General Discussion

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)

36. Simple answer: It impacts it just the same as which pundit is discussing Benghazi

Sat May 10, 2014, 08:04 PM

May 2014

If I discuss Benghazi, I'll tell you it is a complete waste of time to have another investigation, and I think I am right about that.

If a conservative pundit discusses Benghazi they would say there is new information now thanks to the emails and technically, they would be right. There is some minute piece of new information.

So there are two completely opposite yet true viewpoints, such as they are.

Obviously, I think that the conservative pundit is leaving out a lot of information and slanting it because they want to get to a certain conclusion. That is exactly what I think Greenwald does and has done.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Since it's all the rage to complain about what people post (Greenwald) [View all] BainsBane May 2014 OP

it's all like cheering your team (even when they suck) at a sporting event, isn't it? bettyellen May 2014 #1

"Information they made public": 1 FISA warrant, some random powerpoint presentations ucrdem May 2014 #2

The Pulitzer Committee says, "wrong answer, anonymous Internet Man". DisgustipatedinCA May 2014 #6

Better check your facts, anonymous internet comrade. ucrdem May 2014 #10

Oh, right. It was the Guardian's Personals section that must have won. DisgustipatedinCA May 2014 #14

"Greenwald's Pulitzer" is a meme made for DU. ucrdem May 2014 #17

Looks like the cat is out of the bag. DisgustipatedinCA May 2014 #20

The Google machine doesn't award Pulitzers. nt ucrdem May 2014 #22

The guardian won because of articles written by Greenwald with Smowden as his source Luminous Animal May 2014 #29

Speaking of facts, maybe you'll find this source acceptable: Make7 May 2014 #39

The truth would be good, put the real facts about surveillance, what it is and what it isn't. Thinkingabout May 2014 #3

Do we really need another Greenwald thread? pinboy3niner May 2014 #4

I was trying to discuss the NSA BainsBane May 2014 #5

Well and good pinboy3niner May 2014 #13

Greenwald Forever! Long Live The Angry Libertarians! randome May 2014 #11

Am I right or am I right? ^^^^^ pinboy3niner May 2014 #21

Praise His MIGHTY OMNISCIENT NAME!!! MohRokTah May 2014 #27

This board is populated with many uncritical, blind partisans and Broward May 2014 #7

Speaking of which, I've had my eye on you for some time now pinboy3niner May 2014 #9

And your suspicions about paid operatives MineralMan May 2014 #18

By your command: Maedhros May 2014 #23

sad but true Supersedeas May 2014 #38

I wouldn't complain if he was filthy rich and just got a PHD. L0oniX May 2014 #8

Because everyone is prone to fit the facts to their worldview BeyondGeography May 2014 #12

Oh now that won't do. rrneck May 2014 #15

the check is in Supersedeas May 2014 #40

K&R, dead on. nt MannyGoldstein May 2014 #16

It doesn't. It's just a distraction from the real issues concerning the NSA and private myrna minx May 2014 #19

Trying to ignore ... frazzled May 2014 #24

Are you saying I am trying to ignore those other issues? BainsBane May 2014 #25

Yes, pretty much frazzled May 2014 #33

Firstly, I made no suggestions about NSA apologists BainsBane May 2014 #35

No frazzled May 2014 #37

It shouldn't. Messenger isn't message. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2014 #26

I agree completely nt BainsBane May 2014 #28

Exactly! LeftishBrit May 2014 #30

Who are you and what have done with BainsBane? Fumesucker May 2014 #31

I've thought this siame thing since shortly after the NSA issue arose BainsBane May 2014 #32

It's like blaming the 911 caller for the fire he reported rather than going after the arsonists. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2014 #34

now that is an anology Supersedeas May 2014 #41

Simple answer: It impacts it just the same as which pundit is discussing Benghazi stevenleser May 2014 #36

Eddie committed a crime, or at least he is charged with it treestar May 2014 #42