. WOW. You're down in Andrew Breitbart territory now.

If you don't want people to talk about domestic surveillance programs because you think it makes Obama look bad, just say so. If you think broad domestic surveillance is acceptable, just say so. But this slime-crawling, mudslinging routine is just distasteful to watch.

[sabrina 1]

163. 'But this slime-crawling, mudslinging routine is just distasteful to watch.'

Yes, it is. It is stomach turning actually and I do not know what it is supposed to achieve. To change minds? It will, but not the way they intended it.

[truth2power]

199. Sabrina - Wow! what I am seeing on this thread is that They. Are. FRANTIC!

An indication that the old smear tactics are no longer working and they're reduced to just flinging poo. Interesting.

[Hissyspit]

169. "Now?"

He's been there since the story broke.

[baldguy]

205. Lesson: Don't go into business with Glenn Greenwald.

I wonder if Ed Snowden knows this?

[MannyGoldstein]

2. But he doesn't deny being a RACIST

Or having been birthed on another planet, as the spawn of Satan and Genghis Khan.

Case closed, I'd say.

[think]

5. Thanks for ruining the article for me. Guess there is no need to read then

[still_one]

37. Bruce Willis is a ghost

[think]

46. first they ruin your read. then your movie. will the madness ever cease!

[still_one]

149. It is a tough wold out their

[Enthusiast]

188. Satan spawn. Who likes that? Eeew!

Fuck

[darkangel218]

3. Fuck Greenwald haters.

That's all.

[BlueCaliDem]

18. Fuck Greenwald apologists.

That's all.

I can write this because GiGi is a Libertarian, not a Democrat. Why do you believe you can post something like that on a Democratic Party supporting site?

[darkangel218]

21. Excuse me???

[DevonRex]

24. You did ask for it. nt

[flamingdem]

31. He wanted a third party with Gary Johnson as candidate

GG wants to be kingmaker.

Wonder why doesn't he debate Joy Reid, she keeps offering him the opportunity.

[BlueCaliDem]

43. Joy Reid would eviscerate him. Chris Hayes got a little difficult with him and GiGi

was looking as if he were on the verge of getting the stomach flu.

What I would give to see GiGi debate Joy Reid. Unlike him, she has the facts and knows how to use 'em.

[flamingdem]

56. He'll have to return to Chris Hayes at some point

Joy will continue to point out his "inconsistencies"!

[BlueCaliDem]

68. God, I love that woman! She's so incredibly smart.

She truly is a "joy" to watch and listen to.

GiGi knows better than to go up against her. She won't tolerate him espousing his "inconsistencies" when seated in front of her.

Well, gastritis is flaring up on me. {ouch}. I need to take my palm seed oil and lay down for a while. See you around soon, flamingdem.

[flamingdem]

72. we need to start a get Joy her own program group!

Feel better!

[BlueCaliDem]

170. Excellent idea!

Thank you, flamingdem. I feel much better. It's finally cooling down here {93 down from 102}. But the hottest day is tomorrow, a whopping 108. Not looking forward to that.

[William769]

198. Theres a reason you have gastritis.

Karma works funny that way.

[pintobean]

200. Also has a new case of transparency.

[William769]

201. Thats funny but it's also sad.

Says a lot about the person.

Your response.

[Hissyspit]

122. Well, Joy tweeted a demand of him to answer a question

and Greenwald tweeted back that he already had in a couple of different articles, so she was trying to indict him because of his silence on an an issue he hasn't been silent on. So why do presume that she would do better.

[burnodo]

32. Do you know that he's a registered Libertarian?

or do you simply parrot other Obamapologists?

[BlueCaliDem]

44. There are no "Obamaapologists" on DU.

So try again.

[burnodo]

47. OMG

wow

[Scurrilous]

113. Obamapologists?

That reminds me, I need to make an appointment to get my eyes examined.

I thought this place said Democraticunderground.

Must of had that wrong...

[Doctor_J]

36. Well, Grayson is opposed to Obama on some issues

Does that mean we can't post Grayson's views either?

[BlueCaliDem]

51. Apples and oranges. Grayson is a bona fide Democrat and votes with the Democrats.

GiGi is a bona fide yet closeted Republican acting like a Liberal. And it's so sad too many are falling for his charade.

I'm happy to see the polls, though, are showing that GiGi defenders are in the minority since the majority stand with President Obama, not with some American ex-pat hiding behind high walls in a posh complex in Brazil.

Maybe GiGi should write about the death squads roaming the streets of Brazil that are murdering orphaned children instead of attacking the president he has never supported - unlike his full support for Duhbya {which he recanted when he discovered Liberals were pissed at him about it}. Nah. He's not about to piss off some very powerful Brazilian authorities. Instead . . . attack Obama! Much easier. And safer.

