In 2012 the US had a $7 million bounty on the guy Greenwald is claiming Obama invented two weeks ago

[geek tragedy]

The Department’s Rewards for Justice program is offering rewards for information on two key Iran-based facilitators and financiers of the al-Qaida terrorist organization.

The U.S. Department of State has authorized a reward of up to $7 million for information leading to the location of Iran-based senior facilitator and financier Muhsin al-Fadhli and up to $5 million for information leading to the location of his deputy, Adel Radi Saqr al-Wahabi al-Harbi.

Al-Fadhli and al-Harbi facilitate the movement of funds and operatives through Iran on behalf of the al-Qaida terrorist network. Both men are wanted by Saudi authorities in connection with their terrorist activities, and al-Fadhli is wanted by authorities in Kuwait on terrorism-related charges.

Al-Fadhli reportedly has replaced Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil (better known as Yasin al-Suri) as al-Qaida’s senior facilitator and financier in Iran. Al-Fadhli was among the few trusted al-Qaida leaders who received advance notification that terrorists would strike the United States on September 11, 2001. He raised money to finance the October 6, 2002 attack on the French ship MV Limburg off the coast of Yemen, which killed one, injured four crew members, and released 50,000 barrels of crude oil along 45 miles of coastline.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/10/199299.htm

Reuters) - A jihadist Twitter account said the leader of the al Qaeda-linked Khorasan group was killed in a U.S. air strike in Syria, SITE monitoring service said on Sunday after several days of uncertainty over whether he survived the raid.

A U.S. official said on Sept. 24 the United States believed Mohsin al-Fadhli, a senior al Qaeda operative, had been killed in a strike a day earlier, but the Pentagon said several hours later it was still investigating what had happened to him.

In a tweet posted on Sept. 27, a jihadist offered condolences for the death of Kuwaiti-born Fadhli, otherwise known as Abu Asmaa al-Kuwati or Abu Asmaa al-Jazrawi, said SITE, a U.S.-based organization that monitors militant groups online.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/28/us-mideast-crisis-qaeda-fadhli-idUSKCN0HN0E620140928

Just because Glenn Greenwald was unaware of a group does not mean they do not exist.

[MohRokTah]

1. But Greenwald is GOD!

According to some, any way.

[Cha]

15. And, gods aren't "medacious hacks"(thanks for the epithet, geek)..

are they?!! lol

[SidDithers]

2. DU rec...bt

Sid

[Cali_Democrat]

3. This is why people have gotta be careful about taking Greenwald's snake oil. nt

[geek tragedy]

4. people who are emotionally invested in hating the President consciously decide

to believe only the worst, regardless of what the facts are.

[sheshe2]

8. And that is why Dems lose elections.

Hate rules.

[Cha]

16. And, this is GG's agenda.

[sheshe2]

19. It sure is...

yet he is defended beyond reason here. K...and we are the ones from the BOG that are called BOTS~ Holy...never mind.

[Cha]

39. The GG fans project too much.

[sheshe2]

44. Ya think~

[Hekate]

35. But snake oil goes down so smooth, and you can rub it on all over

[sheshe2]

101. Yup...

Then if you go sit in the sun you are sure to get burned.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

5. But of course that's not what Greenwald's said. You already know this.

Please do provide documentation of your assertion that Greenwald's claims this person doesn't exist. Most DUers aren't nearly as gullible as you'd like them to be.

Your assertion is a falsehood.

[geek tragedy]

6. Funny how Greenwald's fans don't read his stuff

The solution to both problems was found in the wholesale concoction of a brand new terror threat that was branded “The Khorasan Group.” After spending weeks depicting ISIS as an unprecedented threat — too radical even for Al Qaeda! — administration officials suddenly began spoon-feeding their favorite media organizations and national security journalists tales of a secret group that was even scarier and more threatening than ISIS, one that posed a direct and immediate threat to the American Homeland. Seemingly out of nowhere, a new terror group was created in media lore.

...
There are serious questions about whether the Khorasan Group even exists in any meaningful or identifiable manner. Aki Peritz, a CIA counterterrorism official until 2009, told Time: “I’d certainly never heard of this group while working at the agency,” while Obama’s former U.S. ambassador to Syria Robert Ford said: ”We used the term [Khorasan] inside the government, we don’t know where it came from….All I know is that they don’t call themselves that.” As The Intercept was finalizing this article, former terrorism federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote in National Review that the group was a scam: “You haven’t heard of the Khorosan Group because there isn’t one. It is a name the administration came up with, calculating that Khorosan … had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it.”

The fact that Greenwald quoted, with adoring approval, Andrew fucking McCarthy of the National Review--author of

Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama's Impeachment

http://www.amazon.com/Faithless-Execution-Building-Political-Impeachment/dp/1594037760

to support his Infowars-lite tinfoil nonsense, tells you everything you need to know about that recovering white nationalist libertarian troll.

Greenwald is in bed with the extreme right because they have a common enemy in the White House.

