When I ask them to cite the case they are referring to, they kind of hem and haw.

Because, oh yeah.....defending a white supremacist's trademark against another white supremacist's use of it does not make you a civil rights attorney.

Defending the same white supremacist when he's accused of violating anti-Klan statutes does not make you a civil rights attorney.

Finally, defending the same white supremacist when he's being accused of murdering a federal judge does not make you a civil rights attorney, either.

Good work, msanthrope.

It's perplexing why people invest themselves in him so deeply. I suppose it's to save face or something like that. People hate to admit that they've been snookered and will attack instead. O, the humanity.

smear was that they were openly admitting ignorance at Greenwald's behest.

Think about that for a second. We've been at war with AlQaeda for over a decade, and there are still people who have not familiarized themselves with the rudimentary basics of what the AUMF of 9/18/2001 is and does. And that AUMF isn't getting rescinded anytime soon. Sniping at the President isn't going to end this war....targeted strikes, engagement with moderates, and diplomacy will.

I think the people that want and need to believe him have some problems with reality. Or with Obama.

Should I not put much credence in DN? What's the scoop about that?

Nope, still trash and wishful negative spinning when either says it.

Good job msanthrope!

well here he does...since I don't watch Fox - can't say for sure

You'd prefer if Steve agreed with them? What is your point?

Someday it will all come out.. nothing stays secret forever.. especially nowadays..

edit to add.. .the connections.. between groups..

by reality not conforming to his reporting.

Dang, any one following the articles would have noted that many key phrases (dog whistles) and the over all structure were the same.
Some of the wording used by Andrew McCarthy and Glenn Greenwald is about as close to identical as you can get.
What are the odds of that happening by accident.

Consider how important this fairy tail is to the right wing........
Obamas lies about the Khorasan Group = Bush's lies about Weapons of Mas Destruction.

No wonder they used the 'first string' players on this one.

the Right Wing went fucking crazy because he did what Bush would not do.

And he looked good doing it....

I wasn't sure what to believe -- although I knew what NOT to believe, particularly the oddly panicked OP about Libertarian warriors that in response to geek's thread -- but you guys have convinced me.

Well done. And thanks to both of you.

Greenwald, when all is said and done, is a right libertarian, and now is being paid by a right libertarian billionaire.

Disparaging and damaging government, discrediting government and collective effort, is the goal. For the purpose of making government seem less legitimate and less functional, it does not matter if the attack is mounted from a left direction or a right direction. Discrediting government for a left audience is, in fact, the growth area for the endeavor, since on the right, the work has been pretty well done. What is important is to get younger people, whose commitment to fairness, to equal rights and social justice, to be as disdainful of government as any elderly tea-bagger.

This is what Greenwald has signed on to do, and to be fair, it is not like he has changed his spots to do it; like Tom Delay, he is paid now to do what he would do on his own for free, and simply gets a better living and a more widely circulated platform on which to do it.

You have correctly identified the agenda---to make the young disaffected and resentful of government. To make them distrust what is theirs. To make them shrug off their birthright.

Because they have no other way to stay in power.

"Would that I had been raised by wolves...."

if many of us didn't already have doubts about the authenticity of these threats before Greenwald, Limbaugh, and Ingraham chimed in.

And Greenwald decided to go first.

I'd believe that this is a co-ordinated attack of lies, easily.

function?

How is it smearing to encourage DUers to use the search function that admin has given them?

How is it a smear to post from Media Matters?

Lame and ineffective.

I want it to melt under lights.

You don't have an answer or you don't want to face that answer, so you make something else the target. I have seen this a lot here.

Don't you find it a bit strange that Greenwald and the pigs like Limbaugh are saying the same thing? Is Limbaugh actually right about something of this magnitude once in a while? Are you saying That? I don't know him all that well because I don't follow him and try to avoid his toxic sludge, but I know he is the bottom of the greasiest, scummiest barrel there is. I would think that Greenwald must have some of that scum on him as well if he is of the same opinion as Mr. L.

Ick,

This particular linkage says more about the OP's motives than Greenwald's.

other than to bruised and fragile egos.

Greenwald has done a lot of harm and is capable of doing more. He appears to be a massive liar and manipulator and money grubber.

Get Rush and the gang to say it too...and sense it sounds like a negative then they know for sure the party faithful will deny it.

What power there is in the party system...It keeps the corrupt ones in power, no matter who we elect.

it's how the truth can be hidden in plain sight.

ANd as long as GG and others are the focus, the faithful don't have to worry about the legal and therefore moral questions of BHO as the peace prize recipient, bombing a country that posed no threat to us.

GG is just a distraction for those unwilling or unable to confront such things.

