General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis is Greenwald's debunk of his support for the Iraq war?
Glenn Greenwald Responds to Widespread Lies About Him (on Cato, Iraq War, and more)http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more#
These claim [sic] are absolutely false. They come from a complete distortion of the Preface I wrote to my own 2006 book, How Would a Patriot Act? That book - which was the first book devoted to denouncing the Bush/Cheney executive power theories as radical and lawless - was published a mere six months after I began blogging, so the the purpose of the Preface was to explain where I had come from, why I left my law practice to begin writing about politics, and what my political evolution had been..
The whole point of the Preface was that, before 2004, I had been politically apathetic and indifferent - except for the work I was doing on constitutional law. That's because, while I had no interest in the fights between Democrats and Republicans, I had a basic trust in the American political system and its institutions, such that I devoted my attention and energies to preventing constitutional violations rather than political debates. From the first two paragraphs:
When the Iraq War was debated and then commenced, I was not a writer. I was not a journalist. I was not politically engaged or active. I never played any role in political debates or controversies. Unlike the countless beloved Democrats who actually did support the war - including Obama's Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - I had no platform or role in politics of any kind.
I never once wrote in favor of the Iraq War or argued for it in any way, shape or form. Ask anyone who claims that I "supported" the Iraq War to point to a single instance where I ever supported or defended it in any way. There is no such instance. It's a pure fabrication.
At the time, I was basically a standard passive consumer of political news: I read The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Atlantic: the journals that I thought high-end consumers of news would read and which I assumed were generally reliable for getting the basic truth.What I explained in the Preface was that I had major objections to the Iraq war when it was being debated:
During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11.
Nonetheless, because of the general faith I had in political and media institutions, I assumed - since both political parties and media outlets and journalists from across the ideological spectrum were united in support of the war - that there must be some valid basis to the claim that Saddam posed a threat. My basic trust in these institutions neutralized the objections I had and led me to passively acquiesce to what was being done ("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." .
Like many people, I became radicalized by those early years of the Bush administration. The Preface recounts that it was the 2002 due-process-free imprisonment of US citizen Jose Padilla and the 2003 Iraq War that caused me to realize the full extent of the government's radicalism and the media's malfeasance: "I developed, for the first time in my life, a sense of urgency about the need to take a stand for our country and its defining principles."
As I recount in the Preface, I stopped practicing law and pursued political writing precisely because those people who had an obligation to act as adversarial checks on the Bush administration during the start of the war on civil liberties and the run-up to the Iraq War - namely, Congress, courts, and the media - were profoundly failing to fulfill that obligation.
I wasn't a journalist or government official during these radical power abuses and the run-up to the Iraq War, and wasn't working in a profession supposedly devoted to serving as watchdog over government claims and abuses. I relied on those people to learn what was going on and to prevent extremism. But I quickly concluded that those who held those positions in politics and journalism were failing in their duties. Read the last six paragraphs of the Preface: I started writing about politics to bring light to these issues and to try to contribute to a real adversarial force against the Bush administration and its blind followers.
It is true that, like 90% of Americans, I did support the war in Afghanistan and, living in New York, believed the rhetoric about the threat of Islamic extremism: those were obvious mistakes. It's also true that one can legitimately criticize me for not having actively opposed the Iraq War at a time when many people were doing so. Martin Luther King, in his 1967 speech explaining why his activism against the Vietnam War was indispensable to his civil rights work, acknowledged that he had been too slow to pay attention to or oppose the war and that he thus felt obligated to work with particular vigor against it once he realized the need ("Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam" .
I've often spoken about the prime benefit of writing about political matters full-time: namely, it enables you to examine first-hand sources and not have to rely upon media or political mediators when forming beliefs. That process has been and continues to be very eye-opening for me.
Like most people who do not work on politics or journalism full-time, I had to rely back then on standard political and media venues to form my political impressions of the world. When I first began writing about politics, I had a whole slew of conventional political beliefs that came from lazy ingestion of the false and misleading claims of these conventional political and media sources. Having the time to examine political realities first-hand has led me to realize how many of those former beliefs I held were based on myth or worse, and I've radically changed how I think about a whole slew of issues as a result of that re-examination.
The purpose of the Preface was to publicly explain that evolution. Indeed, the first sentence of this Preface was this quote from Abraham Lincoln: "I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday." When I still trusted and relied upon the claims of the political and media class - when I was basically apolitical and passive - I tacitly accepted all sorts of views which I've come to see are warped and misleading. I've talked often about this process and am proud of this evolution. I have zero interest in hiding it or concealing it. Quite the contrary: I want readers to know about it. That's why I wrote the Preface.
But anyone using this Preface to claim I was a "supporter" of the Iraq War is simply fabricating. At worst, I was guilty of apathy and passivity. I did nothing for or against it because I assumed that those in positions to exercise adversarial scrutiny - in journalism and politics - were doing that. It's precisely my realization of how profoundly deceitful and failed are American political and media institutions that motivated me to begin working on politics, and it's those realizations which continue to motivate me now.
Think about this claim from above:
At the time, I was basically a standard passive consumer of political news: I read The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Atlantic: the journals that I thought high-end consumers of news would read and which I assumed were generally reliable for getting the basic truth.What I explained in the Preface was that I had major objections to the Iraq war when it was being debated:
He claims he never wrote in support of the war and that he was "a standard passive consumer of political news" who thought "high-end consumers of news" was "reliable."
Really? That's intended to debunk the claim he supported the war? He was clueless and gullible?
