Greenwald: Feinstein and Pelosi defend NSA because "there is a Democrat in the White House"

[Shampoyeto]

Excerpt from a new interview in Newsweek:

"“The American national security state is totally bipartisan. My biggest problem is with the Democrats, like Feinstein and Pelosi, who are defending it because there is a Democrat in the White House, and they are party loyalists and hacks before they are public servants.”

http://www.newsweek.com/glenn-greenwald-and-future-leaks-758

[Jackpine Radical]

1. My problem with Feinstein in particular

is that she's a full-fledged representative of the .01% and WANTS all that surveillance & militarization of the police, etc. to keep the rabble in their place & away from her mansion.

In case you wondered where she lives--

[DJ13]

3. Oh come on

That would only qualify as servants quarters in Victorian England.

A lot of servants, but still........

[BlueCheese]

138. Pelosi for certain is doing this for partisan reasons.

Feinstein may actually believe in it. She voted to amend the Constitution to ban flag-burning, for crying out loud.

I'm not sure which is scarier.

[Autumn]

2. I'm not so sure about that.

I think they would defend NSA even if a republican were President. But Glen hit it out of the park with this interview. Rec

[Egnever]

4. So he reads minds now as well.

This guy just gets cooler and cooler!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

6. Psychic?

or Psycho?

[randome]

10. The second thing.

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

[sabrina 1]

92. Who?

[randome]

93. Greenwald is more psycho than psychic.

Although that's just a juvenile jape from me and not intended to be reasoned conclusion.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[sabrina 1]

96. It brings back memories of the old

Bush era and the lame insults launched at Liberal bloggers. They sounded frustrated and angry rather than what they wanted to, or thought they sounded like.

The Left was right back then, Greenwald being among the most prominent Liberal bloggers on the Left at the time. Their lame insults are now just a historical record of the stupidity of their blind support for all that was wrong about the Bush gang of criminals.

The Left is right again Greenwald still being among the most prominent Liberal bloggers, now elevated, thanks mostly to his attackers, to Liberal Journalist, and nothing has changed.

The lame insults will again stand as a historical record of the stupidity of his critics, willing once again to put party before country and principle.

Funny how things come full circle. When Greenwald wrote about Bush spying on the American people the Left went wild and the Right called him a 'Psycho'!! Yes, they did, seriously!

[randome]

97. Well, I don't do 'frustrated'. Thought you could see that by now.

I simply see Greenwald in a different light than you. More like a dog with a bone except he gets to do the interview circuit, as well.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[sabrina 1]

102. You seem very frustrated to me. Name calling always demonstrates

a level of frustration and makes it seem that the person cannot defend their position.

Greenwald is not psycho. Why say something like that when you know you cannot back it up? That shows frustration, sorry.

I have never had to resort to namecalling as I am always ready to defend my positions, which, like Greenwald, have not changed since the Bush years on issues of Civil Liberties.

Did you agree with Bush's policies on this then? Because I don't recall anyone on the Left agreeing with Bush's Spying on Americans even after they changed the law to make his illegal spying legal.

[randome]

112. It was Obama who put in a lot more restrictions and protections once he took office.

I'm not that supportive of any of it. I just don't see that a country spying on another country is worth the level of outrage that Greenwald wants to generate.

Remember his first Snowden publication was a Powerpoint slide. I can never get over the fact that he thought it was something 'special'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[sabrina 1]

164. Maybe you should start expanding your sources then. China, eg,

has taken the spying allegations so seriously that US IT corps have lost much of their business around the world and countries like Chile and China, big players in the world of economics, have decided to develop their own browsers, to protect their citizens from US spying.

I don't see the problem with Democrats being outraged over the continuation of Bush's spying policies. We opposed them THEN and we STILL oppose them.

Snowden will go down in history as a hero. We are living in a historical period where the US COULD HAVE led the way during this latest period of tech development.

Instead we chose to adapt Bush policies and now the world is reactiing in a way that could destroy what is left of our influence on world affairs.

Too bad Dems chose not to stand up against Bush's disastrous and treasonous policies.

Glenn Greenwald and a few other courageous journaliasts have continued to do what they started out doing, trying to protect this country from the disastrous ramifications of Bush/Cheney policies.

[randome]

170. How often has China hacked into our systems?

How many Israeli spying scandals have surfaced over the past couple of decades?

The only thing China did was toss out an American company's computer contracts because of some paranoid bullshit about IBM putting 'back doors' into the systems.

We do not in any way, shape or form, still have Bush era policies. The NSA was reined in and new laws were passed to fine-tune their responsibilities. Are they immune to criticism? Hell, no, no organization should be.

I agree with you that it's too bad Dems didn't stand up more against Bush when he was the ruling idiot but that was then and this is now.

And every single day is the day when the U.S. could have led the way in helping to create a more just world. But like China we have too many moving pieces. The machine doesn't move in just one direction. It moves in every possible direction at once.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[radiclib]

25. What took you so long?

Six minutes? C'mon. That's way too long to let a pro-Greenwald post sit here.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

5. And Nancy Pelosi will be SOTH in 2015... while Glenny Boy will be looking for a job

after the WND/Infowarsesque website he's building with that billionaire goes belly-up.

That's the beautiful thing about America, Mr. Greenwald. Deal with it.

[bvar22]

23. "Glenny Boy" ?

Bless your heart.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

29. I don't believe in blessings, but thanks!

[awoke_in_2003]

40. You know that phrase...

means something different than what you think?

[BluegrassStateBlues]

42. I'm aware.

I had many old people in my family that would say something negative about someone and follow it with 'Bless their heart.'

[awoke_in_2003]

116. With Bluegrass in your name...

I figured you probably did

[Uncle Joe]

130. Not always sometimes it means sincere sympathy, when someone gets hurt, or is suffering

from a physical, emotional or mental impairment.

[awoke_in_2003]

142. Yeah, it is all about inflection...

which is a hard thing to read.

