Glenn Greenwald: U.S. manufactured militant threat as pretext to bomb Syria

[DonViejo]

In an extensive new report, The Intercept questions whether the much-hyped Khorasan Group actually exists VIDEO

LUKE BRINKER

Until the Obama administration announced last week that it was launching air strikes in Syria to target the Islamic State (ISIS) and an al-Qaeda affiliate called the Khorasan Group, most Americans had never heard of the latter organization.

That’s because the U.S. government invented the threat, The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald and Murtaza Hussain charge. In an extensive new report, the journalists document a carefully orchestrated campaign by U.S. officials to depict an imminent threat of terror attacks by Khorasan against U.S. targets. Media outlets suddenly zeroed in on Khorasan, hyping the alleged threat the group could pose, Greenwald and Hussain write.

Claims that Khorasan planned to launch attacks the U.S. came from anonymous officials who provided thin evidence that any such plans were at risk of being carried out. But, Greenwald and Hussain contend, “American media outlets – eager, as always, to justify Americans wars – spewed all of this with very little skepticism.”

However, mere days after anonymous officials were telling journalists of the sophisticated, far-reaching plots hacked by Khorasan, officials are backtracking. A new AP story – written by a journalist who’d previously spoken with officials hyping the Khorasan threat – notes that FBI director James Comey and Pentagon spokesman Admiral James Kirby have said they don’t have “precise intelligence about where or when the cell … would attempt to strike a Western target.”

more + video
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/29/glenn_greenwald_u_s_manufactured_militant_threat_as_pretext_to_bomb_syria/

[arcane1]

1. I'm not entirely convinced we didn't do the same with IS.

[J_J_]

21. Terrorism experts believe that the actual danger posed by ISIS has been distorted in hours of TV

"American intelligence agencies have concluded that it poses no immediate threat to the United States. Some officials and terrorism experts believe that the actual danger posed by ISIS has been distorted in hours of television punditry and alarmist statements by politicians"

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/world/middleeast/struggling-to-gauge-isis-threat-even-as-us-prepares-to-act.html?_r=2

[Cha]

25. Yeah, don't trust what Jimmy Carter, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren have to say about ISIS..

Jimmy Carter, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren, all well respected leaders, have access and know a hellava lot more about this than those on the internet who can't grasp this isn't being run by the bush-cheney neocon crowd.

"I think we need to attack ISIS. I'm really concerned about them."

"Is the bombing of ISIS justified? I say yes. And I hope President Obama has every possible success in getting allies to join with us, some with ground troops effected inside Syria."

FrodosPet http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5566788

Bernie stands with the President on this "Enormously complicated issue".. as he calls it. He disagrees with staying out of ISIS like some around are clamoring on about.

As he stated it's an "International effort" and guess what.. "they have to put money in it too."

Senator Sanders also said Assad Gassed his own people.. whether the conspiracy theorists around here believe it or not..

Hartman and he talked about one republiCon saying.. they'll "blast him if it doesn't work and ask why he didn't do it sooner if it does." Sounds like a familiar whine.

FrodosPet http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5527989

Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she supports President Obama's decision to authorize airstrikes in Iraq

BOSTON — Warning against a new U.S. war in Iraq, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Friday stood by President Barack Obama’s decision to authorize targeted airstrikes to help defend Americans in Erbil, Iraq, and provide aid to a religious minority taking refuge in the Sinjar mountains.

“It’s a complicated situation right now in Iraq and the president has taken very targeted actions to provide humanitarian relief that the Iraqi government requested, and to protect American citizens,” Warren told reporters. “But like the president I believe that any solution in Iraq is going to be a negotiated solution, not a military solution. We do not want to be pulled into another war in Iraq.”


Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said she supports president Barack Obama's decision to authorize new airstrikes in Iraq but cautioned against U.S. involvement in a new war in the Middle East.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/sen_elizabeth_warren_warns_abo.html

As do these Middle Eastern Countries..

[Trillo]

78. I would think that most of the information they have access to

would be produced by the Executive Branch. Some of it may be produced by corporate sources such as trade publications and newspapers. What about Congressional Research Service? Where do they get their information? Do they ever get any non-corporate-tainted academic work? Remember, most academic institutions are corporate.

I believe that this has all been a big diversion from Ferguson and the severe inequity problems we have internally. (I'd like to be wrong about this). Nothing would drive the media coverage away from systematic police brutality and killing, than a new war with bombs getting dropped on bad guys elsewhere where yet more people are killed.

[Cha]

79. Well, I don't believe your theory about Ferguson.. AG Holder is on that. I trust Bernie, Elizabeth,

Jimmy Carter and the President to know what the fuck is going on. Not those on the internetz.. and certainly not some mendacious hack.

[Octafish]

99. I trust them. I don't trust the information they are given.

CIA lied to the best of them and look at where that's got our nation.

What's more: they keep the best stuff for themselves at Carlyle Group and the rest of the warmongering herd. Business.

[sabrina 1]

41. Yeah, they kind of appeared out of nowhere and suddenly became the 'greatest threat

to civilization in the history of the world'. Since I have been watching the violence in Iraq which has been intense, since Maliki sold out his country to the Global Oil Cartels, I had not noticed that Western 'allies' were paying much attention, or even trying to influence their puppet who was so brutally treating and excluding the Sunni population there. Made me wonder why.

I guess they just woke up one morning and noticed what most of us noticed several years ago.

[brush]

53. The poster of this OP should read this that was also posted on DU

Greenwald claims the Administration concocted the Khorasan Group as a reason to bomb ISIS and Syria yet in 2012 there was a 7 million dollar bounty placed on their leaders heads.

Before reading and believing everything from Greenwald, read what's readily available on DU itself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5605685

[arcane1]

62. I trust Greenwald as far as I can throw him. Same goes for the Pentagon.

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. Damn GG, you've entered Alex Jones territory. Has he written about Russia's encroachment?

[msanthrope]

11. Well...it's telling, isn't it, that President Obama hits AQAP pretty hard

with this strike...in fact killing the head of AlQaeda's Iranian faction, and GG is writing about how his followers are ignorant of the group???

I mean these guys were all put on the 1267 list a decade ago...and he's just hearing about them? Does he remember Anwar Awlaki?

