He is too quick on his feet for all of them and it is wonderful to watch.

Statements Made By Spokesmen!

Did he call out on all the lies?

Rattner is a real team player and that is part of the dig, imo.

PB

That's pretty funny

The difference between Hillary and Greenwald is that Greenwald has admitted he was foolish and mistaken to trust Smirk and Sneer.

Bear in mind she was a US Senator at the time and had direct input in voting for the war.

publicly himself, which is the only reason anyone knows what his opinions were at that time, being he was not even a public figure but just another citizen at the time.

He was probably in his late 20s or early 30s. And without the inside knowledge many of our Democratic leaders had. As soon as he found out we were lied to, he began his campaign to expose the lies.

Didn't you wish back then that there were more like Greenwald, who knew we had been lied to but refused to admit it? I was always thrilled when a former supporter of the war woke up and said so publicly.

Remember how thrilled everyone was when a Republican blogger finally woke up? He's still a hero to the 'left' for seeing the light and saying so.

Good for Greenwald for his willingness to look at the facts and admitting he was wrong as soon as he realized it.

... but I was further persuaded that his halting conversion to the antiwar camp came in good faith. Mainly the arguments of the Greenwald-haters below... wherein they use his own explanations of his thought processes at that time (2002-3) to discredit him... when all I can see there is a gradual, good-faith conversion based on an evolving understanding of the facts as they became known ( e.g. no wmds) and an improving understanding of the political context in which they took place. ( pnac, oil, MI complex, etc. etc.).

I'm not sure exactly what his own path was but a lot of LGBT people, esp. tended to back-burner foreign policy and economic issues because we ( lgbt's) were under existential threat during the pre-Clinton years. And back again under it during Bush 2.


Many LGBTs ... myself included... settled for a much more conservative critique of US society and foreign policy than we otherwise would have ... as long as Bill and Hillary kept the barbarians at the gate.

But the IWR and all that horror shocked us ( oldsters who remembered VN) back into reality.

Greenwald was about 35.... a different generation, ergo a different ( non VN) frame of reference. Thus... one can understand... smart as he is... his being slow to figure out what was really going on in 2002-3.

That he figured it out and change course speaks *well* of him.

In spite of Snowden's lies.

have been corroborated by multiple other sources.

Regardless of whatever exaggerations he may have made regarding his salary, education or military background, the information he released regarding the NSA program is solid.

The President called them 'leaks' and went on to explain how the program that was leaked, works.

So what are these lies the President himself has confirmed, that now maybe the President should apologize for also?

Is that the US govt is routinely listening & recording every American citizens' phone call & reading every email. Snowden also said that he had the power and ability to tap anyone's phone, including the President's.

The President has repeatedly said that this is not true. Members of the House & Senate Intelligence Committees have repeatedly said that this is not true. Most knowledgeable legal experts are saying that this is not true.

The text of the warrant Snowden provided proves that this is not true. It covers only anonymous metadata, which isn't linked to any particular individual without a further warrant.

Snowden, with the help of Greenwald, has made a lot of allegations which simply aren't supported by any documentation, or any facts that we know about. Yet here we have people willing to swallow their shit whole.

Do you know how you tell that Glenn Greenwald drops another one of his stories?



By the smell on the nearest Obama haters' breath.

POV on this matter....

When you say "Snowden has broken the law," they say "Obama apologist."

When you say "No one is listening to every call" they say "Obama apologist."

When you say "The text of the warrant Snowden provided proves this" they say "Obama apologist."

They never respond with facts, but they do go out of their way to characterize people who aren't in agreement with them.

OOOOOhhhhhhh, makes me wonder! They think they're buying a stairway to heaven, but it's really a manhole to hell....

And, who thinks it's acceptable to attack the journalist examining the data made available from the "leaker" and not from whom it is illegally collected?

I was watching The Young Turks last evening discuss this very same thing.

We've discovered the citizenry has been spied upon... and now we are to punish for the discovery of information THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE PAID FOR?

I didn't want to pay the bill for the NSA's collection of what I say or write, and support punishment for sharing of such knowledge. Did anyone else?

Of course, we didn't.

