Glenn Greenwald: I Defend Snowden Like MSNBC Defends Obama '24 Hours A Day'

[ProSense]

Glenn Greenwald: I Defend Snowden Like MSNBC Defends Obama '24 Hours A Day'

Glenn Greenwald, the former Guardian journalist who has reported extensively on the National Security Agency's top secret surveillance programs revealed by Edward Snowden, on Thursday likened his defense of the former NSA contractor to MSNBC's coverage of the Obama administration because "every journalist has an agenda."

"Sure. I do defend him just like people on MSNBC defend President Obama and his officials 24 hours a day," Greenwald said on the network Thursday.

"Not everyone on MSNBC does that 24 hours a day," responded Kristen Welker, NBC News' White House correspondent.

"No, not everybody, but a lot of people on MSNBC do," Greenwald responded. "Sure, I don't make any bones about the fact that I consider what Edward Snowden did to be quite heroic, just like I consider what Chelsea Manning did, Daniel Ellsberg, one of my political heroes. I as a journalist am grateful when people sacrifice their own interest to come forward and bring transparency to the United States government."

"That to me is what journalism is about and we need that in the United States," he continued. "I absolutely do defend what Edward Snowden does and I don't pretend otherwise."

- more -

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/glenn-greenwald-i-defend-snowden-like-msnbc-defends-obama-24-hours-a-day

Glenn Greenwald, NSA Documents & Checkbook Journalism - BFP Roundtable #02
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024228191

[JoePhilly]

1. Joe Scab defends Obama? Andrea Greenspan defends Obama?

Oh, 24 hours a day doesn't actually mean 24 hours a day.

Glenn again shows how hyperbole distorts much of his "reporting".

[Penicilino]

10. Greenwald said "close to 24 hours a day"

Do you read titles or articles?

[JoePhilly]

12. I know Glenn's Hyperbole when I see it.

MSNBC is happy to attack Obama from the right, and the left.

In fact, they often put together a panel so that the RW pundit attacks from the right, and the left wing pundit attacks from the left. That way, viewers get 2 totally different reasons to be unhappy with the President's latest action.

Glenn's claim that they defend Obama 24 hours a day, or even "close to 24 hours a day", is total nonsense.

Hyperbole generates way more eye balls for Glenn than accuracy. And he knows it.

[Penicilino]

21. To ignore the fact that he said "close" is hyperbole

It's possible for MSNBC to praise Obama "close" to 24 hours while Joe Scarborough not praising him.

[stevenleser]

49. He corrected himself when challenged. He was happy to throw the gross hyperbole out there

as a talking point.

Which goes with everything else he does. He throws garbage out there most of which is hyperbole.

[WowSeriously]

26. Or you could interpret his statement as many individuals from MSNBC

Defend the President 24/7.

But please do interpret what Greenwald said in the most negative light.

[SidDithers]

2. Greenwald. LOL...

What a clown.

Sid

[Pirate Smile]

18. +1

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Obama/NSA LOL...

[Tarheel_Dem]

42. A RICH clown, who's getting even richer. Hey GG, answer these questions, won't ya? Inquiring minds

really wanna know.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017165892

[Progressive dog]

86. +1 nt

[OnyxCollie]

3. LOL!

Add Stephanie Miller and Hal Sparks to the stable of Obama apologists at MSNBC.

Sucking up to power is a survival mechanism for sycophants.

[seattledo]

4. I've never heard apologists there.

Usually all they do is unfairly attack. They're so biased.

[Broward]

9. Agreed, they're no different than the Bush sycophants from the other side.

[Jamaal510]

61. Except Bush ll lied us into a war

and raised UE and the deficit. Obama has not. Please don't resort to false equivalence just because of some stances you happen to be at odds with the President on.

[uponit7771]

75. They're not defending a war criminal though

[NOVA_Dem]

33. Total shills. Steph also stifles dissent from the mooks.

She's such a shill. I was surprised that Hal would make excuses for Obama especially on things like drones. Steph will occasionally admit that she is being a total hypocrite.