What is funny about this poutrage from GG is that it reveals how truly ignorant he is of basic Mideast policy. And he's truly ignorant of AQAP.

[Tarheel_Dem]

15. GG likes money, no matter where it comes from.

[SoapBox]

19. Exactly.

He's lost his mind and now loves to write, BOO!

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. And his internet denizens wait for every pearl that falls from that swine's lips. It's what they do.

[LiberalLovinLug]

29. and.......you don't?

lol
Yes how awful. He's an investigative reporter that actually expects to be paid for his thankless job.

sigh. I guess I'm getting old. I still remember a time when so-called liberals, progressives, and Democrats supported whistleblowers and appreciated independent investigative journalism. Not only appreciated it, but thought it was crucial to a free democracy.

Now they just repeat smear campaign talking points from the right without any actual basis. And they use hollow reasons like they just have "a feeling" he and Snowden and Assange, Manning and anyone else that dares confront authority and their increasingly secretive machinations must be assholes, not nice, wouldn't want to have a beer with them that's fer sure.

[Tarheel_Dem]

31. Fuck Libertarians, and the selfish, money grubbing, dope smokin' boat they rode in on.

[LiberalLovinLug]

34. Fuck Authoritarians and their self-induced ignorance

How dare GG not sign an exclusive loyalty pact with the DLC!!! How dare he venture his politically investigative mind to looking at ALL viewpoints!

[Tarheel_Dem]

35. You might enjoy this edition!!!

[LiberalLovinLug]

38. And there you have it folks!

One is an image of an actual quote from GG on a Socialist event proving he doesn't owe allegiance to ANY political creed

One is a badly done juvenile unfunny spoof using made-up quotes in a pathetic attempt to smear GG. I lol how a lot of it is about that he has the gall to actually make a living from his profession. His Pulitzer Prize winning journalism. One of the stupidest avenues possible to try and make fun of him.



and you even like koolaid. Not surprised. This black or white, us or them way of looking at the world or people in it is so 2001.

[Tarheel_Dem]

39. "This black or white, us or them way of looking at the world or people in it is so 2001."

I'm assuming your irony meter is in the shop?

[VanillaRhapsody]

101. OWWWIIIIEEE you are going to hurt Libertarian feelings!

and they demand you pretend THEY are the true Democrats....in the same breath that they tell you:
"This black or white, us or them way of looking at the world or people in it is so 2001."

and that THEY must be who decides what IS or ISN'T Progressive or Liberal enough for DEMOCRATS on Democratic Underground! And they see NO utter hypocrisy in this!

[Tarheel_Dem]

124. Who cares about Libertarians' feelings? I certainly don't.

They never really grasped the whole concept of I-R-O-N-Y.

[VanillaRhapsody]

126. nope they seem to be born without that filter!

[sabrina 1]

50. Yes, fact or fiction! This was a perfect example of the difference. Thanks for pointing it

out.

[Marr]

56. Yeah, that's about all they do. Just childish snark. /nt

[sabrina 1]

116. So true. n/t

[sabrina 1]

43. You mean AQ still exists? I was just told on DU that 'AQ no longer exists' because

all of our wars were so successful'. It's hard to follow what is going on, at least here. So I choose to just look at the known facts over the past several years.

And it isn't hard to figure things out when you have been attention, to Iraq, to Libya, have you seen what we 'created' in that country where we were 'going to help the people'? Please, let's stop trying to help people, can we?

[Ruby the Liberal]

47. Your jury results

On Tue Sep 30, 2014, 07:05 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

You mean AQ still exists? I was just told on DU that 'AQ no longer exists' because
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5604282

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Fox News/GOP meme. How much right-wing grandstanding do we need during an election season?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Sep 30, 2014, 07:18 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter is obviously confused.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The alerter is much more offensive and over the top " Grandstanding " than the post .
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What the hell kind of alert is this?!?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Frivolous alert. The most frivolous I have seen to date.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[sabrina 1]

49. Wow! Thanks Ruby. I would like to know since when is wanting to stop all these

wars 'a right wing meme'. Naturally I agree with the jury, a very frivolous alert.

[Ruby the Liberal]

74. I read your post 3 times trying to see that angle

and didn't get "RW" by any stretch. Weird alert.

[sabrina 1]

104. Lol, I've been called a lot of things, but RW is a new one! Thank you taking the trouble to read

it three times though.

[sabrina 1]

120. Lol, I don't help Right Wing propaganda machines stay on the air. I remember when

Kerry, I believe, refused to go on Fox and Bill O'Reilly was left with an empty chair. The correct thinking at the time was to 'starve Fox of Liberal voices'.

Unfortunately a Third Wayer took Kerry's place and undermined what would have been a blow to their 'let's bring some Liberals on for entertainment and ratings as we shred them for our audiences' amusement' routine.

Too bad, there was a chance to totally marginalize that Murdoch lying machine and leave it to its minority ignorant audience, the most uninformed audience on politics we are told.

Can't imagine myself giving any kind of legitimacy to that right wing propaganda machine. But, to each their own.

'Greenwald is just after the money'! Lol!

And no one else is?

[bobduca]

121. I agree that starving the beast of any legitimate left voices was and still is the best approach.

But hey a centrist has gotta eat , and technically speaking they are still starved of any legitimate left voices, DU/fox news contributors notwithstanding.

[War Horse]

23. Exactly. He's in Alex Jones territory now.

He doesn't seem to get this himself. Nor do (the majority of) his supporters.

[sabrina 1]

44. Lol! Not only does he not 'get' your odd opinion, the more he is attacked, the more

credibility he builds in a world that has witnessed the disastrous results of the lies told about all of our wars.

Too bad we didn't prosecute the Bush War Criminals. That kind of made it seem like Dems were on board with them.

Why do YOU think they were allowed to roam free after the egregious lies they told to lead this country into a disastrous war that has cost so much in lives, money and the reputation of the US around the world?

[gratuitous]

3. Ooh, that's how sneaky those Khorasan bastards are!

Just because they don't exist doesn't mean that there's evidence of that non-existence! In fact, terrorists that they are, the fact that there is no evidence of their existence proves just how dangerous they are. See, it takes the combined acumen of the entire intelligence apparatus of the United States to call Khorasan into existence. And now that they're here - more or less, you're gonna have to trust us - they're the greatest existential threat to the United States we've ever seen, which is why we had to indiscriminately drop a whole lot of bombs on places where they might appear.

