Greenwald would once again write about my Manichean reasoning. While I treasure his previous acknowledgment of me, I fear his judgment.

Interesting. Mine always said, "Look out for push polls."

My maternal grandmother. My paternal grandmother would just have scowled.

apart those who spread false information about him or hurl gratuitous insults in his direction.

THAT is one of the things that made him so popular with Democrats. He had no fear of the numerous attacks he received from the Right, and they sure did hate him.

He seemed to enjoy going after them. It was a thing of beauty to see him rip into FRs when they would go to his blog and try to argue with him. Lol, what a show. Talk about leaving with their tails between their legs. People would go there just to watch.

He ripped Bush's lies apart and exposed the whole cabal of War Criminals for what they were. At a time when many who should have been doing it were too scared.

Great journalist, truthful and honest. One of several journalists who kept Democrats sane during the awful Bush era.

Dems will never forget that about him.

Freepers hate Greenwald.

guys who could 'take out' this Liberal Blogger. Problem was, they never addressed the ISSUES he spoke about, they depended on personal attacks.


He was, eg, 'an arrogant Liberal' who 'doesn't know what he's talking about' Lol, neither did they, way above the heads of the average freeper and Fox graduate.

I think he really enjoyed using them to get more hits. They didn't even realize they were helping him! Best to use idiots for your own interests since you can't educate them, imo.

Back then most Liberal forums banned them but not Greenwald, he took them on and destroyed them on a regular basis. I think he did the right thing, Dems were too timid about taking them and exposing their stupidity. They need to be confronted imo.

Glenn Greenwald, Unclaimed Territory:

Friday, November 04, 2005

"The reality of Latin American reaction to Bush"

"George Bush is here in Latin America this week, visiting Brazil and Argentina, and the standard reports of the American media are trying to depict a handful of isolated, juvenile socialist-organized "demonstrations" as some sort of sweeping, popular mass protest against Bush’s visit, thereby suggesting, yet again, that the Administration’s policies are flawed because people in other countries dislike Bush. As usual, the truth is vastly different than what the U.S. media is reporting (see UPDATE below) .

It is true that in this region (as is true for the U.S.), there remains a small, fervent band of left-wing fanatics with crazed enthusiasm for the worn-out, socialist/collectivist policies which have condemned millions upon millions of people throughout Latin America to poverty unimaginable to even the poorest Americans. These putative "mass demonstrations" in Argentina and Brazil are, in reality, nothing more than a few isolated spray-painting incidents of trite pacifist slogans in Brasilia, and a Cindy Sheehan-like "rally" of hard-core Socialists in Argentina led by an obese, Castro-idolozing, retired soccer player who found time away from his decade-old cocaine addiction to show up wearing an oh-so-clever t-shirt showing Bush's name spelled with a swastika."
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/reality-of-latin-american-reaction-to.html

Confusing, yes? It's not once you realize that Greenwald is a right-wing Libertarian who started playing the "both sides" game for Cato once the water gets too hot. Libertarians are not "anti-war"... Cato operatives wrote the legal justifications for the War on Terror, surveillance, torture, etc. under Bush but changed their tune once public opinion turned against the wars and Bush:
http://www.thenation.com/article/independent-and-principled-behind-cato-myth/

Meanwhile, the Kochs are behind the NSA protests (protesting the laws they themselves helped write?):

"Found: Libertarians' "Lying To Liberals" Guide Book"

"All of that is stunning enough—and something to keep in mind if you find yourself getting all dewy-eyed as you take your place on the bottom of the "strange bedfellows" at the StopWatching.us rally, topped by such rancid libertarian outfits as FreedomWorks, the Kochs’ climate denial front Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Kochs’ new anti-Obamacare Astroturf front Generation Opportunity, Students For Liberty (funded by CIA/NSA contractor Peter Thiel), Ron Paul’s Young Americans For Liberty, the Libertarian Party....

Anyway, just in case "Marketing Libertarianism" hadn't got the rulebook out widely enough, REASON ran a second article later in 1977 headlined 'How To Get Converts Left & Right: Political Cross-Dressing Is The Answer.'"
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/lying-to-liberals/

In short, the right wants us to hand control back to Republicans...the people who are responsible for the wars and attendant atrocities to begin with. And so far, they've succeeded, except that Obama is still standing in their with his veto pen and they still don't yet have a veto-proof majority in the Senate... until 2016, that is. I don't doubt that the far left will assist them in getting what they want.


By the way, those fact-challenged Obama = Bush talking points were outlined in a Koch/Libertarian Party press release in 2009:
http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-release-top-10-disasters-of-2009-obama-administration



[This information is backed up, lest it should goo poof and disappear]

Keeping up with Greenwald's lies (the archives): http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/tag/glenn-greenwald

There is not room enough to post all of the experts who have refuted Greenwald's claims (not that any of Greenwald's devoted fans will entertain any contradictions). Cesca will direct you to some of them. Meanwhile, the internet is littered with a great many learned individuals who are constantly calling out Greenwald on his Gish Galloping lying. Learn to use Google.

Did anyone ever mention that the NSA Privacy Review Board completed its investigation and issued its final report (nothing illegal about it, though they do recommend added oversight):

Hardly the hair-on-fire anti-government hysteria for which Greenwald is known.
http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/PCLOB_Report.pdf

Moreover, Glenn Greenwald is not on the left and Ron/Rand Paul are not civil libertarians - The biggest lies of all

Here's what Glenn Greenwald really thinks about "socialist-collectivist pacifists" (that's Teabag/libertarian speak for the anti-war left):
Glenn Greenwald, Unclaimed Territory: Friday, November 04, 2005

"The reality of Latin American reaction to Bush

George Bush is here in Latin America this week, visiting Brazil and Argentina, and the standard reports of the American media are trying to depict a handful of isolated, juvenile socialist-organized "demonstrations" as some sort of sweeping, popular mass protest against Bush’s visit, thereby suggesting, yet again, that the Administration’s policies are flawed because people in other countries dislike Bush. As usual, the truth is vastly different than what the U.S. media is reporting (see UPDATE below) .

