Proof Glenn Greenwald hates Obama

[adric mutelovic]

He's written 3 books against the policies of his administraiton, ALL trashing him:

"How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok by Glenn Greenwald (May 15, 2006)"
"A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency by Glenn Greenwald (Apr 8, 2008)"
"Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics by Glenn Greenwald (Oct 7, 2008)"

Obsessed much, Glen? Why didn't you attack George W. Bush when he was President?

[shenmue]

1. Uh, because...

then he couldn't play games to draw attention to himself and get more money.

[adric mutelovic]

2. Theory #1) Greenwald was PRETENDING to hate Bush's policies for money

Keep them funny theories coming, guys.

Oh, and don't forget to say that Greenwald needed just a bit extra cash whe wrote his 2012 book condemning policies during the Obama administration.

[mhatrw]

52. He attacked the HELL out of BushCo.

Here's just a single page of his blog postings back then.

[sabrina 1]

90. Did you read the OP? Lol!

Unless you forgot your sarcasm tag?

[rhett o rick]

3. Wait, wasnt his girl friend a pole dancer? nm

[adric mutelovic]

6. South pole or North pole? nt

[rhett o rick]

14. Huh? I meant a dancer from Poland. Sheesh. nm

[roguevalley]

54. you are a genius, adric. that is duzy worthy. LOL!

[BlueCaliDem]

4. Because GeeGee was a Bush fan.

ProSense has a piece on it here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023134060

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

It was only in about the last three years when GeeGee showed a dislike for Bush, around the same time Cheney and the other Republicans did.

Do you know any Liberal who would've defended Bush this passionately? I don't.

[rhett o rick]

7. Now you stooped to mimicking Corp-Media lies aimed at killing the messenger.

I recommend you read the following article.

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

Interesting that you side with the conservatives on this issue. Name one liberal that would side with Republicans like Clapper and Mueller.

[Dragonfli]

30. OT- could you please aim your bile without resorting to "GiGi", "GeeGee", "bugger" or tinkerbelle?

Many people find homophobia embarrassing to this site. I would rather be ashamed of you for less bigoted reasons. Thank You.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113728577

[Bluenorthwest]

33. The homophobia is definitive of the OFA Centrists and definitive of their limited

shelf life in Democratic Politics.

[Dragonfli]

41. I learned long ago that you can't stop bigots from being what they are, but I would have hoped

we could at least request they keep those views off a shared identity site as I don't like being associated with them.
There are plenty of Bog sites for them to express their um "views" if one could call it that. Must we all share their infamy as DUers?

Aren't there other ways they can express their hatred of those they feel are mean to their daddy other than resorting to the lowest possible tactics available to them?

[BlueCaliDem]

39. GeeGee is a legitimate address considering the man's initials. I will NOT give him the respect you

believe he's due because in my opinion, it is NOT. There's no homophobia involved unless it's one in your head.

I would rather be ashamed of you for less than your transparent attempts to label fellow DUers homophobes as an excuse to hide their posts just because I won't conform and offer respect to that liar you appear to hold in high regard.

But as an aside and to do you a favor, you're now on IGNORE. You're welcome.

[Bluenorthwest]

43. It is clearly homophobic to call him by a woman's name and to call him a 'nasty

bugger' in a stream of anti gay insults. You often spell your slut 'GiGi' but here you do GeeGee because you know how homophobic and bullying it is to to the other.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023128604#post57

You should be ashamed to do this on DU.

[one_voice]

99. I had no idea that the...

term 'bugger' was a homophobic slur until I was on MIRT and I used it in this context 'wow he's a persistent lil bugger' Someone that was also on MIRT pm'd me and explained to me that it was in fact a homophobic slur, in a very nice non accusatory way. They believed based on what they'd seen from me that I didn't know it was a homophobic slur. I didn't.

The reason I didn't know it was because my granny used to call my brother an me lil buggers. She'd chase us down the hall saying get to bed you lil buggers and we'd run laughing. There were other contexts as wells, but never in a bad way. I'm certain my granny wasn't using what she knew to be a homophobic slur.

I'm grateful for that DU'er as we're now very good friends. My point being not everyone always knows when they're using a slur.

And before you ask, yes I have gay family and friends. It's just never come up before.

[davidpdx]

105. I had no idea either

I only first heard the term from British expats here in Korea. Never heard it before I met a Brit.

