I don’t watch Real Time with Bill Maher ever, because I hate Bill Maher with a passion. But Joy Ann Reid was on last night (whom I greatly respect) and she was taking on Glenn Greenwald and NRO’s Charles Cooke, so I watched this segment from last night about Benghazi. And yes, there’s a reason I put Cooke and Greenwald on the same side: check the 2 minute mark.
Greenwald says “When the government goes on the air and says something that proves to be untrue…there needs to be an investigation.” So yeah, Greenwald certainly thinks that Benghazi’s worth having more oversight. Not only is that a hell of a threshold for an investigation (by that criteria we’d never stop have investigations after a Republican lawmaker was on TV for more than 30 seconds) but he’s staking out the new “progressive purity” position that maybe the Republicans are on to something…
I call rampant bullshit on all of this, but it doesn’t surprise me in the least that Greenwald wants to go after the Obama administration over this. It’s what he does. It’s the ultimate in Glibertarian nonsense, “government itself is the problem”, so let’s destroy the good along with the bad. Joy Reid then makes a beautiful point: what Greenwald is effectively asking for is for President Obama to be micromanaging the world with as much government interference as possible.
Oh, and PS, Greenwald thought our invasion of Iraq was a great idea back in the day.
Terribly wrong and unfair critique of Glenn.
Greenwald is a con artist. All I needed to know was summed up for me back in the day, when I pre-ordered his “book” and got a ranty pamphlet instead.
He simply IS the person who complains about everything. When you are stuck in prison with him, he’s a genius. When you’re enjoying a fine dinner, you want to gut him with the butter knife.
Fine, maybe he has principles. But when one complains about EVERYTHING, there’s a definite lack of useful discrimination.
Except there aleast has been an investigation.
Doesn’t Greenwald live at a safe distance down in Brazil from the collateral consequences of his glibertarian purity trolling, i.e. helping give cover to GOP partisan witch-hunts in service to pushing the US sharply in a political direction Greenwald would never approve of? It must be nice to live in an ivory tower with samba music.
How dare you use the words he said to criticize him!
Purity troll gotta troll. Greenwald makes a living doing it. You can’t expect him to stop his revenue stream over things like facts and principles.
LOL! He does have a Sullivan-esque ability to see most clearly when it is his own ox being gored.
Wow, nice hinting that this is attached to an evil imperialist plot, GG. Throwing in the ‘both sides do it’ was also a classy touch.
It must be nice to live in an ivory tower with samba music. It’s why I don’t read Greenwald any more.
I live in a log cabin with Pandora playing my beloved prog rock. That is, until my prog rock hating wife comes home.
Greenwald is an attention whore.
He’ll change his tune, if it gets him more attention.
I thought there was an investigation. And we’ve had nine hearings about it because it isn’t clear which of the 100s of committees in our cumbersome legislative branch has jurisdiction.
We should let administrations lie with impunity.
Greenwald is a charlatan. I suspect he is still a Republican, but too embarrassed to say. So, he became a libertarian, which allows him to continue attacking the Democratic Party while feigning principle.
@srv: no. They should only speak when the facts are certain.
Reading Greenwald is like listening to folks at Speaker’s Corner – fascinating for about three minutes, and then just tiring because he never really says anything new other than whacking the same old targets for the same old things.
I wish Greenwald would Ho the way of other firebaggers like Hamsher and Stoller; that is to say that he is paid little attention and he is reduced to writing on sites pushing tinfoil-hat crap.
Projection at its finest; because Glen doesn’t toe “he is our leader and can not be criticized” line, he is a progressive purity troll. Also, I can see why Zandar likes Joy Reid, she is the biggest Obama fanboy on television right now.
@gene108: I think, more to the point, he’s a contrarian’s contrarian– so he’s a natural ally of the media whores. Any anti-Obama narrative is a good one, after all.
But the “maybe the crazy assholes have a point” argument is a giveaway because in fact, the crazy assholes really are crazy assholes– and there’s no doubt that Greenwald knows that.
@Loviatar, Firebagger: u
I thought you were a PUMA.
His faith in Bush’s judgment in the runup to the Iraq war is all you need to know about his other judgments. Give me Joy Reid every day, and twice on Sunday plz. kthx.
Obots, No better than Republicans.
In the first 15 comments, 1/2 dozen are on the fact that he lives in Brazil. Next thing you know you’ll be checking to see what type of counter tops he has.
@Loviatar, Firebagger: what is his critique of Benghazi and how it was handled? What something is there?
@PsiFighter37: Unfortunately, Greenwald is a permanent fixture at The Guardian, the only place I see his writing anymore. I think a good name for his column there would be “Troll’s Corner” because he has become a parody of a parody of a Firebagger.
Why do we care so much about what Greenwald thinks. Before I started reading Balloon Juice, I had never even heard of him. I find his posts interminably long and boring, by the time I finish, I have already forgotten what his main point was.
I’m surprised you couldn’t find some way to lump Adam Green into this laughably absurd piece.
@schrodinger’s cat: Even in the darkest days of the Bush administration I avoided Greenwald due to his pompous bloviating.
Totally agree with you; there is no there there on Benghazi. But this post isn’t about Benghazi. Its an attack on Glenn Greenwald and anyone who has the temerity to criticize Obama.
Look at the first dozen responses, most are an attack on Glenn, with particular focus on his place of residence. If you can’t see the similarities to the way Republicans attack then you are either willfully blind or naive.
@schrodinger’s cat: I read Greenwald before I started reading here, but I agree with you: Somewhere along the line, his meticulous deconstructions of Bush administration actions became tedious and repetitive, not to mention long and boring. And that was when I tended to agree with him. I finally decided I had better ways of wasting my time. And whereas I’ll allow I still agree with some of what he says, I don’t find criticizing the bad useful when the only alternative is something far worse.
@Suffern ACE: Someone should total up if there were more administration stories about Benghazi than Abbottabad.
@Loviatar, Firebagger: Can you go feel YOUR PAIN!!!! in a corner or something?
No secret I am a big Greenwald supporter, but I think his assesment here is off-base.
BUT, before I get into that, Zandar’s characterization of Greenwald is a bit exaggerated to say the least.
Back to Greenwald – I disagree with his statements regarding how MSNBC treated Obama. It is sad to see Greenwald accepting the right-wing spin on Benghazi. I have no problem with an investigation being done – I think we can all agree on that. Greenwald did say it was a “minor scandal” and I guess to an extent it is. But this “scandal” involves both parties.
But, the real scandal is that the Right-wing wins the news cycle yet again. They are managing to keep Benghazi going.
Oh, and Zandar, I think A LOT of ‘smart’ folks were for the invasion of Iraq (cough cough COLE COLE cough cough) so that silly attack on Greenwald is a lot of FAIL.
OT: Caturday Morning LOL
@schrodinger’s cat: That’s my main beef with Greenwald, who has never failed to use 10,000 words when a thousand would do: Get to the goddamned point, already. (And stop randomly capitalizing Nouns.)
When the administration does something wrong, I want to hear an intelligent discussion about it along with alternatives that should have been explored. I don’t particularly care where Greenwald lives, though his past support of the Iraq war is a direct indictment of his judgment, so bringing that up is a fair point. But I’ve stopped paying any attention to anything Greenwald writes because he sucks at writing.
Culture of Truth
“he is our leader and can not be criticized”
is this a quote from somewhere?
Since when has Glenn acknowledged he was for the war from the get-go, let alone apologized for that position at any time since 2003?
I just don’t get all the Greenwald hatred. What did he say that was wrong? Why can’t we look realistically at the role we play in this world and how much violence we have created and abetted? Then we could honestly evaluate what we are doing. And the other guy’s point about the press being afraid to speak truth to power is certainly well taken. I thought Greenwald got the best of the argument.
@Betty Cracker: He does indeed suck at writing. BTW I made tilapia fish cakes yesterday and used your taco sauce as a dipping sauce, with one addition, 2 tsp of lemon curd. Thanks for the inspiration.
To add on about the critique of Greenwald: What I appreciate about Greenwald is that he truly believes that all politicians should be held accountable all the time. Not just Republicans, but Democrats.
While Greenwald is a liberal and a civil libertarain (not a Rand Paul libertari) and he believes in a strong and effective government. That’s why it drives him (and me) crazy to see a two-tiered justice system and that Obama sits atop that system.