It is true that in this region (as is true for the U.S.), there remains a small, fervent band of left-wing fanatics with crazed enthusiasm for the worn-out, socialist/collectivist policies which have condemned millions upon millions of people throughout Latin America to poverty unimaginable to even the poorest Americans. These putative "mass demonstrations" in Argentina and Brazil are, in reality, nothing more than a few isolated spray-painting incidents of trite pacifist slogans in Brasilia, and a Cindy Sheehan-like "rally" of hard-core Socialists in Argentina led by an obese, Castro-idolozing, retired soccer player who found time away from his decade-old cocaine addiction to show up wearing an oh-so-clever t-shirt showing Bush's name spelled with a swastika."
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/reality-of-latin-american-reaction-to.html

Note: Greenwald, Bruce Fein, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden... all in the Ron Paul camp. Ron Paul happens to be a far right white supremacist whose supposed "anti-war" stance is in fact "anti-Jew": http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/dark-side-of-paul-phenomenon.html

That's what Ron Paul's "New World Order conspiracy theories are about: Ron Paul's 1982 John Birch Society video: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/dark-side-of-paul-phenomenon.html

The Libertarian Party/John Birch Society: Kochs, Ron Paul, Phyllis Schlafly, Tim LaHaye: http://thepoliticalspectator.com/tag/ron-paul/

Are there a lot of "progressives" who tour college campuses in the sole company of white supremacists?

(April 2015 Ron Paul, Glenn Greenwald, Radley Balko (Cato Fellow), and Jacob Hornberger college "Liberty Tour" with Ron Paul's Young Americans for Liberty, sponsored by Koch-funded The Future of Freedom Foundation). ***In the video they are discussing nullification, among other things at UT Austin. What is nullification? "State's Rights":

Political Research Associates:" Nullification, Neo-Confederates, and the Revenge of the Old Right"
http://www.politicalresearch.org/2013/11/22/nullification-neo-confederates-and-the-revenge-of-the-old-right/#sthash.8KfDWPmt.dpuf

Note that Koch's Cat Institute wrote the legal justifications for the War on Terror, warrentless wire-tapping, torture, under Bush 2.0:
http://www.thenation.com/article/independent-and-principled-behind-cato-myth/

Radley Balko profile: Koch shill with a history of racism and agitating for the total privatization of the NSA:
http://shameproject.com/profile/radley-balko/

Ron Paul and his white supremacist/Christian Right/militia network: academia.edu: "Chapter 20: Oath Keepers Networks With Tea Party and Patriots/Christian Right"
https://www.academia.edu/9716371/CHAPTER_20_OATH_KEEPERS_NETWORKS_WITH_TEA_PARTY_AND_PATRIOTS

****I, for one, want legal law enforcement surveillance of armed, violent white supremacist groups.

Ron Paul's 'South Was Eight' no-confederate speech in front of confederate flag:

Jacob Hornberger: "Hornberger has some pretty extreme libertarian views of his own that one assumes Greenwald must've not been aware of when he agreed to tour with him: Hornberger opposes civil rights laws banning racial discrimination, opposes minimum wage, opposes democracy, and argues that America's freest days were the pre-Civil War years, back in the halcyon days of plantation slavery (which Hornberger concedes was "an infringement&quot . As Hornberger writes,

"Despite slavery and other infringements of individual freedom, Americans in the 1800s lived in the freest society in history..."
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/libertarian-bum-fights/

Ron Paul's ACTUAL legislative record (the opposite of civil libertarian): http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

Greenwald's Obama = Bush talking points are a product of Koch/Libertarian party talking points from a 2009 press release: http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-release-top-10-disasters-of-2009-obama-administration

In fact, all of your anti-Obama talking points are the product of right-wing Libertarians/Koch:
https://www.google.com/search?q=libertarian+pary+obama+%3D+bush&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=libertarian+party++press+release+obama+%3D+bush

You've been rat-ferked by white supremacists. (BTW, I could go on forever exposing Greenwald and his white supremacist pals here here, but you know, space is limited.)

Last thing: Dialog International: German-American: "Ron Paul and the Neo-Fascists":
http://www.dialoginternational.com/dialog_international/2011/12/ron-paul-and-the-neo-fascists.html

You're welcome.

This is a test: Who is Greenwald lying about here?

"Friday, November 04, 2005
The reality of Latin American reaction to Bush

George Bush is here in Latin America this week, visiting Brazil and Argentina, and the standard reports of the American media are trying to depict a handful of isolated, juvenile socialist-organized "demonstrations" as some sort of sweeping, popular mass protest against Bush’s visit, thereby suggesting, yet again, that the Administration’s policies are flawed because people in other countries dislike Bush. As usual, the truth is vastly different than what the U.S. media is reporting (see UPDATE below) .

It is true that in this region (as is true for the U.S.), there remains a small, fervent band of left-wing fanatics with crazed enthusiasm for the worn-out, socialist/collectivist policies which have condemned millions upon millions of people throughout Latin America to poverty unimaginable to even the poorest Americans. These putative "mass demonstrations" in Argentina and Brazil are, in reality, nothing more than a few isolated spray-painting incidents of trite pacifist slogans in Brasilia, and a Cindy Sheehan-like "rally" of hard-core Socialists in Argentina led by an obese, Castro-idolozing, retired soccer player who found time away from his decade-old cocaine addiction to show up wearing an oh-so-clever t-shirt showing Bush's name spelled with a swastika."
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/reality-of-latin-american-reaction-to.html

Glenn Greenwald, Unclaimed Territory

Saturday, December 03, 2005

"Yelling "racist" as an "argument" in the immigration debate"

All in a single one-line post, Oliver Willis manages to perfectly illustrate the cheapest, most intellectually dishonest -- and, for those who wield it in the immigration debate, the most self-destructive -- form of argumentation.

Willis references a post by Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly, which quotes a letter from anti-illegal-immigration Congressman Tom Tancredo to his supporters in which Rep. Tancredo asks for help in what Tancredo calls the "struggle to preserve our national identity against the tide of illegal immigrants flooding the United States." In response to Tancredo’s letter, Willis snidely writes:

Hey, Tom Tancredo . . . Just say "white power" and get it off your chest.


