WAIT!!!!!!!!

[uponit7771]

- An Iraq war supporting, war mongering, CATO Institute winger (Greenwald) issues a story about the Obama admin NOT ... NOT breaking any laws but possibly doing something that doesn't sound right

- ...and is sourced by someone who WORKS for A Carlyle Group subsidiary (BAH)... AND is a Rand Paul Supporter (Rand Paul is f**kin stupid)

- ...and it turns out some of the jist of the story is dead ass'd wrong or just full of sophistry (Obama admin didn't even need warrants for the meta data?!!? )


But I'm supposed to take this whole thing at face value without question and crown the person who leaked it (The one claiming he has access to Obama's email as a sys admin for the NSA, not impossible by highly improbable) a hero?!

F**K THAT!

I'll wait...................................................... AGAIN


Tired of this shit, every time the sloppy M$M and GOP yells jump DU and other democrats gottah say HOW HIGH!!

regards

[mfcorey1]

1. Amen!!!

[Warpy]

26. The more we learn (or don't learn) about Snowden

the worse this whole story stinks.

He was a high school dropout who barely lasted 5 months in the military and started at the NSA as a security guard? A few years later they're paying him $200K/year?

Damn. I don't know who does the hiring and firing in that place but we need to have a long and uncomfortable talk.

It almost looks as though he was recruited specifically to be a fall guy, getting an impeachment process going as icing on the cake.

[GoCubsGo]

74. Glad I'm not the only one who sees this...

Not to mention that the contractor, Booz-Allen that hired him, is full of Bush-era CIA types. And, Snowden is sitting in China, spouting on about how he could easily sell this information if he wanted to? The whole think reeks to high heaven.

The real scandal here is that we are allowing the likes of Booz-Allen to handle our national security. Why the hell is it being contracted out to corporations that have no loyalty to this country?

[JDPriestly]

85. The real scandal is that the government has not denied that

it is collecting this information.

I don't care how "legal" the Bush administration flunkies that Obama hired have persuaded him this program is, I think it violates the US Constitution.

The pen register decisions did not fathom the apparent extent of this program or the technology of today. In fact, I doubt that our esteemed justices on the Supreme Court have a clue as to just how fast today's big computers can be, how much information they can process and how dangerous the use of these megacomputers to crunch personal data about American citizens can be.

So the whole issue needs to be re-examined. And I don't care if Snowden is an illiterate toilet scrubber. He seems to know something and is trying to warn us about it. I appreciate it.

[GoCubsGo]

99. That, too.

I keep hoping that the republicans in Congress will help do something to change this, just for the sheer fact that, while they support it, they HATE that Obama is doing it. See: Eric Cantor this morning on "The Today Show". An awful lot to hope for, though.

[warrant46]

106. Eric Cantor had his ass handed to him this morning

His lack of candor and inability to answer any questions was stunning.

[avaistheone1]

118. I appreciate what Snowden is trying to do.

Principles and truth are more important than party affiliation and one's education.

[timdog44]

186. It seems to be

the MO of the Obama administration to let these kind of things settle out on their own merit. He has done this with many of the so called scandals that have been the soup du jour. This will turn out to be that another big nothing.

It is what I could not figure out. A person like this is suppose to be the conscience of America. Much more reputable people around for me to believe than Snowden. Or Greenwald for that matter.

[JDPriestly]

199. Remember the five stages of grief?

Denial, anger, bargaining, depression and then acceptance.

Some DUers are still in the denial stage. They just don't believe how bad this one really is. Some are in the anger stage. That's me.

Will we proceed through the other stages? I don't know, because in my view this is a really bad scandal, but it isn't Obama's scandal. It goes way back to right after WWII when our country went out looking for enemies -- and found them.

Cyber-security is a huge issue, but our government should create a secure system for itself with a separate connection that nobody else uses and thus avoid being affected by it. I don't know if that is possible, but I don't think that they should tie into the internet we use for anything that is classified.

And our government should not be collecting personal data on us on such a vast scale. It is completely incompatible with democracy.

[timdog44]

203. That is a fairly perceptive

way to look at it. Because of my nursing career, I am very familiar with the stages of grief. I think most here on DU are in one of the five and that is what causes a lot of the dissention among the ranks. It is difficult for me to see people of mostly the same stripe argue so vehemently with each other. Some of this can not be avoided, because of life's lessons, but you would think us liberal people to more forgiving and helpful to each other. And I know there are some people who just don't have a life and that is sad too.

I don't like the fact that w have out sourced our surveillance to private corporations. As leery as I am of our government, there is not a corporation that I trust any further than I could throw them. Security is an issue for our government and like you said, should have their own way of doing it and sharing it with the agencies that are truly needed. And Booz whatever should not be included. All government surveillance should be shared among the agencies we allow to operate. No infighting among the FBI, NSA or CIA. That is just petty and they should act like big boys. Someone bemoaned the $80 billion cost. I don't think that is excessive. The cost of an aircraft carrier. We need surveillance. And guys like Snowden and that idiot Greenwald should not be the conscience of America. Snowden says he has the convictions to tell all, but where is he? Stand up and be a man. Problem is, he is just a small fish in a big ocean. I would not, at this point, go so far as to call him a traitor, but things will come out.

[JDPriestly]

207. A lot of people on DU have not yet thought about just how much

information about your life can be discovered if someone watches all your phone calls, collects your Google searches and then organizes that data into things that look a little like org charts. That is the way that I would imagine this works.

Actually, now that this is known, I figure a lot of people will start playing with it -- calling the zoo over and over just to throw the whole scheme off.

We should think up some fun Google searches that would give us some laughs on them. It's not that my life is very interesting, but the idea of this scheme is absolutely repulsive. I lived in Europe for some years and traveled in Eastern Europe during the Cold War years. I'm very aware of how quickly a scheme like this can turn bloody dangerous.

This program has to stop. It is an absolutely horrible idea. No one should be allowed to do it. The Fourth Amendment has been interpreted into ashes as have a number of the Amendments in our Bill of Rights.

Only fools think this is harmless. It is the worst thing I have heard of in terms of damaging our political system.

[timdog44]

208. I am afraid

that a number of people think I am one of those fools. But, NOT!!! I do not like the idea of being spied upon. Especially by the corporate world who I fear more than the government in the abuses that can and do get done. There is absolutely a place for surveillance. I think there is a big hue and cry at this time as it is a total unknown as to how much is being done on US citizens and exactly which ones. From what I understand, and I admit to not understanding much about it, the monitoring of information is mostly calls and internet exchanges with countries that are known to be dangerous to the US. That could, conceivably be quite a few as I don't think the US is very highly thought of around the world. I think one of the big fears of the government is the hacking that has taken place by China. Thus, a lot of traffic to and from there would be put into a security bank. I don't doubt that Israel is/has hacked us and they do not have a stellar history with the US, witness the USS Liberty.

To that end, I can understand the surveillance. Until our computers in the US can be secured from hacking, and that should be a priority of the "spy" agencies, a vastly reduced number of spy agencies, and government "spy" agencies besides (meaning no "mercenary type of spy groups) the surveillance needs go on. I do not like it, but it is best to be one step ahead.