Greenwald doesn’t want to have a beer or shmooze Obama, he wants him to do his fucking job like he promised. And he wants him to stop killing Muslims and holding Muslims in cages and so on. His passion for this doesn’t slow down when a D is in the White House.
And he especially finds it entertaining when so many of you rationalize away the sins of Obama while a few short years ago you were wanting to imprison Bush for similar action.
Ya bunch of Harper Valley Hypocrites.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Baud: My favorite kind of hybrid troll, the PUMAbagger, all the stupid fueled by twice the incoherent rage. You can understand why Benghazi! is a tough one for them.
@El Tiburon: yes. What I think is sad is that something like Benghazi, because it involves things he claims he cares about – our policy in the Mideast, the activities of the CIA, the influence of the secret government over our foreign policy, should interest him more. A lot of the information is out there. But adopting the right wing frame to interpret what the hearings should be about is a little lazy.
I don’t know that he has. Zandar made that claim and I was playing along.
“Leave Glenn Alone!”
For an asshole who never accomplished anything or actually achieved his claimed end goal, Greenwald has a lot to say.
If I edited Failblog, GG would find himself featured daily.
Zandar is doing his usual schtick, a misdirection troll combined with an attempted inoculation.
Tell us more! Does He favor Splenda or Stevia, or is He strictly a sugar man? Coffee or tea? Ford, Chevy or Tesla?
Villago Delenda Est
If there is no there in Benghazi, then why isn’t Greenwald dismissing it with a wave of his hand? Why is he joining the racist fuckwit dogpile?
Greenwald is, as others have noted, above all an attention ho.
Fuck him and all other glibertarian shitstains.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
He’s a sanctimonious asshole. Whether on political blogs or at work or your HOA, such people are not often popular.
ETA: though: thank you for not calling him “Glenn”. That kind of unironic pseudo-familiarity among fanboys creeps me out
Bill E Pilgrim
@El Tiburon: Well said. I was a little surprised also, but he did also say that the Republicans were using it for political purposes. Here’s the description from the link the poster provides:
Most of that is pretty non-controversial if you ask me. I also watched the segment earlier and I thought the same thing.
I don’t agree that the Administration made any errors, myself, just because these things are fluid and hard to deal with, and compared to the many, much more serious and real errors, lies and deceptions of the Bush Administration, this was nothing. There certainly are a lot of Democrats however who do think that they made errors, it’s not just Greenwald.
I don’t agree with Greenwald on everything, but then I don’t agree with Obama on everything either. Over the top hysteria in reaction to either of them should be left to Republicans however, they’re so good at it after all.
Glenn was the man when it was George W Bush he was criticizing, however when he started criticizing Obama he became enemy #1. Unfortunately, I’ve seen this become a habit with the Obots, behavior that was not tolerated when the Republicans were in power is now excused away.
There is an authoritarian streak to the Obots, its not as bad as with the Republicans but its there.
@Bill E Pilgrim:
Unless one considers the continuation of an observably bad foreign policy an error, then I would agree.
Yup. Time for the ol’ pie filter to be updated. Some people are just too stupid to live.
He used a generalization that sounds good but if you look at the specific situation he applied it to is blatantly, obviously inapplicable. The public result of that generalization supports purely partisan behaviors by people who are supposedly everything GG hates most. When he made that generalization he added emotionally weighted extra framing that could only apply if the current administration were full of evil conspirators.
When you do this, yes, people tend to point at you and denigrate your honesty.
I don’t care where he lives. He has his head up his ass, period. Fuck him and his attention whoring.
What was the last thing Greenwald was actually responsible to another person for? I’m thinking it was some failed legal representation of Gluteus Maximus Matthew Hale.
But, but the messiah Greenwald has decreed that Benghazi is the greatest scandal in history! What are you, one of those Obots who, according to The Great Greenwald “mindlessly worship” and/or “fantasize about getting raped” by “dear leader”?
That desire ended with abruptness when we collectively decided that looking forward was the policy to choose.
I’ve lost track of how many mea culpas John has done on this blog about his prior dumbassery. Not only does Greenwald never acknowledge his, he has become an insufferable arrogant prick about his own perceived ideological superiority.
Truly, Glenn Greenwald is a man whose brilliance will only be recognized in posterity. Like George W Bush.
I did some research on Greenwald’s support for the invasion of Iraq. It comes from Greenwald’s preface in his first book, “How Would a Patriot Act”.
Now, it is precisely due to that preface I read years ago that led me to really became a big Greenwald fan. Basically, Greenwald pre-Bush was not very political and basically believed in his government. I was that same exact person. I supported the invasion in that I believed and trusted the governemt in 2003. It was only after the invasion that it was obvious the government was not what it seemed.
So Greenwald had a political awakening (as I did and millions of others did) at this time. Greenwald began to pay attention and understand how the government (both parties) lie to their people. Especially Republicans.
So, yes, Greenwald was a passive supporter of the invasion in that he supported his President. He was not a Thom “Suck on this Friedmann” or a John Cole who was out actively pushing for the war. So, yeah, he supported it to an extent. So did I. Out of ignorance.
Regardless, Zandar includes that just to be an ass. I mean, really, this entire post would not exist if the person saying the same exact things Greenwald was saying was just some mid-level hack at some no-name news agency. But Greenwald = troll points.
I’ll leave with this:
Notice how the attacks will get more personal as the thread gets longer.
Republicans 2.0 = Obots
@the Conster: Look Greenwald has said that he trusted his government about 9/11. He wasn’t writing a blog at that time, and you can find it in his own FAQs. But if you want to go back in time you might want to remember that he strongly supported Obama in the general election against McCain.
So does that make him right here? Nope, but do try to focus.
@Loviatar, Firebagger: Perhaps that might have something to do with the fact that Bush provided such a phenomenally large target that Greenwald could not help but hit it, whereas Obama’s target profile is considerably slimmer. So when Greenwald keeps on dropping his bombs in the exact same places as he did before, the extent of his contrarianism becomes obvious.
If I only I could change it so that every time this failed blowjob typed it said “FEEEEEEL MY PAAAAAAAAAIIIINNNNN!!!!”
Perhaps you can link to some of Greenwald’s posts on his support for the war because, honestly, I could not find any. I didn’t look too hard, regardless, I didn’t find any.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@schrodinger’s cat: They won’t go away, so you have to criticize and mock them. See Firebagger Loviator.
Greenwald is a tedious ass who never admits the possibility he might be wrong about anything. On the other hand, he’s mostly right here, just in a banal way. When The Government tells the public something that turns out not to be the whole story, it’s appropriate to ask why. Of course the answer to why often is “because they wanted to protect sensitive information” or “because they hadn’t put it all together yet.” Which is why the whole thing has gone completely crazy — those answers make for less TV DRAMA than the media craves.
Greenwald can’t let any opportunity pass to try and attack President Obama’s administration.
I don’t know why people continue to allow this Koch brothers affiliated, white supremacist apologist to pose as a member of the progressive left.
Anybody who spends YEARS promoting Ron & Rand Paul is not now or has ever been a liberal.Glenn Greenwald is a libertarian Republican who HATES Democrats with a white hot passion.
His cult followers recite the talking point that he opposed Bush (after he supported him) as proof that he should be trusted by the left. But by that clownish standard Alex Jones and Glenn Beck should be progressive icons.
I’m 100% convinced that Glenn Greenwald is part of a coordinated libertarian agenda to RATFUCK the shit out of the Democrats left flank and tag team with Republicans.
NOBODY should be surprised that Greenwald is now adding his screeching voice to the Benghazi smear campaign.It’s just too good for him to pass up.
Greenwald is not a “liberal” except with regard to his own rights. He is a libertarian. He is also not that important to creating policy or actually doing something. He is the Jill Stein of punditry. Sounds good on the surface, but hardly a relevant go to person if you want to do something. The only thing he does better than Jill Stein is give a tone of credence to things. The fact that he’s concurring that there is there in the Benghazi thing says volumes about him. I find it hilarious how many show up to defend him with the nonsense of slavish Obot devotion, have the same slavish Greenwald devotion. If he’s teaching you to be critical of all sources and to truly investigate things, then why are you so offended on the behalf of someone you don’t know, when people are critical of him?