From the preface Greenwald links to.
<...>
Soon after our invasion of Iraq, when it became apparent that, contrary to Bush administration claims, there were no weapons of mass destruction, I began concluding, reluctantly, that the administration had veered far off course from defending the country against the threats of Muslim extremism. It appeared that in the great national unity the September 11 attacks had engendered, the administration had seen not a historically unique opportunity to renew a sense of national identity and cohesion, but instead a potent political weapon with which to impose upon our citizens a whole series of policies and programs that had nothing to do with terrorism, but that could be rationalized through an appeal to the nation's fear of further terrorist attacks.
<...>
The 9/11 attacks were not the first time our nation has had to face a new and amoral enemy. Throughout our history, we have vanquished numerous enemies at least as strong and as threatening as a group of jihadist terrorists without having the president seize the power to break the law. As a nation, we have triumphed over a series of external enemies and overcome internal struggles, and we have done so not by abandoning our core principles in the name of fear but by insisting on an adherence to our fundamental political values.
So if the war was a legitimate defense against the "threats of Muslim extremism," it would have been OK?
Maybe this explains why he's so touchy about other people supporting President Obama.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=95092
Afghanistan and Iraq wars and Citizens United?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100293141
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I'm starting to see why he washed out as an attorney.
Progressive dog
(6,925 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)It works!
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)but I got angry responses before it was hidden, using a weak argument that I was a "homophobe" because the GeeGee coven just decided I was based on their own opinion.
However, one response was fairly quick before the GeeGee Clan decided to alert and almost hide the post:
As another poster rightfully pointed out, there's NO evidence whatsoever that GeeGee was "for" Obama. But ample evidence he was FOR Bush - something that poster, of course, wouldn't address. Is it then so hard for a rational person to believe that he was NOT for President Obama? Especially after his FireDogLake-style of attacking the president instead of Republicans?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)But the GeeGee Clan was able to hide three other posts of mine, attributing homophobia to me, which was a patently false accusation.
I've posted extensively on DU about my disappointment that Prop 8 appeared to go down in CA. I was devastated when it did because I not only fought to defeat Prop 8, standing at the street corners with my daughter and her gay and lesbian friends, holding up signs, gathering voters to convince them to vote against it, but also the fact that I come from the Netherlands, the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage, and I have a gay brother who is happily married to his husband for nearly a decade. There was no homophobia intended on my part. Not even close. I was referring to his initials since the "i" in the Netherlands is pronounced "ee". But that didn't matter to them.
Unfortunately, there are enough GeeGee fans who will label people whatever they want and then alert and get their posts hidden and THEN continue to respond to it while I can't respond back. Some even launched into personal attacks in blatant violation of the DU ToS, but that's forgiven because it's against someone who they don't agree with.
But thank you for your support, ucrdem. I really appreciate it. I've decided I'm going to put an ignore on all of them. I don't need to read their glorifying posts of the man who would rather see Republicans in Congress and the WH.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)We get it. They don't.
p.s. sometimes I think what happens here doesn't amount to a hill of beans, but then again, it might.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)But I believe your assessment that what happens here doesn't amount to a hill of beans is correct. I spoke with my 21 year old daughter just now about GeeGee, and she asked, Glenn-who? And she and her attorney boss are very active in politics! Especially her boss, who is a diehard Liberal Democrat who has actually met President Obama and did million-dollar fundraisers for him here in California. He says that Obama is a very intelligent man who deeply and genuinely cares about this country and the plight of the vulnerable people in this country.
This man is an excellent judgment of character {has a success rate of 93%}. He's met with Duhbya for about two hours and believes he's nothing but a puppet for people like the Koch Bros, and has zero brains {this man, himself, has a 190 IQ, a masters in law, has a networth of over $5 billion}. Oh, and he loathes the far-left as much as he loathes Republicans because he says they're no different.
I think we're in good company.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Thanks BlueCaliDem, and please keep 'em coming!
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)and I will do my darnedest to keep 'em coming, ucrdem. And just so you know . . . . . . you rock!
Hekate
(90,978 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I really appreciate the thumbs up after a day like yesterday, so your post and that of ucrdem are like breaths of fresh air.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)progressoid
(50,011 posts)And 72% of America.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)When he contradicts himself.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Okay Glenn. . .
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)from you.
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.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Does that count as a lie? Or am I too authoritarian to see the truth?
noamnety
(20,234 posts)Now I support having my phone calls recorded.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Greenwald once supported a bad position? THEN I GUESS IT'S OK FOR MY GOVERNMENT TO VIOLATE THE 4TH AMENDMENT.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Thank you for providing this valuable information."
...more "valuable information": http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3126302
Notice how the OP I responded to sank like a rock?
Galraedia
(5,028 posts)NSA collects meta-data, not voice recordings.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)you wouldn't know, because it would be classified, right?
So what's the basis for your belief?
Galraedia
(5,028 posts)Can you imagine the amount of resources it would take to listen into everyone's phone calls? It's an impossible task. Not to mention boring and completely inefficient.
They_Live
(3,242 posts)no has time to listen to all that, true. But why not record it all and use your meta-data as a guide map when you do want to locate a particular conversation.
Cha
(297,935 posts)burnodo
(2,017 posts)John Kerry "I'll kill the terrorists"
IWR support
Not questioning the official Bush propaganda line.
