Why the hell is Glenn Greenwald calling out the DNC?

In 2007, Greenwald had nothing but contempt for those criticizing Move On for its betray us ad. In fact, Democrats were called cowards for not standing up for Move On.

Flip to Greenwald's current anti-Obama obssession and he goes after the DNC for its ad criticizing Republicans:

and not everyone who disagrees.

Greenwald is an Obama hater. Just remember he was pushing the MSM meme about the Olympics last week.

...Greenwald understands that questioning anything even remotely connected to Obama does not make one a stupid, racist, unpatriotic, America-hating piece of shit?

Greenwald from DU Hero to under-the-bus treasonous asshole in 5... 4... 3...

He a disingenous hypocrite and a major-league asshole.

Since the definition is apparently foreign to you.

Rightly complaining and protesting the right-wing characterization that anyone opposed to the Bush administration was siding with the terrorists, and then being perfectly a-ok with that same characterization when it comes from our side is about as clear-cut an example of unprincipled partisan hackery - and, yes, hypocrisy - as one is likely to find in this world.

Greenwald's problem, bless his maelefic soul, is that he cared as much about civil liberties and the Constitution on January 20th as he did on January 19th.

Who does he think he is? Pro, could you fax him a memo? The new age has begun where whatever we believed is entirely dependent on the personalities involved. Some people didn't sign up for the talking points, and I know you're good for them.

Since you are in denial.

Greenwald had nothing but contempt for those criticizing Move On for its betray us ad.

Criticizing the DNC for calling out the Republicans for their despicable attacks on Obama today is not just the height of hypocrisy, it is symptomatic of someone with deep personal issues.

Greenwald's issue was with Congress passing a resolution condemning MoveOn.org. He felt that government voting to condemn private political speech was anathema to the First Amendment and would have a chilling effect on dissent.

He's being a hypocritical asshole here. He is criticizing Obama for the Nobel Peace Prize and because the RW is doing the same thing, he decided to criticize the DNC for calling them out.

Let's examine your brief statement here.

"He's being a hypocritical asshole here. He is criticizing Obama for the Nobel Peace Prize and because the RW is doing the same thing, he decided to criticize the DNC for calling them out."

Because the right-wing is doing the same thing? You honestly think Glenn Greenwald, inveterate critic of all the evil, unconstitutional works of the Bush administration and Republican congress, sat down today, saw the tea-baggers devolving even further into lunacy, and actively said to himself "I like those folks. I think I'll agree with them."

Really?

C'mon now. Really?

It has nothing to do with his distaste for the wars, torture, rendition, the assault on civil liberties, and other principles most of us have held dear for quite some time now?

He did it because he wanted to feel solidarity with the people he's openly despised practically since he put pen to paper?

have dragged the DNC piece, which was clearly aimed at Republicans, into his article. Why the hell is he attempting to link the DNC ad to all criticism of Obama?

He's being an asshole, face it.

He spoke many times about the Republican penchant for accusing those of us who weren't willingly on board the Bush Train To Hell of being secret sympathizers with terrorists. It's long been one of his things.

What he's being is consistent. Which, hey, I understand. When there's a partisan game to play and talking points to hand out, consistency is the very last virtue of the unprincipled power mongers. The idea that what was true yesterday remains true today is like a crucifix against a vampire to partisan operatives who don't care what politicians do, just as long as their team wins.

But you know, some of us didn't wake up on January 20th, 2009 and tell our friends, "Hey, you know all that stuff I said I believed the last eight years? Totally untrue. I was just, you know, saying stuff. It's a new day, my friends. I'm excited to know what I'll believe tomorrow once the party leaders piece it together for me."

It's exactly that attitude that took the Republican Party from Eisenhower and Goldwater to Dubya and Rove. Why on earth would anyone want that for our party?

disingenuous holier-than-thou posturing. He defended MoveOn's right, and seems to want to deny the DNC of that very right, and possibly because it might make him look bad.

Just maybe. Not everyone is automatically ok with everything done by someone wearing a blue shirt.

maybe not

...when he praised Obama for his stance on the torture memos. You liked him when he stood up for Sotomayor's nomination. You thought it was great when he pointed out the massive amounts of money the GOP was pouring into Ron Paul's campaign. You seemed pretty impressed when he went after Bush over warantless wiretapping... and over circumventing the standard process for approving judicial nominees... and when he went after Petraeus... and when he defended Obama's remarks on Pakistan during one of the presidential debates...

