Glenn Greenwald POPPED Tim Geithner in the chops, way before it was cool.

[Octafish]

The events preceding Goldman Sachs’ new “blowout profits”

In May, a former top IMF official noted: "the finance industry has effectively captured our government.

BY GLENN GREENWALD
Salon.com MONDAY, JUL 13, 2009

Remember all of this — the $700 billion bank bailout, the AIG scandal, dark and scary threats of imminent global meltdown if there wasn’t full-scale capitulation by the citizenry to the immense transfer of public wealth to the private investment banking sector? Such distant, hazy memories: so many exciting celebrity deaths and riveting celebrity resignations ago. If sequences of events like these don’t cause mass citizen outrage, then it’s hard to imagine what will:

SNIP...

Robert Reich, March 18, 2009:

We’ve also learned that much of the 170 billion has been used by AIG to pay off AIG’s putative obligations to other Wall Street banks such as Goldman Sachs. Goldman has maintained that it got no bailout money from the Treasury. But in fact it received some $13 billion through AIG. More troubling is that the original plan to bail out AIG was concocted at a meeting held last fall, run by then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson who, before becoming Teasury Secretary, had been CEO of Goldman Sachs. Also attending the meeting was Lloyd Blankenfein, the current CEO of Goldman Sachs. Also at the meeting: Tim Geithner, then head of the New York Fed.

Tom Edsall, The Huffington Post, April 2, 2009:

Decisions made during the final months of the Bush administration created an environment in which the most politically connected investment banks, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, not only flourished, but saw their competitors laid waste, with firms like Lehman in bankruptcy, and others, like Merrill Lynch and Bank of America, forced to merge in desperate hope of surviving.

SNIP...

Former IMF Chief Economist and current MIT Professor Simon Johnson, The Atlantic, May 2009:

THE ATLANTIC: The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government — a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. . . . .

JOHNSON: Squeezing the oligarchs, though, is seldom the strategy of choice among emerging-market governments. Quite the contrary: at the outset of the crisis, the oligarchs are usually among the first to get extra help from the government, such as preferential access to foreign currency, or maybe a nice tax break, or—here’s a classic Kremlin bailout technique — the assumption of private debt obligations by the government. Under duress, generosity toward old friends takes many innovative forms. Meanwhile, needing to squeeze someone, most emerging-market governments look first to ordinary working folk — at least until the riots grow too large. . . .

CONTINUED...

http://www.salon.com/2009/07/13/goldman/

It's not just Snowden and illegal NSA spying, Big Money hates Greenwald for telling the truth about how the rich get richer and the 99-percent are used to foam the runway for the Banksters, thanks to Wall Street's toadies in Washington.

[railsback]

1. So, now ALL of Greenwald's episodic writings are fair game

The defense of Greenwald is about as much fun as watching the Right defend Bush for 8 years. That was some good comedy.

[sabrina 1]

4. And another contentless comment on the journalist rather than on the content of the OP.

What do you think of the Wall St. corruption that caused the Global Crash, destroying the lives of millions of innocent victims, I know a few of them, and what do you think of NO ONE being held accountable? And worse, what do you think of the tax payers being forced to pay their gambling debts. Just curious about priorities.

[railsback]

9. Tax payers are being forced to PAY to hear Greenwald say what he's always been saying for free.

You shouldn't have a problem with that.

[sabrina 1]

12. Tax payers were forced to pay for the gambling debts of the Wall St crooks and so far, not one of

them has been prosecuted for the massive theft of the country's money. Trillions we are told has gone to the Wall St. crooks. I have a huge problem with that.

[railsback]

20. Tax payers are also forced to pay the salaries of people like Boehner and King

There are currently 234 House and 46 Senate Republicans, many who had a direct hand in deregulating the market. Its like paying crooks to rip you off. But, alas, apparently the spawn of all this thievery matters not, as the Left is working mighty hard to put the GOP back in control of the Senate, heading into the 2016 presidential election.

[sabrina 1]

27. You left out the Democrats who single handedly, without much help from the Republicans, voted to

pay Wall St Criminals' obscene gambling debts with our money, despite the overwhelming stated will of the people. Why did they do that? Why wasn't it OUR party that finally began the process of investigating these crimes. We wouldn't expect Republicans to it, but we sure didn't elect Democrats to bail out Wall St. Criminals and War Criminals. Yet here we are, with not a single investigation of some of the worst crimes in living memory.

And you forgot the deregulation of Wall St signed by a Democrat that opened the door to all this theivery.

We won't get anywhere if we keep our fingers in our ears, our closed and our mouths shut about the role played by members of our Party.

If you care so much about the 'thievery' I don't get the protection of all of those involved and directly or indirectly responsible. Facts are facts, some of them unpleasant, but hiding them doesn't make them go away.

[railsback]

30. As the current laws are written, you wouldn't be able to convict any of them

Pipe dream. And, no, I don't think it was right by any means, but the last thing you want to do is put MORE Republicans in Congress, which, unfortunately, seems to be the current game plan.

[Civilization2]

64. get room you two,. at it again in this thread,. .

just kidding,.

actually "railsback" how about dealing in reality, and less baseless accusations, and character slander of people posing positions you may not agree with.

[railsback]

74. Oh, I see, the 'victim' card again

[Enthusiast]

65. Most of the miscreants could be put away if there was only the will to do it.

Overt in your face fraud.

[railsback]

72. In a fantasy world, true.

In the real world, impossible.

[Enthusiast]

105. In a world where the President has surrounded himself by

bank toadies you are right.

"Impossible"

We shouldn't even try because law and order are pie in the sky goals that cannot be attained. Nothing to see here.

[Enthusiast]

63. Right on!

[rhett o rick]

17. Do you ever post anything but snark? Do you qualify as "politically liberal"??? nm

[railsback]

23. If its 'snark' to point out blatant hypocrisy and cherry picking

Then I guess its ALL 'snark'.

