HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Wow, Greenwald in a new l...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 11:07 PM

Wow, Greenwald in a new light

I owe it to reader Rob that I can cite the following from the preface of Greenwald’s first book, “How Would A Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok.”

During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11. Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president’s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.

It is little known that Greenwald supported the Iraq War, and the war in Afghanistan before it. He does not mention it in writing anymore and rarely speaks of it. He supported the war for the same reason I did: he believed that Iraq possessed WMD and that the potential consequences of that possession could not be risked. When no WMD were found, it made no difference to Hitchens, who too characteristically belittled the significance of the non-finding, and those to whom it mattered, and continued to promote many other rationales for the war that were forceful and honorable, but for me circumstantially undeterminative. Without a belief in the existence of WMD I would not have supported the war and neither, it appears, would Greenwald have. For Greenwald, however, the knowledge that a government in which he had placed a level of trust, had, at the very least, gotten it so wrong – if not manipulated the nation into war – has led to an abiding campaign of extraordinary vituperation against not just the government officials responsible, but others, outside of government, particularly journalists, who had argued for action and the rightness of it.

http://sadredearth.com/christopher-hitchens-glenn-greenwald-and-the-war-of-ideas/

h/t Bolo Boffin

More:

<...>

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.

<...>

The 9/11 attacks were not the first time our nation has had to face a new and amoral enemy. Throughout our history, we have vanquished numerous enemies at least as strong and as threatening as a group of jihadist terrorists without having the president seize the power to break the law. As a nation, we have triumphed over a series of external enemies and overcome internal struggles, and we have done so not by abandoning our core principles in the name of fear but by insisting on an adherence to our fundamental political values.

http://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index.cfm?fuseaction=printable&book_number=1812


Maybe this explains why he's so touchy about other people supporting President Obama.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=95092

Afghanistan and Iraq wars and Citizens United?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100293141


103 replies, 24790 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 103 replies Author Time Post
Reply Wow, Greenwald in a new light (Original post)
ProSense Dec 2011 OP
DJ13 Dec 2011 #1
ProSense Dec 2011 #2
DJ13 Dec 2011 #3
ProSense Dec 2011 #4
DJ13 Dec 2011 #5
ProSense Dec 2011 #6
cheapdate Jan 2012 #24
MH1 Jan 2012 #34
TheWraith Jan 2012 #48
MH1 Jan 2012 #59
Aerows Jan 2012 #70
hfojvt Feb 2012 #100
Cha Jun 2013 #101
DJ13 Jun 2013 #103
Duer 157099 Dec 2011 #7
ProSense Dec 2011 #9
Aerows Jan 2012 #68
TomClash Dec 2011 #8
ProSense Dec 2011 #10
TomClash Jan 2012 #11
ProSense Jan 2012 #13
TomClash Jan 2012 #14
ProSense Jan 2012 #16
TomClash Jan 2012 #18
BlueCaliDem Jan 2012 #19
TomClash Jan 2012 #42
BlueCaliDem Jan 2012 #45
TomClash Jan 2012 #52
BlueCaliDem Jan 2012 #81
TomClash Jan 2012 #95
girl gone mad Jan 2012 #46
BlueCaliDem Jan 2012 #80
ProSense Jan 2012 #21
TomClash Jan 2012 #43
BlueCaliDem Jan 2012 #82
cheapdate Jan 2012 #25
bigtree Jan 2012 #12
joshcryer Jan 2012 #15
BlueCaliDem Jan 2012 #20
ProSense Jan 2012 #28
hlthe2b Jan 2012 #17
Cameron27 Jan 2012 #22
Robb Jan 2012 #29
hlthe2b Jan 2012 #30
Robb Jan 2012 #31
hlthe2b Jan 2012 #32
Robb Jan 2012 #33
hlthe2b Jan 2012 #35
Robb Jan 2012 #37
BootinUp Jan 2012 #36
Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #23
frazzled Jan 2012 #26
ProSense Jan 2012 #27
MjolnirTime Jan 2012 #38
A-Schwarzenegger Jan 2012 #39
Enrique Jan 2012 #40
ProSense Jan 2012 #41
got root Jan 2012 #44
girl gone mad Jan 2012 #47
bigtree Jan 2012 #49
girl gone mad Jan 2012 #50
ProSense Jan 2012 #54
PufPuf23 Feb 2012 #99
MH1 Jan 2012 #56
ProSense Jan 2012 #63
bigtree Jan 2012 #64
ProSense Jan 2012 #51
girl gone mad Jan 2012 #53
ProSense Jan 2012 #55
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #57
ProSense Jan 2012 #58
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #60
ProSense Jan 2012 #61
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #65
ProSense Jan 2012 #66
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #69
ProSense Jan 2012 #74
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #77
ProSense Jan 2012 #79
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #86
ProSense Jan 2012 #87
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #88
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #93
NNN0LHI Jan 2012 #62
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #67
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #72
slay Jan 2012 #71
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #73
ProSense Jan 2012 #75
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #85
Cha Jun 2013 #102
JNelson6563 Jan 2012 #76
ProSense Jan 2012 #78
DeathToTheOil Jan 2012 #83
LineReply .
DeathToTheOil Jan 2012 #84
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #89
ProSense Jan 2012 #90
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #91
ProSense Jan 2012 #92
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #94
Cali_Democrat Jan 2012 #96
Tarheel_Dem Feb 2012 #97
Confusious Feb 2012 #98

Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 11:09 PM

1. Im glad you guys have a new chew toy

I was getting worried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 11:12 PM

2. Isn't

"Im glad you guys have a new chew toy"

...information fascinating? I mean, clarity, enlightenment and transparency as a "new chew toy" is wonderful!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 11:15 PM

3. Im glad you have decided you can never change your mind

But Im not sure you should hold others to that standard, especially considering this is a political board, and politicians are notorious for failing to live up to the standards they themselves campaigned on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 11:19 PM

4. Hmmm?

"Im glad you have decided you can never change your mind"

And changing one's mind means that you should pretend you never held those views and lambaste others as "simple-minded"?

Join the debate or ignore it, but please stop pretending you get to set the terms of the debate and it's up to you to judge those engaged in it.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 11:25 PM

5. And changing one's mind means that you should pretend you never held those views

and lambaste others as "simple-minded"?


Politicians do it all the time.

for the record, I never said anything about you having a simple mind.


Edited to add, theres no debate with you guys.

You are like sharks, hit a target then move on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 11:29 PM

6. Yeah,

"Politicians do it all the time."

Ron Paul, the racist, doesn't want to kill "Muslim extremists," the "amoral enemy," according to Greenwald.

I get that this is uncomfortable for those who value his opinion. Oh well!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 01:09 AM

24. What is that?

"Politicians do it all the time"?

Is that an argument? An excuse? My mom and dad never accepted that argument, or its variants, when I tried it as a teenager.

We're not teenagers anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:16 PM

34. That he claimed to have 'trusted Bush'

is kind of a red flag.

I mean, really? I was nowhere near as involved in politics in 2000 as I am now, but after the Florida fiasco ... trust Bush??? No way in hell. And I would expect someone who was supposedly tied in, to know better.

No, after 12/12/2000, it was not ok for anyone to trust Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #34)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:50 PM

48. Frankly, I don't blame a lot of people who did.

It was easy for a lot of people to lose their shit right after 9/11 and get carried away. But Greenwald took entirely the wrong lesson from getting hoodwinked. What he should have learned was to take his own opinions and assumptions with a grain of salt, and that his perspective isn't always the right one. Instead what he "learned" was to simply be more extreme and puritanical, double down on believing he was right about everything, all the time, and treat everybody (with the apparent exception of Ron Paul) as if they're the enemy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #48)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 04:44 PM

59. I guess that's why I'm so pessimistic about the future of this country.

Bush basically blew off the threat of terrorism when he took office. I don't know if he really saw a major attack as a potential opportunity - I don't think he was smart enough to think ahead like that. But sheesh, it was even on the news (NPR anyway) how he basically threw all the info from the Clinton admin into the circular file.

So on that awful morning, my first thought was, "I wish we had a President, at a time like this". I didn't even consider Bush president, not just because of Florida, but because he was so obviously detached from what needed to be handled. (Remember the month long August vacation? Clearing brush, ha ha?)