[Demit]

110. Man, that is a whole lot of confused post.

Just following all those leaps of logic and flights of fancy, I think I got my exercise for the day.

Greenwald is a Republican even though he's a Libertarian but he acts like a Liberal except when he's supporting Bush except he doesn't support Bush anymore because it pisses off Liberals except he attacks Obama even though Liberals like Obama as proved by unnamed polls which apparently asked people outright whether they stand with Obama or defend Greenwald.

[Marr]

129. LOL

Reads sort of like the Unibomber's manifesto. I guess that's what you get when you become too emotionally invested in smearing someone. The logic just shuts off and you're left with the rhetorical equivalent of the angry girlfriend throwing every one of her boyfriend's belongings out the window.

[sabrina 1]

126. So if someone is not a Democrat they are worthless human beings and deserve no rights in this

country? Okay! That is an interesting idea. What should we do about the over 50% of the country that are not Democrats? I'm curious.

Btw, what do you think of President Obama's Republican appointees for powerful positions in his cabinet? He doesn't seem to share your view that all Republicans are worthless pos who can be lied about and smeared simply because they are 'not democrats'??

[DisgustipatedinCA]

148. It's funny to see someone with the initials BCD makes fun of someone else based on their initials

But you just go on with your bad little self.

[Octafish]

6. He doesn't deny being a lawyer!

Never see him and Ron Reagan, Jr. in the same room at the same time together!

[think]

9. That commie favors a public option for healthcare reform. I knew he was a Libertarian!

[BlueCaliDem]

20. Sure he does. That's why he supported Ron Paul, the advocate for a public option

for our nation's health care reform.

[think]

27. I support Obama for many reasons but disagree with much of his foreign policy

So since I support Obama on most domestic issues I must support everything the man does?

Is that the logic here?

[burnodo]

34. He supported Ron Paul?

where? when?

[Doctor_J]

38. Probably on pot laws and defense spending (endless intervention)

our president doesn't seem to have an opinion on either of those things.

[think]

40. Not sure. Perhaps I should have asked for the OP to validate that claim

My bad...

[burnodo]

42. no, my bad

meant to respond to BCD

[think]

49. Thought that might be the case. Either way no worries

[Doctor_J]

35. Yeah, you voted for him, so you support SS cuts, corporate health care, torture,

extending the Bush/Obama tax cuts, and war in Afghanistan. I guess that's a new rule.

[99th_Monkey]

11. K & R ++++ nice find. ~nt

[SamKnause]

14. Glenn

Thanks for posting the link.

Great article.

[Fire Walk With Me]

15. Hey, what about that illegal, unConstitutional surveillance state he was discussing? Can we talk

about that?

[think]

19. +1

[Whisp]

22. Joy Reid on GG:

http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/

Re-rise of the Naderites: Glenn Greenwald’s third party dreamin’ **UPDATE: on Libertarianism

- He called President Obama a “political coward” whose entire history, as a student, a writer, an organizer and as a politician, is one of accommodation of entrenched power, to whom he never wants to be seen as a “threat” (27:58)

- He said Democrats have stigmatized the idea of supporting third parties or not voting at all, “by what is perceived to have happened in 2000 when Ralph Nader supposedly siphoned off votes and helped elect George Bush,” (24:50)

- He lavishly praised not just Wikileaks and Bradley Manning (who he called “probably the most heroic figure we’ve seen in at least a decade.” but also tea partyers who strike fear into the hearts of politicians by “acting very threateningly,” and “taking guns and machine guns” to their protests (49:10);

- And he expressed support for the Citizens United ruling, dismissing the concerns over corporate “personhood” by saying that if the government can restrict corporate speech, it could strip corporations and “entities” like the ACLU of all of their constitutional rights, saying it’s better that the government not limit corporate speech, but rather that it create a generous public financing system that would match one campaigner’s $50 million in corporate cash with $50 million for his or her opponent from the federal government (32:33);

===
yah, cool dude.

[DevonRex]

29. Joy Reid is the smartest person on TV.

I am more impressed with her each time I see her. She is just razor sharp.

[Doctor_J]

30. Wait, what?

He called President Obama a “political coward” whose entire history, as a student, a writer, an organizer and as a politician, is one of accommodation of entrenched power, to whom he never wants to be seen as a “threat” (27:58)

Have we ever seen any evidence to contradict this one?

He said Democrats have stigmatized the idea of supporting third parties or not voting at all, “by what is perceived to have happened in 2000 when Ralph Nader supposedly siphoned off votes and helped elect George Bush,” (24:50)

ibid

You need to watch where you point that thing

[Whisp]

48. If you agree with GG that the President is a 'political coward'

you have pointed that thing to yourself.

[Doctor_J]

93. Perhaps you can point me to an unpopular stand he's taken since winning in 2009

[Whisp]

100. Everything he utters becomes 'unpopular'

and the worst thing any President ever said/did.