In fact, they're so sneaky, in a couple of weeks it will be the official policy of the U.S. government that no such group exists. PH34R!

[jamzrockz]

4. Yes

in a couple of weeks it will be the official policy of the U.S. government that no such group exists. PH34R!

Because bombs erased them off the face of this earth. Get with the damn program already.

[brush]

54. Try this post right here on DU that debunks Greenwald's claim

Greenwald claims the Administration concocted the Khorasan Group as a reason to bomb ISIS and Syria yet in 2012 there was a 7 million dollar bounty placed on their leaders' heads.

Before reading and believing everything from Greenwald, read what's readily available on DU itself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5605685

[Marr]

58. That OP is embarrassingly stupid, sorry.

Greenwald never said the two men described there didn't exist. He said that a certain terrorist group was "largely concocted".

[brush]

61. Oh well, that's different.

He doesn't deny that the men that head the Khorasan group exist but fails to mention they have a 7 million dollar bounty on their heads and have been hunted for years.

He's now completely exonerated in your eyes for leaving out very relevant info in his article that makes it seem everything was concocted?

There's a term for that, it's called lying by omission. And he now claims to be a "journalist". No legitimate journalist would leave out such pertinent info in an article that he had to know was inflammatory.

[Marr]

63. No, it isn't lying by omission. An individual is not a group.

His article was about the US government manufacturing a terrorist group as an existential threat to the US in order to justify bombing.

[brush]

64. IMO it's lying by omission

I worked for newspapers my whole career and I know when pertinent info shouldn't have been left out of a story.

And btw, those individuals, heads of Khorasan, were targeted and killed in the operation.

And do you really think all of our intelligence about terrorist groups, everything that the president knows, is out there for everyone to know, even the all-knowing Greenwald — and Politico no less?

If that was the case, we all would have known about the operation to get Osama Bin Laden beforehand.

You have to know every bit of intelligence is not shared with the public, even with self-proclaimed journalists such as Greenwald.

[Marr]

65. "He knows things we don't that make it ok" is just as unconvincing now as it was

when Bush supporters said it in 2003.

Greenwald's article is not wrong. The same crowd does the same little dance every time he releases an article. It's the same dance conservatives did when Michael Moore put out that Farenheit 9-11 movie. It's pure sophistry.

[brush]

66. I'm talking about poor journalism not whether the bombing is the right thing to do

The article was flawed whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

I'm no fan or Greenwald and his flaming anti-Obama agenda but I'm not in favor of this new Iraqi involvement either.

If Greenwald is going to be a journalist he should learn how to write an accurate story without misleading his readers.

[Marr]

67. It isn't flawed.

You began by saying it was "debunked". It wasn't debunked, and it isn't flawed on the point cited. No one ever said the individual in question didn't exist.

[brush]

68. You obviously have no experience in journalism

The story is flawed and misleading as pertinent back story information was left out, unless you think that not including that there was a 7 million dollar bounty on the heads of two terrorists associated with Khorasan was not important information.

If so, what world do you live in?

That's not that hard to understand.

And since win are DU posters aligned with Politico?

[riderinthestorm]

69. Hmmm, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist or anonymous internet "expert"

Scolding Pulitzer Prize winning journalist for how the story was written...whose more credible?

Sooooo hard to choose....

[brush]

70. My whole career was in journalism — 30 plus years

And I know that by omitting information you can slant a story to lead readers to draw erroneous conclusions.

The misplaced snark of your post doesn't work here btw, unless you yourself think leaving out that the two terrorists associated with Khorasan had 7 million dollar bounties on their heads from years back wasn't pertinent information in a story that claims a threat was made up so that bombing could be carried out?

And I'm NOT IN FAVOR OF THE BOMBING — but I still say Greenwald should get the COMPLETE story right and not leave out stuff just so he can get across his anti-Obama agenda. The man is a known Obama-hater.

God! I repeat, that's not that hard to understand. Anyone with any journalism background would know that, but Greenwald, formerly a civil rights attorney representing pro bono white supremacist Matthew F. Hale (how do you do that for free and think like that then later re-create yourself as a crusading liberal journalist — guess he got a conscience all of a sudden) left it out of his story.

You think he left it out purposely? I sure do

The right wing slant here on DU is getting ridiculous — we're aligning with Politico now with snark accompanying it.

God help us!

[bobduca]

117. Ouch, 30 years in journalism and yet you pretend not to know what

association fallacy is... Oh wait let me guess you worked for a mainstream rag that used this dishonest rhetorical tactic regularly to enforce editorial bias, right?

[brush]

127. Fallacy my a _ _

Pertinent information like that goes in a story — journalism 101.

Give me a break with your fallacy whatever.

As far as editorial bias, what the hell do you think Greenwald was doing by leaving it out.

[Marr]

71. Save the association fallacies.

If you really cannot understand why an individual is not the same as a terrorist group that warrants a bombing campaign, then I don't know what to tell you.

[brush]

72. You seem to be deliberately avoiding the issue

The fact that two INDIVIDUALS, as you call them, associated with the terrorist group had 7 million-dollar bounties on their heads years before is pertinent info that should have been included in the story.

Unless you intend to mislead. It's that simple.

And I'm not in favor of the bombing.

[Marr]

73. You said his story was debunked by another post. It was not.

Greenwald never said the two men referenced there didn't exist. He said a terrorist group that was presented as an existential threat to the US did not exist as such, and was drummed up as an excuse for bombing.

Who is attempting to mislead again?

[brush]

98. Yeah, whatever . . .

but no mention of standing 7 million dollar bounties on the heads of the individuals who the admin says were leaders of the terrorist group.

There was a reason they had huge bounties on their heads.

I think it's more likely the president has access to intelligence even the great Greenwald and Politico don't, not to mention we the public, so I guess you just have to pick who has the best sources.

I think I'll go with Obama not Greenwald and right wing Politco since the two individuals who were targeted were killed in the raid.

The intelligence must have been pretty good.

And this is DU, a progressive site, why wtf are we even arguing about someone in partnership with right wing Politico to make a dem president look bad?