Then after the attacks, his approval rating spikes to like 90%. It was then I felt, for the first time in my life, that my country was doomed. (I probably should have felt that at Bush v. Gore. But I still held out hope, even then.)

I could almost accept the average Joe on the street who doesn't pay attention to shit, grasping for whatever they could and wanting to believe that Bush actually could be a decent President. But political writers? Nah. If you're supposedly paying attention, yet you do that, wtf?

And even though I could sort of forgive the masses, if I work at it, I still have trouble accepting that that many people really be that easily suckered. It's really scary and depressing to think about. (So I think I'll think about making a drink now, sigh.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #48)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:54 PM

70. I don't blame them, either

We were hammered 24/7 with 9/11 and then there was the anthrax scare that was pushed so forcefully that it was impossible to escape it. Businesses instituted "suspect" package rules, and shipping departments took forever because they were having to handle mail differently. It was unreal how frightened everyone was.

But yes, what we should have learned from it was never trust the corporate media to tell the truth, because they have never seen a war they didn't fall in love with. And I agree - to learn to take your own opinions with a grain of salt, because what you think you know may not actually be what you know at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #34)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 04:48 AM

100. considering that he told blatant lies right from the start of his campaign

why would it be okay to trust Bush before 12/12/2000?

As I wrote in 2004

THE PRESIDENT: I believe the plan, strongly believe the plan that I have submitted is structured the right way. I've heard all the talk about class warfare and this only benefitting the rich. I think when people take a good, hard look at the rate reduction and who benefits and the fact that our plan erases inequities in the tax code, or eases inequities in the tax code; and that the biggest -- the bottom end of the economic ladder receives the biggest percentage cuts, people will come to realize it.

I think it's important to cut all tax rates, yes." Feb 5, 2001

...

Yet this was a lie which I found on Bush's website in October of 2000 and saw on TV ads in Wisconsin, and he was still telling it, with a straight face, in February of 2001.


To me somebody who tells you something like "Nine divided by two is less than the cube root of 27", that person cannot be trusted on anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 8, 2013, 12:06 AM

101. Yeah, Facts are pesky that way. They stunt the propaganda

and are even refered to as "chew toys". Unfreakingbelievable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #101)

Sat Jun 8, 2013, 12:55 PM

103. Replying to a post from 2011, really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 11:36 PM

7. Put another way:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice.. we'll I won't be fooled again.

Or something like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 11:40 PM

9. Yeah

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice.. we'll I won't be fooled again."

...but I'm trying to wrap my head around the origins of this:

"I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration... I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country... I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:47 PM

68. To be fair

Right after 9/11, the country was in collective shock. Some people weren't trusting of Bush, but such a wave of patriotism hit in the wake of the grief of an attack on our soil that most were afraid to voice that opinion.

Honestly, after having President Clinton for 8 years it was easy to trust the President, because you could trust Clinton. I fell into the trap, too, and believed the hype. It was burned into your brain 24/7. Don't forget the endless hyping of the anthrax scare immediately following 9/11. Once we invaded Iraq, Bush's true colors were clear to anyone watching, but in the months immediately following 9/11, it was very easy to get caught up in the rhetoric of "trust the President during war time" that was repeated ad nauseum on all of the news channels.

The only thing good that came out of it was that it abruptly awakened millions of Americans to the fact that corporate news is not to be trusted, and that any war is a good one to those who control our news networks. It certainly got me far more involved into following politics because of the betrayal I felt Republicans, specifically Bush, visited on the American people by selling us a war based upon a pack of lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 11:40 PM

8. So what?

How does that place Greenwald in a new light? I went through much the same process, only mine was a little more up close and personal than his.

His views a decade ago don't change the fact that he is right in voicing many foreign policy/national security/civil liberties criticisms of the President and others.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomClash (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 11:46 PM

10. Hmmm?

"His views a decade ago don't change"

The Iraq war was a decade ago? Okay it was 2003, but the fact is that Greenwald's ephiphany came around 2004-2005.

"How does that place Greenwald in a new light?"