[cui bono]

88. What is it that is the beautiful thing about America?

I'm not getting it.

[sabrina 1]

95. Bush supporters said that about 'Glenny Boy' back in 2006 when he

Last edited Thu Oct 24, 2013, 11:25 PM - Edit history (1)

was just a Liberal Blogger telling the truth about the Bush gang.

Maybe if they had ignored him instead of attacking him, which always happens to people who are good at presenting inconvenient facts as he certainly was, their wish might have come true.

He stood then as he does now, against Bush's disastrous policies, and has remained CONSISTENT enough to move from just blogging to a major news media.

No matter how his critics attack him, he seems to keep moving up in the world of journalism so I imagine he is grateful to them for that.

I notice now as I did back when his blog was filled with Bush supporters, that none of his critics ever address the issues he raises.

When all his critiques are still futilely pounding away on their key boards, he will continue to rack up the journalism awards.

[KittyWampus]

135. You keep on mistakenly refer to Greenwald as a liberal blogger. You are so wrong it's pitiful.

[Luminous Animal]

136. Yep. Here is a list that proves he is right wing...

I don't really care what labels get applied to me. But - beyond the anti-war and pro-civil-liberties writing I do on a daily basis - here are views I've publicly advocated. Decide for yourself if the "libertarian" label applies:

* opposing all cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (here and here);

* repeatedly calling for the prosecution of Wall Street (here, here and here);

* advocating for robust public financing to eliminate the domination by the rich in political campaigns, writing: "corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture" (here and here);

* condemning income and wealth inequality as the by-product of corruption (here and here);

* attacking oligarchs - led by the Koch Brothers - for self-pitying complaints about the government and criticizing policies that favor the rich at the expense of ordinary Americans (here);

* arguing in favor of a public option for health care reform (repeatedly);

* criticizing the appointment of too many Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street officials to positions of power (here, here and here);

* repeatedly condemning the influence of corporate factions in public policy making (here and here);

* praising and defending the Occupy Wall Street movement as early and vocally as anyone (here, here and here)

* using my blog to raise substantial money for the campaigns of Russ Feingold and left-wing/anti-war Democrats Normon Solomon, Franke Wilmer and Cecil Bothwell, and defending Dennis Kucinich from Democratic Party attacks;

* co-founding a new group along with Daniel Ellsberg, Laura Poitras, John Cusack, Xeni Jardin, JP Barlow and others to protect press freedom and independent journalism (see the New York Times report on this here);

* co-founding and working extensively on a PAC to work with labor unions and liberal advocacy groups to recruit progressive primary challengers to conservative Democratic incumbents (see the New York Times report on this here);

http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html

[KittyWampus]

139. LOL. Nice cherrypicking.

[Luminous Animal]

163. LOL. Intelligent rebuttal.

[sabrina 1]

162. Thank you. Greenwald was a hero of the Left during the Bush years,

hated and attacked constantly by the Right.

Did something happen we missed? Because HE and WE haven't suddenly become supporters of the Bush agenda. Something is very strange here.

[uponit7771]

175. An Iraq war supporting hero to the left?! Nope, he can talk all the shit now about NOT supporting...

... Bush's bullshit but no one is going to forget that he did support Bush's bullshit

[LondonReign2]

185. Oh please

How dishonest. It's been pointed out to you-- how many times?-- that Greenwald admitted he was wrong initially and reversed himself. To make believe he remained a supporter of the Iraq is completely dishonest. Why am I not surprised?

[uponit7771]

186. Yes, REALLY easy to "reverse" himself after Fit hits the Shan... He lost benefit of the doubt then..

....becomes a conssumate Tavist Smiley level Obama basher and people are now supposed to take his word for a bunch of crap?

nah....

Learned my lesson, people who are redeemed in an area are more wiser the second time and takes steps as such

[LondonReign2]

188. Boo hoo, he's criticizing your hero

[uponit7771]

196. Fuck your wingerish "hero" bullshit, could care less about criticism care more about the truth and..

...GG has lost the benefit of the doubt on that

[LondonReign2]

202. You continue with your childish

"everyone that criticizes the actions of my hero is a winger" tirade. No, we're Democrats-- that means evaluating people based on their actions, not on their political party affiliation.

I hated it when Bush did it, I hate it when Obama does it. It's consistent. On the other hand, you're fine with it if your guy is doing it, and anyone like Greenwald that comes along to point out the Obama is wrong in this must be marginalized. Sad how your moral compass can get compromised by a "D".

[uponit7771]

203. Wingers reality "Boo Hoo" = adult but calling you on your wingerish shit = childish. Whatever

[sabrina 1]

209. Ah, I wondered when someone would bring up that smear again.

Greenwald wrote a book where he wrote that he, like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Edwards, and countless other Dems 'trusted' a US President to do the right thing after 9/11.

Unlike Hillary et al, Greenwald, as he explained, (would you like to see the text?) realized we were lied to. And he was angry that the people's trust in their government regardless of party at a time like that, was so abused.

He began blogging in 2005 and started out being honest, NO ONE would have known anything about his views on Iraq HAD HE NOT WRITTEN about them himself.

He was MOTIVATED by his disgust WITH BUSH to start writing and was a hero with the LEFT/DEMOCRATS, BECAUSE he realized pretty quickly, unlike many of our elected Dems who continued to vote to FUND THAT WAR even AFTER we knew there were no WMDS in Iraq.

It is REPREHESIBLE to take someone's honest accounting of their political journal, which they did not need to do, but he IS honest, and try to turn it into a smear. It doesn't work, it simply makes those trying to it look bad as the history of Greenwald's political views WERE WELL KNOWN due to HIM from the start.

What do you think of Hillary's support for the Iraq War, someone who didn't just support it emotionally but who, at a critical time in history, used her power as a Senator to give Bush the support he needed to go ahead with that illegal war.