But to your Google search plan. That is very interesting and I had not thought of that aspect of all this. Even phone calls to unusual places would be in order. But I suppose that we are talking about this puts us on some list already. But I like your thinking. My life is not that interesting either, but could make it so by the above methods. I think you are a sneaker.

But this is not harmless stuff. Once something is taken away from you, it very rarely is given back. And our civil liberties are at risk. Thank god for the ACLU. At least they force a test of this kind of thing out in the public eye.

[JDPriestly]

211. I wasn't thinking of any sort of Google searches that would

really cause a problem. I was thinking more of joke-searches. I am not a sneaker. I am actually very well behaved. Mostly a good grandmother. But I like to have fun.

I understand the points you make about cyber-security, but I think that the program puts the concepts of free elections and freedom of the press and virtually every other freedom we have in jeopardy.

It may be that no one is abusing their access to this information now, but someone could in the future. People are adept at finding reasons to do horrible things. This surveillance program just begs for it.

I will bet that some of the countries you mentioned are already abusing similar programs.

How can we rely on what we hear and see in the news when we know that our reporters' phone calls and e-mails are under surveillance. Kind of chills freedom of the press.

We need more protection, not less, from this kind of surveillance.

[timdog44]

212. You are talking about several things here.

I am not using sneaker derogatorily. It and stinker were terms my Dad used to describe a jokester. Someone who likes to have fun. And that is what I thought of when you talked about the Google searches. I misinterpreted what you were going to do that for. I thought you meant to change your profile by searching for things that would change that profile. I'll bet you are a good grandmother. I was not blessed with children and so being 65 makes eligible me to be a grandpa, I am not.

I think I already stated that we need less surveillance and not by the mercenary companies that the government subcontracts to. That is totally evil. Like going to Haliburton or Blackwater, etc. Evil companies. I think surveillance a necessary evil, but it should be a limited one. Not sure how to do that. Al Franken has said he believes what has happened is OK and so does Obama, and I trust both, I guess because I have to trust someone here and they are the ones.

I haven't relied on the news in years. They are almost all owned by the big money that seeks to control us by the stories that they feel free to make up and later amend. And are you talking about reporters like Glenn Greenwald, who is complicit on both ends of this fiasco we are involved in right now. I am sure he sought this young man Snowden and snowed him under with righteous this and righteous that and convinced him to do this tell all of things he really did not know about. I almost, in fact, feel sorry for Snowden. He has ruined his life so Greenwald can have his story. But as far as freedom of the press, there has been no press worth a lick for a long time let a lone freedon of the press.

We have protection. We have the ACLU. They are suing as we write to take this whole thing on. They are their to defend the constitution of the USA. Some tiimes they are just testing things and sometimes they are actually in there defending stances.

[JDPriestly]

88. Booz-Allen being involved in any way in our national security

now that scares me. All these private contractors knowing the numbers of all of our friends and family members and, for some clients, patients, etc. That is frightening.

[kelliekat44]

108. But i thought everyone wanted smaller government and bigger business????

Remember, its not government that is bad or business that is bad....it;s the damn people~!!

[timdog44]

187. Agreed.

Now we out source our intelligence agencies?

[sibelian]

190. Also, he abandons ballerinas.

Game over.

[Mojorabbit]

202. Apparently he broke both his legs in a training accident in the military

from a previous article. I hate how the character assassination of this person started hours after his statement. It really creeps me out. i also hate the judgement of his worth because of his educational level. I have a nephew who is a computer whiz who does not have a college degree. I am sure it happens a lot.

[Warpy]

205. Interesting.

Still, you have to admit it was a meteoric rise from security guard to $200,000/year analyst in such a short time.

None of this story makes any real sense.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. I certainly wouldn't trust anybody that donates to a Republican. n/t

[uponit7771]

3. +1 Money talks, even if I donate 5 dollars on the straight up it's still a sign of support

[cali]

209. you mean like Elizabeth Warren?

[FSogol]

4. K & R. My response to this rat fucking "scandal": Fuck Ron Paul. n/t

[JoePhilly]

5. And so begins another episode of Hair-on-Fire Undeground.

If this place doesn't burst into flames every couple weeks, it would get dull around here.

I'm waiting for the demands for (a) Impeachment, and (b) calls for lowering taxes so we can shrink the evil government down small enough so we can drown it in a bath tub.

[mcar]

13. Already been threads about impeachment

On a Democratic board, no less. Makes me want to weep.

[JoePhilly]

16. Yup. I've seen them.

Some of these folks have gone so far around the bend that they are about to crash into the Tea Party.

[timdog44]

192. I like that.

I have always thought that that could be possible. The people on the far right and the people to the far left all recognize that there is something terribly wrong in this country. May be the next coalition. If they could get past their, I was going to say petty thinking about LGBT, antiabortion, God in every government building, (but to them it is not petty). But if they could get past those things those two groups could link up very easily.

[JoePhilly]

195. The political world is not linear.

Its more like a rotating 3 dimensional space, when rotated to certain positions, you can see specific groups separate or merge.

That's also why the folks on the right and left screaming about this will never come together more broadly.

While you can rotate the political world to a point where those groups seem to come together, like in this case, if you rotate the political world just a tiny bit in any other direction, those groups immediately fly apart.

[timdog44]

196. Makes it

all interesting at the very least.

[JoePhilly]

197. Always. nt

[G_j]

28. Like this one?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981753

[Luminous Animal]

31. Hahahahaha!!!!

[DirkGently]

54. You don't mean the ones started by sarcastic Obama partisans, do you?

That would kind of undermine the suggested point.

There's a "pro" poster who took that tack recently.

[Jamaal510]

116. Makes me wonder

if some of those people are RWers who are here to be disruptors. If they're talking about actually impeaching Obama (for something that isn't even illegal), they probably were never Democrats to begin with.

[intheflow]

181. That's disingenuous,

saying anyone who might be in favor of impeaching Obama was probably never a Dem to begin with. Many Republicans said Nixon was within his rights to break into the Watergate - it was done all the time and if you didn't know that, you were naive, blah, blah, blah. But you honestly believe that any Republican who disagreed, who didn't toe the party line and favored impeachment had never been a Republican to begin with? That's nonsense. Critical thinking demands people be flexible in their opinions based on how they interpret the world around them. You want to see the world with black and white, us-vs.-them mentality, you are not a critical thinker, you are a blind follower.

I have no opinion on the impeachment process in this case. I'm just saying you are acting very sheeplike passing simplistic judgement on huge swaths of adults you have never met.

[Jamaal510]

184. No, what's "sheeplike"

is this misdirected outrage over something that we've known for years. The government has been tracking our data since before Obama was president, and yet now all of a sudden there is this "scandal" over it and people are acting all surprised. Once you put your information on the Internet, expect for it to be out there for people to see. The President has done nothing wrong. If people want the laws to change, then they should elect different Congressmen who oppose them and will vow to change them.
All of this is old news and just a diversion from bigger issues, like the economy.