[dionysus]

118. i've seen lil bugger uses as a term of endearment by old folks as well.

my dads calls his cats little buggers...

looking it up it seems to be an old English phrase referring to sodomy or sex with animals... never knew that...

[DevonRex]

126. Two different pronunciations. The British one, that's homophobic, sounds like bug.

Ours sounds like the u in sugar. Completely different meanings.

[BlueCaliDem]

104. I really don't give

a good goddamn what your perception is, Bluenorthwest. Really.

I will spell out GEEGEE as much and as often as I want. Who do you think you are that you believe you have a right to dictate how I spell out initials? Who died and made you king of my posts that you suddenly believe you have the power and the right to dictate what I'm allowed to write in my posts?

The hypersensitivity of the vicious and staunch defenders of GeeGee the Libertarian and LIAR is palpable on this board these days, and that asshat isn't even a Democrat, yet he receives more deference, more support from a small but LOUD group of self-professed Democrats on DU than Democrat President Obama and Democrat Nancy Pelosi has ever enjoyed, and thus I return back to you - you should be ashamed to do this on DU.

The fact that I've never referred to GeeGee as "she" should've been a tip-off for those reading my posts about that bald-faced liar that there was nothing homophobic about my posts, only in the excited minds of his defenders. But I guess when you see red because a Democrat had the unmitigated gall to criticize this proven liar, it's hard to see clearly, isn't it?

[DevonRex]

112. Excuse me but I call GG followers GeeGees. Like the BeeGees. Barry Gibb - not gay.

He named his group the BeeGees. None of them were gay. The name GeeGee has NOTHING to do with a woman's name. It is initials, like BeeGees. And his followers are GeeGees. Much like Obama supporters here are bluntly and insultingly called GROUPIES.M I took the insulting SEXUAL INNUENDO OUT of it and put a humorous John Travolta dancing to Staying Alive spin on GG's followers. Dancing to GG's tune all the time whatever tune he decides to spin. So put THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT.

GEEGEE IS MY THING AND YOU WILL NOT MAKE IT BAD.

edited spelling: b,untly to bluntly

[dionysus]

117. excerpt from the newest hit from the GeeGees;

"whether you're a truther or anti-vaccine loser you're trolling online, trolling online

if you're quaking with elation when greenwald's fists are shaking you're trolling online, trolling online
ah ah ah ah, trollin onlineeeeeeeee....

these threads are goin nowhere, somebody help me, somebody help me understand..."

[DevonRex]

125. Onliiiiii-i-iiiiii-i-i-iiiiiii-i-iiiiiine.

[Dragonfli]

44. Bull

If you were merely refering to his initials you would have used GG and we all damn well know it. It was a simple request, consider it in the future because like it or not we are all DUers and the rest of us shouldn't have to wear your stains.
bye!

[cherokeeprogressive]

82. I can't believe no one has called BULLSHIT on this post. Why not just "GG"? Can you explain that?

{SHIFT}letter{RELEASE SHIFT}letter letter{SHIFT}letter{RELEASE SHIFT}letter letter

Seems like way more work than

{CAPS LOCK}letter letter {CAPS LOCK OFF}

Put me on ignore too than, because I think you're not being totally honest.

[Puglover]

83. He already has had 3 post hidden in the last 24 hours due to this bullshit.

Where is admin?

[cherokeeprogressive]

85. It's funny... in the subject line of his post he says "considering the man's initials."

Then he types something other than the man's initials, hoping no one will notice the bigotry, or if they do notice, maybe they'll excuse it.

[bvar22]

93. I will NOT excuse it or overlook it,

...nor tolerate those who do.
This IS blatant Bigotry more appropriate for Westboro than DU.

That is ALL 'they" have left.
The desperation grows,
and the lines in the sand become more distinct.





[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]

[cherokeeprogressive]

94. I stand with you. n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

103. Because I choose not to. Are you now going to dictate how I write out initials from now on?

If so, who died and made you the master of my posts?

I really don't give a good goddamn if you or other GeeGee fans believe I'm not being "totally honest". I really don't. I know for a fact that I am. I'm also convinced that GeeGee defenders aren't being totally honest around here, either. But I'm done with that liar and his staunch defenders.

So per your request, and in mutual agreement, you are on FULL IGNORE.

