Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Greenwald's Latest - He is counter punching to great effect! [View all]stevenleser
(32,886 posts)21. I definitely didn't love Greenwald when he said in his book he agreed with going to war in Iraq
http://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index.cfm?fuseaction=printable&book_number=1812
During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11. Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the presidents performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Greenwald is overcompensating. He missed it badly on Iraq and is trying to make up for it by ginning up outrage against Obama who has done nothing wrong here.
During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11. Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the presidents performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Greenwald is overcompensating. He missed it badly on Iraq and is trying to make up for it by ginning up outrage against Obama who has done nothing wrong here.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
163 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Greenwald's Latest - He is counter punching to great effect! [View all]
Vinnie From Indy
Jun 2013
OP
I have always enjoyed your posts. Been meaning to say that for a while. Figured now was good.
DRoseDARs
Jun 2013
#124
So Sanchez likely didn't go to the previous intelligence briefings and she learned something.
randome
Jun 2013
#2
You are all over the map on this. On one hand you try to assure us that the NSA
rhett o rick
Jun 2013
#10
You bring up a great point. We have no idea how much or how little influence the
rhett o rick
Jun 2013
#42
I believe they are very limited as to what they can tell Congress. Secrecy and all that, you know. n
rhett o rick
Jun 2013
#44
Damn, you got me in a corner. I dont have a better idea. This is going to get very sticky with
rhett o rick
Jun 2013
#59
Your examples are exactly why I think the lies are an attempt to cover up something bigger.
HooptieWagon
Jun 2013
#114
They loved him when he was going after Bush. And that's why they hate him now, he points out the
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#11
I definitely didn't love Greenwald when he said in his book he agreed with going to war in Iraq
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#21
That makes no sense. That 2006 book was about the Bush admin and it included scathing criticism.
Luminous Animal
Jun 2013
#34
So, 3 books and millions of words against the Bush Admin are because he is overcompensating.
Luminous Animal
Jun 2013
#73
I loved him even more for that. Someone who sincerely cared enough about his country to admit to
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#60
Wrong, so completely wrong I do not know where to start. Hillary Clinton knew about the real
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#139
That was a really lovely post, timdog. I made an OP about this and I'll reproduce it below.
Luminous Animal
Jun 2013
#158
Never caught him in a lie and I've been reading him since he started. He has made mistakes
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#53
Do you have some backing, or does this get filed under "Internet Man Makes Baseless Claim"?
DisgustipatedinCA
Jun 2013
#74
Well said. Sadly there are Democrats that yield to the comforting call of authoritarianism and the
rhett o rick
Jun 2013
#47
Sometimes reality is tough to swallow. You cant force it. Whistle-blowers shake up those
rhett o rick
Jun 2013
#97
So, what? He's not in office anymore and there is still massive surveillance...
Luminous Animal
Jun 2013
#112
Well, I agree that neither of them are the story, despite all the efforts to make them the story.
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#69
I am getting confused. One one hand people are claiming that the spy programs only compile
rhett o rick
Jun 2013
#51
If you are confused (which I doubt) it's because there's more than one thing going on.
pnwmom
Jun 2013
#56
Where does it say that this information is collected in the US without a warrant?
pnwmom
Jun 2013
#103
Greenwald works for the Guardian US which in incorporated in the US and has offices in NY City.
Luminous Animal
Jun 2013
#108
You know, the largest one in the history of the planet, that Obama has expanded. That one.
DisgustipatedinCA
Jun 2013
#76
You know, I'm not faulting him for his efforts to expose how the government is wrong here
MrScorpio
Jun 2013
#117