So, there’s Willis' self-satisfied decree, in its vapid entirety. According to Willis (and many of Drum's commentators, if not Drum himself), anyone who believes that it’s important for a nation to be comprised of citizens who have at least some joint national allegiance and a minimal common foundation -- never mind a common language in which they can communicate with one another -- is a White Supremacist bigot."
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/yelling-racist-as-argument-in.html

Tom Tancredo's white supremacist doings: http://www.coloradoindependent.com/212/peter-brimelow-vdare-and-tom-tancredo

Feel free to do some research on Tom Tancredo yourself. You'll remember him as running on the Constitution Party ticket for governor of Colorado.

Just for grins, the Constitution Party preamble:

"The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

The Constitution of the United States provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules."

P.S. I have my research backed up (as do others) in case any of it should suddenly be scrubbed

[You'll notice I posted plenty of links to lies the lying liar tells us. I'll be saving a great deal of it for a thorough outing of Koch whore Glenn Greenwald and his white supremacist pals ]

This one is precious... Greenwald tweets a link to smear Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, using a right-wing hate site's alteration of a Think Progress graph:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43290_In_Which_Glenn_Greenwald_Smears_Me_by_Citing_a_Faked_Graphic_at_a_Far_Right_Hate_Site

"Glenn Greenwald Smears Elizabeth Warren Using a Right Wing Attack Video"
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43620_Glenn_Greenwald_Smears_Elizabeth_Warren_Using_a_Right_Wing_Attack_Video#HXLfzMJZpEuohXXO.99

Dear fellow liberals: the next time a Greenwald fan tells you not to read Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, go have a look and judge for yourself. He seems to have his head screwed on tight these days. The reason Greenwald doesn't want anyone looking at Johnson's site is because the man posts evidence... he doesn't just pull his contentions out of a hat

P.S. Read everything (left, right and in-between), especially the work of people on the left whom Greenwald spends a great deal of time attacking... this is how one becomes aware of who is doing what to whom and why

Here's a fun one, posted Feb. 2015: "Glenn Greenwald Will Speak to a Koch-Funded Event Named After a Pro-Lynching Racist Dixiecrat Congressman"
Read more at http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/44314_Glenn_Greenwald_Will_Speak_to_a_Koch-Funded_Event_Named_After_a_Pro-Lynching_Racist_Dixiecrat_Congressman#B6HqJ6FuxbW7QTKw.99

For more fun in this vein, go to http://littlegreenfootballs.com/ and use the search LGF function in the top right-hand corner: type in Glenn Greenwald and get a clue

Greenwald is already aware that Charles Johnson has the goods on him (that's Charles Johnson, not to be confused with white supremacist douche Chuck Johnson recently banned from Twitter)... so if this is a fishing expedition, the individual(s) attempting to resurrect Glenn Greenwald from the dead is out of luck. Not biting

This is so much fun. I'm so glad you asked that question (even if I didn't notice it until now). So one more for the road... I simply could not resist:

LGF again: "Why Is Glenn Greenwald Promoting an Extreme Right Wing 9/11 Truther?
Greenwald hypes an article by Truther Andrew Napolitano"


[screenshot Greenwald's tweet]: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/378593980985778179 [promoting Ron Paul vs Paul Krugman; Austrian Economics; Judge Napolitano; John Birch Society]

"Just a couple of days after he promoted the extreme right wing militia Oathkeepers (referring to them as “a coalition of current and former military, police, and other public officials”), activist Glenn Greenwald is now hyping an article by another far right conspiracy monger: Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Napolitano is probably best known for his loony shows on Fox Business, but he’s also a very frequent guest on the Alex Jones show, a big promoter of the John Birch Society, a close associate of racist paleocons Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul, a neo-Confederate who pushes the idea that Abraham Lincoln was a war criminal, and to top it all off — a 9/11 Truther.

And on 9/11 of this year, he went on Glenn Beck’s show and compared Syria’s use of chemical weapons to the Clinton administration’s siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas.

That’s who Glenn Greenwald thinks you should be reading."
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42513_Why_Is_Glenn_Greenwald_Promoting_an_Extreme_Right_Wing_9-11_Truther#w4mJ6HS7dsorzfKc.99

Oh yeah, and Glenn Greenwald's tweet promoting a white supremacist militia (comprised of police and military):

You'll remember the Oath Keepers from their participation in Cliven Bundy's armed white supremacist showdown with the BLM.

"Why Is Glenn Greenwald Promoting an Extreme Right Wing Militia?"
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42504_Why_Is_Glenn_Greenwald_Promoting_an_Extreme_Right_Wing_Militia

That is a very good question. What is up with Glenn Greenwald constantly trying to sell the left on white supremacists?:
http://www.politicalresearch.org/2015/03/05/drawing-lines-against-racism-and-fascism/#sthash.vs4iy2JP.dpbs

Okay, I'm done for now. There's so much more. Meanwhile, here's a question: is this liberals trying to smear Greenwald, Ron Paul, and associates... or are reasonable people trying to warn that the left will be owning this in short order?

one would actually have to engage in an act of journalism.

And tell it to the Pulitzer Committee.

and not individuals?

I think they already know that Greenwald disgustingly took full credit for his former employer winning that award.

Your comments make clear that you don't care much for Mr. Greenwald, but this does help to bolster my hypothesis about his truthfulness and how it's perceived on this site. If you had anything, you would've posted it.

Report Indicates Snowden/Greenwald Lied About Key Claims

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/09/1229963/-Report-Indicates-Snowden-Greenwald-Lied-About-Key-Claims

Lies, Truth, and the Guardian

The mob orthodoxy on the detention of Glenn Greenwald’s partner is false.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/356281/lies-truth-and-guardian-john-osullivan

Glenn Greenwald's 'Epic Botch'?

http://www.thenation.com/blog/174783/glenn-greenwalds-epic-botch

Glenn Greenwald and Bill Keller Are Wrong About Objectivity in Journalism

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115500/glenn-greenwald-objectivity-journalism-hes-wrong

The KOS link is a single blogger's opinion that Snowden (and therefore Greenwald) couldn't be telling the truth. There's no verifiable proof of this, just the blogger's opinion, bolstered by an NSA report (they tell the truth at NSA, right?).