[sabrina 1]

28. No, it's truthful to point out blatant hypocrisy and cherry picking which I just did in this thread.

I'm glad you agree because I was pretty blunt about it.

[railsback]

32. Right...

Its not about Greenwald, but look at all this cool shit he wrote in the past.. but all that other shit don't matter because its not about Greenwald

Fun to watch.

[sabrina 1]

33. You haven't been keeping up. YOU all made it about Greenwald, so all we are doing is cooperating now

Not to mention you haven't addressed my point about elected Dems bailing out Wall St Criminals and War Criminals.

Nor have you addressed the real issue that now has been raised, thanks to you all 'making it about Greenwald'. The coordinated asssaults on Journalists to try to discredit and/or silence them. We might not have notices, had you all not insisted on posting and reposting the six smears being used for that purpose.

That got my attention re Greenwald. Why would someone or some entities, other than BOA who we know was willing to pay propagandists to try to smear him, be so concerned about a blogger, a journalist if they didn't have something to hide?

[railsback]

35. LoL, now its OUR fault that Greenwald is the focus

after all the hero worshipping ran into a brick wall. Really is like the Bush years.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

85. Exactly right

A mirror image of syncophants defending their guy in the WH no matter what.

That you can't see the irony is telling.

Think about it...

[railsback]

114. So, let me get this straight..

SnowdenWald make accusations, with the implications that laws are being broken just because there's a network that can make those implications possible, yet haven't proved that that is what's going on. A purely circumstantial argument. So when questions are asked, and motives put under scrutiny - like in a court of law - suddenly, its attacking the messenger. 'Sycophants' demanding proof! HaHaHaHaHa! Classic.

[Marr]

111. Who do you think you're fooling with that?

It's been all over this forum for weeks now.

Scandal breaks. Critics are outraged about domestic surveillance, apologists attempt to make it all about the messengers. Your little crew has made hundreds upon hundreds of posts smearing Greenwald and Snowden alike with the most ridiculous, grasping personal attacks-- while (by and large) refusing to engage in threads about domestic surveillance.

Just last night, your crew chief was posting about how Greenwald said something that reinforced Tom Tancredo's message almost ten years ago.

And now that someone posts about Greenwald's past writings on the issue of Wall Street corruption-- an issue that is still very relevant today, now you claim that everyone to your left is just a Greenwald cultist and have made it impossible for you to discuss the issues.

You've got to be kidding me.

[railsback]

113. 'Apologists'. LOL!

I see a public forum as NO different than a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty. Snowden is easy. He admitted he stole classified material and fled the country, and now holds it hostage. Broke the laws as written. Guilty. Both he and Greenwald have leveled accusations at the U.S. Government that because they have the tools to spy on everyone, they're obviously spying on everyone. That would be circumstantial. NO evidence has been provided that shows the NSA illegally spying on anyone. Quite the contrary, according to Greenwald's 'leaks', it shows the long list of hoops the NSA must jump through to acquire data. Data mining? Been going on for years.. unless you haven't been paying attention. Mining every single person's data? Circumstantial. Again, just because you have the tools doesn't mean you're actually doing it, such as a car can be used for mass murder - it does not mean everyone is going to use it that way. That would be silly (hint).

As for Greenwald/Snowden, as in any court, witnesses/accusers are put under the microscope as to determine wether there's any ulterior motives to make sure they're on the up and up. Greenwald's activism/libertarianism nixes his neutrality, and Snowden's confession that he only took the Booz job with the sole intention of stealing information and fleeing the country with it, raises a bevy of red flags, especially the countries he ran to, who have horrid records of human rights violations.

So, the next time you get unnerved about all those 'apologists' not jumping on the band wagon, just remember its not they who taking one giant leap of faith off a giant cliff. They're not the ones making accusations. THAT burden of proof lies with you. Circumstantial assumptions just don't cut it.

[Marr]

115. Blah, blah, blah. /nt

[railsback]

116. Thank you, Mr. Murdoch

Worry about those details later.

[rhett o rick]

34. If all you've got is snark, I guess that's all you post. nm

[railsback]

36. Seems the last people to see hypocrisy

are the people being hypocritical.

Snark.

[xocet]

70. Every post by that one seems to be substance-free. Even that poster's initial post in this thread

had nothing to say.

[Katashi_itto]

107. Your not cherry picking?

[Octafish]

39. Greenwald called for Cheney and the rest of the war criminals to be prosecuted. Did you?

Dick Cheney

The fruits of elite immunity

By Glenn Greenwald
Salon.com, Thursday, Aug 25, 2011 09:26 ET

Less than three years ago, Dick Cheney was presiding over policies that left hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead from a war of aggression, constructed a worldwide torture regime, and spied on thousands of Americans without the warrants required by law, all of which resulted in his leaving office as one of the most reviled political figures in decades. But thanks to the decision to block all legal investigations into his chronic criminality, those matters have been relegated to mere pedestrian partisan disputes, and Cheney is thus now preparing to be feted -- and further enriched -- as a Wise and Serious Statesman with the release of his memoirs this week: one in which he proudly boasts (yet again) of the very crimes for which he was immunized. As he embarks on his massive publicity-generating media tour of interviews, Cheney faces no indictments or criminal juries, but rather reverent, rehabilitative tributes, illustrated by this, from Politico today:



[font color="green"]That's what happens when the Government -- marching under the deceitful Orwellian banner of Look Forward, Not Backward -- demands that its citizens avert their eyes from the crimes of their leaders so that all can be forgotten: the crimes become non-crimes, legitimate acts of political choice, and the criminals become instantly rehabilitated by the message that nothing they did warrants punishment. That's the same reason people like John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales are defending their torture and illegal spying actions not in a courtroom but in a lush conference of elites in Aspen.[/font color]

The U.S. Government loves to demand that other countries hold their political leaders accountable for serious crimes, dispensing lectures on the imperatives of the rule of law. Numerous states bar ordinary convicts from profiting from their crimes with books. David Hicks, an Australian citizen imprisoned without charges for six years at Cheney's Guantanamo, just had $10,000 seized by the Australian government in revenue from his book about his time in that prison camp on the ground that he is barred from profiting from his uncharged, unproven crimes.