[cherokeeprogressive]

106. Awww, you're no fun. Transparent, but no fun.

[DevonRex]

114. Excuse me. I coined the phrase GeeGees for GG followers. See my post

To blue northwest above.

[cherokeeprogressive]

115. Do refer to Greenwald as GeeGee or GiGi? n/t

[DevonRex]

124. No. GG for Greenwald.

I don't want my term to be taken over and made something it was never intended to be. Sorry, I had a doctor appointment and just got home.

[FreeState]

98. +1000 n/t

[Hissyspit]

46. No, but I know Dems who voted to authorize the Iraq War.

And never apologized for it.

[mhatrw]

51. Complete and utter bullshit.

http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/page/100/

[BlueCaliDem]

53. You didn't get the part where I wrote the word "WAS", did you. As in past tense?

Even Cheney and most CONServatives were against Bush toward the end of his reign, during the last three years of it. Around the same time GeeGee suddenly was. But early on, oh yeah. He was a Bush fan. He only turned when he saw the country's sentiments had turned against Bush.

So no. NO bullshit. He's a liar and an opportunist, and he's proven as such. I'm sorry if that bursts GeeGee's halo.

[caseymoz]

58. A fallacy: After this therefore because of it.

Post hoc ergo proctor hoc. The timing of his turning against Bush does not, cannot prove insincerity and opportunism was the motivation. Sorry.

Opinions are easy, but backtracking is a bitch. That could account on the delay alone. The timing of the collapse of Greenwald's support probably was when everybody else could no longer deny the man's incompetence.

The real turning point against Bush, as I remember, was Katrina. That's when his approval rating really dropped, even among people who voted for him in 2004. Were all of them insincere and opportunistic, too?

And anybody who has a lot of trust only to have it collapse is going to look carefully and ask a lot of questions before they trust again. And I'm afraid Obama has not stood up well to his questioning.

And remember, there were what were called "hit pieces" against Bush in his years, one of them by our own William Rivers Pitt. And guess what? They turned out to be dead accurate. Writing against Obama means nothing about whether Greenwald's works are accurate or not. And maybe he writes it more than once because he feels like he was ignored before.

[BlueCaliDem]

75. Okay. If that helps you sleep better in support of him, more power to you.

But I'm not buying it. Sorry.

And as an aside, the CONServative tide turning on Bush was when he REFUSED to give a full pardon to Cheney's fall man, Scooter Libby. Cheney demanded a full pardon and Bush refused it, and it's clear that Cheney holds more sway with the CONS in their party than Bush because Bush was immediately excoriated by Fox and other prominent CONS in the press. That began when Libby was indicted in 2005 - yep, in the last three years of Duhyba's second term.

[caseymoz]

107. But with Greenwald . . .

. . . again you're arguing After This Therefore Because of This. You haven't demonstrated a connection between Cheney's opinion and Greenwald's.

Now, despite the fact that your evidence is fallacious, that doesn't mean Greenwald's not an opportunist, that simply means you haven't found evidence that points that way. That's the fun of logic in the real world. Like reading tea leaves and still being right, a false argument doesn't necessarily mean you guessed wrong. It does mean your argument didn't help you guess right.

It doesn't seem to me with the crapstorm Greenwald has taken that he's swayed by which way popular opinion is leaning. It also doesn't seem to me that his books are well supported by Conservatives, who might hate President Obama to the bone, but they love the Intelligence apparatus. They love the notion of a strongman as President, just not this particular guy. If President Obama has abused his power, it's not in the way Conservatives want to believe he is. Such as, Obama's support of the Intelligence Industrial Complex doesn't advance their image that Obama's a socialist who's equalizing the wealth, nor does it suggest he's a closet Muslim.

You notice that aside from outliers like Rand Paul, Repubs haven't been jumping on the NSA scandal. That's because the Intelligence apparatus is their child, whether Obama has parental rights or not. No, the scandals they want to advance are the IRS scrutinizing Conservative 401c's, or Benghazi.

Now, Greenwald has written single articles about both, but he didn't harp on them. With Benghazi, he had a single article saying that the Obama Administration's initial account about it was, like the bin Laden attack, false. He also said the IRS scandal, along with the secret AP warrants damaged President Obama's credibility with the press as a champion of civil liberties. Both are true, and he ended it there. He hasn't harped on them, and if he's appealing to popular sentiment, you'd think that would be the direction he'd go.