[Jamaal510]

60. WTF? Obama apologists?

This sounds like a comment I'd expect from FreeRepublic.

[arthritisR_US]

5. He conveniently leaves out faux noise and how

they trumpet and distort for the right 24/7

[deurbano]

48. He hasn't left out Fox. (One example below...)

http://www.salon.com/2009/10/22/media_252/

THURSDAY, OCT 22, 2009
What “controlling the media” really means
The same media whining over criticisms of Fox was happy to be bullied and controlled by the Bush administration.
GLENN GREENWALD

<<...Whatever else is true, Fox has taken on a political role that is very rare, at least in modern times, for a large American news organization. Its news coverage is not merely biased or opinionated; there’d be nothing unusual about that. Instead, it is a major participant — the leading participant — in organizing, promoting and fueling protests, including street protests, against the government. Fox has undertaken a role typically played by media outlets in, say, Venezuela or various unstable, under-developed countries — sponsoring rather than reporting on protests against the government — and it is difficult to recall any recent example that is similar.

Fox has every right to do that, but the pretense that it is a news organization is ludicrous — transparently so — and there isn’t anything remotely wrong with the Obama White House saying so. Even those with high tolerance levels for blatant double standards should have a very hard time watching Bush officials of all people — along with their media-star allies — whine about criticisms of Fox coming from the White House, when the prior eight years were marked by an administration that attempted to dominate and control media coverage more than any in modern history, along with a media that seemed perfectly content, even happy, to be controlled...>>

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. Wow...embarrassing

The hatred of Obama is irrational now. Or, this is just the right wing tendency coming out.

Sad that so many otherwise progressive people put so much stock in such a silly asshole.

[goldent]

13. He's seeking fame and fortune

Money changes everything.

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. You betcha! Actual "whistleblowers" are finally beginning to question this asshole.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017165892

[Comrade Grumpy]

14. Your post is what's irrational.

What "hatred of Obama" is evidenced in the OP or in the responses here?

Greenwald claimed the MSNBC defends Obama, which is debatable, and said he would defend Snowden like MSNBC defends Obama, which may be laudable, depending on your viewpoint.

The "silly asshole" is a journalist who has blown open a spying scandal of historic proportions. Whether you like it or not doesn't make it any less true.

And this isn't really about Obama, anyway. He'll be gone in a couple of years, but the intelligence apparatus is forever. This is about the relationship between the government and the governed.

[zeemike]

30. No but they will continue to make it about Obama and Greenwald and Snowden.

To keep us distracted from the real big problem we have...a surveillance state of epic proportions.
But some love Big Brother now, and we are all expected to love him eventualy...or it is a rat cage on your face.

[solarhydrocan]

36. First the Rat Cages

then the boots



Oh look, an old DU post from 2008 praising Greenwald!

Glenn Greenwald, he of the incomparable blog Unclaimed Territory, besides doing yeomanly work recently in calmly documenting the viciousness and general idiocy of the right-wing bloggery and thereby provoking some of the most entertaining Saturday AM fare since RugRats, is the first source I found for this...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2403604

[ChisolmTrailDem]

7. Kristen Welker would know that isn't the case. She was speaking for herself. Can't stand her. n/t

[Scurrilous]

8. Can't wait for his new media 'venture'..

Should be a hoot!

[Penicilino]

11. Jeremy Scahill and Dan Froomkin will be in it

Do you think they suck?

[snooper2]

15. not sure, have they ever had a popsicle?

[randome]

16. He's sounding a little shrill in this interview.

I think the pressure is getting to him. The pressure of making money from Snowden's documents and not being the world-changer he wanted to be.

Maybe a touch of guilt regarding Snowden?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[Penicilino]

19. Another possibility is that you side with the NSA in the metadata-dragnet issue

And that's why you claim to perceive Greenwald as "shrill". A question that would clarify this issue is: Have you ever commented that Greenwald did a good job in any NSA-related interview?

