HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Greenwald and the Right W...

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 09:54 AM

 

Greenwald and the Right Wing Media Have the Same Obama Smear--(Using Media Matters.)

Okay....in the past I have been highly critical of Glen Greenwald. Hell--I wrote a DU OP about him that went viral:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211

Last week, President Obama scored a major hit against AlQaeda in Syria, likely killing a 9/11 conspirator (and the head of Iran's branch of AL-Qaeda.) I documented the hit against Khorasan, and gave a little historical background---

http://election.democraticunderground.com/10025579591

Well, just like when the President hit OBL, the Right Wing has gone nuckin' futs over the idea that Obama cleaned up the mess that Bush refused to sweep up. It's Benghazi, all over again:

From Media Matters:



Conservative media figures are accusing the Obama administration of "inventing" the Khorasan group following U.S. air strikes on the terror cell, claiming President Obama is deploying "propaganda" tools to hide the group's connection to al Qaeda. In reality, the intelligence community has been monitoring the Khorasan group for some time, and Obama himself has publicly acknowledged its ties to al Qaeda.


National Review Online: "The Khorosan Group Does Not Exist." In a September 27 post for National Review Online, Andrew McCarthy claimed that the Khorasan terrorist group was merely a "fictitious name the Obama administration invented to deceive us":

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.

Laura Ingraham: The Khorasan Group Is "Propaganda," "Right Out Of The Old Soviet Union." During the September 29 edition of Laura Ingraham's radio show, the ABC and Fox News contributor cited the NRO piece as evidence that the term "Khorasan group" is just "propaganda" the government is "sending out to the sheeple." Ingraham claimed, "This is something right out of the old Soviet Union." [Courtside Entertainment Group, The Laura Ingraham Show, 9/29/14]

Rush Limbaugh: "There Is No Khorasan Group." Administration "Made It Up" To Avoid Admitting It's Al Qaeda. During the September 29 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh used the NRO article as confirmation of his prior assertion that the Khorasan group "was just al Qaeda." Limbaugh asserted that the Obama administration had invented the name Khorasan, saying, "They just made it up":


http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/09/29/conservative-medias-khorasan-conspiracy-obama-a/200937



That's right, DUers! Andrew McCarthy of the NRO. Laura Ingraham. Rush Limbaugh.

And Glenn. Our friend, Glenn Greenwald, who claims that the administration made up Khorasan. Our friend, Glenn, whose disgusting smear was posted here at DU, in no less than 4 separate OPs. For shits and giggles, if you google "greenwald" and "khorasan" in the helpful search box up to the right that the administrators have provided, you can read those OPs. You can see who wrote them. You can see who recc'd them. This is one of the greatest things about DU3--the ability to see what has come before.

I think it's time we start acknowledging that Mr. Greenwald is not a journalist, but an advocate for a paid agenda.



213 replies, 37451 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 213 replies Author Time Post
Reply Greenwald and the Right Wing Media Have the Same Obama Smear--(Using Media Matters.) (Original post)
msanthrope Sep 2014 OP
FSogol Sep 2014 #1
msanthrope Sep 2014 #2
FSogol Sep 2014 #7
msanthrope Sep 2014 #12
Bobbie Jo Sep 2014 #8
FSogol Sep 2014 #14
msanthrope Sep 2014 #51
FSogol Sep 2014 #53
LawDeeDah Sep 2014 #3
msanthrope Sep 2014 #9
LawDeeDah Sep 2014 #10
Dont call me Shirley Sep 2014 #106
msanthrope Sep 2014 #137
Dont call me Shirley Sep 2014 #139
stevenleser Sep 2014 #4
msanthrope Sep 2014 #46
L0oniX Sep 2014 #93
KittyWampus Sep 2014 #157
Caretha Sep 2014 #173
babylonsister Sep 2014 #179
Cha Sep 2014 #184
babylonsister Sep 2014 #178
Peacetrain Sep 2014 #5
jeff47 Sep 2014 #6
wandy Sep 2014 #11
msanthrope Sep 2014 #16
Number23 Sep 2014 #182
The Magistrate Sep 2014 #13
msanthrope Sep 2014 #19
The Magistrate Sep 2014 #20
whatchamacallit Sep 2014 #15
LawDeeDah Sep 2014 #17
msanthrope Sep 2014 #18
whatchamacallit Sep 2014 #22
msanthrope Sep 2014 #25
whatchamacallit Sep 2014 #29
msanthrope Sep 2014 #30
LawDeeDah Sep 2014 #27
whatchamacallit Sep 2014 #32
LawDeeDah Sep 2014 #37
whatchamacallit Sep 2014 #49
TBF Sep 2014 #118
LawDeeDah Sep 2014 #125
ieoeja Sep 2014 #36
stupidicus Sep 2014 #50
zeemike Sep 2014 #21
stupidicus Sep 2014 #55
FlatStanley Sep 2014 #23
msanthrope Sep 2014 #28
FlatStanley Sep 2014 #34
mountain grammy Sep 2014 #24
mountain grammy Sep 2014 #26
Bragi Sep 2014 #31
LawDeeDah Sep 2014 #33
FlatStanley Sep 2014 #38
LawDeeDah Sep 2014 #40
msanthrope Sep 2014 #41
Bragi Sep 2014 #54
msanthrope Sep 2014 #61
Bragi Sep 2014 #69
msanthrope Sep 2014 #72
Bragi Sep 2014 #122
msanthrope Sep 2014 #132
Bragi Sep 2014 #141
msanthrope Sep 2014 #143
Bragi Sep 2014 #147
msanthrope Sep 2014 #149
DisgustipatedinCA Oct 2014 #188
deurbano Sep 2014 #110
msanthrope Sep 2014 #117
uponit7771 Sep 2014 #89
joshcryer Oct 2014 #209
Marr Sep 2014 #144
msanthrope Sep 2014 #146
Marr Sep 2014 #148
msanthrope Sep 2014 #150
Marr Sep 2014 #154
msanthrope Sep 2014 #155
The Magistrate Sep 2014 #159
msanthrope Sep 2014 #162
druidity33 Oct 2014 #197
hueymahl Sep 2014 #56
Cha Oct 2014 #186
Scootaloo Oct 2014 #202
Doctor_J Sep 2014 #35
msanthrope Sep 2014 #39
Bobbie Jo Sep 2014 #43
msanthrope Sep 2014 #45
jeff47 Sep 2014 #86
msanthrope Sep 2014 #94
SidDithers Sep 2014 #172
Number23 Sep 2014 #181
JI7 Oct 2014 #194
LawDeeDah Sep 2014 #151
SidDithers Sep 2014 #171
JI7 Oct 2014 #192
wandy Sep 2014 #42
msanthrope Sep 2014 #44
wandy Sep 2014 #52
msanthrope Sep 2014 #83
allinthegame Sep 2014 #47
msanthrope Sep 2014 #48
underpants Sep 2014 #57
Andy823 Sep 2014 #58
Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2014 #59
msanthrope Sep 2014 #63
Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2014 #66
msanthrope Sep 2014 #74
Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2014 #77
msanthrope Sep 2014 #80
Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2014 #87
The Magistrate Sep 2014 #102
Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2014 #109
The Magistrate Sep 2014 #124
msanthrope Sep 2014 #108
RufusTFirefly Sep 2014 #64
grasswire Sep 2014 #104
wryter2000 Sep 2014 #60
woo me with science Sep 2014 #62
msanthrope Sep 2014 #65
Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2014 #68
LawDeeDah Sep 2014 #70
Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2014 #76
LawDeeDah Sep 2014 #79
Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2014 #88
LawDeeDah Sep 2014 #99
Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2014 #100
LawDeeDah Sep 2014 #101
OilemFirchen Sep 2014 #96
Helen Borg Sep 2014 #95
riderinthestorm Sep 2014 #78
grasswire Sep 2014 #105
randome Sep 2014 #82
Android3.14 Sep 2014 #67
99th_Monkey Oct 2014 #201
FairWinds Sep 2014 #71
msanthrope Sep 2014 #75
L0oniX Sep 2014 #81
msanthrope Sep 2014 #84
L0oniX Sep 2014 #91
msanthrope Sep 2014 #92
L0oniX Sep 2014 #97
msanthrope Sep 2014 #114
99th_Monkey Oct 2014 #203
DisgustipatedinCA Oct 2014 #189
riderinthestorm Sep 2014 #98
msanthrope Sep 2014 #111
riderinthestorm Sep 2014 #116
msanthrope Sep 2014 #119
riderinthestorm Sep 2014 #121
msanthrope Sep 2014 #129
riderinthestorm Sep 2014 #169
L0oniX Sep 2014 #73
randome Sep 2014 #85
msanthrope Sep 2014 #90
sheshe2 Sep 2014 #103
msanthrope Sep 2014 #107
sheshe2 Sep 2014 #158
Thinkingabout Sep 2014 #112
Cryptoad Sep 2014 #113
msanthrope Sep 2014 #115
neverforget Sep 2014 #180
AZ Progressive Sep 2014 #120
RufusTFirefly Sep 2014 #126
lark Sep 2014 #123
dawn frenzy adams Sep 2014 #127
Tikki Sep 2014 #128
msanthrope Sep 2014 #133
Tikki Sep 2014 #140
msanthrope Sep 2014 #142
Dawson Leery Sep 2014 #130
Cali_Democrat Sep 2014 #131
Marr Sep 2014 #134
G_j Sep 2014 #138
leftstreet Sep 2014 #156
NCTraveler Sep 2014 #135
zappaman Sep 2014 #145
SidDithers Sep 2014 #136
moondust Sep 2014 #152
msanthrope Sep 2014 #153
Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2014 #160
msanthrope Sep 2014 #161
Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2014 #163
msanthrope Sep 2014 #164
Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2014 #165
msanthrope Sep 2014 #166
Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2014 #167
Oilwellian Sep 2014 #168
99th_Monkey Oct 2014 #205
Major Hogwash Sep 2014 #170
cui bono Sep 2014 #174
cui bono Sep 2014 #175
cui bono Sep 2014 #176
cui bono Sep 2014 #177
OnyxCollie Oct 2014 #213
Number23 Sep 2014 #183
Cha Oct 2014 #185
flamingdem Oct 2014 #191
Cha Oct 2014 #193
Number23 Oct 2014 #199
Major Hogwash Oct 2014 #208
msanthrope Oct 2014 #198
Major Hogwash Oct 2014 #206
AgingAmerican Oct 2014 #187
JI7 Oct 2014 #195
Cha Oct 2014 #190
grahamhgreen Oct 2014 #196
ucrdem Oct 2014 #200
99th_Monkey Oct 2014 #204
joshcryer Oct 2014 #207
msanthrope Oct 2014 #210
Andy823 Oct 2014 #211
Major Hogwash Oct 2014 #212

Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 09:57 AM

1. K & R. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 09:58 AM

2. Somebody's been had, eh? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:05 AM

7. Yup, some of us can smell the BS sooner than others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #7)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:17 AM

12. Some people believe--still--that GG was a civil rights attorney.

 

When I ask them to cite the case they are referring to, they kind of hem and haw.

Because, oh yeah.....defending a white supremacist's trademark against another white supremacist's use of it does not make you a civil rights attorney.

Defending the same white supremacist when he's accused of violating anti-Klan statutes does not make you a civil rights attorney.

Finally, defending the same white supremacist when he's being accused of murdering a federal judge does not make you a civil rights attorney, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:09 AM

8. and had, bad.

Good work, msanthrope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #8)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:18 AM

14. Agreed. good work, msanthrope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:08 AM

51. Thanks! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #51)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:12 AM

53. Anytime. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:02 AM

3. It seems this Greenwald fellow is the propaganda tool.

 

It's perplexing why people invest themselves in him so deeply. I suppose it's to save face or something like that. People hate to admit that they've been snookered and will attack instead. O, the humanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #3)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:11 AM

9. He's an adept manipulator of people. What struck me about all the people repeating his

 

smear was that they were openly admitting ignorance at Greenwald's behest.

Think about that for a second. We've been at war with AlQaeda for over a decade, and there are still people who have not familiarized themselves with the rudimentary basics of what the AUMF of 9/18/2001 is and does. And that AUMF isn't getting rescinded anytime soon. Sniping at the President isn't going to end this war....targeted strikes, engagement with moderates, and diplomacy will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #9)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:14 AM

10. I don't think he is an adept manipulator at all.

 

I think the people that want and need to believe him have some problems with reality. Or with Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #9)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:20 PM

106. So, in terms of Democracy Now and their frequently having GG as a guest?

Should I not put much credence in DN? What's the scoop about that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dont call me Shirley (Reply #106)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 01:34 PM

137. I have no opinion as to DN. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #137)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 01:43 PM

139. K, thanks for your reply and post. I'll do a little more research.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:02 AM

4. When our least favorite RW journos say it, it's trash. When Greenwald says it, it's genius!

 

Nope, still trash and wishful negative spinning when either says it.

Good job msanthrope!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #4)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:56 AM

46. Many thanks!! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #4)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:03 PM

93. How's your appearances at those Fox circus shows going for ya?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #93)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 02:41 PM

157. Does the poster you're trying (and failing) to snark at spout FOX party line like Greenwald?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #157)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 07:33 PM

173. er...uh...

 

well here he does...since I don't watch Fox - can't say for sure

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Caretha (Reply #173)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 09:36 PM

179. Prove that. I've never seen it. Thanks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Caretha (Reply #173)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:44 PM

184. Bullshite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #93)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 09:35 PM

178. Could you defend this admin as he does? No, but defend he does.

You'd prefer if Steve agreed with them? What is your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:03 AM

5. That has been long obvious...

Someday it will all come out.. nothing stays secret forever.. especially nowadays..

edit to add.. .the connections.. between groups..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:03 AM

6. Bah, Greenwald can't fail, he can only be failed

by reality not conforming to his reporting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:16 AM

11. I was waiting for someone like Media Matters to catch on to this..........

Dang, any one following the articles would have noted that many key phrases (dog whistles) and the over all structure were the same.
Some of the wording used by Andrew McCarthy and Glenn Greenwald is about as close to identical as you can get.
What are the odds of that happening by accident.

