Glenn Greenwald’s Hilarious Denial About His Support for Iraq War

[oberliner]

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/

[Federosky]

1. I challenge you to post one link to Greenwald praising the Iraq War

One.

[oberliner]

2. It's in the OP

"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."

[Federosky]

5. lmao! So your link is to the praface he wrote in his ANTIWAR book in 2006?

Let me ask you again: I challenge you to post one link where Glenn Greenwald praised the Iraq war.

Remember, There cannot be any links from 2005 or afterwards, since Greenwald started blogging in 2005 and always opposed the war in his writings.

Again, no 2006 anti-war books. That hurts your cause.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. LOL

Presented with an answer and it was summarily dismissed because the question had strings attached!

That's DU for ya!

[Agschmid]

15. Or just a troll.

[oberliner]

18. It's not an anti-war book

Not sure why you would think that it was. Have you not read it?

[DirkGently]

6. This old play again? Fail. Where's the pro-Iraq writings?

That's intro from the book refuting Iraq / Bush. Everyone knows this. Everyone has seen the same people sling that same article around, that just quotes Greenwald's book in which he first mentions he once supported the Iraq war.

You can't argue someone's "obfuscating" their opinion when the only evidence you have is their own statement telling you their opinion.

Not. Going. To work.

[TiberiusB]

30. Well, that's not exactly support

Deferring to the Bush administration's judgement, while arguably stupid, isn't necessarily the same thing as actual open support for the war. It can be argued that inaction or apathy is effectively the same as support (the whole, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke) thing). As for Greenwald's occasional attacks on those people who have perhaps come to the same conclusions he has, albeit on a more protracted timeline, I can see people calling him out for being overly critical and perhaps even a hypocrite. However, if those people were in Congress and in a position to actually affect policy, then I can see leaning on them a bit harder, especially since I simply do not believe that a good many Congressional Dems were really as ignorant of the facts as they like to claim. The U.S. has been in the war business for a loooong time.

[oberliner]

40. Fair enough

But it's definitely not opposition. I'm not sure what I'd call it. I can see how someone could read it as support though.

[Kahuna]

41. 'His loyalty is to his country...'

What a scream.

[ProSense]

4. Here

This is Greenwald's debunk of his support for the Iraq war?
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023134060

From the preface Greenwald cites in piece at the link.

During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. 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.

<...>

[Federosky]

10. Haha. Another links to Greenwald's 2006 ANTIWAR book

In his preface that you quoted (just like the other member above), Greenwald does not praise the Iraq War.

Do you know what praise means?

Wait a minute. Are you saying that in 2006 Greenwald simply said that in 2003 he was for the war yet no links exists of him praising it because he didn't have a blog or any other platform?

[ProSense]

13. "I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration.

"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..."

"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'd be LMAO reading that too.

[MH1]

27. He did say that he had trust in the Bush administration.

That's an indicator of rather poor judgment, especially after the 9/11 attacks.

I just never could figure out why Bush's approval ratings went up after 9/11. That made no sense to me at all! (as someone who knew that day that it was bin Laden behind it). But Glenn Greenwald, apparently, fell in with the rest of the sheep on that one. Which only proves that he isn't some omniscient person of impeccable vision and judgment, ya know?

[DirkGently]

11. That's the same paragraph again. And again. And again. Not fooling anyone.

Evidence consisting of Greenwald saying he once supported Iraq, written as a preface to his anti-Iraq book, is not evidence Greenwald hid his support for Iraq.

But you knew that.

[struggle4progress]

3. He portrays himself as a civil rights lawyer, but aside from his defense of a white supremicist

nobody seems to know what kind of cases he was actually litigating

[sigmasix]

8. greenwald continues to support extreme right wing

Greenwald's admiration for the Teabagger faction has been noted on more than one occasion. He refers reverently to them as "the new breed of small government conservatives" when the truth about these people is that they want more government intrusion into women's bodies, LGBT rights and the church. Any intelligent observor of American partisan politics from the last ten years is aware of the truth about the teabagger faction, yet Greenwald continues to heap praise on them- why do you suppose that is? Koche brothers don't want their paid media agents to smear the teabagger faction so Greenwald is only doing what his paymasters tell him.
What kind of moron idolizes a paid media whore?