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
First Loviator comment:
Last Loviator comment:
I personally love the “I’ll start with personal attacks and end with complaining about personal attacks.”
ALERT ALERT ALERT *******MAJOR ALERT********
I just can’t get over the unbelievable arrogance and irony of Glenn Greenwald. This is a douche that supported shit for brains Bush and the Dark Lord Dick Cheney’s Neo-Con lies that got us in to Iraq. The biggest foreign policy disaster in modern American history.
Now he is joining with his Republican friends to try and bring down President Obama’s administration because the initial reports about the Benghazi attack were inaccurate. Even though they were quickly corrected by the Administration within days.
I can’t imagine how shameless you have to be to attempt this line of attack.
Greenwald is in the same category as John Mccain and Miss Lindsey Graham.
How long until Greenwald is on Fox News ranting about Benghazi.
I’m sure his firebagger cult followers will continue to defend this ratfucker.
I wonder if you, even if only for a second, found this context as humorous as I do.
So he was wrong about Bush, and wrong about Benghazi here, and so ignore his holier than thou sanctimonious prick shtick because he didn’t support McCain? LOL
I agree with GG’s about everything except his bullshit Benghazi point. His heart was not in it, he was just making it because he can’t help it. His hatred of Obama blinds him to reason most times.
As for the hack with the British accent, why do we continue to import British wingers? They’re dumb asses who say the same dumb shit our righties say but with a British accent.
Jockey Full of Malbec
Greenwald was one of the very first bloggers, back in the day. I used to read him.
He started out as your standard fiscally conservative glibertarian, and was pro-war early on (GWB had lowered his taxes, so at first he got a pass on everything else).
His ‘deep concern’ for civil liberties and the excesses of the Bush administration was born about ten minutes after his then-bf from Brazil was refused entry into the US by said administration.
so says the person who’s every comment on this thread is a personal attack.
are you incapable of self-reflection?
I’m on team Joy Reid–she has saved my sanity many times when I wanted to throw heavy objects at my tv. The other people at the table with her–I don’t give a crap about them. Always the same stuff with them. They are stuck and boring.
Wigan can’t blow chances like that.
“I don’t and I’m bored with it, let’s move on”- sometimes Maher is an ass and sometimes he’s absolutely right
GG was right that there are questions to be asked and policies to be changed. However, everything related to this issue has become a circus, thanks to an inept Congress. If GG wants to do anything to improve accountability or foreign policy, I would advise him to stop eating peanuts and cheering on the (R)ingmasters.
You know, I seldom even read posts dealing with Greenwald, but I decided to read this one, and one thing struck me. Those who attack bog-standard liberals as Obots march as much in lockstep as those they attack. The contrarian credo becomes as much as straightjacket as any other cult belief. And when they latch into a “hero,” they are as “bottish” as those they critizise.
the questions have been asked, over and over, for months. and they’ve been answered, over and over for months.
@El Tiburon: “so many of you rationalize away the sins of Obama while a few short years ago you were wanting to imprison Bush for similar action.”
Bullshit and fuck you. Which ‘similar action’ might you have in mind? Starting a three trillion dollar war on flimsy pretext? Pissing a hole right through the fourth amendment? Aiding and abetting the looting of the treasury? Come back when you a real critique.
@Lynn Sutherland: driftglass deconstructed one of Greenwald’s
screensscreeds pretty well recently. Glenn is very talented at presenting a seemingly persuasive argument. But too often he’s too clever by about 10 times (not just by half) and disingenuous.
Haha, not exactly true. The Rs seem to be scrupulously avoiding asking any questions that might result in better policy making. All that noise seems to be drowning out most of the legitimate questions.
Step 1: Demand the administration say SOMETHING before all the facts are in.
Step 2: Complain when they get something wrong.
Step 3: (Righties) Start an investigation into administration “lies.”
Step 3: (Firebaggers) Whine about “Obots” and claim “he’s as bad a Bush!”
@Johnny Coelacanth: Because Obama hasn’t ignored the congress and ruled like a dictator to fix things he’s as bad as Bush.
Why hate Maher so much?
Villago Delenda Est
This is the problem. The questions were asked months ago, and answered. The problem is the questioners didn’t like the answers, so they keep asking them, hoping against hope that those they’re interrogating will change their answers.
The only way they’re going to get the answers they want is to start waterboarding, to force their victims to give them the answers they want, which will have nothing at all to do with reality, but everything to do with the propaganda points they’re trying desperately to sell.
@Riccardo Cabeza: Both sides do it-ism.
Zandar is a moronic fool who barely has the mental capacity to manage high snark. He gets babysat by Cole and the other front pagers because it’d be too embarrassing to ask him to leave. Zandar, just remember we’re all laughing at you as you struggle to piece together your laughable contributions to this blog.
Here’s the deal, Kropadope, questions have been asked (and answered) out the kazoo. You do realize that in addition to the 9+ hearings, there has been an independent investigation which gave @ 59 recommendations to the state department.
At this point, nothing is being accomplished but assisting the rabid republicans in keeping this alive and abetting their goal of a twofer: an in-your-dreams impeachment of President Obama and sullying Hillary Clinton, prior 2016.
Villago Delenda Est
Knockabout, is that you?
You are one creepy motherfucker.
If you ignore my original point that this media circus has nothing to do with any legitimate questions involving Benghazi, then you may have something resembling a point.
Boy howdy, he sure was. Oof. He just EXCORIATED bush back then.
Buh…but Greenwald is Cole’s hero. Why do you hate BJ so much? Why don’t you go away and write for the Obama Diary you Obamabot!
I didn’t have a problem with about half of what he was saying last night. I just wish he hadn’t been auditioning to be the next MicroMachines spokesman while he was doing it so it had a chance to sink in.
@Villago Delenda Est: No, I’m just one of thousands of people who read this blog can’t fathom how everyone coddles what is essentially a functioning retard. Even when he expresses opinions that I agree with, he comes off as slow. It’s pathetic.
@Betty Cracker: LOL, thank you. I hung in looking for something of value in this vertically fornicated excuse of a comment thread, and had just about given up.
@lojasmo: Not to defend Tom Friedman, but his “Suck on this” rationale for invading Iraq carried a lot more integrity than this obsequious word salad.
@Kropadope: yep. The whole enterprise seems a bit messed up. Has been from the beginning. Our CIA outpost in Benghazi was attacked. If the event was framed that way from the beginning, there might be a different set of questions and interpretations.
Death Panel Truck
It doesn’t say much for your judgment, does it? Most of us knew at the time that the Bush administration was busily peddling lies and bullshit, and we knew the upcoming war was going to be a clusterfuck of unimaginable proportions. That’s why we DFHs protested it even before it started. Remind me again who was right about that?
“Why hate Maher so much”?
For me, it’s not at all “hating” Bill Maher; it’s more about being annoyed that he doesn’t have the details to the issues he poses to his panel. Hence the wingnuts gain another forum to spew their truthiness, only half-assed challenged. Maher might want to change his name to Colmes, only funnier.
Self-Righteous Little White Guy
@Betty Cracker: Boxers, or briefs?
@Bill E Pilgrim:
I just don’t even get the notion that the White House “put forth things that were untrue” or that if it did permit someone to go on a talk show and say stuff that it rises to the level of massive congressional investigations. Everything that happens, exactly at the moment that it happens, is not a fit subject for dissemination on the morning talk shows. I can think of millions of things that can’t or ought not to be talked about for reasons of national security or because they are sub judice at the moment. This just came up (and ought to come up more) with the Marathon Bombers. What the government thinks, or suspects, about a criminal incident here or abroad really shouldn’t be fully dumped out on the airwaves–look at the Richard Jewell situation? Look at the ongoing investigation of anything. Preliminary guesses are just, always, provisional. I just don’t even see the phrases that Greenwald or the right wing are using as at all relevant to the proposition “something happened, we don’t know what, we have a duty to investigate.” The duty to investigate is held by some people, not everyone. The duty to disseminate the information from the investigation falls on some people, not everyone. Sunday morning TV isn’t even on my mattering map.
@Death Panel Truck:
To be viewed as a serious person, you must have (a) supported or acquiesced to the invasion of Iraq and (b, optional) then turned against it.
Cole! Smart person! Knee-slapper!
