Glenn Greenwald Supported President Bush As He Signed The Patriot Act!

[Galraedia]

The Patriot Act was signed on October 26, 2001 and this is what Glenn Greenwald wrote in the preface to his own book – his words, not mine…(emphasis IS mine)

This is not to say that I was not angry about the attacks. 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. [...]

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.

While I was screaming at my TV and marching in the streets in protest of the Patriot Act, the Afghanistan War and later the Iraq War, Glenn Greenwald “was ready to stand behind President Bush” and wanted to “exact VENGEANCE on the perpetrators.” And he “believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgement deferred to”, which of course included the passage of The Patriot Act on October 26, 2001.


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

[BlueCaliDem]

1. Bookmarked! Goes to show how many GiGi defenders here on DU

are more Republican/Libertarian than Democrats. I wonder what the hell they're doing here then, if not to infiltrate and take over.

GiGi is a Republican, a rightwing Republican. He exposed himself when he came out to "stand behind" the Republican who stole the 2000 presidential elections. That should tell each and every Liberal, Progressive, and Democrat what GiGi really is: a faux left-leaning Libertarian. He's a right-leaning Republican and that's why he abhors President Obama so much. He's a Log Cabin Republican in Liberal clothing.

[msongs]

2. Barack Obama supported President Bush as he signed Patriot Act extension. your point is...? nt

[yurbud]

18. as did most of the corporate Democrats in Congress

[think]

3. Great. So you are on board with repealing the Patriot Act then?

[Galraedia]

11. I'm on board with balancing national security and privacy.

People want security but they also want privacy. There has to be a way to balance both by either repealing and replacing the Patriot Act or making improvements. We also shouldn't be privatizing our national security. Private businesses shouldn't be profiting of it because it creates an incentive for these programs to exist and expand, costs more, and gives corporations a reason to lobby for more government contracts.

[think]

12. Then on this we do agree. Your response is both logical and reasonable.

[JayhawkSD]

14. Not only no, but oh hell no.

By "privacy" one has to assume you mean the fourth amendment, and there is no "balancing act" here. The amendment means what it says. There are no qualifiers about wartime or safety. It means what it means.

And this whole "national security" schtick is a farce. A few terrorist cells can no more destroy this nation than can a herd of house cats, and the term “national security” has been so overused as to have become as meaningless as the concurrent word “terrorist.” This is cant used by politicians to fear monger for the purpose of keeping the voting population cowed and under control.

As horrible the event was, “national security” does not mean preventing two guys from deploying pressure cooker bombs at a sporting event to kill three people. We need to prevent it, but it is not a matter of “national security.”

[Galraedia]

15. My answer was in regards to concerns that people have on security and privacy...

and balancing what will make people feel safe with what will make people feel comfortable enough to insure that their privacy isn't being violated.

[JayhawkSD]

19. And I will repeat that there is no "balancing act" here.

If the surrender of liberty is the price of keeping me safe, then let me die. I would rather die a free man than live safe without freedom.

[frylock]

4. did you also support president bush as he signed the patriot act?

or just when president Obama signed the renewal?

[Galraedia]

6. I was 15 when Bush signed the Patriot Act.

I couldn't vote so I wasn't even involved in politics.

[frylock]

7. well that's convenient..

it's all clear to me now. you should check out DU2 to see how consistent many of us are on this issue.

[TM99]

16. Ah, whatever happened to the old adage

that we are liberals in our youth and conservatives with age.

Please get back to me when you grow up, have read a history book or two, and have stopped living in the immature world of 'personality politics' where black is bad and white is good.

Greenwald admitted his mistake. Has Obama yet? After all, Obama has not only signed the Patriot Act back into law but has extended aspects of Bush's 'national security' plans to a point where it threatens our constitutional security.

[Hissyspit]

5. Um, yeah, I know.

[Cha]

8. Yeah, Greenwald was an idiot and

nothing's changed.

[Hydra]

9. Very few people were against it all from the beginning

I was one of those- I was paying attention when the ball started rolling and it stank.

Would I have liked it better if everyone got it the way I did back then? Absolutely! That said, some of the people I've fought with tooth and nail have come to see the light. I accept that, and them, because I spent most of my young life at school and some of college thinking our system worked and that Clinton was a good President.

My first election was Bush/Gore. My education came from the vote sabotage in FL, the betrayal of SCOTUS and the sellout of our party after 9/11.

Very few people start out knowing what's really going on, or valuing the laws we have. We're blessed to have the few voices and champions that we do, and the most successful of them are often silenced.

Glenn was wrong once. So was I. Even Elizabeth Warren was a true believer in the system once. Realizing when you are wrong and correcting it is part of the growth process.

[OnyxCollie]

10. Sounds like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. nt

[xocet]

13. Who cares? DNI Clapper lied to Congress re: the scope of NSA surveillance. Snowden via GG proved it.

n/t

[BillyRibs]

17. BFD!

I voted for Regan, I was 23 at the time. I learned a lot since then.