And how does Greenwald use his story? To attack Democrats, of course!

[struggle4progress]

... "I'm not surprised ... I've been amazed and disappointed for a long time at how the most slavishly partisan media Democrats who pretended to care so much about these issues when doing so helped undermine George Bush are now the loudest apologists and cheerleaders for these very same policies ... To call them principle-free, hackish, and opportunistic is to be overly generous" ...
Glenn Greenwald: 'Slavishly Partisan' Democrats In The Media Are Cheerleading Policies They Used To Hate
Brett LoGiurato Jun. 12, 2013, 9:33 AM

[leftstreet]

1. If Democrats weren't spineless wimps, there'd BE no story n/t

[LWolf]

2. True. nt

[struggle4progress]

20. Re-rise of the Naderites: Glenn Greenwald’s third party dreamin’

Posted on April 22, 2011 by jreid

At a talk given the day after the 2010 election — one that was a disaster for Democrats — “progressive” writer and civil liberties lawyer Glenn Greenwald gave a talk at the University of Wisconsin, and expressed the hope that Democrats might suffer the same fate in 2012 ... But it was his approach to politics that got members of the Young Americans for Liberty — a Paulite Libertarian group that co-sponsored the event — excited: ... Greenwald specifically addresses a possible alliance between progressives and Ron Paul libertarians. He also mentions Gary Johnson as a unique candidate with possibly the best chance of bringing this coalition together in a 2012 run for president....

http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/

[arely staircase]

3. how is your chinese mole (eh hem, source) doing, glenn"

[LondonReign2]

4. How dare Greeenwald point out the hypocrisy

of those that now support the very program they hated when Bush started it!!!

I'm outraged! Has the man no shame?!?!!

[pnwmom]

11. Hypocrisy? How about "progressives" like Greenwald who take money from the Koch brothers'

and their Cato Institute?

[flamingdem]

23. ^^^^^^^ this

does hypocrisy smell like Chinese food?

[struggle4progress]

30. His agenda is to turn progressives against Dems and re-form them as libertartian voters

[Bjorn Against]

5. Sadly there is a lot of truth in what he says

I get very frustrated when I hear people who stood up against injustice during the Bush Administration turn around and try to justify the unjustifiable today. Blind partisanship is destructive to this nation, if people care only about the party and are willing to abandon principle out of blind loyalty they deserve to be called out on their hypocrisy.

The NSA is a threat to our freedom, they need to be confronted on their abuse of power not cheered.

[ucrdem]

13. Well, there's an emotional truth I guess,

to the degree that it resonates with swing voters, but there's really no there there. Dem partisans aren't defending NSA, they're defending the administration from a RW attack, which is clearly what this is. If you parse what Greenwald writes or says, it's almost always a deception engineered as in this case to make Dems look weak, corrupt, dishonest, or otherwise unattractive. That's his job basically.

[Bjorn Against]

22. You obviously have not read much Greenwald

The guy is not a partisan and does not attack on a partisan basis, he has gone after Republicans many times. While Bush was in office Greenwald was one of his harshest critics, his views have not changed since then only the person in the White House has and he holds Obama to the same standards he held Bush. I don't agree with the guy on everything, but he is not the right-wing hack many people here seem intent on portraying him as and in fact he leans left on most issues.

[ucrdem]

27. He didn't start writing for Salon unitl 2007

and he didn't become the king of all media he now is until after Bush-Cheney left office. And from my first encounters with Greenwald links and postings in online fora he's been a ratfucker, i.e., he goes after Dems for being hypocrites and paints them with all the unpleasant qualities of the GOP i.e. dishonest, corrupt, rich, out of touch etc. His game has been pretty easy to spot all along.

[Bjorn Against]

35. He started speaking out against Bush well before 2007

His book "How Would a Patriot Act" came out in 2006 and he was blogging against the Bush Administration for a different site well before its release. You may want to take a look at the things he wrote during the Bush years because it would prove to you that he has not focused on party, he is focused on the people in power. When it is Republicans in power he goes after Republicans, when it is Democrats in power he goes after Democrats. Ever since his political awakening after the Iraq War started he has been consistent in his principles, he holds Obama to the same standards he held Bush. You may not agree with all of his positions, but that does not make him a right-winger.

[ucrdem]

42. So we're told.

But "How Would a Patriot Act" looks just like the kind of book Borders used to stock in its winger section. I remember buying my dad that kind of crap back when he still read books lol. The Amazon description says Glennboy was apolitical until 911, then became a rabid neocon, then had some kind of epiphany and decided Bush was doing it all wrong. Hmmm. I can't actually read any of it because Amazon doesn't have a look inside feature for this book which incidentally is about 128 pages, pretty short.