[Federosky]

12. Wait a minute. Isn't the "Greenwald left" in on this too?

I'm all confused now. Is it right or left or right-left?

[BumRushDaShow]

16. He's an opportunist out to make money. nt

[sigmasix]

43. the only dipshit

The only dipshits I see in this post are the ones that think Teabaggers and their media support operatives are supporters of LGBT rights. There are plenty of homosexual republicans and right wingers that vote against their best interest to support the party- why do you think greenwald's sexuality is so moral that it over-rides his partisan ideology? Talk about ignorant dipshitery; There are many LGBT individuals that support the republican party and right wing agendas even though the RNC hates LGBT individuals. Glenn is a deeply morally flawed individual- supporting homophobic teabaggers makes sense to hate-mongers that want the teabaggers to destroy America, Even when the hate-monger is homosexual.

[pscot]

25. Free associate much?

It barely worked for Joyce and Faulkner. But you? Total incoherence.

[backscatter712]

29. I think you need to come off the acid... n/t

[SidDithers]

9. DU Rec...nt

Sid

[Catherina]

14. LMAO! Greenwald never said that

The quote “Had I known then what I know now, I would not have supported it” is something the author threw in as a general statement used by Democrats who supported the war.

It looks really bad when people take a quote someone made up and use it as proof of something.

That quote exists in 3 places, the original article you quoted in your OP, the exact same article in the DailyPundit, and surprise, surprise, Democratic Underground.



The 5 omitted results are from DU. And now you just made it 6. Congratulations.

Google search for the phrase “Had I known then what I know now, I would not have supported it”

[ProSense]

17. The

"LMAO! Greenwald never said that The quote “Had I known then what I know now, I would not have supported it” is something the author threw in as a general statement used by Democrats who supported the war.

...author of the post didn't claim that Greenwald "said that." It was as you acknowledge a "general statement."

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 did say:

"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..."

"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."

This is Greenwald's debunk of his support for the Iraq war?
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023134060

From the preface Greenwald cites in piece at the link.

During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. 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.

<...>

[ucrdem]

21. +1

I had a conversation with a friend today that made me realize why "disillusioned" Dems are soooooo unwilling to admit that Glenn is and was a Bush-war loving neocon who changed his stripes to Libertarian after getting busted by the IRS: it's because then they have to admit that all the other fake-left pundits are also Democrat-despising ratfuckers whose usefulness to the RW is too transparent.

Anyway that's my theory.

[Hissyspit]

36. Ah, so it's "theory" now...

Yes, that does sound a lot better than "slander I just make up to fling."

[uponit7771]

45. +1

[Major Hogwash]

64. So, Greenwald supported Bush and did not abandon his trust in the Bush administration.

That makes a lot of sense now.

[oberliner]

19. It's not meant to be a direct quote from him

It's meant to be the gist of the sentiments of a lot of people with respect to the war. The actual quote from Greenwald is cited later in the article.

[Vinnie From Indy]

22. i wonder if what we are getting here on DU is just another evolution of the HB Gary scheme

to discredit Greenwald a few years ago. In short, an NSA contractor was caught red-handed conspiring with the Chamber of Commerce to do EXACTLY what we are being fed daily here on DU.

Read about the earlier "dirty tricks" campaign here:
http://www.salon.com/2011/02/15/palantir/




Also, if I were at the Chamber and had hired this current group of online attack dogs to go after Greenwald on places like DU, I would want my money back or at least a steep discount. These guys attacking Greenwald here are not persuasive at all. In fact, their efforts seem to have backfired judging by the three or four star ranks on the Greatest Page that pro-Snowden/Greenwald threads routinely achieve.

Cheers!

[ucrdem]

23. Greenwald didn't need HBGary to discredit him.

He's never done a creditable deed in his life as far as I can tell unless you want to call paid lying creditable.

[Robb]

24. I myself have been wrong on at least two occasions.

[Th1onein]

26. Tonight, I've decided to celebrate DU by putting everyone who is attacking the messengers

of the NSA spying scandal, on FULL IGNORE.

Welcome to my ignore list, oberliner.

[revmclaren]

32. I dont ignore...

I watch and save pages....

[Th1onein]

35. Many of these people are here to take our attention away from organizing.

They're not here to convince you of anything, or even to argue. They are here to use up your time, and your emotions, , and any energy that you have, so that energy won't be used to fight what they are doing to us and to our country.