I could go on. And on and on. And on.

But now that he questions Obama's Peace Price, he's "a disingenous hypocrite and a major-league asshole"?

By the way, I just love that word, "disingenuous."

agree with this hissy fit he's having?

He can be a gigantic ass when he wants to.

...that's reason to negate everything he's ever written of which you approve?

Seriously, why is your world so rocked by this? A person can't question an award to Obama that Obama himself wasn't even responsible for? Why is thinking critically about the curious decision of a bunch of obscure Norwegians such a threat to Obama... to you?

Yes, those are real questions.

As I often say to religionists: If your faith is so sound, you wouldn't be knocked for such a loop by the most simple, logical inquiries.

His logic is often flawed.

He's full of shit here, and no amount of your attempt to play apologist for him matters.

But if you like, I could do a long lookup on all your posts on Greenwald, tabulate the good v. the bad, and see how you come out. Would you like that?

After all, I'm only relying on my own memory -- which says you have a long history of praising Greenwald... at least, when he agrees with you. (I even recall you saying something about being glad he wasn't a "Kool-Aid drinker," or words to that effect. But then again, my memory may be flawed, so I will rely on you to set me straight... so to speak.)

I don't recall you ever saying his logic was flawed. Could you refresh my memory?

And, by the way, you never answered my questions. I really, really want to know: Why does critical thinking about the decision-making process of the Nobel prize committee -- which has nothing to do with Obama -- make you so angry, as if someone were actually criticizing the President himself?

That's the only thing relevant. The OP made a point, you are attempting to argue that point by implying that I have always agreed with Greenwald.

...hmmm, I won't say "revisionism," because that would sound as if you were deliberately attempting to erase your long history of praising Greenwald, and I'm sure you're not doing that...

Would you at least answer the questions I've asked you in my previous posts?

Do you need me to repeat them more clearly?

I really would like to understand your thinking.

I should be neither surprised nor disappointed.

Carry on -- but at this rate, do try to pace yourself and avoid complete apoplexy. You're quite worked up.

I certainly wish you would help me understand why.

Oh, well. I tried.

a response instead of trying the tired circular questioning.

Greenwald can be an asshole. Clear?

And it doesn't answer my questions.

If you don't want to answer my questions, just say so. I can accept "I don't know (why I feel the way I do)!" more easily than these MacGuffins of yours.

It is OK to have a gut reaction to something and not know why, and be unable to back it up with logic. You are human, after all.

with friggin praising every word or thought he ever had. He is prone to flawed logic, and if you cannot accept that opinion, then tough. Keep spinning your wheels.

On edit: I've posted items from Ben Smith's blog, does that mean I think he's wise beyond criticism?

What I do not accept is your dodging and weaving. You simply refuse to answer my questions. Whatever your reasons, I can only guess.

All I can conclude is that you don't want to say why this rocks your world so badly.

OK, we're done. I'll try not to "reach out" to you again. Which is really sad, because I was making a genuine effort to understand where you were coming from.

Which had nothing to do with Greenwald, by the way. If you don't understand that (although I think you really do), perhaps someone else can explain it to you.

being a disingenuous ass. The DNC is calling out the repukes but Glen likes to play the victim:nopity:

language by the DNC is wrong!!

you've rendered yourself impotent.

it.

<snip>

October 9, 2009

By Steven Leser

As a supporter of President Obama, I knew that this day would come, I just didn't think it would come so soon. I believe the President deserves an enormous amount of credit for changing the tone of American diplomacy in his first 8-9 months in office. This tone change is responsible for a dramatic improvement in the way Americans are perceived abroad. In a recent poll reported in Time Magazine (see http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/10/07/barack-obama... / ), America is now the most admired country in the world, up from seventh only a year ago.

For all of that, the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama at this time was a bit surprising to me, to say the least. I read through some of the articles and reports to see if I could gain some insight into the thinking of the Nobel committee as to what brought this about. Sure, there are the jokesters and one liners about the President not being George Bush and all of that, but how did this all come about and why.