Consider how important this fairy tail is to the right wing........
Obamas lies about the Khorasan Group = Bush's lies about Weapons of Mas Destruction.

No wonder they used the 'first string' players on this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wandy (Reply #11)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:20 AM

16. Right before an election, mind you. It's like when Obama hit OBL.....

 

the Right Wing went fucking crazy because he did what Bush would not do.

And he looked good doing it....



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wandy (Reply #11)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:22 PM

182. You and msanthrope have won DU this week. I saw your other post in geek tragedy's thread

I wasn't sure what to believe -- although I knew what NOT to believe, particularly the oddly panicked OP about Libertarian warriors that in response to geek's thread -- but you guys have convinced me.

Well done. And thanks to both of you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:17 AM

13. This Is Because, Ma'am, There Really Is Not A Dime's Worth Of Difference Between Their Aims

Greenwald, when all is said and done, is a right libertarian, and now is being paid by a right libertarian billionaire.

Disparaging and damaging government, discrediting government and collective effort, is the goal. For the purpose of making government seem less legitimate and less functional, it does not matter if the attack is mounted from a left direction or a right direction. Discrediting government for a left audience is, in fact, the growth area for the endeavor, since on the right, the work has been pretty well done. What is important is to get younger people, whose commitment to fairness, to equal rights and social justice, to be as disdainful of government as any elderly tea-bagger.

This is what Greenwald has signed on to do, and to be fair, it is not like he has changed his spots to do it; like Tom Delay, he is paid now to do what he would do on his own for free, and simply gets a better living and a more widely circulated platform on which to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #13)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:27 AM

19. It Is Nice Work If You Can Get It, Sir.

 

You have correctly identified the agenda---to make the young disaffected and resentful of government. To make them distrust what is theirs. To make them shrug off their birthright.

Because they have no other way to stay in power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #19)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:29 AM

20. That Is True, Ma'am

"Would that I had been raised by wolves...."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:19 AM

15. Your smear would be more effective

if many of us didn't already have doubts about the authenticity of these threats before Greenwald, Limbaugh, and Ingraham chimed in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #15)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:22 AM

17. Maybe they all got the same memo at the same time.

 

And Greenwald decided to go first.

I'd believe that this is a co-ordinated attack of lies, easily.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #15)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:24 AM

18. My Smear? How am I smearing Mr. Greenwald by using his own words and the DU search

 

function?

How is it smearing to encourage DUers to use the search function that admin has given them?

How is it a smear to post from Media Matters?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #18)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:29 AM

22. Ye old (and feeble) association fallacy

Lame and ineffective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #22)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:33 AM

25. If you find my OP lame and ineffective, then why are you posting on it?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #25)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:37 AM

29. I don't want to hide your lame OP

I want it to melt under lights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #29)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:38 AM

30. Okay....let me know when you've found the circuit breaker. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #22)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:35 AM

27. As is yours.

 

You don't have an answer or you don't want to face that answer, so you make something else the target. I have seen this a lot here.

Don't you find it a bit strange that Greenwald and the pigs like Limbaugh are saying the same thing? Is Limbaugh actually right about something of this magnitude once in a while? Are you saying That? I don't know him all that well because I don't follow him and try to avoid his toxic sludge, but I know he is the bottom of the greasiest, scummiest barrel there is. I would think that Greenwald must have some of that scum on him as well if he is of the same opinion as Mr. L.

Ick,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #27)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:40 AM

32. A lot of people of all stripes are questioning the information we're getting

This particular linkage says more about the OP's motives than Greenwald's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #32)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:43 AM

37. The OPs motives can't do anyone here any harm

 

other than to bruised and fragile egos.

Greenwald has done a lot of harm and is capable of doing more. He appears to be a massive liar and manipulator and money grubber.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #37)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:00 AM

49. Greenwald is only harming the Ministry of Peace n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #27)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:35 PM

118. I'm sure you've seen a lot in your 14 days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #118)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 01:03 PM

125. I know it is quite amazing that I learned to read, and write, in 14 days.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #15)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:42 AM

36. My group of friends do not have a name for us group of friends.

 


Does that mean we do not exist?

The only fact in all of this, is that "Khorasan" is a name we use to designate this group. They created the group. We gave it a name.

We can call them the "Happy Jihadi All Boys Band" if you prefer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #15)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:04 AM

50. indeed

 

http://www.juancole.com/2014/09/pretext-bombings-khorasan.html

ANd we're also expeced to have high confidence in the "manufacturing" in the wake of all the ISIS related "intelligence failures" as well. The threat they posed to the region was grossly underestimated, but there's no chance whatsoever that the threat from the group used to play the "imminence" card hasn't been exaggerated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:29 AM

21. So to hide the truth all they have to do is

Get Rush and the gang to say it too...and sense it sounds like a negative then they know for sure the party faithful will deny it.

What power there is in the party system...It keeps the corrupt ones in power, no matter who we elect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #21)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:14 AM

55. that's how the game is played alrighty

 

it's how the truth can be hidden in plain sight.

ANd as long as GG and others are the focus, the faithful don't have to worry about the legal and therefore moral questions of BHO as the peace prize recipient, bombing a country that posed no threat to us.

GG is just a distraction for those unwilling or unable to confront such things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:31 AM

23. Dem war good, Rep war bad.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatStanley (Reply #23)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:36 AM

28. Nope--all war, bad. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #28)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:41 AM

34. Exactly

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:32 AM

24. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:34 AM

26. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:39 AM

31. I don't buy into the anti-Greenwald hate fest

Despite his critics here, I think Greenwald is the most important journalist of the last 10 years in terms of exposing and undermining the surveillance state that is eliminating core civil liberties not just in the US, but globally.

The fact that right wing libertarians support the exposure and demise of the surveillance state makes them my ally in this area, it doesn't make them my enemy.

I think it's my responsibility to be wise enough to see the limitations of these kind of alliances, without pretending that it doesn't exist in this, or any other relevant area of public policy.

Which is why I have read Greenwald's book, and follow his journalism as closely as I can. On the matter of undermining the surveillance state, I think he is a gigantic force for good.

Those who spend most of their time trashing him and his journalism because they disagree with his apparent broader world view seem to me to be acting, mostly inadvertently, more as agents upholding the civil liberties-crushing, surveillance state apparatus, than as critics of that system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bragi (Reply #31)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:40 AM

33. he is a gigantic force for good...

 

$$$

Checkbook journalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #33)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:43 AM

38. Kudos to you for working pro bono.

 

I wish I could find myself in that position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatStanley (Reply #38)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:45 AM

40. So you would be on the side of money on anything, a fan of the Koch Bros?

 

Not me. I don't buy this 'but the poor guy has to pay his bills' stuff. He is smearing the very definition of journalism, as if it hasn't had it's big problems generally with the truth, now it's $$$ for the best Made up Story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bragi (Reply #31)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:51 AM

41. I think you are operating on a false premise.

 

You take for granted that right-wing libertarians want to end the surveillance state. What evidence would you provide in support of that assertion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #41)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:12 AM

54. Common sense?

I don't purport to be an expert on the matter, but most right-wing libertarians I am aware of are abundantly clear in being adamantly opposed to the surveillance state and the erosion of civil liberties. That opposition, in fact,largely defines them.

