General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGreenwald echoes GOP talking points on Benghazi, says there should be an investigation
Flashback....From Daily Kos:
by BruinKidFollow
Greenwald says When the government goes on the air and says something that proves to be untrue there needs to be an investigation. So yeah, Greenwald certainly thinks that Benghazis worth having more oversight. Not only is that a hell of a threshold for an investigation (by that criteria wed never stop have investigations after a Republican lawmaker was on TV for more than 30 seconds) but hes staking out the new progressive purity position that maybe the Republicans are on to something
I call rampant bullshit on all of this, but it doesnt surprise me in the least that Greenwald wants to go after the Obama administration over this. Its what he does. Its the ultimate in Glibertarian nonsense, government itself is the problem, so lets destroy the good along with the bad. Joy Reid then makes a beautiful point: what Greenwald is effectively asking for is for President Obama to be micromanaging the world with as much government interference as possible.
Oh, and PS, Greenwald thought our invasion of Iraq was a great idea back in the day.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/11/1208484/-Greenwald-also-echoes-GOP-talking-points-on-Benghazi
More:
Friday, May 10, 2013 23:54 EDT
The problem, said Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald, was that the attack happened six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, forcing both Fox and MSNBC to circle the wagons.
Fox News was, This is the worst scandal ever, MSNBC was, Obama did absolutely nothing wrong, he acted perfectly, as always, Greenwald said. And the reality was something in between, which was, a U.S. ambassador was killed. Theres only been six times in our nations history when that happened.
Subsequently, Greenwald said, President Barack Obama and members of his administration made statements later proven to be false, which needs to be investigated.
Im not saying its a huge scandal, Greenwald said. But there certainly are questions when the government, and political officials, six weeks before an election, say things about a major event like that that prove to be untrue.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/10/maher-slams-fox-news-benghazi-coverage-i-still-dont-know-what-the-scandal-is/
BENGHAZI!!!1!!1(one)!!!
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Well it looks like Greenwald got his investigation.
The GOPers are now "investigating" the attacks.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Glenn Greenwald Unethically Taped Witnesses While Working for Matt Hale, White Supremacist.
For me, Glenn Greenwald has always been an asshole. There's never been a point in time when I admired him, and then disliked him because of his stance on Obama. I have always found Glenn Greenwald to be unerringly poor at choosing who to associate with, and defend.
Case in point:
Glenn Greenwald made a choice to defend Matthew Hale in a series of civil lawsuits that Hale faced after he encouraged shooter Benjamin Smith to go on a two-state shooting rampage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Nathaniel_Smith
If you don't know who Hale is, well, he's a pretty famous white supremacist who is currently serving 40 years for soliciting the murder of a federal judge who ruled against him in a trademark case. Who put him away? Patrick Fitzgerald. (Yes. And Mr. Greenwald got an FBI visit regarding the passing of coded messages by Hale while under SAMS restrictions.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_F._Hale
Mr. Hale, for his role in the shootings, was sued by a number of survivors. This included a case filed by two teenage Orthodox Jewish boys. And another case filed by a Black minister. These people were selected by Benjamin Smith because they looked like the religious/ethnic minorities they are.
And Glenn Greenwald called them 'odious and repugnant' for suing his client--
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211
Whisp
(24,096 posts)were one of the first to solidly convince me that GG was a piece of shit used classified document salesman.
Thank you.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)greatauntoftriplets
(175,771 posts)At the time, I lived very close to the West Rogers Park neighborhood where most of the Smith shootings occurred. In fact, I drove through it on my commute to work, though deliberately avoided that while Hale was on the loose. One of his victims was the basketball coach of my alma mater, Northwestern University.
I also lived a few blocks away from Judge Joan Lefkow, close enough to hear the sirens that night going to the scene of the bloodbath.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I've yet to have a single poster on this board describe to me what civil right Greenwald was protecting in his representation of Matt Hale.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,771 posts)That ugly episode created a lot of fear on Chicago's North Side. I'm talking about nice neighborhoods where people moved to raise their kids in one of the city's safest environments. Frankly, Smith and Hale deserved the long prison sentences they got. I also have no idea what civil right needed protecting.
The victims were just ordinary people going about their lives.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I've been asking now for over 2 years on this site for one of his defenders to tell me which civil right of Matt Hale's was defended by Greenwald.
He calls himself a civil rights attorney..... So I'd love to know what civil right of Matt Hale's was being protected there.
Crickets every single time I ask.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,771 posts)Does make you wonder, though.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)defending.