Why hasn't he ever mentioned his views in his blog writings? Most people have no idea he once trusted Bush, supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

In fact, support for the Iraq war is used to dismiss a lot of writers, even ones who changed their minds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:02 AM

11. Hmmm?

Ok, 8 years, not 10. What a difference.

He's probably embarrassed by his prior position. He probably feels he was had. I know how he feels.

Which writers who changed their minds on the War have been "dismissed" because of their original stance?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomClash (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:07 AM

13. Well

"He's probably embarrassed by his prior position. "

...you think?

"Which writers who changed their minds on the War have been "dismissed" because of their original stance?"

You're actually going to claim you have never seen any reference to "former Iraq war cheerleader" to dismiss the a writer's opinion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #13)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:17 AM

14. No I can't

Which is why I asked.

By the way, the list of people who were part of the National Security State and supported its policies but then recanted after having misgivings is quite long. Do we dismiss their views and hold all of them to that standard too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomClash (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:21 AM

16. Who

"By the way, the list of people who were part of the National Security State and supported its policies but then recanted after having misgivings is quite long. Do we dismiss their views and hold all of them to that standard too?"

...said anything about "dimissing their views"? The point is that Greenwald held those views, and while has changed his mind, he seems to hold others in contempt for supporting Obama.

A person who once trusted Bush and declared that the President should be deferred to on national security shouldn't be condemning people for having photo blogs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:30 AM

18. How can you say that?

You are dismissing his current views by shifting the discussion to his past. You are challenging him based on his views from years ago to discredit him and destroy his credibility, instead of confronting his points directly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomClash (Reply #18)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:39 AM

19. All that idiot has to do

is come clean. He's a Bush lover, a Ron Paul supporter, and a staunch Obama hater, right from the start.

Why are you defending a Republican supporter on Democratic Underground?

Greenwald HAS no credibility - at least, not as a Liberal or Progressive. He supported Bush no matter what, he's touting Ron Paul for President and he eviscerates Democratic President Obama every chance he gets. Why are you so passionately defending him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #19)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 02:20 PM

42. LOL

Because so many Bush supporters have worked for the Center for Constitutional Rights. LOL. Greenwald is not a Republican. How many of his columns have you actually read?

As I wrote previously, I disagree with his kind words about Ron Paul, but Greenwald's criticisms of the President'd foreign policy are mostly valid. Many of the President's policies in this area are neo-con policies.

Why are you supporting the neo-con policies on DU?

I am defending him because I believe in international law, abhor preventive detention, have experienced enough war and support fundamental human rights. I don't like the total surveillance society, where muslims and others are presumed to be unamerican solely because they are muslims or dissidents. I despise the repeated drone attacks, tasked and accomplished nonchalantly, that kill toddlers because such lives are cheap and expendable. I believe that a President can only wage war with the approval of the Congress. I support transparency and not the total secrecy of the national security state because the People have a right to know what its government does in their name and i know government officials hide everything they can. I dislike the covert terror being waged against Iran, as disagreeable as that regime is. And that's just for starters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomClash (Reply #42)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:39 PM

45. So you agreed when GG defended a KKKer, too?

And that he pretends he never had when it's public knowledge? Oh, and that Ron Paul is a racist, too, and you support him, too, that can only mean, well, birds of a feather . . .

You know GG splices President Obama's speeches when he blogs to make it appear differently than it is, that is, putting a negative light on President Obama, don't you?

And you know he lacks the same sharp focus he's got like a lazer-beam on Obama on Paul's snake oil sales pitch when Paul's been proven to be a racist, a bigot, anti-civil rights, and anti-woman, just as long as he's rumored to be anti-war? Because is Ron "Golum" Paul really so anti-war just because he tells you he is? Wouldn't that reflect in his congressional votes that matter?

By the way, the only US Congressional Representative to vote against the Afghan war was Barbara Lee. PAUL VOTED FOR IT. I guess part of Paul's appeal for the so-called left must be his steadfast commitment to making symbolic moral stands that don't mean anything, but always voting with the GOP when needed.

And a little eye-opening tidbit for you . . . guess who's bill is this:

"The President of the United States is authorized to place a money bounty, drawn in his discretion from the $40,000,000,000 appropriated on September 14, 2001, in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Re-covery from and Response to Terrorists Attacks on the United States or from private sources, for the capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, under the authority of any letter of marque or reprisal issued under this Act."