So in response, I'm wondering if there is some kind of evidence, or even a credible body of thought, that shows that libertarians like Greenwald are lying about all this, that they actually support the surveillance state and the erosion of liberties that they claim to oppose?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bragi (Reply #54)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:29 AM

61. You made an assertion, and I have asked you to provide proof of that

 

assertion. You did not provide proof, but have now asked me to prove a negative.

Right-wing Libertarians talk a great game. But when you turn over their rock, you see all the little ants. Like when Mr. Greenwald took Koch money for writing whitepaper. Do the Kochs seem like the type of right-wing Libertarians interested in guaranteeing your civil liberties?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #61)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:42 AM

69. What nonsense

You say Greenwald did something under the pay of the Kochs, and conclude that he therefore an agent of theirs on all matters.

Please, could you provide "proof" for the correctness of your opinion that being under pay of someone at one time, for some project, means that you are always and forever an agent of that person?

Anyway, I'm confident that I can identify and handle any alliance with libertarians on matters where we find ourselves in agreement. The matter of the horrific surveillance state, and Greenwald's critical importance in exposing it, is one such area.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bragi (Reply #69)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:46 AM

72. I think when you go to donor dinners, a book tour, and write whitepaper for a person, you

 

are pretty much in line with them.

Greenwald isn't against the "horrific surveillance state." He just wants his corporate masters to be able to profit from it. Why do you think he supports CU? Free speech? HA!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #72)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:52 PM

122. Could you document those allegations?

Google tells me that Greenwald's alleged connection to the Koch brothers arises from the fact he wrote two freelance articles for some CATO institute publication.

I didn't find anything further relevant to Greenwald's alleged connection to the Kochs. So is that it?

If so, since he has written far more articles for the Guardian and for the ACLU, I wonder why he can't more accurately be said to be connected to that progressive paper, and that progressive organization?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bragi (Reply #122)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 01:24 PM

132. Oh, lordy....very well documented in this thread---I think post 93

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #132)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 01:48 PM

141. That's it?

The CATO whitepaper thing is what you have to fuel your fulsome dismissal of everything Greenwald?

Okay, good to know that this what you have against him.

For me, as I said above, I understand that while he may be my ally on exposing the surveillance state, we do not agree on all things.

I nonetheless remain impressed with his dedicated exposure of the surveillance state, and remain of the view that he is indeed the most important American journalist of the last decade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bragi (Reply #141)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 01:50 PM

143. And the donor dinners, and the book tour, and the speaking tour? Look, you

 

can dismiss it---but Omidayar makes the second billionaire GG's gone and worked for. I think that's an agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #143)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 02:06 PM

147. That was all part of the same CATO project, thing, right?

I'm able to see what I can see, and what I see is that he remains an incredibly important journalist whose exposure of the surveillance state has done a huge amount of good.

That's an agenda I support. The rest of whatever he may believe I can make judgements on.

As for the smear campaign, which is apparently your main agenda on the topic, I think I now understand it better, so thanks for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bragi (Reply #147)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 02:08 PM

149. Um, no. Not part of the same CATO project. Unless you think that appearing at

 

as a donor premium is somehow related to journalism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #72)

Wed Oct 1, 2014, 01:53 AM

188. Look. Misanthrope has made more wild accusations she can't support.

 

You LOVE proving people wrong. Why don't you just go ahead and haul out the proof of your accusations. Your word will not do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bragi (Reply #69)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:24 PM

110. Nonsense is right. Greenwald: "Billionaire self-pity and the Koch brothers "


I’ve already shared the following with the OP (in a previous thread when she asserted Greenwald was paid by the Koch brothers—and even made it sound like a current situation http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024085491#post19 See #22, #40, and #42 )

http://www.salon.com/2011/03/27/koch_2/
SUNDAY, MAR 27, 2011 07:28 AM PDT
Billionaire self-pity and the Koch brothers
The libertarian tycoons explain why they are the true victims of America's political culture
GLENN GREENWALD

<<…For billionaires to see themselves as the True Victims, to complain that the President and the Government are waging some sort of war against them in the name of radical egalitarianism, is so removed from reality — universes away — that’s it’s hard to put into words. And the fiscal recklessness that the Kochs and their comrades tirelessly point to was a direct by-product of the last decade’s rule by the Republican Party which they fund: from unfunded, endless wars to a never-ending expansion of the privatized National Security and Surveillance States to the financial crisis that exploded during the Bush presidency. But whatever else is true, there are many victims of fiscal policy in America: the wealthiest business interests and billionaires like the Koch Brothers are the few who are not among them. ..>>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deurbano (Reply #110)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:33 PM

117. Dd he return the checks? Not go to the donor dinners? In 2012, did he denounce the Koch's

 

expenditures?

The article you cite is very informative though--Greenwald 'denounces' one set of billionaires, and then goes off to work for another one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bragi (Reply #54)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:00 PM

89. ...starts with common knowledge... libertarians caring about survey state isn't common

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bragi (Reply #54)

Thu Oct 2, 2014, 04:11 AM

209. Libertarians are not against surveillance.

They are 100% behind corporate spying and datamining and copy-testing and consumer manipulation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #41)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 01:57 PM

144. LOL, you talk about false premises, then begin by saying Greenwald is a "right-wing libertarian".

 

As if that would discredit the information he presents, even if it were true.

This is a sort of online comedy routine where you see how many logical errors and rhetorical loop-the-loops you can pack into the smallest number of words, isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #144)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 02:01 PM

146. Um no--I am directly quoting Bragi, who used the term....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #146)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 02:06 PM

148. Oh, ok. Good to know you aren't suggesting Greenwald is a right-wing libertarian. /nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #148)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 02:10 PM

150. No, it was Bragi who used the term. I think Greenwald is a Libertarian, however, and as a former

 

Wall Street attorney, will use whatever political ideology increases his wealth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #150)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 02:21 PM

154. Yeah... tabloid paranoia doesn't interest me.

 

I don't care about Greenwald's politics, or his friends, or any dirty little secrets he might have. I do find his writing to be relevant, compelling, and well-researched, however.

Oddly, his most energetic critics seem mostly disinterested in discussing his actual articles; unless you count their regular shouts that those articles should be ignored, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #154)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 02:25 PM

155. His current article has been proven to be demonstrably false....as was the near-identical

 

article put out by the National Review, hours before Greenwald's. I encourage you to read the poster "wandy" in this thread....she did a great job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #155)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 03:24 PM

159. And That Is What The Acolytes Refuse To Engage, Ma'am

It would be one thing if he were actually committing journalism here: if were actually making accurate information obtained from reliable sources available to a public it had been hidden from. In some part his engagement with Snowden was journalism, and so of some value.