[truedelphi]

130. Impressed by your level of analysis, and I am equally sickened by

Those here who do the "little dance" that the R's did back when it was Bush in power. And back when Michael Moore's Fahrenheit tried to inform us of what was really going on.

A lot of what is going on right now can be seen being described in the movie "Catch 22." Remember how when Yossarian, the novel's protagonist ended up in the chief bureaucrat's office, the President's photo would be different, but the war would still be on going, and the parachutes were still being stolen out of the fliers' packs so they could be sold for profit.

[bvar22]

133. "and everyone has a share!" shouted Milo,

...as the American Bombers began dropping their bombs their own base.

[truedelphi]

135. I wish you hadn't said that -

The statement shows that life was more fair on Yossarian's army base than here in lower middle class America, whre everyone does NOT have a share.

[geek tragedy]

5. A conspiracy in search of a purpose.

We were already bombing parts of Syria.

Claiming that the USG completely fabricated every aspect of the group's organization seems wildly implausible, since the bombing was already underway.

They were obviously bombing someone.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. They've turned the Bogeyman-of-the-day threat up to 11 too many times. Go for 12.

[sabrina 1]

45. No one believes anything anymore. That is what happens when people are lied to

as outrageously as we were lied to to get us into Iraq and then NOTHING HAPPENS TO THE LIARS.

[truedelphi]

7. If you are not part of the upper five percent of all

Americans, you' re an idiot to support this war.
(Same as the old wars.)

We have tens of millions of dollars to actually recruit "moderate muslims in Syria" giving
them up to $ 1,500 a month! We have billions to bomb them back to the dust.

But we just cut back food stamps, because uh, you know, austerity.

I guess folks on food stamps should simply learn farsi, move to Syria and get recruited!

<Satire alert, posted for benefit of NSA spies.>

[valerief]

10. It's easier to get more cannon fodder when the angry youth are desperate. nt

[Dont call me Shirley]

17. And when everyone is turned against each other

[valerief]

33. Well, divide and conquer is a given. Us versus Them. It's learned at an early age.

That's what sports is for.

[kelliekat44]

8. I guess he didn't see the videos or read the memos? nt

[valerief]

9. They invent EVERY threat! nt

[KittyWampus]

40. Even Pearl Harbor was a set up.

lolz

[valerief]

48. Yup

[George II]

12. Maybe Glenn would like to travel to Iraq and Syria to "report" on this first hand?

Before he does, perhaps he can send his measurements to the fake ISIS organization over there so they can have his orange jumpsuit ready and waiting for him?

[Tarheel_Dem]

42. !!!

[sibelian]

118. Perhaps you could emigrate to Putin's Russia?

I think it would suit you.

[George II]

122. Not interested....

....as a takeoff of a Groucho Marx quote:

"I wouldn't want to live in a country that would have Snowden as an inhabitant"

[Dopers_Greed]

13. "Manufactured"...I don't know

"Exaggerated"...absolutely

[IkeRepublican]

14. Fuck Greenwald and his toady Snowball

They only show up after the fact.

If they were the real deals they claim to be, they would have been ahead of the ballgame a long time ago.

[LiberalLovinLug]

18. lol

If Greenwald with Snowden had revealed any of this information "ahead of the ballgame" you and your easily frightened anti-freedom of information group would cry "TRAITOR!"

Its revealing how your little group is so hypocritical.
1. Snowden is a traitor who put lives in danger
2. Snowden revealed information that was already available so we should just ignore him

1. Greenwald is endangering the USA by publishing information proving the government is lying to us
2. If Greenwald was "the real deal" he would have been on this a long time ago.

[MohRokTah]

16. If Greenwald reports it, you know it isn't true.

Greenwald wouldn't know the truth if it bit him.

[Tarheel_Dem]

26. He should make a "First Look" movie, and call it..."Desperately Seeking Hits".

Maybe the rest of the media will quit referring to Intercept as "a fledgling startup".

[MohRokTah]

28. HA!

I notice the same people fall for his bullshit every time, too.

[Comrade Grumpy]

20. All I had to see was "Greenwald" in the headline...

...and I knew I would have plenty of chances to look for ad hominem attacks.

Does anybody address the substance of his claims?

[KurtNYC]

30. and those making the ad homs project their own "messenger not message" onto others

Some would do well to consider the hollow irony of the US going to war because 2 journalists that the PTB didn't like, were beheaded.

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/9/12/james_foley_on_the_dehumanization_of

[sabrina 1]

57. They're always the same too, childish, without any substance. I remember the exact same

talking points against Greenwald from his Bush supporter fans. The most fun we had when Bush was in the WH was to go to Greenwald's blog and watch Freepers who Greenwald allowed, I think he loved wiping the floor with the them, try to use those silly talking points, now we know they were paid for, thanks to the Anonymous hack of HB Gary's emails, on Greenwald, certain they were 'armed and ready' to take on a 'lying LIBERAL'! Lol, it was magnificent to watch him slice and dice those poor ditto heads.

Those talking points don't come cheap btw. We saw in the HB Gary emails the proposals for the contracts! Wow, MILLIONS of dollars. For a few silly smears that a child could think up?

Anyhow, I've wondered who got that contract after HB Gary had to withdraw their bid on Greenwald. Someone did, that is for sure.

[bobduca]

105. kick

Gosh how might a site-owner eliminate the evidence of this kind of astroturfing?

[sibelian]

119. The preponderence of ad hominem in any discussion

is directly proportional to the extent to which the subject under discussion implies conclusions unacceptable to mainstream consensus.

Claims sufficiently far outwith the accepted narrative require no direct refutation, attributions of outlandishness and/or character assassination are typically sufficient for the main narrative to retain its dominance.

This is never going to change.

[George II]

123. "Does anybody address the substance of his claims?"

If there was any substance I would.

[rtracey]

24. Really

Obama made up this so he can bomb Syria...Ummm didn't Obama NOT want to bomb Syria, so he didnt bomb them in order to bomb them. Did any of Assad's military get destroyed in these "made up bombings? and did France and the other Mid-East countries in the coalition know about this?.....Greenwald has ZERO credibility with me, ZERO....

[Lil Missy]

32. Oh, it's glen greenwald again. *yawn*

[woo me with science]

36. kick

[Blue_Tires]

37. Never forget that Assad and Putin are the "good guys" in Greenwald's universe....

[ljm2002]

59. Hmmm, I don't remember seeing...

...any articles by Greenwald extolling the virtues of Assad and/or Putin.

