General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGlenn Greenwald defends Republicans trying to sabotage Iran negotiations.
Harr Reid criticizes the Republicans for tanking negotiations.
Greenwald responds by comparing Harry Reid--not the Republicans including Rand Paul--to Dick Cheney.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Greenwald/status/575043786587398144
Greenwald follows that up with:
Note that Greenwald conveniently overlooks the fact that the letter wasn't criticizing the deal, it was reaching out too Iran's hard liners telling them that the word of the United States was no good and that the US would not keep its commitments.
He then follows that up with this beauty:
When people pointed out how, on a factual basis, Greenwald's comparison was bullshit, he had this response:
Greenwald stands with Rand, even when Rand is trying to promote war with Iran.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)He is not elected and does not represent the government, and then there is this thing called freedom of the press.
I see he owns a part of your mind, eh?
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)But, it's your right to post it.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Notice the OP only included one link which doesn't substantiate his claims. And GG has made it crystal clear that he does not support or defend the 47 Republicons. I only hope you search for the truth on your own and don't base your decision on this OP.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)it doesn't back up what the OP said. In fact GG has said the opposite of what the OP claims.
The following is an actual quote with a source, unlike the crap in the OP:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/10/gop-2007-attacks-pelosi-interfering-bushs-syria-policy-v-todays-similar-dem-attacks-iran/
That is an actual quote, but doesn't fit the "I hate GG meme".
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)is this a forgery?
https://mobile.twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/575046178150154240/actions
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I say that the OP took a twitter message out of context and interpreted it to say that GG was "defending" the Republicons, when we know that's not true. I can give you a direct quote that counters that "interpretation".
What seems to be bothering those blinded by hate, is that GG not only criticized the Republicon he also pointed out some hypocrisy of the Democrats. And any criticism of Democrats brings out the big guns from the "Democrats are perfect" crowd.
If you don't agree that the Democrats did something similar, then argue that point, don't misrepresent the messenger.
In the scope of things, Greenwald is insignificant, but some spend a lot of the energy to demonize and ridicule him.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)I had my suspicions about GG, but now they are confirmed.
He, like many here, will take any and every chance to attack Obama and Hillary.
When someone like that with an agenda makes a correct observation, which he may do from time to time, it is wasted because people like me know his agenda, at least now I do.
You are no longer credible when you clearly have an agenda like the one he has.
Too bad because our government needs watchdogs and whistle-blowers
Lots of folk have confused GG and others like here at DU as being left or liberal.
Oh god, what a joke that is.
cali
(114,904 posts)And I have a right to call what he`s saying here, utter bullhorn. That would seem to be obvious.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)you aren't changing any minds here.
pathetic attempt.
Response to grasswire (Reply #2)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)That phenomenon sure isn't reflected here on DU.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)That's it.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and by extension Edward Snowden has ever said is completely wrong.
I absolutely disagree with Glenn Greenwald on this matter, but it would be completely unimaginable that I could agree with him on something else.
All or nothing, guilt by association, same arguments.
Oh, and since I agree with Glenn Greenwald on something in the past, not this matter, you can just dismiss everything I've ever said, too, because somebody I've agreed with has been wrong.
So I'm wrong. You are wrong. Hell, everyone that has ever read this post is wrong because it was touched by WRONG.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)protected when he writes something silly.
I mean...how authoritarian, is it not, to insist that critique of a pundit must cease?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)straight from my own keyboard, and you are free to quote me on this, point to it later and I'll put it in my journal so you can find it later.
He is 100% absolutely brain dead wrong on this one.
I'll also say this, too. Those that have in the past hinted that he may have some real ...I won't say hatred of the United States, but bias against it, are probably right.
This incident did clearly indicate his biases. It's actually quite disturbing to me, in all honesty.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)up quite a few eyes on this board. His subsequent conduct? Even more.
Or....as one long term DUer has recently indicated to me......cognitive dissonance is alive and well on this board. This particular old timer just sat on three separate trumad juries.....three days running.
Mr. Greenwald is not to be protected from the consequences of his silly speech.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and I am leaning toward saying that his biases are against the US.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)there are only interpretations.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)ignore the truth at your own peril...
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Well…. That's like, your OPINION, man…
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)
Cha
(297,196 posts)
Spazito
(50,327 posts)Greenwald defending repubs, attacking Dems, SSDD.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)pimping the war, so of course he defends the war-mongers.
Spazito
(50,327 posts)I have little doubt he thinks it's double plus good the repub scumbags did this.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)with his loyalties.