Teabaggers jump him first, then the rest follow, in the proper order that is agreed upon.

[Doctor_J]

115. Perhaps my post was unclear.

Can you point me to one issue on which the president has taken a stance far from the Republicans, and then stood his ground? He's issued all of 3 vetoes in 4.5 years, but there were those 3. If you can't find such a thing, then I'd say that he's not very committed (brave), just a "gigi" says.

[still_one]

63. Political coward? If mr. Greenwald believes that why doesn't he run for public office. It is so

Easy for critics to sit back and say what is wrong about someone

Reminds me of how the critics panned George Bizet and Gershwin, etc, yet guess who people remember, hint it isn't the critics

[Kolesar]

95. I doubt if Greenwald ever spent one minute working for a Democratic Party candidate

"political coward"

[burnodo]

54. wait wait wait....he's a NADERITE now?

Its amazing how people re-arrange reality to fit their expectations

[Marr]

130. It's exactly like the Conservatives, shouting "communist fascist".

We've passed the point of critical thought. It's all just gibbering emotion.

[Major Hogwash]

73. Glenn is over his head in very shallow water.

Seriously, if he thinks he is going to win an argument with Joy, he is just dreaming.

[Whisp]

76. I think she gave him a challenge lately...

He is wise not to take it up.

Joy is unflappable and about as smart as they come in that trade.

[Major Hogwash]

221. Greenwald won't go on her program because she would ask him direct questions.

Unlike Chris Hayes who tosses Greenwald softball questions when he appears on his program, and then Hayes never asks Greenwald follow-up questions.

[Cha]

132. Greenwald smears himself.. his own worst enemy. the same with LeakerHOOHA.

Poor little things are being attacked

yeah, Greenwald is an Obama hater.. dripping venom that is touching.. to retiles.

He lavishly praised not just Wikileaks and Bradley Manning (who he called “probably the most heroic figure we’ve seen in at least a decade.” but also tea partyers who strike fear into the hearts of politicians by “acting very threateningly,” and “taking guns and machine guns” to their protests (49:10);

Freaking regressive.

thank you for the link, Whisp

[Whisp]

143. yeh, that gun thing. That's whackadoodle talk.

How anyone can have any respect for this snake, lordy....

[otohara]

154. He's Grotesque

It's all about him and his vendetta against ... everyone who doesn't agree with him.

[Number23]

174. "he lavishly praised tea partyers"

That's it for me. Done.

[bobduca]

25. obnoxious, dishonest juvenile behavior... par for the course from the TEAM PLAYERS here

"gigi" "pornorgrapher" "tax cheat"

What a bunch of sanctimonious fucking smear merchants... its about 30 loudmouthed morans who are just not even worth interacting with on any issues.

[G_j]

39. +1000

[Douglas Carpenter]

64. and for one reason and one reason only - he is exposing the security state

and this seems to embarrassing if it is done while a Democratic president is in the White House

[Major Hogwash]

91. Why are you here then??

The fact is, Greenwald supported someone other than Obama for President last year, and we were the ones who worked our asses off to get President Obama elected in the first place, back in 2008.

[bobduca]

97. I voted for Obama twice, I'm here because I'm a registered DEMOCRAT

Must I show you my papers, MAJOR HOGWASH?

Is blind obedience part of the party platform? Must all registered Democrats agree with the reversal of Obama's campaign positions just because a pack of spineless cheerleaders fall in line?

[Major Hogwash]

102. You're the one calling other people posting here names.

"Spineless cheerleaders", stuff like that.

[bobduca]

106. Sis boom bah

Hey if the miniskirt and pom poms fit... but yeah don't worry i'm referring to important democrats, not you.

"Your leadership in NSA has been outstanding," added Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, the committee's ranking Democrat.

from

http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/hearing-on-nsa-surveillance-turns-into-lovefest-led-by-cheerleaders_2013-06-20.html

[Maedhros]

211. Please provide proof of Greenwald's support of a candidate.

I read his column regularly - he did not endorse any candidate in the last election.

[Major Hogwash]

212. Then you know that Greenwald spent the last 4 years ripping apart President Obama.

Greenwald's articles at Salon dot com were increasingly critical of President Obama and weren't based on facts.
He was fired from Salon dot com last August.

But, since you claimed that you read his column regularly, you already knew that.

[Maedhros]

216. Nice try at dodging the question.

Who did Greenwald support in the last election?

[Major Hogwash]

220. Go to Twitter and ask Greenwald himself.

He's on Twitter and he is now lying about what he has said in the past.
Which is his usual m.o.

[Maedhros]

224. You're making the claim that Greenwald endorsed Gary Johnson.

Kindly back up your assertion with a link or stop making unfounded assertions.

