Glenn Greenwald's political views are consistent

[Bonobo]

Greenwald's views are consistent and coherent.

They do not bend and contort in order to match the positions of a political party in order to "message" or "triangulate".

"Over the past five years, a creeping extremism has taken hold of our federal government, and it is threatening to radically alter our system of government and who we are as a nation. This extremism is neither conservative nor liberal in nature, but is instead driven by theories of unlimited presidential power that are wholly alien, and antithetical, to the core political values that have governed this country since its founding"; for, "the fact that this seizure of ever-expanding presidential power is largely justified through endless, rank fear-mongering—fear of terrorists, specifically—means that not only our system of government is radically changing, but so, too, are our national character, our national identity, and what it means to be American."

I can see why this kind of stick-to-your-guns and damn the consequences view may be challenging to those with, ummm, more flexible values. But I for one am grateful for a powerful voice with a long historical memory.

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Did you know that Glenn Greenwald supported both the Afghan and Iraqi war? n/t

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

From Greenwald's own book:

During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11. Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president’s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.

Emphasis mine.

[Bonobo]

2. Actually I did not. Can you provide a link? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

3. I added it to my original post. n/t

[Bonobo]

4. Thanks. My display on DU is all messed up for some reason. nt

[Bonobo]

6. It sounds as if he feels he was duped like many others.

Many supported wars because they had placed trust in the POTUS and his judgment on security matters. Hillary Clinton and Biden are two more who also did. I am not one of them.

Still, I do not think it has much bearing on his political views of the issues of separation and balance of powers in the US govt.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. To listen to his rhetoric today against the Iraqi and Afghan wars

you would never know he was an willing supporter of the first and an enthusiastic and satisfied supporter of the second.

[Bonobo]

8. So what is your reasoned defense for the Afghan War? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

12. I really don't think I'm the subject of this thread.

But I would start here for a view with integrity on the issue.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

[Bonobo]

15. You seemed to be criticizing Greenwald for now opposing the Afghan War.

But I am confused because you first seemed to be criticizing him for supporting it.

Or are you just criticizing him for "inconsistency"?

If so, are you seriously saying that a person can't come to oppose a war that they once supported after vigorous propaganda by the government?

[Bolo Boffin]

19. You seem intent on making this discussion about me. n/t

[Bonobo]

28. No, I am merely making it about your statements.

Are you unable to see the difference?

[Bolo Boffin]

33. If this was a thread about my politics and not Greenwald's, you might have a point.

Are you unable to see the difference?

Let's talk about Greenwald's inconsistency or lack thereof.

[Bonobo]

37. Yes and I asked you about your position vis a vis his "consistency".

That is where the wheels came off your train and you started falsely claiming I was making it about you.

I asked you if you can understand that someone can change their position on the war(s) when new facts come to light?

I also asked you if you could make up your mind. Are you criticizing him for supporting the Afghan War or for opposing it?

Once again, if it is supposed to imply a "lack of consistency' (by the way -that has nothing to do with his view of domestic politics), then you must think that changing position on foreign policy somehow represents inconsistency. My opinion is that such a claim is preposterous.

[Bolo Boffin]

41. Yes, you making this about me is when the "wheels came off the train." n/t

[Bonobo]

46. And again, you duck and weave to avoid the question that you cannot answer. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

49. Cannot answer? No. Will not answer because this thread is not about me. n/t

[Bonobo]

50. The question you are not answering is quite obviously NOT about you.

But if you do not wish to further clarify and defend your position, it is clearly time to bow out of this thread.

[Bolo Boffin]

51. It most certainly is about me.

You didn't like my bringing up inconvenient truths about Glenn Greenwald and posting Vice President Gore's principled speech on the Iraq and Aghanistan wars. So you tried to turn this thread into what you perceive as my shortcomings.

Sorry, I'll bow out when I'm good and ready. I won't be indulging your distraction here any longer, though.

[Bonobo]

53. Actually your post was the distraction from my OP about domestic politics.

And I am happy to let your unrelated shift to foreign policy issues go.

It is especially funny since you cannot even answer what your criticism is.

Is it for supporting the Afghan War in the first place?

Is it for changing his mind?

The fact that you claim those questions are about YOU is entirely perplexing.

[FarLeftFist]

69. The sad thing is, is that their are NUMEROUS Liberal journalists who at the time very much supported

The Iraqi invasion. They even called Michael Moore a fringe extremist.