Fuck him and his ilk.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

7. I've read every word of it, and your OP is untrue

Post proof of your assertion. Bullshit amateur conflation of individuals and groups won't cut it. Post something that wouldn't get you thrown out of a logic class onto your ear, and not this tripe you haul out for your Greenwald's hatred rituals. Be a serious person or move along.

[whatchamacallit]

9. GGDS overwhelms reason

and ethics.

[geek tragedy]

11. I will bet you have no good explanation for why Greenwald cited Andrew McCarthy's claim

that this was a scam by describing McCarthy as a "former anti-terrorism prosecutor" instead of his more recent work as an author of a book titled "Building the Case for Obama's Impeachment."

I will bet you have nothing to defend that conscious editorial decision by Greenwald.

[geek tragedy]

10. The words are there for everyone to read. I did forget this line of Greenwald's:

Even more remarkable, it turns out the very existence of an actual “Khorasan Group” was to some degree an invention of the American government.

Greenwald's go-to guy in this article is Andy McCarthy, the guy who wrote the book on impeaching the President. Greenwald presents him as "an anti-terrorism prosecutor" without mentioning that the guy WROTE A BOOK ADVOCATING THE IMPEACHMENT OF OBAMA.

Why do you suppose Greenwald mentioned the "anti-terrorism prosecutor" thing and not the "fanatical Obama-hating wingnut" thing?

Because Greenwald is a rightwing, Obama-hater himself as well as a mendacious hack.

Unless you have a better answer why Greenwald gilded McCarthy's credibility.

Of course, you will just insist that every word Glenn Greenwald has ever written about the President is undeniably true, blah blah blah.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

13. Then quote the damned words.

Greenwald reported on the fact that some are questioning the existence of the group. Greenwald's never claimed the person in your OP didn't exist. Your OP is untrue, and you're already aware of all of this. In the end, it's a good thing. People will see your words, and they'll understand what your word is worth.

[geek tragedy]

17. Here, I will quote you nothing but Greenwald's own words.

Still waiting for you to defend his pimping of Andrew McCarthy as a credible critic of the President, btw.

Every last word in the following excerpt is Greenwald's (emphasis added):

The Fake Terror Threat Used To Justify Bombing Syria
...
The solution to both problems was found in the wholesale concoction of a brand new terror threat that was branded “The Khorasan Group.”
...
Even more remarkable, it turns out the very existence of an actual “Khorasan Group” was to some degree an invention of the American government.
...
There are serious questions about whether the Khorasan Group even exists in any meaningful or identifiable manner.

As The Intercept was finalizing this article, former terrorism federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote in National Review that the group was a scam: “You haven’t heard of the Khorosan Group because there isn’t one. It is a name the administration came up with, calculating that Khorosan … had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it.”

Okay, I fibbed, the last quote is from Andrew McCarthy, whose claim Greenwald cites as credible without noting that McCarthy's explicit agenda is "Building The Political Case for Obama's Impeachment."

Anyone who endorses anti-Obama conspiracy theories by guys who write books like "Building the Case for Obama's Impeachment" is a mendacious hack, nothing more.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

25. Tired of your games. Groups aren't individuals.

It bothers me that this has happened to Democratic Underground. There are people, Democrats, who hate Glenn Greenwald so much, and want so badly to find him lying or working for Rand Paul or whatever other ludicrous claim, that they'll completely sacrifice their own moral code to find something, anything on Greenwald. We used to be better than this, and I do wish I felt more free to say what I think this is doing to the community here. It is a damned shame though.

[geek tragedy]

30. just like there are people who hate Obama so much they believe that a grand crime against

the Republic has been committed because Obama described a group of thugs as "Khorosan group" instead of "Al Nusra" or "Al Qaeda."

That's the more charitable view of what Greenwald is arguing--the same as his BFF Andrew McCarthy is arguing.

By the way, what is your explanation for Greenwald trying to pass McCarthy off as a credible analyst?

[BlueCaliDem]

79. Don't expect a rational explanation from Greenwald fans, geek.

Only they have the privilege to question, insult, and demand don't you know?

[sheshe2]

38. Just think about this for a second, and no don't get mad at me.

You said

It bothers me that this has happened to Democratic Underground. There are people, Democrats, who hate Glenn Greenwald so much, and want so badly to find him lying or working for Rand Paul or whatever other ludicrous claim, that they'll completely sacrifice their own moral code to find something, anything on Greenwald. We used to be better than this, and I do wish I felt more free to say what I think this is doing to the community here. It is a damned shame though.

so if I may substitute a few words

It bothers me that this has happened to Democratic Underground. There are people, Democrats, who hate President Obama so much, and want so badly to find him lying or working for every corporation, they want to believe that he is a war warmonger and he is worse than bush or whatever other ludicrous claim, that they'll completely sacrifice their own moral code to find something, anything on Obama. We used to be better than this, and I do wish I felt more free to say what I think this is doing to the community here. It is a damned shame though.

Think about this. Please think for a moment. It only took a few words to change the narrative. Only a few.