You wouldn't happen to have a link to back up your claim, would you?

[Blue_Tires]

76. Show me a Greenwald story where he criticizes them...

Don't bother, you won't find one...

[riderinthestorm]

80. By that standard Greenwald supports Ebola. He's never commented on that either

Or Volkswagons. That must means he loves them too. Hamburgers as well - yup, must not be a vegetarian.... I'm sure there's a list of a thousand plus things Greenwald has not commented on and all that means is that he hasn't commented on that.

Your premise that the absence of commentary makes someone a supporter is ridiculous on the face of it.

I was extremely busy with work during the Ferguson protests so I didn't comment on those since I didn't have any time. That doesn't mean I endorse police brutality and illegality. The bulk of my time was simply pulled elsewhere even as I was following the story. There's no way to read intent into the lack of commentary.

[Blue_Tires]

84. But Greenwald isn't a biologist, is he?

He's an investigative journalist of global renown who is supposedly speaking truth to power, and pointing out lies, hypocrisy and wrongdoing wherever they may be...

So if he sees fit to criticize U.S. wrongdoing in Syria while ignoring Assad's 100,000+ body count, what conclusion am I to make?

If he sees fit to criticize U.S. surveillance while ignoring crackdowns in Russia, Syria, China and corporate metadata collection, what conclusion am I to make?

When he sees Media Matters as an enemy but Russia Today as a trusted ally, what conclusion am I to make?

[riderinthestorm]

90. You think there's nothing to report about the Ebola outbreak? Really?

Nothing of global interest? No lies, hypocrisy and wrongdoing?

Or the meat industry? It's all shining truths there?

Volkswagons going to be marketing a 300 mpg car. In Europe only. Why not here? Do you think the US auto industry is a beacon of truth? No malfeasance or collusion between big business, big oil, and/or US political influence?

Lack of commentary means nothing. It just means that story isn't written yet and in no way implies that Greenwald is best buddies with, or an admirer of Assad or Putin. Its laughable when anti-Greenwald posters bring this up without a shred of evidence.

[ljm2002]

82. But that is not the claim you made, now is it?

You said, and I quote:

Never forget that Assad and Putin are the "good guys" in Greenwald's universe....

That is an assertion that you made, and you have not backed it up.

Fail.

[Blue_Tires]

83. Using Greenwald's criticism that he has levied against

so many other journalists:

Silence = consent

If that was good enough for him to apply to the mainstream media turning a blind eye to wrongdoing in Washington and elsewhere, it's good enough for me to use here...

[ljm2002]

85. So basically your position is...

..."If it's good enough for Glenn Greenwald, it's good enough for me!"

Noted.

[Blue_Tires]

86. Actually Alinsky, but I could quote any number of similar sentiments:

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

http://vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html

[ljm2002]

88. Well here's the thing...

...you seem to think that any reporter who criticizes the U.S. is obligated to criticize other countries, especially those that you yourself have selected as especially deserving of criticism.

Whereas some of us think that a reporter is free to choose who they want to criticize, and that their criticisms rise or fall on the merits.

There is always an infinite number of things that any reporter does not report on. So criticizing them for what they don't do is not necessarily, or even usually, valid.

[stevenleser]

106. That's pretty desperate. There are three superpowers in the world. Any political journalist who has

been around for more than a few years has had the opportunity to write articles or do pieces about all three.

But we see nothing of this from Greenwald. Who as the other poster noted, tries to claim himself as someone who addresses wrongdoing and speaks truth to power. There are plenty of opportunities to do that regarding the leaders of Russia and China.

Yet, Greenwald has nothing to say about them.

[bobduca]

107. The kind of analysis I'd expect from a Fox contributor

Clearly Greenwald hates America and Lurves Russia!

Peddle your wares elsewhere.

[Orrex]

110. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Thu Oct 2, 2014, 09:27 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

The kind of analysis I'd expect from a Fox contributor
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5611140

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Peddle your wares elsewhere?" Who is this guy to be telling members to do anything elsewhere? Steven is a DU'er in good standing, and this attack is really inappropriate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Oct 2, 2014, 09:40 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I think I'm more concerned with the Fox News slur - as I'm sure that bobduca is aware that Steve is in no way shape or form a journalist that would EVER appear on Fox News. He doesn't peddle his 'wares' - he as an overwhelming need to give us the five W's.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Deal with disagreements with discussion first before you request a jury, you make a good point cast it out there first see what happens.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Seriously? I had to read the post five times before I could understand why it was alerted on, and the alert still seems ridiculous.

Leave it, leave it, leave it.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[ljm2002]

112. In response to Juror #2...

...who says, and I quote: "...I'm sure that bobduca is aware that Steve is in no way shape or form a journalist that would EVER appear on Fox News."

Whoever you are, Juror #2, please see this link:

http://www.opednews.com/author/author75.html

But, Leser is most known for his work as commentator and the progressive counterpoint on the very conservative FOX News cable network. Steve Leser has been frequently featured on Your World with Neil Cavuto, Bulls & Bears, and Cashing In against such FOX notables as Neil Cavuto and Stuart Varney.

So Leser is most definitely a known Fox contributor. One might give him props for being a token liberal on the "very conservative FOX News cable network", but he's still a Fox contributor. One might also suspect that Leser is paid for his appearances on that network. If not, I'm sure he will let us know.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

128. Juror #2 may have a point.

He's a PERSON who has appeared on Fox News.

[bobduca]

113. Thanks for posting, and for Juror #2

Get a clue.


https://www.google.com/search?q=steven+leser+youtube+fox

[SidDithers]

46. Greenwald. LOL...nt

Sid

[grahamhgreen]

51. Kick!

[leftstreet]

52. DURec

[bobduca]

55. Kick

[MineralMan]

60. clickbait.com. Greenwald should look into buying that domain.

It's up for sale, for just $3500. What a bargain. It'd be perfect for him.

http://www.clickbait.com

[KoKo]

75. "Salon Source?"....but, this isn't a "Click Bait" Site..

Interview with Glen's Co-Author Murtaza Hussain of the article at the "Intercept" from "Democracy Now."