[Puglover]

84. Next time someone paints me into a corner

I have GOT to remember that line. "This is NOT about me so I will not answer your question." Seems to work pretty slick.

[paulk]

16. that's a stretch

I hardly think this:

"During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11. "

qualifies as "enthusiastic and satisfied"...

and something else - people can change their thinking - especially over the amount of time we're talking about here, and especially when presented with the truth of a matter - it's allowed.

[Bolo Boffin]

17. "enthusiastic and satisfied" support of the Afghan war, as I said. n/t

[paulk]

55. you may have said it

that doesn't make it true.

The majority of what I have read from him is critical of our efforts there - I'm sure, however, that you can cherry pick something that insinuates otherwise, that seeming to be the order of the day.

[Bolo Boffin]

56. OK.

I believed that Islamic extremism posed a serious threat to the country, and I wanted an aggressive response from our government. I was ready to stand behind President Bush and I wanted him to exact vengeance on the perpetrators and find ways to decrease the likelihood of future attacks. During the following two weeks, my confidence in the Bush administration grew as the president gave a series of serious, substantive, coherent, and eloquent speeches that struck the right balance between aggression and restraint. And I was fully supportive of both the president's ultimatum to the Taliban and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan when our demands were not met. Well into 2002, the president's approval ratings remained in the high 60 percent range, or even above 70 percent, and I was among those who strongly approved of his performance.

That's from the quoted Greenwald preface.

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

Sound enthusiatic and satisfied to you?

[paulk]

72. how many years ago was this?

please refer to my first post.

Or don't, I really barely give a fuck any more when it comes to the acolytes.

[sabrina 1]

66. Obama is an enthusiastic supporter of the AFghan War still.

I never was as I read what Robert Scheer had to say about that region of the world and the real reasons why we were anxious to go there.

Many people have changed their minds since them. So I'm not getting the hysteria of one man changing HIS mind, when so many millions of people have done the same? I think it's the right thing to do, to change your mind, after it becomes clear that you have been lied to. I don't get anyone still supporting either of these wars though.

[ProSense]

9. Holy smokes!

" Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president’s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. "

Maybe this explains why he's so touchy about other people supporting President Obama.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=95092

Afghanistan and Iraq wars and Citizens United?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100293141

[joshcryer]

11. APALLING.

Soon after our invasion of Iraq, when it became apparent that, contrary to Bush administration claims, there were no weapons of mass destruction, I began concluding, reluctantly, that the administration had veered far off course from defending the country against the threats of Muslim extremism.

FUCK THIS. REAL PROGRESSIVES SAID THIS FROM THE START. ROBERT FISK WAS THERE. THE INSPECTORS WERE ALLOWED IN.

Fuck, this guy is really pissing me off.

[sabrina 1]

24. Like all the Democratic Presidential candidates who voted it?

How did you feel about the nominee, Kerry's position on the Iraq war? You DID support him, I am assuming? Despite his votes to fund that war? Was he not a 'true progressive' because he voted for the war and voted to fund it and continued to support it througout its criminal duration?

Your outrage is a bit childish and off base IF you supported any of the Democratic Candidates in 2004. Hillary Clinton was the only one who did not apologize for her vote. The reason I never supported her for president.

'Real Progressives'. Yes, like me who supported neither Iraq or Afghanistan. So then, were Gephardt, Kerry, Clinton, Edwards and all the others who voted for it and consistently voted to fund it right up to the present time, NOT progressives?? Are they seriously 'pissing you off" too?

[joshcryer]

32. No, I didn't support their votes. None, nada.

Find one post out of my 25k posts where I did it. I did not, ever support it.

I supported Dean in 2004, and I did not vote at all in those elections when he lost those primaries due to Kerry's stronger insider power. Howard Dean was against a unilateral invasion of Iraq like Bush did.

I voted for Obama in 2008 because it was a close election, I did not support him very much at all.

In 2010 I did keep our state blue, though, because I knew what it meant for the state if we went red (the military bases would've been expanded, etc).

[sabrina 1]

34. Well, good for you. I admire consistency.

You must understand then those who are finding it difficult to support Obama in this election considering all the wars we are now involved in.

And you must have applied the same standard to all those Democrats, 'they are not true progressives' that you apply to Greenwald.

Be careful though, it's not safe to say that Democrats, no matter how they behave, are not progressive these days

[joshcryer]

45. I take TBF's position, I'll vote in case they're counting.

Other than that my support goes local, full stop.