[Bjorn Against]

46. Seriously? You clearly know nothing about that book if you claim it is a winger book.

Before I saw this post I had already posted a link to an excerpt for you, but here it is again so you can see just how wrong you are to call Greenwald a "rabid neocon"...

http://www.alternet.org/story/36070/excerpt%3A_how_would_a_patriot_act

Seriously? Rabid Neo-con? You reveal with that statement that you have absolutely no clue whatsoever about who Greenwald is, he is most certainly not a neo-con and in fact is one of the most outspoken voices against neo-conservatism.

[ucrdem]

56. LOL, read it yourself:

I said the Amazon description and here it is:

Book Description

Publication Date: May 15, 2006

Glenn Greenwald was not a political man. Not liberal, not conservative. Politicians were all the same and it didn’t matter which party was in power. Extremists on both ends canceled each other out, and the United States would essentially remain forever centrist. Or so he thought. Then came September 11, 2001. Greenwald’s disinterest in politics was replaced by patriotism, and he supported the war in Afghanistan. He also gave President Bush the benefit of the doubt over his decision to invade Iraq.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Would-Patriot-Act-Defending/dp/097794400X

"Greenwald’s disinterest in politics was replaced by patriotism, and he supported the war in Afghanistan. He also gave President Bush the benefit of the doubt over his decision to invade Iraq." That to me says rabid neocon, sorry. YMMV.

[Bjorn Against]

60. Did you even read one sentence past that part you quoted?

I will quote the whole Amazon description so everyone can see the dishonest way you took that quote completely out of context...

Glenn Greenwald was not a political man. Not liberal, not conservative. Politicians were all the same and it didn’t matter which party was in power. Extremists on both ends canceled each other out, and the United States would essentially remain forever centrist. Or so he thought. Then came September 11, 2001. Greenwald’s disinterest in politics was replaced by patriotism, and he supported the war in Afghanistan. He also gave President Bush the benefit of the doubt over his decision to invade Iraq. But, as he saw Americans and others being disappeared, jailed and tortured, without charges or legal representation, he began to worry. And when he learned his president had seized the power to spy on American citizens on American soil, without the oversight required by law, he could stand no more. At the heart of these actions, Greenwald saw unprecedented and extremist theories of presidential power, theories that flout the Constitution and make President Bush accountable to no one, and no law. How Would a Patriot Act? is one man’s story of being galvanized into action to defend America’s founding principles, and a reasoned argument for what must be done. Greenwald’s penetrating words should inspire a nation to defend the Constitution from a president who secretly bestowed upon himself the powers of a monarch. If we are to remain a constitutional republic, Greenwald writes, we cannot abide radical theories of executive power, which are transforming the very core of our national character, and moving us from democracy toward despotism. This is not hyperbole. This is the crisis all Americans—liberals and conservatives--now face. In the spirit of the colonists who once mustered the strength to denounce a king, Greenwald invites us to consider: How would a patriot act today?

This has been the tactic of those trying to smear Greenwald recently, they take things completely out of context in order to present a completely false narrative of who Greenwald is. The only time in which Greenwald supported Bush was when he was not even a political person, you will never find a quote of him defending Bush or the war anywhere. When he held those pro-war views he was not known to anyone, he never once wrote a column or made any public statement in support of the war or George Bush. He held those views to himself, and then he realized he was lied to. He became political the moment he realized he was lied to by the neo-cons, he has been a fierce critic of them ever since. To call him a neo-con is pure ignorance.

[ucrdem]

62. Yes, and I summarized it accurately in post #42:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023005105#post42

So what are you getting so upset about? And if you want to know, no, I don't believe Glenn was ever that much of a rube, and I don't believe he ever had some "he could stand no more" epiphany either. If he did he might have put some skin in the 2004 election and I don't see any evidence of that. What I see is a cynical opportunist finding a publishing niche. And I guess the rest is history eh?

[Bjorn Against]

64. You didn't even read it, much less summarize it.

You "don't see any evidence" because you have already determined you won't accept any evidence.

[ucrdem]

67. By "it" I meant the Amazon summary which is what you just quoted. nt

[NOVA_Dem]

68. That was an intellectually dishonest cut/paste job. They should be embarrassed.

It's really pathetic what some people will do to excuse PO. That's the kind of stuff you see from the right wing. I can't believe he/she stopped before the critical sentence that completely contradicted the point he/she was erroneously trying to make.