National Review: really? John O Sullivan? Really? The same guy who wants to see Obama's birth certificate because he's from Kenya? The same guy who writes for the Weekly Standard and American Conservative, and was an aide to Margaret Thatcher? Aside from his bio, I read the article in its entirety, and he exposes no lies whatsoever.

The Nation: there's no accusation of a lie here. There is an accusation that Greenwald misunderstood what an SFTP server is. Greenwald answers the accusation thusly:
The Guardian has not revised any of our articles and, to my knowledge, has no intention to do so. That’s because we did not claim that the NSA document alleging direct collection from the servers was true; we reported - accurately - that the NSA document claims that the program allows direct collection from the companies’ servers. Before publishing, we went to the internet companies named in the documents and asked about these claims. When they denied it, we purposely presented the story as one of a major discrepancy between what the NSA document claims and what the internet companies claim, as the headline itself makes indisputably clear:
The NSA document says exactly what we reported. Just read it and judge for yourself (PRISM is “collection directly from the servers of these US service providers”). It’s endearingly naive how some people seem to think that because government officials or corporate executives issue carefully crafted denials, this resolves the matter.

New Republic: this is the only linked article I haven't read in its entirety. I haven't read it all, because it seems to be more about advocacy journalism vs objective journalism, and not about some accusation of lying on Greenwald's part.

thanks.

Would more could write so well and all could reason so well.

And, thanks!

Won't hear from that poster for some time.

He's probably back already.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6181290

3rd try?

You can do better.

But hey if it makes your day I'm all for it.

Yeah I can do better, but it was handy.

I know that those of us that go back and forth agree on 99 percent of political stuff. It's the one percent we all yell about.

I think like me you enjoy trading barbs on a silly message board. But I don't get the whispering gif when the words are there for all to see. Picky I know.

Hope things are going smoothly in your world.

Whisp/Ladeedah.
What now?

Whoopsedoo?

Here is Greenwald's contribution to the world:

Do I need to remind you that Greenwald's "civil libertarian" BFF, Ron Paul, is known for globe trotting with Euroope's neo-facists?
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2013/8/23/144536/636/

Greenwald and the white nationalist Fraud Pauls: http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/yalcon14-videos-ron-paul-glenn-greenwald-rand-paul

The world's premier self-proclaimed fascists (many of whom Ron Paul has been meeting with since leaving office) and their recent "conservative" meeting with Putin, courtesy of the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights:
http://irehr.org/issue-areas/international-dimensions/658-russia-s-international-conservative-forum-draws-american-white-nationalists


Dialog International: German-American: "Ron Paul and the Neo-Facists"
http://www.dialoginternational.com/dialog_international/2011/12/ron-paul-and-the-neo-fascists.html


"First Pegida, now PEGADA : Anti-American March in Erfurt

Pegada

The "patriots" in eastern Germany are united in their love of Russia and Vladimir Putin, but they can't decide who they hate more: Muslims or Americans. For weeks they have held weekly marches protesting against the "Islamization of the West" - the so-called Pegida marches. Today in Erfurt the first PEGADA march took place:

Erfurt, Germany (dpa) - A march by a group in Germany espousing a broadly anti-American philosophy turned into a series of scuffles when about 1,000 marchers were confronted by around 600 opponents in the central German city of Erfurt on Saturday. Members of the group Pegada - an acronym that translates to Patriotic Europeans Against the Americanization of Europe - are believed to include conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis and violent hooligans.The group intentionally picked a name similar to the more well-known Pegida (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of Europe) movement, which is based in Dresden and has drawn its own opponents who say it is a thinly veiled racist organization. The groups are not related.

Of course, behind "Pegada" is the same toxic brew of anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, rage against the free press and a longing for an authoritarian (Putin) leader and government"
http://www.dialoginternational.com/dialog_international/2015/01/first-pegida-now-pegada-anti-american-march-in-erfurt.html

"Pegida and the "Peace" Demonstrations: Anti-Americanism and Anti-Semitism

Each week the Monday "Pegida protests" seem to get uglier and uglier, as the crowds grow - at least in Dresden. Pegida is a new development, but the targets of the protestors' hate remain the same - uniting both Left and Right: America and the Jews. America, according to the demonstrators, is behind all the evil in the world: Crimea, ISIS, NSA, McDonald's, Auschwitz, etc. Those who fail to acknowledge this simple truth are demonized as "Trans-Atlantiker" (code for CIA - stooges):

Zeitgenossen, die nicht erkennen wollen, dass eigentlich hinter allem – 11. September, Krim, Euro-Krise, Ölpreis, Abschaffung des Abendlandes – der amerikanische Jahrtausendplan zur Beherrschung der Welt steckt, werden zu Idioten oder willigen Helfern der CIA deklariert. Die Verschwörungstheorie ist in den unendlichen Tiefen des Internets zur alles erklärenden Weltformel geworden.

Of course, behind the Americans' treachery, as Hitler also believed, are the Jews. But, while Hitler openly called out the Jews, today's more politically sensitive demonstrators use the code word "amerikanische Zentralbank" - the Federal Reserve Bank, which is controlled by Jewish Interests. Watch this video of a "peace demonstration" in Berlin, where the speakers attack the "amerikanische Zentralbank" for instigating wars. The speakers can't help but also drop the names of some "Jewish bankers" - Rothschild and Warburg:

It goes without saying that the CIA, manipulated by Jewish media interests, also controls the mainstream German press and TV networks, which the Pegida protestors along with much of the German left deonounce as the "Lügenpresse". At a recent Pegida rally one of the protestors shouted at a reporter from the staid Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung "Verpiss dich, du Judenschwein, sonst machen wir dich platt!" ("F**ck off you filthy Jew or we'll crush you!).

Anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism have always been two sides of the same coin, as the writer and cultural historian Andrei Markovits points out in his book Amerika, dich hasst sich's besser:

“Anti-Semitism in Europe goes back a thousand years. Anti-Americanism as a discourse and an ideology emerged more than 200 years ago among European elites. America and Jews are seen by many Europeans as paragons of a modernity they dislike and distrust: money-driven, profit-hungry, urban, universalistic, individualistic, mobile, rootless, inauthentic, and thus hostile to established traditions and values.Anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism are the only major icons shared by the European extreme left and far right, including neo-Nazis.”
http://www.dialoginternational.com/dialog_international/2015/01/pegida-and-the-peace-demonstrations-anti-americanism-and-anti-semitism.html

Deutsche Welle: "PEGIDA, neo-Nazis, and organized rage"

"Germany's well-organized neo-Nazi scene is merging with the anti-Islamization PEGIDA movement. They've become an integral part of the group's weekly marches - and they appear to be tolerated by organizers."
http://www.dw.com/en/pegida-neo-nazis-and-organized-rage/a-18212964

I suggest you look into it That's P.E.G.I.D.A

Glenn Greenwald is STILL touring college campuses in the sole company of Ron Paul and other white supremacists on the Kochs brothers' dime:

so-called 'Liberal forum'? And btw, Greenwald is, or was, a member there. One of the most popular, despite the contingency of Third Way/DLC, anti-Liberals, including the owner, who is a former Republican himself.

So that is not a very credible source. I recognize some of the commenters, no surprise there either.

Thousands of Democrats left that site because of the anti-Liberal morons who ran around the site bullying people with the approval of its owner.

But HE at least seems to regret driving all those Liberals away. I left years ago, couldn't, in good conscience, continue to support a site that was nothing more than a gate keeper site.

I remember his arrogant response when members complained, pointing out they were donors and expected more of a site that claimed to be a Liberal site. He told them 'I don't need your donations, you think that gives you the right to have any say here, so there will be no more drives here'. Lol, he was getting paid by someone at that time, but if you asked him about that, he refused to answer and banned those who asked.

NOW however, I get emails from him begging for money. I guess he changed his mind.

I wouldn't be posting links to that site if you want to have any credibility.

Greenwald drew many people to that site, then moved on. However, since Kos seems to have realized putting DLC/Third Wayers in charge over there, cost him so much, he seems to be trying hard to restore some credibility as a Liberal forum.

So many people left, women left in droves, I'm surprised it stayed around.

Some nasty people over there, more Right than Left. And they have cost him a lot.

describe sounding truthful while not actually necessarily being honest?

Truthiness is not actually something to aspire to is it?

He is never objective.

A trained lawyer.

As such I think he tends to pick and choose facts and positions that support the case he is trying to make.

He is an advocate. This is answering a different question than whether or not he lies in print, but I'll readily concede that he is an advocate for several (in my view) worthy causes. But to reiterate, I've never seen that he's been caught telling a lie, as he's so often accused of in these pages. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy_journalism

Not the truth, the whole truth, so help him God.

Greenwald claims there is no doubt that Obama murdered Al Awlaki for exercising his first amendment rights, while also continuously lying in order to whitewash Al Awlaki's legacy and actions by claiming Al Awlaki was a moderate (nope never was) whose involvement in terrorism is non-existent (unless you ignore all the evidence that's out there).

That, and the fact that Al Awlaki JOINED AL QAEDA.

So, when a journalist has more sympathy for Al Qaeda than President Obama, hmmmm.

moderate who was radicalized by the evil US government and about whom there was zero evidence ever that he broke a single law.

Never mind that Al Awlaki was recruiting guys for armed jihad overseas in the 1990s.

http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_14861059?source=commented-news



He also claims Obama murdered Al Awlaki ONLY because al Awlaki was saying stuff that offended Obama, and that the killing of Al Awlaki had NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to do with his involvement in multiple operations to kill Americans.



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/11/nyt-obama-awlaki

"very clear" that he was not targeted for his terrorist activities?

Okay.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/02/28/uk.terror.verdict/index.html




Greenwald is a fucking liar. Al awlaki was giving hate sermons for years without being targeted for even arrest by the US, but when the multiple accounts of his involvement in a series of attacks and attempted attacks began to surface, the game changed.

Greenwald is a fucking liar, and one who would much rather give the benefit of the doubt to a traitorous rightwing fundamentalist terrorist than he would to President Obama.

that is who Glenn Greenwald is.

Linking all of his lies is just too time consuming.

He reported facts about al-Awlaki. He also makes clear where he posts opinion, as in "What prompted my opposition..."

So, where is he a fucking liar, geek tragedy?

There's nothing in the material that makes Greenwald a liar. To the contrary, he goes to some lengths to show that the government wasn't being very truthful about their rationale for killing him. I still don't know that I agree with the conclusion that Greenwald drew, but he did build a good case, and he certainly was not lying. I think the excerpted paragraph below gets to the point:

"According to Priest's reporting back then, the Obama administration was trying to execute Awlaki as early as late 2009 - exactly when the Obama officials who spoke to the NYT admit that they had no evidence that he was anything other than a "propagandist" and this his targeted killing would therefore be unconstitutional and illegal. (That's also a reminder that not only Awlaki, but at least two other still-unknown Americans, have been placed on Obama's kill list). Priest then added that the cause of Awlaki's being placed on the kill list were his "academic" discussions with Nidal Hasan: exactly what the NYT's Obama-official-sources now say are protected free speech that could not be used to legally justify his killing"

here is what Greenwald wrote:

And again:



Here is what Priest actually wrote:



Takes quite some contortions to claim that:



to mean



and that:



Priest's article explicitly states that Obama was not trying to kill Al Awlaki with the strike in Late 2009. Greenwald turns around and says that Priest's article states that Obama was trying to kill Awlaki with that same strike.

Greenwald is a liar, one who views members of Al Qaeda in the most favorable light possible while taking the exact opposite stance against his own government, to the point where he willfully lies.

One can draw their own inferences from that.

You're trying to make a liar out of Greenwald with these two articles, but if you read through both of them, you'll see he's not saying anything inaccurate at all. Sure, he draws conclusions you may not agree with, but in no way does that mean he's lying. It just means he's come to different conclusions than you have.

Greenwald asserted as a factual matter that Priest wrote that.

Please quote the language from the Priest article stating that "the Obama administration began trying to kill Awlaki in 2009."

If you can't provide such a quote, Greenwald is lying.

Mischaracterizing what a source states is a form of lying. It will get lawyers sanctioned, and academics disgraced.

At the end of January, 2010, Priest wrote this:

"Both the CIA and the JSOC maintain lists of individuals, called 'High Value Targets' and 'High Value Individuals', whom they seek to kill or capture. The JSOC list includes three Americans, including Aulaqi, whose name was added late last year. As of several months ago, the CIA list included three US citizens, and an intelligence official said that Aulaqi's name has now been added."