But all he is doing here is presenting an op-ed column; he is presenting his opinion, his spin, on a set of facts, and doing so in a way which makes it fairly clear he does not really have much grasp of what he is talking about. It also seems clear enough that he is lending himself to a press campaign, as one more mega-phone in a drive to give the widest circulation to a right wing talking point, taking for his part in the chorus that of the speaker in the left of the room.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #159)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 03:52 PM

162. You are correct--he is taking the "left" position, much as he did with the dog and pony show

 

debates he did before the 2012 election, sponsored by organizations supporting Ron Paul.

http://www.yaliberty.org/tour/fall2012

Three libertarians--one taking the "liberal" position, one the "conservative", and one the ostensible "libertarian."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #155)

Wed Oct 1, 2014, 06:06 AM

197. If Juan Cole doesn't believe Khorason is real...

I'm gonna have to go with his opinion. REgardless of whether Limpbaugh and Greenwald also agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bragi (Reply #31)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:15 AM

56. Great Post

Another way to interpret the OP - "Greenwald attacked my team, my leader, therefore I must destroy him every time I find any weak connection between him and various DU boogeymen"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bragi (Reply #31)

Wed Oct 1, 2014, 01:24 AM

186. Greenwald is his own damn hate fest.. it ooozes out of his keyboard with ignorance and stupidity

..too bad for him and his fans that he's called on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #186)

Thu Oct 2, 2014, 02:31 AM

202. And yet, he never notices you

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:41 AM

35. Snark. Media Matters, which was created expressly to debunk Fox, is "right wing media"

 



BOG Jumps Shark. Film at 11.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #35)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:43 AM

39. Um, what? Wow.....just wow. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #35)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:53 AM

43. Whoooosh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #43)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:55 AM

45. I'm trying not to get thrown off my own thread. But Jeebus, right? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #35)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:58 AM

86. Might wanna try reading that again. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #86)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:03 PM

94. It's one of the funnier posts on the thread, frankly. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #94)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 05:53 PM

172. I think he just defended your source, and in doing so, validated MM's criticism of Greenwald...

all in an attempt to defend Greenwald.

Fucking brilliant!

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #172)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:19 PM

181. Is it wrong that I am dying laughing while reading this thread??



I mean between this one and the other one about the Libertarian Warriors which was as inaccurate as it was unnecessary, this forum has been rich with unintentional comedy lately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #181)

Wed Oct 1, 2014, 03:37 AM

194. that's about the only response you can give to something like this now

there is a point where you can't take such things seriously anymore.

in most cases we are long past that point.

i guess some think you can repeat BOG BOG BOG Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi etc and they think it will mean something other than their own derangement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #35)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 02:12 PM

151. The Brunnen-G

 

Jumps pogo stick on a caramel evening.

LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #35)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 05:52 PM

171. ...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #35)

Wed Oct 1, 2014, 02:08 AM

192. HAHAHAHHAHAH

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:53 AM

42. More of the fairytale surfaces.............

In a previous reply to this OP I pointed out why this spin may be important to the Right Wing.

Obamas lies about the Khorasan Group = Bush's lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Well lookey here at what I just stumbled across.......
It does look like someone is trying to form an equivalency here.
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

Yes it's a crap Right Wing source. Another official “who worked closely" but wishes to remain unanimous and Breitbart to make it all the worse.
Then and again why wait for Media Matters to point it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wandy (Reply #42)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:54 AM

44. Oh, look.....now Breitbart has picked up the Smear!! GG is in good company! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #44)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:11 AM

52. We really need to anchor this turkey somewhere...........

You can see why this is an important piece of propaganda. It may even knock Benghazi out of the number one spot in the Right Wing hit parade of Bull Shit.
I hope you won't mind if I add excerpts showing the similaritys from Greenwald and Mcarthy articles.

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

You may hate that the RW does things like this but you have to admire the smoothness with which they pull it off.
I guess also owning the media is a good thing.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wandy (Reply #52)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:54 AM

83. It's like Greenwald just copied National Review--these articles are within HOURS

 

of each other.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:56 AM

47. Wow

shocked that gambling is going on in this establishment?....I have never been a fan of Greenwald and I was correct not to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to allinthegame (Reply #47)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 10:57 AM

48. For you....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:15 AM

57. I am glad that I called BS on it. Thanks msanthrope

I remembered the radio nonsense from last week and the original post (the first) included ***Ooooh lookee someone wrote an ARTICLE about it so it MUST be true*** from the National Review. No thanks.

I am on the fence about Greenwald so this wasn't necessarily rejected because of him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:15 AM

58. Good post.

Sadly it looks like those who worship Greenwald have once again been duped, or course they will never admit it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:16 AM

59. And, a whole bunch of right wingers agree with Obama that we need to go to war.

 

So, by your logic, Obama must be a right winger. Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #59)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:31 AM

63. I am sorry---but weren't the Right Wingers accusing the President of doing too little?

 

I seem to recall he was not bloodthirsty enough for McCain and Graham.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #63)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:39 AM

66. But, they certainly agree with his war.

 

Doesn't that make him a rightwing stooge?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #66)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:47 AM

74. No--actually, they do not agree with his objectives, or his methods. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #74)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:50 AM

77. So, he's not conducting a war? A little bit of arsenic is better than a lot of arsenic?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #77)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:52 AM

80. He most certainly is conducting the war authorized under the AUMF of 9/18/2001.

 

I'm pleased as fuck that we actually took out and AlQaeda group. Aren't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #80)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:58 AM

87. I'm anti-war. Anti-killing. No matter who does it. Aren't you?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #87)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:12 PM

102. I Am Certainly Not, Sir

My character has many flaws, but a principled commitment to pacifism is not among them. In a great many cases, the pacifist is simply the ally of the aggressor; the person who will not use violence when it is called for strengthens the hand of those who do violence for pleasure or profit, they do nothing whatever to assist those who have been the objects of violence and suffered it. That committed pacifists generally hold themselves out as possessors of greater moral purity than others only compounds the matter. 'My purity is too great and too valuable to be leached off in action which might prevent a greater harm to others', is frequently at the root of the thing, and is an attitude I cannot manage the slightest respect for.

"Violence will not solve everything, in fact it cannot solve many things, but those it can solve, nothing else can."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #102)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:24 PM

109. Is that the "Sacrifice few to save many" morality you are speaking of?

 

The weakest member of the lifeboat to be thrown overboard?

The domino theory of stopping the "aggressor" that was used in Vietnam?

The justification for "collateral damage"?

I'll stick with the "purity" of not killing rather the justifications of killing used by the apologists.

No cause justifies the deaths of innocent people. Albert Camus

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #109)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:55 PM

124. I Do Not Expect To Convince You Of Anything, Sir

My only purpose was to let you know how the facile posture you struck in the title of the post I replied to looks to people who do not share your view that the be all and end all of morale behavior is never to employ violence, for whatever purpose, against whatever actor, in any circumstance. I think that is a very cramped and foolish view, not much different from that of those who take the view the be all and end all of morale behavior is to never engage in sexual behavior that is not procreative and licensed by a priest and the state.