Give up? Ron Paul. 2001. The most conservative rep since 1937, AND a bounty hunter, AND your idol whom you staunchly support on a Democratic site. Un-freaking-believable.

Should President Obama tell you he's against war, too, will you give him the same support you so lavishly give Conservative Republican Ron Paul and his defenders? Or will you continuously and unfairly hold DEMOCRATIC President Obama to a higher standard on DEMOCRATIC Underground?

And no, Greenwald isn't a Republican. He's worst! He' s a Libertarian and they should receive NO SUPPORT from members of DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND members because they are against everything Democrats stand for.

So again, why are you supporting a Republican (or worse than one) on Democratic Underground?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #45)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 04:15 PM

52. I have never supported Ron Paul

Ever. And I have posted several times that I disagree with Greenwald on Ron Paul.

I have always voted for Democrats. You have no right or basis to question my credentials as a progressive.

You called Greenwald a Republican. Now you call him a Libertarian. He is neither. You have no evidence to support these shifting, slanted views.

I already gave Barack Obama a lot of support in 2008, back when he was against war.

I have been posting here a long time and I didn't know people had to march in lockstep. This is not a Stalinist website.

I already answered your silly question about why I am defending Greenwald. But I noticed you didn't answer mine.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomClash (Reply #52)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:03 AM

81. You are supporting

him on DU, just as I've pointed out, so whether or not you support him in private and with your vote is not relevant. Reread your own post. Your defense of Ron Paul and GG means you support their p.o.v. If that isn't the case, I missed the sarcasm icon in your post.

No one says you have to march in lockstep. Everyone has his/her own opinion and as a Progressive I'd be the last person to deny anyone that right.

But when the Left's passion for kvetching shifts power in government to more rightwing control and it affects me and my family personally, it becomes seriously self-defeating of my progressive principles and hopes for this country, and it upsets me.

Greenwald has so keenly hidden his true agenda from the less astute. The fact he praises Bush the lesser, is "keeping an eye on Gary Johnson", a two-term rightwing Republican Governor of New Mexico, and misrepresents President Obama's speeches and policies, should be the red flags that wake you up. And if you really want to get to know this brilliant strategist and Ron Paul/Gary Johnson Republican propagandist posing as a progressive, you need to read this analysis: http://rootedcosmopolitan.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/glenn-greenwald-neither-a-liberal-nor-a-progressive/

As for Ron Paul NO PROGRESSIVE should ever support or defend him. Period. He's not worth a Progressive's defense with his proven racism as the deal breaker. According to Bill White, a prominent member of the American Nazi Party, Paul and his congressional staffers use to meet regularly with him and others on the racial right at a Thai restaurant in Alexandria.

And a few years ago, Gollum Paul held a congressional hearing on economics which may have gone well with the exception that the economic expert he invited had extensive ties to white supremacists organizations.

He's a racist and being openly racist - which ties in with his hatred for the Civil Rights Act - should be the No. 1 deal breaker why Democrats should denounce not defend him. Period. Unless, of course, they secretly agree with him.

As for your question, I didn't answer it because it wasn't serious nor educated. You're conveniently forgetting one major detail here . . . had Bush not been pResident - thanks to a lot of kvetching by other prominent Liberals like Michael Moore and Nader supporters - and had he not invaded the M.E. and stirred this hornet's nest, do you actually believe his successor, President Obama, would've?

That's all you need to ask to see why I didn't take your query seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #81)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 07:41 AM

95. For the last time I have never supported Ron Paul

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #19)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:44 PM

46. Oh good grief.

You guys are so fucking melodramatic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #46)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:31 PM

80. lol

Melodramatic? Who needed foul language to make a point?

You need to project less and stay in reality more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomClash (Reply #18)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:42 AM

21. Absolutely

"You are dismissing his current views by shifting the discussion to his past. "

...not.