@pamelabrown53: Maher = entertaining blowhard. Greenwald = irritating blowhard.
@Thomas F: thousands of people haven’t exactly taken up your cause.
As a comedian he’s good, but as an interviewer / panel host he’s pretty bad.
I never forget that Glenn Greenwald was first a Glibertarian-Republican. He might be Firebagger Jane’s big favorite, but Greenwald isn’t a Librul, and never really ever was. He mouthed some anti-Bush arguments from a Lawyerly viewpoint once or twice. Nothing more.
I don’t believe I’ll ever forget where I was or what I was doing when I heard the outrageous news that talking points were changed in an inter-agency process for a Sunday Morning chat [email protected][email protected]!!!
the DFH got snookered by a lot of people who supported Bush and then turned against him. Some of these people just had underdeveloped political sense and have stayed on the side of goodness and light. Others, like Greenwald, have reverted to form. Interesting that a Republican can pull this sort of transformation. Sorta like the shows that used Sullivan as their token “liberal” because he was gay and worked for “even the liberal” New Republic
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Shorter Greenwald fans: “You’re idiots for worshiping Obama like a god when you ought to be worshiping Glenn like a god.”
Introspection. Practice it.
@Self-Righteous Little White Guy: Let us not forget the real saloon-clearing triggers: vi or emacs! ? Compaq or Atari!?
I’m saying, of course there were legitimate questions. Every tragedy like this necessitates a thorough review so we do not repeat the same mistakes. If you look at attacks on diplomatic facilities, especially in the Middle East, over the past 30 years, ALL required a thorough examination of mistakes made. Does this brouhaha over BENGHAZI! strike you as a true fact-finding mission to help identify structural weaknesses, human error and correct them?
Myself, I don’t hate him, but I can easily understand why some people do. He’s a self-righteous hypocrite, guilty of many of the same things he makes fun of other people for.
Examples: Maher frequently decries bigotry, while he himself is blatantly bigoted against Moslems. He makes fun of people who are “believers” instead of “thinkers”, when his own beliefs about a great many issues like environmentalism and vaccines are based solely on what other people say about them.
Personally, I find his angry ranter persona to be entertaining more often than not, but I can easily see why other people can’t stand it.
My impression of Greenwald is that he often has a very good take on the specifics of an event and goes wildly overboard speculating about the motives of the people involved in it.
In other words, he’s a classic conspiracy theorist who writes about more mundane matters than alien abductions and Loch Ness Monster sightings. When the conversation turns to why a politician has done something, his writing always turns to hyperbolic phrases involving a lot of capitalized words. His motto seems to be “Never attribute to incompetence what can be adequately explained by malice”.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Well put. He’s often half-informed at best, and a lot of times his panels have two good or neutral guests and one asshole, usually but not always a token right-winger or Villager– Stephen Moore and Reihan Salan (sp?) come to mind– and allows said asshole to dominate the discussion. and what @different-church-lady: said
@Thomas F: Actually, no we’re not. You may speak for yourself only, since you obviously have no clue what the rest of us are thinking. I’d spell it out, but then I would be indulging in a personal attack and lowering myself to your level.
@Jim Pharo: Has there ever been one that wasn’t? @Culture of Truth:
Yes, it’s a quote from the all purpose “how dare you criticize those who dissent!” handbook.
Dissent, you see, is good and noble and fine, in and of itself. It doesn’t matter what you’re dissenting from, as long as you’re dissenting because dissent is, in and of itself, always in and every way an absolute good. Which means it is always wholesome and beneficial, never has unintended consequences and, therefore, the dissenter has no responsibility for what happens because only good can come of it and anything bad that happens is the inevitable result of failing to listen to the dissenter.
Which means to defend the target of dissent, or worse still, to critique the content of the dissenter’s argument or impeach the dissenter’s credibility is an attack on all that is good and noble and fine. No dissent from the dissent is tolerable or tolerated. Dissenting from the position of the dissenter is inherently unreasonable and thus cannot be the result of a reasoned position held in good faith. No, it can only be the result of being a mental captive to a totalitarian cult of personality, not the result of reasoned agreement with the target of the dissent.
Hope this clears this up for you.
@pamelabrown53: This. And the pity is that, thanks to the wingnut stampede to puff Benghazi up into the next Watergate, a practical review and policy change is less likely to happen.
when someone attacks a front pager for being a “retard”, it seems like they may be a little slow themselves
Forum Transmitted Disease
@jshooper: What you said. Couldn’t have put it better myself.
@Kropadope: perhaps if they weren’t directly culpable in underfunding the State Department in regards to the money requested to provide adequate security for our diplomats around the world. Then we could argue whether the money was properly spent yet when you proclaim that we live in a dangerous world that is out to denigrate and exterminate all things American. Then, despite your own previously stated worldview, decide at that time to be “fiscally frugal” and then have the chutzpah to wonder how is it that the country didn’t make the safety of these people a priority seems a bit duplicitous to me.
You know, like every other Republican policy of the last ten years… it either benefits the rich, the American Taliban or some other small section of useful idiots that these guys use as a cudgel against anyone who disagrees with them.
a smear from a shill, how cute.
can Zandar show us one single instance of Greenwald saying, writing, or working to support the invasion of Iraq?
didn’t think so.
@aimai: For that matter, where were all the congressional meetings over the inerrant GWB first calming the masses about Islam after 9-11 instead of immediately revealing up the existential threat posed by all Muslims and all possibly beturbaned ones! huh? Was Iraq the first word out his administration’s mouth? well?
@patroclus: You win.
Sorry if i didn’t make clear that I don’t think this media circus has anything to do with legitimate fact-finding. It is, in fact, impeding the dissemination of the found facts to the general public.
You cultish Glennbots are adorable, with how you hide from the reality of your god.
@Josie: I’ll do it for you.
Hey fuckstick! Speak for yourself you ignorant pile of shit.
This is how much our Journalism s co-opted. NO ONE is asking this perfectly logical question of them.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Holy shit– “The slavery point is cheap”
Is anyone at NRO not a complete douche?
Why do the firebaggers and PUMA’s have such a need to find a daddy to tell them what to think?
I am not now, nor have I ever been a “Glennbot” but thanks for using a jr. high defense. bravo
still waiting on one single quote or writing or active political support from GG for the Invasion of Iraq.
when shills of any stripe deploy a smear one would think they or their minions would have something more formidable as evidence than a cite from Greenwald’s preface to a book written a decade after the invasion?
Because Cole is infallible in those choices of who has the keys?
@Cassidy: Thanks! I laughed out loud when I read that.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Just watched the whole clip, I don’t think Greenwald said one thing that wasn’t at least over-generalizing to the point of dishonesty, if not outright demagoguery
@Death Panel Truck: I’m not sure who “most of us” was. Certainly it wasn’t the majority of Americans, not even apparently the majority of the people who write on this blog. So Greenwald is in good company there.
Cue the Retroactive Guillotines! VE-Day not announced immediately on all channels! (in fact, actually publicly and officially unconfirmed!). Treasonous Recent Anniversary
@some guy: That’s right — don’t believe your lyin’ eyes!
I hope everyone here will be applying that same standard to Hilary Clinton if she decides to run.
The Greenwald hate is because he is a Rand fanboy himself, peddling the usual Libertarian schtick with a gloss of Lawyerly Crusade that makes it look better than it actually is.
I’ll take the lot of them far more seriously about civil liberties when they crusade against prison privatization and for marijuana legalization; two tactics that would actually improve a lot of lives and stop wasting government money.
The fact that they say nothing on the subjects besides platitudes, and never actually do anything about these issues, means their true motivations are not at all what their fans attribute to them.
So is it a ‘progressive purity’ position or ‘Glibertarian bullshit’?
You can’t force it to be both, Zandar. Not and be intellectually honest, at any rate.
I will apply that standard to Hillary, but that’s not the reason I probably wouldn’t vote for her.
That’s why I voted against her in the primary, that’s why I intend to vote against her in the primary again if she runs.
@Death Panel Truck:
By that argument it doesn’t say much for most Democrats in Congress at that time either, including Hilary Clinton.
I haven’t known you to be stupid in the past, but maybe I wasn’t paying close enough attention to your mutterings.