Spazito
(50,327 posts)Cha
(297,196 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)criticizing Republicans for trying to sabotage negotiations.
Here's another tweet from the libertarian troll:
No objections thus far to Senators reaching out to a hostile government telling them not to respect anything our government tells them.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)specifically calling out Rand Paul for trying to undo the deal "on behalf of Israel."
But hey, I've long given up on expecting the truth from the Greenwald-derangement squad.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Chathamization
(1,638 posts)saying that he didn't criticize the GOP at all?
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It seems his only beef is that they're doing it for Israel, not that they're undercutting Obama who's trying to prevent war.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)Hey, since Greenwald loves the GOP, he's complimenting Reid by comparing him to Cheney, right?
He's called out Ron Paul twice in the last few days, once for supporting Netanyahu's speech and once for being part of the GOP's effort to sabotage the Iranian peace talks. He's tweeted articles criticizing Tom Cotton for meeting with defense contractors right after he's tried to sabotage the peace talks. He's criticized the GOP for flip-flopping on scandals.
But again, I've long since given up on expecting the truth from people who only see red when they hear the name Greenwald.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)He's expressed no outrage over what the Cotton 47 did.
Just commiserating with fellow libertarian Justin Raimondo that Rand was too pro-Israel or something.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)standard? None of the posts in your OP say anything about being stupid or bad. Again, if you want to be utterly obtuse and pretend "Rand Paul is part of the GOP campaign to threaten to undo a US/Iran deal on behalf of Israel" isn't criticism, then you can say that in your OP he's merely comparing Reid with Cheney and not criticizing him.
Of course, this would be silly, but that's what you used the same standard for all of his tweets (which of course people don't, because why be intellectually honest when discussing Greenwald?).
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)of what the Republicans had done, pretending that they had merely criticized Obama rather than contacting a hostile power with the explicit aim of undermining their own government's diplomacy with that power.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)criticism in those tweets. You also seemed to think that others would be able to see the criticism in those tweets without the followup (again, since it wasn't in your OP). Which makes me pretty sure that if Greenwald had tweeted "Harry Reid is part of the Democratic campaign to threaten to undo a US/Iran deal on behalf of Israel," you wouldn't be bending over backwards pretending that it isn't criticism, and if he had tweeted "Ever since 1/20/2009, Ron Paul has read faithfully from the Dick Cheney book of political rhetoric," you wouldn't be telling me that the criticism is clear.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)were doing in an attempt to shield them from criticism.
Note that Greenwald is also defending the ISIS apologists at Cage UK today, he's on quite a roll.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
Number23
(24,544 posts)Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald · 11 hrs 11 hours ago
Rand Paul is part of the GOP campaign to threaten to undo a US/Iran deal on behalf of Israel http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-09/republicans-warn-iran-and-obama-that-deal-won-t-last … (via @JustinRaimondo)
Where is the criticism?
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)Funny, Greenwald doesn't need to say: "Please not, this is meant as criticism!" for you guys to understand that one. If he tweeted something like "Harry Reid is part of the Democratic campaign to threaten to undo a US/Iran deal on behalf of Israel" you guys would have zero trouble seeing the criticism.
Number23
(24,544 posts)It's only you pro-Greenwald "guys" going out of your way to pretend that criticism is there when there really isn't.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)
I miss Whisp!
Number23
(24,544 posts)Republicans on this and directing all ire at Democrats as he does on a regularly basis, some still feel inclined to fly into a "violent, table-smashing, child-punching rage over the thought of someone ever criticizing" the greasy little libertarian.
All while they bray about how they are true and REAL Democratic base, of course.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)I don't think that phrase means what they think it does.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You're talking to people who fly into a literal violent, table-smashing, child-punching rage over the thought of someone ever criticizing the president.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)about trusting posts like these without checking them out first.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I wouldn't need a safety belt, a condom or the good sense to know when to say when.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Greenwald is COVERED.
I heard that that only does he not need a seat belt but he can stay in the desert sun for four hours in mid-summer and not even need sunscreen.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Cha
(297,196 posts)with the repugs over Iran.. comparing "..Sen Reid to Dick Cheney's playbook.." GG fans
Cha
(297,196 posts)much personal experience tweeting them.. but, he's only projecting here.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)Carnival barker is too kind of a description for this clown. After watching the fawning over John Edwards here I guess GG having a fan club shouldn't be surprising. One would like to think people would become a little more discerning over time...
Number23
(24,544 posts)Edwards, Greenwald, Snowden, Assange, Kucinich... "lions" of the Perpetually Outraged here. Quite the list, ain't it?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)but, as Judy Collins once said, "Don't bother, they're here."