[intheflow]

185. You are a Constitutional scholar?

You have top secret clearance and know every detail of the program to ensure it doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment? Because some version of this has always existed makes it a-ok legit?

Just because the government says something is legal doesn't mean it is legal or ethical and shouldn't be questioned. Please see historical precedent: US revolution from Great Britain, the end of slavery, the end of Jim Crow laws, the end of prohibition, the legalization of abortion, etc. Having other problems that need to be addressed does not negate the fact that this program also needs to be addressed.

[eissa]

14. My sentiments EXACTLY

I've actually avoided this place these past few days because the comments I'm reading here appear identical to the rantings of my teabagger family members.

[JoePhilly]

17. Pretty soon, both the far right and far left will be talking about the FEMA camps.

[intheflow]

182. Are you kidding me?

We on the left thought it up under Bush!

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3839222

[Floyd_Gondolli]

18. Ive added 87 people to my ignore list

over the last 72 hours. And honestly, each time it felt pretty damn good.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

30. Ahh, essentially doing the equivalent of an O'Reilly "Cut his mic off" act.

I do hope you feel pretty damned good. You may not want to listen to dissent, but your technique is effectively Stalinesque (and so is O'Reilly's).

[G_j]

37. they may not hear you

[Fantastic Anarchist]

40. I could be one of the 87!

[Floyd_Gondolli]

96. Make that 88

[Fantastic Anarchist]

120. Case rested!

[timdog44]

193. Make that 89.

I agree with them. You are missing out on lots of conversation to ignore that many people. Fairly closed minded.

[Bobbie Jo]

171. *PLONK*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2981726

Apparently, your fellow "dissenters" didn't get the memo.

[JDPriestly]

90. Have you visited any of the camps for illegals, the deportation

camps? They could easily be used for anything anyone wanted to use them for.

[JDPriestly]

91. At that rate, pretty soon you won't have anyone to converse

with here. I never put anyone on ignore. I'm afraid I might miss something interesting.

[timdog44]

194. Absolutely.

I always look at things as a way to learn and advance and fine tune my beliefs. My god if you don't learn something everyday or more often, what is it this all worth.

[enlightenment]

6. Well, good to know you've decided to wait and see.

That means you won't be commenting on this again until you've seen something of substance that convinces you one way or another, right?

Though it appears from your post you have already decided to take the bits you prefer "on face value" and damn the bits you don't - so I'm not sure what you're waiting for . . .

[ProSense]

7. "NOT breaking any laws "

Yup, he leaked information on a legal program and people are acting like Obama illegally invaded another country.

[uponit7771]

10. +1

[Cha]

55. And, GG won't answer the question about whether the NSA did something

Illegal.. It's just not in his DNA.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022983711

[alarimer]

132. Just because something is "legal" doesn't mean it's right.

When Bush did this, Democrats screamed their heads off, rightfully so. Now your sainted Obama is doing it and it's all okay.

Hypocrite, much?

[Tarheel_Dem]

133. Bush committed "warrantless wiretapping". Do you know what "warrantless" means? False equivalence

makes you look uninformed.

[uponit7771]

153. +1, whistle blowing is outing someone doing something illegal. Leaking is for the sake of a good sto

[Whisp]

8. Pathetic, isn't it?

Just throw anything out there that puts Obama in a bad light and the fish will come and nibble - fish of all persuasions and parties because party lines do not ensure nor erase stupidity. Same old regurgitations over and over and they fall for it Every Single Time.

I wonder how the President got all this time to check up on everyone's private mail when he is working so hard to take everything away that is good.

[CitizenLeft]

9. thank you! nt.

[Union Scribe]

11. Clapper's lying about it, Obama's defending it,

and you're refusing to acknowledge it because you don't like the guy who wrote about it? Yeah, that'll make it all okay.

[uponit7771]

15. More sophistry, what does Obama have to "defend"?!?! He doesn't even need a warrant!!!!

[Union Scribe]

19. You've already stated on DU that you support domestic spying

AND that you think there should be more of it. I don't expect you to comprehend what the fuss is about with that mindset, but your gurgling rage at the rest of us who see a problem here--while cute--is also pointless. No amount of exclamation points makes the NSA's lies and spying okay. And spare me the "bert itz old nooz!" nonsense. People are talking about it now and they're going to talk about it whether you like it or not.

[Phlem]

34. Amen brother!

the fact that that some people are insanely angry at other people questioning the situation is creepy. Must be better to go around with blinders on.

-p

[Luminous Animal]

53. Excellent post. And I am dismayed how many eat up his lying smears about Greenwald.

[npk]

59. Could not have said it any better myself. n/t

[uponit7771]

68. This is not what I said, you're misrepresenting what I said AGAIN.. not surprised. Regards

[Union Scribe]

115. Here's the link:

the question: "Do you support the President's domestic surveillance of citizens?"
Your answer: "Yes, he's not doing enough of it..." [your ellipses] [whole post quoted]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2967456

[uponit7771]

124. There's no SPYING In that link, again...this is ANOTHER falsehood

[LondonReign2]

146. So you're in favor of "the President's domestic surveillance of citizens"

but not "spying"?

LMAO

[uponit7771]

152. I'm in favor of knowing the difference between SPYING and surveying !!

[LondonReign2]

154. I'm in favor of you knowing the difference between spying and surveying too

Last edited Mon Jun 10, 2013, 09:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Let's presume you mean surveiling: What in your mind is the difference between surveiling and spying?

[DirkGently]

49. That's a lot of punctuation.

[madokie]

12. I'm right with you

I've about had all this made up big ass mountain out of a tiny ass anthill fake ass outrage bullshit I can take. I knew it was bullshit from the get go and took a lot of shit slung my way because of it. Same as with the benghazi, irs att. All three of those were planted stories to make it look like my president had an agenda that he did not have, Repeat, Did. Not. Fucking. Have. I'll be glad when the Admins clamp down on this made up fucking bullshit. I realize it does increase traffic but at what cost. Some of us are put out by this kind of crap, I'm sure I'm not the only one when I say that too.

[Union Scribe]

21. Obama denounced the IRS issue (wrongly, imo) and had nothing to hide

on Benghazi. But he is defending the NSA's practices. That makes it a very, very different thing. And good luck getting the admins to ban all the people talking about things you don't like, especially since several front page graphics have acknowledged how fucked up the whole thing is.

[Laelth]

20. You might be interested to know ...

... it looks like Guardian readers (in their comments) are about 90%-10% pro-Snowden.

Here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

What's interesting to me, at the moment, is the way this is playing out outside the U.S.

-Laelth

[azurnoir]

22. wow Glen Greenwald worked for CATO? he write a paper on drug policy for them as part of a debate

here it is part of that entitled

Drug Decriminalization in Portugal:Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies


n July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal took effect that decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal framework, all drugs were “decriminalized,” not “legalized.” Thus, drug possession for personal use and drug usage itself are still legally prohibited, but violations of those prohibitions are deemed to be exclusively administrative violations and are removed completely from the criminal realm. Drug trafficking continues to be prosecuted as a criminal offense.