In any case, you’re welcome.
the charge that that the administration covered something up because they changed what they said is just asking for “no comment” answers to every question. If saying something that later turns out not to be true is an impeachable offense, seems like that’s the only proper response
Good man. That’s a deal breaker for me as well. Partly for being so totally wrong at the time, but even more for her attitude since then.
I can keep it up all day. In case you can’t parse it for your self, that’s a greenwald quote, ass-hat.
A Humble Lurker
@NobodySpecial: Actually, they kind of circle back on one another. Once you get into the progressive purity, it’s only a short hop, skip, and a DRRRRROOOOOOONNNNEEEEZZZZZ to get to libertarian.
Oh, and PS, Greenwald thought our invasion of Iraq was a great idea back in the day.
So did John Cole. But don’t let me interrupt the five minute hate here. Apostates must be burned, and all that.
A majority of democrats in congress voted AGAINST AUMF.
Look it up.
@MikeJ: Ditto. Well, depending on who she runs against in the primary. I supported Obama mainly because he had the sense to oppose the Iraq war from the get-go, but I would have totally voted for Hills if she had won the nomination, and I will vote for her if she wins it in 2016, assuming the Republicans continue to be warmongering, woman-oppressing, plutocrat-humping, theocratic homophobes. Which is a safe bet.
@Betty Cracker: Hillary, who was outsmarted by Bush, is still a better option than Santorum.
Who has proceeded to do a complete 180, contribute time and money, and seems to have dedicated himself to the advancement of liberal causes. So, yeah. Sorry to interrupt your handjob.
I think the “media circus” as you so aptly identified, is predicated on the impossible task of filling a 24/7 news cycle where conflict stories are aided and created in search of ratings and clicks.
It becomes the progressive purity position when they ally themselves with the Glibertarian Obama haters like Greenwald.
Greenwald is spewing right wing Fox News talking points against Pres.Obama and the firebagger “progressives” rally around Greenwald and claim that he is right on Benghazi.
It’s clear that attacking Obama (and Democrats) is more important than anything else when it comes to this crowd.These are the same people who thought it was cool to #standwithRand.
And that is the paragraph immediate above your “direct Greenwald quote.” Extra credit: does that imply Greenwald felt that it was a “great idea”? Extra extra credit: when you resort to cherry picking quotes and calling people asshat, does this a) strengthen, or b) weaken your case?
I wouldn’t even vote for her in the general. Then, I’m from MA, so if my state is close enough that she needs my vote, she got bigger problems.
A Humble Lurker
Kind of funny. Weren’t we just talking about Malkin and her “You quoted him, that’s smearing!” and now…
Dissenters can be dissented. They would probably do well to remember that.
No if you dissent from dissenters you are taking away their freedom of speech. Rush told me.
Maybe we’ll get Elizabeth Warren as President in 2016 rather than Hillary. I’d be happier with Elizabeth.
Can’t get behind that one. For one, she has conducted herself well within the Administration. I think she has been a key part of its success. Secondly, if we want progressive policies, we have to keep Republicans out. Period.
@Cassidy: And Greenwald has written more words on liberal causes like assassination programs, Guantanomo, and banksterism than Cole will ever write in a lifetime. I used to think that there was something to the Balloon-Juice crowd hostility to Greenwald, but now I realize that, in true projection style, you’re all a bunch of asshats in a circle jerk.
@piratedan: Thanks for mentioning the giant logs in GOP eyes. If the Republican Congress hadn’t cut money for embassy security, they might have a leg to stand on.
Mixed metaphor example of the day.
A Humble Lurker
I’d actually say your quote makes the case of Greenwald’s jackassery stronger. He thought all that and still went with the whole Iraq deal? That’s actually worse than if he’d had no doubts.
I just did. You should have looked it up yourself before posting that claim:
TBF, that was not really the relevant vote anyway, but you unwisely chose to make it so.
@Cygil: You’re a dumbass if you think that. GG writes columns to criticize the POTUS and Democrats. That he can use liberal beliefs and useful idiots like you to do that is a testament to your failings.
I guess everything looks like a circle jerk when you’re covered in Greenwald juice. How does it feel to be a useful idiot for a preening ass’s revenue stream?
@jaleh: I would be thrilled to pieces if Warren ran. Love her latest idea about loaning money to students at the same rates the big banks get.
I guess the conventional wisdom would be she’s too far left to win, but I’m not so sure that’s true. She’s got a down-to-earth folksiness that I can see appealing beyond the base.
Here’s my issue. I’ve seen a few examples, but the one that sticks when Clinton and Obama debated healthcare in 08. They had a disagreement on one aspect of the plan and her response was (paraphrasing) “how dare you question my plan, it is THE Democratic plan and we must all get in lockstep behind it”.
My problem is that she is a progressive purity troll undercover as the “conservative” Democrat. That attitude makes hash of our government’s ability to accomplish things and reminds me too much of slavish Republican purity.
I am not a fan of Glenn Greenwald – hell, I support Obama on drones. But I don’t understand an obsessive contempt for him – many of his concerns about civil liberties and government overreach have validity, even when overstated (not “Benghazi!” but can we at least acknowledge that this was handled badly at State and that “mistakes were made” in a situation that ended horrifically? Also, the events in Benghazi (sans exclamation mark) DO warrant a full investigation, although not the investigation that is actually happening. The issue of embassy security and how a top diplomat died in a chaotic situation is worthy of the country’s attention, most especially when Congress cut State’s security funding.)
I’m not afraid of Greenwald and welcome critics like him, even when I disagree with him. He’s not an ideological right-winger who is solely motivated by partisan ire. Also, in that video he says that “it’s not a major scandal” and later in the video, around 7 minutes, says some things about US foreign policy in the Middle East historically that can’t be said often enough.
I hardly consider Glenn Greenwald “the enemy” and the notion that he’s “on the same side” as some douchebag from NRO is pretty much the same “with us or against us and on the side of the fascists” mindset that the CPUSA had toward Leon Trotsky. Really – same kind of small-minded, party-loyalty bullshit. It’s actually a bit more hysterical even than Mr. Greenwald himself.
In all, after the Bush years, if I could have predicted what winning an election would mean to the comity of the left blogosphere, I probably would have just voted for McCain to keep that good republican machine running the country.
I think it was a fascinating debate and thanks for sharing. That’s why I like Maher’s show overall. I think Greenwald made some great points at the end about Islam/religion and violence.
I think it’s fine and proper to have an investigation by the congress of Benghazi. I just think the obsession over the talking points is fucking absurd. It just goes to show how incompetent the Republican House is. There are some genuine questions to ask, such as why security was not beefed up on 9/11 and why calls for increased security were not answered.
Instead, House GOP seems intent on burying the hatchet deeper into Susan Rice.
In fairness, Greenwald has written more words on every goddamned topic in the galaxy than anyone else (except for maybe Proust) because he’s a long-winded sumbitch.
Of course, Hillary’s history of guiding controversial and important issues through Congresss is stellar.
@Betty Cracker: I agree, I think trashing the left is merely reflexive. I describe liberal policies to people under thirty and they LOVE them.
@Betty Cracker: I think she can win, we need someone like her. She has a better chance than Hillary. I’m tired of the Bushes/Clintons.
I’d imagine that, when he decided to “look forward, not backward” and give Bush et al. a post-facto license-to-genocide, Obama figured republicans would tacitly acknowledge the favor and cut him some slack on foreign-policy sausage-making.
Sadly, Obama believes idiotic things like that.
Unfortunately she comes across as being a reasonable, decent and sincere. Republicans will quickly morph that into her being a spineless commie who is dedicated to destroying the businesses that made this country great.
And that’s before they attack her for being a woman who is not ready for high office.
@pokeyblow: The only way to put a president on trial for official actions is impeachment. When were the votes there to do it?