Sid
Aerows
(39,961 posts)He's being an idiot about this.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)
It's 1000% within the right of any member of Congress--or any citizen--to criticize a prospective deal they think is bad.
It's also my right as a citizen to criticize any 'reporters/journalists' tweets/articles/stories/interviews that I think show jackassery. Oh look...speaking of....
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I normally find myself in agreement with Greenwald, but I think he's wrong here.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I also said so. It's a screwed up situation.
Just thought I would stand with you on the "fan-base" that never criticizes somebody when we think they have a flawed opinion.
They probably missed us, though.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)with Snowden on the difficult subject on NSA snooping, but this does strike me as a man who is under enormous pressure, either that or somebody must have gotten hold of his phone just to post this crap because that is what it is, crap. Intelligence is about knowing when to use your vendetta not on some stupid defence of people that everyone who have been following this process knows is borderline treasonous.
I hope he doesn't allow his emotions to get the better of his intelligence, please you're a better man than this.
For now I'm not buying any of this because I see this as a vendetta toward Obama for leaving him out there.
They did not expose spying on Americans, they tried to undermine a peace process which is a bigger crime than what Snowden did.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)He is entitled to his opinion, even if his opinion is based on a feeling.
Here is a little fact to consider when defending Greenwald's, and the GOP senators' position.
The Logan Act has remained almost unchanged and unused since its passage. The act is short and reads as follows:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
Is the GOP Senators' actions in attempting to sabotage and subvert the US in negotiations treason under the Logan Act? Remember that the GOP Senators are in fact government officials. They cannot have private opinions in this matter because they are acting as Senators. Shades of R. M. Nixon, and Ronnie Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
I side with geek tragedy
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Hekate
(90,674 posts)
markpkessinger
(8,395 posts). . . from his bio:
Wachtell Lipton isn't exactly small potatoes!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)small potatoes, but Greenwald isn't licensed to practice law anywhere anymore.
Further.....Greenwald says his representation of Matt Hale was about the First Amendment. ...it wasn't. It was about Illinois Anti-Klan statutes. Greenwald called the plaintiffs.....two Hasidic Jewish teens and an African American reverend "odious and repugnant" for suing his Nazi client. ..after they were shot.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)"A Constitutional Lawyer".
Most folks I have seen described thusly exclusively, or for the majority, take appellate cases on bill of rights questions. Not regular civil litigation questions. But this is not my field and thus I could very well be wrong.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)attorneys, represented the Plaintiffs. In my opinion, Greenwald was trying to save his Nazi client a judgment. His ineptitude lost the case for Matt Hale...so I guess there's an up side to everything.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)and then of course we have him illegally taping witnesses in attempting to win the case for the Nazi.
markpkessinger
(8,395 posts). . . he is no longer a practicing lawyer, and no longer maintains his license. But the post I was responding to made him out to be nothing more than a layman when it comes to Constitutional law, and that is simply not the case. Giving up his law license does not negate his education and professional experience. It doesn't take away his juris doctor, nor does it make him a bar exam flunky.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Illinois ethical rules caused, in my legal opinion, his Nazi client to settle his case with CCR. His stance that Matt Hale had a First Amendment right to participate in the murder of minorities, without sanction, was juvenile and laughable.
Only an inept lawyer would compromise a client thusly. And his further involvement, with regard to violation of Hale's SAMs? I'd love to see the FBI file on that. If only Patrick Fitzgerald could talk.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)I read his writings with the same amusement as I do with the grocry store check out rags.
rpannier
(24,329 posts)I agree with him on some of the things he says
But, this is beyond the pale
Especially since Israel opposes this deal with Iran
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)He's helping Republicans undermine the peace efforts so he can take a swipe at Sen Reid.
That's seriously screwed up.
nakocal
(552 posts)Glenn Greenwald is the right wings best friend. He remains low key and hardly says anything when a republican passes a law that he may not like but the moment a Black Democratic President gets into office and continues following the same law he goes ballistic.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)... Hey @ggreenwald are you going to accuse @SenSanders of reading from Cheney's book too? http://goo.gl/gycAAN
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)Cha
(297,196 posts)to call out Sen Sanders for this.. Mahalo Steven..
Iran Letter Backlash Grows As Bernie Sanders Accuses Senate Republicans Of Sabotage
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/09/iran-letter-backlash-grows-bernie-sanders-accuses-senate-republicans-sabotage.html
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Both are bad options.
