Skip to main content

View Diary: Greenwald Calls FISA Oversight A Sham (306 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Care to ante up with a link? I've often heard him (20+ / 0-)

    called an ideologue by people who don't like what he says and who he criticizes, but I've rarely seen him hold forth on things he knows nothing about, and even then he's careful to distinguish his views from his facts. He got the lead-up to the Iraq war wrong, in some ways, because he like the rest of the country, were misled by the Bush traitors. But since then, he's been pretty spot-on, if withering and unsparing in his criticism.

    "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by Kombema on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 07:19:35 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I supported the war at the time (8+ / 0-)

      Not enthusiastically, but nonetheless. I've since learned and moved on. So have many others, including Glenn. You judge a person not on their mistakes but on their ability and willingness to acknowledge and learn from it.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 07:34:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Lots of people did, but you're right, the real (6+ / 0-)

        test was who was willing to admit it was a cluster fuck, and who merrily continued to support it, or claimed (lied) about never having supported it in the first place. Greenwald is a modern day Jeremiah and Diogenes (looking for an honest man) wrapped up in one.

        "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

        by Kombema on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 07:52:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Except Greenwald lied (7+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rapala, Chi, Cordyc, FiredUpInCA, durrati, vcmvo2, duhban

        He is what he said about the Bush Wars at the time..

        ""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.""

        Then in the midst of trashing democrats who voted for the war the lying asshole wrote this in 2013.

        ""When the Iraq War was debated and then commenced, I was not a writer. I was not a journalist. I was not politically engaged or active. I never played any role in political debates or controversies. Unlike the countless beloved Democrats who actually did support the war – including Obama’s Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – I had no platform or role in politics of any kind.""

        ""I never once wrote in favor of the Iraq War or argued for it in any way, shape or form.Ask anyone who claims that I “supported” the Iraq War to point to a single instance where I ever supported or defended it in any way. There is no such instance. It’s a pure fabrication.""

        Clearly the man is a liar and a hypocrite. He did an about turn on the war but it does not change he was all in for Bush, until he wasn't.

        I will let others follow him. I have no use for him.

        ...the GOP seems perfectly willing to hold their breath until the whole country turns Blue.

        by tommy2tone on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 11:18:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Shoot the messenger, that is all this is (17+ / 0-)

          And besides, it is utter BULLSHIT.  There is nothing in what you just posted that shows Greenwald to be a liar.  

          Really, WTF?  Where is the lie?

          We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

          by RageKage on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 11:23:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  . (8+ / 0-)

          How does being stupid enough to just reflexively trust the sitting President not to tell massive whoppers (and that was stupid) = "All in for"?

          Do you believe that Kerry and Clinton were "all in" for Bush?

          Are your critical reading and reasoning skills really this deeply compromised?  Are you sincere in your bizarre assertion that there is any "hypocrisy" above?  The truth is, Greenwald (unlike Kerry and Clinton) never did anything to sell that war to the public.

          Those two quotes do not contradict one another.

          Our Government locks men in cages and has them isolated, raped, beaten, and terrorized for decades because they have grown medicine. Only a complete fucking idiot would not fear it.

          by JesseCW on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:05:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Confessions of a true believer, I see... (6+ / 0-)

          The dude conflates the support of the invasion of Afghanistan in 2002 with with the invasion of Iraq in 2003. And he's quoting from the preface of Greenwald's 2006 book "How Would a Patriot Act?"

          Many supported the former and opposed the latter. What many didn't support about Afghanistan was exactly what has happened there.

          Ignorati like tommy also forgets that Glenn wrote the following as well in his preface:

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


          "Soon after our invasion of Iraq, when it became apparent that, contrary to Bush administration claims, there were no weapons of mass destruction, I began concluding, reluctantly, that the administration had veered far off course from defending the country against the threats of Muslim extremism. It appeared that in the great national unity the September 11 attacks had engendered, the administration had seen not a historically unique opportunity to renew a sense of national identity and cohesion, but instead a potent political weapon with which to impose upon our citizens a whole series of policies and programs that had nothing to do with terrorism, but that could be rationalized through an appeal to the nation's fear of further terrorist attacks. "

          Empirical fact is lost on poor souls like tommy.

          "There's a conceptual zone within which the romanticized historical past and the immanentizing historical future converge in a swamp of misapprehension and misstep. It's called 'the present'." - David Beige

          by Superskepticalman on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 05:57:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Good comment (4+ / 0-)

            I assumed Greenwald meant the Iraq war above. I didn't realize he meant Afghanistan, which many more people supported, and rightly, at least initially for its putative and stated purpose, to catch OBL & AQ. Making him even less of a liar than I thought, which was just barely.