While other states in the European Union have developed various forms of de facto decriminalization — whereby substances perceived to be less serious (such as cannabis) rarely lead to criminal prosecution — Portugal remains the only EU member state with a law explicitly declaring drugs to be “decriminalized.” Because more than seven years have now elapsed since enactment of Portugal’s decriminalization system, there are ample data enabling its effects to be assessed.

Notably, decriminalization has become increasingly popular in Portugal since 2001. Except for some far-right politicians, very few domestic political factions are agitating for a repeal of the 2001 law. And while there is a widespread perception that bureaucratic changes need to be made to Portugal’s decriminalization framework to make it more efficient and effective, there is no real debate about whether drugs should once again be criminalized. More significantly, none of the nightmare scenarios touted by preenactment decriminalization opponents — from rampant increases in drug usage among the young to the transformation of Lisbon into a haven for “drug tourists” — has occurred.

The political consensus in favor of decriminalization is unsurprising in light of the relevant empirical data. Those data indicate that decriminalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal, which, in numerous categories, are now among the lowest in the EU, particularly when compared with states with stringent criminalization regimes. Although postdecriminalization usage rates have remained roughly the same or even decreased slightly when compared with other EU states, drug-related pathologies — such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage — have decreased dramatically. Drug policy experts attribute those positive trends to the enhanced ability of the Portuguese government to offer treatment programs to its citizens — enhancements made possible, for numerous reasons, by decriminalization.

http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/drug-decriminalization-portugal-lessons-creating-fair-successful-drug-policies

were you aware of that? or did simply mentioning CATO make a really good smear, well unless someone familiar with Greenwald's work for Salon actually looked it up?

[BeeBee]

23. But...but...but...

Snowden is a hero!!!!

(sarcasm, as if it's necessary)

[question everything]

24. Well said

Last edited Mon Jun 10, 2013, 03:30 PM - Edit history (1)

K&R

[snappyturtle]

25. I do not look at these latest revelations to be an attack on the President

but rather one on the system (bi-partisan). You point out that Greenwald is a past war monger and supporter of the Iraq war, point taken but so were many, Democrats. imho

[Luminous Animal]

36. Definition of warmonger: : one who urges or attempts to stir up war

Greenwald did neither.
Below is a post I did about this:

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

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


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

(Emphasis mine)

Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence (*my note - about the Iraq War), I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president's performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.

It is not desirable or fulfilling to realize that one does not trust one's own government and must disbelieve its statements, and I tried, along with scores of others, to avoid making that choice until the facts no longer permitted such logic.

Soon after our invasion of Iraq, when it became apparent that, contrary to Bush administration claims, there were no weapons of mass destruction, I began concluding, reluctantly, that the administration had veered far off course from defending the country against the threats of Muslim extremism. It appeared that in the great national unity the September 11 attacks had engendered, the administration had seen not a historically unique opportunity to renew a sense of national identity and cohesion, but instead a potent political weapon with which to impose upon our citizens a whole series of policies and programs that had nothing to do with terrorism, but that could be rationalized through an appeal to the nation's fear of further terrorist attacks.

And in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion came a whole host of revelations that took on an increasingly extremist, sinister, and decidedly un- American tenor. The United States was using torture as an interrogation tool, in contravention of legal prohibitions. We were violating international treaties we had signed, sending suspects in our custody for interrogation to the countries most skilled in human rights abuses. And as part of judicial proceedings involving Yaser Esam Hamdi, another U.S. citizen whom the Bush administration had detained with no trial and no access to counsel, George W. Bush began expressly advocating theories of executive power that were so radical that they represented the polar opposite of America's founding principles.

With all of these extremist and plainly illegal policies piling up, I sought to understand what legal and constitutional justifications the Bush administration could invoke to engage in such conduct. What I discovered, to my genuine amazement and alarm, is that these actions had their roots in sweeping, extremist theories of presidential power that many administration officials had been advocating for years before George Bush was even elected. The 9/11 attacks provided them with the opportunity to officially embrace those theories. In the aftermath of the attack, senior lawyers in the Bush Justice Department had secretly issued legal memoranda stating that the president can seize literally absolute, unchecked power in order to defend the country against terrorism. To assert, as they did, that neither Congress nor the courts can place any limits on the president's decisions is to say that the president is above the law. Once it became apparent that the administration had truly adopted these radical theories and had begun exerting these limitless, kinglike powers, I could no longer afford to ignore them.

http://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index.cfm?fuseaction=printable&book_number=1812

[snappyturtle]

43. The accusation of war monger was the OP's, not mine. I was meerly pointing out

that if he were one, he wasn't alone.

[DirkGently]

47. Everything which does not help the President is an attack on the President!

... or, yeah, it's a process issue. A process overseen by the Executive Branch, but one which is far from being all about Obama or any other one person.


Could be that.

[SunSeeker]

27. Snowden said that "Hong Kong has a strong tradition of free speech."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/edward-snowden-basic-liberties_n_3414824.html

Seriously? He "doesn't want to live" in a country where the NSA stores phone meta data, but he does want to live in a country that does this:

[DirkGently]

39. Oh my god! Snowden killed the Tiananmen Square guy?

Wait. You're not saying because he went to Hong Kong, long (but no longer) a British protectorate, that somehow he therefore endorses the authoritarian rule of mainland Communist China, and therefore somehow tacitly endorses the human rights abuses of that country, and therefore

CANNOT BE TRUSTED!


... are you?

[SunSeeker]

44. No, he didn't kill the Tienanmen Square guy. He just killed his credibility. nt

[DirkGently]

45. By going to Hong Kong, a hive of scum & villany?

[SunSeeker]

48. No, by lavishing praise on the "free speech tradition" of Hong Kong. nt

[DirkGently]

50. Well they do have a tradition of free speech.

Under Hong Kong Basic Law,
Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech.[6]
The freedom of the person of Hong Kong residents shall be inviolable.[7]
The freedom and privacy of communication of Hong Kong residents shall be protected by law.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Hong_Kong

[SunSeeker]

57. Oh yes, Hong Kong, the free speech mecca.

If Snowden didn't realize what a stupid thing he said before, he must realize it know. He has skedaddled from his fancy hotel room in Hong Kong, hot on the heels of the Chinese government hinting they would extradite him.

“He won’t find Hong Kong a safe harbor,” Ms. Ip said. “Those agreements have been enforced for more than 10 years. If the U.S. submits a request, we would act in accordance with the law.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/world/asia/edward-snowden-hong-kong-extradition.html?_r=0

[DirkGently]

60. So you'd find him more credible, somehow, if he'd gone to Bermuda?

[SunSeeker]

67. I'd find him more credible if he didn't lavish praise on Chinese "free speech" while bashing the US.

[DirkGently]

69. A lot of people "bash" the U.S. Domestic surveillance programs. Including

our own courts. You know the law PRISM relies on was found to have been violated by our own government in 2011, right?

Is everyone who criticizes the programs even our secret courts have found illegal a hypocrite, in your estimation?

[SunSeeker]

75. You keep avoiding the point that he praised China, which has terrible abuses.

Oh, and he supported the Iraq war and Republicans. Yup, he's a hypocrite, and an idiot. And no, not everyone who bashes US surveillance programs is a hypocrite. But this guy is.