Cha
(297,196 posts)President Obama. He'll defend anybody over the President.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)That's who this guy is. I hope some folks who hadn't seen that start to see it now.
zappaman
(20,606 posts) stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I can hope can't I?
Cha
(297,196 posts)ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...when he was even more for the Iraq war than Hillary was.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)
Cha
(297,196 posts)http://thedailybanter.com/2013/04/glenn-greenwalds-hilarious-denial-about-his-support-for-iraq-war/
tridim
(45,358 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)in the minds of 12 year old, AR fans.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I think it will be Rand Paul.
question everything
(47,476 posts)who went in search of justice in.... China and in Russia.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)It doesn't come across that way, it is basically harmless or see the harm. It comes across as condescending more than anything else really. I don't know what the book on political rhetoric says but selling it as much worse than it really is & so unnecessary & generally don't believe in doing that kind of thing.
http://go.bloomberg.com/assets/content/uploads/sites/2/150309-Cotton-Open-Letter-to-Iranian-Leaders.pdf
There is so much worse out that concerns me than that very basic letter. Simply says Obama would need congressional approval, so anything regarding would a simple agreement & the next guy could simply reverse it. Comes across as "don't get your hopes up" than "sabotage".
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)WASHINGTON -- Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), the organizer of a controversial letter warning Iran that the U.S. government will not necessarily abide by any agreement Iran strikes with the Obama administration, previously told a conservative audience that the goal of congressional action should be to scuttle talks with Iran. The U.S. should, instead, engage in a policy of "regime change," he argued.
Iran hawks in the House and Senate have long said that their aim is to help the White House strike a tougher deal with Iran. The administration and others, meanwhile, have charged that the hawks' true motivation is to undermine the talks entirely. Cotton, for his part, has made no secret that he wants the talks to fail.
"The end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of congressional action. It is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so speak," Cotton said in January, speaking at a conservative conference hosted by the advocacy group Heritage Action for America.
There's a reason why everyone on the left is horrified by this stunt.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)which has the implication he may not get. I don't think what view the Republicans would take during congressional actions regarding this was very difficult to guess. " goal of congressional action should be to scuttle talks with Iran."
It comes across as very straight forward to me, but YMMV.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)US because they would not honor agreements Obama made if they won the White House.
They want war.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)before people told him it was a dumb ass move. 
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)I've no respect for him whatsoever.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)He's neither.
maybe he's just an antagonist.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)That's all he is. He is not a fighter for the truth, he doesn't care about NSA spying. He wants to hurt the US and Democrats.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Doesn't mean I've turned against Apple. It just means that I'm not going to be fooled any more by Apple than I am buy some other something I don't trust.
After a while, you remember people in one party of congress saying things no better than the other party.
And if this makes your face go all red and pop, well, then….
Carry on with this silly ass shit of yours. Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Any of his fanbois want to defend this one? Are any of them still aroud? My Greenwald hypocrisy threads have been sparsely populated lately...
All that bullshit he's been spewing about supporting the constitution, and all of a sudden he's cheerleading GOP senators acting WAY out of their constitutional authority??
Like I said two years ago, Greenwald is just trolling...If he's serious, then even he has to know that his contrarianism has gone full circle and all of a sudden he's supporting Netanyahu's arguments...
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)
spanone
(135,830 posts)Cha
(297,196 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
The DU Fainter™
- Now have a nice nap and maybe you won't be so grouchy when you wake up!
MADem
(135,425 posts)under the auspices of a rabidly neo-con organization with that crazy fool Allen West at the helm?
Why yes, I think that IS the case. He's been taking money from Koch for years--now they're making him really EARN it.
As Gomer (sounding like the smartest guy in the room on this topic) says:
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)lynching. That's what so disgusting about naming a lecture series after him. Why would GG participate?
MADem
(135,425 posts)He tried to deny it when The Exiled pointed it out, but all you have to do is go to the CATO website and google him--you'll get pages and pages. He appears at any event they tell him to appear at, he was on a stipend for a couple of years writing that "one little paper" that he justified, he shows up at their fundraisers as their dancing bear, they tout him, they OWN him. He's once again showing up to be the featured speaker at this bought-and-paid-for-by-Koch event, he'll take his paycheck from them, and he'll say what they tell him to say. His association with them isn't occasional or accidental--he's on the payroll.
