This guy even laughs about it.

And who cares what the has-been President -worst in our history- might have said in a past decade? He's gone.

Greenwald is here and now and I'm prepped for his grand finale fireworks show!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

The guy ignored warnings bin Laden was determined to strike "in the U.S."

The guy protected his chief financial backer at ENRON.

The guy turned the NSA loose on America.

The guy tortured innocent people, including children.

Among other various treasons, war crimes and things.

So, no. He's not gone.

So they are NOT gone and are still trying to 'touch' things and turn them into shit.

An entire shit load!

I didn't know Maher would cave. No one is immune to their influence.

We believe ! We believe! Blind trust in journalists is allowed! It's all in who you put your blind trust in!

He proved that statement in the video.

I despise the fucker more than any other rightwingnut out there, and mark my words, Greenwald is a rightwingnut.

He also uses the wingnut tactic of always talking over his adversary.

won't make it true. Conserve your energy.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

fans.. he can do no wrong just like GG says.

He repeatedly says stupid shit that isn't true.

Truth hurts, don't it?

I appreciate journalists who still do their job, and abhor tools, shills, trolls, and authoritarians.

Just like your hero, GG.

your obsession. Have a good day tilting at windmills.

It's sad, really.

But hey, I can't help you if you don't want help.

get to watch it)

GG stated that there are still thousands of documents that haven't been released as of yet because of security concerns. Wikileaks is pissed because newspapers are still sitting on these docs. There are so many that they have to be researched first to make sure that no one dies.

I thought dude from Vets Organization was rude as hell - aggressive, only he is right, etc., wouldn't let anyone else speak. I think the surprising thing is how much he was defending the NSA and croaking their line about "american's dying" - like GG said, where are the bodies if this is true? When Where and How?

I yelled - go watch the PBS Frontline special United States of Secrets - it's all people in the gov't covering their asses and has absolutely nothing to do with 'security.'

More CYA happening on NSA and it looks like they have a new spokes model.

I am thrilled we have exposed what the government is doing. I want more and not less transparency. The system is so rigged that our elected officials cannot even discuss this at a policy level with their constituents.

I have said this before and I will say it again. Even if Congress and the President agreed to dismantle the CIA, the NSA and any number of other clandestine organizations and defunded them they would continue to operate as if nothing happened. They are a government unto themselves, not answerable to anyone but themselves. This is how bad things have gotten.

That form of big brother is much, much worse than the threat of any domestic or foreign adversaries including terrorists. It tears at the fabric of our democracy worse than 9-11 or Pearl Harbor. It rips at the very essence of a government that serves at the will of the people and not the other way around.

in him.. he'll save ya.

of news outlets and reporters. How can Snowden be considered some sort of a hero by putting the US in possible danger of those documents falling into the hands of enemies ?
Not every one is to be trusted in this world. Snowden alone proved that by his theft.

Some here have said that's where Glenn Greenwald's heart really lies.

FWIW Paul is no Libertarian and very recently came out as anti-choice.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20140621/NEWS02/140629825/Rand-Paul-defends-%26%238216unborn%26%238217-at-GOP-gathering

And make no mistake, Greenwald is and always has been a Libertarian wingnut who will take anybody who is slightly Libertarian over any Progressive.

progressive men should smarten up and fight for federal protections for reproductive choice for all women. that would end the RW hold on a huge amount state races. I am fed up with my body being used as a wedge issue to lure RWers to vote to control it. we are past the tipping point on this. but some are obsessed with "someday" becoming a totalitarian state for them, when in big ways it already is for a lot of women. I thought when we started jailing women for being pregnant or trying to deny them abortions to save their lives more would care. The disregard for a majority of Dem voters lives here is astounding. I am not fond of Hillary, but this short sighted bullshit is pushig me towards her.