[randome]

82. Personally I think the metadata is a non-issue.

For those who want it stopped, it has no effect on me.

As for Greenwald, he usually comes across as trying to convince us of something. A good journalist only reports the facts and doesn't try to sell a point of view.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[gcomeau]

66. In *this* interview?

He's Captain Shrill.

[uponit7771]

76. +1

[Cha]

17. Yeah, yeah, yeah.. greenwald the

terminal asshole.

MSNBC doesn't "defend" PBO.. they may report reality on a good day. greenwald should try it sometime.

[bvar22]

20. bvar22 agrees with Greenwald.

While I love Rachel Maddow,
and she occasionally pushed the limit by mildly criticizing some of President Obama's most egregious betrayals of the American Working Class, she generally participates in the MSNBC Corporate efforts to label Obama & Hillary as the "Liberal" edge of the American Political Spectrum.

[Cali_Democrat]

25. 24/7, eh?

Ya, Morning Joe fawns all over Obama constantly.

LOL

[bvar22]

31. Guess you didn't read MY post...or the OP.

Your comment was addressed in both.

[Jamaal510]

63. And Chuck Todd,

and Andrea Mitchell, and Abby Huntsman, and David Gregory (this does not include contributors BTW).


It's obvious that a person is losing an argument and should no longer be taken seriously once they
a. resort to false equivalence or
b. portray MSNBC as a 24/7 progressive network

[anti partisan]

74. 24/7 progressive network?

I think you're missing the point. Greenwald sees it as pro-Obama rather than pro-progressive values.

Greenwald is much more progressive than MSNBC, although he doesn't elaborate on it much in his writings.

[Kolesar]

103. Greenwald isn't progressive, he is a libertarian ... eom

[anti partisan]

107. That's a bold faced lie

Greenwald may be a civil libertarian (think ACLU), but yes he is a progressive.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/10542163594

[Kolesar]

111. LOL

I have been reading the clown for almost a decade.
welcome to the Democratic Underground.

[anti partisan]

112. Nice shameless 2 week old bump

Are you still trying to contend that Greenwald is a libertarian? Or what?

[Kolesar]

113. Are you going to cry? eom

[anti partisan]

114. The joke's on you (nt)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

22. This is why Greenwald is full of shit. MSNBC doesn't "defend Obama 24 hours a day"!

[JEB]

23. Tweety

licks the toe jam of whoever is in power.

[sheshe2]

24. loon...

Then he goes on to pout that The Pope beat out Eddie for Times Person of the year.

Then trashes said magazine...

Greenwald Attacks Time For Person Of The Year Selection: 'A Meaningless Award From A Meaningless Magazine'

Glenn Greenwald ridiculed Time on Wednesday for the magazine's decision to name Pope Francis — and not Edward Snowden — its "person of the year" for 2013.

In an email to TPM, Greenwald, who has reported extensively on the National Security Agency's top secret surveillance programs revealed by Snowden, said that the selection was motivated by Time's desire to be "relevant" — if only for a moment.

"It's a meaningless award from a meaningless magazine, designed to achieve the impossible: to make TIME relevant and interesting for a few fleeting moments," he wrote.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/greenwald-mocks-time-for-person-of-the-year-selection

So according to the esteemed Glenn...Time would only be relevant and interesting if Eddie was on the cover. Well at least for a few fleeting moments ( sort of like Eds claim to fame). Why is he so mad that Ed didn't make the cover,in what he describes as a meaningless award? Glenn you seem to be contradicting yourself. Again?

[Demeter]

27. The REAL Problem Is

we have MSM talking heads defending the indefensible, 24/7. They defend the Status Quo, the Abusers amongst us in positions of power, and rampant illegality, if performed by/for the Right People.

We do NOT have any reliable voice defending the People, until now. Thank you, Messrs Greenwald, Snowden, Manning, Assange, Occupy, and all who came before and after!