I'm betting that little adventure with Omidyar isn't working out so he's back to the trough for a payday. How long can he continue to milk the Snowden trove to rumble the naive liberals? Instead of "raising the alarm" about issues of privacy, all he's really done is (to riff on an old vaudeville act), bit by bit, inch by inch, step by step, SLOWLY he's turned us to a ho-hum tolerance of the very thing he claims that he decries. We all now simply assume that we're being spied on, tracked, GPS'd, watched by our tee vees, put a bit of duct tape on the camera of the laptop, figure our phones can hear our every wrod, assume our purchases are written down in a little file...it doesn't matter anymore if it is true, or not, his "drip, drip, drip" method of Big Reveals hasn't gotten the "OMG OMG OMG" reaction, instead, it's gotten the "BFD" treatment.
Who knows, maybe that was the point?
Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Now tell me he isn't the granddaddy of all fucking hypocrites
Aerows
(39,961 posts)that said he was dead wrong on this, but carry on. Everyone that has ever agreed with Glen Greenwald in the past on *anything* supports Republicans being treasonous assholes, and are probably treasonous assholes themselves.
I read it here first on DUknowthesepeople Uareassociated.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)You know the song-and-dance by now -- The Snow-Wald fans get to crow and talk loud shit when they post something positive to their cause, and I get *my* moments when Snow-Wald get caught in lies/contradictions...
Aerows
(39,961 posts)When "Snow-Wald Fans" explicitly state disagreement with Glenn Greenwald, when they completely disagree with him, you feel a sense of victory.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)and deserve to have their faces rubbed in it...
This isn't the first time Greenwald has been 100% wrong on an issue, either, even with his propensity to flip-flop
MADem
(135,425 posts)Alas, now he's been caught out in the rain.
He's been with the Koch Brothers for years. The Exiled told us this long ago.
http://exiledonline.com/glenn-greenwald-of-the-libertarian-cato-institute-posts-his-defense-of-joshua-foust-the-exiled-responds-to-greenwald/
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Can someone tell me how this serves Putin's purpose? I only ask because it's getting a little confusing about how Greenwald is for Putin, the Right Wing, and whatever. Especially since the RW want's to fight in the Ukraine and even in Georgia when the Russians invaded there. Wouldn't a war with Iran be bad for Russia? I mean, the Iraqi's used Russian equipment and tactics and the US Army walked all over them.
I'm so confused.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Glenn hates the President and is for anything Pres Obama is against. Even when it makes him look like a sniveling hypocrite. It's really that simple.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)as his perceived antagonists, which is my contention.
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat
Somewhere or other Byron makes use of the French word longeur, and remarks in passing that though in England we happen not to have the word, we have the thing in considerable profusion. In the same way, there is a habit of mind which is now so widespread that it affects our thinking on nearly every subject, but which has not yet been given a name. As the nearest existing equivalent I have chosen the word ‘nationalism’, but it will be seen in a moment that I am not using it in quite the ordinary sense, if only because the emotion I am speaking about does not always attach itself to what is called a nation — that is, a single race or a geographical area. It can attach itself to a church or a class, or it may work in a merely negative sense, against something or other and without the need for any positive object of loyalty.
By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’(1). But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.
.
.
.
It is also worth emphasising once again that nationalist feeling can be purely negative. There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist — that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating — but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also — since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself — unshakeably certain of being in the right.
.
.
.
------------------------------------------
Orwell's concept of the negative nationalist describes Greenwald to a T. Just like Trotskyists had "become simple enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit", Greenwald is simply an enemy of the West, US and Democrats without a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. Greenwald will explore any angle to attack his designated antagonists, fair or unfair, honest or dishonest. Just like he behaved as an attorney by the way.
Cha
(297,196 posts)Cha
(297,196 posts)
http://theobamadiary.com/2015/03/09/the-presidents-day-37/
Yeah, GG is always being "convenient" like that.. who the hell does he think he's appealing to now? ODS at its most severe.
Cha
(297,196 posts)governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations." When the Iranian government dismisses your political propaganda as propaganda, you've failed mighty fuckin' badly."
meegbear http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026340973#post2
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)It's a huge distinction in meaning that he apparently does not understand.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)This is what I found that Greenwald said:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/10/gop-2007-attacks-pelosi-interfering-bushs-syria-policy-v-todays-similar-dem-attacks-iran/
randome
(34,845 posts)It's 1000% within the right of any member of Congress--or any citizen--to criticize a prospective deal they think is bad.
On the face of it, sure, that is true. Or, as Greenwald might put it, '1000% true'. But in the context and the framing, he is clearly conflating criticism with what the Gang of 47 did. They are not the same thing at all.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)How can you talk about the context if you don't have the article the quote came from. The OP implies that Greenwald supports the 47 Republicons when in fact he has stated that he does not support them.