I protested the Iraq war, especially considering the national election had been stolen not two years before. You condemn Greenwald because he did pretty much exactly what the Democratic party establishment did?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I protested the Iraq war, especially considering the national election had been stolen not two years before. You condemn Greenwald because he did pretty much exactly what the Democratic party establishment did? "
So did I, and right around the time Greenwald believed this (from the OP) :
"I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration."
There were Democrats calling out Bush for his lies. Kerry condemned Bush the day of the invasion and two week into the war, called for regime change in this country. He pissed off the RW.
Still, are you comparing Greenwald to politicians who you claim supported the war?
I mean, that's not a debunk.
burnodo
(2,017 posts)And I don't care if you were against it, the people you support balls to the wall supported the damned war.
You're trying to put a stink on Greenwald by ignoring your own complicity in what you accuse him of doing.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Guess who?
burnodo
(2,017 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Greenwald cited what he saw then as Bush administration successes, then added "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."
He sounds like a typical, uninvolved American. Which is what he was at the time of the Iraq invasion.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)That show has gone full rat and including its cast of beloved "leftists," beloved by Infowars that is.
burnodo
(2,017 posts)whether you like that or not
Of course, you were probably a big supporter of the invasion.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)And that isn't true as I hope you well know.
burnodo
(2,017 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)You'd be surprised.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Sen. Edward Kennedy's Iraq Speech at the National Press Club:
And Teddy is just one of many Democrats in both houses who voted against the IWR in 2003.
MADem
(135,425 posts)hornswaggled, and holds himself out to be better, smarter, wiser and more pure than them.
All while taking money from the Koch Brothers, too!
It's not the positions he takes, it's the hypocrisy he exhibits.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)how typical, predictable, revealing, and deceitful.
Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of the news that Tyranny is coming!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)In fact I am glad she posts them as I am sure DUers will actually read them and come to their own conclusions.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Progressive dog
(6,925 posts)as he gallops toward Hong Kong.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)I truly think all of this is political. GOPers know that they may lose in 2014, especially in Texas. The 5 justices know as well. Don't think that Kennedy voted to strike DOMA was a constitutional reason. Gutting VRA was purely political just like allowing for Citizen's United. The 1% have spent big bucks in securing a corporate nation and damn the 99%.
I still think Greenwald is a paid political hack for the RW or better yet, Ron Paul's groups. Get enough people to not vote or vote against their own interest is the point of then NSA leaks. All that so far is leaked is old ass news. What angers me is leaks regarding security information that may hurt operatives in other countries and leave open attacks on the US.
flamingdem
(39,335 posts)Late to the party but laughing
treestar
(82,383 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)Sorry, but that weak typical BS doesn't work on me, I will post my opinions freely, along with the rest of DU, you included, without concern of weak, childish sniping from the cheap seats.
Good day.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Probably why you had to pull the Paul Revere picture from your prior OP.
cali
(114,904 posts)except for Greenwald's own words.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)As it is not true, and in fact it is just the opposite... most of the smears of GG by this poster, and others try to paint him as somebody he is clearly not, a RW, elitist supporting, non-journalist... it doesn't get more deceitful than that, trying to paint someone as the complete opposite of what they are.
And can you please point to what words GG is being deceitful on?
Thank you
BumRushDaShow
(129,887 posts)Was that out of Caribou Barbie's book?
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Get over it.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)What did I lose?
President Obama won re-election.
"Get over it."
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)And you can post all the smear jobs and laughing smileys (we know you are not laughing) you want, and you will, but you can't alter this issue now. It's beyond your low-level outrage-control tactics. It's global. No spin will make it go away.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"You have lost. And you can post all the smear jobs and laughing smileys (we know you are not laughing) you want, and you will, but you can't alter this issue now. It's beyond your low-level outrage-control tactics. It's global. No spin will make it go away."
Is that why you're here trying to attack me? I mean, why not just ignore me?
....
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)The more time of yours I spend, the fewer awful OPs you'll have time to post.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"The more time of yours I spend, the fewer awful OPs you'll have time to post."
...saying you're obssessed with me?
Good to know.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)You're just splattered all over it, as unavoidable as dust. But what they say is true - you're quite different on the weekends.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Progressive dog
(6,925 posts)and why does it upset you?
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Especially if you're just going to repeat her.
Progressive dog
(6,925 posts)burnodo
(2,017 posts)more like
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Your fixation is quite a thing to behold!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Your posts remind of the movie Rainman Your fixation is quite a thing to behold!"
...speaking of "fixation," I'm still LMAO of at this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023087676
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)You have finally won me over!
I, like another poster upthread, give in and now accept the total surveillance state and the demise of the 4th Amendment. Your endless posts of slime and smear and misdirection have finally and completely eliminated my concern over these programs. Well done!
Cheers!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Cheers!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I invite you to start another thread calling me out.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)As I stated above, you win! Your relentless attacks on Snowden and Greenwald have turned the tide. You have won! I am completely at ease with private contractors and the US Government collecting and archiving every bit of electronic communication on the planet. I am quite sure that in the future when these programs are used for the personal and political goals of those that wield them that it will all be for the best. You have taught me to learn how to love the total surveillance state and the further erosion of the Bill of Rights. As I sit here now, I wonder how I could have ever been so concerned with such programs knowing the things about Snowden and Greenwald that you have so graciously spammed on this forum. I will fully support any future efforts to have the name "Prosense" etched into the history of this great nation and I will even go so far as to recommend that surveyors get busy now to determine the most visible spot on Mount Rushmore for you likeness. Future generations should be made aware of and venerate your contributions to freedom, justice and the American way. You are an icon without peer in regard to re-educating those of us that had the quaint notion that the Constitution was more than just a piece of paper. I see now how foolish I was and I vow to assist you in convincing others to abandon their faith in misguided ideas about the rule of law. Well done!