=====

As the U.S. expands military operations in Syria, we look at the Khorasan group, the shadowy militant organization the Obama administration has invoked to help justify the strikes. One month ago, no one had heard of Khorasan, but now U.S. officials say it poses an imminent threat to the United States. As the strikes on Syria began, U.S. officials said Khorasan was "nearing the execution phase" of an attack on the United States or Europe, most likely an attempt to blow up a commercial plane in flight. We are joined by Murtaza Hussain of The Intercept, whose new article with Glenn Greenwald is "The Khorasan Group: Anatomy of a Fake Terror Threat to Justify Bombing Syria."

How the U.S. Concocted a Terror Threat to Justify Syria Strikes, and the Corporate Media Went Along

Published on Sep 29, 2014

http://democracynow.org - As the U.S. expands military operations in Syria, we look at the Khorasan group, the shadowy militant organization the Obama administration has invoked to help justify the strikes. One month ago, no one had heard of Khorasan, but now U.S. officials say it poses an imminent threat to the United States. As the strikes on Syria began, U.S. officials said Khorasan was "nearing the execution phase" of an attack on the United States or Europe, most likely an attempt to blow up a commercial plane in flight. We are joined by Murtaza Hussain of The Intercept, whose new article with Glenn Greenwald is "The Khorasan Group: Anatomy of a Fake Terror Threat to Justify Bombing Syria."

Democracy Now!, is an independent global news hour that airs weekdays on 1,200+ TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream 8-9am ET at http://democracynow.org.

Please consider supporting independent media by making a donation to Democracy Now! today: http://owl.li/ruJ5Q

?list=UUzuqE7-t13O4NIDYJfakrhw

[sabrina 1]

115. Thanks Koko, I wondered how long it would be before someone tried to discredit Democracy Now

That one is going to be hard. One of THE most credible news sources ever. But nothing is sacred when the war machine is gearing up for MORE war.

You really should not have to explain Democracy Now's credentials to anyone on this Democratic Forum, but it appears there are some people who are not familiar with it after all.

Great post, thank you!

[Major Hogwash]

87. Hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!

Hell, he'd be famous!!!!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

108. 7 Years a Freeper trumps the Pulitzer Committee. I think not.

[MineralMan]

109. What? Could you possibly have come up with anything less relevant?

Once again, I was banned from Free Republic in 2006 for "anti-freeping." Isn't it time for you to stop calling me a Freeper whenever you and I disagree on something? I think it is time. Please stop.

[Tarheel_Dem]

125. As usual MM, you cut right to the chase.

[wandy]

77. Here we go again. Here is a place you can get some information.............

msanthrope has made a good start of debunking this RW propaganda here.........
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025602072

If you follow that out you will also find links to where Andrew C. Mcarthy told almost the exact same story using most of the same key phrases in The National Review.
As an extra bonus you will even find a link to where Rush Limbaugh somewhat misreads the script on his radio babbel.
Oh my goodnesses you will even find a link to Breitbart.com telling how Obama ignored Daily Intel Briefings.
Believe what you will.

I care little about Glenn Greenwald.
I care even less for perpetual war to enrich the M.I.C.
Having nothing to do with Obama......
I am sick and tired of the Right Wing Bull Shit smears of the week.

[KoKo]

81. Read & View Post #75...then get back to me...IF interested in "Discussion"

Would love to know your answer. "IF" you bother to even watch it and think about what was said.

[wandy]

94. Let me look at that one more time............

I have gone through the video more than once and I can't be taking away the correct message.
What strikes me is that Murtaza Hussain is placing considerable blame on the media.
I so totally concur with that that it may be clouding my view.

You can call it spin or desire to get advertising or just serving their masters but our "news" has gone worthless.
Advertisers want ratings, the owners and the M.I.C want fear and war profit, and who the heck can fathom what influence the government may have. Toss in RW news sources where the only goal is to discredit the current administration and what you have is non stop disinformation.

I might start here. Their was (is) some terrorist sub group (likely many exist), Like a local garage band they may not have had a 'formal' name. So how do you report on the terrorists with no name, how do you plan a mission on the noisy kids in the garage across the street? It would not surprise me if the name were made up.

[KoKo]

96. Perhaps you read too swiftly....Here Again...:

As the U.S. expands military operations in Syria, we look at the Khorasan group, the shadowy militant organization the Obama administration has invoked to help justify the strikes. One month ago, no one had heard of Khorasan, but now U.S. officials say it poses an imminent threat to the United States. As the strikes on Syria began, U.S. officials said Khorasan was "nearing the execution phase" of an attack on the United States or Europe, most likely an attempt to blow up a commercial plane in flight. We are joined by Murtaza Hussain of The Intercept, whose new article with Glenn Greenwald is "The Khorasan Group: Anatomy of a Fake Terror Threat to Justify Bombing Syria."

How the U.S. Concocted a Terror Threat to Justify Syria Strikes, and the Corporate Media Went Along

Published on Sep 29, 2014

http://democracynow.org - As the U.S. expands military operations in Syria, we look at the Khorasan group, the shadowy militant organization the Obama administration has invoked to help justify the strikes. One month ago, no one had heard of Khorasan, but now U.S. officials say it poses an imminent threat to the United States. As the strikes on Syria began, U.S. officials said Khorasan was "nearing the execution phase" of an attack on the United States or Europe, most likely an attempt to blow up a commercial plane in flight. We are joined by Murtaza Hussain of The Intercept, whose new article with Glenn Greenwald is "The Khorasan Group: Anatomy of a Fake Terror Threat to Justify Bombing Syria."

Democracy Now!, is an independent global news hour that airs weekdays on 1,200+ TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream 8-9am ET at http://democracynow.org.

Please consider supporting independent media by making a donation to Democracy Now! today: http://owl.li/ruJ5Q

?list=UUzuqE7-t13O4NIDYJfakrhw

[wandy]

100. Well, a man sees what he wants to see and I'm still seeing the media as the problem......

I think we as humans with the encouragement of the PTB would like things to look something like this (sorry haven't figured out how to get DU to not strip spaces)

DECLAIR 1 al-BADGUY_OTHER,
. 2 ISIS,
. 2 al-QAEDA,
. . 3 KHORASAN,
. ... 4 MUSHIN_ al-FADHLI,

Now we have a nice orderly structure and we can locate any item in that structure as a displacement off al-BADGUY_OTHER.
Darn does that look wrong with out indentation.