[JEB]

29. That is certainly correct and to the point.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. +1

[bvar22]

34. Exactly!

I attempted to say the same thing a few posts up,
but you did it so much better.

DURec for Post #27 by Demeter.

MSNBC is part of the overall Corporate Scam. MSNBC contributes to the fraud by labeling Corporatists like Hillary and Obama as the Liberal, Left edge of the Political Spectrum in the USA.

I'll stand with the League of Women Voters when they refused to continue Hosting the Presidential debates:

"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."
--League of Women Voters, 1988, refusal to host Presidential Debates

When the most insightful and honest Political Commentary available in the USA is found
on The Comedy Channel, then we have a REAL problem.

DURec & Kick for honest commentary from Greenwald.
Some people don't like it when the curtain is pulled away from their comfortable fantasies.

[ProSense]

37. First,

"we have MSM talking heads defending the indefensible, 24/7"

...it's patently absurd to claim that any network defends the President close to 24/7, especially given the lineup of pundits. Secondly, most of the people on the left on MSNBC do not defend the President close to 24/7. Most of the coverage is usually debunking RW talking points.

Still, Greenwald didn't call out "MSM talking heads." He called out MSNBC. He seems to have no problem implying that Fox displays more balance that MSNBC:

<...>

MSNBC did not air a single story critical of the President or a single positive story about Romney - not a single one - even as Fox aired a few negative ones about Romney and a few positive ones about Obama. Meanwhile, Obama campaign aides who appeared on MSNBC were typically treated with greater deference than that shown to the British Queen when one of her most adoring subjects is in her presence for the first time.

<...>

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/19/msnbc-axelrod-gibbs-obama

In Greenwald's head, Fox is a standard that MSNBC should aspire to.

[laundry_queen]

67. +1000 nt

[PowerToThePeople]

35. I would just like to say

[ProSense]

38. "Patriot":

[riqster]

104. If Snowden can get 30 mpg, we'll talk equivalents.

My Patriot does. Love that car.

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. You guys make me laugh!

?

[PowerToThePeople]

47. And you guys make me cringe.

[Number23]

64. The jury fails once again. Throwing Nazi pics at people who disagree with you

particularly black posters that disagree with you, is unconscionable and incredibly stupid.

[laundry_queen]

68. Can I ask

how one is supposed to discern race through text on a computer screen if it's not mentioned in the post?

Thx.

[Number23]

69. Can I ask

Why you think your question has any bearing whatsoever on the issue at hand?

Are people here so devoid of facts, uncreative, and unable to argue a point that they can't help but throw out Nazi references to people who dare to disagree with them? And are those of us few remaining posters of color that still bother to post here supposed to pretend that it's okay just so the ones that engage in this juvenile, counter productive, and wildly inappropriate behavior don't have to bother trying to "discern race?"

Thanx.

[laundry_queen]

70. I'm not saying I agree with the Nazi thing

for the record, I don't so most of your post is moot because I'm not asking you to pretend it's okay. But your bringing in that particular poster's race, as if the Nazi reference was that much more offensive because we should 'just know' the race of the person we are responding to...well, is also silly because the whole Nazi thing should be equally offensive to people of all races and colors. I thought your bringing that little (unknown to those who don't know the poster) fact should have had no bearing whatsoever on the issue (the Nazi photo) at hand either.

[Number23]

71. Which is exactly what my point was

It should have been offensive to toss a picture of Nazis at ANYBODY simply because they disagree with you. But knowing what the Nazis were trying to do and their beliefs, to throw Nazi accusations in the face of a poster who happened to be a poster of color makes it that much worse. If I have to explain WHY tossing pics of Nazis at non-whites (or Jews, or gays etc.) is even worse, then this conversation is even more purposeless than it appears to be.

See ya.

[laundry_queen]

83. Pointless is right.

If I have to explain how tossing Nazi pics at human beings in general is just as equally horrible for anybody on this left wing website, then yes, this conversation is pointless.