It's those who Deny that "Mistakes have Been Made" or who USE THIS PLOY like Condi Rice, etc." who deserve the "Wrath of the People." imho.

he was tricked by the Bush II administration. Lots of people who weren't paying much attention, maybe working really hard or involved with their families, feel very wary of government excesses since the Iraq War. It was an eyeopener for many of us. We were sliding along and Whammy, lies, lies and more lies. America will never be the same to me. I will never take what I read and hear in the media for true again without some research into various sources.

Fool me once . . . what was that again?

So don't hold what people said in 2003 against them. That was a wake-up call for many of us.

Provided strictly as background for those who want to get up to speed on what the can of worms involves:

http://thisweekinblackness.com/2013/03/19/the-hypocrisy-of-glenn-greenwald-iraq-war-edition/

He was written volumes since then denouncing it.

People's views evolve - for example, the President's views on LGBT rights. Better to applaud them when they see the light than continually criticize them for what they used to think.

Fair enough. But that doesn't render his arguments invalid.

Look, I need for you to go back to post 56--here is a link to make it easy to get to: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023075482#post56

I need to you read each paragraph contained in the shaded box. For context. With care.

It's not the "writing style" that is GG's problem.

It's the rank sanctimony. The unadulterated HYPOCRISY. The "I'm better, smarter, and purer than YOU" 'tude. The unmitigated bullshit, frankly.

This guy loves to castigate people for doing EXACTLY what he did. He does it without any awareness or irony.

He's a horse shitter.

I don't follow anyone on Twitter, and I tend to not place much importance on flame wars. Everyone - including you and me - is susceptible to having our buttons pushed and responding in poor form. It's the Internet.

But, again, how sanctimonious Greenwald may be in his Twitter battles does nothing to refute the veracity of the points he makes in his columns. He could be the biggest jerk in the world and the facts of the NSA surveillance program remain.

and then expect to be taken seriously in any other venue. And one venue includes his BOOK:

and then ignore the entire contents of the book (and the seven years' worth of writing that followed it)?

It's typical character assassination technique - comb through someone's past, find an embarrassing and out-of-context quote, and then spam the forum with it. Sort of like "Al Gore invented the Internet".

Of course he excoriates the people that do this - because they are not presenting his statement in good faith.

This has been posted numerous times, but nobody seems to have read it:

http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html

The first part of the preface discusses how Greenwald was essentially an apathetic centrist prior to the Iraq War:

At the time, I was basically a standard passive consumer of political news: I read The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Atlantic: the journals that I thought high-end consumers of news would read and which I assumed were generally reliable for getting the basic truth. What I explained in the Preface was that I had major objections to the Iraq war when it was being debated:

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.

Nonetheless, because of the general faith I had in political and media institutions, I assumed - since both political parties and media outlets and journalists from across the ideological spectrum were united in support of the war - that there must be some valid basis to the claim that Saddam posed a threat. My basic trust in these institutions neutralized the objections I had and led me to passively acquiesce to what was being done ("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.&quot .

playing obtuse for laughs?

It's NOT ABOUT his "change of heart," or the "rest of his heavily edited book," or anything like that. He goes out of his way to excoriate anyone who was "apathetic and passive" and had the same kind words for Bush that he had.

It's because he's a sanctimonious asshole to, and about, anyone who expressed--even if THEY have had their own "Come to Jesus" moment--the VERY SAME SENTIMENTS that he expressed.

His attitude is "Do as I say, not as I do." Further, he has Convenient Amnesia when it comes to his dumbass remarks, but he's ready to grill everyone else for theirs.

It's hypocrisy. The fact that he has taken plenty of money from the Koch lads as well just ices the cake. So much for his "See The Light" moments when it comes to politics--maybe he should have left the light off.

He is excoriating people who criticized the Bush Administration for its surveillance program but support Obama for continuing the same program.

Ummm... and the "taking money from the Koch brothers" is another falsification he discusses in the link you didn't read.

And that's been discussed in other threads here. He didn't just "write a couple of articles," he wrote a major policy paper -- which takes months (on the payroll) at least -- and he didn't just 'give a few speeches' -- he was on their speaker's list-- and he was a special guest at the "Founder's" fete. He doesn't have a casual relationship with them--it's a bread-and-butter alliance.