[Marr]

131. Couldn't agree more. /nt

[backscatter712]

145. +1,000,000 more! n/t

Sanctimonious smear merchants is a perfect description!

[sigmasix]

217. Greenwald smears the president, but that's fine with you so-called democrats

Greenwald called our president and political coward, but that smear is fine with his followers that hate it when someone smears Greenwald. The hypocrisy of the greenwald supporters is tangible. Greenwald has made several claims about the evil intentions of President Obama to spy on every American all the time. Anyone that has been paying attention knows that there is no proof to this particular character assasination of the president. There have been a number of right wing operatives that have been concentrating on trying to attach these claims of unAmerican spying to the Obama presidency. Greenwald has been caught in several lies (or mis-characterizations of the truth) about this particular claim and has refused to acknowledge the origins of his lies and his own particular case of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Greenwald has been a teabagger apologist and libertarian agent for several years- his hatred for president Obama is something that he has been proudly declaiming since his first election. Now he has been caught lying about the character of the president of the unitied states and he has been responible for American state secrets falling into the hands of our enemies. There are already reports about snowden's double agent activities leading to a change in how terrorists communicate.
Greenwald isnt a hero and he certainly hasn't afforded this president the moral right to rule as the democratically elected president of the United States.
Contrary to the reports of right wing media and glen greenwald, our president is not an antiAmerican traitor with the aim of spying on every American all the time. Why is it OK for Greenwald to smear the name and presidency of President Obama, but if someone brings-up a negative trait about Greenwald they are engaged in childish smears? I've asked this before and I'll ask it again; why are teabaggers so afraid of identifying themselves to other Americans? They hide in the cracks and crevices of the internet and come crawling out with lies and hyperbole about the president- all while maintaining a disguise as a progressive Democrat.
The cowardice of the Obama Derangement Syndrome folks is staggering in it's depth and wide-ranging in it's origins.

[bobduca]

218. Greenwald ate my baby dingo

PLONK

[ProSense]

52. About Greenwald:

Glenn Greenwald: What the Supreme Court got right (Flashback)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100293141

Glenn Greenwald defend Rand Paul against "Democratic myths"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022485711

Disappointing those who 'stand with Rand'

By Steve Benen

In March, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) launched a high-profile filibuster on the Senate floor, bringing attention to drone strikes and civil liberties questions that too often go ignored. But as the spectacle faded, a problem emerged -- Paul didn't seem to fully understand the issue he ostensibly cares so much about.

The Kentucky Republican wanted to know if the Obama administration feels it has the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil." Attorney General Eric Holders said the "answer to that question is no." For many involved in the debate, the answer was superficial and incomplete -- who gets to define what constitutes "combat"? what about non-weaponized drones? -- but Paul declared victory and walked away satisfied.

Today, the senator went further, saying he's comfortable with drones being used over U.S. soil if the executive branch decides -- without a warrant or oversight -- there's an "imminent threat." Paul told Fox News:

"...I've never argued against any technology being used when you an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it's different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities."

I realize it's difficult to explore complex policy questions in detail during a brief television interview, and perhaps if the Republican senator had more time to think about it, he might explain his position differently. But as of this afternoon, it sounds like Rand Paul is comfortable with the executive branch having the warrantless authority to use weaponized drones to kill people on American soil suspected of robbing a liquor store.

But flying over a hot tub is where he draws the line.

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/23/17881782-disappointing-those-who-stand-with-rand

Drones to kill people "suspected of robbing a liquor store."

[burnodo]

58. cant you ever address the OP's you feel the need to interrupt?

why not just a new thread with your blue-hair links

[ProSense]

60. The OP is about Greenwald.

"why not just a new thread with your blue-hair links"

Here's another one of those "blue-hair links" (whatever that is)

Wow, Greenwald in a new light
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297462

[burnodo]

65. the purpose of responsing to a thread is to respond to whats said

whats asserted, whats given, etc. The post is about Greenwald but says very specific things in relation to him. Can't you address whats said?

[ProSense]

75. I'm not much

"the purpose of responsing to a thread is to respond to whats said whats asserted, whats given, etc. The post is about Greenwald but says very specific things in relation to him. Can't you address whats said?"

...for hypocrisy. The OP is about Greenwald. I added some information about Greenwald.

The OP related to this response (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023119933#post103) is about Carter's opinion of Snowden and the NSA. See the problem with your hypocritical rule?

[Major Hogwash]

66. She just did.

[burnodo]

70. your comprehension skills are not good

.

[Major Hogwash]

77. I know, they're GREEEAAAATTTTTT!!!!!

Just like Tony the Tiger.

[whatchamacallit]

79. All she managed to do is illustrate and confirm the duplicitous smearing he's writing about

The shocking thing is how her response to being exposed is to double down.

[Major Hogwash]

89. She's a good illustrator.

That's already been confirmed.

Hahahaha!!!!!!