Has she ever apologized for that, or admitted, as Greenwald has, that we were lied to?

Considering your disgust for anyone who even supported the war emotionally but didn't vote for it (Greenwald did not vote for Bush) I take it you will not be voting for Hillary??

[sabrina 1]

161. Did you support the Bush 'agenda' then when Greenwald was

openly opposed to it, supporting the democrats who were struggling to be heard over the 'Noise Machine'? He has not changed one iota as far as the Bush policies he spoke openly against, making him a liflelong enemy of the Far Right.

He still has many friends in the Dem Party. Are they wrong also regarding all these Bush policies?

I'm just curious about those on the 'left' who appear to be in agreement with Greenwald's enemies on the 'right'. Were the always opposed to Liberal Bloggers like Greenwald, and how come we never heard from them back then? Seriously, are you saying he was wrong about Republicans now?

I'm thoroughly confused.

[LittleBlue]

103. lol isn't Glenny boy launching a huge venture?

If managing a $250m media venture is jobless, sign me up! I'd gladly take that kind of unemployment over my current job.

[jtuck004]

105. The beautiful thing is that Pierre isn't the only one investing in news.

Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post, and Laurene Jobs (yeah, that Jobs) bought into Ozy Media in a group that includes several other wealthy angel investors. Angel investors, btw, are what you want, as opposed to vulture capitalists, because they are in it for the long term. Chris Hughes bought into the New Republic, Jeff Skoll put money into Participant Media and Pivot, among others.

Maybe they know something, or perhaps they would rather try to make things happen than just throw out meaningless predictions. And that is a beautiful thing.

The next year will be interesting.

[bobduca]

157. your use of the diminutive as pejorative is telling

Deal with it.

[Blue_Tires]

7. So Greenwald is shocked to see something like party loyalty?

Where the hell has he been for the past 30 years??

And why does he *still* fail to make the connection of how big a driver of the economy the NSA's largess is? THAT is the reason more than anything else why Congress bends over backwards to defend it...

[Luminous Animal]

11. Trying to find that part of the article where he expresses shock.

[Blue_Tires]

12. ok, not "shock"; he said "...my biggest problem..."

And I fail to understand why in the grand scheme of things Feinstein and Pelosi would be his "biggest problem"...For a story this far reaching I wouldn't have thought they would be in the top 20 'biggest problems'

[xiamiam]

17. same as the biggest problem here..those who support massive surveillance and bash greenwald

instead of dealing with the illegal nature of the surveillance.. partisan before upholding the constitution.

[Blue_Tires]

21. Luckily I'm nuanced enough that I can bash Greenwald AND the NSA

[Luminous Animal]

18. His biggest problem is with "the Democrats, like Feinstein and Pelosi"

Presumably, he has other big problems about other issues but he's speaking of his biggest problem about ONE specific issue.

For instance, if I say, "My biggest problem with mass transit in San Francisco, is that it's board members are incompetent," does not mean that an incompetent mass transit board is my biggest problem.

[Blue_Tires]

20. I get what you're saying

He's talking about his "biggest problem" in regards to the NSA scandal...

I'd have thought his biggest problem would be something like the NSA assisting in drone strikes that kill innocents, or the so-called "assassination list", or the CEOs who continually enrich themselves through the NSA's largesse, or how much political muscle they're able to throw around Washington, etc...

Even if Feinstein and Pelosi were vehemently outspoken against it, nothing would really be different and we'd still be stuck with the same NSA problem...For all we know, maybe Feinstein and Pelosi are defending it publicly to 'keep up appearances' of party unity; while silently being against it and working on a backroom solution...

[Luminous Animal]

67. No his is saying his biggest problem in regards to Democrats... in regards to bi-partisanship.

[Blue_Tires]

74. Which of course leads to the interesting question of

Why wouldn't Greenwald hate the GOP for going along with it? God knows the GOP has roadblocked everything else out of spite...Of all things, why are they so silent on this??

(of course my answer to that question is further downthread)

[Luminous Animal]

77. Who is in power again? Whose DOJ defends the NSA? Which admin is wrting the secret laws

now that govern the NSA's activities?

[Blue_Tires]

108. So what is the plan? What is the endgame for correcting all this?

What do you propose should be done?? When does being pissed off finally translate to direct action??

[Luminous Animal]

111. On Oct. 26, join us for a rally against mass surveillance in WA DC, and around the country.

https://optin.stopwatching.us/

We want the U.S. Congress to rein in the NSA. Specifically, we call on Congress to immediately and publicly:

Enact reform this Congress to Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the state secrets privilege, and the FISA Amendments Act to make clear that blanket surveillance of the Internet activity and phone records of any person residing in the U.S. is prohibited by law and that violations can be reviewed in adversarial proceedings before a public court;

Create a special committee to investigate, report, and reveal to the public the extent of this domestic spying.

This committee should create specific recommendations for legal and regulatory reform to end unconstitutional surveillance;

Hold accountable those public officials who are found to be responsible for this unconstitutional surveillance.

Sign the petition:

https://optin.stopwatching.us/

[Blue_Tires]

114. done and done

[dreamnightwind]

127. Thank you for that

and what is YOUR plan for stopping this? Attacking Greenwald?

[Blue_Tires]

128. My proposal has been posted dozens of times

But I admit (and others have pointed out) it has a number of flaws, so I need to devise a better one

[sabrina 1]

99. 'Why wouldn't he hate the GOP for going along with it'????

Are you familiar with him at all? Did you read his attacks on the Right for this very thing, when Bush was caught spying on the American people? The Right hated HIM so much for speaking out so forcefully against this very same issue he was threatened with death many times by them.

He, like all of us, thought that when we kicked them out all these issues which he wrote EXTENSIVELY about, No Fly Lists etc, would be dealt with.

He is disappointed to see that both parties rather than just the Republicans, are on board now defending what we thought we were voting against.