Honest to god, I can never fully trust the judgement and/or the integrity of anyone who supported the Iraq war. I think that the pols like Hillary, Kerry and Biden who voted to give Bush war powers were fucking cowards and showed themselves to be fundamentally opportunists. I can’t believe those folks were so stupid they actually thought it would be a good idea to invade Iraq – so, while I don’t lump them together with the Bush administration (like Zandar above lumps Greenwald together with National Review), they forever will have the stigma of opportunistic politician hanging over their heads IMHO. I’ll enthusiastially work for and vote for Hillary for President in ’16 because I’m not naive about our political system and actual possibilities at that level, but I’ll know exactly what the deal is and the limitations going in. Matt Yglesias admitted one of the main reasons he initially supported the war is that he was a young jerk. I guess I believe in redemption, but the Iraq war was so patently being hyped and so obviously disconnected from US national security interests that I can’t fathom how anyone could have supported it who wasn’t either a pathetic pussy wetting their pants in the wake of 9/11, a shameless imperialist of either the “liberal interventionist” or neo-con Evil Empire stripe, a cynic worrying over which way political winds were blowing or a person who was incredibly low-information or too chickenshit to go against the grain of low-information public opinion ginned up by the powers-that-be.
To this day I fucking hold support of the war against people and wonder what the fuck it is inside of them that could have made them either that stupid or that cynical. I honestly don’t know what “smart people” means in that context. Thomas Fucking Friedman? I guess he’s smarter than me because he’s got a lot of best-sellers, but that’s some dumb-shit “smart” IMHO.
Zandar, you are so full of shit I can smell you from here.
The truth hurts, doesn’t it asshole?
Who gives a fuck? Let the dickbags have their inquisition. They got nothing. Time to fuck some republican shit up.
@Joel: I figure it keeps Issa busy, so why the hell not?
@jshooper: Who are these people? Links and cites are needed if you’re going to peddle this bullshit.
@Lavocat: what truth is that?
@MikeJ: Whatever the precise, specific provisions which you’re referring to are, there is no internationally-recognized policy which holds Americans (including non-presidents in the Bush cabal) immune from war-crimes prosecution.
If in fact there were no vehicle for investigating and likely prosecuting the Bush gang, there would have been no need for Obama to step in the way of justice and pardon their murders.
For some reason, Obama decided it would be really cool to take the heat off of the predecessor administration. I think it’s because he wanted them to like him.
Viewed that way, was the move more pathetic, or more ineffectual? That’s a close call.
Wigan! Relegated and winning the FA Cup!
And the FBI is still investigating the attack. The attackers are walking around still.
There is no scandal. Obama did his best to keep people informed.
I bet people around the country don’t care about this at all. It didn’t prevent Obama from being re elected.
I am tired of Obama being treated so badly.
Senators Inhofe (sp?) and McCain have not been held to account for what they have said about the president.
@Joel: The time to fuck some republican shit up was the day Obama, with a solid majority in favor of doing just that, took office in 2009.
But Obama decided he’d make more BFFs on the republican side by waving away all investigations into their bloody criminality. And massive, massive theft… don’t forget that.
I love you for saying Greenwald is long winded. I have a thing about writers who so that.
I never congrated you on you passing the test. Good on you.
Wigan! Probably relegated and won the FA Cup!
A lot of it has to do with Tribalism. I don’t mean that in a bad way-we are pack animals after all.
During the Bush years, we all perceived Greenwald was “one of us.” He wrote about civil liberties like no one else. When you’re in the opposition, it’s pretty easy to have a coalition-all people have to do is say no. Doesn’t really matter why-saying no works fine.
Things changed when Obama came into office. No longer did you say no, you had to say yes now. You could still be “one of us” and protest the President’s policies provided at the end of the day you supported him and the Dems. It has become clear, however, Greenwald not only will not get onboard the Obama coalition, he will actively root against it.
One of the best blog post in the last year was this one about Nader-
Loomis talks about how guys like Nader didn’t do much for progressive causes. They were good at saying no, but when it required coalition building and saying yes, they were no where to be found. The same is true with Greenwald-on all the issues he cares about, he’s not interested in building a coalition, he’s more interested in attacking the very people who he fought with under Bush.
That’s at least my take on the situation…
Fucvk internationally recognized. Obama wasn’t elected to uphold international standards. He is president of the US, and US law says the only way to try a president for his official actions is impeachment.
Please don’t be so fucking stupid.
You could use a box of Depends, before you wet yourself.
Somehow iconic that ‘mericans are out resolving issues with neighbors using bulldozers any more. There’s that shining beacon peoples.
@MikeJ: There was a time when, for example, the United States agreed to abide by the Geneva Conventions. Perhaps you agree with Cheney and others that those rules are “quaint.”
As for calling me stupid, it’s sad for you, having to lunge for the ad hominem so quickly and so desperately. Not having a good day? Money problems? Girl- or boy-friend left you? Shitty job, going nowhere?
Oh well. People without self-control end up in those situations.
I don’t think Greenwald has ever been anything other than a Lone Ranger in his own view. Personally, I don’t assume people who agree with me on particular issues share my general political perspective. This is all a matter of perception. Greenwald is exactly who he appears to be – no big mystery, and attempts to paint him with the brush of Ron Paul, the Koch Brothers, National Review, an avowed enemy bent on bringing down Obama just like the GOP, etc. etc. ad nauseum are more measures of someone being partially brain-dead than of Glenn Greenwald.
There’s a certain kind of argumentation that disgusts me and comes off as both cheap and childish. I guess the “tribal” thing taken to an extreme (although I consider myself pretty tribal in my hatred for the GOP, but also able to hold more than a single obsessive or one-dimensional view of politics in my head at the same time. I don’t have any illusions about the Democratic Party coalition, at the same time that I am a die-hard Democrat who hates the shallow and opportunistic candidacy of Ralph Nader circa 2000. But it’s not his entire legacy and, frankly, the “perfect storm” of Gore’s loss had more elements that were self-inflicted than no – “over-determined” with Nader being the one piece most often singled out by Democrats because it doesn’t require any self-criticism.)
Seriously! What does hate have to do with it?
Anybody who supported the worst foreign policy disaster since Vietnam should not be allowed to be considered a respected pundit. And since Greenwald supported the Iraq war, I could care less if he now is concerned that he may been lied to by the current government.
For crying out loud, does not see the fricking difference between Benghazi and the lies that took us into the Iraq war? Or how about comparing Benghazi to the 11 embassy attacks under Bush? What the hell makes this ONE so special? I am seriously at a loss at this pretend outrage.
An attempt to rescue a comment from moderation.
Honest to god, I can never fully trust the judgement and/or the integrity of anyone who supported the Iraq war. I think that the pols like Hillary, Kerry and Biden who voted to give Bush war powers were fucking cowards and showed themselves to be fundamentally opportunists. I can’t believe those folks were so stupid they actually thought it would be a good idea to invade Iraq – so, while I don’t lump them together with the Bush administration (like Zandar above lumps Greenwald together with National Review), they forever will have the stigma of opportunistic politician hanging over their heads IMHO. I’ll enthusiastially work for and vote for Hillary for President in ’16 because I’m not naive about our political system and actual possibilities at that level, but I’ll know exactly what the deal is and the limitations going in. Matt Yglesias admitted one of the main reasons he initially supported the war is that he was a young jerk. I guess I believe in redemption, but the Iraq war was so patently being hyped and so obviously disconnected from US national security interests that I can’t fathom how anyone could have supported it who wasn’t either a pathetic pansy wetting their pants in the wake of 9/11, a shameless imperialist of either the “liberal interventionist” or neo-con Evil Empire stripe, a cynic worrying over which way political winds were blowing or a person who was incredibly low-information or too chickenshit to go against the grain of low-information public opinion ginned up by the powers-that-be.
To this day I hold support of the war against people and wonder what crap it was inside of them that could have made them either that stupid or that cynical. I honestly don’t know what “smart people” means in that context. Thomas “Suck on This” Friedman? I guess he’s smarter than me because he’s got a lot of best-sellers, but that’s some dumb-shit “smart” IMHO.
Why do I need to provide links when some of them can be found right here in this thread?
If those aren’t enough for you check out the comments here.
Greenwald cult followers coming out of the woodwork to defend this right wing libertarian ratfucker.The only defense they can muster is that “he attacked Bush too”.
The Greenwald cloaking device is failing.
@Bruce S: Wow, a carefully considered comment. How cool.
Really? You suggest that someone else who isn’t OCD on the Evil of Greenwald wade through that page of comment links? Are you out of your mind?
Among those who supported the Iraq War, who were absolutely wrong and shouldn’t be heard from again, the most fucked-up post-justification is “we didn’t imagine Bush (or “the president”) would lie about the evidence for war.”