I think Greenwald should talk Snowden in to returning to the United States and turning himself in.
But Greenwald probably doesn't want to do that.
Because then his falling star would burn out totally, and he could return to the oblivion from which he first came.

[Major Hogwash]

99. Um, this sure as hell is not about me, sport.

I served in the military with honor, and received an honorable discharge.

[whatchamacallit]

104. Good for you

and thanks for your service. Tell you what, I retract the brave quip as I'm of the opinion that serving is an act of bravery no matter what the details of your service. That said, it wouldn't be logical for him to assume he'd get a fair shake in post 9/11 America.

[whatchamacallit]

55. Wow, this utterly destroys the cadre of smear mongers who've been running amok for years on DU!

You've gotta wonder about the sincerity and commitment of "liberals" who lie through their teeth.

[Illy Billy]

74. You can always use a smile

[1StrongBlackMan]

81. Why is it necessary ...

or, even, desirable to tell lies about Greenwald?

He has enough "interesting" stuff going for him, some relevant or some not. But to not question motivation is to get played ... even if you agree with everything he says.

[burnodo]

86. well, what is his motivation?

being a journalist?

[1StrongBlackMan]

101. I don't know ...

But apparently we have differing expectations of "journalism" ... My expectation starts with neutrality, objectivity and or balance. I expect a journal to give me facts; not drive an agenda. A journalist defends the facts reported; whereas, a "less than journalist" defends his/her reporting.

I know that's a subtle difference; but there it is.

[whatchamacallit]

87. Ask the Obama supporters who make it a way of life

Of course the answer is obvious; it's a blind autoimmune reaction to criticism of the president.

[nashville_brook]

83. k and r

[DesMoinesDem]

84. You forgot that Greenwald is an evil SOCIALIST!

He just spoke at the socialist conference! Here is proof!:

Are you going to side with an evil socialist who doesn't ever pay his taxes, or with President Barack Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney?

[burnodo]

88. ouch

that should be a horrible insult. Alas...

[whatchamacallit]

94. Heads explode trying to square 'Paulbot Socialist'

[Vinnie From Indy]

90. Good post! K & R !!!

The hate monkeys that routinely descend on threads about GG to play with each other's private parts and sling their feces at anything that moves really are not all that persuasive.

Cheers!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

152. I like the imagery

I coined a cheap term yesterday to describe someone's reaction to Greenwald: hatesquealing. I think that fits right in with your hate monkeys and their fecal missiles.

[Progressive dog]

96. Just a little more info about Greenwald

[link:http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211|]

[MjolnirTime]

98. Nobody cares about Greenwald. And he can't stand that. So he makes himself the news.

[Galraedia]

103. Glenn Greedwald is anti-liberal

What is this crap even doing on a Democratic forum?

[whatchamacallit]

116. That question could be asked in regards to you n/t

[Doctor_J]

117. He's for SP HC and spoke at a Socialist convention

he's also in favor of gay rights (marriage in particular. BTW how does being anti-spying make him "anti-liberal"? The president is the one who's anti-liberal.

[Hissyspit]

124. Go read the Statement of Purpose and Rules. It's not just a "Democratic" forum.

[moondust]

105. By "develops any sort of platform"

does he mean an "agenda," as in the Republican Party platform? That seems to be what some people are saying about GG: that he's an advocate/attorney advancing an agenda and not a journalist.

[sabrina 1]

136. The only people saying that are either unfamiliar with his work, or deliberately

trying to create a false impression of him. What would the agenda of someone who was one of the most outspoken critics of the Bush administration's policies, who has not changed one iota in terms of his opposition to those policies? I can only think of one reason why someone would remain that consitent regarding Bush policies. They support our Constitutional rights and no matter who is violating them, they will not be swayed to change their minds or to remain silent.

My feeling is, that those who opposed Bush's policies and now support them are the ones with an agenda.

[moondust]

150. I guess it depends

on whom one chooses to believe and trust.

Alan Dershowitz, Gloria Allred, and Piers Morgan don't seem to think too much of him as a journalist:

Alan Dershowitz Trashes Greenwald On Piers: "Loves Tyrannical Regimes" and "Did This Because He Hates America"

I doubt that those two high-profile attorneys would go along with egregious violations of the Constitution, and I'm pretty sure they weren't Bush cheerleaders.

I don't really follow these guys, but judging from what I have seen I would probably place Greenwald and Scahill and maybe a few others here:

Advocacy journalism is a genre of journalism that intentionally and transparently adopts a non-objective viewpoint, usually for some social or political purpose. Because it is intended to be factual, it is distinguished from propaganda. It is also distinct from instances of media bias and failures of objectivity in media outlets, which attempt to be—or which present themselves as—objective or neutral.