CONTINUED with LINKS...

http://www.salon.com/2011/08/25/cheney_101/

[railsback]

62. Greenwald defended Citizens United

Now what?

[Octafish]

77. Nobody's perfect. From what I read, he wanted to protect individual rights.

I’m also quite skeptical of the apocalyptic claims about how this decision will radically transform and subvert our democracy by empowering corporate control over the political process. My skepticism is due to one principal fact: I really don’t see how things can get much worse in that regard. The reality is that our political institutions are already completely beholden to and controlled by large corporate interests (Dick Durbin: ”banks own” the Congress). Corporations find endless ways to circumvent current restrictions — their armies of PACs, lobbyists, media control, and revolving-door rewards flood Washington and currently ensure their stranglehold — and while this decision will make things marginally worse, I can’t imagine how it could worsen fundamentally. All of the hand-wringing sounds to me like someone expressing serious worry that a new law in North Korea will make the country more tyrannical. There’s not much room for our corporatist political system to get more corporatist. Does anyone believe that the ability of corporations to influence our political process was meaningfully limited before yesterday’s issuance of this ruling?

SOURCE: http://www.salon.com/2010/01/22/citizens_united/

[dionysus]

2. i hear he's on the cover o the next issue of Tiger Beat!

[sabrina 1]

16. I hear he's going to be on the Pulitzer Prize list for Journalist of the year.

We hear a lot of things, some of them true, some not.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

24. but how far down the list will he be?

You're thinking too small. Perhaps he can get a Nobel Peace Prize out of this.

[sabrina 1]

29. That's possible, but that is more likely to go to someone like Bradley Manning, Assange or Snowden.

Seems they have all become super heroes to people around the world. You can never account for people's reactions to the important events that effect the lives of so many people.

Truthfully, I was just making stuff up re the Pulitzer prize. Isn't that all we do here on DU anymore? I was emulating you actually. Anytime you all want to get serious and discuss actual issues, let me know.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

38. I hear what you are saying. I guess I have to gather my thoughts for another post

where I try to synthesize all of this rush of news and stamp down cognitive dissonance we must all be experiencing as we go over the reality of our lives and how they are affected by others.

[rhett o rick]

18. You guys are looking more and more desperate with your sad ad hominem comments. nm

[dionysus]

58. what, i'm simply using the exact same catchphrases you guys have used. oh wait...

this time it's directed at the Greenwald "cultists/cheerleaders/worshippers", not the Obama "cultists/cheerleaders/worshippers", so NOW it's desperate and sad!

I think I have illustrated the double standard well enough, you may proceed with the Greenwald/Snowden worship and apologia.

[Octafish]

44. He deserves more than that just for this article on Washington immunizing lawbreaking Telecoms.

Congress votes to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, legalize warrantless eavesdropping

Yet again, George Bush and Dick Cheney get everything they want from the Democratic-led Congress, this time to put a permanent, and harmless, end to their illegal spying scandal.

BY GLENN GREENWALD
Salon.com, WEDNESDAY, JUL 9, 2008 02:11 PM EDT

The Democratic-led Congress this afternoon voted to put an end to the NSA spying scandal, as the Senate approved a bill — approved last week by the House — to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, terminate all pending lawsuits against them, and vest whole new warrantless eavesdropping powers in the President. The vote in favor of the new FISA bill was 69-28. Barack Obama joined every Senate Republican (and every House Republican other than one) by voting in favor of it, while his now-vanquished primary rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, voted against it. John McCain wasn’t present for any of the votes, but shared Obama’s support for the bill. The bill will now be sent to an extremely happy George Bush, who already announced that he enthusiastically supports it, and he will sign it into law very shortly.

Prior to final approval, the Senate, in the morning, rejected three separate amendments which would have improved the bill but which, the White House threatened, would have prompted a veto. With those amendments defeated, the Senate then passed the same bill passed last week by the House, which means it is that bill, in unchanged form, that will be signed into law — just as the Bush administration demanded.

The first amendment, from Sens. Dodd, Feingold and Leahy, would have stripped from the bill the provision immunizing the telecoms. That amendment failed by a vote of 32-66, with all Republicans and 17 Democrats against (the roll call vote is here). The next amendment was offered by Sen. Arlen Specter, which would have merely required a court to determine the constitutionality of the NSA spying program and grant telecom immunity only upon a finding of constitutionality. Specter’s amendment failed, 37-61 (roll call vote is here). The third amendment to fail was one sponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, merely requiring that the Senate wait until the Inspector General audits of the NSA program are complete before immunizing the telecoms. The Bingaman amendment failed by a vote of 42-56 (roll call vote here). Both Obama and Clinton voted for all three failed amendments.

http://www.salon.com/2008/07/09/fisa_vote/

PS: Don't know about you, but I don't recall asking my elected representative to forgive the Telecoms for illegal spying.

[DevonRex]

61. I bet lots of people will be putting that picture on their bedroom walls!!!!!

Do you think there will be photos inside, too?????

[Cali_Democrat]

3. While people were marching in the streets against the Patriot Act and the Iraq War....

Greenwald was ready to stand behind President Bush:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023361500

[sabrina 1]

6. I love it when one of the six talking points outlined by Greenwald himself, arrive in every thread

on cue proving him right about the smear campaign. If you have something that might discredit him, this of course is so overused, and debunked so many times, all it does is help him. And I'm sure your goal is not to help him.

Btw, how many top Dems were with Greenwald on the Patriot Act (some, too many, still are btw) and on 'trusting Bush' enough to actually vote FOR his illegal war?

How many were marching WITH US against the War and the Patriot Act?

Biden, Clinton, Kerry and whole list of Dems who are voting to fund Bush's wars, still voting FOR the Patriot act.