            As I've written I did support the Iraq war at the time, reluctantly, believing that whatever remaining WMD Saddam had at the time (which I felt probably wasn't that much and certainly not nuke, but just enough to be dangerous if it fell into the wrong hands), while he was extremely unlikely to give them to AQ outright, could end up in their hands anyway if they toppled him or broke into his storage facilities and stole them, or perhaps were given them by Islamist Iraqi sympathizers, especially Sunnis, who hated Saddam. Also, he nearly killed my family in Israel with a scud that landed across their street, (which was not Americans' problem, of course, but I hated the monster).

            I was, of course, terribly wrong.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 06:09:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  He passively supported the war at the time (0+ / 0-)

          Like a lot of us. He did not ADVOCATE for it, at least not publicly. I would agree that to even passively support a war means that you support it, so he is stretching things a bit. But I don't think it rises to the level of a lie, which is what BushCo did to get us into that war. Calling this a lie is like calling jaywalking a crime: technically, sure, but COME ON.

          What you are accusing him of, though, comes closer to being an actual lie, saying that he was "all in for Bush". At one point 90% of Americans were all in for Bush". Does that make them all useless to you, oh superior one who has never made a mistake or misplaced his faith in others? I bow before your superior judgement, Buddha!

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 05:58:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  A lot of us (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            had been yelling about the Taliban for years, since they started blowing up Buddhist shrines and killing people.  After 9/11, the concept of doing something was not universally abhorrent, and many of us said "do something".

            Some of the ignorati would claim we were "100% in for Bush".  Definitely false.

            But what was done, got my hackles up, and those of many like me.  And the longer it went on, and the deeper the hole was dug, the angrier we got.

            I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

            by trumpeter on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 02:54:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  For the record, the rest of the quotation... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          raboof, BentLiberal, Don midwest

          ...that comes before what you cite:

          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 ....

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 04:48:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Politics: some / Politics: none (7+ / 0-)
      I've rarely seen him hold forth on things he knows nothing about, and even then he's careful to distinguish his views from his facts.
      Agree and I think this piece by Jay Rosen about Greenwald's role in this is on point.  (empahsis his)
      The professional stance that proscribes all political commitments and discourages journalists from having a clear view or taking a firm position on matters in dispute (you can call it objectivity, if you like, or viewlessness, which I like better) is one way of doing good work. A very different professional stance, where the conclusions that you come to by staring at the facts and thinking through the issues serve to identify your journalism… this is another way of doing good work.

      They are both valid. They are both standard.

      My intervention:
      Politics: none is what most of the editors and reporters at the Washington Post practice and preach. (But not all.) It is not the natural, inevitable or “right” way to do journalism, but rather a form of persuasion in which journalists try to get us to accept their account of the way things are by foreswearing any political commitment, avoiding overt displays of opinion, and eluding strong conclusions via quotation or summary of competing arguments.

      Politics: some is what the journalists at the Guardian practice and preach. It is not the natural or inevitable way to do journalism, but a form of persuasion in which journalists try to get us to accept their account by being up front about their commitments, grounding their freely-expressed opinions in fact, and arriving at conclusions through the sound conduct of public argument.

      •  Good piece. Thanks for highlighting it! Right on. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joanneleon, Demeter Rising

        "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

        by Kombema on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 10:24:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You might like this piece (6+ / 0-)

        by Jeff Jarvis too:
         All journalism is advocacy (or it isn’t)

        Jay Rosen wrote a insightful post forking the practice of journalism into “politics: none” (that is, traditional American journalism: objective, it thinks) and “politics: some” (that is, the kind just practiced by Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian). Jay catalogs the presumptions and advantages of each. As both he and The New York Times’ Margaret Sullivan observe, Edward Snowden took his leaks to Greenwald and the Guardian because they exemplify “politics: some.”

        I want to take this farther and argue first that what Greenwald and the Guardian were practicing was less politics than advocacy, and second that all journalism is advocacy (or is it journalism?).

        "In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer."- Albert Camus

        by valadon on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 10:48:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Correct. Good on Jay. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joanneleon, Demeter Rising

        Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

        by dadadata on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:35:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (128)
  • Community (55)
  • 2016 (43)
  • Environment (39)
  • Elections (34)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Culture (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (26)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Labor (24)
  • Climate Change (23)
  • Education (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