It's obvious to me you are not familiar with his history with Republicans over the past number years. They still hate him, with a passion. Now SOME, but not all by any means, on the Left have joined them and for the same reasons. He is still doing what the Left applauded him for doing during the Bush years, the exact same thing.

Can you explain why any Democrat who opposed Bush's spying on the American people might have changed their minds since then? Because I can't.

[Shampoyeto]

210. Did you just say the whole GOP went "along with it?"

Have you heard of the Amash amendment?

[hootinholler]

19. NSA largess?

What are you talking about here?

I'm not aware of the NSA driving the economy.

[Blue_Tires]

22. I've always maintained that congress is reluctant to take any real action

Last edited Thu Oct 24, 2013, 02:55 PM - Edit history (1)

against the NSA because of the sheer number of people employed by the system in damn near every state (contractors, subsidiaries, support systems, etc.)

I mean come on -- An entire "city" of expensive high-rise office buildings sprung up almost overnight next to Dulles Airport...And the businesses populating this city are all in the intel gathering industry...

[Luminous Animal]

75. Our infrascture is crumbling... paved roads are being turned into gravel... bridges are barely

Last edited Thu Oct 24, 2013, 04:51 PM - Edit history (1)

hanging in there. Schools are grossly underfunded and understaffed. We need more nurses and home healthcare workers.

There are plenty of ways to hire people that would advance a healthier, happier and more secure society than spying on the world.

[cui bono]

89. Yes please. n/t

[Blue_Tires]

100. Agreed

But for whatever reason, an increasing amount of funds are dumped into National Security/Defense with each passing year since 9-11

[leftstreet]

126. +1

[dreamnightwind]

125. Half of the people can be hired to spy on the other half

Some jobs program you got there.

[Shampoyeto]

84. Would you say NSA critic Ron Wyden is disloyal to the party? nt

[Blue_Tires]

101. I would just say that I'm not surprised party members stick up for one another

Christ...Look at how many repubs go along with denying evolution, or calling sexual preference a "lifestyle choice", or any of a number of 'official' party stances...

[truebluegreen]

182. Those are repubs. We expect herd behavior from them.

[randome]

8. And the reason a 'journalist' like Greenwald cares is because there's 'Libertarian-isms' to do!

Thanks again for the facts and nothing but the facts, Mr. Greenwald!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Maedhros]

52. Please just stop with the libertarian smear.

At this point, it just makes you look bad.

[Capt. Obvious]

9. That sounds about right

especially if applied to reactions here.

[questionseverything]

13. i see the "forget the 4th amendment crew" is here

with both parties beholden to the 1% donors i do not know if anything can be changed but thank you for the article

[randome]

15. You mean the '4th Amendment does not apply to the world' crew.

If you insist on categorizing those with different opinions.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[zeemike]

39. Well then if the 4th amendment does not apply to the world

then why should it apply to us crew.
Love that circular logic.
Because the founding fathers give us that as a privilege not a right...and as we all know from childhood privileges can be taken away if we are bad little kids.
The Bill of Privileges was not based on any moral principles at all...and only commies and other American haters call it the Bill of Rights.

[randome]

46. You're implying that America dictates to the rest of the world.

Which, admittedly, in some respects we do. But I don't think the rest of the world cares to be taken under our laws without their say-so.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[zeemike]

55. No I am not implying anything.

I am saying that the bill of rights are based on moral principles of humanity, and it applies to all humans, not just to us...and the founding fathers said it clearly..."We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..."
And so if we deny those rights to any person we make them a privilege not a right. And while we cannot control the world and make laws for them, we can treat them just as we treat ourselves...that is unless we make those rights into a privalage...which is what we have done.

[Enthusiast]

76. Very well said.

"And so if we deny those rights to any person we make them a privilege not a right."

[randome]

91. Saudi Arabia, for one, might disagree that our Bill of Rights applies to them.

If America cannot force its laws on the rest of the world, then the rest of the world, by definition, is not bound by our laws.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Luminous Animal]

104. " And while we cannot control the world and make laws for them, we can treat them just as

we can treat them just as we treat ourselves...that is unless we make those rights into a privalage"

[zeemike]

131. I never suggested we force our laws on the world.

I suggested we lead by example, and that means treating the rest of the world just as we treat our own under our bill of rights, just as if we did believe they were human rights not privilages...in other words live up to the ideals set forth in out own constitution.

If we just lived up to those ideals the rest of the world might want to emulate us instead of destroying us.

[randome]

147. I can't really argue with that.

But I don't see the country becoming that idealistic while the rest of the world doesn't want to be.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[zeemike]

155. Then it is our problem not theirs.

That is what all this division is about, to keep us from being idealistic and acting like it.
You can't have power over idealist and there is no money in it.

[TheKentuckian]

191. Our government is always constrained by the Constitution though.

We cannot enforce it on the world but that is absolutely not an argument that we as a nation do not have to live it in the world. The two things are not the same. The argument is lame, regressive, and shady as hell.

[randome]

201. Let me help you out with that.

We can apply our Constitution and Bill of Rights to the rest of the world to the extent possible.

I wouldn't have a problem with that and it doesn't sound quite so 'shady', does it?

But that's not the world we live in now. We can change it, sure. But what I don't get is why any of us are outraged now that it's not the kind of world we live in now.

Is it Greenwald's mission in life to make us all a better nation? A better people? I really don't see that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Puzzledtraveller]

14. Winner!

[xiamiam]

16. some of the comments are embarassing for a democratic site

the world has already caught up to the significance of these revelations. Time for some duers to wake up. It is truly more important than partisan politics.

[bvar22]

27. ^^^This^^^

Thank You.



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[Puzzledtraveller]

37. It's impossible for them xiamiam.

There is a block, and impasse in their egos that will never allow them to consider, forget even admitting, that we, "we" as in Democrats could ever be on the wrong side of anything. Add to their complete adoration of the administration and what you have is an army of mindless propagandizing automatons.