Have any of them done what Greenwald has done and admitted how wrong they were on all of the egregious Bush policies they are still supporting with their votes??

How wonderful it would be to those Dems who enabled Bush's wars and anti-Constitutional legislation finally, a bit late of course, join Greenwald and admit they were so tragically wrong.

[Cali_Democrat]

11. We can bring up old information about Greenwald supposedly popping Tim Geithner in the chops

But we just can't bring up his support for the Iraq War, Patriot Act, Afghanistan and President Bush.

That would be smearing him.

Got it.

[sabrina 1]

14. Yes, we can bring up facts. Are you saying this did not happen?

But when you bring up distortions of the truth, people are naturally going to challenge it. If you think the OP is not factual, feel free to point it out.

[Cali_Democrat]

48. I didn't say it didn't happen.

If people want to bring up Greenwald's past statements, have at it.

Greenwald felt President Bush should be deferred to on national security issues:

<...>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<...>
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

http://sadredearth.com/christopher-hitchens-glenn-greenwald-and-the-war-of-ideas/

Let me guess, I'm an evil stasiauthoritarianquislingfascist for directly quoting Greenwald.

Because after all, directly quoting Greenwald's past statements is smearing him with vile propaganda.

[sabrina 1]

59. Okay. Yes, it was admirable that Greenwald, as a private citizen no one had ever heard of,

wasn't as involved politically as he should have been, and then had the courage to quickly realize what an error that was and then spend the next part of his life trying to make up for his apathy, trying to do something about it.

I completely admire him for his honesty. I wish our elected officials on the Dem side, Biden, Clinton et al who fully supported Bush's policies, the War, the Patriot Act had had the courage to apologize for their tragic and so very wrong support for those policies. They might have been able to stop it. But so far, no apology in ten years, despite the exposure of the tragic lies that cause the deaths of so many innocent people, including our own troops.

Just so you know, as I'm not sure what your goal is in posting that talking point, one of the six on the list to use to try to discredit him, to try to use someone's honesty against them, is a very bad tactic, sort of Rovian only he was better at it.

Every time someone tried to use his complete honesty against him, which no one would have known had he himself not revealed, all it did was gain him more respect from those watching. The Right Wing Nuts tried to do this also. Same talking point, same goal, same failure

Do you seriously not understand that admitting a mistake is something to be admired? Where is this thinking coming from? What kind of mind actually thinks this is something BAD??

[Cali_Democrat]

69. I'm not using his honesty against him

I'm using his own words against him. I'm pointing out what a hypocrite he is.

I know that angers you and some other folks here, but you're just gonna have to deal.

[sabrina 1]

78. Not getting your point at all. You are using his words admitting to his error in judgement re

thinking that our Government would never do something as egregious as Bush did. That is honesty, in his own words. Where is the hypocrisy in admitting that, then spending the next few years acting on it?

Since when did we consider that 'honesty' = 'hypocrisy'? I'm having a real problem, as are many others, wrapping my mind about that kind of thinking.

And what on earth makes you think I am angry? Not understanding someone's point, and honestly asking for an explanation is called 'discussion' not anger.

So now we have 'asking an honest question' = 'anger' and ..
'Admitting honestly that you made a mistake' = 'hypocrisy'.

Would I be risking you accusing me of 'anger' to ask if you can explain exactly where is the hypocrisy in honestly admitting to a mistake. Perhaps you could post some of the 'words' you are referring to?

[Cali_Democrat]

81. I'm really not getting you either

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree when it comes to Greenwald and his past statements.

[sabrina 1]

82. Well you could post the words you claim are 'hypocritical'. We only disagree if there are words

I haven't seen yet. But I am assuming you are referring to his very honest admission in his book about his admitted error in judgement re Bush. That certainly doesn't qualify as hyocrisy in anyone's book, unless the meaning of the word 'hypocrisy' has changed.

You could prove me wrong, but that's up to you.

[Cali_Democrat]

84. It's OK to disagree on an anonymous message board

The sun will continue to rise, the rivers will continue to flow and the birds will continue to chirp.

Disagreements happen.

Often.

[sabrina 1]

89. Of course it is. But when you post something that no one seems to understand, and you can't

or won't, respond to requests for clarification, then it can be assumed that you were wrong. That also happens often on internet forums. And the sun continues to rise. It even rises after horrors like the Iraq invasion, or torture or any number of things, although with fewer people on the planet to see it.

Not sure what all that had to do with my question though.

[Cali_Democrat]

91. I don't really understand your point either.

We disagree.

It's OK.

[Avalux]

22. Greenwald wants people to believe he's a truth teller.

He's being hailed and propped up by many as an individual with journalistic integrity, hell bent on exposing the truth and tearing down the status quo. That's just great, and I'm happy he's presented facts to back up what many of us have KNOWN was happening form years (while he was busy supporting Bushco).

His past actions/writings do not support someone who is obsessed with uncovering the truth, otherwise, he would have been doing it then.

[sabrina 1]

31. Just for accuracy, when was he 'busy supporting Bushco'?

Did you know how many elected Democrats supported Bushco making all of his egregious policies possible btw?

Have any of them stopped supporting those policies, Biden, Clinton, Kerry maybe? As Greenwald did. Any of them admitted how wrong they were??

[Avalux]

42. I don't care about elected Democrats. This conversation is about Greenwald.

Have you read his book?

If his reputation is so flawed that you have to make that comparison, then you've proven my point.

[sabrina 1]

50. Wow, well that says it all, for sure. A private citizen V elected officials with the power to send

our troops to their deaths. And you don't care about them?

Thanks, I guess ...

[HangOnKids]

73. Ever made a mistake? Ever been big enough to admit that?

You sound like somebody who watches a bit too many cartoons. But hey when you walk on water or turn that water into wine please let us know.

[rhett o rick]

79. The NSa apologists have to get their stories straight. Some say that Greenwald lies at every breath,

while out of the other mouth, they say he only tells them what they already knew.