[SidDithers]

48. +1000000000000000000...

Very well said. And it needed to be said.

Sid

[DisgustipatedinCA]

49. I get it. I really do.

I don't know if you consider me to be one of those people who hates Obama. Fact of the matter is I do not. I get very angry at the President, and I think he should have done lots of core things differently. But I don't hate him. Make of it what you will.

To me, the larger point is the part about sacrificing one's own moral or ethical code in an attempt to score points and make people believe things they know not to be true. I know there are some on DU who have lied about the President in order to make him look bad. Fuck those people. They're trash. To be perfectly clear, I don't think very many people at DU have done such a thing (aside from the obvious newbie trolls). Anyone else who has is not an honorable person and has no place here.

There is, of course, another side to this coin, and that's the people who lie about Glenn Greenwald (and Snowden too, but he hasn't appeared in this thread). There are lots of us who are solid liberals who really appreciate the work Glenn Greenwald does. He doesn't enjoy the same "protections" on DU that the President does, and so people call him a piece of shit, a libertarian, a liar, and all manner of other things. This is attempted character assassination. This is shameful behavior.

I value the truth above anything else at DU, and those who traffic in untruths, whether about the President or about a good journalist, are beneath contempt. I'd rather listen to my 1%er boss tell the greedy, selfish truth about the world as he sees it than to listen to someone on the left knowingly try to spin untruths.

I believe your post brought up a valid point; thanks for making it.

[sheshe2]

65. K...

I have no problem with you as a person. I am not really familiar with what you post. i agree with some of what you have said.

Yet...

You are saying.

To me, the larger point is the part about sacrificing one's own moral or ethical code in an attempt to score points and make people believe things they know not to be true. I know there are some on DU who have lied about the President in order to make him look bad. Fuck those people. They're trash. To be perfectly clear, I don't think very many people at DU have done such a thing (aside from the obvious newbie trolls). Anyone else who has is not an honorable person and has no place here.

There is, of course, another side to this coin, and that's the people who lie about Glenn Greenwald (and Snowden too, but he hasn't appeared in this thread). There are lots of us who are solid liberals who really appreciate the work Glenn Greenwald does. He doesn't enjoy the same "protections" on DU that the President does, and so people call him a piece of shit, a libertarian, a liar, and all manner of other things. This is attempted character assassination. This is shameful behavior.

First, yes there are many here on....DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND THAT LOVE TO SCORE POINTS HERE TO DISCREDIT THIS PRESIDENT! Sadly they are not newbie trolls.

and.. sorry gotta laugh here

you said

There are lots of us who are solid liberals who really appreciate the work Glenn Greenwald does. He doesn't enjoy the same "protections" on DU that the President does, and so people call him a piece of shit, a libertarian, a liar, and all manner of other things. This is attempted character assassination.

President Obama has protections here?! Really? OMG! You say Glen is called a piece of shit here?

Lol Hmmm You must have missed those oh so delightful posts here that were rec'ed to the top of the page calling this President just that. Yup a POS. So he gets protection on DU? Sadly no. And a reminder this is DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND. We support Democrats here.

It sure as hell is not GG Underground

[DisgustipatedinCA]

71. I didn't miss Will Pitt's post, and you can take that up with him (again)

Notable exceptions notwithstanding, the President does enjoy protections here that Greenwald's does not. This is not in question. Nor was there any assertion that this was GG Underground or that Greenwald's deserves some elevated status. He does not. This in no way means that it's societally acceptable to go on ranting screeds that lie about the man.

Item next, you didn't quote me accurately. I talked about those who LIE to score points against the President. If someone wants to point up a transgression they feel the President has made, that's one thing. If they lie about the President, that's a different matter entirely.

I notice that you never addressed what I identified as my main point: LIARS. I believe it would add a little something to the conversation if you were to go ahead and address the main point.

Oh, and thanks for reminding me that this is Democratic Underground. I'd like to belatedly welcome you. How long have you been here?

[MohRokTah]

98. "It sure as hell is not GG Underground "

It sure as hell seems like it's GG Underground most of the time.

[flamingdem]

55. well done sheshe

!!!

[Scootaloo]

61. Know what bothers me?

That people are continuing the Bushbot tradition on DU.

Oppose bombing places? Well you just hate the president! As if there is no legitimate reason ever to oppose bombing the fuck out of people. as if there is no credibility to oppose the use of American money, wasted on bombs and bullets thrown at Somewhere Far Away™ without it all being about the president. Where one can not be suspicious of this bullshit attempt to invent a "brand new terror group" in order to protect our terror-funding 'allies" in the region, because some bobbling dittohead is going to grab their nethers and wail about how we're all so mean to the president.

Even though, in case you didn't notice - and you clearly did not - you are the only person talking about the president. Not disgustedinPA. That's all you. completely you. That you are making this shit up and trying to attribute it to him doesn't make him a "hater." Instead, it makes you a liar.

[Puglover]

120. +1000!

Spot flipping on!