Here is the link, the discussion starts around the 2:40 mark.

http://www.hbo.com/real-time-with-bill-maher#/real-time-with-bill-maher/episodes/12/322-episode/video/322-june-20-overtime.html/eNrjcmbO0CzLTEnNd8xLzKksyUx2zs8rSa0oUc-PSYEJBSSmp-ol5qYy5zMXsjGyMXIyMrJJJ5aW5BfkJFbalhSVpgIAXbkXOA==

is still allowed here, except to be derided, is beyond me. He works against Democrats, which is expressly forbidden here.

I didn't/won't watch this episode cuz I can't stand to look at GG when his mouth's moving.

during the segment that discussed potential republican candidates that would have a chance against Clinton.

and those who want less surveillance are now supporting Rand Paul.

I watched the show last night.

Maybe you took a little nap and dreamed up your scenario

Here's the link:

http://www.hbo.com/real-time-with-bill-maher#/real-time-with-bill-maher/episodes/12/322-episode/video/322-june-20-overtime.html/eNrjcmbO0CzLTEnNd8xLzKksyUx2zs8rSa0oUc-PSYEJBSSmp-ol5qYy5zMXsjGyMXIyMrJJJ5aW5BfkJFbalhSVpgIAXbkXOA==

Didn't take you long.

Not the broadcast.

I almost think that someone has stolen your password and is posting ignorant stuff here on DU. Mark my words.

And 20 plus posts each and every day, working folks can not do that.

and besides what does that have to do with anything? Are you making an accusation?

wrong.. poor thing. Too bad he's wrong.

Greenwald was bull-dog - went in that way - and Rieckhoff was self-righteous all night. Each asked the other to prove a negative. Meh

Why should we listen to those duped into killing the wrong people in Iraq defend the government line?

Executive Director.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12257#.U6WvYrAg_L8

The guy's a war hero, his work is important, so I don't mind him being rewarded.

What I do mind is every time I see him on television, Rieckhoff misses the point.

From SourceWatch w. links:

"Although frequently identified as being against the war in Iraq, and his organization Operation Truth as being 'anti-war', Rieckhoff states that he is speaking out about the war, not against it."

Interesting. Thanks Octafish!

"To mark the second anniversary of the U.S.-led war in Iraq on March 19, various anti-war groups are planning to protest in Fayetteville, N.C., the home of Fort Bragg. It’s not the protest, but the location that has some people upset.

"An organization representing veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan said demonstrators are ‘wrong and insensitive’ to take their complaints to Fort Bragg, because it blames the warriors for the war.

"’The decision makers are not at Fort Bragg, they are in Washington. Rallying against the war by marching at Fort Bragg is like protesting the cows if you don’t like McDonalds,’ said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Operation Truth."

-from "Anti-War Groups Protesting US Troops Instead of Decision-Makers," by Susan Jones, CNSNews.com, March 17, 2005

Exactly! It was frustrating to watch.

Try harder next time at bat.

I liked it when he said "How do you know ,let me finish ,How do you know"

I respect Rieckhoff, who masterfully revealed just what a thin-skinned turd Greenwald is.

comity.

I get that Greenwald's performance last night was shallow and disappointing. But I encourage you to not emulate that behavior and show some maturity in your responses.

that casting anyone who doesn't hate Greenwald, a "worshipper", is kinda stupid?

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Needless personal attack on posters in this thread. This person has several posts in the thread and most of them are nothing but attacks on others

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 22, 2014, 12:32 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Lots of people are dishing it out with equal vitriol on the other side. I don't personally believe it looks like there's any way to fairly balance this thread.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Personal attacks are one thing, and shouldn't be tolerated, but alerting for using the word "turd"?
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Clean up your potty mouth.

Prove that nobody was hurt by your post that I'm replying to. Go on, I'll wait. Nobody anywhere was hurt in any way by it, and you're 100% sure? Take your time.

eom

Thank you Edward Snowden.

Thank you Glenn Greenwald.

Thank you WikiLeaks.

Thank you Julian Assange.

Thank you Chelsea Manning.

Thank you Daniel Ellsberg.