Unfortunately the world doesn't work that way. And all manner of difficulties arise when we try to see it that way. A bit of information is given to a reporter and then the nasty processes of force fitting it into a structure acceptable to the advertisers, the owners, the government, the stakeholders and a population willing to read not much further than the headline begins.

Lets just look at the name. At some point in time it was likely "some bunch of guys in Harold hum Syria".
That would hardly work for a news report and work even less for military planning. Even if an attempt were made to use a name with a historical and geographical reference the name Khorasan was likely pulled out of some bureaucrats thin air.
Consider, by what name were the Bundy Cow-Pie Vigilantes known before I stuck them with that handle.

Then we come to the problem of 'strange people in faraway lands. No matter how many times we are told that the "Islamic State", if that is what the wish to call themselves (see naming problems above) is not representative off all Islam, the aforementioned readers of headlines only will see it that they are.
Even if the news originations were honest they would still have to play to the lowest common denominator.
The news originations are not honest.
I begin to wonder if the RW spin machine has the right idea. Make it fit on a bumper sticker...

ISIS BAD Impeach them.
Obama BAD invade him.

Or something like that.

Now let me throw a curve.
What in all hell are we doing in Syria?
We worry that if we rout ISIS from Iraq they will take safe harbor in Syria.
But we do not like Syria. We do not like Assad. We do not like Putin.
Think of ISIS like they were mice. It is the time of year when mice realize your house is warmer than outside and come in.
If you did not like your neighbor and found a way to have your mice infest that neighbor, why would you rid his home of mice for him.
Why worry about Syria and just give Assad and Putin all the IsisMices they can play with.

[sabrina 1]

131. You're certainly right about our media. Which is why most of us here turned to more credible

sources such as Democracy Now eg, during the Bush era of lies and deceptions.

I don't know about you, but I still seek out those sources, which were generally right in their reporting, when I want to find some facts among the propaganda.

They were right about Libya also airc.

So, I am inclinded to believe they are far more likely to be right about this issue.

But the issue isn't about the 'terrorist' groups we helped create when we started this 'crusade' into the ME back in 2003.

The issue is 'why are we doing it again' when all the evidence shows what a spectacular failure this, now more than a decade old, 'war' has been?

So people try to figure it out. The President just stated that the Intel 'underestimated' the power of ISIS. How could that be considering all the spying, on us too, to make sure we never again 'underestimate' anything? And considering the incredible violence that has plagued Iraq since Maliki was first installed, how on earth could ANYONE miss it?

Even if you were just following the Arab Spring as a civilian observer, or listened to Chelsea Manning eg, you would have known how powerful the 'opposition' in Iraq was growing.

But yet, nothing was done about it, until the failure to move into SYRIA. THEN suddenly, the Western powers 'noticed' these 'terrorist' groups who became WORSE than AQ all of a sudden? Not possible, not logical and when something doesn't make sense, you just can't make sense out of it.

I trust Democracy Now's reporting far more than our MSM. Because the reporting from the MSM simply makes no sense.

[wandy]

132. A lot to consider here. One of my problems is I do not have a 'trusted source'.............

I will agree that Democracy Now may be more reliable than corporate media however ............

At times the spin is so pervasive that it is picked up by conventional corporate media. Sometimes a Right Wing Bull Shit Fairytale can gain so much traction so quickly that even normally trustworthy news sources may be taken in and report it as fact.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025613348

Please understand I have no particular problem with Glenn Greenwald. At worst I think of him like the Dragon Lady, Maureen Dowd, "he hates everybody". I also don't necessary consider that a bad thing.

Were I to express my thoughts on our re-involvement or even our initial involvement in Iran I would get banned by virtue of fowl language alone. The problem I have with this particular part of this is that the story so closely follows the RWBSF formula it falls under one of my tests for spin.

When they all start singing the same chapter and verse in three part harmony you know something is wrong.

The storys are too similar using similar wording and almost the exact same dog whistles.

From The//Intercept as told By Glenn Greenwald and Murtaza Hussain

The solution to both problems was found in the wholesale concoction of a brand new terror threat that was branded “The Khorasan Group.” After spending weeks depicting ISIS as an unprecedented threat – too radical even for Al Qaeda! – administration officials suddenly began spoon-feeding their favorite media organizations and national security journalists tales of a secret group that was even scarier and more threatening than ISIS, one that posed a direct and immediate threat to the American Homeland. Seemingly out of nowhere, a new terror group was created in media lore.

While the Islamic State group is getting the most attention now, another band of extremists in Syria — a mix of hardened jihadis from Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria and Europe — poses a more direct and imminent threat to the United States, working with Yemeni bomb-makers to target U.S. aviation, American officials say.
At the center is a cell known as the Khorasan group, a cadre of veteran al-Qaida fighters from Afghanistan and Pakistan who traveled to Syria to link up with the al-Qaida affiliate there, the Nusra Front.
But the Khorasan militants did not go to Syria principally to fight the government of President Bashar Assad, U.S. officials say. Instead, they were sent by al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri to recruit Europeans and Americans whose passports allow them to board a U.S.-bound airliner with less scrutiny from security officials.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/28/u-s-officials-invented-terror-group-justify-bombing-syria/


From The National Review as told by Andrew C. Mcarthy.

There is a reason that no one had heard of such a group until a nanosecond ago, when the “Khorosan Group” suddenly went from anonymity to the “imminent threat” that became the rationale for an emergency air war there was supposedly no time to ask Congress to authorize.
You haven’t heard of the Khorosan Group because there isn’t one. It is a name the administration came up with, calculating that Khorosan — the –Iranian–Afghan border region — had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it.