The eureka moment came to me after reading two separate AP reports. In the first, the AP reporters interviewed a member of the Nobel Committee who articulated the reason for the nomination. Conspicuously mentioned was the Presidents commitment to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_nobel_peace :

The Norwegian Nobel Committee countered that it was trying "to promote what he stands for and the positive processes that have started now." It lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.

The peace prize was created partly to encourage ongoing peace efforts but Obama's efforts are at far earlier stages than past winners'. The Nobel committee acknowledged that they may not bear fruit at all.

"He got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate," Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said. "Some people say, and I understand it, isn't it premature? Too early? Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond — all of us.".

grantcart (1000+ posts) Fri Oct-09-09 02:14 PM
Response to Original message

"4. If I might add a little to your analysis."

I don't think it is so much that ElBaradei authored this sentiment but he represents what is a growing and pervasive understanding of what the President is doing outside the US.

When you live outside the US for extended periods of time you become aware that perceptions of what is important in the US and what is important outside the US are so different.

For example, establishing the defensive missle shield in Eastern Europe was seen as a very devisive, stupid and dangerous move and a real threat to peace.

1) It was perceived as devisive because it not only generated a totally needless hostility between Europe and Russia but it also divided Eastern and Western Europe (and that may have been one of the main reasons that Bush pursued it - hoping to increase American hegemony in Europe.

2) It was universally thought of as a modern Maginot Line because high tech defensive measures are (as the terrorists on 9/11 proved) easily defeated if there is a strong will to do so.

3) It was understood as a threat to peace because it took Russia out of world peace equation. As long as the US was ignoring their concerns then Russia was not going to help with Iran or any other issue that didn't impact directly on their immediate self interest. That would also give cover for China to obstruct the Security Council.

So by agreeing not to go ahead with an expensive, ineffective and divisive defensive missle shield in Eastern Europe a lot of things have changed. This was big big news in Europe but didn't raise a wrinkle here.

BTW Mohamed ElBaradei is one of the greatest unsung International Civil Servants."

<more>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8692775

Michael Moore's take on PO being given the NPP.

<snip>

P.S. Your opposition has spent the morning attacking you for bringing such good will to this country. Why do they hate America so much? I get the feeling that if you found the cure for cancer this afternoon they'd be denouncing you for destroying free enterprise because cancer centers would have to close. There are those who say you've done nothing yet to deserve this award. As far as I'm concerned, the very fact that you've offered to walk into the minefield of hate and try to undo the irreparable damage the last president did is not only appreciated by me and millions of others, it is also an act of true bravery.That's why you got the prize. The whole world is depending on the U.S. -- and you -- to literally save this planet. Let's not let them down.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/9/791561/-Congratulations-President-Obama-on-the-Nobel-Peace-PrizeNow-Please-Earn-it!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8693353

'To think the US President is an undeserving Nobel winner misses the point' (UK Independent)

<more>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8694329

"Rachel Maddow: Obama Derangement Syndrome"

<more>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8694351

U.N. approves resolution to rid world of nukes
Security Council unanimously OKs initiative on nonproliferation, nuke terror"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33001551/ns/world_news-unit

I was disappointed they went with this, too. And in Larissa's "stan" title today, too. It's not an "anti-Obama obsession" but distaste for Bush class rhetoric that runs right up to the border of bigotry. There are plenty of frames the DNC can use to slam Republicans without doing this.

Oh brother.

And yes, I didn't like that title. It depends upon contempt for other nations to make its point. It was an unfortunate choice.

He's a hypocrite.

I said Move On didn't originate that nickname. They simply made public what the man was already being called by the men who know him best. Brw, I defended it, too.

But if you can torture that comparison into the conclusion that Greenwald, and by extension myself as my positions are nearly identical to his, is a hypocrite, please have at it. Everyone deserves a hobby they can do well. :)

"stan" in her article today or has this delightful exchange outstripped the limits of your short term memory?

to make its point", is clearly Larissa's title, not Betrayus which isn't a title but a nickname anyway.

offended so many people... after all, I was riffing on Rush's proud to side with the Taliban quip. sorry to have offended:(

it was stupid when the republicans did it and I think it's stupid when our side does it.

The DNC basically did something that Michael Steele would do - instead of ignoring the crazies for what they are - we start using their tactics?

The death panels, the sex clinics, the President Obama education speech? I think that liberals are so afraid of being called biased, unlike Right Wingers, that they over compensate, and end up sounding like right wingers.