I have posted that this isnt about Greenwald, but I have been proved wrong. The more exposure Greenwald gets from the NSA apologists, the more is revealed to the American people and they side on the side of the Constitution and not Booz-Allen, Gen Clapper and the DU NSA apologists here.

Some call Greenwald a liar, but believe every word from Gen Clapper that has admitted he lied to Congress.

Two sides here, Booz-Allen/The Carlyle Group/Gen Clapper/Gen Alexander, etc on one side for secrecy and the other side siding with the Constitution and transparency are Ms. Plame, Mr. Wilson, Democratic Senator Wyden, Democratic Senator Udall, Democratic Representative Grayson, Daniel Ellsberg, 26 bipartisan Senators, etc.

[rhett o rick]

19. And so was Ms. Clinton. Is that all you got? I smell desperation. nm

[Cali_Democrat]

52. It was wrong for Clinton to support Bush and it was wrong for Greenwald.

[rhett o rick]

55. I agree. Are you willing to forgive Ms. Clinton and support her bid for the presidency? nm

[Cali_Democrat]

66. No. n/t

[rhett o rick]

92. So who are you interested in for President? nm

[Cali_Democrat]

112. It's too early for me to think about that. The next Prez won't be sworn in until 2017. n/t

[burnodo]

47. And so were most Democrats

apparently you just put that part of it out of your mind so you can attack Greenwald

[Cali_Democrat]

53. It was wrong for Dems to support Bush and it was wrong for Greenwald.

[burnodo]

56. well try to hold Dems accountable first

after all, they're elected officials who make life and death decisions

IF Greenwald supported the Patriot Act and the Iraq war, I disagreed with him vehemently. Still, isn't he allowed to progress on an issue?

[Cali_Democrat]

67. I have gone after Dems for their support of Bush

Many many times.

The subject of this OP is Greenwald, so I posted about Greenwald.

[Octafish]

54. When Greenwald found out Bush & Cheney lied, he called for their prosecution. Did you?

Obama’s latest effort to conceal evidence of Bush era crimes

The President's rationale for changing his mind is as incoherent as it is reminiscent of the Bush/Cheney mindset.

BY GLENN GREENWALD
Salon.com, WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2009 04:55 PM EDT

It’s difficult to react much to Obama’s complete reversal today of his own prior decision to release photographs depicting extreme detainee abuse by the United States. He’s left no doubt that this is what he does: ever since he was inaugurated, Obama has taken one extreme step after the next to keep concealed both the details and the evidence of Bush’s crimes, including rendition, torture and warrantless eavesdropping. The ACLU’s Amrit Singh — who litigated the thus-far-successful FOIA lawsuit to compel disclosure of these photographs — is exactly right:

SNIP...

John Aravosis said Obama’s logic was “a bit Bushian.” Steve Hynd observes that “Obama Trades Our Principles For Cheneyism.” TPM declares: ”Obama falls back on Bushisms.” Dan Froomkin writes: ”Obama Joins the Cover-Up.” I’ll just note a few points for now about Obama’s efforts to keep these photographs concealed:

(1) Think about what Obama’s rationale would justify. Obama’s claim — that release of the photographs “would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger” — means we should conceal or even outright lie about all the bad things we do that might reflect poorly on us. For instance, if an Obama bombing raid slaughters civilians in Afghanistan (as has happened several times already), then, by this reasoning, we ought to lie about what happened and conceal the evidence depicting what was done — as the Bush administration did — because release of such evidence would “would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.” Indeed, evidence of our killing civilians in Afghanistan inflames anti-American sentiment far more than these photographs would. Isn’t it better to hide the evidence showing the bad things we do?

[font color="green"]Apparently, the proper reaction to heinous acts by our political leaders is not to hold them accountable but, instead, to hide evidence of what they did. That’s the warped mentality Obama is endorsing today, and has been endorsing since January 20.[/font color]

(2) How can anyone who supports what Obama is doing here complain about the CIA’s destruction of their torture videos? The torture videos, like the torture photos, would, if released, generate anti-American sentiment and make us look bad. By Obama’s reasoning, didn’t the CIA do exactly the right thing by destroying them?

(3) This is just another manifestation of the generalized Beltway religion that we should suppress and ignore the heinous acts our government committed and to which we acquiesced, because if we just agree to forget about all of it, then we can blissfully pretend that it never happened and avoid doing anything about it.

(4) Obama’s claim that he has to hide this evidence to protect our soldiers is the sort of crass, self-serving exploitation of “The Troops” which was the rancid hallmark of Bush/Cheney rhetoric. Everyone knows what the real effect of these photographs would be: they would highlight just how brutal and criminal was our treatment of detainees in our custody, and further underscore how amoral and lawless are Obama’s calls that we Look To the Future, Not the Past. Manifestly, that is why they’re being suppressed.

(5) For all of you defend-Obama-at-all-cost cheerleaders who are about to descend into my comment section and other online venues to explain how Obama did the right thing because of National Security, I have this question: if you actually want to argue that concealing these photographs is the right thing to do, then you must have been criticizing Obama when, two weeks ago, he announced that he would release them. Otherwise, it’s pretty clear that you don’t have any actual beliefs other than: ”I support what Obama does because it’s Obama who does it.” So for those arguing today that concealing these photographs is the right thing to do: were you criticizing Obama two weeks ago for announcing he would release these photographs?

CONTINUED...

http://www.salon.com/2009/05/13/photos_6/

[Cali_Democrat]

71. Indeed I did

I even circulated a petition calling for a special prosecutor.

From 4 years ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8359654

[Octafish]

76. That's great! I wish you'd put it in a DU2 journal.

That'd make it easy to find. You know, maybe more people would take action. Butterfly effect. 99th Monkey. Tipping point.

[Fuddnik]

5. Somebody needed to pop Jughead Geithner in the chops.

[sabrina 1]

8. Elizabeth Warren did it too, it was a thing of beauty to watch.

Btw, is she under the bus yet? It's hard to keep up sometimes.