If he had nothing to hide he'd tell us down to the penny how much he's made from them, but he won't, because then the depth of his affiliation would be revealed.

I think they pretty thoroughly debunk them.

What matters is WHAT someone writes, not WHERE they publish it. It's quite a stretch to claim that advocating drug legalization in Portugal and opposition to the Bush Administration surveillance programs are "right wing" views.

If you accused Whitey Bulger of murder, of course he'd deny it. His assertions aren't "proof" of anything, save an unwillingness to cop to his own failings.

You're asking the criminal for "proof," here. When GeeGee tells us exactly how much CASH he has received from the CATO Institute down the years, then we'll have something to talk about. He won't do that, though, because By His Paycheck We Shall Know Him.

CATO, which is controlled by the KOCH Brothers, was his "employer of record" and a major source of his income for more than a few years.

He may be a prevaricator, a BSer, and an opportunist, but I am pretty sure he doesn't bite the hand that feeds him.

and the answers make sense. Why should he lie about speaking for his work with Cato institute? Many others including Markos Moulitsas, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) and former Clinton Treasury official Brad DeLong have done so.

What is written is more important that where it is published. I've been reading Greenwald for years, and his positions have been consistent in defending civil liberties and denouncing the "war" on "terror" and the security state. I can see nothing evil with being paid for producing a white paper analyzing drug legalization in Portugal.

You're certainly entitled to you own opinion, although it seems to based on talking points designed to discredit Greenwald in Democratic circles.

schtuping his girlfriend when so-and-so got whacked--and the girlfriend swears to it--that doesn't make his assertion, with witness back-up, true.

I want to see his paystubs from the Koch Brothers.

And you seriously aren't trying to suggest that those other folks you name were signed up to craft year-long white papers and go on speaking tours for the CATO Institute, are you? Because that's what GG did.

What is written is NOT more important than where it's published. Where it's published determines the editorial slant of the product. If that were the case, then we'd be affording NEWSMAX and FOX NEWS equal credibility with progressive blogs and media outlets.

Greenwald isn't a Democrat, so I don't think he really gives a shit what "Democratic circles" think of him. I'd wager he's far more focused on those with whom he shares common cause, his Libertarian audience.

Sold positions from my point of view.

He's a Koch baby....born and bred. By their paychecks we shall know them!

I can't imagine any circumstance--certainly not a "fundy Constitutional" one--for opining that corporations are people. Unless, of course, one is Mitt Romney...or a Koch, or a Koch mouthpiece.

your excerpt is taken out of context. I can sympathize with Greenwald becoming exasperated with that.

You want links and evidence? Here: http://exiledonline.com/glenn-greenwald-of-the-libertarian-cato-institute-posts-his-defense-of-joshua-foust-the-exiled-responds-to-greenwald/

he wasn't blogging. He had zero influence on whether or not we invaded Iraq. Not so with Clinton and Biden.

In the lead up to the Iraq war, Glenn was a private citizen. He didn't have a blog. He hadn't written a book. He hadn't appeared on TV. He had no national or international voice to influence public opinion.

I wanted to shed some light on one of the current smears against Greenwald. The man wrote 3 books and thousands of blog posts against the Bush regime, the surveillance state and the erosion of our civil liberties. But he didn't get to that point naturally or easily. Below is an excerpt of the preface to the book "How Would A Patriot Act?" A book in which he unrelentingly exposes the Bush admin and the lying warmongers and the architects of the imperial presidency. It's a rare person who can admit that they were wrong (and I applaud those high-profile Democrats in government and the media who supported Bush's invasion of Iraq - those that did actually have the power and the platform to speak out publicly against the Iraq war - who have subsequently apologized for their support) and I admire Greenwald for openly admitting his political evolution.


How Would A Patriot Act?: Defending American Values from a President Run Amok
By Glenn Greenwald 2006

(Emphasis mine)

he learned that we were being lied to, immediately spoke out against it. Considering that you would not know 'what he was doing in 2003' were he not honest enough to have told the public himself, your 'gotcha' moment falls flat on its face.