Oh.....you'll like this next subthread....once my thread made it out to the Internets, and was reposted on several sites, and GG saw it, this hilarity ensued:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3051961
And my answer...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3053576
greatauntoftriplets
(175,771 posts)But, as you said, they avoid giving you a real answer, just conflate leagle with LGF.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)certain facts.
Being accused of copying from LGF was quite amusing, though.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,771 posts)The copying charge, well...
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)greatauntoftriplets
(175,771 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I expect threads demanding Bengahzi investigations and posts sourcing RT and Infowars for hair brained Benghazi woo over the next few days. This does now open up the flood gates.
justhanginon
(3,290 posts)Andy823
(11,495 posts)The avid Greenwald supporters here will be taking his side on this?
Whisp
(24,096 posts)when it gets uncomfortable so I am anticipating this Benghaz!! thing will be like his supporting Bush and the Iraq war and calling him an eloquent speaker and...... but,
that's
irrelevant because it was
in the past when GG was IGNORANT. But we can be sure that he is not IGNORANT now (*lol, falls off chair and gets back up)
also irrelevent is GG using 'big news' for that NSA memo Snowden sent that was supposed to prove something. It proved Eddie is pretty dumb.
....sorry I can't type when I laughing so
hard.
lpbk2713
(42,774 posts)... as in Whitewater. Regardless of the cost and expenditure of other resources.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)What a fucking clown.
Sid
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Greenwald echoes GOP talking points on Benghazi, says there should be an investigation"
...if you don't agree with Greenwald on Benghazi, you're a friggin sockpuppet!!!
LOL!
Tarheel_Dem
(31,257 posts)Thanks to Cha for digging this up. He's done everything in his power to bring down this administration. And he & his internet minions are doing the same thing to affect the midterms.
Watch as a Citizens' United lovin' phoney tries his best to predict failure for the administration:
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)He really wanted Obama to lose.
This was certainly wishful thinking.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Read where the information came from......
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)That's some of the worst concern trolling I've ever seen.
Pathetic!!!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,257 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 2, 2014, 08:00 PM - Edit history (1)
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
progressoid
(50,013 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)He does think it's big enough to warrant an investigation....so there's that....
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)You must either approve of everything a person does, or condemn everything a person does. It's not possible to think a person could be right about some things and wrong about others. Also, if you disagree with anything a person does, you're supposed to hate them personally.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Democrats can do complex thinking.
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)but, without him, how would you know the NSA needs to be regulated?
Greenwald could very well be a piece of shit, but he's done good by exposing the NSA via Snowden.
There's a lot of pieces of shit in this world that have done good. LBJ, for example, among many others.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)But NSA abuses are much worse than previously thought, thanks to Snowden and Greenwald. Please show me where it is written that we knew about such abuses prior to the recent revelations by Snowden.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)The idea that Snowden exposed anything new just feeds into the artificial hype manufactured by Greenwald in order to boost his book sales. The fact that it harms America, Pres Obama & the Democratic party in the process is just an added bonus.
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)Pres Obama & the Democratic party and everything to with keeping America from snooping eyes.
So, if I go to the NYT archives, I'll find that forty years ago I was being spied on by the NSA? Thirty years ago? Twenty years ago?
If it's old news, then why all the brouhaha all of a sudden?
It's new to me that the NSA probably has been spying on me and I'm not OK with that, as a matter of fact. I'm pissed off big time about it.
I knew the NSA was listening to telephone calls and monitoring emails, but I thought they were to keep track of terrorists. But this recent revelation has shown they're primarily doing it to Americans, and I'm strongly against the type of surveillance that targets us.
It's definitely not old news. Again, show me where the news is that all this was known prior to this recent revelation. I'm not interested in any random NYT article from the last forty years either.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Which keeps getting circulation - just as long as it damages Pres Obama & the Democratic party. Too bad the same level of concern & effort against this supposed spying wasn't worthy of expression until the black guy got in the White House.
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)Are you equating with what I wrote as RW libertarian? Just because I disagree with you then all of a sudden you're equating that what I wrote as RW libertarian? The NSA is spying on Americans and Snowden and Greenwald exposed it so it has to be that Greenwald is harming America, Pres Obama & the Democratic party in the process? This has no party affiliation. The fact is the NSA is spying on liberals, conservatives, libertarians, everybody in the USA and our grandmothers to boot. And this pisses me off to no end.
When someone has to start labeling then it's no use to have a serious discussion.