[Number23]

108. You are the one leaping into this conversation with needless questions

I already made it abundantly clear that throwing pics of Nazis at ANYONE is offensive but it is even more so to do that at a person of color.

Given the history and aims of the Nazis, your "decision" that tossing photos of Nazis is equally horrible for everyone regardless of nationality, race, or sexual orientation really does say alot. About you and your knowledge of history.

[MADem]

84. That's pretty nasty, IMO. But hey, I suppose when they've got no argument, a nasty pic will have to

do.

They hoist themselves upon their own petards with that kind of foolishness!

[PowerToThePeople]

99. I invoke Godwin's Law.

Well, not really. But I figured I would chime in here. Been reading on my phone, but waited till I had a keyboard to type a decent response.

First, the picture. It is a real world example that I chose as a representation of lockstep authoritarian fascism. I was lead that direction by seeing the fictionalized version of the same just above directed at me.

Tarheel_Dem (18,626 posts)
44. You guys make me laugh!

(FYI - I had never heard or seen anything like this before. How do you people find these places?)

One is fictionalized and one really occurred in our recent human history.

To Number23, three times in three different posts you have tried to claim the poster's race as a reason why this was so awful. Well, as laundry_queen pointed out, there is no way to discern race from an Internet message board. I can assure you that there was no racial attack taking place by my posting of this picture. The attack is strictly a POLICY attack.

To the "Godwin's law" thing. I have very mixed feeling here. On one hand, I do think that invoking Nazism in most cases is wrong. But, when you are fighting against authoritarian fascism practiced by a group that walks lockstep and consistently choses party over policy, the invocation may not be wrong. No, we do not have death camps in the USA. It is the 21st century. We do not need them any more. We can and do bring death anywhere in the world we want via predator drones. We have become exactly what is shown in the picture I posted, if you dare to look below the surface.

[Scurrilous]

100. Not Fiction, real.

Oath Keepers Places Pro-Snowden Signs in DC Area, Encouraging More Whistle-blowers



Pentagon Station Metro Stop

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2013/07/24/press-release-oath-keepers-places-pro-snowden-signs-in-dc-area-encouraging-more-whistle-blowers/

[PowerToThePeople]

101. Big brother

Big Brother is a fictional character in the book 1984. The images used in that display are fictional.

Yes, the group appears to be real. That was not the point.

[Number23]

109. As I posted to that non-comprehending person and apparently need to do so again here

Posting pics of Nazis at ANYONE is wrong. If that is the only way that you can make your argument then you really should just bow out and say absolutely nothing at all.

The fact that the person you posted that pic to is a poster of color makes your already abhorrent "debating" technique that much more worse. And to be honest, if anyone is exhibiting "authoritarian fascist" behavior, it is you and not the person to whom you are responding.

We have become exactly what is shown in the picture I posted, if you dare to look below the surface.

This type of overblown, melodramatic, fact free foolishness is one of the many reasons that the word "fringe" gets tossed around when describing the type of people who engage in this type of rhetoric. You can be against drones, NSA surveillance and other ills without being so pedantic and overwrought to compare what is happening to the Holocaust. For the life of me, I have absolutely NO idea why you guys can't understand that when you talk this way, NO ONE TAKES YOU SERIOUSLY.

[Bobbie Jo]

89. Asinine.

The batshit gets deeper here by the day.

[sheshe2]

50. Boston Patriots!

[uponit7771]

77. Lol

[TeamPooka]

39. Obama is defended only 6.5 hours a day on MSNBC Glenn.

Alex
Rachel
Lawrence
Rev Al
Ed
Chris Hayes
and half the time from Chris Matthews.

The rest is BS from GOP talking heads and the Scarborough and Andrea Mitchell types.

edit: and that 6.5 hours is why they are the "liberal" news station, even though they aren't.