[DirkGently]

83. Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq war. Does she lack credibility?

And you keep avoiding the point the praise was for Hong Kong, which has a very different history from mainland China.

Either way, you can't dismiss information based on nitpicking like this, and I think even you would recognize your reference to Tiananmen was pretty melodramatic.

[uponit7771]

89. ...If she were a winger? YES!! She's NOT a winger like Greenwald and Snowden.

[DirkGently]

102. What wing is Greenwald on, again? Not the right,

right?

How do you know Snowden is a "winger?"

[SunSeeker]

92. She would if she still supported it after the facts came out.

And Hong Kong is part of China. Of course it has a different history, but to try to claim that it is some free speech mecca is just wrong. Insulting me by calling a statement of fact "melodramatic" doesn't change that.

[DirkGently]

105. You tried to equate Tiananmen Square

... with the true statement that Hong Kong has a positive free speech policy.

And YOU'RE insulted?

What about all the people who had to look at your gigantic Tiananmen Square photo and try to figure out if you were actually suggesting Snowden somehow supports running over people with tanks on the basis he went to Hong Kong?

[SunSeeker]

119. OFFS, Hong Kong is no haven of free speech. I can't believe you are singing its praises.

China, of which Hong Kong is a part, is ruled by a horrible, authoritarian repressive regime, notwithstanding their so-called "free speech policy."

And are you mad because the picture is so big? Sorry, I don't know how to control the size of the picture. Take it up with the admins.

[DirkGently]

121. It's not really relevant to the topic of domestic spying, is the point.

[DirkGently]

111. About that. Doesn't look like Greenwald did support Iraq.

That link the OP keeps yapping about is a lot of hot air that talks around the subject and tries to claim Greenwald was simply apathetic.

Stupid.

[Tarheel_Dem]

138. Oh, but he did support Iraq! Not only did he support it, he was Bush fanboy who got duped!

Christopher Hitchens, Glenn Greenwald, and the War of Ideas
by A. Jay Adler on December 21, 2011

"Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11. Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president’s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country."

(Even though 100,000 antiwar activists were in the streets protesting the invasion).....


http://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index.cfm?fuseaction=printable&book_number=1812

"It is little known that Greenwald supported the Iraq War, and the war in Afghanistan before it. He does not mention it in writing anymore and rarely speaks of it. He supported the war for the same reason I did: he believed that Iraq possessed WMD and that the potential consequences of that possession could not be risked. When no WMD were found, it made no difference to Hitchens, who too characteristically belittled the significance of the non-finding, and those to whom it mattered, and continued to promote many other rationales for the war that were forceful and honorable, but for me circumstantially undeterminative. Without a belief in the existence of WMD I would not have supported the war and neither, it appears, would Greenwald have. For Greenwald, however, the knowledge that a government in which he had placed a level of trust, had, at the very least, gotten it so wrong – if not manipulated the nation into war – has led to an abiding campaign of extraordinary vituperation against not just the government officials responsible, but others, outside of government, particularly journalists, who had argued for action and the rightness of it."


http://sadredearth.com/christopher-hitchens-glenn-greenwald-and-the-war-of-ideas/

Glenn Greenwald’s Hilarious Denial About His Support for Iraq War
By Ben Cohen · April 08,2013

"Look, I think it’s a great thing that Greenwald did an about turn on the Bush Administration and their astonishing lies. Greenwald clearly woke up from his apathy and relentlessly cataloged the administration’s severe abuses of power and hammered them for it until Bush and Cheney left in 2008. But he can’t lecture people who initially supported the Iraq war then turned against it when he did exactly the same thing. Virtually everyone who supported the Iraq war has used the same defense – “Had I known then what I know now, I would not have supported it”. Greenwald is a former constitutional lawyer, so he knows how to argue on technicalities, and that’s exactly what he is doing – using semantics to disguise the fact that he supported one of the dumbest wars in history.

It’s highly embarrassing and I understand why Greenwald went to great lengths to obfuscate his support for the Bush administration’s catastrophic decision to invade Iraq.

But he did, and he should be big enough to admit it."

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/04/glenn-greenwalds-hilarious-denial-about-his-support-for-iraq-war/

He got played, and now he's pissed, and wants to take a chunk out of his government.

[DirkGently]

142. Eh. Those words do not really say that. He admits to briefly

giving Bush the benefit of the doubt, not being a fanboy or loving the idea of invasion.

Clinton and Biden both went further in their support. Shit on them and get back to me. At least Greenwald examined the facts and spoke up. How many of the Dems who gave Bush the benefit of the doubt did the same? How many of them are denounced in this childish fashion?

We know what this is. Bitter, logically challenged fanboys of OBAMA are engaging in transparently, badly carried off smear tactics on the basis they will not tolerate information not helpful to him politically.

That is what it is, and it is all that it is.

You know it too.

[Tarheel_Dem]

143. Uhhmmm. Okay!

[DirkGently]

147. Yes, it's okay your mischaracterization failed.

[snappyturtle]

46. No, probably not. But he also probably doesn't want to live in a country

where Kent State attrocities happen either. What's your point?

[SunSeeker]

52. If he doesn't want to live in a country where there has ever been an atrocity, he's got slim picking

What is your point?

[DirkGently]

56. If that's true, the question is, what's YOUR point?

[SunSeeker]

61. It's stupid to go to a country with even worse abuses & lavish praise on it while bashing the US.

It makes him sound hypocritical or stupid or both. Either way, it hurts his credibility. That's just my opinion.

[snappyturtle]

58. Ah...short memory. Never mind. You must be overly stressed. nt

[AAO]

156. Well, they didn't run him over, did they?

[BlueCheese]

29. Snowden could have donated money to Pol Pot.

And it wouldn't make the revelations any more palatable.

[FarCenter]

32. Glenn Greenwald Once Again Proves He is a Hate-Oozing Douche

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/20/1188423/-Glenn-Greenwald-Once-Again-Proves-He-is-a-Hate-Oozing-Douche

[Berlum]

33. k and r

nt

[DirkGently]

35. zOMg! Tenuous smears & guilt by association!

What about the "fudrs" you mentioned before?

WE MUST KNOW who the fudrs are.

[uponit7771]

70. Yeah, lets take the Carlyle Groups, Cato, Rand Paul supports and Bush appoligist at face value...

...no problem with any of those back grounds /sarcasm

[DirkGently]

79. Well, you're welcomed to explain how your conspiracy theory plays out.

Why and how would all of these nefarious players you loosely reference conspire to get America talking about shady surveillance schemes W. Bush put into play?

After all, while we know the current administration was found to have broken the law governing PRISM in 2011, it is likely the illegal, unconstitutional practices were put into play by the previous administration.

Are you suggesting the Bush family would raise its own infamous wrongdoings as a way to try to embarrass Obama?