Despite his critics here, I think Greenwald is the most important journalist of the last 10 years in terms of exposing and undermining the surveillance state that is eliminating core civil liberties not just in the US, but globally.

The fact that right wing libertarians support the exposure and demise of the surveillance state makes them my ally in this area, it doesn't make them my enemy.

I think it's my responsibility to be wise enough to see the limitations of these kind of alliances, without pretending that it doesn't exist in this, or any other relevant area of public policy.

Which is why I have read Greenwald's book, and follow his journalism as closely as I can. On the matter of undermining the surveillance state, I think he is a gigantic force for good.

Those who spend most of their time trashing him and his journalism because they disagree with his apparent broader world view seem to me to be acting, mostly inadvertently, more as agents upholding the civil liberties-crushing, surveillance state apparatus, than as critics of that system.

$$$

Checkbook journalism.

I wish I could find myself in that position.

Not me. I don't buy this 'but the poor guy has to pay his bills' stuff. He is smearing the very definition of journalism, as if it hasn't had it's big problems generally with the truth, now it's $$$ for the best Made up Story.

You take for granted that right-wing libertarians want to end the surveillance state. What evidence would you provide in support of that assertion?

I don't purport to be an expert on the matter, but most right-wing libertarians I am aware of are abundantly clear in being adamantly opposed to the surveillance state and the erosion of civil liberties. That opposition, in fact,largely defines them.

So in response, I'm wondering if there is some kind of evidence, or even a credible body of thought, that shows that libertarians like Greenwald are lying about all this, that they actually support the surveillance state and the erosion of liberties that they claim to oppose?

assertion. You did not provide proof, but have now asked me to prove a negative.

Right-wing Libertarians talk a great game. But when you turn over their rock, you see all the little ants. Like when Mr. Greenwald took Koch money for writing whitepaper. Do the Kochs seem like the type of right-wing Libertarians interested in guaranteeing your civil liberties?

You say Greenwald did something under the pay of the Kochs, and conclude that he therefore an agent of theirs on all matters.

Please, could you provide "proof" for the correctness of your opinion that being under pay of someone at one time, for some project, means that you are always and forever an agent of that person?

Anyway, I'm confident that I can identify and handle any alliance with libertarians on matters where we find ourselves in agreement. The matter of the horrific surveillance state, and Greenwald's critical importance in exposing it, is one such area.

are pretty much in line with them.

Greenwald isn't against the "horrific surveillance state." He just wants his corporate masters to be able to profit from it. Why do you think he supports CU? Free speech? HA!!!

Google tells me that Greenwald's alleged connection to the Koch brothers arises from the fact he wrote two freelance articles for some CATO institute publication.

I didn't find anything further relevant to Greenwald's alleged connection to the Kochs. So is that it?

If so, since he has written far more articles for the Guardian and for the ACLU, I wonder why he can't more accurately be said to be connected to that progressive paper, and that progressive organization?

The CATO whitepaper thing is what you have to fuel your fulsome dismissal of everything Greenwald?

Okay, good to know that this what you have against him.

For me, as I said above, I understand that while he may be my ally on exposing the surveillance state, we do not agree on all things.

I nonetheless remain impressed with his dedicated exposure of the surveillance state, and remain of the view that he is indeed the most important American journalist of the last decade.

can dismiss it---but Omidayar makes the second billionaire GG's gone and worked for. I think that's an agenda.

I'm able to see what I can see, and what I see is that he remains an incredibly important journalist whose exposure of the surveillance state has done a huge amount of good.

That's an agenda I support. The rest of whatever he may believe I can make judgements on.

As for the smear campaign, which is apparently your main agenda on the topic, I think I now understand it better, so thanks for that.

as a donor premium is somehow related to journalism?

You LOVE proving people wrong. Why don't you just go ahead and haul out the proof of your accusations. Your word will not do.

expenditures?

The article you cite is very informative though--Greenwald 'denounces' one set of billionaires, and then goes off to work for another one.

They are 100% behind corporate spying and datamining and copy-testing and consumer manipulation.

As if that would discredit the information he presents, even if it were true.

This is a sort of online comedy routine where you see how many logical errors and rhetorical loop-the-loops you can pack into the smallest number of words, isn't it?

Wall Street attorney, will use whatever political ideology increases his wealth.

I don't care about Greenwald's politics, or his friends, or any dirty little secrets he might have. I do find his writing to be relevant, compelling, and well-researched, however.

Oddly, his most energetic critics seem mostly disinterested in discussing his actual articles; unless you count their regular shouts that those articles should be ignored, of course.

article put out by the National Review, hours before Greenwald's. I encourage you to read the poster "wandy" in this thread....she did a great job.