[Major Hogwash]

66. Excellent analysis.

As usual.

[cui bono]

76. Well that's just a silly word game you're playing now.

And, contrary to your ingrained belief, no one on here "hates" Obama. Do you want people to say you "worship" him? Please try to be a little more mature. Really. How many times does it have to be explained? Just because people disagree with him does not mean they hate him. Not in the least. Do you hate everyone you disagree with in life?

Think about this. Please think for a moment.

[Andy823]

109. Actually

Those who "only" post negative things on a daily basis are haters, and they are here. Those who can actually post positive things about the president along with their disagreements, I don't consider to be haters. Saying one here "hates" Obama is false. You can read the hate in some of the post, it's not hard to miss when they do it day after day after day.

[cui bono]

118. You are conflating hate with criticism.

Makes no difference if they ever post or rec anything positive. The definitions of hate and criticism remain intact. I'm certain that what you are seeing is anger. There's a big difference between anger and hatred. The word hate is used on DU in an attempt to negate any reasoned criticism by those who simply cannot stand to hear it and who think that if you criticize you don't support. Those are not mutually exclusive. My sig says a lot about all of this.

[Andy823]

128. No I am not.

Criticism is one thing, expressing your disagreement on things, and I can accept that. Hate on the other hand is what some here do on a daily basis, and that's all they do, bash, bash, bash. They say nothing good about the party or the president. It's really very easy to see in their post, if you really want to see it that is.

[BlueCaliDem]

80. Very well done, she. It needed to be said.

Sadly, those who have already taken Glenn's snake oil are too far gone to reason with.

[LawDeeDah]

100. *Applause*

[Andy823]

104. +100,000,000,000... nt

[woo me with science]

42. [phone]

Very well said, and it needed to be said.

[AgingAmerican]

64. It's exactly what FOX news does

...when they smear someone.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

67. You're right, and it's deplorable to see it here.

There are dishonest brokers trying to make people believe things that they themselves know to be untrue. I wish this cancer could be removed, but I'm not optimistic.

[Major Hogwash]

68. Fail.

Not even what is being talked about on Fake Snooze.

[AgingAmerican]

69. FAIL

What you say has absolutely nothing to do with my point, as you well know.

[cui bono]

75. Those same people also don't understand that people of varying/differing political

affiliations/beliefs can agree on certain areas/events/issues. So if anyone dares agree with anything Rand Paul ever says they are a Libertarian Paulbot. The simplicity of such thinking is sad to see on a political discussion board. And the piling on they do to pat each other on the back is akin to a different Party.

[QC]

103. People who approach everything in terms of personalities imagine

that everyone else does the same thing.

It's the purest projection.

They simply can't imagine that others might be a bit more nuanced in their thinking.

[brush]

111. What are you gonna believe, Greenwald or your lyin' eyes?

Those are direct quotes from Greenwald himself yet you deny it.

Get a grip, Greenwald has a raging anti-Obama agenda that's pretty obvious to anyone who cares to look and read.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

113. One more iteration of seemingly endless repetition

Point out "the guy" that Greenwald says doesn't exist. I'll loiter nearby and await your answer.

[brush]

114. Talk about seemingly endless repetition . . .

You must not have read the direct quotes from Greenwald.

Some mendacity going on there.

And seemingly some denial on your . . . never mind, that's too easy.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

119. Mendacity? Lying? Please do proceed.

If you want to accuse me of lying, scrape up the courage of your convictions and say what you mean.

In the meantime, you still have a question put to you that you have failed to answer: WHAT PERSON DOES GREENWALD CLAIM DOESN'T EXIST? I do understand why you're not answering the question--namely, that it's unanswerable because Greenwald never said such a thing. So you either get busy showing me some proof that Greenwald said this guy doesn't exist, or you move along. Maybe you're accustomed to dealing with 'bagger fuckstain trash, but you're in DU's General Discussion now, where it's always been about hardball politics and where PROOF is the currency of the realm. You've been given several opportunities to forward your point of view; you have not yet done so in a way that's convincing to adults who are able to read and process information.

So, Brush, Internet Man, person accusing me of lying, what do you have to say? You've been challenged very specifically several times to tell me which person Greenwald has claimed doesn't exist. You've so far completely failed to name him. Do so now. Can you do that? Are you able? It's not really difficult. When you accuse someone of lying, you should be ready to back that up, right?

Let's see your link now, sir.

[brush]

122. God! Not you — Greenwald. nt

[pnwmom]

47. "There are serious questions about whether the Khorasan Group even exists . . . " n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

50. Who is the GUY Greenwald claims doesn't exist?

This really isn't that hard.

[LondonReign2]

126. It is that hard when they are intentionally trying to be deceptive

They can't answer that question or it blows their whole rant

[zeemike]

51. I don't think we are supposed to notice that.

It is slight of hand.

[Vattel]

88. Expose the lie and they just double down on it

[LondonReign2]

124. Good God

Despite having the point reiterated multiple times--Greenwald is saying the GROUP didn't exist--they are endlessly and falsely he is saying individuals don't exist.