Cheers!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...because the personal attack was pathetic, and the above is quite lame.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Thomas Drake and William Binney? I am quite sure that we can dig up something on those guys too! There is no reason that we can't throw these guys into the grist mill is there? I mean c'mon, what kind of name is Binney anyway? Any guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
cheers!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"When are we going to start smearing and sliming Thomas Drake and William Binney? "
..."we" mean you're considering it after this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023087676
I mean, the hypocrisy!
Response to ProSense (Reply #77)
Vinnie From Indy This message was self-deleted by its author.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)C'mon boss! Surely you have something on these guys as well. How in the world can we let Thomas and Binney run around saying many of the same things that Snowden has revealed?
Please forgive me! I just realized that you undoubtedly have a grand plan and that it just isn't time yet for the Binney/Thomas phase. I will defer to your expertise in these matters and try not to be the too eager new convert. Again, please forgive my impertinent questions. It is just that I feel re-energized and renewed now that I have seen the light.
You just let me know when it is time to start smearing those guys and I will be right there with you on the front lines. I may need some time anyway to get my arm back into feces throwing condition. I wouldn't want to let down the cause by getting injured because I didn't train.
Cheers!
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Binney: Certainly he performed a really great public service to begin with by exposing these programs and making the government in a sense publicly accountable for what theyre doing. At least now they are going to have some kind of open discussion like that.
But now he is starting to talk about things like the government hacking into China and all this kind of thing. He is going a little bit too far. I dont think he had access to that program. But somebody talked to him about it, and so he said, from what I have read, anyway, he said that somebody, a reliable source, told him that the U.S. government is hacking into all these countries. But thats not a public service, and now he is going a little beyond public service.
So he is transitioning from whistleblower to a traitor.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)So, we now that we have started calling Binney a traitor, what about Thomas? We can't leave him unslimed can we? Where is Prosense? I need some guidance here! She has become my Yoda!
Cheers!
BklnDem75
(2,918 posts)Q: There's a question being debated whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor.
Binney: Certainly he performed a really great public service to begin with by exposing these programs and making the government in a sense publicly accountable for what they're doing. At least now they are going to have some kind of open discussion like that.
But now he is starting to talk about things like the government hacking into China and all this kind of thing. He is going a little bit too far. I don't think he had access to that program. But somebody talked to him about it, and so he said, from what I have read, anyway, he said that somebody, a reliable source, told him that the U.S. government is hacking into all these countries. But that's not a public service, and now he is going a little beyond public service.
So he is transitioning from whistle-blower to a traitor.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Kinda fucks with your narrative, huh?
Progressive dog
(6,925 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Many of us have known this for years.
At least he wasn't in Congress voting for it like...
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/15100-democrats-share-the-blame-for-tragedy-of-iraq-war
http://americablog.com/2013/03/in-memoriam-the-iraq-war-how-they-voted-in-the-senate-why-you-should-care.html
YEAs 77
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I know having to stare at Greenwald's own words is uncomfortable for some, but there they are.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)It's hypocritical repetetive flinging of any irrelevant shit anyone can find, I have a problem with.
"It's hypocritical repetetive flinging of any irrelevant shit anyone can find, I have a problem with."
...it's the fact that anyone dare calls out Greenwald that you "have a problem with."
MADem
(135,425 posts)And you have 'the noive' to point it out...how dare you!
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)progressoid
(50,011 posts)Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)progressoid
(50,011 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense
Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.
I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.
Greenwald is right. Snowden is considered a great threat, and that is why he must be smeared and destroyed.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)being disingenuous, huh: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122617
Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't be changed to make that legal.
ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense
Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.
I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.
Yup, stand 100 percent behind it.
Ever heard of the PAA: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023026724
By all means, go on pretending you never received a response.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122942
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3133739
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3125366
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122700
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122561
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3133739
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3133751
You know I'm going to post this everytime you post your failed gotcha, don't you?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense
Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.
I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)You got pwned!
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)that makes some people use it thinking it proves they won the argument?
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)See, asinine and content-free.
Glad to see you agree with me by demonstrating the point.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"See, asinine and content-free. "
...someone pissed off at someone else's opinion.
Attacking smilies now, are you?
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Attacking obnoxious, pathetic use of smilies, as I already qualified to you on a previous post. And, no, it's not your opinion I'm attacking.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Attacking obnoxious, pathetic use of smilies, as I already qualified to you on a previous post. And, no, it's not your opinion I'm attacking."
...you're entitled to your opinion. I mean, I know a few posters who use this in every comment.
...they must really annoy you. Oh well!
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts):Shrug: is a request for clarification or defense.
This: in certain contexts, is an obnoxious admittance that you have no substance.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"This: :Shrug: is a request for clarification or defense.
This: in certain contexts, is an obnoxious admittance that you have no substance."
...the "certain contexts" being opinions you don't agree with.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)it's not people having opinions that I have a problem with. It's the falseness, misrepresentation, and tactics. See Post #3 as example.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)You really ought to try honesty sometime, you might like it.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"You really ought to try honesty sometime, you might like it."