[ucrdem]

40. Yes, but there's not enough at the wiki link to make any kind of judgement on his early writing. nt

[Bjorn Against]

43. Maybe rather than making judgments on it you should actually read what he wrote?

You can read an excerpt from his book "How Would a Patriot Act?" here...

http://www.alternet.org/story/36070/excerpt%3A_how_would_a_patriot_act

Read that and then try to tell me it sounds like the words of a Republican partisan.

[ucrdem]

47. Not exactly news in May '06. Also he mentions Kerry "stumbling" in '04.

I might take a different view of Glennboy if there's any evidence that he actually supported the Kerry ticket in 04 but I'd be very surprised if he did.

[Bjorn Against]

49. So did you publish a book before 2006? If not then I fail to see how you can fault Greenwald.

He was blogging a couple years before the book came out, you clearly know nothing about the guy. You have tried claiming he is a "rabid neocon", anyone who has even the remotest clue as to Greenwald's positions on anything would laugh at that ridiculous assertion. The Teabagger's idiotic claims that Obama is a socialist have about as much credibility as your claim that Greenwald is a neo-con.

[ucrdem]

52. What I'm claiming is that he's a ratfucker, i.e. RW operative and propagandist,

and I see nothing to suggest that he wouldn't be perfectly suited for that job, whether or not he actually held it in 2006.

[Bjorn Against]

54. Well considering you don't even know what he wrote and depend on Wiki to "make judgments"

Your claims don't hold much weight.

[ucrdem]

58. LOL, I just reviewed his entire boring Libertarian blog and commented on it.

And in any case he could have written War and Peace in 2006 and it wouldn't change the fact that he's currently a ratfucker working for the Kochs.

[Bjorn Against]

61. You reviewed his entire blog that has been going for eight years now in just a few minutes?

Wow, you should go speak to the Guiness Book of World Records because your speed reading ability seems to be superhuman. Or else you are just spouting crap, which I think is the more likely possibility.

[ucrdem]

51. Okay thanks. Yes, there's lot's there. Here are my impressions:

1) It's mostly Libertarian, i.e. arguments defending this or that civil liberty, like the right of Brazilians to bear arms. That's not necessarily bad or corrupt, but it doesn't strike me as particularly progressive either. About what I'd expect from a disenchanted Republican. And

2) It starts in October 2005, i.e. well after the 2004 election, too late to make any real difference, thus saving Glennboy the necessity of having to declare outright for Bush-Cheney a second time.

[ucrdem]

59. I'm a fast reader I guess.

Last edited Thu Jun 13, 2013, 02:54 AM - Edit history (1)

On edit: I read what I could, yes. For some reason that site kept crashing my laptop -- not just my browser, the whole enchilada -- so after the 3rd restart I gave up and went with what I'd gathered. Next time I'm a bigger computer I'll drink more deeply. Thanks for posting the links and sorry about the snippy reply.

[ucrdem]

6. Ratfucker on crack

and irritating as all hell. A natural RW media sensation.

[one_voice]

7. the defenders...

in 3...2...1...

mustn't say anything bad about Glenn he's fighting the entire system single-handedly....rah rah sis boom bah!!!

Glenn Glenn he's our man if he can't save us no one can...

oh wait...

[burnodo]

26. HAHA! Trying to turn around the worship?

Nobody worships Greenwald. They listen to him. You, on the other hand...

[one_voice]

34. Me on the other hand what?

You seem to know so much about me, please continue....

Please finish that sentence...don't throw out half assed accusations...

[hamster]

50. I think he/she's trying to say that you're a President Obama worshipper

they say stuff like that to me. sometimes it's tricky the way they say it though. The Republicans drove the car into a ditch and now they want the car back. President Obama's got this.

[WillyT]

8. I'm Pretty Sure He Was Attacked First... I Know He Was Here...

[woo me with science]

9. The truth hurts.

Last edited Wed Jun 12, 2013, 09:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Thank you, Glenn Greenwald, for telling it.

[geek tragedy]

10. Of course Ron Paul's blushing cheerleader would take that angle. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. 'Slavishly Partisan' Democrats In The Media Are Cheerleading Policies They Used To Hate "

now, what part of that statement is not true?

[struggle4progress]

41. One difference is that the Jan 2006 polls was taken shortly after the Dec 2005 revelations

that the Bush administration had for some years been engaged in widespread warrantless wiretapping

[quinnox]

14. As usual, he has a point

God bless him, but its hard to argue with this. Heck, we have seen it right here on DU during the past few days.

[one_voice]

21. LOL..

God bless him...

[eissa]

15. Hitchens 2.0

A contrarian who simply hates everyone. Yeah, Glenn, if only everyone was as principled as you and your traitorous pet. Btw, how did that Iraq war that your neocon ass cheered for go? Douche.