It would be one thing if he were actually committing journalism here: if were actually making accurate information obtained from reliable sources available to a public it had been hidden from. In some part his engagement with Snowden was journalism, and so of some value.

But all he is doing here is presenting an op-ed column; he is presenting his opinion, his spin, on a set of facts, and doing so in a way which makes it fairly clear he does not really have much grasp of what he is talking about. It also seems clear enough that he is lending himself to a press campaign, as one more mega-phone in a drive to give the widest circulation to a right wing talking point, taking for his part in the chorus that of the speaker in the left of the room.

debates he did before the 2012 election, sponsored by organizations supporting Ron Paul.

http://www.yaliberty.org/tour/fall2012

Three libertarians--one taking the "liberal" position, one the "conservative", and one the ostensible "libertarian."

I'm gonna have to go with his opinion. REgardless of whether Limpbaugh and Greenwald also agree.

Another way to interpret the OP - "Greenwald attacked my team, my leader, therefore I must destroy him every time I find any weak connection between him and various DU boogeymen"

..too bad for him and his fans that he's called on it.

"S-stupid Greenwald. It's not like I l-like you or anything! "

all in an attempt to defend Greenwald.

Fucking brilliant!

Sid

there is a point where you can't take such things seriously anymore.

in most cases we are long past that point.

i guess some think you can repeat BOG BOG BOG Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi etc and they think it will mean something other than their own derangement.

Jumps pogo stick on a caramel evening.

LOL

In a previous reply to this OP I pointed out why this spin may be important to the Right Wing.

Obamas lies about the Khorasan Group = Bush's lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Well lookey here at what I just stumbled across.......
It does look like someone is trying to form an equivalency here.
Report: Obama Has Missed over Half His Second-Term Daily Intel Briefings

You can see why this is an important piece of propaganda. It may even knock Benghazi out of the number one spot in the Right Wing hit parade of Bull Shit.
I hope you won't mind if I add excerpts showing the similaritys from Greenwald and Mcarthy articles.

From The//Intercept as told By Glenn Greenwald and Murtaza Hussain

of each other.....

shocked that gambling is going on in this establishment?....I have never been a fan of Greenwald and I was correct not to be.

I remembered the radio nonsense from last week and the original post (the first) included ***Ooooh lookee someone wrote an ARTICLE about it so it MUST be true*** from the National Review. No thanks.

I am on the fence about Greenwald so this wasn't necessarily rejected because of him.

Sadly it looks like those who worship Greenwald have once again been duped, or course they will never admit it.

So, by your logic, Obama must be a right winger. Right?

I seem to recall he was not bloodthirsty enough for McCain and Graham.

Doesn't that make him a rightwing stooge?

I'm pleased as fuck that we actually took out and AlQaeda group. Aren't you?

My character has many flaws, but a principled commitment to pacifism is not among them. In a great many cases, the pacifist is simply the ally of the aggressor; the person who will not use violence when it is called for strengthens the hand of those who do violence for pleasure or profit, they do nothing whatever to assist those who have been the objects of violence and suffered it. That committed pacifists generally hold themselves out as possessors of greater moral purity than others only compounds the matter. 'My purity is too great and too valuable to be leached off in action which might prevent a greater harm to others', is frequently at the root of the thing, and is an attitude I cannot manage the slightest respect for.

"Violence will not solve everything, in fact it cannot solve many things, but those it can solve, nothing else can."

The weakest member of the lifeboat to be thrown overboard?

The domino theory of stopping the "aggressor" that was used in Vietnam?

The justification for "collateral damage"?

I'll stick with the "purity" of not killing rather the justifications of killing used by the apologists.

No cause justifies the deaths of innocent people. Albert Camus

My only purpose was to let you know how the facile posture you struck in the title of the post I replied to looks to people who do not share your view that the be all and end all of morale behavior is never to employ violence, for whatever purpose, against whatever actor, in any circumstance. I think that is a very cramped and foolish view, not much different from that of those who take the view the be all and end all of morale behavior is to never engage in sexual behavior that is not procreative and licensed by a priest and the state.

I will point out Ghandi's suggested course for the Jews of Europe in face of Hitler was that they should kill themselvesen masse, as a moral rebuke to those who hated them, which would spare them the sin of committing murder themselves, and thus display the heights of spiritual love and redemption.

i will also point out that, as a political tactic, non-violence depends of the violence of others: it does not work if the demonstrators are not assaulted by police, and even that will not work unless the violence offends the sensibilities of most onlookers. It is a pretty question to examine just where the moral balance might fall when persons who claim violence is immoral depend upon provoking others to violence against them in order to gain their own ends.