I was never that happy about Obama, anyway.

He's been consistent, which merits respect, but it's still an uninteresting way to govern.

[sabrina 1]

67. Lol, what utter nonsense. Now you're trying too hard. I had a feeling that you knew nothing

about Greenwald despite all your comments about over the past several days.

Everyone who knows Greenwald KNEW he initially supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Everyone knew he BELIEVED BUSH. Like Obama on Afghanistan who still apparently believes Bush. And almost every Democrat who voted for Bush's wars.

GUESS HOW WE KNEW! He wrote it about it all in his book!! Holy Smokes!! He HID IT in his book because he was 'so touchy about it all' !

This place gets funnier every day.

Wait!! Maybe you were just being snarky and I thought you were serious?? If so, my apologies, because there is no way anyone who knows Greenwald would have thought this was a 'Gotcha' moment. Sorry, if that was the case. All of this was public knowledge, unless you weren't around Democratic Boards throughout the Bush administration.

[sabrina 1]

18. An inaccuracy in that hit piece on Greenwald. It WAS generally known that initially

like Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, and the Democratic Party in general, that Greenwald once supported , the Iraq War, with reservations. As did many Democrats, because at that time, it was too hard to believe that any President would so mislead the American people.

I don't think this blogger is particularly neutral on Greenwald but just wanted to correct that inaccuracy. One of Greenwald's best qualities as a writer is that he has always admitted when he is wrong. Far too many find that hard to do.

To say that 'few knew he supported the war' is simply false. He wrote about it in his book, so I'm not sure why this blogger who appears to be unable to be objective for some reason, would say such a thing.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. I guess that's going to be rather subjective a measure.

You may have known, but I didn't before reading that and neither did the author of the "hit piece."

You will notice that the "hit piece" is talking about Greenwald's own hit piece on Chris Hitchens, written after Hitchens could not respond. I'm going to assume you'd consider that one of Greenwald's worst qualities.

[EFerrari]

35. Right. Just because Greenwald pubished it in a book

doesn't mean he made it available to wide public review, objectively.

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Yes, I remember it being atop the New York Bestseller List for years

It's required reading for all Americans.

/sarcasm

[sabrina 1]

68. Yes, I know what the hit piece was about. Hitchens was a jerk. I'm sorry he died, but just because

he died does not change that. Again, this is Greenwald refusing to be a hypocrite and fall in line. I felt the same when Reagan died.

And I agree with him about Hitchens being over-rated. He was no match for the British member of Parliament who literally wiped the floor with him, eg, on the Iraq War. And he refused to accept known facts about the lies that were told, choosing instead to ignore them and at that point revealed his anti-semitism towards Muslims.

I am surprised if you were online during the Bush years, that you did not know Greenwald's stand on those wars initially. It was in his book and it was in fact viewed as very commendable when he acknowledged he was wrong. At that time, most war supporters were very reluctant to change their minds knowing what the climate was and how they would be targeted, as Greenwald was, by the far right. Those of us who always opposed them were always thrilled when people like Greenwald, began to see the light.

It's certainly not something he ever hid, so that blogger is lying. This is no 'gotcha' moment, sorry. The fact he doesn't talk about each time he writes a new column doesn't mean he's 'hiding it' or being deceptive. It's an old story now, that is all. Cherry picking a paragraph out of context is a despicable thing to do and intentionally doing it to try to give a false impression. Never heard of the guy before, and won't be looking for him again.

I remember all the candidates for the 2004 election who had voted for those wars, trying to backtrack when they realized the political climate in the real world where they hoped to get votes, was not conducive to Bush supporters. I really never believed them, and they proved me right when they continued to vote for every war supplemental. Few Democrats opposed those wars to their shame.

But back to Greenwald. He never hid this information and that blogger needs to apologize for that appallingly badly written article. But I doubt he will. Not someone who made such an effort to smear someone falsely.

[Bolo Boffin]

70. You don't deny that Greenwald waited until Hitchens was dead to write

so extensively about him?

Is there another way to interpret that other than Greenwald keeping his powder dry until the iracible Hitchens could no longer respond to him?

[sabrina 1]

73. Well, I never wrote anything much about Ronald Reagan either, UNTIL he died and I saw the

spectacle of the week-long mourning with all the accolades that the man did not deserve. So I wrote about the people of Central America who had a very different view of this 'hero' whose life was being celebrated endlessly here with no references at all to all the harm he had done in his life. Was that disrespectful? Probably but I thought it was extremely disrespectful to flaunt this man's life when there were still so many people alive who suffered so much because of his policies.