The “Khorosan Group” is al-Qaeda. It is simply a faction within the global terror network’s Syrian franchise, “Jabhat al-Nusra.” Its leader, Mushin al-Fadhli (believed to have been killed in this week’s U.S.-led air strikes), was an intimate of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the emir of al-Qaeda who dispatched him to the jihad in Syria. Except that if you listen to administration officials long enough, you come away thinking that Zawahiri is not really al-Qaeda, either. Instead, he’s something the administration is at pains to call “core al-Qaeda.”
“Core al-Qaeda,” you are to understand, is different from “Jabhat al-Nusra,” which in turn is distinct from “al-Qaeda in Iraq” (formerly “al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia,” now the “Islamic State” al-Qaeda spin-off that is, itself, formerly “al-Qaeda in Iraq and al-Sham” or “al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant”). That al-Qaeda, don’t you know, is a different outfit from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula . . . which, of course, should never be mistaken for “al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb,” “Boko Haram,” “Ansar al-Sharia,” or the latest entry, “al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388990/khorosan-group-does-not-exist-andrew-c-mccarthy

Predating either article Rush Limbaugh ad-libs a version of the script.
Limbaugh sees through Obama admin ruse of Khorasan Group as distinct from al Qaeda
http://www.mrctv.org/audio/limbaugh-sees-through-obama-admin-ruse-khorasan-group-distinct-al-qaeda

If this doesn't have the appearance of RWBSF and a another orchestrated smear campaign Breitbart and others chime in with supportive information.
Report: Obama Has Missed over Half His Second-Term Daily Intel Briefings
“I think our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that I think they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria,” said Obama.
According to Daily Beast reporter Eli Lake, members of the Defense establishment were “flabbergasted” by Obama’s attempt to shift blame.
“Either the president doesn’t read the intelligence he’s getting or he’s bullshitting,” a former senior Pentagon official “who worked closely on the threat posed by Sunni jihadists in Syria and Iraq” told the Daily Beast.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/09/29/Report-Obama-Has-Missed-Over-Half-His-Second-Term-Daily-Intel-Briefings

The way this entire script is put together so closely follows the formula started by Josie's account of the attack on Darren Wilson that it is simply imposable for me to take it on face value.

[sabrina 1]

134. Here's a simple question for you. For how long have you been aware of either ISIS and/or

the Khorasan Group?

I have been following events in Iraq pretty closely for years, especially since we helped install Makiki there. I followed the attempt by peaceful Iraqis to join the Arab Spring. I saw what happened to them.

I paid attention to what Chelsea Manning had to say, and followed the actions of the 'US Trained Iraqi Police and Military, for several years. You CAN follow these stories on various media, including on Social Media.

What I found especially odd was that the US media appeared to have lost interest in Iraq. Not so Democracy Now. They, like me and many others remained extremely interested in Iraq.

I saw that Iraq was plagued by violence, not of any interest to our MSM, definitely covered by many other sources.

Over the past six years or so, I was hoping eg, that the 4 million Iraqi refugees in both Syria and Jordan would be able to return. That was not possible because of the violence both in Iraq and then later in Syria.

I saw that torture was pretty common under Maliki, that the Sunni population were being excluded from pretty much everything, that in fact things were worse under Maliki than they had been under Saddam.

I have followed on Social Media, activists in Iraq, Syria, Libya and elsewhere for years now, but not ONCE have I ever heard of this 'Khorasan Group'. Not from anyone on any side of the conflict in the ME.

So, when we see the sudden interest in Iraq after YEARS of zero interest, despite the violence, the escalation of it over the past number of years, and are told about these groups that NO ONE has ever heard of before, naturally the curious among us want to know: 'How come no one ever heard of them before?' NO ONE, not the Iraqis or anyone else.

So, some good journalists begin to wonder, as did all of us who have followed Iraq so closely, and Libya and Syria for years now, where these groups came from. AND good reporters begin to write about it.

I think you've got it backwards. It's far more likely that seeing theses questions raised by good investigative journalists and literally hundreds, maybe thousands who are closely involved in online communities, a creep like Limbaugh would seize the story and twist it to his advantage.

I frankly do not care what the Right Wing, Limbaugh or anyone of those liars have to say.

I care only about the facts and if sometimes the facts benefit those morons, or they think they do, I could not care less. They simply do not exist in my world.

And that is another thing I don't understand. The obsession by some on the Left with what these morons 'think', which is a generous word to use in this instance. Who cares what they do or think? How about never even linking to them, reading them, listening to them? You are helping them do exactly what their job is, to create confusion and to help the liars who led us into this mess in the first place.

And how clever of them to latch on to the facts of this story for once, and then try to use it to persuade those who are trying to get the facts, the well, if Limbaugh says it it must be false. That IS clever, I admit. But see, I don't care. I care about what I have observed for years now, and I know that group was never heard of until now, nor was ISIS.

[Major Hogwash]

89. Good post.

Just in time for Oktoberfest!!!

31 days of sheer hell when trolls inundate the DU forum!!!

[countryjake]

95. And thru the looking glass we go...

Ignoring the unrelenting USA penchant for waging war in the Middle East, now, after literally decades of corporation-fueled bombardment of sovereign nations such as the destruction of Iraq, first under the pretense of protecting our "national interests" which then conveniently morphed into "war on terror", and now becomes "destroying the network of death" inevitably leads to passively accepting the shock and horror when we look down and notice the blood on our own hands.

Pretending that this endless war our country is engaged in is somehow dictated by a rightwing/leftwing, conservative/liberal, Republican/Democratic seal of approval allows for simply passing the ball, whenever one White House tenant moves out and a new one moves in. The essential game remains the same, it's just the general manager who changes.

Greenwald is not the only one who is beginning to see thru the lies we've been fed for years and years; he's still young, so I do hope that his outrage will grow, as the realization hits that such goals of imperialism have been ever-present.
No matter who's in office.

[baldguy]

91. Can we all agree now that GG is a lying sack of shit?

[bobduca]

92. Yes we must all agree!

plonk!

[Cali_Democrat]

93. One of our own DUers debunked Greenwald with his/her own research

We've got some smart people on this website

[KoKo]

97. REALLY! Would love to have the OP and a Link to Source..

It Sounds REALLY COOL.

Seriously....! Do you have the Link?

[grasswire]

103. do tell! nt

[betsuni]

102. Then why are France, Britain and other countries also bombing?

Surely France wouldn't join in if the threat was manufactured. Could someone explain this to me, please?

[Arkana]

111. Not sure I agree with the decision to bomb, but Greenwald is wrong

if he thinks ISIL is not a real threat. Whether we created them or not is up for debate, but they are very real.

[Blue_Tires]

129. I'm waiting for GG's story about

Obama creating a bunch of fake assassination attempts just to garner sympathy and make the Secret Service look bad...