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: Feinstein and Pelosi defend NSA because "there is a Democrat in the White House" [View all]AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)73. He supported it during the early Bush Admin
Glenn Greenwald Supported President Bush As He Signed The Patriot Act! The Patriot Act was signed on October 26, 2001 and this is what Glenn Greenwald wrote in the preface to his own book.
This is not to say that I was not angry about the attacks. I believed that Islamic extremism posed a serious threat to the country, and I wanted an aggressive response from our government. I was ready to stand behind President Bush and I wanted him to exact vengeance on the perpetrators and find ways to decrease the likelihood of future attacks. During the following two weeks, my confidence in the Bush administration grew as the president gave a series of serious, substantive, coherent, and eloquent speeches that struck the right balance between aggression and restraint. And I was fully supportive of both the presidents ultimatum to the Taliban and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan when our demands were not met. Well into 2002, the presidents approval ratings remained in the high 60 percent range, or even above 70 percent, and I was among those who strongly approved of his performance. (...)
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.
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.
Glenn Greenwald was ready to stand behind President Bush and wanted to exact VENGEANCE on the perpetrators. And he believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgement deferred to, which of course included the passage of The Patriot Act on October 26, 2001.
link: http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/glenn-greenwald-supported-president-bush-as-he-signed-the-patriot-act/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
211 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: Feinstein and Pelosi defend NSA because "there is a Democrat in the White House" [View all]
Shampoyeto
Oct 2013
OP
It was Obama who put in a lot more restrictions and protections once he took office.
randome
Oct 2013
#112
And Nancy Pelosi will be SOTH in 2015... while Glenny Boy will be looking for a job
BluegrassStateBlues
Oct 2013
#5
Not always sometimes it means sincere sympathy, when someone gets hurt, or is suffering
Uncle Joe
Oct 2013
#130
You keep on mistakenly refer to Greenwald as a liberal blogger. You are so wrong it's pitiful.
KittyWampus
Oct 2013
#135
An Iraq war supporting hero to the left?! Nope, he can talk all the shit now about NOT supporting...
uponit7771
Oct 2013
#175
Yes, REALLY easy to "reverse" himself after Fit hits the Shan... He lost benefit of the doubt then..
uponit7771
Oct 2013
#186
Fuck your wingerish "hero" bullshit, could care less about criticism care more about the truth and..
uponit7771
Oct 2013
#196
Wingers reality "Boo Hoo" = adult but calling you on your wingerish shit = childish. Whatever
uponit7771
Oct 2013
#203
same as the biggest problem here..those who support massive surveillance and bash greenwald
xiamiam
Oct 2013
#17
No his is saying his biggest problem in regards to Democrats... in regards to bi-partisanship.
Luminous Animal
Oct 2013
#67
Who is in power again? Whose DOJ defends the NSA? Which admin is wrting the secret laws
Luminous Animal
Oct 2013
#77
On Oct. 26, join us for a rally against mass surveillance in WA DC, and around the country.
Luminous Animal
Oct 2013
#111
Our infrascture is crumbling... paved roads are being turned into gravel... bridges are barely
Luminous Animal
Oct 2013
#75
I would just say that I'm not surprised party members stick up for one another
Blue_Tires
Oct 2013
#101
And the reason a 'journalist' like Greenwald cares is because there's 'Libertarian-isms' to do!
randome
Oct 2013
#8
" And while we cannot control the world and make laws for them, we can treat them just as
Luminous Animal
Oct 2013
#104
The Democratic Party, and especially its charismatic leader, are their security blanket.
Maedhros
Oct 2013
#56
No doubt. But, she wouldn't be so outspoken in defense of the spying.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Oct 2013
#54
Um...Greenwald was a scathing critic of the Bush Administration and of the Patriot Act.
Maedhros
Oct 2013
#60
I love how poeple make things up on DU. You do know that he was talking specifically about the
Luminous Animal
Oct 2013
#80
No it isn't. He was referring specifically to the invasion of Iraq. You imaganined that
Luminous Animal
Oct 2013
#107
You have no idea if he opposed it because he doesn't address it. He is specifically addressing
Luminous Animal
Oct 2013
#115
AMEN!! The logic pretzel people put themselves into while supporting GG is gob smacking
uponit7771
Oct 2013
#177
He started writing his book "How Would A Patriot Act" in 2005. The same year that
Luminous Animal
Oct 2013
#205
Your point keeps shifting. I know enough about this nation's history of
Luminous Animal
Oct 2013
#208
The 1st Netroots meeting was in 2006. In 2005 Greenwald had already written an entire
Luminous Animal
Oct 2013
#195
Explain to me how the man could have written something when he wasn't writing.
Luminous Animal
Oct 2013
#198
Point being that he's attacking on NSA policies that he supported for a number of years
blm
Oct 2013
#169
Early on he supported Bush. Cut the revisionism. Turnip truck rides aren't my thing.
blm
Oct 2013
#166
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are arguing in good faith.
Maedhros
Oct 2013
#173
The fact that he's singling out our Democratic women is very telling.
BluegrassStateBlues
Oct 2013
#33
If she doesn't want to be challenged on her support of spying she shouldn't support it.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Oct 2013
#57
it's unfortunate that neither of them is black so that you could accuse him of racism as well
frylock
Oct 2013
#59
His pro bono defense of a white supremacist threatening to kill a federal judge does that.
BluegrassStateBlues
Oct 2013
#65
He didn't defend him in the criminal trial. He defended him in the 1st Amendment trial.
Luminous Animal
Oct 2013
#83
Women are a big REason Republicans are doing horribly , look at the Virginia Gov Race
JI7
Oct 2013
#90
The fact is that Greenwald has never addressed the history and appellate decisions that frame this
stevenleser
Oct 2013
#68
150 years ago, Steve would have defended slavery because judicial precedence.
Luminous Animal
Oct 2013
#109
No shit. In similarly surprising news, my dog's breath smells like dog food. n/t
hughee99
Oct 2013
#62
DiFi would be down if Stalin, Mao, Khan, or Attila was in the White House.
TheKentuckian
Oct 2013
#190