[uponit7771]

81. Don't have to be a conspiracy to look at the background of those who are telling this story and

...govern myself accordingly

[DirkGently]

84. But you don't want to explain what you mean by that?

[uponit7771]

157. IF they supported Bush to a shill level like Glen or Ron Paul like Snow they're NOT to be trusted...

...that and Greenwalds an asshole and Snow had 5 star clearance after being a security gaurd!!

[DirkGently]

159. How did the preface of Greenwald's book attacking Bush make him a "shill" for Bush?

That's just silly.

[LondonReign2]

95. You're quite hung up on Carlyle

Tell me, since Carlyle is being paid what I can only presume are lavish sums of money to carry out the operations, explain to me how it is in their self-interest to leak information about the secret program which is generating them this money?

[DirkGently]

107. This is one of those "fill in LOTS of blanks" type theories I think.

I'm really curious about the suggestion Snowden, who is apparently guilty of the heinous crime of slightly inconveniencing the Obama administration, is a plant of the Bush family, who ... somehow wanted to bring up the shady spying apparatus that previously embarrassed George W. Bush, when it was discovered he was conducting it illegally.

[LondonReign2]

148. You didn't want to answer before so let me try again...

Tell me, since Carlyle is being paid what I can only presume are lavish sums of money to carry out the operations, explain to me how it is in their self-interest to leak information about the secret program which is generating them this money?

[DevonRex]

38. More Bush connections:

Snowden worked for CIA despite a VERY thin resume. GHW Bush was CIA and CIA Director.

Snowden has run off to Hong Kong. We so have a bilateral extradition treaty with Hong Kong BUT China has veto power and very likely would not allow Snowden to be extradited.

GHW Bush was Liaison to China under Ford and lived there for 14 months. I'm sure he has plenty of contacts who could set Snowden up nicely.

[DirkGently]

42. Hmmmm. Tell us more of this Chinese Bush conspiracy.

Did the Bush family plant Snowden at his job, for the sole purpose of allowing him to embarrass the Obama administration by revealing the existence of known NSA programs begun by the previous Bush administration?

How did that all go down, d'ya think?

Fiendish.

[DevonRex]

66. Oh, people here have called Obama worse than Bush.

Worse than Nixon. A fascist. A Brown Shirt. All sorts of things. So don't EVEN think your little bit of dripping sarcasm works, dirk.

The whole POINT is to make independent voters revisit the Republican Party. Think, hey, they're not so bad after all! And Rand Paul is gearing up for his presidential run on this very issue. DUers cheered that yesterday.

So go drip that sarcasm somewhere else, dude.

[DirkGently]

73. I'm simply asking you to flesh out your rather exotic conspiracy theory.

You've claimed elsewhere today that Snowden was literally a "plant," presumably by the Bush family, presumably simply to embarrass Obama.

I'm trying to follow how all of that plays out, given that Snowden has brought up problems with a program instigated by the previous Bush admininstration.

To be clear, I do not think Obama is worse than Nixon, or a fascist brown shirt. I think you misread something I wrote.

I think he has failed to dismantle the very ugly infrastructure built by his very ugly predecessor in office.

Morever, the problems with PRISM and other questionable secret surveillance programs are not about one person. I think misaprehending the situation as being solely about President Obama's political fortunes are driving some of the silliness we are seeing here.

[RobinA]

71. You Might

want to take a quick glance at a logic book at some point. You would probably be able to argue more convincingly.

[msanthrope]

41. Greenwald had no problem wiretapping for Matt Hale....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211

[Cha]

62. thanks for the link, ms.

Greenwald a hypocrite! Say it isn't so!

That's right--Glenn Greenwald, self-proclaimed civil rights lawyer, violated the civil right of witnesses. The New York Bar later wrote a clarifying opinion on the ethics of said taping, referencing this case--

And, So adept at slinging venom at those who don't deserve it.

And Glenn Greenwald called them 'odious and repugnant' for suing his client--

[DevonRex]

76. He loved GW's invasion of Iraq and all his security measures, too. nt

[DirkGently]

113. Got a link to any of that?

I'm curious. Greenwald says that's not true. The OP links to an article that says it is, but talks around and around in circles and offers no evidence.

On what do you base this assertion?

[leftynyc]

82. You should repost that as its own OP

The hero worship for Greenwald is nauseating.

[Tarheel_Dem]

144. Now that's some ugly shit right there. Can you spell "h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e"?

Greenwald is a hack from way back!

[msanthrope]

145. Greenwald's lack of empathy for others tends to come out, doesn't it? nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

168. It does indeed. n/t

[Cha]

51. Oh and WAIT, some More! GG's been working with ES since FEB!

http://theobamadiary.com/2013/06/10/president-obama-speaks-on-the-equal-pay-act/

What's Fishy about that!!

[Eddie Haskell]

63. Edward (SnowEd em) Snowden

[bigtree]

64. ods

. . . p&s

[bushisanidiot]

65. And the "hero" volunteered to fight in the Iraq war after believing everything Bush/Cheney said.

sorry, but this guy is just another right wing republican trying to discredit
President Obama. These moles are coming out of the wood work trying
to be "whistle blower" nails in the coffin for our President.

Every one of these recent fake "scandals" have a republican somewhere behind the leaks and
the misinformation that is being sent to the press, who is more than willing to scream "SCANDAL"
in order to get headlines.

[uponit7771]

78. DING DING DING!! Needs to be a Top Post too. When I see a progressive that isn't bashing Obama

...from day 1 report on these "scandals" I'll take them seriously but right now it's a bunch of made up crap

[leftynyc]

72. Thanks for making sense

Although I suspect you'll be called very nasty names for doing so.

[hue]

77. I'm in w/this OP!!! K&R!!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

80. Oh, shit! You done did it now!!!

I'll say three prayers for you, my brother.

[uponit7771]

87. thx I need them, gotta look at things plainly sometimes ... don't know why ANYONE is listening to

...greenwald at all

[Roland99]

86. Didn't realize DU was in the game of shooting the messenger these days

As long as a Dem's the Prez, eh?

[uponit7771]

93. ...if the messenger was a war mongering, cato institute winger who supported Rand Paul then we shoul

...take what that person says at face value seeing the level ODS against Obama!?!?!?

Come on people, lets keep it real...

It's like dems don't realize how much people hate Obama and how that factors in who I, or a lot of people, would listen to

[Bobbie Jo]

117. There's enough evidence of that

phenomena (ODS) right here.

They have long since lost any shred of credibility in delivering this particular "message."

The word "opportunist" comes to mind....

[Roland99]

123. So, this worsening of things Bush started is more of Obama's "chess game"

gotcha.

[still_one]

94. I know he is not a liberal, he is a libertarian, but i did not know he supported the Iraq war

[uponit7771]

97. He did then tried to claim he didn't

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/04/glenn-greenwalds-hilarious-denial-about-his-support-for-iraq-war/

[still_one]

100. Thanks for the link

[DirkGently]

109. That link doesn't even say that.

It says Greenwald was a journalist who didn't express an opinion on the war.

Your statement is dishonest.

[DirkGently]

110. He actually didn't, apparently.

Did you read the link? The article concludes Greenwald supported Iraq, and then points to nothing saying he did.