I will point out Ghandi's suggested course for the Jews of Europe in face of Hitler was that they should kill themselvesen masse, as a moral rebuke to those who hated them, which would spare them the sin of committing murder themselves, and thus display the heights of spiritual love and redemption.

i will also point out that, as a political tactic, non-violence depends of the violence of others: it does not work if the demonstrators are not assaulted by police, and even that will not work unless the violence offends the sensibilities of most onlookers. It is a pretty question to examine just where the moral balance might fall when persons who claim violence is immoral depend upon provoking others to violence against them in order to gain their own ends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #87)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:22 PM

108. No. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #59)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:34 AM

64. Uh-oh. Now you've done it. Prepare for a tidal wave of cognitive dissonance from the sockpuppet club

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RufusTFirefly (Reply #64)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:17 PM

104. crickets, crickets...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:19 AM

60. K and effing R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:30 AM

62. It's so CONVINCING when all the corporate voices talk to one another.


Thank goodness America is still full of dedicated, conscientious, amazingly coordinated personas to defend the beleaguered NSA, the struggling global banks and corporations, the quivering and impoverished government of the United States, and the trembling MIC against the Massive, Orchestrated Juggernaut of Propaganda being wielded against them by....poor Americans, Glenn Greenwald...um...

You can tell the dedication by the amazing regularity of response....the rush to agree and *keep agreeing* like clockwork, like a drumbeat, to keep this marvel of consensus, this brilliant exposure of everything smeary about Glenn Greenwald and his sinister libertarian propaganda machine, right at the top of the forum!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #62)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:35 AM

65. Welcome to my thread! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #62)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:40 AM

68. Yep. We're supposed to rely on the ever trustworthy CIA, NSA, and Pentagon for our info.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #68)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:44 AM

70. I don't trust the CIA, NSA nor Pentagon either & I think it's unhealthy to trust Greenwald as well

 

I think I win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #70)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:49 AM

76. Well, I trust him a helluva lot more than the warmongers that Obama trusts.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #76)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:51 AM

79. What has Greenwald said about the Ukraine situation, talking about wars.

 

I could use some catch up on that. How does he treat Putin in his articles about the troubles in Ukraine?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #79)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:00 PM

88. Are we at war with Ukraine? Or, Russia?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #88)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:05 PM

99. Greenwald being the journalist he is, I would think he has an opinion on that!

 

I also happen to know that Greenwald kinda likes Putin, so there goes objectivity in journalism.

I think his boss Omadyar has/had influence in the region. I couldn't make heads or tails of the implications and on what side, besides money, he was on. But he definitely was fiddling in Ukraine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #99)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:08 PM

100. Aren't we "fiddling" in Ukraine?

 

I would call sanctions, threats, NATO deployments a bit of "fiddling".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #100)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:10 PM

101. Omidyars fiddling is the sort of the symphony of the Koch's kind of fiddling.

 

Goverment fiddling is not new - even before Nero's time. But this new 'government' of the very rich - I don't think they should be so influencial as to dictate policy or strategies that involve so many people, do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #79)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:04 PM

96. Nothing.

And it has bupkis to do with Pierre Omidyar's hefty contribution to an NGO supporting Euromaidan. Because, new journalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #76)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:04 PM

95. No kidding...

We all have brains for a reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #62)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:50 AM

78. This weak correlation of Greenwalds "guilt" is pretty pathetic

 

Especially for a lawyer (cough)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #78)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:20 PM

105. heh

rules of evidence need not apply in political message boards

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #62)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:54 AM

82. That's sort of what a discussion forum is about, you know. Discussion. Sometimes agreement.

 

The threads trying to celebrate ol' Greeny sticking it to Obama are usually full of erudite responses like: "Yep." "Yup." "Ditto." "+1.", "+Gazillion!"
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:40 AM

67. And that's why we should continue to spend billions...

 

blowing crap up in another country.

That, and Edward Snowden is a poopy head.

I also notice that posts promoting a blatant pro-MIC stance occur in that corporate hour 8-11 a.m. when most folks are working and unable to respond. Yet a large number of posts suddenly appear from people with apparently endless amounts of free time to type out how much they support the message. When lunch rolls around and the rest of us have a break, we see the OP with all the "me too" messages and it makes it incorrectly appear that a large portion of the community is in agreement with the OP.

The propaganda tools are hard to identify these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Android3.14 (Reply #67)

Thu Oct 2, 2014, 02:18 AM

201. +1000 nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:46 AM

71. If it is true that the Khorasan group does not exist . .

 

or that the threat from which has been greatly exaggerated,
then there is no smear.
That seems pretty basic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FairWinds (Reply #71)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:48 AM

75. Does al-Asiri not exist? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FairWinds (Reply #71)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:53 AM

81. The ever morphing evil terrorists = fear the boogeyman ...keep making bombs ...MIC stocks happy

 

"the Khorasan group"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #81)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:57 AM

84. These guys aren't morphing--al-Fadhli? al-Asiri? Awlaki? If these names

 

don't ring a bell for you, then admit that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #84)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:01 PM

91. What happened to the Taliban? War rah rah and fear is for the lemmings. Mean while keep trusting the

 

government that always lies to its people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #91)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:02 PM

92. So--these names are not familiar to you? Yes or No. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #92)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:04 PM

97. Thanks for playing.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #97)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:28 PM

114. I'm not playing. I'm pleased as all hell that the President hit an AlQaeda cell.

 

Aren't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #114)

Thu Oct 2, 2014, 02:32 AM

203. Excuse me if I'm not falling all over myself

 

to approve of the USA Government via The Agency et. al. creating a boogieman-a-week to scare the bejesus out of the citizenry, so we don't mind too much loosing our Social Security and Medicaid to pay for it, along with many of our constitutional rights to privacy and freedom of speech; all to feed a domestic Frankenstein MIC who is on the loose, being the Cops of the World at our expense, and doing it so stupidly as to be creating new terrorists way faster than they can possibly kill them with bullets, drones, bombs and missiles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #92)

Wed Oct 1, 2014, 01:56 AM

189. How long has the Khorason Group been a name familiar to you?

 

when did you first hear about this group?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FairWinds (Reply #71)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:04 PM

98. Best estimates are that the Khorasan group is 50 guys who were/are affiliated with AQ

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #98)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:25 PM

111. Do you doubt al-Asiri's or al-Fadhli's capabilities with 49 other guys?

 

Given their prior operations, mind you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #111)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:29 PM

116. Asiri and Awlaki are/were affiliated with AQ which has the bucks

 

Al Fadhil has created this group from the Afghanistan AQ.

So actually, seeing as they've broken off from the $$ (AQ), I'd have to see how well funded they are to evaluate if they're a threat.

The Khorasan group don't even merit an honorable mention on the UN terror watch list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #116)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:39 PM

119. Al-Fadhli was a major AQ financier and fundraiser. It's probably why he knew of 9/11

 

ahead of time. He definitely had the cash to bomb the Limburg, and all his other shit.