Traditionally, advocacy and criticism are restricted to editorial and op-ed pages...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy_journalism

[sabrina 1]

155. Piers Morgan is a British Tabloid 'journalst' who worked for Rupert Murdoch and has been

implicated in the Murdoch News Corp scandal . He may end up in jail, if the Big Corps don't come to Murdoch's rescue soon and he is brought before the British Parliament like some of his fellow 'journalists' have been, some of whom have landed in jail.

http://thinkprogress.org/media/2011/07/17/271233/cnn-piers-morgan-murdoch/
CNN Ignores Piers Morgan’s Connection To News Corp. Scandal

Piers Morgan, the British journalist and talk show host who took over for CNN’s venerable Larry King earlier this year, is a former editor of the now-defunct News of the World, the tabloid at the center of the hacking scandal. Moreover, Morgan has been implicated in a separate celebrity phone hacking scandal while he was editor of the U.K’s Daily Mirror.
But so far, CNN has failed to report any of this. A ThinkProgress search covering the last 30 days of several media monitoring services and CNN’s own website, show the network has not so much as mentioned Morgan’s connection to the failed News Corp. tabloid, nor the separate Mirror allegation.

It's sad too, now that you reminded me, that someone like Piers Morgan is presented to the American Public as a 'journalist' without them obviously, knowing anything at all about who he is or what his history is.

Yes, our Corporate Media, I confess to not watching much of it anymore. Morgan is being protected by CNN by not reporting on his own invovlement in that ongoing scandal.

The other guy in this photo, Andy Coulson, a 'colleague' of Morgan's went to jail for his role in the scandal. And the woman, top assitant to Murdoch has been indicted for her role. Morgan has escaped indictument, so far:


Ex-News of the World Editors Piers Morgan, Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson (Brooks and Coulson have been arrested)

Alan Derschowitz is not a journalist, he is an advocate which he would be the first to admit. Iow, he has an agenda when he speaks about anything and doesn't pretend otherwise. He is an attorney who will defend murderers, and has very successfully, and is very good at his job, but his word on journalism is hardly worthy of note frankly.

Gloria Alred is not a journalist, she too is an advocate. Frankly I find her to be nothng more than an opportunist and would not seek her advice on much of anything. She has become nothing more than entertainment, as are all of them.

Compared to that trio, Greenwald is a shining light in the world of journalism. The only time I have ever seen them is on entertainment shows, such as the current Piers Morgan debacle, ratings so low it's amazing he's still there.

[moondust]

157. Here's another.

Pretty much spot on:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023130710

[sabrina 1]

173. Is he still around? Not that anyone probably knows him.

His opinion is worth as much as anyone's on the internet, I imagine most DUers here who write OPs are better known than he is.

Here's who I respect as a journalist:

Jeremy Scahill who has spoken out eloquently regarding his respect for Greenwald as a journalist.

The Guardian who employed him because of his growing popularity based on his consistent blog posts standing up for Civil Liberties.

Juan Cole, Matt Taibbi, in fact just about everyone who is not part of the fake Corporate media.

Greenwald has always been an indendent journalist. He had no Corporation like Murdoch or CNN backing him. That fact that without advertising or a TV presence he attracted a huge audience, bigger than say, Erin (Goldman Sachs) Brown speaks volumes about his credentials. It is his work that attracted the readership and got him a job at the Guardian.

When your enemies are people like Cheney, Fleischer, King, Boehner, Palin et al, you are a real journalist.

[Ikonoklast]

203. Ah, I see, the old double standard is in play.

Greeneald represented White Supremacists.
Greenwald did work for the Cato Institute, funded by the Koch Brothers.

See where I'm going?


I could go on, but calling a failed lawyer turned blogger desperate for fame a 'journalist is laughable.

Read up on the real reason Greenwald quit practicing law. He is vile.

[sabrina 1]

223. Oh stop with the nonsense. No one is buying this lies a and distortions anymore. I would correct

them here, but you probably already have been corrected numerous times already. I will however correct them in an OP when I have time to do so. Truth is essential to those who care about the future of this country. That distorted 'opposition research' you are posting btw, do you know where it came from?? Enquiring minds are working on that right now.

For those who care about facts, let me just say that the comment I am responding is so filled with distortions it boggles the mind to see it here on DU.

Credit where it is due, though. You got all the 'opposition research' talking points into one comment, makes it easier later to totally destroy them.

[mhatrw]

215. Alan Dershowitz is pro-torture. n/t

[graham4anything]

153. the Bush=everyone else parallel is a faux strawman. After all, Cheney hates Bush too the last 3 year

So does that mean everyone who dislikes Bush loves Cheney?

because when one says well, when Bush did it, well, Cheney and Jim Baker and all the others, also disliked W.


It is like saying, I hate cheesecake (which I do), therefore I like brisket. (which I also hate).