I wish some of our Democratic leaders, Hillary, Biden and all the others who did way, way more than allow themselves to believe our government would never lie about such a serious matter, AFTER they knew the truth, had been as honest as Greenwald.

Imagine if they had:

1) There would have been investigations and most likely prosecutions of the war criminals.

2) At the very least, the funding for those wars they kept voting for would have ended and so would the wars.

But no, our Democratic leaders never acknowledged the Bush lies, as Greenwald did.

It takes a very strong and ethical person to admit when they are wrong.

Greenwald did that in his book which is the only reason you know 'what he was doing in 2003'. He wasn't even a blogger at that time.

Talk about disingenuous, or is that you did not know the facts about this? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, because I'd like to think that on DU facts actually mean something still.

-ship are criminal.

We must stamp out all challenges to our authoritarian leadership so we can climb back into our comfortable denial shells.

"There’s a significant portion of the public that really, really wants fascism, and longs for a leader who will get this country out of its mess." These people are authoritarians.

. . . they have a dream of running for higher office.

We must stamp out all challenges to our white entitlement so we can climb back into our comfortable chairs.

"There’s a significant portion of the public that really, really wants a white President, and longs for a white male who will get this country out of its mess." These people are racists.

want a President who doesn't see his job as protecting and defending Wall Street criminality, and they don't give a rat's ass what color he is. I assure you that Barak Obama is not an adversary of white entitlement. He is it's servant.

The "My President, right or wrong" crowd has been driven slightly insane by the logical contortions they have to put themselves through while defending all the things they were attacking when Junior did them. "You're a racist!" is their last, desperate attempt to claim the moral high ground.

Are you trying to insinuate that Greenwald's a racist?

Fucking sick.

Cheer-up, Grumps.

...have a deep seated external locus of control versus those with internal control. It is a difference between those who feel the world is done upon them and fear everything, thus requiring an authoritarian "father figure" to assuage their anxieties, versus those of us who do not fear ambiguity, have personal agency, and if anything distrust those who seek to "save us from ourselves."

Those of us who take some responsibility, can follow a good leader when they lead, and yet call them on their bullsht when they are full of it.

how we think. Maybe we're in a set of conditions that will elicit development in thought, because the old polarities have pretty much burnt themselves out. People excoriate Clinton and the DLC "third way" around here, but for whatever one's personal evaluation of that is, perhaps we SHOULD accept the possibility that what we're experiencing IS a struggle over the nature of a synthesis. & That's accept that struggle for synthesis, because that may be the only way through to what comes after that.

He's not a reporter. He's not a stenographer.

He's a journalist.

There are not many of those left.

by Steven Colbert, as a 'stenographer'. Way below the level of yellow journalism. Propagandist is a more accurate description our Corporate Media puppets.

It shows just how weak your position is, in fact.

hard not to agree re our Corporate Media puppets considering our record on the left of justifiable outrage at their willingness to publish every lie told by the Bush War Criminals. Unless you've changed your mind. In which case, it would at least garner some respect from me, to do what Greenwald did when he changed his mind regarding his initial support for Bush's war. He admitted he had changed his mind publicly.

Sticks to the company line like he was on rails.

you just make me angry by bringing up some bad memories.

Other than that, he's a pretty good guy...

Would he be tried as an accessory to the "crime" of whistle-blowing?

But it was The Guardian and The Washington Post that published the leaked stories. The editors had to choose to print the stories or they would not have been printed. Were they also "advocates"?

We may want to think a bit before we charge two newspapers as aiding and abetting a criminal? There is the First Amendment...

Since the Constitution and Bill of Rights are now considered optional under post 9/11 Anti-Terror Sanctimony we hardly need worry about the alleged legal framework provided by them.

Last edited Sun Jun 23, 2013, 06:07 PM - Edit history (1)

they are supposed to do. Greenwald is, of course, the real journalists. The folks that stirred the country into a fever pitch about WMDs in Iraq and a million other lies are the advocates.

I hope that my post is not needed. I hope that every DUer understands that Greenwald was being sarcastic.