End quote.

As of several months ago: when you write that phrase in January, 2010, by definition, you're referring to something in 2009 or before.

Putting the man on a kill list most assuredly qualifies as "...began trying to kill...".

Have a good afternoon.

1) Since I don't have a pencil and paper to diagram the sentence for you:

"As of several months ago" is an adverbial phrase modifying the verb phrase "included three US citizens."

The sentence uses "now" to modify the clause "Aulaqi's name has NOW been added."

Given that the article was published in January 2010, "now" does not mean "several months ago."

It is similarly untrue that JSOC adding a name to a "High Value Target" constitutes an attempt to kill them.

As a threshold matter, putting a name on a list is not an attempt to kill someone. This should be clear. Shooting at someone is an attempt to kill them, as is putting arsenic in their coffee. Putting their name on a list, nope.

Going beyond that, the military "High Value Target" designation does not put them on a "kill list"--it doesn't even describe what action is to be taken. It describes the person's role and importance within an enemy organization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-value_target
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf



And just to wrap this up:



So, what Priest wrote is that the JSOC late in 2009 designated Al Awlaki as an important person within the AQ command structure, and that in 2010 Priest wrote that his name "now" was added to the CIA's list.

Which again, is in no way, shape or form what Greenwald claims it is. It's explicitly not what he claimed.

or has stretched the truth a couple of times. It would matter to me if it was a serious pattern or was done in a seriously nefarious way. I don't see that in most of the complaints about him. He reports with an agenda and his opinion and direction of reporting are important to him. It is to many journalists and it is still fair to call them journalist. I do know that if he writes it, it is worth reading. Each piece will stand on its own merits.

He lied when he said his partner was targeted for simply being his partner.
He lied when he said his partner was held without access to an attorney.

This is my opinion.

Half-truths are the same as lies in my book.

He's a "journalist" in the same sense that Fox is a "news" organization.

FOX being just the most ridiculous of a whole pile of worthless garbage distraction, lies, and propaganda but so far from alone as the make you break down and cry.

And for the love of all that is good and green don't tell us you think there are "honest" politicians and business bigwigs because if you say yes well as sad and utterly dismaying as that will be I will be forced to laugh at you. Sorry in advance if I must issue a cruel but hearty guffaw as I dismiss your entire train of delusion.

honest journalists and media outlets are indeed a rarity. Ratings, selling print, and generating clicks has become the entirety of today's journalistic standards. The line between fact and opinion has been blurred beyond recognition. Truth has become a cafeteria choice...some of this, some of that.

I don't intend to wade in the minutiae of comparing and contrasting individual journalists, but to hold Greenwald up as a bastion of truth-telling and journalistic excellence is beyond ridiculous. On the other hand, if you want to compare him to the current crop of media darlings, I suppose he fits the mold.

The OP specifically focused on the issue of Greenwald's credibility, or lack thereof. His tactics have been discussed and exposed repeatedly.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6186116

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6186208



As far as your second pararagraph is concerned.....what??

standard?

Also, I will follow up on part one, what case are you making that Greenwald isn't ahead of the pack and in most cases FAR ahead.

That sounds more like what I imagine your opinion of the man is, and if that's so, then the closest poll answer is the second.

For example, he'll mention something like the NSA's metadata collection program. And talk about that for a bit, emphasizing that US persons are in the database.

Then he'll talk about another NSA program that does something else. Thus strongly implying that the later programs are also targeting US persons, but he doesn't quite say that outright. Because the documents he's leaking actually say the NSA explicitly excludes US persons. And he doesn't quite get around to mentioning that difference.

So he technically isn't lying. He's letting other people connect dots in the way he wants, even though connecting those dots is a lie.

Thanks.

Last edited Tue Jul 28, 2015, 10:43 AM - Edit history (1)

What sort of "journalist" "reports" on an opinion poll to gauge his influence on public opinion after publishing hysterical fact-challenged screeds?

Glenn Greenwald: "Major opinion shifts, in the US and Congress, on NSA surveillance and privacy"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/29/poll-nsa-surveillance-privacy-pew

Read that critically (everybody) and identify the objectives, hyperbole, opinion, half-truths, and outright lies

Later: Greenwald's #StandWithRand fail: "NSA Reform Stalls, Rand Paul Votes No"
http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/nsa-reform-stalls-rand-paul-votes-no-20141118

Greenwald: "Three Democratic myths used to demean the Paul filibuster"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/10/paul-filibuster-drones-progressives

So, the purpose of Rand Paul's grandstanding on NSA reform and drones was what?

In reality Rand Paul doesn't object to "drones" at all: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/03/07/1685411/what-rand-paul-really-thinks-about-drones/

How do these tactics differ from what Darell Issa does? Generating fake controversy for the benefit of the GOP.

And yes, it's an Internet poll, but it does serve to give a good idea of how DUers feel about the matter.

The 3% goes to Geek Tragedy, by the way. GT did post links that she (he?) believes to be lies on Greenwald's part. I take exception, and I did so by way of reply, but GT gave me everything I asked for. Two others voted Option 1, but I assume they didn't read very carefully, since Option 1 asks for a link to prove the assertion. These two are moved to Option 2 by default.

There is a difference--GG thinks he's a journalist but the tenets of the profession require an adherence to objective fact over slant or opinion...and GG does not do that. Never has. He practices poor journalistic ethics in that respect.

I don't think or have to think he's a a liar...I believe he slants his reporting to support his personal biases. As a result, even without outright lies, he has no credibility...just like Fox News.

Last edited Thu Feb 5, 2015, 09:18 PM - Edit history (1)

He paints in the artistic medium of distortions, smears, half-truths, and (his favorite) the "non-accusation" accusation...

Luckily, I've been stockpiling my ammo just for this moment...