Or saying I hate the Yankees, therefore my favorite team is the Red Sox.
Sorry, my favorite team is the Mets.

false parallels are just a strawman and in effect meaningless.

imho

[sabrina 1]

156. Well, you would have a point if it was about Bush personally or anyone else personally. But it's

not, it's about the horrendous policies implemented during the Bush era that are still in place. It's like saying:

'I despised Bush policies and I still despise them' (that would be Greenwald)

as opposed to saying:

'I despised Bush policies but now I support them. (that would those who used to despise Bush policies but who now defend them).

[graham4anything]

158. no, it is a strawman

And actually, those were NOT my issues in the first place

there stands another strawman

one thinks their wedge issue, is my wedge issue.

It isn't.

I didn't like Bush or Reagan or Ford or Eisenhower, because they are all bad for minorities and women and anyone not specific to who Thomas Jefferson refereed to.

I care about stem cell research and Bush didn't, but Obama does

I care about racism, Bush is a racist and uses it.

Bush's family was involved with the Nazi's in WW2. I am Jewish. I don't like Bush family.

There are 1000 issues.
Some likes one wedge, some others.

My issues are not your issues

Therefore I am consistent in what I don't like.

I do like President Obama's viewpoint, because on my wedge issues, he is there 100% of the time.
I like that my health care premium is 65% less now than it was just a year ago.

The Bush's? No I don't like them.
Don't like what they did to Mike Dukakis and Jesse Jackson

but to me, this other stuff, is not in my Top 10 of issues.

Why do people always assume all wedge issues are the same to anyone?

But then, I know there are people who don't like LBJ, but I always did and will.

That's what is great, we are all free to like whatever we want, and are not forced to like or dislike in unison.

and no one is stopping us. NO right has been lost just a concept.


Except that all rights were lost this week to voters in the red states who now may have an even harder time to vote.
That is here and now, that is a concrete lost of right.

The others are just political board arguments, but no one has lost anything tangible with regard to the information problem.

(the one we all knew about, and had safeguards put in by Obama that Bush specifically didn't).

[sabrina 1]

160. Well you are entitled to make politics all about you. To me politics is about the country, what is

best for the country. And when we have leaders who respect the law of the land, all of YOUR issues and everyone else's have a better chance of being addressed.

But if I were to make it all about me, then only my issues would be addressed. I accept the fact that to ensure the rights of all Americans, I may have to forego some of my wishes, but I also know that overall, it will be a better country for everyone when the rule of law is respected and Americans are not being spied on by their own Government.

I don't like totalitarianism, even if it comes in the form of 'we're doing this for your security'.

Ron Wyden is Jewish also, his family escaped Germany just in time before it became too late. That is why he has always been so diligent on issues of Civil Rights, sometimes a lone voice during the Bush era. His father who was teenager in Germany during the beginning of the worst times, knew the signs of an emerging threat to the interests of the people.

But you don't have to have been there, you only have to read history. And a massive surveillance of an entire population is certainly enough of a warning to the people that it is time to stop this train wreck before it gets any worse.

Btw, do you trust these powers in the hands of a Republican? Because that is inevitable sooner or later.

[graham4anything]

191. Don't like the Bush's, then why tear down the democratic party to elect a Bush, Jeb?

there are always only two choices

In 2016 the choice shall be clear

Two titans battling for the soul of America
Hillary Rodham Clinton/ Michelle Obama vs.
not voting for the democratic nominee above

there is a choice.
choice a- I myself and 95% of the democratic party, and I bet 25% of the republican party shall vote for Hillary
choice b- of course 5% of the democratic party and 75% of the republican party will not vote for Hillary

I pick choice A (and I am sure your senator shall also be supporting Hillary Clinton, like he did Bill Clinton, like he did twice when he supported Barack Obama/Joe Biden.

President Obama is the Gateway between Bush that everyone including Dick Cheney hates, and the next Bush, Jeb, whom
Dick Cheney loves.

Hillary to continue forever, the agenda of Barack Obama's first two terms.
Once 2017 comes in, all the pieces will be in place.

As for the other stuff, don't sweat the small stuff.
wedge issues, yours, and mine are small stuff.

Please don't lecture me on the Holocaust. Thank you.

BTW, I don't recall Ron saying he is going to dismantle the CIA, FBI, HS, and 100% of the war department.
If he did, please provide a link.

And I am sure, Ron is very happy the USA got involved in WW2. I also bet he would say
Had drones been available back then, and one dropped on Hitler two weeks before Hitler issued the first order, I bet
Ron and every other person would have said Go for it.


I know where I will be August 24. In DC. Already had planned to be there for the Dr. King 50 years since the voting rights were signed celebration. Now more than ever, that is the only issue that matters.

All the other stuff, is the small stuff. Don't sweat it.

Enjoy the summer.