Thank you to all the whistleblowers and the few true journalist fighting to shed light on the truth !!!!!!!!!!!!

...for speaking truth to power and for being on the right side of history.

More information, more illumination, more sunshine is always best.

the security of the United States and its citizens are accidentally, or by design, let out to enemies determined to do the US harm. Loose lips sink ships.

You sound completely ....... fill in the dots

No question about it. That damn Snowden and Greenwald!

Greenwald could very well be a horrible shit and an egotistical fuck and have terrible motives and still be right when he tells you your hair is on fire. He can be awful and still correctly pointing out Obama failings.

When the counter against someone's point results in ad hominem, that makes me think the point is valid.

Ad hominem used to be a GOP way of deflection. Still is. Makes me wonder about those who use that sort of thing here, nowadays.

because lord knows there was no problems with NSA before President Obama...right Snowden?...right Greenwald?

Your underwear is showing...

I had imagined such needlessly insulting rhetoric would be beneath you. Randome found the only way possible to elevate their already disingenuous attacks on critics of the NSA here, and that's the crap you want to associate with. A bloody crucified stuffed animal.

for some poster with standards of conduct. Thanks for setting me straight. I guess you also aren't the poster scolding someone upthread for not promoting comity and being immature.

community. When they become DUers, or Democrats trying to get elected, they are then due and owed what every other DU member is owed......comity.

It's not like I called anybody a piece of shit used car salesman, after all...

but he sure plays one on tv.

If you're in favor of profanity, you should love that image! It profanes Greenwald and Religion at the same time. AND it profanes Greenwald Religion! How much more 'out there' can it get?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

Getting the leaks out, who is Snowden a patsy for, we have a right to know this information. If he does not do this then he is not being truthful and should not be trusted.

You need to be thinking about writing more intelligent posts.

Snowden isn't a patsy for anyone. I wonder who these perpetual anti-Snowden posters are a patsy for?

scapegoat. red herring. person accused of a something as a cover for a bigger
more elaborate crime

Hey, I did not advise him of any of his moves. He's not my patsy. He also "did a heck of a job", says Putin.

Too many spy novels for you! You're starting to make things up.

What could Greenwald be afraid he can nit complete his job as a journalist?

Snowden gave the documents to trusted journalists including The Washington Post and The Guardian. He asked those entities to research and vet the documents so that nothing would be released that would endanger any lives. And that is why only a tiny part of the documents have been released. And likely most of it will not be released.

This was a logical, methodical, careful process.

Employment within the NRA, apparently many do not understand why this would be required.

... which journalists could be trusted, and which could not? When and how did he vet them? How did he determine who was trustworthy, and who was not?

And how did he know that none of the aforesaid "trusted journalists" wouldn't inadvertently leak information that shouldn't be broadcast, or be tempted by the big bucks some would be willing to pay for said documents?

"He asked those entities to research and vet the documents so that nothing would be released that would endanger any lives."

How would a journalist determine what information might endanger lives? And why should the security of our country, and the lives of individuals in its service, be dependent on the judgment of someone who has no real knowledge of what the consequences of publishing certain information could be?

This was not a "logical, methodical, careful process" by any stretch of the imagination. It was incredibly irresponsible.

If only that plane in Copenhagen had intercepted Snowden before he ... well, that's another story.

Your naivete is stunning.

... in order to pick up Eddie in Moscow!!!

for that effort, and you actually sound like many unread rush-to-judgment Republican journalists when you don't make that kind of background effort. For anyone who's read Greenwald's book, it's clear that your own naivete is what's "stunning." Pages 53 - 80.

If you question the very people who received the documents, there's no serious discussion that either you or a number of other clever-by-half'ers here can really engage in, anyway.

The Maher show distorted each participant's knowledge such that the underwater iceberg of their expriences doesn't even get addressed here.