[GoneFishin]

98. Desperate.

[Maedhros]

101. Since facts aren't working

I see the OP has now stooped to character assassination.

Please provide specific rebuttals to specific claims by Greenwald, with links to supporting evidence, if you'd like to be taken seriously.

[uponit7771]

129. Could you point out where I'm wrong? Regards

[Maedhros]

172. The burden of proof

lies with the one making the claim.

[Maedhros]

213. Here you go.

First, a link to Greenwald's own rebuttal to your claims: http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html

You claim that Greenwald is:

"Iraq War supporting" - Greenwald has never written anything in favor of the Iraq War nor argued for it. If you want to make this claim, provide a link to an article by Greenwald that proves it. In the ten years since the war was launched, Greenwald has been a consistent critic of our military interventions.

"War Mongering" - Again, his extensive volume of work since 2003 comprises unwavering disapproval of Bush's and Obama's military activities abroad. There is no way to read Greenwald's column and deduce that he is a war monger. Quite the opposite.

"CATO Institute winger" - He doesn't work for the CATO Institute and is not affiliated with them in any way. In his entire career he was involved with CATO-sponsored events exactly twice: a 2009 report on the success of drug decriminalization in Portugal and a 2010 online debate in which Greenwald was pitted against former Bush Administration officials and argued against the evils of the surveillance state. Pro-drug-decriminalization and anti-surveillance are not right wing positions.

Now, I've just provided a link with evidence that disputes your claims. It's up to you to provide links to evidence that support your claims. This is how the exchange of ideas works. Simply throwing out ad hominem insults is insufficient.

[JoeyT]

103. Apparently our shipment of ultra-concentrated well poison has come in.

Weird how you can predict with near certainty who's going to freak the hell out when anything that might reflect poorly on the current administration comes out.

Doubly baffling since the blame for it doesn't rest solely, or even primarily, on the Obama administration.

[DirkGently]

122. There's no telling them it's not all about Obama. It's like fire ants.

Shadow crosses the mound; all hell breaks loose. Venom and mangled abdomens everywhere.

[KamaAina]

104. Slight quibble: He's a Ron Paul supporter.

Not sure how he feels about Rugmaster Rand.

[DirkGently]

112. Slight quibble? This OP is hilariously nonsensical.

First off, it's messenger shooting, which is a poor propaganda technique. Secondly, it doesn't make any sense.

- Snowden supposedly contributed money to Ron Paul once? So what? What possible bearing does that have U.S. surveillance docs?

- All the Greenwald bashing is the usual nonsense. He wrote two articles for Cato. So have Democratic Congressman. So what?

Last, what does it say about the argument being made if it completely bypasses the facts and just tries to attack the messenger?

It's not even good propaganda. It's like a child throwing poop.

[uponit7771]

125. Support Iraq war AND wirte for CATO and is an asshole, and Snow didn't contribute 15 dollars he gave

..250...........TWICE.

Reads Cheney's quibble !?

Yeah, ok

That's not passive support

[DirkGently]

127. Got a real link on that Iraq thing? Yours doesn't say that.

[uponit7771]

128. here

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/04/glenn-greenwalds-hilarious-denial-about-his-support-for-iraq-war/

[DirkGently]

130. Same one. They just talk in circles. No evidence.

[uponit7771]

137. I disagree...quote inside

Greenwald confessed to general political apathy this in his book ‘How Would a Patriot Act?’ and admitted that despite his doubts about the war:

I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president’s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.

[DirkGently]

149. That's him describing his former views in a book denouncing Bush.

You know that, right?

[uponit7771]

151. Irrelevant to the question, the question was did he support Bush's war the answer = YES

...and then turned on him after shit hit the fan like the rest of them.... like all other KKKons who have no scruples

[DirkGently]

155. No, he was a reporter that started writing to become a Bush critic.

Taking the preface of the book he wrote to criticize Bush and Iraq doesn't exactly make the point he was some kind of Neocon. He was a reporter up until then, not a conservative commentator.

[uponit7771]

158. REALLY?!?! He even says he gave them the benefit of the doubt!!! I NEVER gave that bastard the

...benefit of the doubt!!

[DirkGently]

160. Me neither. But most of America did, for a moment. Doesn't make him a "shill."

[uponit7771]

161. I agree, if that was the ONLY thing I would agree but it wasn't. Glen is an ass, CATO I contributor

...and a hater of the Obama admin from day 1..

He's issued articles with tons of sophistry against the Obama admin and looks to have ODS....

...and now he helps leak a NON story of Obama doing what he was supposed to do just not in the way Glen or the other crap mouth guy would like it to be done

The META DATA doesn't even need a warrant to read it!!

[DirkGently]

162. PRISM was operating under an illegal interpretation of the law in 2011.

The administration won't release the judgment showing how it was breaking the law, or explain how it is conducting PRISM now so as not to continue breaking the law.

And now, look. They're talking about declassifying information, specifically to deal with what's been released. That is a good thing.

I don't see it as a matter of personal animosity from Greenwald or anyone else. It's the question of whether we will continue to buy the specious argument that government intrusion is so top-secret that it is exempt from public review.

That's Bush's idea, and now is the time to put it to bed, which is what a lot of us expected from Obama in the first place.

[tallahasseedem]

114. +1

It's getting ridiculous.

[Tarheel_Dem]

126. YEAH!!!!

[freshwest]

131. Yup, it be froggy. But consider that the media is all we got. Besides memory and brains.

[uponit7771]

140. +1

[ProSense]

134. "Most significant" leak in history, and likely one of the dumbest.

"Most significant" leak in history, and likely one of the dumbest.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022987178

[uponit7771]

135. +1

[Bjorn Against]

136. Anyone who calls Greenwald "war mongering" clearly has not read Greenwald

Greenwald has been one of the most vocal critics in the media when it comes to confronting the war machine, he is certainly not a war monger. An opinion he held a decade ago does not change that.

[uponit7771]

139. Same here...I just quoted Greenwald (inside) on another post

Greenwald confessed to general political apathy this in his book ‘How Would a Patriot Act?’ and admitted that despite his doubts about the war:

I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president’s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.

[Bjorn Against]

141. And then he became one of the most vocal critics of the Bush Administration

I keep seeing that same out of context quote posted in a pathetic attempt to smear Greenwald, the quote comes from a book that is very harshly critical of the Bush Administration. In that paragraph Greenwald was not explaining his current views at the time he wrote it, he was explaining his past views and telling of his transformation into a vocal critic of the Bush Administration. Back when he wrote that book he was very well respected on DU, it is laughable to call that book an example of war mongering unless you just focus on that one paragraph and ignore the entire rest of the book.

[uponit7771]

150. Yeah after it was seen that Bush was losing!! The SECOND there were no WMDs found guys like Glen

...were STILL On the BAs tip

[Bjorn Against]

164. Greenwald was a thorn in the side of the Bush Administration

Hardly anyone knew of him until he started speaking out against Bush, you want to focus on a position he abondoned a decade ago when no one even knew who he was. To call him a warmonger based on a position he held at a totally different time in his life is absurd.