Right wing libertarian? Yeah right.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Otherwise, the shoe fits.
randome
(34,845 posts)Seriously, why do you think you are being spied on?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]
blm
(113,131 posts)The corporate media wouldn't make it a topic of widespread discussion when articles did come out. They waited till Bush needed it to be deflected onto Obama in time to launch Jeb2016 - because, ya see, "Obama is no different than Bush."
progressoid
(50,013 posts)40 years of articles and nothing done.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)progressoid
(50,013 posts)OR maybe we're all racists.
Yeah, that's it. We're all racists.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)joshcryer
(62,287 posts)BINARY THINKING ERROR
Cha
(298,021 posts)off rw talking points if it means he can get his hate-on the President.. just to show off how fucking clueless he is.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Greenwald ever will.
uponit7771
(90,371 posts)Cha
(298,021 posts)for his assholery.
He fucking wanted President Obama to lose the 2012 Election so bad.
And yeah, I'll never get tired of posting this vid of him exposing himself as a clueless idiot.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)and I find it strange that GOPers are in love with Putin and ES is there.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)except if he said that in May 2013, then he ignores the fact that there was an investigation by then, a number of people including Hillary Clinton had already testified, and that Susan Rice was passed over for Sec. of State because of her appearance. But I do agree with him when he says it was not a huge scandal.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)BENGHAZI!!11!
Enrique
(27,461 posts)foolishness on Benghazi goes both ways. Both sides have people that don't see anything in Benghazi other than the partisan nonsense.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)His politics are questionable at best. And he is without a doubt an opportunist.
And still, I applaud his facilitating and signal-boosting Snowden's leaks. Sun shines on a dog's butt once ans a while. I hope more follow in Greenwald's steps of helping whistle-blowers.
Cha
(298,021 posts)"Subsequently, Greenwald said, President Barack Obama and members of his administration made statements later proven to be false, which needs to be investigated." he so wanted Obama to lose.
In addition to being a "smarmy, self-serving opportunist" who hates Obama and his "cultists".. as he heads the swarmy cult of all things GG that are so wonderful
When Greenwald met Snowden..
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)conservatives just HATE him...
BENGHAZ!!11!!
Autumn
(45,120 posts)did to Clinton. But I do like the way Greenwald pisses people off, almost like his very existence and his reporting hurt their feelings.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)And so far, what has the Obama admin lied about in terms of the Benghazi affair? You know, unless you're a fucking idiot.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The single most powerful argument about the latest investigation (the newly appointed House Select Committee) is that there have already been multiple investigations, as a result of which there are no significant unanswered questions that need investigations. Even some House Republicans agree with that.
You take a comment that Greenwald made in May of 2013 and you assert that he "says" there should be an investigation. That's just false. It's as if you quoted me saying "Scott Brown is the duly elected Senator from Massachusetts" and said or implied that I was thereby alleging fraud in Elizabeth Warren's election, without mentioning that I made the statement before November 2012.
At the time of Greenwald's statement, there had already been some investigations. Nevertheless, the FBI investigation was ongoing, with the FBI having released suspect photos just the week before Greenwald spoke. The Senate Select Committee report was still more than half a year in the future.
One is entitled to believe that, even by May of 2013, enough information had been assembled to make it clear that further investigations served no purpose other than political razzle-dazzle. If Greenwald actually endorsed further investigation at that time, there's certainly a valid basis for disagreeing with him, and I would probably join you in disagreeing if I thought it important enough to merit the time to review the reports that were then available. But by posting this soon after the appointment of yet another investigative committee, and by asserting that this is what Greenwald "says", you convey the clear impression that Greenwald's comment is an endorsement of the latest step, whereas in fact it was nothing of the sort.
It's also far from clear that, even as of a year ago, Greenwald called for more investigations. I actually listened to the clip from Bill Maher. The context was that Maher asked what the scandal was. Greenwald, who had already said that it was not the massive scandal claimed by the right, answered Maher that when the government says something that turns out not to be true (whether the error was intentional or unintentional), that merits investigation. It's not clear that he's saying the investigations already held were inadequate and there needed to be more; all that's clear is that he was disagreeing with Maher's implication that no investigation should ever have been held.
I'll admit that I stopped listening to the clip at the 6-minute mark. If there's something in the rest that supports your attack on Greenwald, feel free to enlighten me. Failing that, my bottom line is honesty: You should not misrepresent people's positions. That applies even to someone who, as a lawyer once represented someone you dislike, and who sometimes criticizes Barack Obama, and who supported the Iraq invasion before opposing it. In fact, it even applies to war criminals like Bush and Cheney.