Look what that libertarian asshole said about the President!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

That SOB Greenwald has gone too far this time. Don’t believe me? Just look at what DU’ers have said about him recently:

Glenn Greenwald: Asshole
-DU, 2014 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024928178)

“But, who gives a shit…he was an asshole before this and he’ll always be an asshole if his record of history is any indication”.
-DU, 2014 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024928178)

“Glenn Greenwald is a fucking Ugly American”.
-DU, 2014 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024928178)

“Many of us thought Greenwald was an asshole from the start.”
-DU, 2014 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024928178)

“Assholes have an important purpose in life. Greenwald doesn’t”
-DU, 2014 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024928178)

“Greenwald has always been a self serving, drama whoring dickhead”
-DU, 2014 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024928178)

“Greenwald is a clown, and his sycophants are comedy gold”
-DU, 2014 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024928178)

“Asshole doesn’t even begin to characterize this self absorbed mf’er!”
-DU, 2014 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024928178)

“A despicable little creature” (Greenwald). “How low and sick he is”.
-DU, 2014 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024928178)

“Greenwald is an asshole and anybody who denies that denies the facts”
-DU, 2014 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024928178)

“Greenwald is so militant in his Obama hatred that it leads him to adopt crazy policies and strange bedfellows. Fuck him”.
-DU, 2014 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024928444)

“Greenwald is a piece of shit bigot who will manipulate any hater for his own good”
-DU, 2014 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024928444)

“Greenwald only cares about Greenwald. If he had any iota of sense, he wouldn’t have peddled Bush lies when it came to Iraq. He has zero credibility on any international issue. He’s a hack. He’s a bigot and the fact that his viewpoint is tolerated here shows just how deeply crazy DU has become.”
-DU, 2014 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024928444)

“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”.
-DU, 2013 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023362480)

(referring to Greenwald) “Fuckhead has no filters, because he has no conscience”
-DU, 2014 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024928673)

===
But enough about DUers are our righteous hatred of that teabagging bastard. Let’s look at what the asshole has said about the President, his advisors, and the party, in his own words. And as we look at his own words, let us remember that placing our trust in liars and propagandists never ends well. Never. Take it from here, Mr. Greenwald:
===

As much as anything else, Bush defenders are characterized by an increasingly absolutist refusal to recognize any facts which conflict with their political desires, and conversely, by a borderline-religious embrace of any assertions which bolster those desires. It's a world-view which conflates desire with reality, disregards all facts and evidence that conflict with the decreed beliefs, and faithfully embraces any assertions and fantasies, no matter how baseless and flagrantly false, provided that they bolster the mythology.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/anatomy-of-thought-process-of-bush.html
-Greenwald, 2006

The significance of this article from today's New York Times cannot be overstated. In essence, while the President sits in the White House undisturbed after proudly announcing that he has been breaking the law and will continue to do so, his slavish political appointees at the Justice Department are using the mammoth law enforcement powers of the federal government to find and criminally prosecute those who brought this illegal conduct to ligh
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-greenwald/silencing-bush-critics-wi_b_15494.html
-Greenwald, 2006

The Wall St. Journal Editorial Page wanted someone to defend George Bush's serial assertions of "Executive Privilege" to block investigations into his wrongdoing, and it turned, of course, to ex-Bush-DOJ-lawyer John Yoo, who is not only the most authoritarian but also the most partisan and intellectually dishonest lawyer in the country. Yoo is not only willing -- but intensely eager -- to defend literally anything George W. Bush does or would want to do, including -- literally -- torturing people and crushing the testicles of children if the Leader decreed that doing so was necessary to fight Terrorists.
http://crooksandliars.com/2007/07/25/glenn-greenwald-john-yoo-was-against-executive-privilege-before-he-was-for-it
-Greenwald, 2007

“The same president who has insisted that core moralism drives him has brought America to its lowest moral standing in history.”
https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/849392-a-tragic-legacy-how-a-good-vs-evil-mentality-destroyed-the-bush-presid
-Greenwald, 2007