[uponit7771]

166. I agree, only after the shit hit the fan though...like most kkkons they dropped the Bush admin like

...a hot rock once they found out Iraq was a bust...that was easy to do.

[Hissyspit]

177. And then they all started blogging extensively and expertly on how Bush's actions

were unconstitutional, unprecedented, immoral, dangerous for the future of the country, and despicable. Oh, wait. No, they didn't.

[HiPointDem]

163. Greenwald responds to your smears re cato, etc.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, employed by the Cato Institute. Nor have I ever been affiliated with the Cato Institute in any way. The McCarthyite tone of the denials is appropriate given the McCarthyite nature of the lie.

In seven-plus years of political writing, I have written a grand total of twice for Cato: the first was a 2009 report on the success of drug decriminalization in Portugal, and the second was a 2010 online debate in which I argued against former Bush officials about the evils of the surveillance state.

I not only disclosed those writings but wrote about them and featured them multiple times on my blog as it happened: see here and here as but two examples. In 2008, I spoke at a Cato event on the radicalism and destructiveness of Bush/Cheney executive power theories.That's the grand total of all the work I ever did for or with Cato in my life. The fees for those two papers and that one speech were my standard writing and speaking fees. Those payments are a miniscule, microscopic fraction of my writing and speaking income over the last 7 years. I have done no paying work of any kind with them since that online surveillance debate in 2010 (I spoke three times at Cato for free: once to debate the theme of my 2007 book on the failure of the Bush administration, and twice when I presented my paper advocating drug decriminalization).

I have done far more work for, and received far greater payments from, the ACLU, with which I consulted for two years (see here). I spoke at the Socialism Conference twice - once in 2011 and once in 2012 - and will almost certainly do so again in 2013. I'll speak or write basically anywhere where I can have my ideas heard without any constraints. Moreover, I'll work with almost anyone - the ACLU, Cato or anyone else - to end the evils of the Drug War and the Surveillance State. And I'll criticize anyone I think merits it, as I did quite harshly with the Koch Brothers in 2011: here.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more

[uponit7771]

165. "I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this ...

I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.


These are Glenns own words

He's starting to sound like a true double talker

[HiPointDem]

167. no, you.

[uponit7771]

169. no...you

[HiPointDem]

170. no no, tu.

[On the Road]

173. Although I Tend to Agree With You,

the impeachment contingent has sort of a point. If a Democratic president was indeed obliterating the constitution and listening to everyone's phone calls, I might agree with them.

Instead, it appears that what happened is that with court approval the NSA assembled an internal database to be queried only by FISA warrant. Whether the safeguards were followed does not seem to be clear from the discussion here.

Assembling the database prior to government query seems to have been a part of this. Part of this appears to boil down to whether the standard was a personal search or producing business records. Or alternately a personal search based on a warrant using business records using stored information based on a warrantless request.

Or something like that. The Obama administration might have abused current law, but it's difficult to tell based on the OMG!!!! posts here. I really, actually can't tell whether to be concerned becaus of the absence of grown-up discussion.

[Hissyspit]

174. All these recs for an OP that starts out with two lies in the first sentence

which have been debunked since the first day this story broke.

Then you back off them down thread.

[uponit7771]

178. False, both statements here are false

[Hissyspit]

179. Nope.

And I can assure you I don't fucking say 'How High.'

[kardonb]

175. bravo

BRAVO !!!! uponit , you hit the nail on the head . I , too , am fed up to the teeth with all these pseudo-scandals . Why are people so completely gullible to swallow all this msm crapola ? The press just wants stuff to fill their pages and the airwaves , so they make up stuff . They just love to be king-makers and king=breakers , it mekes them $$$ , nothing more . Ethics ?What's that , never heard of it .

[Number23]

176. Washington Post has not only backed away from its initial reporting, it now says that Obama won't

likely be hurt by any of this because the program

1) is not illegal
2) enjoys bi-partisan support in Congress
3) has the wide support of the American public except of course for those who have never supported the president. Which would be teabaggers and whatever these folks are around here that do nothing but shriek at everything the man does.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/06/07/why-the-nsa-revelations-arent-like-the-irs-scandal-or-benghazi-for-obama/

Not liking the program is fine. But all of this shrieking and screaming is moronic. Especially because this has been going on for almost a decade and I don't know what these people thought the Patriot Act has been doing all of this time. This is what happens when a population hands over its rights because of fear. We brought this on ourselves. And as usual, it's Congress that has to fix it. Screaming that "Obama=Bush" does fuck all.

[savalez]

189. +1

[Tarheel_Dem]

198. Speak to it, #23!

[SunSeeker]

204. I wish I could agree that screaming that "Obama=Bush" does fuck all.

Unfortunately, it divides Dems, depresses the Dem vote, and helps the Republicans who WROTE these laws get back into office.

[Number23]

206. + an absolute million. PERFECT post

[uponit7771]

214. +1

[October]

180. Trolls are everywhere, systematically dividing (thereby destroying) DU.

You can see them all over your thread as well.

No discussions, just smart remarks and attitude.

[ForeignandDomestic]

183. tssk...

Wait....... so you're against all those aforementioned things... but you fully support the NSA (a neo-con creation) spying on Americans?

[savalez]

188. K&R

[sibelian]

191. "crown the person who leaked it"

Hm.

Noooooo, you don't.

But, what do you want? Your information slobbered all over the desks of idiots? Or kept where it's YOU that decides what happens to it?

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

200. I am open to all the lies we are handed daily

the result has been a total lack of respect for this country and many of it's citizens. Oh, I will honor their right to their own beliefs, but don't ask me for respect for the total lack of care this country shows for our common good.
What has happened to our sense of right and wrong?

[CakeGrrl]

201. K/R

[limpyhobbler]

210. Boo. Common lies used by right-wingers and Obamabots to smear Greenwald because of the stuff he says

Why not refute the facts or the arguments instead of resulting to personal attacks.

Frequently told lies (FTLs)
by Glenn Greenwald

Anyone who develops any sort of platform in US political debates becomes a target of hostility and attack. That's just the nature of politics everywhere. Those attacks often are advanced with falsehoods, fabrications and lies about the person. In general, the point of these falsehoods is to attack and discredit the messenger in lieu of engaging the substance of the critiques.

There are a series of common lies frequently told about me which I'm addressing here. During the Bush years, when I was criticizing George Bush and the GOP in my daily writing and books, there was a set of lies about me personally that came from the hardest-core Bush followers that I finally addressed. The new set comes largely from the hardest-core Obama followers.

I've ignored these for awhile, mostly because they have never appeared in any consequential venue, but rather are circulated only by anonymous commenters or obscure, hackish blogs. That is still the case, but they've become sufficiently circulated that it's now worthwhile to address and debunk them. Anyone wishing to do so can judge the facts for themselves. The following lies are addressed here:

1. I work/worked for the Cato Institute
2. I'm a right-wing libertarian
3. I supported the Iraq War and/or George Bush
4. I moved to Brazil to protest US laws on gay marriage
5. Because I live in Brazil, I have no "skin in the game" for US politics
6. I was sanctioned or otherwise punished for ethical violations in my law practice

...

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