End of credibility right there. Bush in particular spent his entire life as a weaselly trust-fund punk, an alcoholic, a grafter, and an all-around asshole. He made repeated reference to his personal grudges toward Saddam, and said he’d “fucking take [Saddam] out” long before 9/11/2001.
But people say, with a straight face, that they didn’t expect him to lie?
@jshooper: Wow. DU? That’s like trying to use thepeoplesview.net in any supporting role for the WH.
You’re a ridiculous clown.
@Bruce S: STFU Bruce.
I don’t need someone with Greenwald’s balls in their mouth to lecture me.
@jshooper: You obviously need someone to point you out of the morass of insipid ridiculousness you’re spouting here.
You’re a fucking clown.
Not only that – why wasn’t the UN inspectors able to find the WMD’s?
And when the UN inspectors asked Bush/Cheney to tell them where to look, Bush/Cheney refused.
How dumb did somebody have to be to not figure the hell out that something was wrong?
And when allies (for example, Germany and France to just mention a few) that supported us in the first Gulf war, refused to support us the second time – didn’t that tell that something something was wrong?
And when Dick Cheney right after the first Gulf war defended George Bush’s decision not to invade Baghdad because that would open a big can of worms, but just 10 years later all of a sudden had no problem invading Baghdad – didn’t that tell that something was wrong?
In 2003 – we were having big problems in Afghanistan and we still hadn’t caught bin Laden. Yet, Bush wanted to move critical equipment/people from Afghanistan to Iraq – didn’t that tell people that something was wrong?
Hell – one didn’t have to be particularly smart to oppose the war – one just had to be an average thinking person.
Too bad leaders/pundits/people in 2003 didn’t even reach average…
And I just don’t get how anyone who lives on this planet and says “I didn’t think it was possible for to lie” gets listened to ever again.
Greenwald is frequently scathingly critical of both Republicans and libertarians. Have you ever seen any of those articles?
If you have then your argument is meaningless. If you haven’t then you are arguing from a position of willful ignorance.
Wow. Corner Stone – the racist pedobear himself actually responded to me. I’m honored.
Anyways, so I guess in your view DU is so obviously insane and hive of cult followers of Greenwald that it’s unfair for me to post evidence of their activity here.
I’ll concede that point. Fair enough.
@Bruce S: Again STFU Bruce.
I was responding to someone holding their hand out demanding links as proof of firebaggers defending Greenwald for his Benghazi bullshit. Then you come in and try to snark at me for providing links.
GTFOH with that bullshit.
I never understood why anyone ever thought Thomas Friedman was smart. And then I saw his bestselling book “The World is Flat” and thought–wow that is really stupid and I don’t care to know why he thinks it is clever or appropriate. Most of the backwards things in this world–from those who are theocrats to those who deny climate science, etc I chalk up to having a flat earth mentality.
@Corner Stone: After years of lurking on Balloon Juice and reading pages full of insanity from you, I can’t help but laugh at you calling me or anyone else for that matter…”a fucking clown”
Fuck Glen Greenwald
Like I give a fuck…
The true shame in the Far Right’s obsession with this tragedy is the effect on the families of the victims. This entire process is being instrumented as a ruse to attempt to shame Hillary Clinton and our President. Our Republican Congressmen spend their days trying to Bamboozle Obama instead of doing what they are paid for by representing their constituents. See what kind of job they’ve done applying the blackface to the POTUS at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/10/bamboozling-obama.html Their hands are sticking to this tar baby as the public is becoming increasing impatient with the nonsense and waste of taxpayer money.
@jshooper: Glad you’re enjoying yourself clownshoe.
You don’t happen to also be a regular contributor at Breitbart, do you?
My money’s on “Yes”.
@Bruce S: Apparently you gave enough of a fuck to try and talk shit to me about posting links.
Since I wasn’t even responding to you I don’t WTF you’re even complaining about. I guess since I was doing something against the Greenwald agenda it triggered your auto-response mechanism.
@Corner Stone: I wouldn’t be caught dead on Breitbart’s site. You on the other hand probably have a life sized fat-head cut out of him on your wall.
Because I’m not a pacifist, we’re at war with non-state entities and drones – for all of the problems that critics like Greenwald fairly point out and frankly I welcome critics of war and tactics in war because it’s a hellish phenomenon – involve the least “collateral damage” and look to me like the best option to kill key al Qaeda militants we’ve identified via intelligence. But like any act of war, it also involves loss of innocent lives, mistakes, horrible stuff. This is a fact that no amount of rationalization can avoid. If you oppose all war, then it makes sense to oppose drones. If you don’t oppose all war, drones are IMHO the best option in dealing with al Qaeda. This is debatable and if you disagree I don’t inevitably consider you a “ratfucker” who wants to “take down Obama” or whatever corner the hysterics run to when challenged. Drones are not a legal action – it’s warfare. To analyze them on “legal” grounds is a category error IMHO. It’s warfare and can only be “justified” in the context of (inherently unjust) a state of war. Warfare is fucked up. So yes, drones are fucked up. I don’t see the alternative, because I want to see al Qaeda destroyed by any rational, if morally dubious, means. Invading countries isn’t rationale, as we’ve learned. Still I want to figure out how to kill as many of these fuckers as possible.
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
It’s been a while since we’ve had one of these. tip o’ the hat to you.
@Bruce S: I’m not a pacifist, but I haven’t declared myself at war with anyone, and I’m not even sure that that statement is in fact meaningful.
You are giving another poster a pat on the back for stating that Greenwald is “Koch brothers affiliated”, and is a “white supremacist”?
Since you are in agreement, where is the evidence for those claims?
Greenwald was 100% exactly correct (to the degree that the brief and vague discussion could be pinned down) versus Maher on the subject of whether or not the U.S. backed Egyptian tyranny for generations and thus made violence likely as a transition out of it.
But Bill Maher loves playing the loudmouth but ignorant dumbass role, so, he did.
Asked for “one single quote” from GG in support of the war AFtER I had already provided it.
But does that weaken or strengthen your case?
I’ll wait until you remove GG’s nuts from your mouth.
@Cygil: Are you seriously under the impression *anyone* here worships Cole in even an order of magnitude less than the fawning love, deference and defense given to GG every time someone lights the batlight?
I mean, I swear half the time Cole doesn’t really run this blog for the hunting.
For me it’s the way he reliably triggers that “How dumb do you think I am?” reaction.
AUMF was in regards to the larger scope. Afghanistan.
Iraq Resolution as below. Note that a majority of democrats voted against it….contrary to your claim.
United States House of Representatives
Party Yes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3
82 (40%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.
United States Senate
Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0
I’ve met MikeJ, and none of the things you insinuate are true of him.
I would say that 200 posts is pretty moderate of him, considering all the stupid-ass inanities you’ve been peddling here.
@lojasmo: Yes, you are correct. Although a majority of Senate Democrats were in favor, a much greater majority in the House were opposed.
BTW, I noticed that your link provides this interesting piece of information:
Why is that interesting? Well it specifically excludes the names of 8 of the 29 Senate Democrats who supported the Iraq Resolution, including Clinton and Biden. Why?
I’m not usually a fan of conspiracies, but it sure looks like someone is trying to airbrush history on Wikipedia.
This is a valid disagreement, but so far as I’m concerned these fuckers declared war on us.
Also, I’ve been trying to post the “evidence” on GG’s Koch “affiliation” – which is a bogus, cheap and dishonest charge – but I can’t get it through the spam filter. Believe me – we’re being treated like idiots by the people making this charge – but there’s something I can’t figure out that keeps it from getting posted.
The Koch Brothers thing is a paper Greenwald wrote against the drug war that was published by the libertarian foundation the Koch’s fund. That’s GG’s “crime.”
(Finally got some reference to the “evidence” through. Took enough.)
@Bruce S: Thanks. You found more than I did. And I also found nothing on Greenwald being a “white supremacist”.
I agree with Glen and Lindsey Graham we have to investigate what Hillary did
I think Benghazi will be much bigger than most Democrats think. The MSM gave a fair amount of credence to the complete bullshit that Republicans have thrown in the last 4+ years about Obama and his policies/people. Now there is something that actually happened that they can latch onto FOREVER.
The Republicans do things that are awful so often that epople don’t care, and the Democrats suck at making them into issues.
Exampoles – The head of Medicare under Bush had the chief actuary lie about the cost of Medicare Part D. This is documented, but the Dems of course were too stupid to make it anissue.