[Maedhros]

56. The Democratic Party, and especially its charismatic leader, are their security blanket.

Their belief and trust in the Party comforts them. Adversarial journalism from the likes of Greenwald rips away that comfort.

[avaistheone1]

38. That it is.

k&r

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Ah personal attacks always make this site

so enjoyable. Don't worry, I don't play rigged games. That includes the alert\jury system.

For the record, do point out though when was Greenwald's citizenship taken away

[pnwmom]

44. It's always been okay to personally attack non-DUers in positions

of influence, unless it is campaign season and they're running for office as a Democrat.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. As I said, it makes this place so enjoyable

NOT.

[Jim Lane]

180. I voted to hide and explained my disagreement with your argument.

My explanation was:

Agree with alerter re xenophobia. One response in thread (from pnwmom) says, "It's always been okay to personally attack non-DUers in positions of influence...." That's true, but it's NOT okay to base such an attack on bigotry. You can call Joe Lieberman or Allen West all sorts of nasty names but nothing anti-Semitic or racist.

I'll grant that the mere term "Brazilian" isn't inherently bigoted (unlike "wetback" or other such insults). In context here, however, its intention is similar -- enough so to warrant a hide.

[frylock]

58. stupidest fucking post of the day right here

[Luminous Animal]

78. I heard they took away Johnny Depp's citizensship away, too.

[NuclearDem]

123. Yeah, fucking ex-pats, amirite?

[warrior1]

26. fuck this guy

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Gee. Ya' think?

Though I think Pelosi might not be so slavish if it was Bush.

[questionseverything]

35. she would not be publicly defending the program

if it was bush but she would protect the status que just the same...as she did when she took impeachment off the table

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. No doubt. But, she wouldn't be so outspoken in defense of the spying.

[BlueCheese]

143. Nor would she have been trying to convince everyone to bomb Syria.

Pelosi would defend abolishing the capital gains tax if she thought it was good for the party.

[SidDithers]

30. Fuck Greenwald...nt

Sid

[blm]

32. That's BS from Greenwald - both voted for Patriot Act and he supported it, too.

What did he THINK was happening? Hell - Bush was wiretapping illegally for years and even before 9-11 and the 'War on Terror'. Democrats like Feinstein gave Bush plenty of room to operate.....in fact, Greenwald did, too.

[Maedhros]

60. Um...Greenwald was a scathing critic of the Bush Administration and of the Patriot Act.

If you can't back up your wild accusations with some kind of citation, you shouldn't make them.

[AtomicKitten]

73. He supported it during the early Bush Admin

Glenn Greenwald Supported President Bush As He Signed The Patriot Act! The Patriot Act was signed on October 26, 2001 and this is what Glenn Greenwald wrote in the preface to his own book.

This is not to say that I was not angry about the attacks. I believed that Islamic extremism posed a serious threat to the country, and I wanted an aggressive response from our government. I was ready to stand behind President Bush and I wanted him to exact vengeance on the perpetrators and find ways to decrease the likelihood of future attacks. During the following two weeks, my confidence in the Bush administration grew as the president gave a series of serious, substantive, coherent, and eloquent speeches that struck the right balance between aggression and restraint. And I was fully supportive of both the president’s ultimatum to the Taliban and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan when our demands were not met. Well into 2002, the president’s approval ratings remained in the high 60 percent range, or even above 70 percent, and I was among those who strongly approved of his performance. (...)

During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11. 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.

Glenn Greenwald “was ready to stand behind President Bush” and wanted to “exact VENGEANCE on the perpetrators.” And he “believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgement deferred to”, which of course included the passage of The Patriot Act on October 26, 2001.

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

[Luminous Animal]

80. I love how poeple make things up on DU. You do know that he was talking specifically about the

invasion of Iraq, dont' you?

[AtomicKitten]

98. It's in his own words for crissakes.

" I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to"

There is a paper trail of GG supporting Bush's cowboy foreign policy IN HIS OWN WORDS!!

The weirdness of these boards when it comes to, dare I say it, hero worship (oh the irony!) is surreal. GG was a Bush butt-sniffer at one time. Now as much as that may cause you discomfort, it doesn't make it any less true.

[Luminous Animal]

107. No it isn't. He was referring specifically to the invasion of Iraq. You imaganined that

he was also talking about the Patriot Act.

[AtomicKitten]

113. the Iraq War came after the Patriot Act

Did he oppose the Patriot Act before the Iraq War?
No he did not. Not even with parsing words and splitting hairs.

Looking for a hero prescient on the Patriot Act?

That would be Michael Moore.

[Luminous Animal]

115. You have no idea if he opposed it because he doesn't address it. He is specifically addressing

the Iraq invasion.

[AtomicKitten]

120. If he opposed it before the Iraq War,

he must have kept it to himself because he did not write anything in opposition to it before the Iraq War. Considering what he does for a living, you'd be hard-pressed to convince anyone he opposed it and remained mum.

[Luminous Animal]

121. He wasn't writing then. He started his blog in 2005.

[blm]

167. He wasn't INSPIRED to write down his protests of Bush before 2005? LOL

Folks I know personally met him at early Netroots and had exchanges with him. He was very dismissive of any talk against Bush's other actions and had only just turned against Iraq.

[uponit7771]

177. AMEN!! The logic pretzel people put themselves into while supporting GG is gob smacking

[Luminous Animal]

197. How can someone write about something when they weren't writing?

Prior to 2005, he didn't have a blog. He didn't have a column. He wasn't freelancing for any publication. And he hadn't written a book.

He was practicing law.

That anyone expects him to have written something when he wasn't writing is illogical to the extreme.

[blm]

204. That's not what I said. If Patriot Act and assorted other abuses

of BushInc's didn't inspire him to write, but, Iraq War did? I know my timeframe here - I just don't swallow everything Greenwald says whole cloth, like some of you. In fact, I think he's been a useful dupe on a number of occasions. Snowden is highly suspect to me BECAUSE of his history with BFEE loyal companies.