It is difficult, and I think foolish, to ignore these ugly impulses which are always pulsating immediately beneath the veneer of so many Bush followers. These are not random, fringe commentators whose extremist views are being held up to make a point. Rather, these are among the most representative and, in Bennett's case, influential Bush followers who have been incessantly and indignantly calling for the imprisonment of journalists.
http://www.alternet.org/story/35123/a_%27pulitzer_prize_for_treason%27
-Greenwald, 2006

The greatest evil of the last five years isn't that our government pursued disastrous and illegal policies, it's that the administration and its supporters attempted to immunize themselves from criticism for those actions, thus depriving our democracy of its greatest strength. To watch the people responsible for that dissent-quashing now stand up and voice the very criticisms they've long equated with treason is far too infuriating to celebrate.
http://www.alternet.org/story/34878/gingrich_criticizes_bush,_aids_enemy
-Greenwald, 2006

Like most right-wing leaders, the life of John McCain is chocked full of dishonorable, ugly behavior. Huge numbers of female voters would be disgusted by the details of how and why he dumped his first wife, after she was in a disfiguring car accident that caused her to gain much weight and lose several inches of height, in order to marry his much younger, prettier, and extremely rich mistress with whom he had been committing adultery while his first wife raised his three children.
http://www.brooklynrail.org/2008/05/express/a-party-of-frauds
-Greenwald, 2008

Journalists should begin asking the Justice Department every day what their legal justification for warrantless eavesdropping is now that Hamdan has rendered frivolous their prior legal arguments in defense of the President.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060709_hamdam_bush_supreme_court#
-Greenwald, 2006

The Bush administration and/or its supporters unabashedly exploit terrorist threats for political gain every time a new plot is revealed — no matter how serious or frivolous, how advanced or preliminary, a particular plot might be. Bush followers squeeze such events for every last drop of political gain they can.
http://americablog.com/2007/07/guest-post-by-glenn-greenwald-about-his-new-book-a-tragic-legacy.html
-Greenwald, 2007

America’s entire history of constitutional jurisprudence, beginning with the writings of the Founders themselves in the Federalist Papers, leaves no doubt that the administration’s theories of a president with unrestrained powers are entirely alien to our system of government and laws. As a result, President Bush’s conduct is simply illegal.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/2730
-Greenwald, 2006

There is not a single bit of authority in any of this for the absurd and dangerous proposition that the President has the right to violate a criminal law passed by Congress. Period. The Administration is trotting out lawyers to make legalistic arguments designed to cloud this extremely clear issue, but none of that can change the fact that Bush defenders are arguing that he has the right to enage in conduct which Congress made it a crime to engage in, and there is nothing in the law which gives a President that right.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/bush-justifications-for-law-breaking.html
-Greenwald, 2005

People who regret their mistakes and learn from them should be welcomed and encouraged. But a vital aspect of what happened over the last eight years is the role the media — our leading media stars — played in glorifying and venerating George Bush, and that can’t be re-written or forgotten.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/bushs_flight_suit_/
-Greenwald, 2008

The self-evident strategy of the Bush defenders is to cloud the extremely clear fact
of Bush’s illegal conduct with so many legalistic justifications that people will throw
up their hands and decided that this is nothing more than an esoteric lawyer game, not
a serious threat to the founding principles of the nation and to the rule of law. But the
principle that the President does not have the right to engage in conduct which the Congress
prohibits under our criminal laws is one that is as clear as it is critical to our system of
government, and it is urgent that this clarity be maintained and the rule of law enforced.
http://www.bushstole04.com/bushfascism/bush_illegal_wiretaps1.htm
-Greenwald, 2006

There is nothing "centrist" about a Commission which decides in advance that it will not remove our troops from a war which is an unmitigated disaster and getting worse every day. It just goes without saying that if you invade and occupy a country and are achieving nothing good by staying, withdrawal must be one of the primary options considered when deciding what to do about the disaster.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/11/glenn-greenwald/the-centrist-position-on-the-wariniraq/
-Greenwald, 2006

The five men ordered released today have been imprisoned in a cage by the Bush administration for 7 straight years without being charged with any crimes and without there being any credible evidence that they did anything wrong. If the members of Congress who voted for the Military Commissions Act had their way, or if the four Supreme Court Justices in the Boumediene minority had theirs, the Bush administration would nonetheless have been empowered to keep them encaged indefinitely, for the rest of their lives if desired, without ever having to charge them with any crime or allow them to step foot into a courtroom to petition for habeas corpus.
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/11/landau_on_guant.html
-Greenwald, 2008

Diplomats and human rights activists could use that tactic for all sorts of noble purposes: 'You shouldn't detain people without trials; you don't want to end up like Bush.' 'You shouldn't torture; you don't want to end up like Bush.' 'You shouldn't use secret prisons or invade countries that haven't attacked anyone or spy on your own citizens in secret; you don't want to end up like Bush,' etc. This would be the positive converse of the recent trend whereby thugs like Robert Mugabe and even Putin justify their internal repression by pointing to the use of such measures by the Bush administration.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_11/015665.php
-Greenwald, 2008

George Bush and Dick Cheney are too widely discredited for anyone trying to appeal to the unconverted to praise their rule directly. The GOP needed new packaging, a new face. The ”tea party” movement is just a respectable way for love of GOP dogma to once again be safely expressed:
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/07/palin_64/
-Greenwald, 2010

The Right today argues that condemning torture is wrong because the people who were tortured were just Terrorists — barely human — and they deserve no defense, not even the force of law. Thomas Paine argued as a first principle that those devoted to liberty “must guard even his enemy from oppression.” Could the contrast be any more stark?
http://www.salon.com/2009/08/25/king_22/
-Greenwald, 2009

From the deranged desire to force Iraqi civilians from Basra to Baghdad to “suck on” his imaginary “very big stick” — “pound them across the side of their heads” with his “2-by-4? — to his magnanimous goal of “collaborating with them” to “build progressive politics,” Freidman’s justification for the invasion radically changes without notice or acknowledgment.
http://www.salon.com/2008/11/30/friedman_6/
-Greenwald, 2008

The stain Bill Clinton left on Monica Lewinsky’s dress isn’t remotely comparable to the stain George Bush and Dick Cheney have left on the Constitution, our political values and our national image — to say nothing of the indelible bloodstains on their hands.
http://www.salon.com/2008/11/06/dowd_5/
-Greenwald, 2008

Somehow, in Sarah Palin’s brain, it’s a threat to the First Amendment when newspapers criticize her negative attacks on Barack Obama. This is actually so dumb that it hurts.
http://www.salon.com/2008/10/31/palin_23/
-Greenwald, 2008

There are few things that make political coverage more unbearable — and more distorting — than The David Brooks Syndrome: the extremely patronizing and ill-informed pretense, shared by media and right-wing elites alike, that they can study the Little Common People like zoo animals, and then translate and give voice to their simple-minded and ignorant though good-hearted, salt-of-the-earth perspectives. Rarely has this mentality been so transparent as it has been in the wake of the Biden-Palin debate, as pundits and right-wing polemicists like Brooks, Peggy Noonan and Rich “Starbursts” Lowry rushed forward to proclaim giddily that Regular Americans would love Sarah Palin and this love could even help McCain win, despite — or, really, because of — her vapid, content-free telegenic presence.
http://www.salon.com/2008/10/04/election/
-Greenwald, 2008

The Right in this country — meaning the faction that followed George Bush for the last eight years — long ago ceased being a movement of political ideas and is driven by two, and only two, extreme emotions: (1) intense, aggressive rage towards their revolving door of enemies, and (2) bottomless self-pity over how unfairly they’re being treated.
http://www.salon.com/2008/10/02/self_absorption/
-Greenwald, 2008

There's more, lots and lots more. One can also find lots of quotes where Greenwald has been critical of the current President, but those are posted here on a daily basis. It's my hope that this goes some small distance toward countering a small handful unhinged and hateful people who nevertheless make lots of noise.

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Here's your alert results. I found the results encouraging.

On Fri May 9, 2014, 12:49 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Look what that libertarian asshole said about the President!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024930881

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

We need an entire thread attacking other DU'ers for what they say and believe in? Let the OP's author go to the thread he's linked to and comment there.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri May 9, 2014, 01:02 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Simply linking to a DUer's posts isn't against the rules, and it's hardly an attack to quote their statements. I don't agree with DisgustipatedinCA, but I'm certainly not willing to censor what was a pretty well-thought out and sourced post. I'm sure that conversation in this thread will devolve to personal attacks and trolling, but one can't vote for or against a hide based upon what MAY happen in its replies.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Apparently, some DUers are embarrassed by what they said about Greenwald on other threads.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh no you didn't. This alert can go die in a fire. And the alerter should be ashamed.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I actually think this could go either way, but I'm inclined to leave it alone. I'm sure some will think that it's meant to start a bunch of arguments. DUers can always trash the threads that get a little too heated for their taste.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Over the top. The OP needs to comment in the thread(s) he wants to comment on.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

2. Thank you. I never once thought this would be sent to a jury

Thanks for letting me know about the alert. And to think, it was sinking like a stone before someone tried to get it erased.

[Electric Monk]

3. Fuck the alerter, I think they're an asshole too :)

k&r

[1000words]

14. I'll second that ...

A desperate act, from a petty fool.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. If not for serving on the jury

I would never have even SEEN the thread, it was sinking so fast.
I was as shocked by that, as I was by the near unanimous jury opinion to keep it.


We take the good with the bad I guess.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

36. For the record, I would have not have voted to hide this...

...even though I disagree not only with this article's conclusions, but its entire premise.

Democrats are not supposed to be thin skinned. And censorship is not a substitute for a rebuttal.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[go west young man]

69. All the good stuff gets alerted on these days....

DU isn't what it used to be.....it's closer to a mix between "Time " magazine and "Readers Digest" these days.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

71. It's kind of Orwellian, as overused as that term may be.

I get that some disagree with my OP, but I completely don't get that some people wanted to stop the discussion on the grounds that I should have posted in the thread I was referring to. The problem is, I referred to several threads, so there wasn't a single thread I could've replied in and covered what I aimed to cover. I'm an ACLU-style liberal--I may vehemently disagree with everything someone has to say, but it's important to me that they have the right to say it. So while a private website can be run in any way the administrator sees fit, I'm diametrically opposed to the thinking that a small subset of posters brings to the website--an insistence on their particular brand of dogma, or they'll try to prevent you from speaking. Those people have left their core ideologies at the door and swapped them for vindictive, anti-democratic mobthink. Yeah, Orwellian.

Oh, and +1 on the Reader's Digest mention--it's the Thomas Kincaide of magazines.

[JVS]

28. "We need an entire thread attacking other DU'ers for what they say and believe in?"

Believe in?
Is hating Glenn Greenwald a religion now?

[Cartoonist]

4. Did you compile that?

Looks like a lot of work. Looks like an unhealthy compulsion too.

[Electric Monk]

6. The unhealthy compulsion is everything above the first ===

nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

11. I did complile it, yes.

I find that it's worth the small amount of effort it took--it goes some small way toward countering the attempted character assassination of Greenwald. Thanks for reading about my latest compulsion.

[Whisp]

17. you can't assassinate someone's character if they don't have any

other than being an Asshole.

[LiberalLovinLug]

21. And your awesome response is....

...to engage in a drive-by character assassination. Brilliant!

[Whisp]

34. more people are finding out what an Asshole GG is.

tick tick tick

I know that bothers some here immensely, to be on the wrong side, yet again, but hell if they will give up - it would be like admitting you were taken in by an aluminum siding salesman who ripped you off good, but to save embarassment you never tell anyone that story.

[LiberalLovinLug]

67. tick tock

A. Nothing he has said or tweeted has been wrong. Folks like you with such a sensitive ear may not want to hear any criticism about the hypocrisy of many Western nations in their deployment of military forces through past decades...but that doesn't make him an asshole in my mind.

B. Even IF he also gave ME the vapors as well from his biting observations, it has nothing to do with his Pulitzer winning work as a journalist. There are many journalists and authors and politicians throughout my life that I can separate the person's rough personality or even political stances with their actual life's work. ( pssssst MLK cheated on his wife! ). But I can understand this is too difficult for some.

C. The "wrong side" for me is the historical context on the over-due debate on citizen privacy rights that Greenwald has facilitated along with Snowden, that Obama commented about: “One thing I’m certain of: this debate will make us stronger”.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/17/obama-acknowledges-edward-snowden-nsa-reform

[LanternWaste]

24. I imagine a ten-minute cut-n-paste job would indeed appear like "a lot of work"

I imagine a ten-minute cut-n-paste job would indeed appear like "a lot of work" to those who are unused to actual work, or don't know what cut-n-paste is.

[whatchamacallit]

5. Impressive collection of Greenwald Derangement Syndrome Argle Bargle there

[GliderGuider]

7. A lovely piece of work. Simply lovely!

[wandy]

8. All I see in this is that like the "dragon lady", Maureen Dowd ...........

Greenwald hates everybody.

Is that honest journalism?
Is that grandstanding?
Is that calling it the way he sees it?
Is that just making a living?

Meh.

[MirrorAshes]

9. He's still an asshole.

The point is, so what?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Yep. That's why he won all those journalism awards.

[Cheviteau]

33. And George W Bush

won the presidency through hook and crook. Winning awards or other recognition does not negate one's assholery.

[VanillaRhapsody]

42. assholes don't get journalism awards?

[1000words]

12. This OP is an epic win

Rec'd

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Did somebody say mean things about Greenwald?

The horror.

Thank you for taking so much time to compile the above information.

I don't think DU could have survived without it.

[Drunken Irishman]

15. Bravo! I love this one the most...

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.

- Greenwald, in his own words.

I bet you won't find one quote ever where he even offers the same hint of praise for Obama.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

38. Bet? How much?

I don't typically look to journalists to find hints of praise about anyone. I think their stated job has something more to do with finding the truth and reporting it. Nonetheless:

This is why it is genuinely historic that Obama, in the midst of a difficult re-election campaign, chose to become the first US president ever to support same-sex marriage (former Vice-President Dick Cheney, citing his lesbian daughter, did so when running for re-election in 2004). One can question Obama's sincerity; some believe his reliance on gay donors and need for greater enthusiasm among his core voters was his motive. One can quibble with his rationale; some have criticized him for suggesting that states have the right to ban same-sex marriage if they wish. But one cannot reasonably question the importance of his act.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may/10/obama-historic-affirmation-same-sex-marriage

Reports indicate that President Obama has selected Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court. The announcement will be made formally this morning at 10:15 a.m. EST. This nomination should be judged principally on two grounds: (1) her judicial opinions (which Scotusblog’s Tom Goldstein comprehensively reviews here) and (2) her answers at her confirmation hearing. But based on everything that is known now, this seems to be a superb pick for Obama.
http://www.salon.com/2009/05/26/sotomayor/

And yes, I understand that the next step is to argue about the meaning and degree of "the same hint". I'm not playing that game.

[Drunken Irishman]

46. Yup...

There are many disappointments and truly bad acts for which President Obama is responsible, but for one day at least, on this single issue, he demonstrated authentic and important leadership on a civil rights issue that affects millions.

Your link just proved my point. Even when supposedly praising him, he can't help but get off a major jab at the end. Greenwald is slime.

[ProSense]

16. "Look what that libertarian asshole said about the President!"

Greenwald: Snowden Charges Show Obama’s ‘Vindictive Mentality’...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023068613

Always fun to watch the reaction criticism of Greenwald.

[madfloridian]

18. Thanks for compiling this. Not good to become known as a hate site toward anyone.

Especially a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist.

[VanillaRhapsody]

45. an asshole never won a Pulitzer prize?

Is he immune from ALL criticism because he won that?

[LiberalLovinLug]

19. Don't forget that revered news host David Gregory

...also condemned this so-called Pulitzer winning journalist and in his esteemed opinion thought he should be thrown in prison for daring to give a voice to a whistleblower. Some DUers agree with Karl Roves dance partner wholeheartedly. That should be enough!



Thanks for this post. It exposes the lopsided extremes of the authority-cowed and frightened anti-freedom-of-information crowd with those that support whistleblowers. All I hear from the former crowd is how those on the other side of the fence worship him as a "hero". Yet I hear much more extreme language from their side...asshole, traitor, etc... than I have ever seen DUers calling Greenwald or Snowden their "hero".

[PeaceNikki]

20. Leave Greenwald alone!!

[jeff47]

22. And it's pure coincidence that you didn't go back to before 2006

[DisgustipatedinCA]

23. Read more carefully. I know you'll find it in due course.

[jeff47]

25. No, I read fine. Your dates all start after 2006.

Because if you start talking about Greenwald's earlier comments, and his work as an attorney, it starts getting tricky to keep claiming he's anything but a hack.

[Electric Monk]

26. Fail. There's a quote there from 2005, as well.

There is not a single bit of authority in any of this for the absurd and dangerous proposition that the President has the right to violate a criminal law passed by Congress. Period. The Administration is trotting out lawyers to make legalistic arguments designed to cloud this extremely clear issue, but none of that can change the fact that Bush defenders are arguing that he has the right to enage in conduct which Congress made it a crime to engage in, and there is nothing in the law which gives a President that right.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/bush-justifications-for-law-breaking.html
-Greenwald, 2005

[jeff47]

27. Why, I'm sure that one quote and ignoring 2004 and before

will make him not a hack!!!!

[Electric Monk]

30. Keep on shifting those goal posts. nt

[jeff47]

32. Keep on worshiping the man. (nt)

[Luminous Animal]

39. It is hilarious that Jeff is demanding articles from 2004 when no such things exists.

[jeff47]

52. Tip: People's existence is not entirely tied to articles.

The man has a history. Read up on it sometime. It's quite illuminating about his character. Which helps explain a whole lot of his behavior.

[Luminous Animal]

55. Still waiting for those articles from 2004. Take your time.

[geek tragedy]

44. He hated Bush because he thought Bush

was too soft on immigration.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

41. maybe a friendly $5000 bet will settle this?

Hell, I need the money, I'll go with $100. Shall I email you may PayPal details?

[Luminous Animal]

29. He didn't start writing until October 2005.

[jeff47]

31. It's too bad he didn't go to first grade until he was 38.

Spending all those years not being able to write, it's such a waste.

Oh wait, you meant write...in a publication you care about....and we should ignore absolutely everything he did before then.

[Luminous Animal]

37. He was a lawyer before that. Maybe you can come up with something since you find the OP lacking.

He started writing his blog in October of 2005. This fact is not in dispute.

[jeff47]

47. Why should I bother?

So let's pretend I bother to put up his actual history. Things like his support for the Iraq war, until it became unpopular. And the scumbags Greenwald decided to represent in court. And that he tried to excuse that by talking about criminal court when he was representing them in civil court.

Heck, I could point out that he hasn't actually shown the NSA is breaking any laws, and that despite his claims to the contrary, he's only managed to leak 1 data collection program on US persons. And that one is nicely covered by a 1979 SCOTUS ruling.

Hell, Greenwald just said sending the FBI to Nigeria is disgusting. And the only defense offered is that apparently he was so utterly clueless that he thought the FBI was a full-scale invasion.

It's abundantly clear that Greenwald's fans believe in his sainthood. The man could be caught shooting babies with an AK-47 and we'd be lectured on what he was really doing.

So what's the point? Keep kneeling before him. Enjoy. And when you realize he's an asshole and a hack, maybe you will bother to be a little bit more careful with your next saint.

[geek tragedy]

48. Greenwald was a Pat Buchanan-style xenophobe

back then. Now he thinks that the US should be walled off from the world. He's been somewhat consistent.

[Luminous Animal]

53. That "support" for the Iraq War was an admission in the preface of his 2006 book.

Prior to that, he wrote nor did he publish anything about the Iraq war.

Before you publicly pass along fabrications, you might do a little research.

[jeff47]

56. Tip: People actually talk to other people.

One does not have to actually publish a book or an article in order to discuss their opinion on a subject.

[Luminous Animal]

59. Tell Glenn hello from me.

[geek tragedy]

43. And he was a Pat Buchanan type when he did. nt

[Whisp]

68. so he had no thoughts before 2005 because he wasn't a 'writer' until then?

Sorry, no sale.

He may regret saying some of the shit he did because he is a 'writer' (*ahem) now, but the record speaks.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

70. Yes, he had thoughts before 2005. He let you know those thoughts

...in the foreword to an anti-war book he published in 2006. That he decided to publish the book and make known his initial support of Bush is the ONLY reason you're aware of it. You act as though you've done a bunch of super-sleuthing and caught Greenwald in the act. You've done nothing of the sort. You've read what he made public about his private thoughts from 2001. Congratulations--this signifies that you're able to understand what Greenwald wrote about himself. "The record" speaks for itself, because he wrote that part of the record and made it available. What is it you don't get about that?

[geek tragedy]

40. Glenn Greenwald defends Tom Tancredo, bashes immigrants

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/yelling-racist-as-argument-in.html?m=1

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

Leave aside the political stupidity of labeling as bigots and racists a huge portion of the electorate which is becoming increasingly concerned about illegal immigration and which agrees with Tancredo’s sentiments. More important than the political self-destruction, Willis’ cheap name-calling -- a crude tactic wielded by many like him -- is substantively vacuous.

...



Current illegal immigration – whereby unmanageably endless hordes of people pour over the border in numbers far too large to assimilate, and who consequently have no need, motivation or ability to assimilate – renders impossible the preservation of any national identity. That is so for reasons having nothing whatever to do with the skin color or origin of the immigrants and everything to do with the fact that what we end up with are segregated groups of people with allegiences to their enclaves, an inability to communicate, cultural perspectives incompatible with prevailing American culture, and absolutely nothing to bind them in any way to what we know as the United States.

There are ways to have the debate about what to do about this growing problem, and there are even reasonable grounds for disagreeing with the view that illegal immigration is a serious problem – either generally or in terms of its impact on a common "national identity."

But if the approach of pro-illegal-immigration advocates is going to be to follow the example of people like Willis and Drum's commentators and simply scream "racist" at anyone who expresses concerns about the impact of the vast numbers of illegal immigrants pouring into the United States, then their loss in this debate will be as inevitable as it will be well-deserved.

It appears his days of palling around with white nationalists were not accidental.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

49. Running score: Greenwald 1, detractors nothing

In the responses to this OP from those who don't care for Mr. Greenwald, I've read:
-about my own unhealthy obsession in creating an OP with too many words and stuff
-about how I can rest assured that Glenn Greenwald is still an asshole
-about how Greenwald hates everyone, so he shouldn't be listened to
-about Greenwald being a racist
-about Greenwald being a bigot
-about those who didn't want this discussion to be had, and therefore tried to get it locked (and about the failure of that move)
-about how assholes can still get journalism awards without it meaning much
-about insinuations that I was up to something when I didn't post anything from the time before Greenwald started writing
-babbling about leaving Greenwald alone.

What I didn't see from Greenwald's detractors: one single sentence about Greenwald and his writings on the Bush Administration, their war-making, and their torture. Nothing. No substance whatsoever. Think about that for a minute, if you're so inclined. Think about what a very small group here is trying to sell you, why they're trying to sell it to you, and the justifications they offer. Caveat emptor.

[geek tragedy]

51. He was a bigot when he was bashing Bush.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/yelling-racist-as-argument-in.html?m=1

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/gop-fights-itself-on-illegal.html?m=1



Just because he was right about Bush didn't stop him from being a royal asshole, just like his intellectual compatriot Pat Buchanan wasn't redeemed by his Bush bashing.

Oh, and don't forget his public adoration of Ron Paul.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

63. You, sir, are due an award

Earlier, I mentioned that not one sentence of substance had been written in reply to my post from Greenwald's detractors. That's still a true statement, but you get an award for at least addressing it in the first part of your first sentence, "Just because he was right about Bush...".

As weak as that is, it represents the very first time in this thread that a detractor has directly said anything about the Greenwald quotes I posted. I'm aware that you made the statement in order to further bash the guy, but you did make a glancing reference to the actual content of what Greenwald was talking about. Here's your Virtual Faint Praise Award.

[geek tragedy]

64. I knew Bush was a dangerous asshole

back in 2000, and that he was a really horrible war criminal by 2003.

Not sure why Greenwald should get such high praise for being fashionably late to the party.

[Progressive dog]

50. Greenwald is a hateful, nasty person, he is not,

and never has been, anything other than that.

[Tikki]

54. Any which way the wind blows….

Tikki

[lostincalifornia]

57. Yawn

[ProSense]

58. Speaking of "libertarian asshole," this:

Again: Greenwald is not the left.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024931733

[DisgustipatedinCA]

60. holy shit. I actually clicked on your link for the first time in forever.

It goes to another link you have to click, then another, and finally gets to a DU post that reveals.......what everyone already knew. Glenn Greenwald is a Libertarian.

This is what you brought?

[ProSense]

61. LOL!

"It goes to another link you have to click"

Does it remind you of your OP? LOL!

"Glenn Greenwald is a Libertarian" asshole, per the OP. LOL!

[Obnoxious_One]

72. hehe.

[zeemike]

62. Some here on DU seem to be obsessed with assholes.

One could speculate why that is but it would be wrong.

[bvar22]

65. It is you hope that this goes some small distance...

... toward countering a small handful unhinged and hateful people who nevertheless make lots of noise. "


However,

"It's a world-view which conflates desire with reality, disregards all facts and evidence that conflict with the decreed beliefs, and faithfully embraces any assertions and fantasies, no matter how baseless and flagrantly false, provided that they bolster the mythology."

(Greenwald from above)

I confronted a rabid Greenwald attacker with a very obvious logical contradiction in his post,
informed him that he can't have it both ways, it MUST be one OR the other,
and his response was:
"I can have it any way I want it."
LOL

[Jim Lane]

66. K&R. Greenwald, being human, is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

I've never understood the line of attack that says, "We can ignore what Greenwald says today as long as we can find something he's said in the past that we disagree with."

Good for Ron Paul in voting against the Iraq war resolution! He's still a RWNJ on almost all issues not relating to foreign policy.

Good for Shrub, even, in speaking out against anti-Muslim bigotry in the wake of 9/11! He's still in a close race with James Buchanan for worst President in history.

I don't always agree with Greenwald but I often find him worth reading -- even when he's criticizing a President for whom I campaigned and voted. Whether you accept or reject one of his criticisms of Obama, you'll get more out of a Greenwald column than you will from the critics who consider Obama a Muslim socialist Kenyan impostor who enacted death panels as part of a federal takeover of health care (although I'll grant that the latter bunch are usually more amusing).

[redgreenandblue]

73. K&R.