I'm going to leave them fighting each other. You would do well to do the same.

[sigmasix]

44. can i be a proud member of that list too? NT

[madrchsod]

28. du was mentioned in the comment section of the daily banter....

[revmclaren]

31. The tinfoil Greenies are in full force tonight.

I myself will take no sides on the 'horrific' NSA conspiracy until at least GGs book comes out in a year when it will be timed for the 2014 election that he is NOT trying to influence. Why (if the NSA information is so critical to all Americans) is he waiting to tell all? I want to know my fate now! I want to know how the evil 'Govment is listening to my private calls and reading my emails and plotting to imprison me in a NSA camp where I will only be able to listen to Obama and Hillery rant about the hopey-Changey thing and make me eat my veggies. In a year or so Snowden will speak fluent Russian and have a nice apartment overlooking Red Square. Because thats what heroes do...

And please ignore me. It seems that it is a badge of sanity on the Green-Snow threads these days.

Peace

[cherokeeprogressive]

33. Take no sides huh...

Too funny.

[revmclaren]

34. Hey...

Seems like everybody on both sides have already decided how they believe on the NSA front even if they say they are open to new info so I feel....'what the hell.... Hypocrisy is the norm here so when in China... (or Russia)

[FiveGoodMen]

49. Some in this country want a fascist theocracy

Where do you stand on that?

[revmclaren]

59. Being pagan for most of my life...

I dont support any 'organized' religion. My username comes from my being ordained in the church of Spiritual Humanism. And what exactly does my religious beliefs have to do with whether I 'worship' Snowden or Greenwald'? Until now I have only had my religious leanings brought up by right wingers and Jesus freaks. What gives? Sinking to there level much?

[FiveGoodMen]

60. Are you sure you replied to the right post?

Mine never said anything about worshiping anyone.

My point was, there are some things beyond the pale and you're allowed to be against them without waiting to see how it all comes out.

[revmclaren]

63. Sorry if I misunderstood you but A Theocracy

by definition is Religious in nature. Even Fascist ones. The Nazis had their Thule society controlling much of what their leadership did. The US hasnt reached that point yet (and yes I did say yet) but Russia is rapidly getting there. Snowden fleeing there has quite a few of us shaking our heads. Russia has all the evils of the US PLUS! And yes people...they do have drones...and a massive spying network..and the beginnings of a REAL human rights nightmare. And I dont trust Snowden not to give Russia all the stolen info. Once a thief and all....

[oberliner]

39. It's just in reference to another post

There was a post about lies told about Glenn Greenwald, where he claims that saying he once supported the Iraqi war is a lie.

[ljm2002]

55. 56 posts and already you start with the name calling...

..."tinfoil Greenies".

Pathetic and unpersuasive.

You seem to think he ought to be able to pen a book in two weeks flat, and if he can't do that, then obviously he is timing his book to affect the election.

Pathetic and unpersuasive.

Your attempt to ridicule people's concerns by implying the whole mind set is about the "evil 'Govment" and "NSA camp" etc. is simply another bit of poo-flinging.

Pathetic and unpersuasive.

[revmclaren]

65. Whats pathetic is unearned hero worship.

And just because I have a low post ratings doesn't mean I don't have a grip on the whole story, It just means that some on DU will reply to anything to have a high post count. I, like hundreds of others sit on the sidelines reading the 'pissing contest' posts and make up our own minds how we see and react to the whole Snowden fiasco. We also check facts immediately and laugh our asses off when someone (ones) get stuck in a Mobius loop of illogical statements. As for name calling......



The hypocrisy of that statement is amazing with what I have read from the Green-Snows reacting to the non-hero worshipers.

You've made my day!



Now back to the sidelines.

[ljm2002]

67. No, really, it's the name calling...

...that you continue to indulge in here, that is pathetic.

Of course a low post count does not mean you don't understand the story. But the low post count, coupled with the "content" of your posts, makes me question whether you sincerely want to converse about these topics, or whether you would rather just sling mud.

Name calling is content-free and serves only to disrupt discussion.

[revmclaren]

68. ...