[Luminous Animal]

205. He started writing his book "How Would A Patriot Act" in 2005. The same year that

he started blogging. The book was published in 2006, the first meeting of Yearly Kos (now Netroots Nation).

I don't know where you got the notion that the Iraq war inspired him to write since he has never claimed that.

What first began to shake my faith in the administration was its conduct in the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in May 2002 on U.S. soil and then publicly labeled "the dirty bomber." The administration claimed it could hold him indefinitely without charging him with any crime and while denying him access to counsel.

I never imagined that such a thing could happen in modern America— that a president would claim the right to order American citizens imprisoned with no charges and without the right to a trial. In China, the former Soviet Union, Iran, and countless other countries, the government can literally abduct its citizens and imprison them without a trial. But that cannot happen in the United States—at least it never could before. If it means anything to be an American citizen, it means that we cannot be locked away by our government unless we are charged with a crime, given due process in court, and then convicted by a jury of our peers.

.....

On December 15, 2005, The New York Times published a journalistic bombshell when it revealed that for the last four years, the National Security Agency has been eavesdropping on American citizens in violation of the law—because it had been ordered to do so by President Bush. From the start of the NSA eavesdropping scandal, I began writing every day about what I believed were the profoundly important legal, political, and constitutional issues raised by the Bush administration's secret surveillance program.

This is not about eavesdropping. This is about whether we are a nation of laws and whether, in the name of our fear of terrorists, we will abandon the principles of government that have made our country great and strong for more than two centuries.

My blog has become one of the principal online gathering places for citizens of every ideological perspective and background who are truly alarmed by the law-breaking powers seized by the Bush administration, and who want to take a stand in defense of the principles of government and the Constitution. Original reporting on my blog led directly to frontpage news stories on the NSA scandal in media outlets such as The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and Knight-Ridder. And when the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on March 31, 2006, regarding Senator Russ Feingold's resolution to formally censure the president, Senator Feingold read from my blog as he questioned one of the committee's witnesses, former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean. Let it not be said that our voices cannot be heard in the halls of government.

[blm]

207. You keep missing my point - he wasn't inspired to jump in publicly

till 2005 and I know enough about this nation's real history of covert agitators to be suspicious of those presenting themselves as earnest critics. It was after Netroots that I began to suspect there could be something more going on.

It was Snowden's history that really made me look even more critically. It has nothing to do with Obama or Democratic party. It has everything to do with my suspicions of any actions that have an end result of helping BushInc.

[Luminous Animal]

208. Your point keeps shifting. I know enough about this nation's history of

covert operators who try to sow dissension amongst activists with vague accusations and unsupported suspicions and outright rumor-mongering.

[Luminous Animal]

195. The 1st Netroots meeting was in 2006. In 2005 Greenwald had already written an entire

book about Bush's "other actions".

"How Would A Patriot Act"
http://www.mises.org/daily/2834

He then went on to write two more.

[Cali_Democrat]

181. WOW. That's so weak. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

198. Explain to me how the man could have written something when he wasn't writing.

Prior to 2005, he didn't have a blog. He didn't have a column. He wasn't freelancing for any publication. And he hadn't written a book.

He was practicing law.

That anyone expects him to have written something when he wasn't writing is illogical to the extreme.

[blm]

168. Patriot Act was all about National Security, Lumi.

Get real.

[NuclearDem]

122. So?

Hillary voted for the damn thing and half of DU is clamoring for her to run in 2016.

[AtomicKitten]

129. I agree with your point.

Her hawkish views preclude my vote.

[Luminous Animal]

134. But you will vote for her if whe wins the primary.

[AtomicKitten]

146. No.

I won't.

[Luminous Animal]

165. Little doubt that Greenwald would, either.

[Maedhros]

119. As noted repeatedly elsewhere, this passage refers to the invasion of Iraq

and Greenwald's initial support of it. He specifically expresses regret at doing so in the same passage you quote. And, as has been exhaustively demonstrated, Greenwald's disillusionment after the fact led him to become one of the most vocal and strident critics of the Bush Administration and, more importantly, the bad policies enacted by that Administration. To Greenwald's credit, he has maintained his opposition to those bad policies despite the change in the letter following the President's name.

[AtomicKitten]

133. I'm a big fan of the ability to change one's mind.

This conversation had led me to think of Michael Moore when he drove around DC with a megaphone reading the Patriot Act. I'm going to watch Fahrenheit 9/11 again today!

[blm]

169. Point being that he's attacking on NSA policies that he supported for a number of years

when it was HIS guy Bush.

[Maedhros]

171. You appear confused.

When you say "HIS guy Bush," to whom are you referring? Certainly not Greenwald? He heaped brutal amounts of scorn onto the Bush Administration.

Are you also laboring under the misapprehension that Greenwald supported NSA policies at some point? He has been an unwavering critic of the surveillance state - which is exactly why he catches so much hell here on DU, because he didn't mute his criticism when Obama took office.

[blm]

174. That's your turnip truck version. I'm well aware of his 'journey' Mae.

I also remember 'brutal amounts of scorn' heaped upon Nixon by some veterans who joined VVAW and then proceeded to sabotage the group's efforts and distort their views in order to disgrace it in the nation's eyes. I don't believe Greenwald's entire 'journey' the way you do.

[Maedhros]

178. I've been reading his columns since he began writing them.

I'm intimately familiar with his work. I suspect you have read nothing more than the links you've been provided for purposes of smearing his character.

In other words: you got nuthin'.

[blm]

183. Baloney, Mae. I even tried to get info to Greenwald on some media matters

in 2006 and 2007 that should have been of keen interest to him and anyone distrustful of corporate media - it was privileged information at the time.

You don't know sh!t about me if you could say something so off base that would imply that I follow ANYONE or any talking point.

You're an inattentive participant on this board if that is your conclusion.