Guess what, the world will be here in the fall. It ain't going anywhere.

and again, please everyone, remember the Sun screen.


and remember, Obama was the revolution that wiped out the Bush's. Why would anyone tear down Obama to bring back
the Bush's in 2016? Makes no logical sense.


and you do know, WYden almost was named, after Tom Daschle dropped out, to be on the President's cabinet but President Obama
picked a better choice, Kathleen Sebelius. Had, though, he picked Ron, I am sure you would have been happy, correct, as he is a team player and part of Team Obama to start off with. He was one of only 3 who were considered for the post.

Though I guess Ron is the meme'dejour because he and Rand Paul are connected in support of that filibuster thingy Rand did.
Funny thing is, I never heard Ron mentioned before that day. and Rand Paul was fuming mad that DOMA was overturned.
I am sure Ron was happy about that.

Small world isn't it?
His folks and my mother at the same place back in the war of all wars.
And I bet his parents and mine both are in 100% agreement that if a drone had dropped on Hitler, two weeks before,
no one would have shed a tear and 20 million plus lives would have been saved.
And I bet he was FOR WW2, and wishes we went there sooner.

And btw, isn't Ron for the complete reinterpretation of the 2nd amendment, to get rid of ALL GUNS from the hands of private individuals, and a national gun data base? Yes, indeed he is, as far as I know.
With the 2nd, there is no 1st.
Believe Ron got an F from the NRA. Same as President Obama, Joe Biden and Gabbie Giffords.



Which is why, really, one should not put Hillary down then later expect an offer.
AND, as far as I know, Ron is a Clinton supporter. He supported Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.

I would ask him though, if the choice is Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush/Rand Paul, who does he stand with?
He probably will disappoint some when he is there on stage congratulating Hillary at the convention on being the next democratic nominee for President of the USA.
And I am sure his supporters would love if Hillary picked Ron for VP, or a job in her cabinet.


btw, I am against Ron's policy on internet tax, against a flat tax he and Steve Forbes support, and am against his anti-view on assisted suicide. I am also against anything Rand Paul stands for, so if Ron agrees with Rand on any issue, on those issues, I am against it.

I am for PIPA and SOPA, and I believe in copyrights being the same online as they have been for the last century off line.
Mickey Mouse should remain copyright to Disney family, and should not be in the public domain.
And indeed, I think the internet should fully be taxed.
The mom and pops have been robbed blind by the unfairness of it all.

but hey, those are small stuff wedge issues.

SCOTUS the other day proved the one and only issue is the voting rights acts.
Voting should be made mandatory 100% vote, including every single person who is living in America who is an adult.
Let's make it mandatory, and then if 100% of the people vote.

And of course, if it were about me, I would have 100% instant amnesty, citizenship and instant voting card(along with any/all ID needed for all 11 million.

[Coccydynia]

107. The important thing is the message, not the messenger.

But that requires critical thinking, and DU is bereft of critical thinkers, and wash in criticism thinking.

[MotherPetrie]

109. And NONE of those issues would have ever been raised if BUSH were still president.

It's just that simple.

[idwiyo]

112. K&R

[Enthusiast]

176. Sounds like Greenwald is one of us.

I would like to think.

[Douglas Carpenter]

195. knr -- thanks for posting

[Smarmie Doofus]

202. Kick, Rec. n/t

[snot]

204. Thanks for this post. I've seen these lies spread on DU by some of those posting above.

So long as the smear machine continues in operation, we can assume Greenwald's doing good work.

[nashville_brook]

209. +1

[sigmasix]

222. so as long as greenwald can smear The President He's doing "good work" huh?

Greenwald has spent the last several years attempting to convinve Americans that there is a super secret cadre of democratic lawmakers, led by president Obama, that are out to destroy American liberties and freedoms. This particular attempt at character assasination of the President of the United States has been making the rounds in the right wing media echo box for years. Greenwald has admitted to detesting Obama from the very beginning of his presidency. Greenwald may call himself a "journalist" but his actions are those of an Obama Derangement Syndrome activist, not a patriotic American truth-seeker. Those that have an acknowledged interest in the destruction of the Obama presidency certainly shouldn't be relied on for truth or defense of our core principles. I understand that ODS folks have a large emotional investment in the notion that President Obama is an evil enemy of our country- but no amount of wishing will make a lie the truth. Greenwald supporters; Isnt it time to admit that the ODS has taken control of your lives and caused the destruction of your ability to tell the difference between the truth and extreme right wing partisan lies and hyperbole.

[DeSwiss]

206. K&R

- Two pieces of free advice:

1. Never worry about the opinions of those who lack any principles.
2. The ''Ignore'' button is your friend.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

210. I hear he likes to dress up like a cop and beat the hell out of hippies....

That's him. Isn't it?

[adric mutelovic]

213. K & R nt

[L0oniX]

214. He stomps on baby bunnies!