When I later read some interviews with victims of his policies in Central America, I was glad I had at least tried to offer a tiny token of respect by adding some facts to the whole sordid affair by mentioning the victims who as far as this country goes, may as well never have existed. But they did and do and their lives will be forever affected by what Reagan did to them.


Before that though, I never felt compelled to write anything about Reagan. Events prompt people to react and for me, Reagan's death reminded of the victims. What prompted Greenwald to write about Hitchens? Probably something that struck him in a similar way.

[joshcryer]

26. Bullshit, everyone who voted for it and believed it were either doing so for ...

...political reasons or for ideological reasons. There was no reasonable justification for it. We had Robert Fisk on the ground, we had inspectors saying that there were no more WMDs, the inspectors were allowed free and full access to Iraq. Bush ordered them to leave!

"Ignorance" or "naivety" are not excuses.

At least we still have Juan Cole.

[sabrina 1]

30. I agree! Everyone who voted for it was WRONG. And either too cowardly NOT to do so

or did it for political reasons. But a majority of the American people supported it also. Which included Democrats. I never had patience with any of them. They should have known better. But in Greenwald's case once he realized he was wrong, he said so and meant it.

Never mind, I see you are forgiving of the politicians who supported it, but not of those you do not like. Credibility depends on consistency.

[joshcryer]

39. Forgiving for who?

Quote me "forgiving of politicians who supported it" please. Or is that made up stuff?

[vaberella]

76. Not a hit piece but a fact.

Just because you like the guy don't call a fact a hit piece. It makes you seem disingenuous. I believe all the men above and Greenwald moronic for it's support. Including Obama's driven goal to continue the drama in Afghanistan. I'm not about to give him or them a pass and call articles that show their support on an issue I dislike abhorrently a hit piece when it's based on reality and out of the horses mouth so to speak.


Not many people know that Obama wrote against prop 8 and expressed his discontent. Most people were very willing to bash him for his lack of support for LGBT. Then when the letter was released did some folks here get a clue. While I'm sure a larger group would not. Not to mention I don't think everyone reads a bloggers books. I know I don't.

[vaberella]

75. "Trust in the Bush admin"? The man is shit.

I cannot imagine anyone with a brain supporting the war on Afghanistan and Iraq.

[bvar22]

82. "supported both the Afghan and Iraqi war?"

...along with the Leadership of the entire Democratic Party,
including Hillary Clinton
John Kerry,
and Joe Biden.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[sabrina 1]

5. That's what I respect most about him.

My feeling from reading all these silly childish attacks (which all seem so similar btw) is that Greenwald is not familiar to them. Maybe they weren't around leftwing boards during the Bush years when Greenwald became a highly respected defender of all the rights Bush was systematically destroying.

He has not changed one bit which makes it odd that anyone who is familiar with Greenwald would say some of the things I have seen.

I think he described it best himself in his latest column. He will remain a highly regarded writer while his latest detractors, like those who came before them, will not even be a footnote when the history of these times is written.

[tabatha]

10. you must have missed this

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

[joshcryer]

13. Keep reading. He just "had a change of heart."

Pundits, I swear.

[sabrina 1]

21. He actually did. Unlike Kerry and Edwards and Gephardt who discovered that while they had

voted for it, now that the voters they needed were against it, suddenly had 'a change of heart' except that they kept voting to fund it.

Once Greenwald realize we had been lied to, his position remained consistent. If only politicians were like that.

[joshcryer]

23. I have no problem with having a change of heart. I have a problem with believing right wingers.

[sabrina 1]

25. I have a problem with rightwingers too. What is your point?

[joshcryer]

27. But it's OK to believe right wingers, particularly when it comes to war?

We know Bush lied. The entire Congress was not duped. They just cow towed for political reasons like the cowards that they all were.

[sabrina 1]

31. I'm not following you. What rightwinger are you talking about?

[joshcryer]

40. Greenwald believed Bush. He said as much.

[sabrina 1]

57. Then there are an awful lot of rightwingers in the Dem Party because they believed

Bush also, and proved it by their votes. Are you saying everyone who initially supported the Iraq was a rightwinger?

[joshcryer]

58. Where did I say anyone who initially supported the war was a "rightwinger"?

Please show me where I said that. I do not believe you are following the discussion.