[blm]

166. Early on he supported Bush. Cut the revisionism. Turnip truck rides aren't my thing.

.

[Maedhros]

173. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are arguing in good faith.

The only evidence you can provide of Greenwald's support of Bush comes from the preface to his 2006 book "How Would a Patriot Act: Defending American Values from a President Run Amok," in which he describes how he (like 92% of the American public at the time) supported the invasion of Iraq because he trusted the Administration to do the right thing. He then goes on to write an entire book about how that trust was violated by the Bush Administration. Those of you who quote one tiny bit of the preface always proceed to ignore the entire body of Greenwald's work that followed it.

Greenwald never once wrote an article or blog post defending or supporting the Iraq War. If you disagree, find a link and prove me wrong.

Greenwald should get credit for being honest about his naievete prior to his political awakening. Here's his explanation (bold text was present in the original http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html):

Like most people who do not work on politics or journalism full-time, I had to rely back then on standard political and media venues to form my political impressions of the world. When I first began writing about politics, I had a whole slew of conventional political beliefs that came from lazy ingestion of the false and misleading claims of these conventional political and media sources. Having the time to examine political realities first-hand has led me to realize how many of those former beliefs I held were based on myth or worse, and I've radically changed how I think about a whole slew of issues as a result of that re-examination.

The purpose of the Preface was to publicly explain that evolution. Indeed, the first sentence of this Preface was this quote from Abraham Lincoln: "I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday." When I still trusted and relied upon the claims of the political and media class - when I was basically apolitical and passive - I tacitly accepted all sorts of views which I've come to see are warped and misleading. I've talked often about this process and am proud of this evolution. I have zero interest in hiding it or concealing it. Quite the contrary: I want readers to know about it. That's why I wrote the Preface.

That's quite the opposite of revisionist history.

Frankly, I don't understand those of you who cling to these oft-discredited ad hominem attacks on Greenwald. They are so, so easily negated.

[blm]

176. I read it when it came out. I had hopes for Greenwald, then other aspects of his

character made me suspect that his motives weren't exactly as he was trying to portray.

[Maedhros]

179. "Other aspects of his character."

Meaning "he criticized Obama."

[blm]

184. Obama was president in 2006? Apparently, you know nothing about me, Mae.

.

[Maedhros]

189. Of course, my analysis of your motives is indeed speculative.

Your mention of "other aspects of [Greenwald's] character" as a point of argument to invalidate his positions is particularly weak sauce.

Just as I am in a very poor position to judge your character, you are likewise in a poor position to judge Greenwald's. If you have concrete evidence of malfeasance by Greenwald by all means link to it. I speculate, however, that you do not have such evidence and, just like many nominally-liberal pundits, your apprehension regarding Greenwald's "character" was not present in 2006 but instead appeared this year when he opened the NSA can-of-worms that so many have interpreted as an attack on the Obama presidency.

From 2006 - 2008 those nominally-liberal pundits praised Greenwald. It wasn't until he began criticizing Obama for continuing Bush-era policies that the coordinated smears from the nominal-left began. I speculate that the same pattern holds for DU posters.

[blm]

200. Your assumption is, indeed, incorrect. I don't coordinate with anyone and...

I have had mu suspicions in regard to Greenwald since 2007 at the latest.

My criticisms of what he has done do not parallel anyone else's or parrot them. Octafish is one of Greenwald's staunchest defenders here, and he would attest that my observations are my own and based in deep-rooted suspicion of Snowden's motives, too. I don't take any link to BushInc as an innocent one. And history has a way of proving that a correct position to take 95% of the time.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

33. The fact that he's singling out our Democratic women is very telling.

When women succeed, America succeeds.

People that try to marginalize a successful woman like SPEAKER Pelosi are not our friends, no matter which way you try to slice it.

[NOVA_Dem]

36. That's nonsense.

Pelosi was a very vocal critic of similar policies under Bush. Feinstein has always been a suspect Democrat.

Pelosi shows her true values when she spouts nonsense like "Chained-CPI isn't a cut to SS" and "impeachment is off the table." They look out for themselves and play America for suckers.

[NuclearDem]

43. Or it could be that Pelosi is the most powerful Democrat in the House

And Feinstein sits on the intel committee and is a supporter of the surveillance state.

[frylock]

61. but that would make entirely too much sense

[NuclearDem]

94. It's so much more satisfying to abuse the sexist card

Because, hey, why not?

[zeemike]

47. And when women sell us out America is sold out.

Just as if it were men selling us out.
If women want equal treatment then they have to accept equal blame when they fuck up...and they did that.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

48. "If women want equal treatment."

Wow.

[zeemike]

64. "He is singling out our Democratic women"

it's very telling
Wow

[BluegrassStateBlues]

66. I think you owe women an apology.

Equal treatment isn't given based on your arbitrary "IF, THEN" statement.

[zeemike]

71. Well I think you owe Greenwald an apology

For you accusing him of sexism just because he levels accurate and appropriate criticism at them.
Equal treatment is not carving out exceptions because of gender...that is no different than when we had a male dominated society.

[questionseverything]

72. distractions like this are foolish

the bill of rights is not based on if s and thens either

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. If she doesn't want to be challenged on her support of spying she shouldn't support it.

[frylock]

59. it's unfortunate that neither of them is black so that you could accuse him of racism as well

[BluegrassStateBlues]

65. His pro bono defense of a white supremacist threatening to kill a federal judge does that.

But that's a different story.

[frylock]

69. keep fucking that chicken

[BluegrassStateBlues]

70. I will.

How many eggs would you like?

[Lizzie Poppet]

144. Jury results:

Oct 24, 2013, 06:15 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Completely over-the-top.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No comments were provided by the juror
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No comments from this juror either.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

[frylock]

149. i post this quite a bit and usually with the same results..