... I don't see how reading his version of events would be in any way enlightening - and, in any event, would be beside the point. It is Snowden who owes his fellow citizens an explanation - and shelling out money for Greenwald's book shouldn't be part of the equation.

Snowden stole thousands upon thousands of documents, and then turned them over to others without even knowing their contents himself, no less what the consequences of their disclosure might be. There is no getting around that fact - as much as the Snowdenistas would like that fact to just go away.

Relying on Snowden's judgment as to who is trustworthy and who isn't would appear to be foolish at best. Thus far, his "good sense" has led to being stranded in a country where his freedom is restricted, not knowing what his fate will be from one day to the next - while his good buddy, Greenwald, is making a shitload of money from Snowden's escapades.

who hated liberals for the last eight years -- they were people giving you information that you have a right to know.

NO whistleblower steals. You paid for that information and you have a right to the knowledge of what the government is doing. When this government keeps its surveillance from you, it is stealing from YOU. Journalists jobs are to keep government representing the interests of the many over the moneyed few.

Even your gut should tell you that when you have a founding document that proclaims rules that all laws must follow, your government doesn't get to make 'secret' laws contrary to that document. Until we citizens approve a new Constitution that allows such 'secret' laws, this government's secret laws are null and void, and Congress is committing criminal acts by enacting further secret laws they know to be unconstitutional.

You get evidential proof of your government lawbreaking across sixteen agencies, but you yourself are suckered in by this government's words; a government that even before this proof, you KNEW constantly betrayed your rights as it promised to keep you "secure" through the Patriot Act and the NDAA authorizations.

Now you're suckered by the NSA's "official story" outcries such that you must see any journalist not on their "approved" list as an "ista." It's clear from your derogatory "Snowdenistas" that you have little idea of who or what secures or endangers your freedoms. You insult the majority of DU'ers (see recent WillyT polls) by calling them that. You would have hated Daniel Ellsberg, who calls Snowden an even more important whistleblower for our time than Ellsberg himself was for his time. Ellsberg never makes his claims lightly.

Yet you do. Your confidence is bluster, empty of fact. Knowledge costs, but you'd save your Greenwald book money over hearsay instead of opening yourself to new information.

Never forget that for Americans, "the debate" isn't what the NSA or any of their media machine tell us it is. Or who it is. The Debate is really about our government's complete betrayal of its oath to uphold this country's Constitution, shredding its citizens' privacy and that founding document. Now we have proof.

People of all political parties and socioeconomic classes should be able to get behind that.

Don't be a dupe of protection racketeers. That game is still running but most of us see it for what it is. Scapegoating Snowden or Greenwald won't work anymore. Think about it.

... on the fact that Snowden has yet to offer any evidence for his allegations, i.e. he could read Obama's email, he could track anyone's on-line purchases as they happened, he could "read your thoughts as you typed them", etc.

When asked point-blank by Brian Williams what illegal activities the NSA was engaging in, Snowden could not come up with a single example. Not one.

It is not Snowden's call, nor Greenwald's, as to what is Constitutional and what isn't. And it's not your call either.

Snowden is a common thief, and Greenwald is a huckster looking to make money.

It's amusing to see people like yourself yelling DON'T TRUST A THING THE GOV'T SAYS, while they are busy swallowing every word the Thief and the Huckster are selling - despite the fact that neither have offered an iota of proof for their assertions.

The only thing GG has accomplished is selling paranoia to people like you. Perhaps a late night TV infomercial is in the offing, where GG will be promoting his "Official Tin-Foil Hat", absolutely guaranteed to keep the NSA from being able to read your thoughts.

It is interesting that you think asking pertinent questions and expecting factual answers is "scapegoating". For most people, asking pertinent questions is exactly that - asking pertinent questions. The fact that the Thief and the Huckster cannot answer those questions speaks for itself.