[Bonobo]

59. Here is where you said it. Stop trying to be cute.

sabrina 1
31. I'm not following you. What rightwinger are you talking about?

joshcryer
40. Greenwald believed Bush. He said as much.

sabrina 1
57. Then there are an awful lot of rightwingers in the Dem Party because they believed

Bush also, and proved it by their votes. Are you saying everyone who initially supported the Iraq was a right-winger?

And here is your embarrassing evasion below:

joshcryer
58. Where did I say anyone who initially supported the war was a "rightwinger"?

Please show me where I said that. I do not believe you are following the discussion.

[joshcryer]

60. Yes, I said "I have a problem with believing right wingers."

Then I said "Greenwald believed Bush."

Is Bush not a right winger?

There's clearly a miscommunication here, and an obvious misunderstanding on your part.

[Bonobo]

61. OK, now I understand. I misinterpreted.

See how big people admit when they are wrong? Like Greenwald.

[joshcryer]

62. No worries, I should've said "I have a problem with people who believe right wingers."

That would have been more clear but I don't have a problem with people, technically. It's the act, the belief, that is the issue for me.

[Bonobo]

63. It was remarkable to learn that Greenwald ever believed anything Bush said.

But I still maintain the belief that he is correct in his stated positions with regards to, most importantly, the checks and balances of the branches of government and the overreach of executive power as being a huge danger. And on that issue, Obama is nearly as guilty as Bush IMO.

[joshcryer]

65. This is a very touchy issue for me, DU was 100% anti-Iraq. 100%. Anyone for it was either...

...an infiltrator or ousted very quickly. Hell, I even got in trouble for telling people Bush was acting on the old UN resolutions because we were still enforcing the NFZ (this was misinterpreted as advocacy for Bush but it was 100% not; people didn't think Bush would go unilaterally, and I was saying that he would and I was right).

Some on DU were and still are for Afghanistan. I am not, and in fact, during the primaries I lamented that the two leaders were going to escalate in Afghanistan. I am against Obama's targeted killing, and targeted killing all the way.

But what can I do? I have no options. The least I can do is be consistent.

As far as Greenwald, this was a big problem for me. I saw people throw Juan Cole under the bus for much less (he said he supported the troops when we invaded Iraq, but was 100% against it at the time and outspoken for it). And Greenwald here is using the very tired excuse that he was "misled." Bullshit, anyone informed should've known that. Hell, I should just shut up now because it is a very emotional thing for me. I frankly wish I never saw this because everything he writes will now be judged based on his inadequate attention to detail over Bush. If he couldn't be trusted to observe the truth then, when the country was having a radical crisis, how can he now?

[bvar22]

83. That is NOT a true statement.

There was a STRONG contingent at DU who had "faith" in the Democratic Party leadership,
and dutifully supported them and followed them into the disaster in Iraq.

It is about the same ratio of True Believers who dutifully followed President Obama into the Civil War in Libya,
and support the expanding Drone Attacks into other nations.

Check the archives.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[joshcryer]

86. I completely disagree.

I don't know of anyone from that time period who was pro-Iraq war who survived it. I think I'd remember those people.

[ProSense]

81. Wait

"He actually did. Unlike Kerry and Edwards and Gephardt who discovered that while they had"

...you're trying to excuse Greenwald by denegrating Kerry? First of all, Greenwald isn't an elected official. Kerry set out with Kennedy in January 2003 to accuse Bush of attempting to violate the IWR and rush to war. In fact, two weeks into the war, when I'm sure Greenwald was still cheering (he indicates his epiphany was around 2004 to 2005), Kerry was demanding regime change in this country. Still, it figures that while everyone else has been called gullible and stupid for believing Bush, some expect Greenwald to be held to a different standard.

I'm trying to wrap my head around the origins of this:

"I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration... I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country... I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297462

[sabrina 1]

87. Let's stick to facts for a change, and not waste time on distractions.

Did Kerry vote for the War in Iraq and all the supplementals that came after that, or did he not? Airc that was why he was not on my list of candidates, nor anyone's way into the campaign.

I believe many Democrats stated they wanted the President to succeed also. In fact I remember it clearly. Do you think they should have said 'I do not want the President to succeed'?

Greenwald was ACCUSED of NOT wanting the President to succeed by the Right as we all were, despite how warped such thinking was, although I'm seeing a repeat of it lately only on the left.