GOP efforts to sabotage a peace deal with Iran are heinous on the substance: the combination of dogmatic religious fervor for Israel, a cartoon-like Manichean view of the world, and a bottomless thirst for war continues to lead them to a commitment to rogue militarism – though there are plenty of Democrats who share all of those views.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/10/gop-2007-attacks-pelosi-interfering-bushs-syria-policy-v-todays-similar-dem-attacks-iran/
So far the OP has not provided a source for his quotes with the exception of one twitter message.
randome
(34,845 posts)You can see for yourself the context and framing. Granted, it's Twitter and not that good at erudite replies but if Greenwald doesn't understand how to use it, he should stay off.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Right after "It's 1000% within the right of a member of Congress - or any citizen - to criticize a prospective deal they think is bad." he says "This is no different than those who said those questioning Bush's Iraq policy were helping to embolden Saddam"
Strange. I copied the link from the OP but it doesn't show the entire thread. Click on the link in the OP and you'll see the 2 above references.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that tweet about Reid that has no context.
I have provided a direct link to Greenwald making it clear that he doesn't support or defend the 47 Republicons.
Showing Democratic hypocrisy is not defending the Republicons.
randome
(34,845 posts)"It's 1000% within the right of a member of Congress - or any citizen - to criticize a prospective deal they think is bad."
"This is no different than those who said those questioning Bush's Iraq policy were helping to embolden Saddam"
And if you keep searching for a reason we keep 'demonizing' Greenwald, it's very simple: we don't like him and we don't trust him.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I think the intense hatred of GG, who has nothing to do with our problems, is a distraction and disruptive. He is being used as a scapegoat.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,956 posts)You're offending the cult of Glenn Greenwald.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)this pathetic hack still has so much support on this board. It's embarrassing.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)In this article https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/10/gop-2007-attacks-pelosi-interfering-bushs-syria-policy-v-todays-similar-dem-attacks-iran/
(And just by the way, Rand Paul’s signing of the Cotton letter further exposes what a shallow fraud is his pretense to having some sort of heterodox foreign policy positions).
Looks to me like Mr. Greenwald sharply criticized the Republicons and Rand Paul.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)You're ruining a perfectly good two minutes of hate!
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)and not meant to deceive other posters at all. And I'm sure all those who claimed that Greenwald was a staunch Rand Paul supporter will admit they were mistaken, and will stop spreading around such disinformation now that it's been shown to be a falsehood.
It's going to happen...
Any minute now...
...any...minute...
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)responsible for our situation.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)Why do his opponents feel the need to lie and call him a libertarian (when he supports expanding the welfare state and praises socialists), say he hates Democrats (when he's probably raised more money for Democrats than just about anyone here) or say that he supports Rand Paul for president (he's never said that, and the twitter page in the OP shows him attacking Paul)?
I remember a line I heard once - "And they hate them a lot more than they hate us. We're just infidels - but they're heretics." I guess a lot of people have this mindset; it's the reason why James Carville is happy marrying a Republican operative, but absolutely hates Nader.
It's funny, a year ago people were saying Greenwald was a horrible person because he was against US military intervention in Nigeria. You don't hear much about that anymore...
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Greenwald says nothing illegal was done though the actions were described as heinous on substance, an act of dogmatic religious fervor, and the product of a bottomless thirst for war and compares Reid's loyalist posturing to Cheney's for the reason that nothing illegal was done no matter how unacceptable one feels the behavior may be.
The reality is most honest folks will agree where the rubber meets the road, if Greenwald is soooo off base then we should be expecting prosecutions for the 47, no?
Of course not, there won't be even charges much less any indictments no matter how strongly folks feel that the spirit of sedition is running wild.
Greenwald should have perhaps used impotent bluster as his point of comparison.
Put up or shut up, if Greenwald is making cause with the 47 then his detractors had best be demanding prosecutions or they are functionally in agreement with him no matter how much belly aching and finger pointing they do because they are in exactly the same place he is and are making a scene about how he is saying it.
What is the practical and functional difference? Nothing but something to hang on to throw a fit about like they do weekly.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)If Greenwald doesn't toe the authoritarian line, he must be demonized. But it isn't enough to declare him a demon but it must be repeated over and over as if that somehow, makes things better. GG isn't responsible for our woes.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)If Greenwald can't identify that then he is an idiot. It is in all of our rights to question what politicians do - that is the beauty of free speech in this country. But to go around the President and commicate directly to a foreign leader than any deal reach with the current President would become 'null and void' once that President leaves office is, to most obvious readers, a clear violation of the Logan Act.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Emphasis mine. He isn't "defending" the 47 Republicons. He isn't "defending" Tom Cotton. He isn't "defending" Rand Paul.