[rhett o rick]

37. She may not be under the bus yet, but "The Group" avoid posts about her like the plague.

Here's some examples:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023226323

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3225280

But then they avoid all threads of substance. Ad hominem attacks is all they have.

[Avalux]

43. Who is "the group"

I'm intrigued by this label....can you explain it to me?

[rhett o rick]

46. Well it's a kinder label than others use. And I have a hunch you know what I mean. nm

[Octafish]

87. DUers also tried.

I know you know. Here's a sample for those living in a simpler mind, I mean, time:

Government Strategy in 2008 Bank Bailout was to Cover Up the Truth

Know your BFEE: Goldmine Sacked or The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One

Henry Paulson, Banker to the BFEE

Know your BFEE: Phil Gramm, the Meyer Lansky of the War Party, Set-Up the Biggest Bank Heist Ever.

One'd imagine that if we can figure this out the FBI should be able to, as well.

[Avalux]

7. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

That, in a nutshell, is how I feel about Greenwald. He's not a journalist and not worthy of the adoration heaped upon him by some.

[sabrina 1]

10. Well if you would all stop talking about him, he wouldn't appear to be 'so adored' as you call

defending journalists from orchestrated smear campaigns. Eg, you didn't have to comment in this thread at all.

[Avalux]

25. Sorry I've annoyed you.

There's a ton of smearing all the way around and I think a lot of people are being fooled. Can you honestly say, without a doubt, that Greenwald is above reproach?

[sabrina 1]

41. No need to apologize, you haven't annoyed me in the least. I love this stuff unlike many other DUers

I suppose, I love exposing the hypocrisy involved.

Weird isn't it? But I started out in online forums demolishing the propaganda from Bush loyalists which was relatively easy to do, defending Democrats etc from the orchestrated smear campaigns against them. And I had fun doing it.

Old habits die hard I suppose.

[Avalux]

45. Then we've been working together for a long time.

I love exposing hypocrisy too - it amuses me how easily people will jump on a bandwagon without thoroughly looking into a subject and looking at it from all angles. IMHO, critical thinking is dead.

[sabrina 1]

57. Oh, I don't share your pessism. I see plenty of critical thinking around the Left forums these days,

more than I've seen in a long time. And I'm impressed that Congress has finally decided to address these old, egregious Bush policies that so damaged this country.

Even though the last bill to end some of the obscene funding to Private Security Corps was narrowly defeated, Congress is not giving up this time. I hear there are several more bills ready to go to the floor, and what we always dreamed of, not much obstruction from Republicans. In fact this is a perfect moment for the President to urge our Party to seize the moment, and finally rid us of these awful policies without the usual obstruction from Republicans.

Al Fraken eg, who was a bit disappointing on the surveillance issue frankly, has changed his mind and now sees the need to do something about it. I heard he too is preparing something for Congress to consider.

So all in all, other than the same old crew who seem to find Bush policies acceptable all of a sudden, things are definitely going the way they should be. Franken, eg, stated that 'with the Snowden revelations', he is convinced that something needs to be done to reign in these abuses.

Wasn't this what we worked so hard for, for so many years?

[frylock]

15. why do you not consider him to be a journalist?

who DO you consider to be a journalist?

[Avalux]

26. Journalists uncover and report facts without interjecting their own opinion.

At least that's what they're are supposed to do. Greenwald is an author who shapes the story to his agenda.

[adirondacker]

49. I can agree what your definition of a real journalist is, but could you provide one as an example?nt

[JackRiddler]

110. Non-existent entities. Idealist claptrap.

Only ever brought up in attacking inconvenient actual journalists ike Greenwald, or in defense of the privatized propaganda ministry units (NYT, NBC, CNN, ETC.) that pretend to be practicing journalism in this country.

When you decide what's worth reporting, that's already an opinion. Greenwald's is well-informed.

[rhett o rick]

21. Good question above. Who do you like as a journalist? Judith Miller? nm

[Octafish]

60. Wrong. Here's his report on Cheney's efforts to cover-up treason and hope for another 9-11.

Dick Cheney’s top aide: “We’re one bomb away” from our goal

Revelations by Jack Goldsmith -- a right-wing, former high-level Bush DOJ lawyer -- demonstrate the true extent of the administration's lawlessness.

BY GLENN GREENWALD
Salon.com TUESDAY, SEP 4, 2007 07:25 AM EDT

In October of 2003, Jack Goldsmith — a right-wing lawyer with radical views of executive power and long-time friend of John Yoo — was named by the Bush administration to head the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, one of the most influential legal positions in the executive branch. During his tenure, he discovered numerous legal positions which the administration had adopted (many created by Yoo) that he found baseless and even unconscionable — from torture to detention powers to illegal surveillance — and he repudiated many of them, thereby repeatedly infuriating the most powerful White House officials, led by Cheney top aide David Addington. As a result, his tenure was extremely brief, and he was gone a mere 9 months after he began.

Goldsmith, now a Harvard Law Professor, has just written a book, to be released this month, criticizing and, in some cases, exposing for the first time, many of Bush’s executive power abuses. He is donating all the proceeds from the book to charity to prevent the standard integrity attacks which Bush followers launch at any ex-officials who commit such blasphemy. In a lengthy profile in The New York Times Magazine, Jeffrey Rosen profiles Goldsmith and highlights some of the book’s key revelations.

Two revelations in particular are extraordinary and deserve (but are unlikely to receive) intense media coverage. First, it was Goldsmith who first argued that the administration’s secret, warrantless surveillance programs were illegal, and it was that conclusion which sparked the now famous refusal of Ashcroft/Comey in early 2004 to certify the program’s legality. Goldsmith argued continuously about his conclusion with Addington, and during the course of those arguments, this is what happened:

[Goldsmith] shared the White House’s concern that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act might prevent wiretaps on international calls involving terrorists. But Goldsmith deplored the way the White House tried to fix the problem, which was highly contemptuous of Congress and the courts. “We’re one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious [FISA] court,” Goldsmith recalls Addington telling him in February 2004.