Those of us who opposed the war wanted it not to happen at all. But the Rovian tricksters on the Right became expert at twisting facts and turning that opposition into 'You want the President to fail'.

Now, ironically, you are it seems to me, demanding that Progressives like GG SHOULD have wanted 'the president to fail'. Am I following you correctly? It's hard to keep up with the ever-changing principles we are supposed to adhere to.

[ProSense]

89. What

"Greenwald was ACCUSED of NOT wanting the President to succeed by the Right as we all were, despite how warped such thinking was, although I'm seeing a repeat of it lately only on the left. "

...the hell does that have to do with anything? They accused Kerry of a lot of things, but he still called for regime change two weeks into the war.

What does the right accusing Greenwald of anything have to do with him stating this:

"I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration... I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country... I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment "

[noise]

14. The lesson is not to put anyone on a pedestal

Not Greenwald. Not even President Obama.

[sabrina 1]

20. No, I did not miss it. I think YOU missed his point though. This was in his book and he explained

it very clearly.

Nearly the entire Democratic Party sadly, also supported the Iraq War and worse, voted for it. Later, when it was no long that popular on the left, most of them claimed they no longer supported it.

Greenwald believed Bush's lies, as did a majority of the American people. I did not, just I do not believe the neocon lies now about 'humanitarian interventions'. I also did not support the Afghanistan War.

Greenwald deserves much credit for withdrawing his support and for explaining his reason in detail. Unlike our politicians who on the one hand, voted for it, then when running for the WH with their fingers in the wind, withdrew support for it, but continued to vote to fund it.

[Bonobo]

29. Well said. Failing to admit mistakes is worse than making them in the first place.

Ironic to see this kind of criticism coming from extremely vocal supporters of more recent war-making in the ME (Libya).

On edit: Not merely "vocal supporters" --I should have said "aggressive war-mongering cheerleaders".

[sabrina 1]

36. My head spins here sometimes lately Bonobo.

Trying to adjust one's stance on principles to each new issue must be painful. Which is why I try to simply stick with the principles I have always stood up for, when Bush was president. If nothing else, it's so much easier.

Meant to add, I am consistently against Imperial Wars, that is what I was referring to. I, like Greenwald re Iraq, was initially fooled regarding Libya, but it didn't long to figure it out and once I did, there was no way it was possible to continue supporting it.

[Bonobo]

42. Yes, exactly. I am still the same politically as I ever was but now I am not even on the radar.

I just want real Democrats to win. I want the reclaim the moral authority of the Democatic Party by opposing torture, illegal detentions, wars of choice, cutting off heating assistance, supporting Wall Street mobsters like Goldman Sachs, etc.

Call me a dreamer, but I am sure the Democratic Party once represented such positions.

[joshcryer]

44. And, you were wrong about Libya like Greenwald was wrong about Iraq.

[joshcryer]

43. Yeah? I wasn't wrong about Libya.

But you were.

I admit when I'm wrong and don't have a problem with people being wrong and admitting it.

I have a problem with people buying into right wing lies just like Greenwald believes Ron Paul is anti-crony-capitalism.

[Bonobo]

47. I was wrong about Libya?

No, I don't think I was. If you think that a long-lasting peace has been created, I think you are a fool.

I would never support the use of force in anything but a defensive way and I am consistent in my belief that killing people is no way to create peace. It may appear so from a short-sighted perspective, but never in the long-term (barring extremely circumstances -and Libya did not represent extreme circumstances).

[joshcryer]

48. Read some Pacificm as Pathology and understand where I come from.

edit: btw you predicted that the war wasn't over and I predicted there would be a few skirmishes but that would be it. I was actually wrong because the skirmishes were far far fewer than I imagined there would be. But you were far more wrong as the islamist insurgency fantasy never happened.

[Bonobo]

52. "Pacifism as Pathology". LOL.

Sounds like a bunch of reactionary bullshit from a smug, bourgeois, chicken hawk.

I think I will pass.

I think YOU should read some work about how actions lead to unexpected consequences and what karma really is all about.

[joshcryer]

54. Eh. I'm not a super fan of Ward Churchill but he makes good points.

I don't think he'd be considered a smug, bourgeois, chicken hawk.

As far as karma, if it existed, all the shit talkers for the past year, people truly nasty toward me, would at least be humble about their behavior, but that hasn't happened. And karma is nonsense.

[Major Hogwash]

71. Churchill is a Vietnam veteran.

I'm a pretty big supporter of his since I saw how they tried to trash him at the university he worked at years after he wrote a simple piece on 9/11.