...the old "say anything" personal attack laced with hypocrisy and irony.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2013, 02:46 PM - Edit history (1)
is because people don't trust those who are incapable of introspection or growth. You're like a robot shark chewing through everything in its path; voracious, singleminded, without conscience or regret. Who trusts the word of someone who is never wrong? I'm sure your response will only reinforce this.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)tell the tale. But that won't stop the robot shark.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Yikes!
Do you work for the NSA?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)and it surprises me that he has so many followers here on Democratic Underground. Go against their opinion, and you're a partisan hack (uh- duh! I'm a Democrat on Democratic Underground) or worse!
With each passing day, we get to know this charlatan and whose side he's really on, but those who fell for his lies just because he conformed to their idea that Big Gubmint is Eveeeeel without taking into account the world we live in now, are too prideful and too embarrassed to acknowledge it. So they choose to attack the people who have pegged him from the get-go instead.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)- referring to Greenwald as gigi - you've decided to get around that by spelling it geegee now?
It still looks like a dog whistle to me. Some unsolicited advice - you might do better just dropping that altogether because at this point all it does is serve as a reminder that you've got that history of using female names to demean gay men.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)It doesn't change what the NSA is doing. It only helps to fracture the conversation on DU. Apparently we are not all going to focus on the abuses of and by this government. All one of these assholes has to do is talk about the smoking gun of a mushroom cloud to panic the sheep into what ever they want and then smear the protestors as unpatriotic.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Do you oppose the mass surveillance of ordinary people by government agencies?"
...you should ask the person who keeps posting my quote that question.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3134399
It has nothing to do with the OP, though.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)interesting.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"so you cannot answer the question? interesting."
Did you read the part where I'm opposed to illegal spying? I'm opposed to illegal spying. I'm also opposed to distortions of what is actually taking place.
I mean, I guess you can't accept my opinion of the situation, but I'm clear about it.
There is no Obama policy of spying on everyone and no domestic spying
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022971026
I'm not anti-NSA.
I don't think the Church Committee recommendations should be abandoned.
Committee consideration by: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee on the Judiciary
Passed the Senate on March 20, 1978 (95-1)
Passed the House on September 7, 1978 (246-128)
Reported by the joint conference committee on October 5, 1978; agreed to by the Senate on October 9, 1978 (Without objection) and by the House on October 12, 1978 (226-176)
Signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 25, 1978
The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixons usage of federal resources to spy on political and activist groups, which violates the Fourth Amendment.[4] The act was created to provide Judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security. It allowed surveillance, without court order, within the United States for up to one year unless the "surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". If a United States person is involved, judicial authorization was required within 72 hours after surveillance begins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act
If the Patriot Act is repealed, should the secret FISA Court be abolished?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022999502
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Do you oppose the mass surveillance of ordinary people by government agencies?
A simple yes or no would suffice.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Do you oppose the mass surveillance of ordinary people by government agencies? A simple yes or no would suffice. "
Yes!
Also, your question still has absolutely nothing to do with the point of the OP.
I suppose you thought this was a brilliant gotcha moment, huh?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3134844
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Massive surveillance of the American people. Now that I understand that you do oppose such activities, I will be looking forward to your posts opposing these programs. I'm thrilled to have somebody as prolific as you joining in on the side of the supporters of 4th amendment rights to oppose the egregious overreach of the Bush era programs, programs that continue under the Obama administration, that violate those rights by engaging in massive surveillance of ordinary people, which you of course, as we all now know, strongly oppose.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Gotcha moment? No. I did not understand if you supported or opposed. Massive surveillance of the American people. Now that I understand that you do oppose such activities, I will be looking forward to your posts opposing these programs. I'm thrilled to have somebody as prolific as you joining in on the side of the supporters of 4th amendment rights to oppose the egregious overreach of the Bush era programs, programs that continue under the Obama administration, that violate those rights by engaging in massive surveillance of ordinary people, which you of course, as we all now know, strongly oppose."
...serious? It's like you're inventing your own straw man, and then relishing in some notion you have.
I offered more details on my positon here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3134844
You couldn't accept that.
Here are more opinions:
Another misleading media report implies that warrantless wiretapping is legal.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023026724
Remember whistleblower Thomas Tamm?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023032225
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Is going on in this administration?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"So your position is that nothing like a massive surveillance of the American people Is going on in this administration?"
...direct you to my comment here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3134844
Again, you ignored the comment, and now you're asking a question that is clearly answered there.
I answered your other question with a "yes" here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3135545
I mean, do you want to keep going around in circles?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Surveillance of the American people being conducted by our government under this administration?
There is no Obama policy of spying on everyone and no domestic spying.
That is your position, right?
And if there is clear evidence that there is massive domestic surveillance going on, you will stand up and start posting here in firm and unambiguous opposition to such programs?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Surveillance of the American people being conducted by our government under this administration?
There is no Obama policy of spying on everyone and no domestic spying.
That is your position, right?
And if there is clear evidence that there is massive domestic surveillance going on, you will stand up and start posting here in firm and unambiguous opposition to such programs?
Clearly my pointing to my opinion is not my "position." I was pretending that was my position when I wrote it and cited it a couple of times in this thread as being my position.
Good grief.
Are you going to address the OP or are you going to continue hijacking the thread with your pointless interrogation?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)If there is evidence that this administration has been conducting a mass domestic surveillance program?
I'm sorry to have to keep asking these questions, but I am still a little confused about your exact position on this issue.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I'm sorry to have to keep asking these questions, but I am still a little confused about your exact position on this issue."