[JI7]

56. and even they don't spend all the time defending him

most of their shows are to report and discuss other issues where Obama isn't even mentioned unless he is involved in some way.

[Drunken Irishman]

40. The only consistent defender of Obama on MSNBC is the Rev. Everyone else has taken unnecessary shots

They spent most of the early part of 2013 discussing the supposed awful IRS scandal, as well as questioning him on the AP scandal ... and then freaking out about healthcare.gov.

Greenwald is a parody of himself now.

[pkdu]

53. ^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS IS THE REALITY ^^^^^^^^^

"24/7" ...oops , I meant "most" ...er , except Joe , Mrs Greenspan, LOCKUP ( does he even know its not 24/7 news?) etc , so yeh! 51%...thats what I said , damnit!!

[Pholus]

41. I guess Greenwald's words drew blood...like he intended.

He got a snotty kewl kid Fauxworthy question about his journalistic integrity and he handed it right back.

Every journalist has a viewpoint. I remember that being pretty close to lesson 1 back in my intro to journalism class.

[uponit7771]

78. It drew blood alright...from his own nose...GG continues to cur it off

[Pholus]

85. Certainly worked you up! :)

[uponit7771]

106. I don't like for profit traitors, they're usually conservative in thinking

[Pholus]

110. Everyone is a traitor when you look at them the right way.

And certainly the organization that did this immediately prior to the NSA had a motto you'll agree with:

"Sciencia est potentia"

Of course, we will never see this treasure trove of stuff...

1) Every phone call record in the US with no expiration date
2) Contact email and IM lists with no expiration date
3) Content and metadata of emails, web activity, chats, social networks with no expiration date
4) E-mail and texts crossing the border (even if it comes right back) with no expiration date
5) Cellphone locations
6) Insertion of deliberate weak spots in encryption algorithms
7) Monitoring of INTERNAL Yahoo and Google servers
8) Monitoring of online games.
9) Monitoring and tracking of websites visited.

...being abused in the Cardinal Richilieu sense because a secret court is watching out for our interests though only the Government is allowed to present its side of the case.



Except it is plain the NSA has already considered blackmail of its opponents in order to use information to control and some of its members have discovered the personal utility of the data to their own twisted control game.

Personally, the more you show your outrage at the government's dirty laundry comes out, the more I laugh. After all,
you're on the record as having no problem with people going through MY dirty laundry.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I always say.

If the NSA has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear. Bwahahahahaha!

On a personal note: I've noticed that you personally fling "libertarian" and "conservative" epithets at anything you don't like in much the same way a freeper would throw "socialist" and "liberal".

I wonder if you exercise a similar amount of thought before doing so....

[Tarheel_Dem]

45. I would hope the GG gives a sit down interview to someone who's not intimidated by him. Like here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017165892

[Cha]

51. Thanks for the link, Tarheel..

Glenn haz a sad 'cause msnbc isn't spouting total rw talking points 24/7

[Blue_Tires]

46. Greenwald doing what he does best...Making sure the topic is solely on HIM

and his limited interpretation of how the world works...

It has to be burning him up inside that the story has grown and spread beyond the point where he has any useful role to play...He's pretty much been reduced to playing the role of a carnival barker (which is a much more natural fit for his talents)

[davidn3600]

52. Does that include the 1,000+ hours a week of "Lock up" re-runs?

[Flippertygibbit]

54. Snowden a hoser?

For releasing all that information on the U.S.

[spanone]

55. 'That to me is what journalism is about and we need that in the United States'

yes we do. regardless of ANY teevee channel

[Historic NY]

57. Greenwald a legend in his own mind.

[Thinkingabout]

81. K & R

[OilemFirchen]

58. He said this, BTW, on MSNBC.

Logical Fallacy, thy name is Glenn Greenback.

[Lifelong Dem]

59. The hatred

Fox News can have their one sided say bashing Obama but MSNBC can't have any say in defense of Obama's side. This is a hatred by Greenwald that MSNBC defends Obama.