Khorasan's members are all the on UN Watch List. (resolution 1267.) "Khorasan" would not be--it is not an 'entity' as directed under that resolution.

I highly rec this book to anyone who wants an understanding of what we are at war with:

http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520244481

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #119)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:47 PM

121. So here we come to the crux of it - the Khorasan group IS a new entity

 

If they are actually an entity...

I don't doubt that individually these are all bad guys.

Its the "new group" part that's got some people's suspicions aroused, its got PR war propaganda written all over it.

Personally I tend to follow,the money to see whose really a threat. Al Fadhil was only 19 yrs old at the time of 9/11, an operation that had been planned for, and fundraised for, for years. He was just a schoolboy during that era so attaching his name to 9/11 only revs up the suspicion factor about war propaganda.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #121)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 01:20 PM

129. No--they aren't "new." 'Khorasan' is a term that refers to the coming of Jihad--

 

it actually has many meanings in Arabic, all related to caliphate and Jihad, and the like. Without getting too far down the rabbit hole, 'Khorasan' in this case refers to a group within AlQaeda that draws from all affiliates, operatives and leaders alike--it seems to be a loose association that plans specific, horrible attacks. That they were assembling in Syria was very bad news.


Al-Fadhli was very close to OBL, and was a genius. Don't forget...the next year he financed and ran the Limburg operation. At 20.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #129)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 05:15 PM

169. Al Fadihl may be a criminal mastermind but he wasn't planning or funding 9-11

 

He was a child at that time. You undermine whatever credibility you profess by trying to tie this new "group" to 9-11. That he got his education from OBL is indisputable. That he could then go on and plan terrorist attacks when he was an adult is obvious.

Whatever is the truth about this " group", that they have bad individuals is not my dispute.

My problem is specifically with this rabbit hole that Obama has jumped into, dragging all of us with him. The naming of this collection of individuals as some kind of elite AQ team of master genius terrorists doesn't pass the smell test.

At least not with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:47 AM

73. Before ya know it ...Greenwald will be a republican.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:58 AM

85. At last Glenn Greenwald's Grand Finale!

 

Oh, wait, that was supposed to be in July, wasn't it? Or was it June? August?


[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #85)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:01 PM

90. Closer to Election Day, I think. What do you think the over/under will be for

 

GD threads?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:16 PM

103. Kick and Hell yes Recommend!

Thank you msanthrope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #103)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:21 PM

107. National Review and GReenwald apparently published within HOURS of each other....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #107)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 03:07 PM

158. Thanks to the link to wandy's post, msanthrope.

I keep coming back to your OP, it's very informative and appreciated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:26 PM

112. Greenwald apparently is an activist. He does not mind using others to accomplish his dirty deeds.

It is about time to expose him for the real Greenwald. He has his list of patsies, my name will not be on his list. Thanks misanthrope,.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:28 PM

113. Greenwald, Comrade Snowden, Papa Paul, Babino Paul, Palin, Media Matters, FOX...

.. all same same!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cryptoad (Reply #113)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:29 PM

115. Um...not Media Matters. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #115)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 09:58 PM

180. What's a little guilt by association among friends?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:41 PM

120. If the RW News Media says something about Obama, it must be false, because Obama can do no bad!

That is to say that the RW News Media ONLY puts out propaganda, but if Obama is giving out real fodder for them, then of course they don't have to make up stuff, because the truth can be used then.

This is so stupid, just because the RW News media says something, and Greenwald says the same thing, it MUST NOT BE TRUE because the RW News Media said it, even though Obama has shown to do not so good things in the past.

This thread is just one ant swarm for all the Greenwald haters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ Progressive (Reply #120)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 01:06 PM

126. Darn right. The sooner you realize this, the happier you'll make DU's crack critical thinking squad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:55 PM

123. Get over it

Snowden isn't the devil, nor is Greenwald. Some people just can't take any criticism of President Obama, even when justified. this whole thing of bombing Syria, supporting Syrian (invisible and non-existent) moderates, and bombing Iraq is just BS to increase the munitions and weapons purchases from the MIC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 01:12 PM

127. “What is Greenwald Covering Up? – BFP Roundtable #02&#8243;, published on 20 Dec 2013 at corbettreport


Sibel Edmonds on a panel with James Corbett and Guillermo Jimenez, editor of Traces of Reality, reveals Greenwald for what he is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 01:18 PM

128. You do know we lost posters here because they dare criticize Greenwald...

It made me sad then and it still does....



Tikki

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tikki (Reply #128)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 01:26 PM

133. Who? And I've been writing about GG for years with only one stupid hide to show for it. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #133)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 01:45 PM

140. We are not suppose to call out names...doesn't say in SOR that we can call out names and...

hopefully in time some will return.


Tikki

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tikki (Reply #140)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 01:48 PM

142. PM me?? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 01:21 PM

130. Greenwald was never this bad with Bush.

The pro-criminal Iraq war thug has no credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 01:22 PM

131. HUGE K&R...Greenwald and his right wing cohorts.....EXPOSED

 

Now a bunch of DUers have egg on their faces.

Pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 01:26 PM

134. You're really just gonna go with an association fallacy, right in the headline?

 

lol. Ok then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #134)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 01:36 PM

138. sure

it's essential to intellectually dishonest discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #134)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 02:36 PM

156. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 01:30 PM

135. The same people you are talking about.....

 

The same people you are talking about reccing those other threads are the same ones who would consider White House Press Room staff to be journalist if they only worked for a hardcore right-winger like Putin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #135)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 02:01 PM

145. 50 million Americans get their news from RT!

It's true!
I read it on DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 01:33 PM

136. DU rec...

Fuck Greenwald and his lackeys.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 02:13 PM

152. I've always considered him an advocate.

After all, he is a trained lawyer. I'm not sure who he represents but his libertarian, rather anti-American, unbalanced advocacy naturally attracts quite a few on the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moondust (Reply #152)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 02:14 PM

153. Indeed--libertarian and anti-American ideology does attract the fringes. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #153)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 03:30 PM

160. "America, love it or leave it" again?

 

What is "anti-American" ideology?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #160)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 03:44 PM

161. "anti-American" ideology that discourages voting and participation in civics by

 

promoting the idea that both parties are the same, Obama = Bush, and there's nothing you can do about it?

Anti-American ideology that encourages cynicism rather than activism?

Anti-American ideology that eschews compromise and bipartisanship?

Anti-American ideology that embraces disaffected white men who have no sense of duty and loyalty?

That stuff is anti-American.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #161)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 04:00 PM

163. So, would that make "pro American" ideology

 

Promoting the idea that both parties are opposites?

Cynicsim is Anti-American? Or, just the "encouraging of it"? "History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians. Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn't be wise." Mark Twain Obviously written by an anti-American cynic.


Eschews compromise and bipartisanship? You mean like the "compromise and bipartisanship" that supported (see IWR vote) Bush's wars?

"embraces disaffected white men who no sense of duty and loyalty"? How about the disaffected black men who had no "sense of duty and loyalty" by breaking the law, ignored bi-partisanship and loyalty, and were probably cynical (gasp!), who ran off from the plantations?