...I do agree that you appear to be "a little confused."
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Now for example, I don't understand if your "yes" meant you will be posting your famous ops in opposition to the Obama administration's massive domestic surveillance programs, should that be established as a fact. Did it?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...here's one of my "famous ops": http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023134060
That's the one you're attempting to hijack with your pointless interrogation.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It's odd, as it seems to be such a small issue. Given evidence that the Obama administration is engaged in a massive domestic surveillance program, will you be posting here in opposition to such a program?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Once again you seem to be avoiding a direct answer. It's odd, as it seems to be such a small issue. Given evidence that the Obama administration is engaged in a massive domestic surveillance program, will you be posting here in opposition to such a program?"
...enjoy:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3134700
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3134746
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3134767
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3134844
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3135508
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3135545
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3135768
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3135797
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3135827
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3135930
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3135967
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3135992
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3137241
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3137315
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3137340
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3137349
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)If there is evidence that the Obama administration has been conducting a massive domestic surveillance program, while you post here in opposition to that program?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Thanks for kicking the thread.
At some point you'll realize that the lame interrogation attempt is a FAIL!
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Ok. Fair enough. Lets keep it kicked.
Given evidence that the Obama administration is engaged in a massive domestic surveillance program, will you be posting here in opposition to such a program?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)If there is evidence that the Obama administration has been conducting a massive domestic surveillance program, will you post here in opposition to that program?
It seems a simple enough question to answer yes to, given that we have established that you are unambiguously opposed to massive domestic surveillance programs. Why would you not just put an end to this tedious interrogation?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Program under the Obama administration. I know it is difficult to follow all of the nuances of her responses, but in fact she has so far failed to unambiguously answer the very simple question I've asked. One has to wonder why.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense
Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.
I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.
We have always been at war with Eastasia....er, Eurasia.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)being disingenuous, huh: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122617
Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't be changed to make that legal.
ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense
Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.
I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.
Yup, stand 100 percent behind it.
Ever heard of the PAA: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023026724
By all means, go on pretending you never received a response.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122942
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3133739
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3125366
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122700
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122561
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3133739
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3133751
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3134370
You know I'm going to post this everytime you post your failed gotcha, don't you?
I was expecting you: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3134746
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Right on schedule.
UTUSN
(70,779 posts)The ones who call those who DISAGREE with them "authoritarians." Like the name-calling from CHAVISTAS.
Bye the bye, my disagreement with SNOWDEN/GREENWALD has nothing to do with defending nefariousness on the part of this or any other government. It is totally intuitive that these two fellows have suspect methods and motives, are totally NOT altruistic.
*********QUOTE********
http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html
[font size=5]"Frequently Told Lies (FTLs)[/font]
by Glenn GREENWALD
.... I'm a right-wing libertarian
Ever since I began writing about politics back in 2005, people have tried to apply pretty much every political [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]label[/FONT] to me. Its almost always [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]a shorthand method to discredit someone without having to engage the substance[/FONT] of their arguments. Its the classic [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]ad hominem[/FONT] fallacy: you dont need to listen to or deal with his arguments because hes an X. ...."
**********UNQUOTE**********
cali
(114,904 posts)I don't see how anyone can argue with that.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)but what does it have to do with anything, anyway? You also agreed it is like Greenwald to call someone like Joy Reid an "Obama operative," which may be true, but I could never find any instance where he did and no one showed me one. There's no reason to buy into these tactics. It's not that I agree with Greenwald on everything (I don't), it's not that he's never been wrong (he has), it's not that he's above criticism (he isn't, no one is), it's about the misrepresentations, it's about Attack the Messenger no matter the validity, it's about things being proven false or fallacious to a poster and then seeing it get repeated by the same poster again the next day and the next day after that.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)He claimed:
Clearly, that's utter nonsense. That's not "explaining his growth." That's pretending that his past support didn't exist when his own words show otherwise.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Can you please show me where he supported the Iraq war, other than that comment in the preface you quoted? It seems to indicate he was, like most Americans, relatively uninvolved in the debate during the run-up to the war and, like most Americans, assumed his leaders were acting in good faith and with the national interest in mind.
Thank you.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Can you please show me where he supported the Iraq war, other than that comment in the preface you quoted?"
...that wasn't enough?
"It seems to indicate he was, like most Americans, relatively uninvolved in the debate during the run-up to the war and, like most Americans, assumed his leaders were acting in good faith and with the national interest in mind."
Yeah, I guess you buy the claim that he was clueless and gullible.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Well, if "clueless and gullible" worked for so many elected Democrats, I don't see why it wouldn't have worked for Greenwald.
Did Greenwald write in support of the Iraq war, say, during the run-up to it? I don't know. He says he wasn't even blogging until 2006, I think.
I read him as explaining his evolution in that piece. I don't see him cheerleading the war.
And I see this attack on him as fundamentally devious and dishonest. I think you would do better to stick to explaining why all that NSA spying is not such a bad thing. At least then, you would me making an argument and not just engaging in gutter-level character assassination attempts. They don't show you in a good light.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"So you can't. Well, if "clueless and gullible" worked for so many elected Democrats, I don't see why it wouldn't have worked for Greenwald."
...I did, but you apparently can't accept that. Again, what's with comparing Greenwald to Democrats? Greenwald isn't a member of Congress. I mean, if you want to compare him to a member of Congress to justify his then support for the war, go ahead.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Remember what I said about misrepresentation.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Greenwald wasn't "explaining his growth." He was denying he supported the war.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)"I never once wrote in favor of the Iraq War or argued for it in any way, shape or form."