It's in black and white and pointed out repeatedly, yet they carry on making believe Greenwald said the individual doesn't exist. Its so blatantly intentional yet they make believe no one notices.

[randome]

96. "...seemingly out of nowhere..."

Investigative journalism at its finest. Not.

Greenwald is just unhappy 24/7. It seeps through his hyperbolic writing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[MannyGoldstein]

18. Looks like it's the Greenwald-as-Libertarian crowd

That refrains from reading.

The article does not say what you claim.

[geek tragedy]

21. I quoted it extensively. But, if you agree with Glenn Greenwald

that Andrew McCarthy is a credible person to quote regarding President Obama, feel free to own that.

Myself, I would avoid citing people trying to get Obama impeached when discussing Obama, because unlike Greenwald I'm not a recovering white nationalist libertarian piece of shit used car salesman.

[MannyGoldstein]

40. McCarthy is certainly an expert on Terra! Terra!

Having successfully prosecuted several high-profile Terra! Terra! cases. I don't know about his impeachment stuff, probably nutty, seems like Greenwald should have had a caveat of some sort.

Greenwald is white, but other than that your spray of invective is clearly nonsense. You might think a little about why the truth is so upsetting to you in this case.

[geek tragedy]

46. MCarthy's book is titled "Building the political case for Obama's Impeachment"

That's not the kind of person who should ever be quoted by anyone when they are claiming that the President has committed . . . an impeachable offense.

As far as Greenwald being a recovering white nationalist, see this impassioned defense from him of . . . Tom Tancredo.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/yelling-racist-as-argument-in.html

So, there’s Willis' self-satisfied decree, in its vapid entirety. According to Willis (and many of Drum's commentators, if not Drum himself), anyone who believes that it’s important for a nation to be comprised of citizens who have at least some joint national allegiance and a minimal common foundation -- never mind a common language in which they can communicate with one another -- is a White Supremacist bigot.

Leave aside the political stupidity of labeling as bigots and racists a huge portion of the electorate which is becoming increasingly concerned about illegal immigration and which agrees with Tancredo’s sentiments. More important than the political self-destruction, Willis’ cheap name-calling -- a crude tactic wielded by many like him -- is substantively vacuous.

There are, needless to say, some people who oppose illegal immigration due to racist or xenophobic sentiments, but you can find some people who advocate almost any perfectly innocuous position who do so with malignant motives. There are, for instance, people who oppose tax cuts because they are socialists, and there are people who criticize Israel and sympathize with Palestinians because they are anti-Semitic, and there are people who favor abortion because they are racists and thereby favor anything which would result in fewer minority babies being born.

...

Current illegal immigration – whereby unmanageably endless hordes of people pour over the border in numbers far too large to assimilate, and who consequently have no need, motivation or ability to assimilate – renders impossible the preservation of any national identity. That is so for reasons having nothing whatever to do with the skin color or origin of the immigrants and everything to do with the fact that what we end up with are segregated groups of people with allegiences to their enclaves, an inability to communicate, cultural perspectives incompatible with prevailing American culture, and absolutely nothing to bind them in any way to what we know as the United States.

So, you see, when Greenwald launched impassioned defenses of Ron Paul "he's not a racist!" well some of us knew why.

He's recovering white nationalist crackpot.

[MannyGoldstein]

58. What, in your quotes, comports

With the definition of "nationalist"?

[geek tragedy]

91. "white nationalist" is the term of art, Manny.

See, e.g., Pat Buchanan or a favorite of the rt.com crowd here, Paul Craig Roberts.

They fret because brown people and their languages and culture are going to erase 'white culture' in the United States.

And Greenwald positively oozed that shit going into 2006.

Note, btw, how he lists socialism as "malignant."

He believed that in December 2005. By 2008 he had appointed himself the Pope of the Left.

Before being a full-throated apologist not only for people like Tom Tancredo, but Ron Paul.

Which means he never really changed his stripes, he has no left-wing ideological bona fides, but rather is a standard anti-government liberatarian loon who is very clever at peddling his libertarian tripe to gullible leftists.

Note, by the way, how he NEVER agitates for economic or social justice, against voting restrictions, for a living wage, against sentencing disparity, against police brutality against people of color, against the prison industrial complex, against ALEC or the Koch Brothers, for greater environmental and climate change action, against sexist legislation aimed at controlling women, etc.

His written work has a nearly 100% overlap with the Ron Paul crowd's priorities--stuff that concerns anti-government white guys.

[MannyGoldstein]

110. So Greenwald's a White Nationalist?

I don't see that in what you linked to, either.

[geek tragedy]

112. Did you read the parts about "hordes"

of immigrants from Mexico threatening to destroy 'our' culture and nation?

That is how Buchanan and David Duke talk.