[joshcryer]

77. I used to crap on him because I am anti-violence, however, over the years...

...I've come to understand his position, though strictly from an anti-violence perspective.

[mythology]

91. That's what started the trouble

but he was fired for being a fraud as an academic including fabrication and plagiarism. Inventing research and misrepresenting quotations in your books is not simply poor form, it's irresponsible. He should have been fired.

[Cameron27]

64. Agree, I didn't buy into the neocon lies either.

but many, many people did, and Greenwald, unlike the Dems in Congress, didn't have access to the 93-page intelligence report that contained many conflicting opinions.

How many Democrats even bother to read it? And of those that did read it, how many still voted yes on the IWR?

[joshcryer]

79. Greenwald had Fisk's reports, the reports from the UN inspectors, the knowledge that the UN was...

...against it, the fact that Bush wanted to invade unilaterally. And yet he still agreed to it? C'mon!

The inspectors were thrown out by Bush! The invasion was completely unnecessary. Saddam was allowing full inspections of the entire country. The inspectors would still be there to this day probably (and Iraq would've probably had its own little Arab Spring with much more favorable outcome).

[mmonk]

74. True.

[sendero]

78. The war in Afghanistan..

... isn't a clear-cut deal IMHO. But on the other hand, I simply will never trust the judgement of ANYONE who could not see through the blatant and obvious (yes, even at the time) lies used to get us into Iraq.

Iraq was a bad idea, a disastrous idea, a complete and total waste of good lives and resources and anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together knew it in 2002.

So obvious was the hose job that I have to say that I believe most Democrats that voted to go along with the Fiasco Iraq did so not because they believed the moronically obvious lies of the Bush administration but because they were politically afraid not to go along. Cold comfort.

So, is one to write off a pundit because he was wrong once? Everybody who takes any sort of stand on anything is sometimes wrong. I agree with most of what this guy has to say but I just don't understand anyone's inability to see what a mistake Iraq was.

[woo me with science]

80. Excellent post

and the thread illuminates well the shoddy arguments coming from some quarters.

[JoePhilly]

85. Apparently we are now on Greenwald Underground

The guy burps and we get 10 threads to discuss it.

[MjolnirTime]

88. He's consistently full of shit. That's for certain.

[frazzled]

90. And in that kind of blind inflexibility lies his failure

It's what has compelled him to speak out in favor of the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision:

I want to begin by examining several of the most common reactions among critics of this decision, none of which seems persuasive to me. Critics emphasize that the Court’s ruling will produce very bad outcomes: primarily that it will severely exacerbate the problem of corporate influence in our democracy. Even if this is true, it’s not really relevant. Either the First Amendment allows these speech restrictions or it doesn’t. ...

I tend to take a more absolutist view of the First Amendment than many people, but laws which prohibit organized groups of people — which is what corporations are — from expressing political views goes right to the heart of free speech guarantees no matter how the First Amendment is understood. ...

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/22/citizens_united/

It is what caused him to write this fairly shocking screed against undocumented workers and what he calls "amnesty" for them:

The parade of evils caused by illegal immigration is widely known, and it gets worse every day. In short, illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone. Few people dispute this, and yet nothing is done.

A substantial part of the GOP base urgently wants Republicans, who now control the entire Federal Government, to take the lead in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws. And yet the GOP, despite its unchallenged control, does virtually nothing, infuriating this sector of its party. The White House does worse than nothing; to the extent it acts on this issue at all, it is to introduce legislation designed to sanction and approve of illegal immigration through its “guest worker” program, a first cousin of all-out amnesty for illegal immigrants. ...

The real irony here is that the problem of illegal immigration is actually one of the very few of the ever-dwindling number of issues that has the opportunity to forge common ground among factions of voters which are, these days, engaged in a ceaseless war with each other. Being worried, and outraged, about illegal immigration is not confined to the extreme precincts of conservatism. Middle-class suburban voters whose primary concerns are local and pragmatic, rather than ideological, know the danger which illegal immigration poses to their communities and to their states, and they want something done about it.

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

It is what drives him to ally openly with Libertarian stances, bemoaning those Republicans who are not good libertarians and praising those who are:

The current Republican Party has become the party of the Michelle Malkins, Ann Coulters, James Dobsons, and David Horowitzs -- people who scorn libertarian principles and could not be any more hostile to them. Arguably, there are few conflicts more critical to national electoral battles than this one. As Cato Institute's Brink Lindsey recently observed: "libertarians are in the center of the American political debate as it is currently framed." But nothing has undermined libertarian principles more than Republican rule of the last five years.