Abother example would be Monica Goodling, the young Justice Dept lawyer who was in charge of making sure that no liberals or moderates were hired. She testified before Congress thta she was instructed to do this.
But Benghazi is worse than the Iraq war, I had a co-worker tell me this yesterday.
All this glenn bashing.
but glen is right, Hillary is right up to her eye-balls in directing the cover-up
I’d like to point out (after 249 comments, all of which I haven’t read yet) that Greenwald disapproved of “government saying something that’s untrue,” and yet he himself misrepresented what happened at Benghazi.
The attack was in response to the YouTube video. The terrorists said so openly to other Libyan residents while they were in the process of carrying it out. Yet Greenwald says that it’s “untrue” that the attacks were “a reaction to this film.” So now someone should investigate him?
@Maude: Thank you very much. Hopefully I can get hired soon.
I tend to agree with him more often than not. But if Greenwald makes the case as you’ve stated (I won’t watch the video), then yeah, he certainly does appear an idiot.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Could happen. Buzzfeed (Politico Jr) has been pimping it hard. I don’t know if that means anything, but their staffers seem to get a lot of face time on MSNBC. I don’t know if Benghazi will ever become a ‘scandal’ with the larger public, but I’d bet a fifty bucks the subject will dominate Meet The Press this weekend.
Glenn is right, since Hillary is stonewalling her direction of the cover-up, congress will have to subpena her. As Glenn says, she’ll end having to take the 5th amendment. Glenn is pretty shape and you can’t help agreeing with him that Hillary will have to do jail time, just like Halderman and Ehrlichman. When Glenn is right, he’s right.
That list was a list of Democrats who voted against the resolution, so of course Clinton’s name was not on it. No air-brushing going on after all.
Just wanna say that Glenn Greenwald is a douche. That is all.
Isn’t Joy Reid the lovely person who mocked people upset that Bradley Manning was “denied a pillow”?
Sorry. If Reid throws down with Greenwald, ‘m rooting for injuries. Every. Time.
@kerFuFFler: You are completely correct, and I was completely wrong. Thx.
Greenwald is a useful idiot for the Republicans who won’t say in 10 words what could be said in 1000. Life’s too short to give a shit what he says. Fuck that guy.
Greenwald does not. Lesson: Zandar is a lying piece of shit.
@Mandalay: Re-read the comment you’re challenging. It doesn’t say that he’s a white supremacist. It says that he’s an apologist for a white supremacist. Greenwald defended Matthew Hale in a law license action. He also called plaintiffs — who sued Hale when one of his acolytes went on a shooting spree against blacks and Jews and alleged that Hale had incited and conspired with the shooter — “truly odious and repugnant.” The victims of the shootings were odious and repugnant, that is, according to Greenwald. For bringing the suit.
@Jay: Yes, Joy Reid is relentless in her attempts to shield the most powerful man on the planet from any issues.
Is your view that he should not have acted as legal counsel for his defense?
@Bruce S: It doesn’t strike me as a sensible term to say that I am “at war” with anyone, and outside various legalistic terminology games about what our government does and doesn’t authorize itself to do if “war” notions are used, I don’t quite grasp how us saying we’re “at war” says more than less specific phraseology involving things like intelligence, law enforcement, and the occasional use of deadly force.
Is law enforcement “at war” with organized crime? Well, I guess, you could say that — but are we really saying anything by saying that?
This is a logical point — i.e., “Al Qa’ida” by this point is often a self-applied descriptive rather than an organizational network identifier.
It just doesn’t make any sense.
Law enforcement authorities use deadly force quite frequently but doesn’t feel the need to declare themselves “at war” with “crime”, at least, not in a more-than-metaphorical sense.
@Corner Stone: Oh please Cornerstone. That’s such a dumb question. It’s a very Greenwaldian question. I know — most people know — and wholeheartedly respect everyone getting a defense, everyone getting a day in court. Greenwald, because he appears to walk around with the idea that he’s the only one who gets anything, delivers wordy sanctimony about defending the reviled. But it’s just so patronizing and tired. We already went through that whole thing, particularly with Nazis in Skokie. They’re allowed to march and lawyers should defend their right to march. Snore snore.
Anyway, I was merely answering why GG was referred to as an apologist for a white supremacist. Attacking the plaintiffs in the civil suit happened because he was asked his opinion, because of his status as previous counsel to Hale.
@ChrisNYC: Sheesh. Talk about wordy sanctimony.
I wonder if they have a prison cell that can fit Hillary, she’s put on alotta weight
@Corner Stone: Funny! You have a real talent for that. Your “two loops” comment about sabbath rule made me laugh and laugh, btw! So thx.
Hillary better hire a good criminal lawyer. Robert Shapiro would be a good pick.
Oh please. Greenwald was representing Hale as his lawyer. You are being disingenuous, and arguing in bad faith. It takes a real leap of dishonesty to invoke guilt by association and claim that Greenwald is therefore an apologist for white supremacy.
Do you think Johnny Cochran was in favor of slaughtering white women when he defended O.J. Simpson? That is the level of your argument.
let’s be honest. liberals do it all the time regarding white collar criminal defense attorneys and corporate lawyers.
would glenn have any cultists if he was a former counsel of Goldman Sachs or Koch Industries? No.
@Bruce S: well put. the amount of invective aimed at greenwald here is amazing. nuance in argument is lost on so many people but then i doubt many people complaining bothered to watch the maher debate. greenwald is not perfect but we are far better off with him than without him. that he has the audacity to have convictions regardless of which party is in office should be lauded not lambasted.
Jockey Full of Malbec
John Adams famously defended the British soldiers in their trial for the Boston Massacre. A great man.
However, he never insulted the plaintiffs. Nor did he ever unethically tape record them.
@Jockey Full of Malbec: Wow. That’s what you got, amigo?
First, thank you for linking that absolute garbage time bullshit people before you keep referring to.
It’s so much garbage I keep waiting to hear the “beep beep beep” of the truck as it backs up for the guys to haul it away.
ETA, oh, and I love your Johnny Adams reference also, too. Nicely done you fucking hack.
@Jockey Full of Malbec:
I did not know that.
11 minorities were shot and glenn called them “truly so odious and repugnant” because they filled a hate crimes suit. WTF?!
And then he employed nixonan tactics and illegally wire tapped the witnesses. what a piece of glibertarian shit. civil liberties for meee, but not for theee.
wow. I wanna hear his apologist paper this over.
Hardly. Greenwald stated that he defended Hale because of the First Amendment issues raised by the case.
You have to be really dumb or really dishonest to claim that this makes Greenwald a “white supremacist apologist”. Defending the First Amendment right of a person to say “X” in no way makes you an apologist for “X”.
@Jockey Full of Malbec:
I don’t care much for Greenwald myself, but neither do I hate him, and the level of false and malicious misinformation posted on this thread about him is astounding.
While he lost the argument, the finding explicitly stated that Greenwald did not act unethically:
I am not condoning what Greenwald did, but he was not found to have acted unethically so your claim is false.
one judge found his “surreptitious recording” unethical another didn’t. both found his acts an illegal violation of civil rights.
so you’re wrong. a judge did determine he acted unethically.
really, you need to depend on a judge to determine whether secret illegal recordings are unethical? weak tea
Ha! You are carefully and craftily trying to equate the orginal finding (that Greenwald acted unethically) with the de novo decision that overturned it, found that Greenwald had not acted unethically, and explicitly stated that he had not acted unethically.
You are going beyond just cherry picking your facts. You are lying.
@Mandalay: suck my cock. you bootlicking glenbots are all alike. disgusting. you need a judge to decided for you that glen’s illegal recordings were unethical? of course you do, you can’t think for yourselves, you need someone like Scalia and Roberts to determine your ethical compass. IOKIYA
RG. it’s okay if you are glen when he violates a person’s civil liberties. Civil liberties for meeee, but not for theee. glen can not fail, he can only be failed. clap louder for your unethical Dear Leader. Pathetic robot.
Everyone in both parties that holds office is lying about Bengahzi. They have all had classified briefings. The Washington Post had this little nugget Friday:
Wow, that batlight of yours works really well.
If only Obama had done something like send the IRS to audit conservative groups, then people will really respect him.