[Luminous Animal]

83. He didn't defend him in the criminal trial. He defended him in the 1st Amendment trial.

[DefenseLawyer]

110. No decent person could defend someone accused of a crime

Your avatar makes me assume you are in the medical field; I certainly hope you don't provide medical care to anyone that you think might be one of those scumbags.

[Luminous Animal]

81. Both powerful leaders in their respective houses.

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. They are backbenchers right?

for those who need it

[bvar22]

87. That is even more absurd and transparent than your other posts in this thread.

Please Proceed.



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[BluegrassStateBlues]

117. As is your avatar glorifying a domestic terrorist. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

124. How is a critic in a comic book form

A dystopia for anybody familiar with Moore's work, akin to actual, like for real, domestic terrorism? I guess the man without a mask was also looking for the overthrow of government.

Wonders never, ever cease.

Don't worry, I do not play games of chance.

[reddread]

159. less than tenuous grasp upon reality it appears

what a wild remark.

[nadinbrzezinski]

160. Yup

[sibelian]

193. ...oooooh, dear.

Dear, oh dear.

I don't think you can invalidate someone's argument by making observations on their use of the imagery of fictional charaters.

[JI7]

90. Women are a big REason Republicans are doing horribly , look at the Virginia Gov Race

[dreamnightwind]

132. Wow that was pathetic

It's because they are women that he singles them out? You really believe that? I certainly don't.

[bobduca]

156. He must hate women!

[LondonReign2]

187. This MUST be performance art

Off to ignore

[sibelian]

194. OK, you're a waste of space.

Bye.

[ancianita]

211. Damn right.

[polichick]

34. Greenwald is correct - the national security state is totally bipartisan.

[last1standing]

41. He could have said the exact same thing for many of the posters at DU.

"Party before policy" has become the mantra of 'good' Democrats. Say anything even mildly or indirectly negative about the leader and they will swoop down to peck at you in the hopes that you'll flee.

These are the posters who have justified tax cuts for the wealthy, unrestrained NSA spying, cutting SS and Medicare, hounding whistleblowers, pushing off LGBT protections, attacking other countries without cause, and betraying the Labor movement.

All in the name of being a 'good' Democrat.

Personally, I won't be bogged down by party when the party stops supporting the things I believe in. I know that makes me a 'bad' Democrat to some people but it makes me a better citizen and human being.

[Oilwellian]

192. Well said

[ebbie15644]

49. Feinstein has always gone along with NSA even while Bush was president

[stevenleser]

50. Greenwald is still spreading disinformation on this.

http://steveleser.blogspot.com/2013/06/transcript-of-nsa-surveillance-portion.html

http://steveleser.blogspot.com/2013/08/full-transcript-for-my-segment-on.html

[Maedhros]

63. Your opinions are noted.

But hardly dispositive.

[stevenleser]

68. The fact is that Greenwald has never addressed the history and appellate decisions that frame this

issue. Without that, without understanding how we got here and exactly what the courts, including those prior to FISA, think is and is not Constitutional and why, his take is disinformation.

[Maedhros]

85. Greenwald's point is that the surveillance state is destructive to democracy.

Your point is that it's technically legal.

[Luminous Animal]

109. 150 years ago, Steve would have defended slavery because judicial precedence.

[msanthrope]

148. An absolutely disgusting post to make to person of color. nt

[Luminous Animal]

150. Boo fucking hoo.

[msanthrope]

151. Care to expand on your brilliant reply? nt

[Luminous Animal]

152. I could add an extra "fucking" or two but that would be silly.

[msanthrope]

153. I think you are a bright, shining light to your profession. nt

[Luminous Animal]

154. True that. I am an excellent cat wrangler. 9 out of 10 cats agree.

[Maedhros]

118. I read the posts in your links in full.

I appreciate that you disagree with Greenwald and have a vested interest in defending the President from perceived accusations of wrongdoing.

However, I simply find Greenwald's arguments more compelling than yours. You make a lot of unsupported statements of fact - e.g. "Greenwald provided less than 15% of the facts that the public needs to be fully informed about what is going on here."

[stevenleser]

199. Greenwald has no arguments, he has no court citations, he has nothing.

He's simply a polemicist, a Libertarian version of Ann Coulter, who knows what buttons to press to get certain segments of the Progressive community behind him, which in this case is mention anything potentially nefarious regarding an intelligence organization.

I've observed this long before Greenwald came on the scene. Mention the CIA or NSA and some on the progressive left lose all perspective and go berserk. They don't care about facts or history or court citations, it's defcon-CIA, or in this case, defcon-NSA and that's all that matters.

[tridim]

51. Thanks for your concern, RW Libertarian hack/scammer.

And please fuck off while you're at it, GG.

[Shampoyeto]

86. I wish more "RW" wrote multiple anti-W Bush books

Shhhh. Pretend W is a liberal.

[JoeyT]

53. He's wrong about Feinstein.

She'd defend it no matter who was in office.

[deurbano]

79. I agree with Greenwald's overall point, but you're right about Feinstein.

[hughee99]

62. No shit. In similarly surprising news, my dog's breath smells like dog food. n/t

[madrchsod]

106. how`s the weather in brazil greenwald?

your concern about feinstein and pelosi is duly noted.

[mike_c]

137. the juvenile is strong in this thread, young Skywalker....

[woo me with science]

140. Just look at the corporate propaganda swarm on this thread.

This one is considered dangerous.

[woo me with science]

141. Huge K&R. Important thread.

[bvar22]

145. And another kick.

This is important.
....And the personal attacks on Greenwald in this thread are "illuminating" to say the least.

Historically, many cultures and societies have attempted to place Party Loyalty and allegiance to a Person above good policy.
Those have all ended badly.

[bobduca]

158. Feinstein Manor festooned with code pink banners!

[L0oniX]

172. Captain Obvious.

[TheKentuckian]

190. DiFi would be down if Stalin, Mao, Khan, or Attila was in the White House.

But for some others he is right on.

[bowens43]

206. yep. pretty obvious.