The facts remain: Snowden is stranded in Russia, and GG is making a shitload of money while Eddie ponders his still unknowable fate. But that's what Hucksters do. They package their snake-oil in small portions, and sell it piecemeal to the local yokels, who are convinced that they will be enlightened by revelations that never materialize. And, more often than not, that's what Thieves do - they place their trust in fences who promise to sell their wares and split the profits - unless, of course, the Thief is rendered unable to collect for some reason - like being stuck in Russia without any access to the money that's being generated by the sale of their stolen goods.

The "dupe" here is people like yourself, who believe in the government's complete betrayal of its oath to uphold this country's Constitution, despite the fact that neither Snowden nor Greenwald, when asked, could come up with a single instance of the NSA having done anything that is illegal or unConstitutional.

THAT, my friend, is being "suckered in". And you have been suckered in to the nth degree.

Last edited Mon Jun 23, 2014, 09:04 AM - Edit history (1)

long enough to have good reasons not to. Your "pertinent" questions are a substitute for reading the sources themselves for the answers. "People like me" tell you to read more widely but you're simply too closed minded to bother.

You act as if one moment of not answering an interviewer is The Single Exception disproof that science disproves some hypothesis with. You show no patterns of credibility flaws in any of the documents that they've published, regardless of how they deal with 'gotcha' interviews by mediocre hacks.

Still, you'd have to cite the instances where either Snowden or Greenwald were speechless. You'll have to go a long way to show that the documents published are a sucker's trick play, regardless of the messenger attacks on these threads.

Luxuriate in your authoritarian bubble.

Edit: Second paragraph for clarity! (ugh)

... healthy.

When one decides that skepticism is only applicable when the gov't is speaking, and is never applicable when the likes of a Greenwald or Snowden are speaking, one can be appropriately described as a DUPE.

"You act as if one moment of not answering an interviewer is The Single Exception disproof that science disproves some hypothesis with. You show no patterns of credibility flaws in any of the documents that they've published, regardless of how they deal with 'gotcha' interviews by mediocre hacks."

That screed is so grammatically nonsensical, I am truly at a loss for words. Anyone who puts a question point-blank that is unanswerable is "a mediocre hack"? I'd say the fact that the question couldn't be answered is proof of who the "hack" is.

Asking the obvious question - "What illegal activities is the NSA engaging in?" - is a "gotcha" question? I haven't heard THAT excuse since Sarah Palin declared that asking what newspapers she reads was a "gotcha" question.

"Your "pertinent" questions are a substitute for reading the sources themselves for the answers." The "sources themselves" have yet to produce evidence of their allegations. So I should read them because ...?

When Eddie & The Cruiser come up with actual evidence to support their allegations, I will be all ears. So far, they have produced zero evidence of anything.

"People like me tell you to read more widely but you're simply too closed minded to bother." People like you have also told me to read the Bible in order to understand how Noah loaded dinosaurs onto the ark.

Believe what you want to believe - that's your prerogative. I require proof of allegations made - and thus far, Greenwald/Snowden have offered no proof whatsoever of their allegations. None. Zero. Nada.

Last edited Mon Jun 23, 2014, 09:13 AM - Edit history (1)

the readings are the proofs, unless you yourself have to see the files from Greenwald's or Poitras' thumb drives. Others have seen their digital proofs and published them. But now you say that evidence isn't good enough?

I'll be at a conference seeing Greenwald this Thursday, will raise your questions and get back to you.

I require proof of allegations made - and thus far, Greenwald/Snowden have offered no proof whatsoever of their allegations. None. Zero. Nada.

I'm to conclude that the proof that's been posted online by the Guardian and in Greenwald's book isn't proof to you, then. Are you saying that the 150 documents I saw published are fabricated? That Snowden and Greenwald are lying?

than for Greenwald, who supported the invasion of Iraq.

who's purported peace organization isn't really against the invasion of Iraq. Rieckhoff went to Iraq, so there is a good chance he too supported it at one time.

and risked his life for his country. Far more than Greenwald ever did.

Then fuck him. He's a veteran, but he doesn't give a shit about human beings.

Screw Rieckhoff.