[MannyGoldstein]

131. I also read the part about...

"To begin with, people of countless different races, religions and national origins are as purely and consummately American as it gets. That’s because "national identity," by definition, is a function of one’s beliefs, goals and attitudes, not one’s skin color or ethnicity. There is simply nothing about being, say, black, or of El Salvadoran descent, that constitutes, in any way, even a theoretical impediment to being an "American" in terms of one’s national identity. To assert that those who speak of the need for a common "national identity" are somehow necessarily speaking in racist code is an absurd non-sequitur."

In Greenwald's post.

So, would it be correct to say you believe that the message you infer is more important than Greenwald's clear and direct statement? Or am I missing something?

[geek tragedy]

133. Stuff Glenn Greenwald says:

Gonna defend this?

The problem is that the 'closed sign' isn't being enforced because the Federal Government, which has its interfering, power-hungry hands in virtually everything else, has abdicated in one of the very few areas where it was actually meant to be: border security.

Totally not a libertarian.

Also totally not a racist asshat:

segregated groups of people with allegiances to their enclaves, an inability to communicate, cultural perspectives incompatible with prevailing American culture, and absolutely nothing to bind them in any way to what we know as the United States.

If you can't see the bigotry in that comment, it's because of willful blindness. It is Pat Buchananism. He used to right code words to express his distaste for Latinos, but not enough to disguise it.

Just because someone claims to not be a racist and speaks in poorly disguised code does not make such denials true.

You may accept recovering xenophobic Teabagger types as the definition of what it means to be progressive, but I would not advise it.

[msanthrope]

116. I would say that someone who used the word "hordes" to describe

people of color has an interesting view of race, wouldn't you?

[geek tragedy]

134. Not to mention Greenwald saying that Mexicans are culturally

incompatible with Americans.

Greenwald has always been a Paulbot libertarian anti-gubmint tool. Amazing how people will themselves to ignore it.

[Union Scribe]

73. That's all about the group. Where does he say

the individual named doesn't exist or didn't exist until recently?

[geek tragedy]

89. The title of his article was "the fake terror threat used to justify bombing syria"

Unlike his BFF Andrew McCarthy, Greenwald isn't running with the "Obama lied by not calling them al Qaeda"--Greenwald is running with "no real terrorist threat, Obama made everything up because he's a lying war pig who gratifies himself by blowing up Muslim babies."

There's a reason Greenwald's anti-Obama stuff is very frequently sourced to the koch brothers types.

[Cha]

12. Or maybe he was "aware"? He knows there's a certain element who will believe anything

he says and won't bother to check. And, even if they know now will not give a shite because you know.. GG says it's so .. so everyone else is lying. Rofl.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

28. The difference is, Greenwald has yet to be caught in a lie.

His detractors are oftentimes lying through their teeth, and there's ample evidence for that. So bring your taunts, or bring some proof.

You have nothing.

[geek tragedy]

52. He claimed Obama 'concoctred' the Khorosan group to provide legal justification

for bombing ISIL in Syria.

The first was the difficulty of sustaining public support for a new years-long war against ISIS, a group that clearly posed no imminent threat to the “homeland.” A second was the lack of legal justification for launching a new bombing campaign with no viable claim of self-defense or U.N. approval.

The solution to both problems was found in the wholesale concoction of a brand new terror threat that was branded “The Khorasan Group.”

Only problem is that the Obama administration didn't cite Khorosan group in its legal justification for bombing ISIL in Syria. It bombed ISIL first.

Which would make Greenwald's a statement a lie to anyone who is capable of applying critical thinking instead of swooning when Greenwald writes.

[elias49]

54. My goodness, the contortions!

Desperate to make this hate justifiable. But it won't work. Corkscrew logic.

[RandiFan1290]

85. [phone]

Very well said, and it needed to be said.

[QC]

90. So true, and this is not a recent development. n/t

[zeemike]

60. It did not cite it in it's legal justification.

But it cited it to the public...does that not mean it was a lie?
Greenwald may not know the truth but that does not mean he is lying...Obama would know the truth...so he is the one who could actually tell the lie, because without the knowledge there is no lie.

[randome]

97. It also means he's not much of a journalist.

What Greenwald does best is bend the truth to suit his viewpoint. That's what infuriates so many. Because he is, I have to admit, good at that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[cui bono]

78. This has already been debunked and explained to you in another thread.

Perhaps you could go check the replies to your posts as I don't remember which thread it was, but it was made very clear. Not sure why you would want to double down on this when it's been shown to be incorrect.

[Luminous Animal]

14. Looking every where for a mention of the Khorasan Group. Not finding it.

[geek tragedy]

22. Greenwald is saying the entire terror threat and the existence of the group

that would supposedly be carrying it out is a concoction of the US government.

Oh, and he thinks Andrew McCarthy is a credible authority on assessing whether the president is telling the truth.

[Luminous Animal]

37. I've got nothing but sympathy for you. Really. You can't fill Prosense's shoes.

[geek tragedy]

41. The title of his article was "the fake terror threat used to justify bombing syria"

That's not a nuanced claim.

That's a flat rejection of the existence of a terror threat.

He essentially agrees with his fellow traveler Andrew McCarthy.