[burnodo]

37. So Greenwald supporting the Iraq war is bad, Democrats supporting the Iraq war...

Is OK? Can the Greenwald haters hold their Democrats up to the same standard as they do Glenn Greenwald?

[oberliner]

38. That's not what the article says

Just that it's ridiculous for him to claim that he didn't support it given his past comments. In fact, the article suggests the same standards with respect to those who supported it initially but changed their mind later.

[DirkGently]

47. What past comments? How is that not completely circular?

I am fascinated by this anti-Greenwald trope. I've that link a couple of times each time it's been posted, and it appears to be completely circular.

Step 1.
Greenwald wrote one paragraph in an anti-Bush / anti-Iraq war book, that he once trusted Bush on the Iraq war.

Step 27.
Therefore, Greenwald is pretending to have never supported the Iraq war.


Can you fill any of the missing bits, or is this just as completely nonsensical as it appears to be?

[oberliner]

48. The one paragraph you mentioned

How Would a Patriot Act? is not an anti-Iraq war book. Have you read it? Iraq is barely mentioned at all.

Anyway, as you point out, he says he once trusted Bush on the Iraq war. Thus, it's not a lie to say so. A lot of people opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, Greenwald admits himself that he was not one of those people.

[DirkGently]

50. Where did Greenwald deny he wrote that?

That whole article just talks in circles. The author makes reference to calling Greenwald out as though he "obfuscated" his views somehow, but it all just comes back around to the fact he wrote that one paragraph. It never shows how he supposedly misrepresented himself, it just keeps saying he did.

It's almost too petty for me to believe anyone would even argue this and honestly think they were saying anything.

Am I missing something? Does the article actually SHOW Greenwald either lying about his position on Iraq, or pretending he didn't write the intro to his own book?

Or is it what it looks like to me -- a really weird attempt to turn the fact that Greenwald did change his mind on Iraq -- like Hillary and so many others -- into something that is somehow supposedly culpable or embarrassing by combing the carpet fibers to find a way to claim he lied about it?

Really stinks of a deliberately fallacious smear, but maybe I just can't penetrate the circular prose of the article?

[oberliner]

51. I pretty much agree with you

I guess "support" is a strong word. It's fair to say though that he had faith in the Bush administration and did not oppose the Iraq War at the outset.

Can we agree on that?

[DirkGently]

53. I agree he said he once felt that way, yes. Not that he lied about it later.

[Broward]

42. I suspect some staunch opponents here of the Iraq War

would have been proud defenders if it was a Dem president that took us there.

[frylock]

46. you can bank that

[dennis4868]

52. you are brave

to post an anti Greenwald post on DU...this is Greenwald country. DU is now the anti government, hate the government no matter what website.

[ljm2002]

56. Nonsense.

Every day for the past few weeks there have been dozens of anti-Greenwald posts.

Furthermore, saying that DU is an anti government site is ridiculous. Yes many of us have complaints about the government. Well surprise, surprise! Hey, here's a clue: this is a political discussion board. You think that people who are interested enough in politics to post here regularly, are not going to have opinions about what goes on with our government? You think we are obliged to fall in line and agree with everything the government does, just because there is a Democratic President? Doesn't work that way.

[Quantess]

62. You must have the wrong people on ignore, if that's how you see DU.

There are plenty of loud, dedicated anti-Greenwald foes here! Go find your friends.

[dionysus]

54. this will upset the tiger beat crew...

[Rex]

57. So should anyone that voted for the IWR!

nt.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

58. What nonsense he has admitted his mistake so often in fact that he created a web page documenting it

not to mention all the work he then did to open other's eyes to the evil of the bush crime family, and others in our gov, which he continues to do to this very day.

These are the lamest M$M style smears that do nothing but sap the credibility of the posters of them.

:shakes-head:


Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!

Edward Snowden's Dad Calls Him 'Modern Day Paul Revere'
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/edward-snowdens-dad-calls-modern-day-paul-revere/story?id=19554337

Hmmm... who knew who influential a DU meme could be

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. Unlike Hillary and others who made no secret of their vociferous support of Bush's war.

[AtomicKitten]

66. It would behoove Greenwald to just pull the Band-Aid off.

After uttering the words:

" I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration ... I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt."

... Greenwald would be better served just letting it go. His passionate denials are just bringing more attention to something he simply cannot deny with a straight face.