I'm still looking for an example of where he did.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Clearly that's bullshit. You're claiming his denial is "explaining his growth."
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)As for the second part of your message, I don't understand it.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)Thank you
sheshe2
(84,005 posts)You threw off your cloak of apathetic indifference to become the messenger of truth. Hallelujah!
~Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.~
We're saved!
and Rec, ProSense!
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)[div class='excerpt"]"He claims he never wrote in support of the war and that he was "a standard passive consumer of political news" who thought "high-end consumers of news" was "reliable."
That is essentially the same excuse the entire "Centrist" Democratic party leadership gave at that time for Authorizing the Military Invasion and Occupation of Iraq,
except for Hillary.
She STILL insists that she made no mistake in supporting the invasion of Iraq.
Didn't you just cringe every time Bush-the-Lesser smirked into the cameras
and said, "The Democrats voted FOR It too!"?
Are you really going to attack Greenwald for aligning with the Democratic Party Leadership at that time?
I guess if one lacks the internal compass for consistency, then its easy,
but reversing polarity that quick would make me dizzy.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)have I witnessed a "journalist" invest so much energy into lashing out at criticism, instead of actually doing some useful work.
Lots of other comparisons, BTW - most notably the insipidness of their fan bases and their vapid personalities.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)have I seen so much energy invested in trying to catapult the propaganda and destroy a journalist.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)have I seen a leftish group so utterly enamored with a Libertarian hack, possessing no discernible talent, posing as a "journalist".
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)have I seen folks relentlessly attacking the messenger and somehow thinking that make the government's violation of the 4th Amendment A-OK, at least while our guy is in charge.
boilerbabe
(2,214 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)The purpose of your thread is to concoct a way to continue to beat on GG for supporting the Iraq War. When it's pointed out to you that many democrats you respect did as well, you put your fingers in your ears and make loud, meaningless sounds. Face it, your partisan zeal blinds you to the truth.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"This is why you fail
The purpose of your thread is to concoct a way to continue to beat on GG for supporting the Iraq War. When it's pointed out to you that many democrats you respect did as well, you put your fingers in your ears and make loud, meaningless sounds. Face it, your partisan zeal blinds you to the truth."
...that comment is a big FAIL.
I'm not the one comparing Greenwald to Democrats. You on the other hand are trying to dismiss calling out Greenwald for his claim that he didn't support the war by insisting that so did "many Democrats."
I didn't support the war.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)As expected, you danced right around boilerbabe's point. Whoever taught you how to argue failed you.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"As expected and danced right around boilerbabe's point. Whoever taught you how to argue failed you. "
Did someone teach you to argue with a photo?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)If anyone should, it's you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Shoes_(fairy_tale)
Robb
(39,665 posts)Zero. Zip. Zilch.
None of us thought it a necessary war on radical Islam. Not one of us supported Bush the Dumber, nor did any of us think his speeches more than the stammerings of a drunk.
Greenwald is asking us to believe he was/is a bigger idiot than ANYONE on DU at the time.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)..INCLUDING the "Centrist" Party Leadership supported the Invasion & Occupation of Iraq?
Most of them have since recanted,
with the exception of Hillary, who STILL insists that invading Iraq was the right thing to do.
Even IF Greenwald supported the invasion, and I tend to believe him over you,
are you going to condemn him for agreeing with Hillary, John Kerry, and the Democrat the majority of the Democratic Party at that time?
Are you saying that NO ONE at DU supported Hillary & John Kerry back then,
because I remember it quite differently.
Robb
(39,665 posts)None of us praised Bush*'s speeches. None of us saw radical Islam as a threat best addressed through invading Iraq.
None of us. Greenwald would've been booted off as a Freeper had he posted here what he says he believed.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)There has NEVER been a time when 100% of DU stood in OPPOSITION to the Democratic Party Leadership.
NEVER!
To insist that this happened is surreal.
I remember it quite differently.
The conservative DU members were perfectly happy to go along with Hillary, John Kerry,
and the Centrist Party Leadership with the invasion of Iraq, and only later tried to pretend that they didn't....kinda like now.
There were even gang attacks on the Anti-War Left at DU...kinda like now.
By some of the same members....kinda like now.
Unfortunately, the archives aren't searchable from the time period,
but here is a post I put up at DU regularly,
and got attacked by the same crowd...kinda like now:
Posted at DU shortly after the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq was passed on Oct 2, 2002:
These Democrats should be remembered for their principled stand against the WAR Machine.
Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq
Iraq War Resolution (IWR)
United States Senate
In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :
Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)
Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
United States House of Representatives
Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:
Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu
[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]
(Apologies for the formatting errors.
The file became corrupted through the transfer to the succession of computers I have used since 2002.)
There was a very vocal contingent at DU insisting that we should stand with the Democratic Party Leadership on IRAQ....kinda like now.
For you to insist that this split on DU did NOT happen is blatant revisionism,
and, frankly, CYA fiction.
Robb
(39,665 posts)One post where a DUer who lasted more than a few weeks here supported the invasion of Iraq.
You can't, because none of us did. And you're willing to debase DUers to defend Greenwald. Classic.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...but are you REALLY going to insist that Greenwald would have been booted off of DU as a Freeper for standing WITH the Democratic Party Leadership???!!!!
You either have a very poor memory,
or are more than willing to sacrifice your self-respect for some illusion of partisan gain.