[Cha]

63. They'll never get it.. it must be strange to stick ones head in the sand and keep repeating

nonsense to deny their god greenwald is wrong.. "..and, never lies".

Andrew McCarthy.. Ted Cruz fan..

It’s Not Crazy to Talk about Impeachment

"Senator Ted Cruz of Texas is in trouble, naturally. Being an unapologetic conservative, tea-party stalwart, and happy warrior has made him the preferred punching bag of the media and other Beltway dinosaurs — their hysteria meter always tells you who worries them most. Asked at a conservative gathering in the Houston suburbs “why don’t we impeach” the president, Cruz respectfully replied that this was a “good question.” He then gave a good answer: “We don’t have the votes.”

no, I'm not linking to the national review

[Major Hogwash]

70. Exactly!

I can't believe they support someone like McCarthy.
Next thing you know, they'll be saying they like Cruz, and that he is a serious man, and should be taken seriously.

[Capt. Obvious]

94. LOL!!!

Well done.

[Marr]

123. lol

I actually did, literally, laugh out loud.

[Cha]

43. GG is a dumba$$ winger and his fans can't handle that.. so they try using what they think are

insults. Rofl "ProSense!!111

[sheshe2]

53. $$$$$$$$$GG$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Kudos to ProSense~ She would have nailed this down by now. I miss her, Cha!

[Cha]

56. I do too, she.. and you can tell how effective she was by

those who hated her.

And, those who appreciated her

[BlueCaliDem]

81. Glad to see DU is returning to its Democratic roots. ;-)

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Wed Oct 1, 2014, 12:11 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

GG is a dumba$$ winger and his fans can't handle that.. so they try using what they think are
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5605989

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Attacking other DUers instead of making a point - saying they are winger lovers. Can we stop this bs?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Oct 1, 2014, 12:30 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What are you going on about.?
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Glen Greenwald is a DUer? huh.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nothing in this post goes against Democrats and the Alerter, clearly a GG fan, needs to grow a thicker skin.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Insult is not directed toward an individual
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It would be nice to stop the BS, but that would require the admins to remove the ones spewing crap which violates the DU terms of TOS.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Guess how I voted?

[Cha]

82. "Nothing in this post goes against Democrats and the Alerter, clearly a GG fan, needs to grow a

SKIN!"

Mahalo, BlueCaliDem! "winger lovers"! Okay!

[BlueCaliDem]

83. You know me too well, Cha.

Mahalo!

[Cha]

84. I didn't know

it was you but that was my favorite! Very well constructed.

[JI7]

20. the whole "controversy" is like Benghazi

[AZ Progressive]

23. Your hatred of GG has warped your thinking

There's no mention of Khorasan in the 2012 article. Al-Fadhli is described as a part of Al Qaeda in the 2012 article. Khorasan in the recent article is simply described as an offshoot of Al Qaeda.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/28/us-mideast-crisis-qaeda-fadhli-idUSKCN0HN0E620140928


"U.S. officials have described Khorasan as a network of seasoned al Qaeda fighters with battlefield experience mostly in Pakistan and Afghanistan that is now working in league with al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, the Nusra Front.

Khorasan is a term for an area including parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan where al Qaeda's main council is believed to be in hiding."

Al-Fadhli does not equal Khorasan. Your grasping at straws and humiliating yourself in the process.

[geek tragedy]

24. he is the guy we bombed, right? Greenwald is claiming there was no terrorist threat or need

to bomb these guys, it was all a concoction, a "fake terror threat" etc.

Just like he claimed that Anwar al Awlaki had zero involvement in terrorism, just a guy posting youtubes.

[Cha]

62. GG's hate is warping his thinking.

[progressoid]

26. Greenwald claims Obama invented this guy?

[geek tragedy]

27. Greenwald is saying this was a scam, sham, concoction, and fake by the US government.

Clearly, if it's just a matter of labeling a group of guys "Khorosan" rather than "al Nusra" or "al Qaeda" well then that's just the standard wingnut poo-throwing.

Of course, that could explain it, since Greenwald (on the subject of Obama) shares a brain with Andrew "Building the case for Obama's Impeachment' McCarthy.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

29. Your story changes and changes the further one reads down the thread.

Neato.

[geek tragedy]

31. Greenwald is saying there was no terrorist threat in that area. that Obama's claim that there were

terrorists plotting attacks on the US is a concoction, a scam.

Obviously, that means no terrorists linked to Al Qaeda were there.

Because you really can't say that Al Qaeda is a fake terrorist threat.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

33. Greenwald said there was no terrorist threat in that area?

I'm going to need a link. I know that's harsh, but you've more than earned the wariness. Please do provide a link for your assertion beyond your own word.

[geek tragedy]

36. "The Fake Terror Threat Used To Justify Bombing Syria" was the title

Not "Obama mislabels al Qaeda cell as independent group"

[Laughing Mirror]

86. no terrorist threat "in that area"

What area are you referring to when you say Greenwald is saying there is no terrorist threat "in that area"? Do you mean Syria?