Count me with this guy:

"Patriotism is the passion of fools and the most foolish of passions." Arthur Schopenhauer 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #163)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 04:12 PM

164. Well, Schopenhauer preferred monarchy to democracy, so I get why you would pick him

 

as a civics teacher.

And I love me some Twain, but let's not forget he's writing about politicians, not people who serve this country.

You took an oath to serve your country--to defend its Constitution. Wasn't that patriotism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #164)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 04:20 PM

165. No. It was a requirement to get a job.

 

Kinda like the medical exam, or reading test.

I'm glad you acknowledge that politicians don't serve the country. We all (me, you, and Mark) can agree on that. As cynical as it may be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #165)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 04:29 PM

166. I'm sad that you thought a personal oath to uphold democratic values was

 

merely a requirement for the job...why did you take it if you didn't believe it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #166)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 04:41 PM

167. I needed the job.

 

I find the notion of allegiance to a country as absurd as pledging allegiance to car or can of beans or a king or dictator.

And, I think that speaking out against government policies that one finds unprincipled, unethical, unjust, harmful, or just plain stupid, may be cynical, but certainly encompass "democratic values".

Or, do you think that "democratic values" and "loyalty" require obedience, compromise, and staying mute? Did you practice those "values" when Bush or Reagan or Nixon were "serving" their country?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 05:13 PM

168. OMG, even Amy Goodman has gone to the dark side!

How the U.S. Concocted a Terror Threat to Justify Syria Strikes, and the Corporate Media Went Along
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/9/29/how_the_us_concocted_a_terror

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #168)

Thu Oct 2, 2014, 02:41 AM

205. +100 ~nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 05:26 PM

170. Did Glenn ever provide any actual proof for anything he ever wrote?

Because I read that other thread where he defended a white supremacist and it seems he never really has a grasp for what the truth is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 09:30 PM

174. Bush and Obama have same warmonger tactics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 09:30 PM

175. Obama worse than Bush on whistleblowers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 09:31 PM

176. Obama worse than Bush on spying on American citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 09:32 PM

177. BOGGERS have same swiftboat tactics as Tea Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #177)

Thu Oct 16, 2014, 10:56 AM

213. +1. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Tue Sep 30, 2014, 11:26 PM

183. Post so good you appear to have made some folks go completely bananas



Well done, my dear. Well done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #183)

Wed Oct 1, 2014, 12:08 AM

185. I see what you mean.. Brawaaaaa.. "BOGGERs Have Same Tactics has Teaparty".. wah wah wah..




Can't handle addressing the OP's evidence on a$$hole Greenwald so resort to full on ODS! And, that includes his supporters! WAHWAHWAH

Oh and talk to Skinner if you don't like the Groups' ability to block those who do not want to follow their Mission Statements. Meanwhile, I'll use this opportunity to thank him again. Thanks Skinner!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #185)

Wed Oct 1, 2014, 02:05 AM

191. da Jury pronounces

On Tue Sep 30, 2014, 08:35 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

BOGGERS have same swiftboat tactics as Tea Party.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5605239

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

A ridiculous and completely uncalled for attack on DUers. Please hide.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Sep 30, 2014, 08:46 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
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 HIDE IT
Explanation: Where did this come from?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Personal malice on the part of the one who alerted. No attack on DU'ers, of course. n/t
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Facepalm this poster is off the rails. Suggest they take the rails over to Free Republic.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #191)

Wed Oct 1, 2014, 02:56 AM

193. "Facepalm this poster is off the rails. Suggest they take the rails over to Free Republic." LOL

I wouldn't have thought to alert on it.. It's business as usual for GG fans to whine and spew shite about BOGGERS.. they take their cues from the headhater,

Thanks for the laugh, flamingdem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #191)

Wed Oct 1, 2014, 08:57 PM

199. Juror #6 once again nails why the jury system is beyond all hope and redemption

That was about as blatant an attack as you can get.

Juror #7 nailed it completely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #199)

Thu Oct 2, 2014, 04:09 AM

208. There's always hope that the system could be improved.

If members would alert on silly alerts like that one, Skinner could see who the culprits are, the ones who have been throwing a monkey wrench into the wheels of justice for this forum.

I am sure there are many, many more frivolous alerts such as this one being made than we realize by people that just don't want the truth to come out on this forum.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #183)

Wed Oct 1, 2014, 12:22 PM

198. We try...but it looks like geek tragedy rought the can of whoop ass

 

today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #198)

Thu Oct 2, 2014, 03:57 AM

206. He should be a member of the Justice League.

Or something like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed Oct 1, 2014, 01:48 AM

187. The usual

 

...thin skinned, desperate nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #187)

Wed Oct 1, 2014, 03:40 AM

195. i agree, there are some thin skinned ones on here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed Oct 1, 2014, 01:56 AM

190. GGreenwald and Andrew McCarthy.. two little vacuous peas in a pod..



mahalo for your OP, misanthrope.. exposing once again that which is greenwald.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed Oct 1, 2014, 04:22 AM

196. Quote w/link of GG claiming Khorsan was made up please.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu Oct 2, 2014, 02:10 AM

200. Matthew Hale, CATO Institute, PayPal Pierre, Rand and Ron, now NRO . . .

If a man is known by the company he keeps, Greenwald has never been our friend. Ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu Oct 2, 2014, 02:39 AM

204. Escuse me if I'm not falling all over myself ...

 

to approve of the USA Government via The Agency et. al. creating a boogieman-a-week to scare the bejesus out of the citizenry, so we don't mind too much loosing our Social Security, Medicaid, Education, etc. to pay for it, along with many of our constitutional rights to privacy and freedom of speech; all to feed a domestic Frankenstein MIC who is on the loose, being the Cops of the World at our expense, and doing it so stupidly as to be creating new terrorists way faster than they can possibly kill them with bullets, drones, bombs and missiles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu Oct 2, 2014, 04:08 AM

207. Clickbait journalism.

Checkbook journalism.

That's literally all it is.

And those falling for it are really dupes of the highest order. I've decided not to even bother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #207)

Thu Oct 2, 2014, 01:34 PM

210. Oh...I still have to give it the old college try. I suspect many on this board

 

do not know about Mr. Greenwald's Libertarian tour in the Fall of 2012. There's a goldmine there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #210)

Thu Oct 2, 2014, 05:43 PM

211. I am glad you posted this

As you said many here may not know about the "real" Greenwald. Way to many here have made him their "hero", and ignore the fact that he keep leading them on with some kind of "great revelation" that he will reales, soon, yet they are still waiting, along with everyone else, but they can't admit they have been duped.

I think what you do helps people see through the BS Greenwald writes, and shows that he has and agenda of his own, which really don't include facts. Greenwald is no liberal, his libertarian ties prove that, along with is failure to address the other problems in the world, like Putin, or what republicans are doing to destroy this country.

Thank you again for posting this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #210)

Thu Oct 2, 2014, 09:42 PM

212. Why bother? It's a humongous waste of time.

Greenwald is as unimportant as Ann Coulter in the grand scheme of things.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread