Only AFTER the Iraq War became an unpopular clusterfuck did Greenwald begin to back away from Bush

[Cali_Democrat]

Greenwald is against intervention in Nigeria, but he was quick to support Bush's invasion of Iraq:

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.

http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/glenn-greenwald-supported-president-bush-as-he-signed-the-patriot-act/

Helping the government of Nigeria save hundreds of kidnapped girls? Bad.

Invading a country under false pretenses and overthrowing their leader which ended up costing thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars? Bring it on! Yeeeeehaaaawww!!!

Only after the war became an unpopular clusterfuck did Greenwald begin to back away from Bush. When it comes to Greenwald and his motives, you gotta follow the money. Supporting something so unpopular like the Iraq war would be bad for his bottom line. So he backtracked.

Asshole?



You bet.

Many folks may not like Obama, but he was against the Iraq War from the very beginning while Greenwald was cheerleading:

Full text of Barack Obama's 2002 Speech Against the Iraq War

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4327360

[jeff47]

1. How DARE you discuss his actual history.

Don't you know we are supposed to ignore everything he did before 2006?!?!

[rhett o rick]

35. The question is why the obsession? Arent there better things to discuss? Like the TPP or

fracking? How many times does one disparage someone before they move on?

[Sheepshank]

68. why permit lies to perpetrated?

some like to have the full picture of what is going on.

do you call it "obsession" for those that relentlesly continue to produce "rah rah" posts of Greenwald?

[rhett o rick]

94. So you are saving humanity from the lies of Greenwald? I doubt that you really believe that. nm

[Sheepshank]

144. humanity? condescending much?

actually, just from the local idiocy

[rhett o rick]

145. That's what I thought, you are saving us from ourselves. Talk about condescending.

And I bet you think of yourself as liberal.

[MADem]

100. Ha ha ha...it's only "obsession" when the other guy does it, I guess.

"Nothing to see here, move along!!!"

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...."

I think it's salient when a pontificator is shown to be a bullshitter. Or worse, a hypocrite...never mind an asshole! And GG has shown himself to be one with his latest twitty tweet....

This thread deserves a kick and a rec.

[KoKo]

108. Ha...Ha...Ha..to You, My Friend....GG isn't the "Man Behind the Curtain"

Look Behind.....to WHO the REAL.."Behind the Curtain" is .......that lurks.

's to you.

[Tarheel_Dem]

106. Funny how that works, huh? One minute you're trashing others for a "cult of personality",

and the next minute, you've joined one yourself.

[OilemFirchen]

126. There is no stronger cult of personality here than the Emoprog Empire,

of which the Glennboyz are a subset. Frequently you can avoid the time-waste of reading their doggerel by noting the D.C. Comics mask avatar. Such rebels!

[Tarheel_Dem]

130. They are a goldmine, rich with delicious irony.

hypocrite

(1) A person who engages in the same behaviors he condemns others for.

(2) A person who professes certain ideals, but fails to live up to them.

(3) A person who holds other people to higher standards than he holds himself.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hypocrite

[Whisp]

54. apparently he couldn't write before 2006

so nothing he said back then counts - it must have been his dictation machine that went awry.

[Scootaloo]

2. So, sort of like Sen's Kerry and Clinton?

And a majority of other Democrats, both in government and in the rank and file voters?



Let's not pretend as if the Democratic party has its hands clean when it comes to iraq, mmmkay? Seriously, say whatever you want about Greenwald, don't care, but don't hinge your argument on casting the Democratic party as some sort of collective of saints when it comes to blasting Arabs to bits for no damn good reason.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Where in my post did I say the Democratic party had its hands clean?

[Scootaloo]

6. Well, you're going after Greenwald for "jumping ship" when Iraq became a clusterfuck

That's exactly what the Democratic Party did. Do you hold them in the same contempt for this reason? or is opportunistic ship-jumping regarding the wasting of millions of human lives only contemptable when it's Greenwald?

[11 Bravo]

15. By that logic, from this moment on you are forbidden to post anything ...

calling into question the actions of anyone unless you also condemn in the same post every bad act committed by a human being beginning with Cain, and going all the way up to the guy who got popped for DUI 15 seconds ago.

[Scootaloo]

22. First, look up what "logic" means. You're misusing hte word

Second, your response makes no sense in context.

CaliDemocrat starts off saying that glenn greenwald is a bad, awful, vile person because he was for the iraq war and later changed his mind.

What I want to know is if Cali_Democrat feels the same way about other people who did the same damn thing - I named two democratic senators who voted to authorize military force in Iraq, then later went back on that. I could go with Bill Maher, if you prefer.

I'm asking for consistent standards here. If jumping from one side to the other is bad if you're Greenwald, then it's bad if you're clinton, too. If it's good when you're Kerry, then it should be good when you're Greenwald.

[11 Bravo]

42. Another semantic bullshit artist. When their foolishness is pointed out ...

the default position is always to inform the pointer that they don't know what hte (sic) word in question means.
Let's see if I can spell it out for you. A poster called someone's actions into question. Your response was, "Why aren't you taking to task the person I disagree with?" The answer is simple. It's CaliDem's fucking post. He or she decided to post about Glenn Greenwald on an internet message board. You would prefer to discuss the actions of someone else on that same board.
Now, see if you can figure out how to solve this not-so-insurmountable problem.

[Scootaloo]

47. No, I ask for consistency

If Greenwald is a bad awful person because he was for the Iraq war, and then changed his mind, then aren't all these other people just as bad for the exact same reason?

Or is it "No, it's cool when they do it, because..."?

Especially when the OP and their defenders are such vical proponents of those same people, who did the same thing?



So far, none of you guys has answered the question of "Is it bad when other people do it, too"

[11 Bravo]

63. I'll give this one more shot. You are free to ask all the questions you wish.

You may also make clear your desire for "consistency" or any other trait you feel to be virtuous. Just be aware that no one on this discussion board is required to answer your questions or follow your guidelines.
In this instance a DUer posted about Greenwald and only Greenwald. Perhaps he or she feels that others who mirrored Greenwald's actions are "just as bad", and perhaps not. In any case, they chose not to address that in this particular post. This prompted you to leap in, and by golly, you DEMAND some answers! Well I'm sorry, but not everyone has to address every concern you have in every post that they make.
That is my one and only point, and having made it, I'm out.

[ronnie624]

133. your principles are like the leaves on a tree,

Last edited Sat May 10, 2014, 02:53 AM - Edit history (1)

bending and swaying to whatever direction the political winds blow.

Ugh.

[11 Bravo]

140. Ahh, another internet shrink. You know me so well for having never met me.

But the amateur poetic psychoanalysis was precious ... in a seventh grade "hey look what a deep thinker I am" kind of way.

[ronnie624]

142. You have posted more than 17,000 comments here, lol.

I've read many of them, and there is no mistaking your 'point of view'. It is, such as it is, very easily discerned.

[11 Bravo]

143. Well, you've got me there. You claim to have read many of my posts, but ...

I must confess, I didn't even know you were alive until this morning; and I still neither know nor care who you are or what you think you know about my point of view.
I'll take my leave of you now and allow you to return to your true vocation ... psychoanalyzing complete strangers without ever, you know, actually meeting them.
(Were you also part of the crew who made the video diagnosis of Terri Schiavo? That was some exceptional work right there.)

[GoneFishin]

90. It's cool because those others aren't saying bad things about daddy ...er .. I mean Barack Obama.

[blm]

111. You're misstating Kerry's position.

Kerry voted for the IWR to get weapon inspections and when inspectors were reporting back that they were not finding any WMDs and that use of force would not be necessary Kerry publicly sided with them and against Bush's decision to invade. He was the only IWR yes vote that was against the decision to invade, before the invasion, during, and after it became the clusterfvck of all clusterfvcks.

[ProSense]

5. No,

"So, sort of like Sen's Kerry and Clinton? And a majority of other Democrats, both in government and in the rank and file voters?"

...in fact, Kerry spoke out against the war years before Greenwald. Seriously, are you telling people who opposed the war that Greenwald was just like "rank and file voters"?


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

There were Democrats calling out Bush for his lies. Kerry condemned Bush the day of the invasion and two week into the war, called for regime change in this country. He pissed off the RW.

Still, are you comparing Greenwald to politicians who you claim supported the war?

I mean, that's an embarrassing excuse for Greenwald.

We Still Have a Choice on Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/opinion/we-still-have-a-choice-on-iraq.html

Kerry Says US Needs Its Own 'Regime Change'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm

KERRY, A SENATOR from Massachusetts, first said Thursday that Rumsfeld should step down, saying he proceeded in Iraq “in an arrogant, inappropriate way that has frankly put America at jeopardy.”

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3087318

And the truth is that George Bush has made America weaker by overextending the armed forces of the United States, overstraining, overstraining our reserves, driving away our allies and running the most arrogant, reckless, inept and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of our country.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/03/se.13.html

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. The Greenwald faction will do and say anything

The people accusing others of "Cult of personality" suffer from it very acutely themselves. Of course, they also convince themselves that they are brilliant freethinkers, so you have the tedious combination of self-delusion and self-righteousness.

[ProSense]

9. Isn't it clear

"The Greenwald faction will do and say anything

The people accusing others of "Cult of personality" suffer from it very acutely themselves. Of course, they also convince themselves that they are brilliant freethinkers, so you have the tedious combination of self-delusion and self-righteousness."

...by now that it's sacrilegious to criticize Greenwald?

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

[Cha]

36. Well said.. very "tedious".

[Andy823]

46. Exactly!

Obama is bad no matter what he does, but don't say anything bad about Grenwald or the same people will have a cow! I always find it amazing how they can, as you mentioned, claim that anyone who defends the president has a "cult personality", yet they can't see their own "cult" mentality when it comes to Greenwald and Snowden, two libertarian supporters of the Paul clan!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

57. This ^ ^ ^

[Thinkingabout]

58. well stated

[Spazito]

79. Well said!

You nailed it.

[Stellar]

86. Thank You!!!!

[Tarheel_Dem]

118. !!!

[Number23]

52. Oh my God. You win the Internet. That was a sorely needed smack on the ass that was just too precise

so you have the tedious combination of self-delusion and self-righteousness.

[Scootaloo]

8. Yet he voted for the Iraq War Resolution

He must be one clueless fucker, then, to vote for what he opposes.

But by all means, regale me on why voting for the Iraq war is a good thing "because Democrat," ProSense. Remind us how you have absolutely no ethics, and are contemptable person whose only concerns of right and wrong are whether a democrat or republican did it.

[ProSense]

10. Yet you're using him to excuse Greenwald. n/t

[Scootaloo]

13. No, I'm saying "don't pretend Democrats are paragons on Iraq"

If you want to make an argument against Greenwald, then do it. Whatever. But it's fucking dumb to make your argument against him, for doing the SAME THING YOU SUPPORT when it comes from someone else.

[ProSense]

16. The OP mentioned Obama,

"If you want to make an argument against Greenwald, then do it. Whatever. But it's fucking dumb to make your argument against him, for doin the SAME THING YOU SUPPORT when it comes from someone else."

...who was against the war. You got defensive and invoked Kerry. It's not "fucking dumb" to criticize Greenwald for his support of the war when you're calling a Democrat who spoke out long before Greenwald a "clueless fucker."

As someone who was against the war, I can say that Greenwald's support of the war was "clueless." His excuses are lame bullshit.

[Scootaloo]

19. The OP calls out greenwald for doing the same thing most Democrats did

What I want to know is if it's as contemptible when they do it, as when he does it? If jumping sides for political expediency is bad, then it should be bad regardless of the political affiliations of who's doing the jumping, right?

[ProSense]

20. No, it doesn't. There is no collective mention of "Democrats" in the OP. n/t

[Scootaloo]

26. Yes, it does. Greenwald's very naughty for being against the war after he was for it.

That's the thesis here.

I want to know if you, or Cali_Democrat, or whoever, applies this standard to all the other people who did the exact same thing, including a majority of Democrats in office at the time.

if it's a bad thing that we should condemn Greenwald for, then it's a bad thing that we should condemn anyone for doing, yes?

Or do we change our standards according to what party someone belongs to, like Republicans do?

[ProSense]

29. No, it doesn't. Your point is a red herring. n/t

[Scootaloo]

33. You seem desperate to avoid a topic of ethical standards and internal consistency

The thesis is that Greenwald is a bad person because he was for the Iraq war, then jumped ship when it became unpopular. Okay. I figure anyone who supports the Iraq war is probably some variety of asshole, recanted or not, so i can work with that.

So if it's bad when he does it, shouldn't it be bad when anyone else does it, too? If he deserves criticism for it, doesn't anyone else who did the same thing? If, however, we swap our standards depending on the party affiliations of the person in question, then is there really a valid space for criticism? isn't that just ugly opportunism from our side?

[ProSense]

34. The only

"You seem desperate to avoid a topic of ethical standards and internal consistency"

...thing "desperate" is that statement, which is clearly an attempt to avoid the OP point:

Only AFTER the Iraq War became an unpopular clusterfuck did Greenwald begin to back away from Bush


<...>

Many folks may not like Obama, but he was against the Iraq War from the very beginning while Greenwald was cheerleading:



Full text of Barack Obama's 2002 Speech Against the Iraq War

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4327360

[Scootaloo]

37. And good for Obama

Of course he wasn't in office in 2002 (nor was Greenwald, and in fact Greenwald still isn't, so drawing a direct comparison between the two is bizarre - it's not as if they're in competition over anything)

However, plenty of people we "support" were, and plenty of those people, like Greenwald, were happily riding on the war bandwagon until the ride got bumpy.

Now do they deserve the same attacking being thrown at greenwald, for the same actions? Do those who actually had the power to influence the decision deserve more or less?

Again, you're being very evasive here. If Greenwald's stance is a problem, then other people who had that stance ALSO have that problem., don't they? If we're going ot rend our shirts over Greenwald's stance, as you and Cali_Democrat seem wont to do, how can that be while you're in very clear support of people who did exactly the same thing?

[ProSense]

40. What?

"Of course he wasn't in office in 2002 (nor was Greenwald, and in fact Greenwald still isn't, so drawing a direct comparison between the two is bizarre - it's not as if they're in competition over anything)"

You think comparing two people who weren't "in office" is "bizarre"? Yet you're comparing Greenwald to a politician as a defense. Obama opposed the war, and he was a State Senator at the time.

I "wasn't in office," and I opposed the war.

What was Greenwald's excuse for stating:

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

[Scootaloo]

43. You keep thinkin i'm defending Greenwald

I guess when you're as obsessed with the man as you seem to be, there is no understanding that otherp oeple can have a "neutral" setting."

Now, pay very close attention.

The OP derides Greenwald for supporting the Iraq war, then jumping ship when it became unpopular.

What I want to know, is if we are going to apply this same derision to all the other people,including a majority of Democrats in office at the time. who dis the exact same thing - for the war until it became a political millstone.

Is it a bad thing only when it is Greenwald?

[ProSense]

49. So

"The OP derides Greenwald for supporting the Iraq war, then jumping ship when it became unpopular."

...why do you have a problem with that?

"What I want to know, is if we are going to apply this same derision to all the other people,including a majority of Democrats in office at the time. who dis the exact same thing - for the war until it became a political millstone.

Is it a bad thing only when it is Greenwald?"

You invoked Kerry, completely unrelated to the OP, and I pointed out that he spoke out against the launch of the war before Bush did it, and criticized it two weeks in. This was years before Greenwald did, and long before the war became "unpopular."

You then called Kerry a "clueless fucker," even though their opposition didn't follow a parallel track.

Seems to me you are trying to defend Greenwald, and trying to use Kerry to shield him from criticism.

[Scootaloo]

62. "why do you have a problem with that?"

On the face of it, I don't Like I said, I figure anyone who supported the Iraq war is some variety of asshole, recanted or not. The problem is, the angle of criticism here is one that can be just as effectively launched at Democrats. Maybe more so, as Greenwald never had a vote on the war.

While that weakens the argument, it's not inherently fatal - after all, maybe Cali_Democrat is just as critical of those people, too. So, I asked.

She's not. neither are you. Nor is 11 Bravo.

The three of you don't give a shit about what Greenwald did, not at all. The actions taken don't phase you in the least, you're in open support and defense of other people who have done exactly the same thing.

Your only problem is that it was done by Glenn Greenwald.

This really isn't a stable basis for complaint, and just makes the three of you - and whoever else is jerking around about this - look like opportunistic, hypocritical dickheads without a valid basis for complaint. As if were greenwald to show a Voter registration card that has "Democratic party" under his name, all would be forgiven and he'd become a personal hero of yours.

[ProSense]

65. So you agree with the point, but are

"While that weakens the argument, it's not inherently fatal - after all, maybe Cali_Democrat is just as critical of those people, too. So, I asked.".

...attacking people you don't care for because they're criticizing Greenwald?

[ProSense]

78. Stop trying to deflect from the OP. This is all about an inability to stomach criticism of Greenwald

Period.

[Cha]

121. Exactly. Poor Greenwald can't take it and neither can his fans. But, they're right there

churning out the nasty insults just like GG. No wonder they think he can do no wrong.

[ucrdem]

98. Barack Obama did not vote for the Iraq War Resolution.

He was not in the Senate at the time. While we're on the subject, Glen Greedwald did not win a Pulitzer prize and Snowball has yet to reveal anything that hasn't been widely known since Congress defunded the Bush-Cheney Total Information Awareness project in 2003.

Anything else we can help you with today?

[OilemFirchen]

51. Neither of those two said anything REMOTELY like this:

"American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country."

That's Glenn in 2006. That's Glenn when the overwhelming consensus of the country, including the despicable Democratic Party, was that this excursion was a clusterfuck based on a lie. Shit, even some Republicans said so. In 2006.

Hang on... betcha he's evolved, huh?

[Scootaloo]

66. But they did vote for the war in question

So the sentiment was surely there - US senators voting for the use of military force against another nation absolutely indicates that they believe it is in the interests of US security.

As for whether he's "evolved," I have no idea. But I'm not going to bet money on it. I don't forgive warmongeirng easily, regardless of party affiliation.

Maybe some posters here should try it out.

[OilemFirchen]

75. Four years earlier.

Which required a diplomatic approach, and set conditions that the Bush Administration failed to meet.

But, of course, you (theoretically) already knew that.

Can't tell if you're doing a horrible job of pretending not to defend Greenwald, or you've simply swallowed your fucking head.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

120. That's Greenwald in 2006 talking about how he felt in 2001.

He talked about it in the forward to his anti-war book. His initial support for the Iraq war is something you never would've heard about if he hadn't told the story in his own anti war book.

You need to exercise a great deal more care in getting your facts straight. You could inadvertently make people believe things that are clearly untrue. You have a responsibility in that regard.

[OilemFirchen]

125. And in 2002. And in 2003. Including unwavering support for the Patriot Act.

It was only when he became the butt of the joke that he had a "revelation". Which revelation, BTW, was likely "Hey, I can make money AND establish some street cred by penning a screed similar to the vast numbers of books which preceded this. It's all the rage!".

Long before his awakening, and long before his Bush-adoration had finally waned, the majority of the public had turned. It took him a mere five years to utter a peep, while the rest of the world had been screaming at the top of their lungs.

Your perverted permutation of "he evolved" is no less laughable than the first time it was introduced in its simplest form. His politics were shit, he was shit, and his history is his legacy. One which, unsurprisingly, continues to this day.

Now then... I don't need to "exercise" shit. I have no "responsibility" on this board, other than to abide by the rules. And for you, of all people, to suggest that I "could inadvertently make people believe things that are clearly untrue" is the height of hypocrisy. In this case, I'd suggest you mind your own fucking business.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

127. You're factually incorrect.

And yes, your rage is impressive (rage expressed on the Internet--who knew?). But we do have a responsibility to not play fast and loose with facts. That's best left to Republicans and teabillies.

[OilemFirchen]

128. Rage?

That, friend, was nothing but expository prose and its intended audience was only tangentially you. Never expected you to comprehend, and could not be less indifferent about your riposte in that regard.

Facts? On my side. He admits to a tail-wagging support for the war even before its inception and only reveals an epiphany five years later. He admits to being a political dunce during that period, so it's safe to assume that he happily supported his codpieced Commander during at least the first few years of his "evolution". I, frankly, gave him the benefit of the doubt.

You wanna prove me wrong? Go for it.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

136. Safe to assume. There it is.

Yes, factually wrong, and irresponsible with facts. You made claims about Greenwald's opinion re the war for the years 2002-2005. I'll state this plainly: you know Jack fucking shit about his thoughts during that period. Quit trying to pass off your internal flights of fancy as facts. They're not. You've done NOTHING to prove your assertions, and you NEVER will. That's one of the unfortunate side effects of making shit up. You came up weak.

[stupidicus]

71. that's pretty much the case alrighty

May 2003[edit]A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war.[9]

and I'd bet many of the GG haters here were in that 79% crowd.

I battled lefties like that over the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan too, you know, that "good war".

Battling them over GG is just as futile, and generally bears a strong resemblance to battling a rightwingnut over Bush in terms of the tactics, etc they use.

[KoKo]

3. I can be more trusting of a person who has the wisdom to change an opinion

when faced with new information which confronts his or her former beliefs than someone who in the face of all evidence to the contrary sticks to whatever belief they formed at an earlier age and will never deviate a hair's breadth when new information or circumstances confront their entrenched belief. Those who attack the messenger rather than admitting they were misinformed or wrong from the beginning are so rigid in belief that they can be dangerous if they achieve great power.

Look at the Bush Administration and the NeoCons as an example. Throw in many of our Oligarchs/Koch Brothers, etc. and you can see where this kind of a belief system can be dangerous.

It's a sign of character to be able deal with with information which upsets or rocks the foundation of a long held belief system. We know too well how the Tea Party Crowd and Science deniers behave and we've learned that they are untrustworthy.

My 2 Cents...

[MohRokTah]

11. His troubling unethical behavior as an attorney is shocking as well.

HE defended MAtt Hale, a neo-nazi who was eventually convicted of attempting to hire an assassin to kill the Judge in his case, Joan Lefkow (whose family were later murdered).

During his defense of Hale, he violated the civil rights of witnesses.

I have nothing but contempt for this grifter.

[geek tragedy]

17. His bigotry towards immigrants indicates

that he and Mr. Hale agreed on much.

[jollyreaper2112]

12. Same clanging gong

Same noise. Does it ever get tiresome?

[bahrbearian]

28. Its as tiresome as the Repugs screaming "Bengazi"

[geek tragedy]

14. He was also a Tom Tancredo- style xenophobe.

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

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.

[cpwm17]

18. Greenwald was a nobody when he supported the Iraq War

His support meant little.

And the reason you know he supported the Iraq War is he said so himself after the fact. He was honestly describing his evolution of thought, otherwise you wouldn't know. It's nice that he's honest about his history.

[Comrade Grumpy]

21. The obsessive trashing of Greenwald is impressive, though not in a good way.

[ProSense]

25. Not as "impressive" as the "obsessive" defense of Greenwald.

I mean, call him out on something he said, and there will be countless thread, always including one from a newly arrived poster, stating that he didn't say what he clearly said. The defenders are even offering lessons in sentence structure. LOL!

[randome]

31. It depends on the meaning of 'horrifying'.

I supoze we 2 dum to no.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[DisgustipatedinCA]

23. Well, no, you're factually wrong

If you're going to use his own words in an attempt to hang him, I'll use his own words to counter your spin.

It wasn't that the Iraq was was going badly that made Greenwald change his mind about the war. It was the Jose Padilla case. Don't be so lazy with your sourcing next time.

And while we're on the topic of the popularity of the Iraq war, I was against it, as can be seen in the archives of these pages. I'm sure you were against it (right?). But the vast majority of Americans was in favor of the war. Read that as Large Percentages. At the time, I wanted to call them a bunch of idiots, and I did. This would've included Greenwald. But unlike many, Greenwald actually DID change his mind, as evidenced in the preface of his 2006 anti-war book, which you've excerpted here.

[maddezmom]

32. Not sure what you mean by debunked.

[Progressive dog]

27. Greenwald is just another Beck or Limbaugh

He is selling his brand of hatred without regard to truth.

[Cha]

38. "He is selling his brand of hatred without regard to truth." Agreed.

[bvar22]

30. You are attacking Greenwald for standing WITH the Democratic Party Leadership

and the leadership of most of the European Countries ?
MY,my... the lengths you will go to try and smear someone.
Perhaps you would post some links to where YOU attacked the Democratic Party Leadership during that time?
I would LOVE to see that.
My posts are in the archives here.

So Greenwald made a mistake back in 2003.
After seeing the "horrific" results of his actions,
he changed his mind, and STOPPED support this "Horrifying Western Intervention".
That is what rational people do.
..and you ATTACK him for THAT??!!
That is just Twisted.... but hate can do that to a person.
That is all over places like Free Republic,
but , thankfully, limited to a small but prolific handful at DU.




Hillary never DID back off her support for the Bush Administration's "Horrifying Western Intervention" in Iraq.
In fact, in 2008, Hillary STILL defended her vote to "Use Military Force in Iraq".
I don't believe she has EVER backed off her vote.

Have I seen a post from you attacking Hillary's stand on Iraq?
I don't think so.
Double Standard?

Do you care to attack her NOW just to even things out and repair your credibility?

I'll be waiting.

[rhett o rick]

39. Are you trying to interject sense in this hate swarm? Seems like at least two per day.

Apparently there are no other issues to discuss. But one must give credit for the organization and coordination.

[KoKo]

44. Some things come and go...and some things remain consistent...BUT...

once the "consistency" seems to keep going over the same rails over and over and over....like a robot would do when the circuit misfires ...one must eventually take stock and back away. Then it's time to use the "Ignore Tool."

Maybe it's that time......

[rhett o rick]

129. They will continue to disparage Greenwald and Snowden until the next victim comes along.

Anything to avoid discussing real issues.

[ProSense]

45. Is that

"You are attacking Greenwald for standing WITH the Democratic Party Leadership"

...different from "attacking" other people for "standing WITH the Democratic Party Leadership" (calling them "apologists&quot ?

Why do you think Greenwald standing with the "Democratic Party Leadership" should be off limits to criticism for supporting Bush's war?

Is that really the excuse you're trying to use to defend him from criticism?

DUers opposed the war so criticizing Greenwald is to be expected.

[bvar22]

53. That rationalization is as twisted as the post you are attempting to defend.

I don't interfere with anyone who wants to criticize Greenwald for his initial stand in support of the Iraq War.
I WILL point out when people attack him for that,
that they are also attacking the current Democratic Party front runner for the Democratic party Nomination.
That is a logical and pertinent observation.
I LOVE to point out the logical disconnects of conservative thinking,
and am curious HOW they will resolve it.

YOU attempt to resolve it by ignoring it.
How is that working for you?

The pertinent fact here is that Greenwald came to his senses, and condemned the "Horrifying Western Intervention" in Iraq.
That is what rational people DO.
I voted for John Kerry in 2004 despite his initial assistance to the Bush Administration for the Invasion of Iraq
because he later condemned it.
I APPLAUD people who can examine the facts and Change their Minds.


As far as I know, Hillary has NEVER apologized for her support of the Bush Administration during the Invasion of Iraq. That is a Deal Breaker for me.

Where are YOUR posts condemning Hillary for HER assistance to the Bush Administration for the Horrifying Western Intervention in Iraq?
Inquiring Minds want to know.

[ProSense]

59. The only thing "twisted" is trying to defend your leave-Greenwald-alone "rationalization"

"I don't interfere with anyone who wants to criticize Greenwald for his initial stand in support of the Iraq War."

Yet you're defensive about the OP point.

" I WILL point out when people attack him for that, that they are also attacking the current Democratic Party front runner for the Democratic party Nomination. That is a logical and pertinent observation. I LOVE to point out the logical disconnects of conservative thinking, and am curious HOW they will resolve it. ...why do you have a problem with that?"

What the hell does that have to do with the OP point:

Only AFTER the Iraq War became an unpopular clusterfuck did Greenwald begin to back away from Bush


<...>

Many folks may not like Obama, but he was against the Iraq War from the very beginning while Greenwald was cheerleading:



Full text of Barack Obama's 2002 Speech Against the Iraq War

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4327360

[bvar22]

67. I'll stick with "twisted",

and stand by my posts.

It must really chap you that Greenwald, Snowden, and The Guardian got a Pulitzer for Public Service,
and WORLD acclaim and support.

The NSA Authoritarian supporters here have been posting with an impotent FURY of OUTRAGE since then,
grasping at anything to try and smear them.

Has it occurred to you that you are standing on the wrong side of History and Democracy?
You know, you can follow Greenwald's example and change your mind and admit you have made a mistake too?

[ProSense]

70. More

"It must really chap you that Greenwald, Snowden, and The Guardian got a Pulitzer for Public Service,
and WORLD acclaim and support."

...deflection. Just say it: Leave Greenwald alone.

I mean, you're right. The Pulitzer was for Public Service reporting.
http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2014-Public-Service


Judith Milller won a Pulitzer for Explanatory Reporting.
http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2002-Explanatory-Reporting


This year's award for Investigative Reporting goes to Chris Hamby, The Center for Public Integrity

http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2014-Investigative-Reporting

That's impressive.

[bvar22]

72. Yep.

Really chapped you.

[ProSense]

73. Someone is projecting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024931733#post7

Leave Greenwald alone.

[Number23]

56. Prosense, you are responding to someone using a Manny Goldstein push poll as "proof" of...

something. A push poll that got a whopping 160 votes (what is that, slightly more than half as many votes as the Weekly Kitty thread gets recs?) is, in this person's head, indicative of... something.

See where I'm going here? NOT WORTH IT. The only thing more knee slapping than that irrelevant and laughable poll is the handful of folks running around here touting it as indicative and proof of... something.

[ProSense]

74. LOL! n/t

[Number23]

88. The only "argument" more bizarre is the insistence that somehow, the Pulitzer win is troubling

to those who don't think that Snowden's actions were honorable or that Greenwald is acting in good faith.

First of all, I don't think that many people care one way or the other about the Pulitzer. And as has been noted, Greenwald did not win the Pulitzer. The award went to the Washington Post and the Guardian which is routine for the Public Service Pulitzer. http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/Public-Service

And I wonder if the same folks making the really moronic comment that people are upset that Greenwald "won" the Pulitzer feel that way about George Will? I mean, he won one too, an INDIVIDUAL Pulitzer http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/opinions/will.htm Does that mean that no one is able to criticize him or that the Pulitzer committee is some all knowing group of super humans and once they bestow their award you are now a deity never to be criticized?

One of the dumbest "journalists" I've ever seen also has a Pulitzer under his belt. http://pulitzer-prize.findthebest.com/q/733/1948/What-did-Charles-Krauthammer-win-a-Pulitzer-Prize-for People making this really strange argument that the Pulitzer vindicated Snowden and that people who don't like Greenwald are jealous of it don't seem to know what they're talking about.

[OilemFirchen]

77. C'mon. That's the bestest poll on the internets!

or .

Statistics! Not just for geeks and nerds! Now you can play with the whole family!

[Number23]

81. Really?? I'll give it a go... 100% of the people sitting in my chair right now think that poll is

a DU joke and hurt themselves laughing whenever they see someone touting it as proof of... whatever.

Hey, you're right! Statistics are fun!

[OilemFirchen]

83. Oh hell. My cat just threw up a hairball.

I think that's a .

Of course, she's very small. So weighting and everything.

[Spazito]

91. LOL, when I saw that poll in the post, I laughed so hard, I swear I almost broke a rib!

Still laughing now!

[Number23]

97. I know. Even though sometimes I feel bad laughing, I can't help it

I mean it takes some extra special... something to think that poll means anything beyond the 3 calories burned by MG as he was posting it. Laughter is a gift and DU is a bottomless resource though I do think that sometimes, it's unintentional.

[Spazito]

104. You are right, laughter is a gift and on DU, at times, it is a gift that just keeps on giving!

I have to say posting that poll was the perfect gift, lol. The second in line for the best was a post saying Greenwald was "a combination of Einstein and Gandhi." Two lovely gifts in less than 24 hours and the night is still young!

[Major Hogwash]

41. Which way is the wind blowing today? Hahahaha!!!

Unfortunately for Gigi, it's not towards him!

[malaise]

48. So when did Hillary Clinton withdraw her support for that illegal war? n/t

[truedelphi]

50. So what? Logic demands tht everyone consider this: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

Fallacy: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

Also Known as: "You Too Fallacy"
Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.
####

I am posting this for people here who enjoy and are interested in logic (Which interest I realize is probably at odds at remaining a happy and contented person, but still)

[benld74]

55. removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan??? WHEN the EFF did Bush to that?

[Whisp]

60. Greenwald's superior intellect seems to think so

we must not question.
it must be true.

or

he doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about - as usual.

[Hissyspit]

85. Um, he means removal as the government of Afghanistan.

Which did happen.

Good god...

[Whisp]

116. I'm sure he is grateful for your interpretative skills

to let us know what he Really meant, instead of what he Really said.

thankyou for your service.

[Hissyspit]

123. Tell me something.

Do you really, really seriously think he means that Bush removed the Taliban completely from the country of Afghanistan?

Does that make any sense at all?

[Whisp]

124. No it doesn't make sense. But he has a history of doing that.

Saying something Stupid, then saying O I Didn't Say That when it's on record he did.

[Hissyspit]

138. It's only "stupid"

if you are so obsessed with nit-picking that the hair falls out.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. That puts him a lot of steps ahead of Hillary and Kerry and the other politicians who voted for it.

[whatchamacallit]

96. If your posts are ignored

it's only because they're usually so on the money.

[davekriss]

64. And this is relevant, how?

[morningfog]

69. It's a strange and unhealthy obsession you have.

[YOHABLO]

80. Christopher Hitchens? Andrew Sullivan? come to mind.

[Hissyspit]

84. What a pile of shit OP this is.

[Cali_Democrat]

89. Well it is much better than the OP you rec'd which was a response to mine

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024932001

OOPS!!!

That poster got tombstoned.




He registered today just to respond to my post and he got the boot.

Funny shit right?

thanks MIRT!!!!

[Hissyspit]

93. The OP was accurate, more so than yours.

I don't know why they got tombstoned.

[Cali_Democrat]

99. The admins did a great thing....

when they decided that every post from newly-registered intruders would be automatically deleted if they get the boot.

So everything they post is removed.

Fantastic!!!

I've lost count of how many newly-registered intruders have replied to me or tried to call me out since summer of last year.

Dayum!!!!

They probably gnash their teeth with every post I create...

[Hissyspit]

102. So what was wrong in the OP that got deleted?

I stand by my rec, and by my assessment of your OP.

[Cali_Democrat]

107. Good for you!!!

I'm sure the guy who got tombstoned a few minutes after registering appreciates your rec....

...whoever he was.

He came and went....just like that....

[Hissyspit]

109. What was inaccurate in that OP?

I know what is in yours.

You know, because that's what this is supposed to be about, right?

[Cali_Democrat]

110. Look at the second sentence in that OP....

[Hissyspit]

113. So, nothing?

[Cali_Democrat]

117. Yup. The post you rec'd and referred to as "accurate" is now non-existent...

There's nothing there.

[Hissyspit]

119. Did you even read it?

It was an accurate debunking of your post. You just seem to care that it is gone, not that it might have been accurate. If you didn't read it, then why do you say yours is better? If you did, why don't you address it's argument?

Poster was probably kicked for reasons other than the OP.

[Cali_Democrat]

122. "It was an accurate debunking of your post"

Prove it.

[Hissyspit]

137. Prove yours was the better OP.

[Cali_Democrat]

139. I already did. nt

[GoneFishin]

87. So if what Glenn Greenwald thinks about a subject is critical to which side you fall on,

I can assume that you now think that the Iraq war was a great idea.

Got it. Thanks.

[Crunchy Frog]

92. Could you point me to any available links

where he is expressing support for Bush and/or the Iraq war? I would like to have some of those in my arsenal to go after defenders of that rapscallion.

[GoneFishin]

95. I don't care if he is a turd from Satan's spawn's ass. Keeping on reporting on the NSA Glenn.

That is what is important. And it also happens to be the true cause of all of the spittle and hyperventilating.

[OilemFirchen]

103. Does he still "report" on the NSA?

I thought his new schtick was minimizing the plight of kidnapped schoolchildren.

I think he should stick with it. It suits him.

[scarletwoman]

101. Funny, really, you're using a carefully limited excerpt from his book titled,

"How Would A Patriot Act?: Defending American Values from a President Run Amok" (my bold)

So, the guy starts out as an apolitical lawyer who doesn't vote, who wants to believe that his country's leaders are generally honest and have the best interests of the country in mind. This is his unforgivable sin?

How about another excerpt from the same Preface:

What first began to shake my faith in the administration was its conduct in the case of Jose Padilla (my bold), a U.S. citizen arrested in May 2002 on U.S. soil and then publicly labeled "the dirty bomber." The administration claimed it could hold him indefinitely without charging him with any crime and while denying him access to counsel.

I never imagined that such a thing could happen in modern America— that a president would claim the right to order American citizens imprisoned with no charges and without the right to a trial. In China, the former Soviet Union, Iran, and countless other countries, the government can literally abduct its citizens and imprison them without a trial. But that cannot happen in the United States—at least it never could before. If it means anything to be an American citizen, it means that we cannot be locked away by our government unless we are charged with a crime, given due process in court, and then convicted by a jury of our peers.

I realize that your mind is made up, but I urge anyone else who is reading this thread to go to this link and read the entire preface. It eloquently describes his journey from trust to outrage.

In response to the many controversies and scandals concerning its misconduct, the Bush administration has invariably dismissed them, focusing instead on deliberately spreading an all-consuming, highly exploitative fear of terrorists. No matter what the accusation, the administration trots out its favorite tool: manipulative fear-mongering. Public appearances by senior Bush officials over the last four years have rarely missed the opportunity for a calculated and cynical invocation of mushroom clouds, homicidal dictators, and a never-ending parade of new and destructive weapons. The language of fear is the Bush administration's lingo.

Upon drawing these conclusions, I developed, for the first time in my life, a sense of urgency about the need to take a stand for our country and its defining principles. I believe that the concentrated and unlimited power now claimed by President Bush constitutes a true crisis for the United States—that it has the potential to fundamentally change our national character, to irreversibly restrict our individual liberties and to radically alter our core principles. It is not hyperbole to observe that we are moving away from the founding principles of our constitutional republic towards theories of powers that the founders identified as the hallmarks of tyranny.

You and your fellow cohort of Greenwald haters have no more integrity than the republicans frothing over Benghazi.

[KoKo]

115. Indeed!

"You and your fellow cohort of Greenwald haters have no more integrity than the republicans frothing over Benghazi."

[ronnie624]

134. Thanks for the post.

[Tarheel_Dem]

105. I keep telling you guys, "asshole" doesn't even begin to describe it.

[greenman3610]

112. tells you all you need to know

[Hissyspit]

114. About Greenwald, or the original poster?

See post #101 for the OP's manipulation of the context.

[OilemFirchen]

131. It's a remarkable thing, it is.

The Greatest New Journalist of Our Generation always needs an army to "explain", "put in perspective" and "interpret" his scribblings.

He's the R. D. Laing of punditry.

[slipslidingaway]

132. Assholes ...

How many times did Obama vote to fund the war? I am tired of hearing about the One speech he gave against the Iraq invasion, once elected he voted to fund the war time after time. Obama had the chance to vote against funding, he did not.

Words and actions are totally different, if one has the power to act and does nothing it carries more weight.. Words can open a door, the real test is what you do when you have power.

Focus on the actions, not the empty words.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4929488


"The REAL ASSHOLES are the traitors who lied America into war and still walk free. [View all]

The REAL ASSHOLES are the banksters who looted the banks and got bailed out plus paid bonuses for their trouble.

The REAL ASSHOLES are the spies who use their powers to get tabs on every American and make big bucks for their connected cronies at the same time.

The REAL ASSHOLES are the propagandists who run Corporate McPravda to feed America useless drivel while diverting attention from the critical issues.

The REAL ASSHOLES are the rainmakers on Wall Street who run through the revolving door to become watchdogs in Washington and back, all the while sending American jobs overseas and profits back to their patrons, the 1-percent of 1-percent.

Those are the REAL ASSHOLES, not the reporters who told us about them."

[Riftaxe]

135. So NSA Overreach

and the administration pissing on the 4th Amendment is all good now?

[SidDithers]

141. DU rec...

an inconvenient truth, to be sure.

Sid