Skip to main content

View Diary: Greenwald also echoes GOP talking points on Benghazi (117 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Greenwald is proving again very gullible... (29+ / 0-)

    ...just a few inches left than Ayn Rand Republicans like Rand and Ron Paul.

    Of course Greenwald is echoing the crazy right-wing Benghazi talking points: remember he was last seen echoing the cray notion that President Obama was going to start bombing American citizens on main street using drones. Inexplicably, usually smart liberals fell for this shuck-and-jive, as if Rand Paul's filibuster demanding to know whether or not President Obama planned to ban ice cream this summer would kill Americans on American soil with drones.

    Adults recognized the question as undignified and unworthy of Presidential response. They will do the same with the right-wing's nutty Obama-Clinton Derangement Syndrome on Benghazi. Neither Obama nor Clinton should response to this nonsense, but it is incumbent upon the rest of us to call the Republicans what they are so that our friends and loved ones don't fall for it: crazy, delusional, paranoid, conspiracy theorists and liars exploiting tragedy for political purposes.

    •  8th grade is that way. nt (4+ / 0-)
    •  yep (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      allergywoman, Don midwest

      four comments in and "shuck and jive" makes its debut.  Just about ready to HR this one.

      Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

      by Mindful Nature on Sat May 11, 2013 at 04:33:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  NEWSFLASH: Folks anticipating a pie fight are... (8+ / 0-)

        ...going to be greatly disappointed.

        Here at DKos, this appears to be the next attempt by some at boiling down everything that is worthy of discussion here into a "ROX-SUX" debate. And, that's REALLY dumbing down the dialogue in this community (the typical "professional left" bullsh*t).

        This shit is not a f*cking high school football game.

        The overall tone and discussion around this place would benefit GREATLY if some in the community got that bullsh*t through their heads.

        Greenwald's someone who is constantly talking about transparency in government. In a situation such as this particular issue/discussion, he could easily be perceived by others to be coming across on the wrong side of the issue. And, maybe he is! That's the thing with some on the far left...they're people, just like everyone else.

        The Benghazi situation is absolutely LOADED with all sorts of State Department/CIA intrigue; and, that tells me the public doesn't know half of the REAL sh*t that went down at the time. So, YES, Greenwald might be shooting from the hip here, for sure. The bigger point of all of this is: THE PUBLIC REALLY DOESN'T KNOW.

        But, borrowing from and paraphrasing Rahm Emanuel, at least when it comes to your basic neoilib centrists, "Never left FAIL coming from the lips of someone on the professional left go to waste."

        FAIL...say, "Hello!" to...FAIL!

        This entire, particular issue is so damn muddied and gray, IMHO, Greenwald's a fool for coming out on it in the manner he is; but, on the other side of the coin, so is EVERYONE else.

        And, from where I see it, THAT'S THE WAY IT IS. (At least at the moment.) But, don't let UNCERTAINTY--ON BOTH SIDES of the "argument"--prevent anyone from casting bad sentiments.

        Don't people around here have better things to do on a Saturday night?

        "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

        by bobswern on Sat May 11, 2013 at 05:52:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Stop lying (9+ / 0-)
      he was last seen echoing the cray notion that President Obama was going to start bombing American citizens
      Not even Paul said this. The point was not that this was about the happen, and it was only tangentially about drones. It was about the responsibility of our government to begin clarifying whom it believes it can kill without due process. As that well-known teabagger Ron Wyden said:
      "Every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them"
      I realize this is a nice opportunity to let loose with everyone's anger at Greenwald for criticizing President Obama on various matters, but y'all probably be better off just blasting him for failing to ape Dem talking points on Benghazi rather than defending President Obama's horrific 'targeted' killing program.
      •  Paul did say that. (15+ / 0-)
        The President is advocating a drone strike program in America. All we have to compare it with is the drone strike program overseas.

        http://twitter.com/...

        The problem with Greenwald is he criticizes Democrats on issues that he gives the Pauls a pass on. Here he is claiming that Paul didn't say the above.

        Glenn Greenwald: Three Democratic myths used to demean the Paul filibuster

        (2) Whether domestic assassinations are imminent is irrelevant to the debate

        The primary means of mocking Paul's concerns was to deride the notion that Obama is about to unleash drone attacks and death squads on US soil aimed at Americans. But nobody, including Paul, suggested that was the case. To focus on that attack is an absurd strawman, a deliberate distraction from the real issues, a total irrelevancy...First, the reason this question matters so much - can the President target US citizens for assassination without due process on US soil? - is because it demonstrates just how radical the Obama administration's theories of executive power are. Once you embrace the premises of everything they do in this area - we are a Nation at War; the entire globe is the battlefield; the president is vested with the unchecked power to use force against anyone he accuses of involvement with Terrorism - then there is no cogent, coherent way to say that the president lacks the power to assassinate even US citizens on US soil. That conclusion is the necessary, logical outcome of the premises that have been embraced. That's why it is so vital to ask that.

        <...>

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

        Disappointing those who 'stand with Rand'
        http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/...

        Paul tries to walk back drone comments
        http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/...

        •  Greenwald has Obama Derangement Syndrome (8+ / 0-)

          There are many things that we could (and do) fairly criticize Obama about, but Greenwald sees Obama goblins behind every corner, and he's all too happy to parrot right-wing talking points if that's what it takes for him, because bashing Obama is what he's about.

          I have no idea whether Greenwald is motivated by some purity test gone mad, or whether he's still bitter about the 2008 primaries and still can't let it go, or whether his real politics are a lot different than we think, but whatever it is, he's an unreasonable critic of the president, not a reasonable critic.

          Please help to fight hunger with a donation to Feeding America.

          by MJB on Sat May 11, 2013 at 10:13:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think it's ODS too. (0+ / 0-)

            Especially since he wasn't all on this when it happened, AFAIK. Only ODS explains the shortsightedness as to why on EARTH blowing up Obama over Benghazi would help ANY of the causes he so dearly cares about.

            Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies: once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress

            by GoGoGoEverton on Sun May 12, 2013 at 06:46:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Is he? (0+ / 0-)

      "Of course Greenwald is echoing the crazy right-wing Benghazi talking points"

      He's implying that Obama let the attack happen to shore up his election chances by telling the armed forces to "stand down" in response to the attack?  Because I haven't seen him say that (echo right wing talking points), but rather 'this is only the 6th U.S. Ambassador to be killed' and 'false statements were made tying the attacks to the Innocence of Muslims video'.  Are those untrue statements?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (128)
  • Community (55)
  • 2016 (43)
  • Environment (38)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Elections (34)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Culture (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (26)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (24)
  • Labor (24)
  • Climate Change (22)
  • Education (22)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Media (21)
  • GOP (20)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Economy (19)
  • Affordable Care Act (18)
  • Texas (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site