Plus, he hasn't just criticized President Obama. Here are titles of some of his articles since March 2013 having nothing to do with the President Obama:

Reader-funded journalism

Was the London killing of a British soldier 'terrorism'?

Barbara Lee and Dick Durbin's 'nobody-could-have-known' defense

Israeli bombing of Syria and moral relativism

The racism that fuels the 'war on terror'

Report: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's repeated requests for a lawyer were ignored

Barbara Boxer, AIPAC seek to codify Israel's right to discriminate against Americans

Margaret Thatcher and misapplied death etiquette

Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus

How Noam Chomsky is discussed

David Frum, the Iraq war and oil

Charles Krauthammer's false statement about the US Constitution


So, explain this, if he's an opportunist apparently appealing to Conservatives, how do you explain these other articles having nothing to do with the president, most on topics of concern to progressives, and most that would make Greenwald controversial, if not downright unpopular?

[graham4anything]

74. +1. The Major Strawman of equating hating bush with liking Obama is a strawman perpetrated

time and again.

As this said- Cheney hated Bush too.
Which if the parallel were true, then anyone who hates Bush likes Cheney.

Major Strawman again debunked.

[BlueCaliDem]

76. Thank you, G4A!

But it's what GeeGee is hoping no one will discover, so he gets to slide again as a some kind of Liberal hero when he's anything but.

[graham4anything]

86. we are just going to have to repeat it as a mantra as much as he does the other way

[BlueCaliDem]

102. I'm doing my part!

[bvar22]

123. Yep. When you can NOT win on the issues,

....you must resort to repreated personal attacks and character assassinations.

[font size=3]Pop Quiz:
Who said the following:

"But the most brilliant technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success."

[/font]



[font size=3]Bonus Points if you can identify the author of the following:

"You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,
not by their rhetoric or excuses".[/font]

[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]

[graham4anything]

127. a good long standing member of the democratic party who was for President Obama.

he never wanted to tear down the democratic party, nor run third party.

And, he never tore Israel down either.

[bvar22]

128. BZZZZTTT!.... Wrong Answer

Would you like to try again?

[font size=3]Pop Quiz:
Who said the following:

"But the most brilliant technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success."

[/font]



[font size=3]Bonus Points if you can identify the author of the following:

"You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,
not by their rhetoric or excuses".[/font]

[treestar]

5. It seems pundits of this kind make the most money

by making everyone in power into monsters. Then it was Bush, now it's Obama. It doesn't even appear to require the need to write an entire book.

[adric mutelovic]

9. So Greenwald's criticism of Bush was wrong?

Question #2: Does multimillionaire White House brown-nose David Gregory turn Presidents into monsters?

[BlueCaliDem]

18. No. But too little too late.

He started against Bush around the same time Cheney and the other CONServatives did. Before that time, it was lovey-dovey, "I support my president {Bush} no matter what". Oh, and he was for the Iraq War before he was against it. Like Ron Paul.

[adric mutelovic]

23. Wait. I thought Greenwald thought that turning Presidents into Monsters would make him lots of $$$

What I like is how one another debunks his/her own theories.

As we saw elsewhere, one theory goes that Glenn Greenwald plotted to make lots of money by disagreeing with George W. Bush a whole lot and using hyperbole.

But now it turns out Greenwald didnt' wanna make money prior to 2006.

Hey, can you show those Bush-loving pieces he wrote in Salon.com before 2006, please?

[BlueCaliDem]

27. I've responded in a post to you so you have the quotes.

If you choose to ignore them and continue to believe that GeeGee has the country's best interest in mind, that's on you. Fortunately, the majority of Americans not in the GeeGee bubble believe he's a fraud and a hypocrite, and they pay him no heed.

[treestar]

67. Not the point

Maybe it was over-exaggerated; that would not be a surprise. And seeing his sense of "logic" he could have been criticizing Bush for the wrong reasons rather than some rational ones.

[SidDithers]

10. Yup. Disagreement and controversy sells..

Hyperbolic criticism generates hits to websites, and more advertising dollars for media companies, and bigger paycheques for opinion writers.

Sid

[adric mutelovic]

13. lol. We now have some DU'ers defending Bush in order to trash Greenwald

Don't you know? Greenwald's criticism of Bush was hyperbole!