[MADem]

62. "Heroic" is apparently a synonym for "profitable."

GG has a book about to drop--I guess the launch date has been pushed back from Mar to end of Apr?? And the price of the book has been cropped from close to thirty bucks to just under twenty...?

He'd better get his act together, or his tome will have the marketability of those horrible Coulter things that are bulk-bought for a buck each the day after they're released, and then given out as favors at Rubber Chicken dinners.....

[Cha]

72. Somehow he thought whining

about msnbc not being a rw mouthpiece 24/7 was a good idea to whine about on msnbc. Are they all now?

He should go on cbs and tell them what a good job they're doing with 60 Minutes. rofl

Politico's top "journalists" to watch in 2014..

snip//

1. The Greenwald Gang, “First Look Media”

3. Lara Logan, “60 Minutes"

4. Megyn Kelly, Fox News

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/10-journalists-to-watch-in-2014-101504.html

[uponit7771]

79. lol

[gcomeau]

65. Every time Greenwald opens his mouth...

...I find him a little more unbearable.

[baldguy]

73. But Snowden's fans here on DU keep telling me "It's not about Obama!"

St. Glenn seems to think otherwise.

[kelliekat44]

80. THE WINNER!!!! nt

[Progressive dog]

87. So Greenwald is defending his meal ticket nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

88. Thank you, Glenn Greenwald

This post has left lots of mewling authoritarians in a tizzy. Good.

[ProSense]

90. Well,

"Thank you, Glenn Greenwald

This post has left lots of mewling authoritarians in a tizzy. Good."

...it definitely has attracted a lot of people who have no rational responses to criticism of Greenwald.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

92. Why would anyone bother responding with rational responses

...to several people who have proven time and time again that they're quite irrational on this subject? This would be a waste of time.

[ProSense]

96. We agree

"Why would anyone bother responding with rational responses"

The response wasn't "rational."

Isn't posting responses that aren't rational a "waste of time"?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

97. Happy looping, ProSense. Ctrl-C to break when you tire of this. nt

[ProSense]

98. More "waste of time"?

LOL!

[840high]

105. Exactly - save your breath.

[Ichingcarpenter]

91. Especially after the Bill Clinton quote on the MSNBC channel

being a talking point for the DNC.

I got no problems with Glen nor Bill's statement.

Its good to have a channel for the 'so called left' talking points, sure the hell don't get it elsewhere.

Now.... everyone carry on with your 3 day hate fest.....Orwell was right.

[ProSense]

94. You must

"Especially after the Bill Clinton quote on the MSNBC channel...I got no problems with Glen nor Bill's statement."

...be referring to this:

Bill Clinton: MSNBC 'Has Become Our Version Of Fox'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024235356

The quote is from January 2012, and could you imagine Clinton saying this that during the heat of the 2012 campaign or even now?

It just goes to show how ridiculous it is.

This is after the election:

Fox News Captions Footage Of Illegal Border Crossings With ‘The Hispanic Vote’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021825552

Greenwald likely wouldn't agree with Clinton.

Greenwald seems to believe that Fox displays more balance that MSNBC:

<...>

MSNBC did not air a single story critical of the President or a single positive story about Romney - not a single one - even as Fox aired a few negative ones about Romney and a few positive ones about Obama. Meanwhile, Obama campaign aides who appeared on MSNBC were typically treated with greater deference than that shown to the British Queen when one of her most adoring subjects is in her presence for the first time.

<...>

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/19/msnbc-axelrod-gibbs-obama

In Greenwald's head, Fox is a standard that MSNBC should aspire to.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

95. Agreed. But I think we left Orwell in the rear view mirror some time ago.

When collecting every piece of information possible on every American is somehow a good thing if the President is a Democrat, I think we'd have to call Orwell an amateur at this point.

[kentuck]

93. And if he assumes that he must be right...?

Then he must assume that MSNBC may be right also?

[beaglelover]

102. He's an asshole. nt