According to Robb,
100% of DU stood in OPPOSITION to Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and the Democratic Party Leadership in 2002 when Bush-the-Lesser invaded Iraq with the support of the Democratic Party Leadership.
Robb has NO memory of the parade of Big Name celebrity Democrats who supported the Iraq Invasion filing past the TV Cameras several years late with BIG crocodile tears whining that:
Bush Fooled Me.
He told LIES, but I believed him.
Its not MY fault.
...with the exception of Hillary Clinton, who TO this DAY still agrees with Bush.
But, of course, there is NO support for Hillary on DU, is there Robb?
And, of course, NO DUer would STAND with Hillary back in 2002, because they
would be "booted off of DU as a Freeper", according to Robb.
...and ALL of DU was much smarter that the entire Democratic Party Leadership
back in 2002.
Nobody here stood with the Democrats back then, did they,Robb?
Hey, Robb.
Did YOU cringe inside every time Bush-the-Lesser smirked into the TV Cameras and said,
"The Democrats voted FOR it too?",
because I sure did.
Here you go, Robb.
Check out this site:
http://www.cebria.com/
and then go back to your fantasies.
No charge.
Robb
(39,665 posts)I'll set aside how amusing it is you're calling my memory hazy.
Instead, I'll point to this, two days after the bombings began, and my memory -- this is how we all felt:
March 21, 2003
By the Editors
We oppose this war.
We find it difficult to believe George W. Bush's claim that he has attacked Iraq reluctantly.
This administration has spent months attempting to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein is in some way responsible for 9/11. It has spent weeks in front of the U.N. arguing for war, going so far as to offer false information at key presentations. It has consistently ignored the reports of Hans Blix and the U.N. weapons inspectors. In the hurry to conquer Iraq, this administration has vilified nations and people who would urge caution.
We are told that we must invade Iraq to prevent further terrorist attacks, when top intelligence officials agree that an invasion will likely increase the possibility of such attacks. We are told that we must invade Iraq to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, when evidence of Iraq's possession of such weapons is unclear. We are told that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator and we must liberate his people, when there are many brutal dictators around the globe who are are guilty of the same crimes the Bush administration even considers some of them our allies.
The United States stands virtually alone in the world right now. The actions of George W. Bush supposedly a uniter, not a divider have alienated the vast majority of people on this planet and caused turmoil, division, finger-pointing and anger against the United States. Anti-American terrorists must be dancing for joy.
There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, but we believe that the U.N. inspections should have been given more time. The United States sets a dangerous precedent when we attack first a precedent which, sadly, our enemies will likely be only too happy to exploit.
We strongly support our troops, who are bravely putting their lives on the line in Iraq. They did not choose this war, nor are they responsible for it. We hope and pray that they can return home safely to their families as soon as possible. We hope casualties on both sides can be minimized, especially among civilians.
For the moment, we are taking a break from publishing articles on our homepage. We will resume publication when we feel it is appropriate, so feel free to submit articles. The message board will remain open.
We expect the traffic to this website to increase dramatically as a result of this war. In an effort to minimize our bandwidth, we have removed many of the graphical and design elements from our pages. Once traffic decreases somewhat, DU will return to the way it looked before.
The Administrators of Democratic Underground
http://web.archive.org/web/20040517092138/http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/03/21_statement.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/03/21_statement.html
I was and am proud of DU for this.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)through his general indifference regarding the Iraq War than the Senators who actually supported the War by voting for the Iraq War Resolution, including 29 Senators who were Democrats.
The only Democratic Senators who refused to vote for the Iraq War Resolution were Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).
If the 9/11 attack caused Greenwald to support Bush at the time, he was with the majority of Americans.
Galraedia
(5,028 posts)Because he's nothing but a right wing-libertarian Koch sucker. He doesn't care about civil liberties, he cares about making money off of being able to bitch about them.
deurbano
(2,896 posts)The ACLU has worked hard in support of the First Amendment, voting rights, racial justice, reproductive rights, disability rights, marriage equality, LGBT rights, drug law reform, prisoner rights, privacy rights, due process (etc.)... and to oppose capital punishment, torture (etc.). Not exactly Koch-inspired, right wing libertarian causes.
Greenwald's positions tend to be in line with ACLU positions, and for the same reasons... although I'm sure there could be some exceptions.
http://www.aclu.org/aclu-history
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)The major point you succeeded in making, was the entent of your desperation to smear the man. That really doesn't reflect well on your own credibility.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"The major point you succeeded in making, was the entent of your desperation to smear the man. That really doesn't reflect well on your own credibility."
...there's no "desperation" in your comment.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)I think those are reasons to pay attention to electoral politics. I don't believe that he really was such a low information dullard before the Padilla case.
Cha
(297,935 posts)anyone get touchy about him supporting bush.. or Glenn starts babbling.
Hair trigger mouth get his ass in trouble again?
Cha
(297,935 posts)to his mouth though does he?
Cha
(297,935 posts)Greenwald includes the following passage from his Preface in his FTL:
Yet there Greenwald sits on Twitter, calling people gross and repellent:
http://thisweekinblackness.com/2013/03/19/the-hypocrisy-of-glenn-greenwald-iraq-war-edition/
He wanted bush to succeed and he'll do anything sleazy to attempt to bring down Pres Obama. Greenwald's going to "succeed" like bush did. "The swift removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan"? Yeah, that'll work .. let's get the fuck over to Iraq, bozo.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)p.s. also, for a good laugh