Tell me more about how George W. Bush wasn't so bad.

[SidDithers]

19. Reading comprehension problems?...

Who's defending Bush?

I look forward to what will surely be an entertaining display of pretzel logic in your answer.

Sid

[OilemFirchen]

32. Yeah, the "some DUers are..."

is tiresome as hell.

I don't think I'm alone in wanting to see some names, and fuck the TOS. If they're gonna make the accusations, they oughtta back 'em up, lest we think they're simply gutless wonders.

[SidDithers]

34. "some DUers" are zombies of previously banned DUers too...

Not accusing anyone, of course. Just commenting.



Sid

[OilemFirchen]

40. PUMAs?

Until recently, I mostly read and will soon revert back. I do remember the Hillary Collective and their constant, embarrassing back-slapping. The pattern seems the same now - some inane, redundant drivel posted as a thread and a string of attaboys attached.

Am I jumping to the wrong conclusion?

[creon]

70. probably not

You may be right.

[SidDithers]

80. Dunno bout that...

But there are returning disrupters who keep coming back to DU, after being banned over and over and over and over.

Sid

[dionysus]

120. you better believe it! some posts just ring the bell, so to speak...

[SidDithers]

131. Hehe..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=304685&sub=trans

That one was pretty freakin' obvious.

Sid

[dionysus]

133. did you hear the latest hit song from the GeeGees?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3140933

[cherokeeprogressive]

20. Whatever it takes.. n/t

[treestar]

69. Typical black and white thinking

We have to defend Bush in order to point to Greenwald maybe being an exaggerator?

[whatchamacallit]

16. My my, look at the company you keep

Says so much...

[SidDithers]

21. I'm happy to be in the company of treestar...

an excellent long-time DUer.

You, on the other hand...

Sid

[whatchamacallit]

25. I think you've rec'd or chimed support

for every dubious low-post agitator storming the beach. Most of them will flame out soon, but your legacy will live on...

[SidDithers]

31. LMFAO...

Your own rec history is transparent too, sparky

Sid

[galileoreloaded]

55. dont you stop posting.....ever!

there are only a handful of posters that deliver lockstep comedy gold and i couldn't live without ya!

[BlueCaliDem]

111. + 1 Sid. LOVE your posts

especially your comebacks.

[Demit]

12. I have to wonder how much you know about how much the average writer makes from a book.

Especially when they are writing narrow-interest books like "How Would a Patriot Act." Jesus, get real.

And I wish it would occur to people that the reason Greenwald is critical of both Bush and Obama is not that he was "pretending" before and is letting his true colors show now. It's because he is arguing for and defending PRINCIPLES, not an individual man or a particular party.

[treestar]

68. He's fairly well known

I doubt he's poor. Even so, it's how he makes him money. And the controversy sells, so he exaggerates. They all do it from him to Ann Coulter.

[Demit]

81. You have no idea how the book business works. None.

Few authors can make a living from book sales alone. Whether you think "it's how he makes him money" or not.

Please, stop talking out of your ass. Now. Look into how contracts are written. How little authors make per book sold. Look into how the book business works before you make a further fool of yourself.

[treestar]

87. Are you saying he has very little money?

even so, he needs attention, and creating controversy is how they do it. How do you come to know anything about the book business? Yours not selling well doesn't mean Glennie's don't. He gets national attention and gets to affect national media on what subjects they talk about. That indicates at least some success.

[Demit]

88. I was quite clear. I said that you are talking out of your ass.

Authors on the best seller list make money. Authors with a contract to write a book a year, *because* their books are best sellers, make money. I don't know where the idea came from that having a book, any book, published means fame & fortune, but it is a layperson's fantasy.

I'm not the one claiming to know how well Greenwald's books have sold, you are. So tell me, what were the sales on his last book? His first book was given away by Salon if you signed up with Salon Premium. At what point did he become this publishing phenom that got everyone talking & lining up to buy his books? Has his recent "national attention" made a huge spike in his overall book sales? Is everybody in your town talking about them? Are they flying out the door?

Greenwald is a nonfiction, niche author writing about a subset of politics. He isn't Bob Woodward or some former government bigwig, and no publisher is going to give a big advance to somebody who isn't.