He did criticize some Democrats that would like to see a confrontation with Iran.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Seriously. Must counter the disinformation every time.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)this length. Apparently I was hopeful naive. Some times we might wonder who would believe Fox News, but we have the same problem right here in River City. It's called willful ignorance. People want to believe that their troubles are the fault of Ralph Nader and Glen Greenwald. Why? They are frustrated and need someone to hate. Hitler took advantage of this type of thinking.
An OP won't help. There are two distinct factions here in River City, those that seek the truth and those that choose to put their head in the sand. Guess which faction does all the alerting. Guess which faction celebrates when someone is TS'd?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)position.
Hekate
(90,674 posts)
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)He is, after all, Glenn Greenwald.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Senate Republicans, obsessed as always with carrying out the agenda of the Israeli government and leading the U.S. into more militarism and war, yesterday wrote a letter to “the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” designed to derail an international agreement governing that country’s nuclear program. Numerous leading Democrats – in Congress and the media – are today using the language of criminality, sedition and even treason to denounce that letter, insisting that it is a violation of American “norms” and possibly American law for members of Congress to “undermine” the President’s conduct of foreign policy and diplomacy.
Harry Reid, sounding (as usual) like the love child of George Bush and Joe Lieberman, said: “Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs.” The New York Daily News put mugshot-like photos of four of the GOP signatories above the headline “TRAITORS.” The Washington Monthly‘s Ed Kilgore called it “sedition in the name of patriotism.” The Washington Post‘s Paul Waldman said it is “appalling” because it shows Republicans “can act as though Barack Obama isn’t even the president of the United States.” The most predictably hackish party apparatchiks over at MSNBC accused Republicans of “conducting their own parallel, freelance foreign policy” and argued that felony charges should be considered under the Logan Act.
GOP efforts to sabotage a peace deal with Iran are heinous on the substance: the combination of dogmatic religious fervor for Israel, a cartoon-like Manichean view of the world, and a bottomless thirst for war continues to lead them to a commitment to rogue militarism – though there are plenty of Democrats who share all of those views. Tom Cotton, the prime author of the letter, is at least as much a dangerous religious fanatic as anyone in the Iranian government, and certainly a more militaristic one. (And just by the way, Rand Paul’s signing of the Cotton letter further exposes what a shallow fraud is his pretense to having some sort of heterodox foreign policy positions).
He seems intent on blazing a singular path, and not making any friends amongst politicians. I disagree with some of his attitude. Long story short, the Republicans who went this route deserve the grief they are getting. Imo.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Because I, Glenn Greenwald, am a self important jerk who wants to make himself seem unique by even criticizing the group who are doing the right thing here. "
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)classes. The Oligarchs and their puppets are.
This is what Greenwald actually said, not that you guys actually care about the truth:
I can only guess that those of you that support HRC are really "trickle-downers" hoping the wealthy will be nice to you. Just like in the school yard. Those that follow the bully hope he will be nice to them. American children are going to bed hungry by some still worship Wall Street and the widening inequality gap.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I never asserted what you contended.
Astrad
(466 posts)Helps is a synonym for supports. Unless you want to move the goal posts.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)the same.
In this case, helped does not mean the same as supported.
Nuance matters.
blue neen
(12,319 posts)Not a surprise.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Put me down as a person that thinks he is absolutely wrong about this. I am starting to question his biases.
I believe people can evolve on their opinions, and mine is evolving on Greenwald - and not in the positive.
randome
(34,845 posts)But kudos for being open-minded. 
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
Aerows
(39,961 posts)how damn appalled I am at 47 members of the Senate. Both of mine heard from me, and they are Republicans. One because he is wise enough to respect the office of the President despite the fact that he is a Republican, and the second to tell him to learn from the other one, because he hasn't got sense enough to get out of a good shower of rain.
randome
(34,845 posts)Right after the travesty of secretly inviting Netanyahu, we have another bone-headed stunt! It's raining blunders on the GOP!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)source that indicates that he supports the 47 Republicons. I did find that he said this: "GOP efforts to sabotage a peace deal with Iran are heinous on the substance: " as I have mentioned above.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)No one said "Greenwald is 'supporting' Republicans directly. But by attacking Democrats who are trying to take Republicans to task for the letter to Iran, he is indirectly helping Republicans.
But you dont want to talk about that. You want to engage in word games over whether Greenwald is "supporting" Republicans.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I have asked repeatedly for the source of something showing that. The OP only lists one source with no context.