Greenwald is saying there was no threat in Syria?

[geek tragedy]

92. Where the US bombed "Khorosan"--he referred to Khorosan as a "fake terror threat"

so obviously the US could not be bombing a terror threat in his estimation.

[Laughing Mirror]

115. A fake terror threat for whom?

Syria? The Homeland?

[Union Scribe]

74. I'm noticing that as well. nt

[progressoid]

32. So the title of your OP is also a concoction.

[geek tragedy]

34. Greenwald is denying that there was any kind of terrorist threat in the area.

He's denying there was any kind of terrorist org operating in the area.

Of course, according to Glenn Greenwald, Andrew McCarthy is a good source to quote on President Obama's veracity.

[progressoid]

45. Perhaps that should be the title of the thread

Rather than declaring "the guy Greenwald is claiming Obama invented". Which is a bit disingenuous to say the least.

[Marr]

125. Not what he said at all.

This is getting really silly.

[cui bono]

77. No, he doesn't. n/t

[flamingdem]

59. Good research and find on Al-Fadhli

He's been observed for a loong time.

So glad he's history since he apparently had talent.

[quakerboy]

72. Why the lie?

Greenwald said Khorosan is the fake. The fact we put a bounty on an Alquaida finacier years ago does not make this new group real or meaningful.

Your assertions are roughly equivalent to the RW'rs claim that the "new black panthers" are an imminent threat to the USA, and as proof pointing out that Eldridge Cleaver ambushed some police.

[Scuba]

87. It's all they've got.

[geek tragedy]

95. he said there was no terror threat, period

he doesn't believe bombing this guy and those around him was justified.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

99. No. You're still factually wrong.

As my good friend Sidney says, keep trying.

[leftstreet]

107. +1

[Capt. Obvious]

93. O/U for Rec's for this thread is 27.5

with time limit set to 18 hours.

Taking bets.

[davidpdx]

102. Considering the post has been up for 11 hours with 25 recs

The over would have been the better bet.

[Andy823]

105. Bottom line is

FACTS. Why you and the rest of the anti Obama crowd think that recs are so important is beyond me. Why not try addressing the facts instead of making such obvious meaningless remarks?

[LondonReign2]

127. The facts are all over the thread

The OP misrepresented what GG wrote, then tried some sleight of hand by claiming GG said the individual doesn't exist when he in fact said the group didn't exist. When called on it, the OP tried first to ignore it and falsely claim, again, GG claimed the individual didn't exist, then he finally changed tactics and moved on to different arguments while failing to acknowledge his initial claim was completely false.

So there are your FACTS.

[Andy823]

129. No those are "your" facts

The Greenwald followers never see through the BS this guy is spewing, never. It's like his "ground breaking facts" he has been going to show the world no for what almost a year, yet nothing every comes to be. He simply strings along those who are gullible enough to buy into his BS. Sorry but those are the "facts", that is if you are really willing to see them.

[bvar22]

130. Oh Goody!!!!

You should be able to cite where Greenwald named Muhsin al-Fadhli.

From the text cited in the OP:
"The U.S. Department of State has authorized a reward of up to $7 million for information leading to the location of Iran-based senior facilitator and financier Muhsin al-Fadhli


I don't believe that Greenwald mentioned Muhsin al-Fadhli,
which means that the OP has posted raw BS.

I'll wait.

[Andy823]

138. OK

If the "group" doesn't exist, yet the leader of said group was killed, and that leader had a bounty out on him back in 2012, then the group must have existed. What ever name you want to call the group it was not made up. I know this won't help you see the facts, but that's not my problem.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/28/us-mideast-crisis-qaeda-fadhli-idUSKCN0HN0E620140928

[LondonReign2]

137. LOL

I'm sorry. like right wingers you don't get a separate set of facts.

The OP set, falsely, that GG claimed the individual didn't exist. The fact was GG claimed the group did not exist. Quite a difference.

When called on the false statement, the OP first doubled down; after repeatedly being challenged on this point the OP and others continued to attribute the same false statement to GG.

Finally, after having the false statement challenged enough times, the OP completely changed the argument.

Simple facts.

[Bobbie Jo]

108. *Official Meta Statistician*

Important stuff.

[Blue_Tires]

106. kick for truth

Although Greenwald occasionally is capable of decent reporting, I've been telling you all for a long time his Obama derangement has been coloring his editorial judgement...

[MineralMan]

121. Email Glenn Greenwald at this address:

[email protected]

(Important Note: That is not a valid email address. This post is satire. However, I really think that Greenwald should buy that domain name right away. It's a perfect fit for him. It's available, too, for just $3500.)

[tabasco]

132. Greenwald and his naive fans never let facts get in the way

of a good lie.

[Marr]

135. *Who* doesn't care about facts?

Glance up-thread. The OP tried to push some grade-A bullshit, got called on it, and disappeared in a puff of misdirection.

[Vattel]

136. nice summation

[QC]

139. Yep.