Really, treestar, I'm serious. Arm yourself with a little knowledge before you expound on a topic with such certainty.

[treestar]

89. Why don't YOU come up with these statistics?

And Greenwald has national attention. Even if he's a pauper, he get listened to on a national level and even interviewed about himself. He creates controversy because it gets him attention. We wouldn't know his name if he didn't have that.

[Demit]

91. Because I'm not the one making the claim.

Give up, treestar. You showed your ignorance of the field of publishing. Don't double down. Go learn a little bit so you have a little more authority next time you speculate on something.

[backscatter712]

8. /me examines the dates and titles of the books more closely...

Well played, sir.

[Marrah_G]

11. Agreed

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. good one, you had me going there for a minute

[Savannahmann]

22. Ok Greenwald hates Obama

Now, how does that justify the domestic spying?

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. there is a bit of irony -- take a close look at the dates of the books he listed

[Savannahmann]

29. My bad

Doing too many things at once. Thanks for the correction.

[otohara]

92. Let's Ask Presidents Truman

Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush I, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II and Obama.

I hope Greenwald hates them all - ie: exception Jimmy Carter who at least started the SECRET FISA court.
I expect him to hate future presidents too, cuz unless Congress acts or the terror networks throw in the towel - domestic spying is here to stay.

[LWolf]

26. .

[bvar22]

28. I see what you did here.

And some have already swallowed the hook!

[pa28]

56. Shhhhhhh.

[ucrdem]

35. All published after voting for Bushler twice. How many times did he vote for Obama?

[adric mutelovic]

37. Huh? You know who Glenn Greenwald voted for?

That's an odd statement.

[The Link]

38. You voted for Bush.

[Dragonfli]

49. Twice he claims. Odd he should start posting here a few months ago....

[BlueCaliDem]

47. Based on his support for Ron Paul . . . CERO.

But the GeeGee fanclub here will hear none of it! "PROVE IT!" or they ask something really, really stupid like, "did you see his voting ballot?"

Members of the GeeGee fan club refuse to see that their hero and idol is nothing but a Republican in Libertarian clothing. Just like his idol, the proven racist and misogynist, Ron Paul - the same man who believes Big Gubmint should step aside in favor of state's rights - except to make abortion a felony equal to murder, that is. In the wombs of women, Ron Paul believes Big Gubmint is a-okay. And that's the guy GeeGee donated to, supported, and voted for in 2012. Most likely in 2008 as well.

[nxylas]

61. Yeah, asking for proof is STOOPID!

Clever people just KNOW that Tinkerbell is a Ron Paul supporter and don't require dumbass things like evidence.

(Obligatory tag, just in case it's needed).

[BlueCaliDem]

66. No. Clever people have actually READ secular sources where he clearly

supports Ron Paul. Just like Snowden. But to require a copy of his voting ballot as "proof" is even a bit much for the less than clever to ask for.

[Fuddnik]

73. Well, the GooGoo fan club has arrived.

[sulphurdunn]

36. If Greenwald hates Obama

and times the publishing of his material to hurt him the most, none of it has anything to do with the verity or falsehood of his positions. Are facts so difficult to research that it's just easier to do these two minute hate trips?

[DirkGently]

42. It WAS incredibly savage to attack the Obama administration in 2006

I mean, geez, he could've waited for the poor guy to get elected, right?

[tblue]

45. Your ironic/deceptive headline

is gonna backfire. People reading only your headline will miss your point. Some really really want to believe it and will assume you are justifying it with the op.

[Jakes Progress]

57. Too true.

Those guys never read beyond headlines. Reality means little to them.

[Douglas Carpenter]

48. also this 2008 interview with Bill Moyer: The Obama Administration and The Rule of Law

http://billmoyers.com/content/glenn-greenwald-on-the-george-w-bush-administration-and-the-rule-of-law/

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Well played. K&R

[Galraedia]

59. Greedwald's opinion didn't change until late in Bush's presidency.

Where was Greenwald when it really counted?

[adric mutelovic]

62. So you have links of Greenwald praising Bush prior to 2006?

Show me his work prior to 2006, please. Unless you haven't checked his pre-2006 work at all.

[Galraedia]

63. Glenn Greenwald Supported President Bush As He Signed The Patriot Act

http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/glenn-greenwald-supported-president-bush-as-he-signed-the-patriot-act/

[adric mutelovic]

64. lmao! in 2001, Greenwald didn't have a blog at all

All you showed me was Greenwald saying that back in the days when he did not write anything at all (since he didn't even have a blog), he wanted to believe the Patriot Act.

Then when he DID have a blog, he trashed Bush's policies. That's weak.

Again, show me Greenwald's posts praising Bush.

what was your reaction to his 2001 view on the Patriot Act? OH yeah! In 2001, you had no idea who Greenwald was.

Let's see his Unclaimed Territory blog started 2005.

What can you find prior to 2005 that he wrote?

[Marrah_G]

78. Lies and spin, lies and spin

So fucking transparent, unlike your hero's administration.

[burnodo]

108. And the Democrats didn't?

What was the vote again?

[Marrah_G]

77. You must be dizzy from all that spinning.

[caseymoz]

60. So what?

What Greenwald has written about NSA surveillance is still dead accurate. Slide shows released recently show it's even worse than Greenwald indicated, and President Obama misled us about all of it. This story and the worldwide fallout now has its own legs, and attacking Greenwald isn't going to do anything. If you doubt it, have a look:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023134820

And our European allies are pissed at us:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/30/us-spying-on-europe_n_3525320.html

It's no longer Greenwald. It seems the closer anybody looks at this the worse President Obama looks.

[99Forever]

65. But.. but ... but...

... you always hated Obama...


eeeeerr...


ummmm

FREEDOM!

[Phlem]

71. Oh FFS.

-p

[creon]

72. keep separate

I think that we need to the messenger separate from the message.

I have little or no interest in the character or motivations of Greenwald.

What matters to me: Do his words, at this time, have merit? Should his current writing be taken seriously?

[99th_Monkey]

79. As I recall, Greenwald actually DID go after the Shrub.

So your claim is pretty much bogus imho.

http://billmoyers.com/content/glenn-greenwald-on-the-george-w-bush-administration-and-the-rule-of-law/

[Dr. Strange]

109. Here's three more:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Would-Patriot-Act-Defending/dp/097794400X
http://www.amazon.com/Tragic-Legacy-Mentality-Destroyed-Presidency/dp/0307354288
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0307408663

Odd that the OP missed these.

Oh wait...

[ChaoticTrilby]

84. Doh-ho-ho! You almost got me.

Silly Greenwald, hating Obama's presidency before it even began...

[Fire Walk With Me]

95. You ignore that he's correct. Snowden is correct. Hedges and Chomsky are correct.

This "administration" is the beginning of the death of the Constitution itself, no ifs ands or buts. As such, it must be resisted and if possible, removed.

[Number23]

96. lol It's funny that you did this OP as a sort of backhanded support of Greenwald

but the only people who seem to have completely missed that are Greenwald's and Snowden's biggest supporters. I don't think that's a coincidence.

[LAGC]

97. You noticed that too?

People's sarcasm meters seem to be broken.

It's like they didn't even read the OP, just the title and pounced.

[Major Hogwash]

100. Well, that's gonna leave a mark.

They say this issue isn't about Greenwald, but then they trip over their own feet rushing to defend anything said about him.

It must be the heat.

[Bobbie Jo]

110. ROFL

Absolutely hilarious and not surprising in the least.

[Number23]

129. Now, now Bobbie Jo. Show some respect

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=304685&sub=trans

Now no one will get the chance to show their stupidity by completely misreading his attempts at witty sarcasm every again.

[Bobbie Jo]

134. You just can't make this stuff up.

[MotherPetrie]

101. K&R

[Poll_Blind]

113. This OP is so delicious it should be fattening.

PB

[Fumesucker]

116. Actually that's proof that Greenwald got on the Obama hating train at a very early stop

Earlier than just about anyone in fact, you might call GG the Engineer of the Obama Derangement Express.

Sheer twisted brilliance to predict the course of Obama's presidential campaign and subsequent administration in 2006.

[HangOnKids]

119. OP Is Dead Jim!

Lovely morning, no?

[SidDithers]

132. "Previously banned"...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=304685&sub=trans

Remind you of anyone?

Sid

[Arkana]

121. I don't like Greenwald, but this doesn't "prove" anything.

[HangOnKids]

122. OP has been PPRed n/t

[SidDithers]

130. Hahahah...

Come back again soon, troll.

Sid