Here are some appetizers (I'll post as many as you can stomach once I get home):

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/04/sam-harris-vs-glenn-greenwald/
http://www.trendingcentral.com/the-smears-of-glenn-greenwald-and-the-guardian/
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43441_The_Sneering_Dishonesty_and_Hypocrisy_of_Glenn_Greenwald_Part_294
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/03/the-endless-drone-of-sirota-and-greenwald/
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/i-live-in-terror-of-the-fanatic-who-has-only-read-one-story-whether-hes-an-islamist-murderer-or-glenn-greenwald-9984017.html?origin=internalSearch
http://cifwatch.com/2013/02/05/glenn-greenwalds-smears-distortions-and-lies-about-brooklyn-college-bds-row/
http://theobamadiary.com/2013/04/21/the-lies-of-glenn-greenwald/

One of Greenwald's many morally and intellectually bankrupt defenses of Ron Paul:
http://www.salon.com/2007/11/12/paul_3/

I can also mention any of a hundred examples of hypocrisy, like his silence on Merkel's cellphone tapping to Russia/China's crackdown on internet freedoms, Russia's crackdown on journalism/GLBT freedoms, Brasil's crackdown on human rights, Brasil's legacy of graft and corruption, Greenwald's shameless defense of Russia Today, his backtracking doublespeak on FLM, his "official" story of how the Snowden thing first went down, the list goes on...

I'm so very glad you posted this -- I intend to enjoy myself

I'm glad you're enjoying yourself--I want you to. And for my part, I like the back-and-forth with someone who challenges me, makes me think. No, I haven't read your links yet; I'm still at work. But given your subject line and accompanying text, I'm not thinking I'll find straight-up lies in your links. I have readily conceded elsewhere in this thread that Greenwald is an advocacy journalist. He's not impartial about his subject matter. I have no doubt he's committed errors of omission, no doubt that he puts a favorable-to-his-point-of-view spin on his articles, and so on. But as far as I've been able to determine, he's never printed a straight-up bald-faced lie. The same cannot be said of his targets at NSA.

Thank you.

which is a cute little euphemism for "Propaganda, but the okay kind of propaganda since it is serving a meaningful cause I personally support"

The universal, 100% unfuckwitable flaw with "advocacy journalism" is the more an "advocacy journalist" believes in his cause, the more tied in he becomes personally with the story, and the more likely he is to conveniently ignore dissenting facts (or in extreme cases rely on questionable sources or just invent new facts for support)...Not only that, but "advocacy journalists" tend to get married to their causes and fall into absolutist, binary thinking (sound familiar?)

Greenwald's courtroom background means he is skilled in evasion, deception, changing his narrative on the fly, and saying things without really saying them...Because his lies are usually more complex than the garden-variety 2+2=5, it's much easier for me to point out his blatant hypocrisies, half-truths, notable silences, and lies by omission...

Any questions about what I've posted? Ready for more links?

Nah, it's not difficult to catch Greenwald lying... he does it so often in one post of thousands of words, it's time consuming to correct them all.

This is what's known as the Gish Gallop:
http://blogs.bu.edu/pbokulic/2013/11/18/gish-gallop-fallacy-of-the-day/

The Internet is littered with people who have drawn ire from the Gish Gallop King sue to their efforts to correct him.

This is an out-and-out 100% lie that he spewed on national TV:
Greenwald: Embassy Closings Looks Like A Conspiracy To Silence NSA Debate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023415042

and another:
Glenn Greenwald: U.S. manufactured militant threat as pretext to bomb Syria
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025598876

Glenn Greenwald Jokes about President Obama Raping a Nun
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002102119

Greenwald's (Scahill's) shameless defense of al-Awaki:
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6080775

And evidently the OP has played this game before...Didn't you get enough answers that time around?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023131169#post2

Glenn Greenwald’s Hilarious Denial About His Support for Iraq War
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023362480


If you *really* want me to get my hands dirty and dig deep into the shit, I'll start mining his tweets for some real gold...

In order to prove a statement is a lie, you have to have some sort of backing. You're relying on the word of the NSA. We KNOW with certainty that NSA lies; they even lie to Congress under oath. So I ask you, where is this out-and-out lie?

He can't accuse Obama of making fake terror alerts for the SOLE purpose of distracting people from the NSA story and just let that shit hang out there without *any* backing whatsoever...If he doesn't have proof, he has to apologize for it...This isn't divorce court where you can make up any kind of wild accusations just to force the other party to prove it isn't true...

As to your comment about the NSA -- Greenwald has had no problems whatsoever using secret unnamed NSA and intelligence sources when it fits his purposes...So if the NSA/IC is unilaterally untrustworthy with zero credibility when speaking to the media, then the same applies to Greenwald's sources...

Just because he's an outspoken asshat, whom I don't trust or like and with whose opinions I often disagree, doesn't necessarily mean he's a liar. I think a lot of the issues people have with him are when he spouts off his personal opinions like they are Gospel truth, not with any news items he might report.

Its required to function in society.

.... is LYING.

(Greenwald is more honest than most and braver than just about anyone.)

The truth? Can't it be said Greenwald gives a story he wants others to believe rather than just tell the truth. Like the story, climb a tree to tell a lie when the truth sounds better on the ground. Either way Greenwald does not give truthful stories and as a result his reports, articles or whatever he wants to call his writings IS NOT RELIABLE, they are rag stories shown in the grocery check out aisles resulting in tabloids.

Note: My bookmarks are a disorganized mess, but I'm trying to paint a full picture here...I don't know familiar you are with Greenwald's backstory, or if you mark his missteps as closely as I do (as you have no doubt noticed, I have taken a very close, personal interest in Mr. Greenwald's cult of personality)...I'll happily go further in depth with any link you might have questions about, and fill in the blanks -- If I can wake *one* DUer up to see the real Greenwald, then it will have been worth it...It's not enough for me to simply say Glenn Greenwald is a shameless, hypocritical fraud; it is essential for me to make you understand WHY...