Here is a direct quote from Greenwald, "GOP efforts to sabotage a peace deal with Iran are heinous on the substance: the combination of dogmatic religious fervor for Israel, a cartoon-like Manichean view of the world, and a bottomless thirst for war continues to lead them to a commitment to rogue militarism – though there are plenty of Democrats who share all of those views."
This is what he says about Tom Cotton and Rand Paul, "Tom Cotton, the prime author of the letter, is at least as much a dangerous religious fanatic as anyone in the Iranian government, and certainly a more militaristic one. (And just by the way, Rand Paul’s signing of the Cotton letter further exposes what a shallow fraud is his pretense to having some sort of heterodox foreign policy positions).
I am asking where this comes from: "Glenn Greenwald defends Republicans trying to sabotage Iran negotiations."
And where does this come from: "Greenwald stands with Rand, even when Rand is trying to promote war with Iran."
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)and in doing so, you continue to not discuss what Greenwald said and why it is problematic despite the fact that many folks who have been Greenwald fans here have explicitly called his comments out as wrong.
So even though your tactics don't deserve a response on their merits (because they dont have merits) lets do it anyway.
1. Republicans engaged in what some call treason and violation of Constitutional separation of powers and the logan act and send this ridiculous letter to Iran.
2. Reid (and other Democrats) say this is an abuse of Presidential authority, backstabbing the President, not supporting the President, what have you. In other words, taking the Republicans to task on this.
3. Greenwald attacks Reid for getting after the Republicans on this.
OP says Greenwald "defends" Republicans. Well, attacking someone attempting to take someone to task for something definitely hurts the attempt to take them to task and definitely could be phrased as defending the original person/group for their actions. Defending might be a little stretch, but only a little one.
Again, though, concentrating on the use of the word "defends" isn't the point, is it?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I gave you a direct quote from Greenwald that makes it clear he isn't "defending" the Republicons. He does criticize Democrats and I guess that's what draws the hatred. Some can't tolerate the least criticism of any Democrats.
Again this is a direct quote from Greenwald,
"GOP efforts to sabotage a peace deal with Iran are heinous on the substance: the combination of dogmatic religious fervor for Israel, a cartoon-like Manichean view of the world, and a bottomless thirst for war continues to lead them to a commitment to rogue militarism "
He does go on to say, "though there are plenty of Democrats who share all of those views." Is he wrong there? Aren't there Democrats that support a strong stand against Iran?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)What more do you need? Cliff notes?
You keep saying OP didn't provide the text and that is simply not true.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)"Ever since 1/20/2009, Harry Reid has read faithfully from the Dick Cheney book of political rhetoric politicalwire.com/2015/03/09/one…"
Nothing about "defending" the Republicons. GG has come out with strong words condemning the 47 Republicons.
He criticized some Democrats but never defended the 47 Republicons.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)It's 1000% within the right of any member of Congress--or any citizen--to criticize a prospective deal they think is bad.
In the situation, that sure looks like he is defending their actions.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)But I think the one's defending this piece of shit used car salesman are even funnier.
Sid
Orsino
(37,428 posts)What a dumbass.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I would have expected nothing less.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The OP failed to provide any links backing up such a claim. He linked to a tweet where GG is critical of Reid but that doesn't mean he is "defending" the Republicons. GG in fact strongly stated, "GOP efforts to sabotage a peace deal with Iran are heinous".
I think some are using hatred of GG as a distraction.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I shall look more into it ehen I get a chance later.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)....and things unrelated together with a bit of silly string in order to make Glenn Greenwald look bad, and with little regard for the whole truth. The unfortunate result is that many readers do not carefully study the accusations of the OP, and mass delusion ensues.
I know you know that. Thanks for trying to keep things real here.
There are two kinds of people on DU. Those who value truth above all, and are willing to stand up for truth and accuracy and evidence, and to defend those who speak truth, and who espouse justice equally and for all. And then there are many others who apparently view truth as fungible, or situational, or not important at all. Their allegiance lies elsewhere, and that "elsewhere" is often hidden.
There are terms for people who are willing to eschew truth for propaganda. No possible end can justify the quashing of truth in a democracy.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)What bothers me most here is there are people here using this OP as justification for their misplaced outrage. They seem to want to hate someone and they are willing to lower themselves to this level and get strength from others of like mind. This is supposed to be a message board for the "politically liberal" yet, as we see here, this misplaced hatred isn't that of anyone liberal.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)Babel_17
(5,400 posts)