For this reason, intellectually honest believers in liberty and restrained government have chosen to abandon the Republican Party because it is devoted to an endlessly intrusive, unrestrained and even lawless government, precepts which could not be any more antithetical to core libertarian principles. But there is a sizeable group of individuals, empitomized by Reynolds, who claimed adherence to libertarianism but who have now fully embraced the most extremist elements of the Bush movement and the Republican Party. In doing so, they have rendered their claimed libertarianism nothing but a hollow symbol, to be trotted out -- when at all -- purely as a manipulative instrument to maintain an image of rationality and moderation ("Extremist? Me? I'm for gay marriage&quot .

That is the choice which national political figures with some degree of libertarian impulses, such as John McCain and Rudy Guiliani, are confronting.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/libertarians-and-republican-party.html

It's what causes him to give speeches to Paulite Libertarian groups:

At a talk given the day after the 2010 election — one that was a disaster for Democrats — “progressive” writer and civil liberties lawyer Glenn Greenwald gave a talk at the University of Wisconsin, and expressed the hope that Democrats might suffer the same fate in 2012.
Greenwald’s speech mainly focused on civil liberties and terrorism policy “in the age of Obama.” But it was his approach to politics that got members of the Young Americans for Liberty — a Paulite Libertarian group that co-sponsored the event — excited:
The speech was stellar with too many good points to touch on in a single blog post. I would like to point out that in the Q&A at 38:00 Greenwald specifically addresses a possible alliance between progressives and Ron Paul libertarians. He also mentions Gary Johnson as a unique candidate with possibly the best chance of bringing this coalition together in a 2012 run for president.



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

To get paid by the Cato Institute (yes, the Libertarian Cato Institute) just because they are for making drugs legal, and to flirt with Ron Paul, while ignoring all his crazy and dangerous ideas:

Salon writer Glenn Greenwald insists he’s not a Cato Instituter (he just writes for them from time to time) — though he clearly appears to be a Libertarian, and a guy with a particular fondness for Ron Paul.
Greenwald’s consistent praise of Paul is based solely on the Republican presidential candidate’s positions on the civil liberties issues with which Greenwald is principally concerned. Paul opposes foreign interventionism, the PATRIOT Act and extrajudicial assassination of terrorist suspects, so he’s AOK with Glenn.

http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/12/should-glenn-greenwald-have-to-own-the-ron-paul-blue-plate-special/

Most disgustingly, it is what caused him to freely choose to defend America's most notorious Nazi on a copyright case, and then verbally defended him after he solicited the murder of the judge in the case (Judge Lefkow's mother and husband were later found murdered in her home):

Greenwald defended White Supremacist Matthew Hale who solicited the murder of a Federal Judge on his website. That’s not protected speech. Threatening to assassinate or soliciting the assassination of someone is a crime.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/09/us/white-supremacist-is-held-in-ordering-judge-s-death.html?src=pm

Hale solicited the murder of Federal Judge Joan Lefkow because she ruled in favor of a multicultural church who sued Hale over copyright issues regarding his use of the name “World Church of the Creator” which they were already using.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2003/spring/creator-crack-up?page=0,0

Greenwald defended Hale in this so called “First Amendment” case claiming solicitation of murder was protected speech.
From the above NYT link:
“Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer for Mr. Hale, said the charges filed today might stem from a misinterpretation of a statement by his client on the Internet that ”we are in a state of war with Judge Lefkow.’”

Matthew Hale was later convicted and sentenced to 40 years for soliciting an FBI informant to murder Federal Judge Joan Lefkow. So Glenn is not a very good Civil Rights attorney either since he claimed the solicitation of murder was a violation of Free Speech and not a crime. Coincidentally, Greenwald closed up his law practice just after losing this case claiming he was tired of litigating full time. http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/response-to-right-wing-personal.html

http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/the-glenn-greenwald-some-on-the-left-dont-know/ [div]

The so-called "consistency" you cite as a virtue is actually a deficit: As the great American thinker and poet Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote in his Self-Reliance

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

[frazzled]

92. Wow, glad to be the thread ender

The sounds of silence are somehow reassuring.

[DeathToTheOil]

93. All on the front page of GD right now. Do you see the futility?