http://pando.com/2015/01/12/todays-glenn-greenwald-last-weeks-glenn-greenwald-is-extremely-misinformed-about-first-look-media/
http://pando.com/2015/01/03/john-forgotten-the-intercept-has-stopped-showing-pageview-counts-on-its-posts/
http://pando.com/2014/10/30/first-look-staffers-finally-admit-omidyar-massively-interfered-with-editorial-say-taibbi-accused-of-sexist-bullying/
http://pando.com/2014/09/22/the-moment-of-truth-glenn-greenwald-is-the-worst-at-influencing-elections/
http://pando.com/2014/09/15/greenwald-in-new-zealand-grandstanding-doesnt-get-more-condescending-or-counter-productive/
http://pando.com/2014/08/09/funny-after-greenwald-attacks-pando-for-our-non-ties-with-palantir-the-intercept-relies-on-palantir-funded-research-for-its-latest-scoop/
http://pando.com/2014/08/11/columbia-journalism-review-confirms-what-we-all-knew-omidyar-is-editorial-head-of-first-look-media/
http://pando.com/2014/07/12/wapo-investigates-the-intercepts-claim-of-justice-dept-smear-campagin-finds-it-isnt-true/
http://pando.com/2014/07/09/guess-who-once-told-foreigners-to-shut-up-about-george-bushs-justified-post-911-policies/
http://pando.com/2014/07/06/why-did-greenwald-agree-to-government-plea-to-hold-major-nsa-story-but-the-post-didnt/
http://pando.com/2014/05/19/the-intercept-decides-entire-country-cant-be-trusted-to-know-that-america-listening-to-its-calls/
http://pando.com/2014/03/04/glenn-greenwald-in-2007-journalists-know-the-work-they-do-ought-to-be-pleasing-to-the-people-who-sign-their-paychecks/
http://pando.com/2013/11/27/keeping-secrets/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/22/1293813/-Glenn-Greenwald-is-wrong-about-Guantanmo#
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/glenn-greenwald-is-ralph-nader.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/10/1312925/-Gleen-Greenwald-Full-Time-Obama-Basher#
https://twitter.com/bobcesca_go/status/471769277448482816
https://ohtarzie.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/a-heat-vampire-in-search-of-a-movie-deal/
https://ohtarzie.wordpress.com/2014/11/18/so-whats-this-about-a-private-nsa-document-reading-room/
https://ohtarzie.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/fuck-the-guardian-take-your-drip-and-stick-it/
https://ohtarzie.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/greenwalds-free-speech-absolutism-and-twitters-foley-ban/
https://ohtarzie.wordpress.com/2014/05/13/what-a-fucking-asshole-ggreenwald/
https://ohtarzie.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/mark-ames-vs-glenn-greenwald-and-amy-goodman-on-usaid/
https://ohtarzie.wordpress.com/2013/10/29/glenn-greenwald-still-covering-for-omidyar-on-paypal/
https://ohtarzie.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/greenwald-tries-to-settle-a-score-fails/
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-snowden-had-4-laptops-to-hong-kong-2014-5
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-cryptome-launched-a-kickstarter-campaign-2014-5
http://www.businessinsider.com/glenn-greenwald-defends-snowden-putin-pr-stunt-2014-4
http://www.businessinsider.com/glenn-greenwald-msnbc-edward-snowden-obama-2013-12
http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-says-it-will-reveal-redacted-country-2014-5
http://www.businessinsider.com/william-binney-and-edward-snowden-2014-10
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-nsa-cant-find-the-whistleblowing-emails-snowden-said-he-sent-before-leaking-2014-9
http://www.businessinsider.com/glenn-greenwald-paul-rieckhoff-2014-6
http://www.businessinsider.com/new-snowden-leak-about-uk-spy-base-2014-6
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/glenn-greenwald-once-called-brian-williams-nbcs-top-hagiographer/
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/01/north-koreasony-story-shows-eager-u-s-media-still-regurgitate-government-claims/
http://www.avclub.com/article/glenn-greenwald-loves-sony-now-theyve-bought-right-204717

That should be enough for you to chew on for awhile...I'll post more stuff in the coming days as needed

I beg the non-Americans I know not to trust anything Greenwald "reports" when they worry about cartoon villain Obama starting World War Three any day now, cackling with evil laughter as he writes their names in blood on his Drone Death List after listening in on the phone call they made to their mom yesterday. These links are very helpful, although for some reason if people believe Greenwald's tall tales, facts seem to bounce right off them. Is there some kind of vaccination I don't know about?

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/nsa-story-falling-apart-under-scrutiny-key-facts-turning-out-to-be-inaccurate/

p.s. never read or heard him utter an honest sentence frankly. Anyway you asked.

They must all have me on ignore, because I've pointed out more than a few the past couple years...

No one seems to want to deal with your posts?

To the OP: be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

Nicely done.

For the most part, I think Greenwald reports facts....but how he interprets those facts is debatable (sometimes).


For example:

Random DUer: Obama supports the TTP

Me: Yes. he does.

Random DUer: Obama is supporting the TTP because he's an elitist and despises the 99%.

Me: Obama is supporting the TTP and I think he's wrong...but I don't think its because he loves rich people and despises the regular people.

So random Duer and I both agree on the facts (Obama supports the TTP) but where we disagree on his reasoning for supporting it.

So are we "lying" or are we both interpreting "the facts" through our own biases?

That's basically how I view Glenn.


I hope my description made some sense.

Just seeing if there are any questions about the links I posted...

No matter what gets posted, no matter how much proof there is to show he is lying, the Greenwald fan club here is never, never, never, going to admit they were wrong, never!

The funny part is that most of them are the same group that keeps bashing anyone who supports the president and calling them Obama bots, marching in lock step etc. and yet they do it with Greenwald to and even greater extent. I have never heard anyone say "Obama is NEVER wrong, and most who support the president have admitted they don't support him 100%, yet they will defend Greenwald till the end of time if necessary to prove their loyalty to him.

They make so much noise.

...to prove he's not a liar. He's not. Look at all of the responses above. You came closer than anyone else, but still, no lies have been posted. That hasn't slowed his detractors down, however. I'm reading again today about Greenwald's "lies". Thanks.

By "shriekers", I'm referring to the people who pop into every thread about Greenwald/NSA to disparage his reporting.

I did appreciate your comment, and I'm sorry I misdirected the reply meant for someone else. I'll move it as soon as I get in front of a real keyboard.

Smearing him as a liar is a typical tactic. In the old days it would have been that he is gay, but the nss groupies can't go there now.

Has Greenwald ever told a lie? Who amongst us hasn't? Does he lie on the big issues? Only if you count an opinion or impression that later proved questionable to be a lie.