[font color="green"]Their goal all along was to “get rid of the obnoxious FISA court” entirely, so that they could freely eavesdrop on whomever they wanted with no warrants or oversight of any kind. And here is Dick Cheney’s top aide, drooling with anticipation at the prospect of another terrorist attack so that they could seize this power without challenge. Addington views the Next Terrorist Attack as the golden opportunity to seize yet more power. Sitting around the White House dreaming of all the great new powers they will have once the new terrorist attack occurs — as Addington was doing — is nothing short of deranged.[/font color]

CONTINUED...

http://www.salon.com/2007/09/04/addington/

That is real reporting and top analysis. If the nation's corporate-owned and operated mass media monopoly covered questions of war and peace so thoroughly, let alone finance and its impact on the 99-percent, this would be a different nation -- a much better nation.

[GeorgeGist]

13. All part of The Grand Bargain ...

aka The Raw Deal.

IMO

[Octafish]

95. Raw Deal for the 21st Century: Welfare for the Wealthy

Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and Wall Street’s ownership of government

The individuals Obama chose to be his top economics officials embody exactly the corruption he repeatedly vowed to end.

BY GLENN GREENWALD
Salon.com SATURDAY, APR 4, 2009

White House officials yesterday released their personal financial disclosure forms, and included in the millions of dollars which top Obama economics adviser Larry Summers made from Wall Street in 2008 is this detail:

Lawrence H. Summers, one of President Obama’s top economic advisers, collected roughly $5.2 million in compensation from hedge fund D.E. Shaw over the past year and was paid more than $2.7 million in speaking fees by several troubled Wall Street firms and other organizations. . . .

Financial institutions including JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch paid Summers for speaking appearances in 2008. Fees ranged from $45,000 for a Nov. 12 Merrill Lynch appearance to $135,000 for an April 16 visit to Goldman Sachs, according to his disclosure form.

That’s $135,000 paid by Goldman Sachs to Summers — for a one-day visit. And the payment was made at a time — in April, 2008 — when everyone assumed that the next President would either be Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton and that Larry Summers would therefore become exactly what he now is: the most influential financial official in the U.S. Government (and the $45,000 Merrill Lynch payment came 8 days after Obama’s election). Goldman would not be able to make a one-day $135,000 payment to Summers now that he is Obama’s top economics adviser, but doing so a few months beforehand was obviously something about which neither parties felt any compunction. It’s basically an advanced bribe. And it’s paying off in spades. And none of it seemed to bother Obama in the slightest when he first strongly considered naming Summers as Treasury Secretary and then named him his top economics adviser instead (thereby avoiding the need for Senate confirmation), knowing that Summers would exert great influence in determining who benefited from the government’s response to the financial crisis.

Last night, former Reagan-era S&L regulator and current University of Missouri Professor Bill Black was on Bill Moyers’ Journal and detailed the magnitude of what he called the on-going massive fraud, the role Tim Geithner played in it before being promoted to Treasury Secretary (where he continues to abet it), and — most amazingly of all — the crusade led by Alan Greenspan, former Goldman CEO Robert Rubin (Geithner’s mentor) and Larry Summers in the late 1990s to block the efforts of top regulators (especially Brooksley Born, head of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission) to regulate the exact financial derivatives market that became the principal cause of the global financial crisis. To get a sense for how deep and massive is the on-going fraud and the key role played in it by key Obama officials, I highly recommend watching that Black interview (it can be seen here and the transcript is here).

This article from Stanford Magazine — an absolutely amazing read — details how Summers, Rubin and Greenspan led the way in blocking any regulatory efforts of the derivatives market whatsoever on the ground that the financial industry and its lobbyists were objecting:

As chairperson of the CFTC, Born advocated reining in the huge and growing market for financial derivatives. . . . One type of derivative—known as a credit-default swap—has been a key contributor to the economy’s recent unraveling. . .

Back in the 1990s, however, Born’s proposal stirred an almost visceral response from other regulators in the Clinton administration, as well as members of Congress and lobbyists. . . . But even the modest proposal got a vituperative response. The dozen or so large banks that wrote most of the OTC derivative contracts saw the move as a threat to a major profit center. Greenspan and his deregulation-minded brain trust saw no need to upset the status quo. The sheer act of contemplating regulation, they maintained, would cause widespread chaos in markets around the world.

Born recalls taking a phone call from Lawrence Summers, then Rubin’s top deputy at the Treasury Department, complaining about the proposal, and mentioning that he was taking heat from industry lobbyists. . . . The debate came to a head April 21, 1998. In a Treasury Department meeting of a presidential working group that included Born and the other top regulators, Greenspan and Rubin took turns attempting to change her mind. Rubin took the lead, she recalls.

“I was told by the secretary of the treasury that the CFTC had no jurisdiction, and for that reason and that reason alone, we should not go forward,” Born says. . . . “It seemed totally inexplicable to me,” Born says of the seeming disinterest her counterparts showed in how the markets were operating. “It was as though the other financial regulators were saying, ‘We don’t want to know.’”

She formally launched the proposal on May 7, and within hours, Greenspan, Rubin and Levitt issued a joint statement condemning Born and the CFTC, expressing “grave concern about this action and its possible consequences.” They announced a plan to ask for legislation to stop the CFTC in its tracks.

CONTINUED...

http://www.salon.com/2009/04/04/summers/

Then, that must be the reason for all the happiness among the glass half-full set. The 99-percent were called to fill it.

[xchrom]

40. du rec.

[Octafish]

96. Derivatives are like a calculus: confusing and designed to leave someone else holding the tab.

Rubin, Summers and Greenspan succeeded in inducing Congress — funded, of course, by these same financial firms — to enact legislation blocking the CFTC from regulating these derivative markets. More amazingly still, the CFTC, headed back then by Born, is now headed by Obama appointee Gary Gensler, a former Goldman Sachs executive (naturally) who was as instrumental as anyone in blocking any regulations of those derivative markets (and then enriched himself by feeding on those unregulated markets).