I would never be mistaken for a Greenwald fan ... and his response to Rattner (who I am, also, not a fan of) is the reason why; it was childish. (And many here applaud this crap? Go figure ...)

I suspect a real journalist would have ignored Rattner because ... well ... the story is not about snowden or Greenwald, remember?

There is nothing childish about calling the mainstream media out on manufacturing consent. There is nothing childish about defending yourself again smear campaigns from the establishment and their lapdogs.

Childish ... There is nothing professional (or adult) about meeting insult with insult.

I understand that this has become acceptable in this day; but come on ... what has been accomplished here, other than getting a couple "atta boys"?

He stated a fact. A fact that might be offensive to those in the mainstream media but a fact none the less. He didn't name call.

you are right.

While I do believe that Greenwald severely over-dramatizes he has the right to defend his actual reporting. And pointing out the lack of credibility of your attackers on the subject in question is completely fair game.

Had he started tweeting that his critics are all just "corporatist shills who want to shred the Constitution" - the kinds of silly things you read on the D.U. all the time - then it would be bad. But this isn't.

Well played, Mr. Greenwald.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

with Greenwald defending his reporting ... I wish he would do more of it; rather than, meeting insult with insult and meeting questions of holes with "yeah buts."

I see no difference between starting a tweeter account saying, "corporatist shills who want to shred the Constitution" and responding in a tweet, "corporatist shills who want to shred the Constitution."

Do you?

between Geenwald and Ratner at all. What are you even trying to say?

You have no standing to ask me to do anything, much less expect me to follow your bidding.

I have no idea why you would care what I post ... only your stalking ass can answer that.

So let's start again ... either ignore my posts or respond with a fact based rebuttal.

I know ... I know ... I am not the boss of you!

{edited to delete: And yes ... I am laughing at your "newly discovered" ass.}

With the same accusations of "stalking", when I've done no such thing. I'd (unsurprisingly, considering our positions) had several exchanges with the people in question, but nothing that could be equated to stalking. In fact, I'd say at least half of the exchanges had been initiated by the other posters-- not me.

I've never had someone on a forum ask me to put them on ignore before. It seems very odd.

tactic is a riot. Answering a comment on a public forum is 'stalking'. That one always made me laugh.

that that is an entirely appropriate response to have on Twitter. It fits Twitter completely. Go check it out for a while and you'll see.

illegal wars. Judith Miller, the NYT? WMDs breathlessly reported by the MSM even though most of them knew they were lies. How quickly people seem to have forgotten the anger at the MSM right here on DU actually..

Greenwald was actually willing to stick to the topic at hand and not lash out at Gregory, friend of Rove, stenographer for the Corporate Media.

But the stenographer opened the door and Greenwald went through it and stated a fact that is pretty much undeniable. There is no insult in telling the truth.

I think it's OK to defend yourself.

But it was about the story ... not the man; remember?

voices of progress is crazeeeeeee. Why not make up another story about how an 80 year old who was at D Day and Shea Stadium and the 68 DNC told you that only those who do not defend themselves are righteous....

can't cope with discussion that's your problem. I'm not doing your bidding and it is offensive that you think that I should. Who the fuck do you think you are?
You are free of course to put ME on ignore, that way i can comment on your bullshit and you can't even see it to reply. Sounds great. Do so if you wish.

you stalk me from thread to thread ...



You keep this up, I'm gonna get ts'd because I'm really going to tell you about your "newly discovered" ass.

But I guess that is the new DU thing ... antagonize someone until they go straight the fuck off on you ... then, whine about how mistreated you have been.

So I say again, if what I post is so offensive ... so contrary to you "thinking" simply stop reading my posts ... or post a fact-based objection to what I have posted.

by ass to yourself. We all have the right to respond to any post on DU. You post much crazy nonsense, I often respond when i see it, because this is a discussion board.
If you can't counter what I say to you, don't respond. But making personal comments and crude suggestions as you do is out of line and uncalled for.

your simple ass is merely following me around like some love sick puppy to only say "I disagree" ... no facts ... nothing to support other than, a weak ass, "I think" cast as a fact.

Go away little boy/girl.

Including you.