Greenwald absolutely loathes the Right. He was one of the sharpest, clearest voices speaking out against the steep decline in America's constitutional values during the Bush administration. If you're unfamiliar with his work during the Bush years, you're missing out.

Glenn's problem, at least for some here, is that his hatred of the erosion of civil liberties and rule of constitutional law didn't end when President Obama entered office. He's holding the President to the same standards he held Bush to when it comes to things like the Bill of Rights, torture, and illegal war.

Greenwald has been anything but shy in putting out precisely what he thinks in no uncertain terms.

an idiotic attempt justify his own criticism.

in Greenwald's use of photos to demonstrate why Obama doesn't deserve this award.

Indeed, I wonder about him attacking the Democrats for responding to attacks by the Republicans. Why are the Republicans getting a free pass? The Republicans cheered when the U.S. failed to get the Olympics, and they are throwing a hissy fit over their President winning the Nobel Peace price, which was a surprise to President Obama.

In other words, why can't the DNC (a partisan group) respond to a partisan attack by another partisan group (the RNC)? Doesn't the DNC have First Amendment rights, too?

I think Greenwald is a pretty even-handed liberal writer. He criticizes the President where he feels it's warranted, but he also heaps praise upon him when he feels the President is getting it right. If you read the article the OP references in full, and not just the cherry-picked complaint, you'll find that Greenwald has a lot of praise for President Obama's diplomatic efforts to date.

If you skim through his archives, even just the past few weeks, you'll find he has all sorts of complaints and comments about the Right.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

He has more in common with those two jackasses than he does with most liberals.

his constant use of facts, logic and the law to support his arguments. Yeah, he oughta be ashamed of himself.

And people call others Obama cheerleaders. Then can I say there ar Greenwald cheerleaders...

defend our president against this blogger!

Or not?

There are people who actually cheered the DNC response

Yes, You Can Oppose Obama's Nobel Prize, Be Progressive, Disagree With the GOP - and Not Be a Terrorist



The DNC said all?

DNC via Politico:

These assholes are always calling out Democrats cowards for caving when someone uses strong language against the Republicans, and now because their disingenuous asses are caught in the fray, they suddenly disapprove. And nowhere in the statement does the DNC claim that everyone who disagrees with them is wrong. Maybe Sirota suddenly has a soft spot for Republicans.

with silly leaps of logic.

Sirota is an asshole.

the terminiology they did.

Stop the madness.

for now. I have no time for you and your twisting of words.

I read Glenn regularly. I agree with him here and most everywhere else. Those saying he's a hypocrite, or disingenuous have obviously never read his Salon column regularly. He states his case clearly, whenever he makes one. I am proud Obama won the prize, but i think there may have been more deserving people. I wish i knew who the finalists were, so i could see who he beat out in the end.

I think using the Republican tactic of calling everyone who disapproves a 'terrorist' is appalling and has cheapened the debate... especially coming from the DNC. We should've taken the high ground here folks. As much as it feels good to dis someone, it's not always appropriate.

just my 2 pennies...

:shrug:


if i don't reply, it's because i'm off to work in a few minutes...

Glenn Greenwald is an over the top wingnut of the highest order.

It's not like the DNC's made a habit of using this kind of rhetoric--if they were, I'd have a problem with it. But Rush Limbaugh proudly proclaimed his solidarity with the Taliban. It wasn't out of line at all.

Not even worthy of our attention.

On one hand, I think Greenwald is correct in that nobody should be in the business of defining "the other side" as being terrorists, unpatriotic, etc. just because they don't agree with their positions, policies, or even just flat out hate them. OTOH, Limbaugh, at least later in the day, DID specifically express solidarity with the Taliban in condemning Obama's receipt of the NPP: "Folks, do you realize something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about, and that is he doesn't deserve the award! Now, that's hilarious. I'm on the same side of something with the Taliban." <http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100909/content/01125106.guest.html> While it can be reasonably claimed that Limbaugh does not speak for the Republican Party/RNC, it is true that most Republicans and right-wingers subscribe to his point of view and lend it credibility, so.................??????? :shrug:

He means well, though. And is usually wonderful.

He doesn't want anyone using these fear-mongering tactics. And to those who claim the DNC was simply "calling the GOP out", not the DNC didn't do that. It simply USED the tactic, without saying it was wrong.