SOURCE: http://www.salon.com/2009/04/04/summers/

[Rex]

51. Yeah, it is so funny watching all these 'late bloomers' showing up

to bash GG or take your pick of old investigative war horses. IT is like they are a bunch of noobs, saying noob stuff that we old timers are LOL at!

[Octafish]

97. One Dude got the ziggy, just today.

A quart shy of the 1,000/month mark.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=305721

TBSS. Interesting how, eh, popular the caffeine fiend was with the authoritarians.

[sabrina 1]

101. Lol, what an interesting 'series of events'. The 'caffeine fiend' was an obvious troll, although I

refrained from alerting on his most abusive posts, deciding it was best to let him 'ramble on' as it were. Interesting to see the support he got here, sad actually to be honest.

[Rex]

102. They don't have any way out.

Blame the left for 30 years of piss on down economics, that doesn't work. They ignore key problems causes by decades of graft and cronyism.

Crapper lies, but hey you remember right? Rove, Bush all them criminals. Got to laugh it off at Congress. Not that Congress does much.
I mean they almost did something the other day. Did you hear about that? Almost told the NSA how bad they were. Snowden makes it looks so hand in the cookie jar guilty. Congress was almost outraged enough to make a statement. Of course the WH contends that since it is legal. Hey you gave your credit card information to Citibank online!

No one asked you to.

Hell today we got to take that to mean something, you know how Hoover swore there was no mafia while he chased the commies.

Maybe they do need to know if we eat corn on a daily basis.

[Jakes Progress]

75. GG performs two valuable services.

He tells the truth that Washington doesn't want us to hear.

And he gives ulcers to the third-way, new democrats who wish that they could be republicans but get elected with a D by their name.
(He also gives fits to the apologists who want to tell us that these reagan-inspired politicians are Democrats.)

Good on him.

[sabrina 1]

80. So true Jakes Progress. He exposes what needed to be exposed.

[nashville_brook]

94. +1

[Octafish]

98. I just tried to recommend your post and realized it was my thread.

Thank you, Jakes Progress.

It's important to keep reminding DU what real Democrats stand for. And it isn't Reaganomics, no matter how much money's in it for the select few. Here Greenwald quotes Simon Johnson of the IMF to make the point:

Squeezing the oligarchs, though, is seldom the strategy of choice among emerging-market governments. Quite the contrary: at the outset of the crisis, the oligarchs are usually among the first to get extra help from the government, such as preferential access to foreign currency, or maybe a nice tax break, or—here’s a classic Kremlin bailout technique — the assumption of private debt obligations by the government. Under duress, generosity toward old friends takes many innovative forms. Meanwhile, needing to squeeze someone, most emerging-market governments look first to ordinary working folk—at least until the riots grow too large. . . .

SOURCE: The Quiet Coup

[bobthedrummer]

83. K&R + a link to Bankster USA (The Center for Media and Democracy)

Bankster USA
http://banksterusa.org

[Octafish]

86. Goll-ee! That deserves its own thread, bobthedrummer!

Example: It Ain't Over Till It's Over: Wall Street Gears Up for Austerity Battles of 2013

http://banksterusa.org/content/it-aint-over-till-its-over-wall-street-gears-austerity-battles-2013

Thank you, kind Sir! Money.

[felix_numinous]

88. And WHO doesn't remember your weekly posts

calling for prosecuting the Bush&Co crimes!!!! Great to see you Bobthedrummer!!!!!!

[Agony]

93. Go FAT CAT!

(Financial Accountability Tax on Corporate Agents and Traders) Love it!

[randome]

90. Did S&G reveal anything that was illegal or abusive?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Octafish]

99. Are you channeling John Roberts?

Just because a crooked chief justice of the supreme court, appointed by an unelected draft dodger war criminal pretzeldent, says it's OK to shred the Bill of Rights, doesn't make it so.

[Wilms]

100. ^

[BlueToTheBone]

103. He was last on the wagon, if you look at the dates.

So what does it prove? Robert Reich was the "story breaker"

[Octafish]

108. At least he got on the wagon. Most writers avoided the subject.

BTW: DUers also were among the first to the Bankster infofest.

Know your BFEE: Phil Gramm, the Meyer Lansky of the War Party, Set-Up the Biggest Bank Heist Ever.

Note the date. Corporate McPravda's coverage of Mr. Gramm's role came much, much later, when the trail had gone cold.

[intaglio]

104. So, they hate Greenwald for quoting other colomnists?

Other columnists who did the work for Greenwald.

Ri...i...i...ght

[Octafish]

109. Please tell: Where else did you see any of the conflicts-of-interest and criminality even mentioned?

Corporate McPravda has little room for mentioning anything that would inconvenience the oligarchs that own them. Greenwald did a yeoman's job connecting dots. One important dot that gets ignored, from John Kenneth Galbraith:

a guy who knew how to make government work to improve life for ALL Americans.

[intaglio]

118. Well since you ask,

dots are connected in the blogs of any other tuppeny-ha'penny conspiracy theorist. Does the Government or big business hate them as well?

[Octafish]

119. So, you don't have even one example?

Going by your post, I should've known.

[intaglio]

120. Why should I bother?

Linking dots is a futile exercise - ever heard of pareidolia? You can make patterns out of anything.

Other blogs that "connect the dots"? Try "The Blaze" or "Occidental Dissent" or "Above Top Secret" and no I won't link to such RW sites.

[Octafish]

121. It's a criticism you made.

Thank you for the information.

[Progressive dog]

106. "It's not just Snowden and illegal NSA spying, Big Money hates Greenwald"

Greenwald jumps on bank-wagon, gets proof of credibility on Snowden, because 99%.

[woo me with science]

117. K&R