[ucrdem]

17. traitorous pet

LOL

[BlueCaliDem]

53. ^^^This!^^^ eom

[OilemFirchen]

16. I note that...

other than naming Toobin and Klein ("left-leaning members of the media" - (sic)), he didn't actually cite examples of either Toobin or Klein's "shifted stances on surveillance and civil liberties". Perhaps they have, but I guess Greenwald is saving those specifics for some later date?

[ucrdem]

19. Bingo.

Revelation of the method.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

18. They deserve it

As well as the republicans.

This issue is non-partisan.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. He's right about the "slavishly partisan Democrats" in the media and here on DU.

[OilemFirchen]

25. Do you have any better examples than Greenwald?

Media, of course. Don't call out Duers.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. You're kidding. Just look at all the posts attacking Snowden & Greenwald.

[OilemFirchen]

32. Did you not read my response?

Please. I asked a legitimate question. Been at work all day. Maybe I missed it.

Can you name a "slavishly partisan Democrat" in the media who has changed his or her tune?

[99Forever]

31. The spineless fools keep given him power ammo...

... and then whine like babies when he uses it. Too bad, so sad. Quit acting like Republicans if you don't want to get treated like them.

[reformist2]

33. Many Dems are paranoid that it's another scandal cooked up by the Repugs to get Obama.

Instead of seizing the moment, to try to get to the bottom of what the NSA has been doing, they'd rather sweep it under the rug.

[struggle4progress]

37. No, it's purely a libertarian game: libertarian Greenwald finds libertarian Snowden,

and they then produce a leak, astonishingly well-timed to coincide with Obama's meeting with the Chinese

Snowden, explaining himself, says that, although he didn't vote for Obama, he nevertheless feels Obama did not live up to all the hopes Snowden had invested in him -- which rather well follows the script Greenwald suggested in early November 2010 for stripping progressives from the Dems and turning them into libertarian voters

[TheKentuckian]

65. Always about the who, never the what.

Folks can't follow where some would wish to lead and seem bound and determined to go. My enthusiasm for being a Democrat came from a civil rights and civil liberties traditions in no small part, many a sturdy Democrat have been dyed in the wool civil and /or social libertarians.

It is largely pointless to not be equally dedicated to civil rights or essentially access to enumerated and natural rights protect by the government and civil liberties or essential what rights there are. Perfect equality among subject serfs is as worthless on the user end as unlimited liberty for the few or the one. There is not one without the other, it is a lie or a twisted delusion.

I figure I am far from the only one that is not even going to pretend to give lip service to shying away from defending much less apologizing for full throated defense of our rights and liberties or give a shit about partisan spitballing or legacy shielding for a transactional corporate pol doing shit that he knows damn well some folks could never swallow and keeps piling it up drones, indefinite detention in concert with Congress, stepping up the stupid ass drug war probably utilizing the shitty surveillance apparatus in reality far more than any anti-terrorism efforts.

Getting called on your shit isn't a ratfucking and that is what happened because there is a level of pretense that Congress passed a law dictating the Executive branch carry out these programs, when the reality is Congress passed a law that permits them so while everyone is hollering about this being known forget that we voted to end the Bushshit era not continue it under new management and lots of very defensive folks know this good and well whether they will admit to it or not and that is the majority of the problem not any external shenanigans.

Congress has plenty of responsibility to restrict these practices and ensure that corporations are using our information in ways consistent with their use to the end user. How is your bank not going to know how much is in your account? Credit card company has to know what you buy on the card by definition. So, you have willfully compromised private information to perform a task, a service, or provide a benefit like store discount cards (which you can skip and pay cash if you please.

None of that excuses continuing the Bush machine papered over with trappings of legality and little of the spirit approaching mockery territory.

[madrchsod]

38. has`t greenwad had his 3 minutes of bullshit?

i love this brilliant piece of writing...


"...most slavishly partisan media Democrats..." ".....principle -free,hackish,and opportunistic to be overly generous...."

where oh where would greenwald be without them?

[SidDithers]

39. Fuck Greenwald...nt

Sid

[UTUSN]

44. R#3 & K for, yip, that's de facto what he does. n/t

[think]

48. there is forest

beyond that tree....

[forestpath]

55. He's pointing out the obvious there.

[MNBrewer]

63. WHo is in power?

Democrats. Oval office, Senate.

[JDPriestly]

66. Those who have nothing to hide need not fear investigations.

If the Democrats are innocent in this matter, then we have nothing to fear. Isn't that what we are always told.

If you have nothing to hide, you don't need to fear investigations or the government getting your records.

Same for the government.