"You are challenging him based on his views from years ago to discredit him and destroy his credibility, instead of confronting his points directly. "

No, I'm challenging his inflexibility, his pettiness (especially toward people who are not in the public spotlight) and his apparent inability to present the full picture in his criticisms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #21)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 02:24 PM

43. What are you talking about?

"I'm challenging his inflexibility, his pettiness (especially toward people who are not in the public spotlight) and his apparent inability to present the full picture in his criticisms."

How so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #21)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:05 AM

82. It's

a lost cause, ProSense. There are some serious anti-Obama people on DU3. I ask myself, why don't they go to FireBaggerLake where they find a more friendly crowd to help Hamsher and the other PL put another Republican in the WH?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 01:12 AM

25. Ain't it funny how a lot of folks had epiphanies around 2009?

Not really talking about Greenwald here, just a general observation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:07 AM

12. that first paragraph

"Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president’s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country."

That's the shit we've been fighting ever since. It was because of supposedly progressive folks who held positions like his that we lost valuable ground in confronting the Bush administration and holding them accountable for their obvious overreach.

Bush was clearly out of line the moment he stepped up on that pile of ashes and humanity and declared war on everyone he deemed 'against us'.

That said, I really don't have any axe to grind against GG. He's got a flair for writing and a passion for things which need exposing and addressing. I can appreciate that, at least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:20 AM

15. Yep, it's that kind of attitude that screwed us.

The right wing is never right about anything. GG's newest views saying we share something with the right winger Ron Paul just underscores that GG never actually learned his lesson.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #15)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:41 AM

20. Bingo. Thank you, jc.

Ron Paul is a charlatan and a snake oil salesman and anybody who falls for his brand is either deluded or a Republican, and that comes right back to being deluded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:40 AM

28. Exactly!

People are bringing up Kerry, and trying to hold Greenwald in a more favorable light than Kerry.

As I said, Greenwald isn't an elected official. Kerry set out with Kennedy in January 2003 to accuse Bush of attempting to violate the IWR and rush to war. In fact, two weeks into the war, when I'm sure Greenwald was still cheering (he indicates his epiphany was around 2004 to 2005), Kerry was demanding regime change in this country. Still, it figures that while everyone else has been called gullible and stupid for believing Bush, some expect Greenwald to be held to a different standard.

I'm trying to wrap my head around the origins of this:

"I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration... I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country... I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment "

That ws the gist of Greenwald's thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:21 AM

17. I clearly remember one hell of a lot of progressives giving Bush* benefit of the doubt...

and even backing the Iraq war. Does that vote in congress ring a bell? I adore Al Franken, but he defended/supported the Iraqi war effort for such a long time (on his radio show), I thought I'd pull all my hair out.

This says nothing to me, except that Glenn at least admits backing the war, while I suppose many do not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #17)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:50 AM

22. Yes, many gave Bush

the benefit of the doubt, then changed their minds...

"Mr. President, when I vote to give the president of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein; because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat and a grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region, I will vote, because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." .... John Kerry

http://www.democracynow.org/2004/2/20/john_kerry_now_kerry_backs_iraq

And Greenwald and Franken, unlike those who actually voted approval, didn't have access to the 93 page intelligence report that contained: "dissents from agencies questioning some of the more sweeping conclusions. For example, the State Department said the evidence that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program was "inadequate."

http://pcl.stanford.edu/press/2004/lat-conflicted.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #17)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:50 AM

29. Yeah, remember all the people on DU who cheered for the Iraq war?



Please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #29)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:58 AM

30. Re:

I was referring to Congress, pundits, supposedly progressive newspaper
Editorial boards, Dem strategists, and the like. But, there were some few among us at DU who did so as well. I proudly count myself NOT among them and believe that applies to you as well. Do you remember differently?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #30)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:59 AM

31. I don't remember a single DUer that supported the invasion. Not one.

Troll or two pretending, sure. No one that lasted the year.

I'd be fascinated to be proven wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #31)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:07 PM

32. Yet that does nothing to refute.

my point. Do you REALLY not remember all the Senstors, Congressional Reps, pundits, reporters, newspapers, strategists--all supposedly "good" DEMS and Progressives that fell right in line?

BTW, I'm not your enemy. Perhaps you could reserve the eye roll sarcasm for someone that has earned it next time...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #32)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:10 PM

33. I remember. I don't forgive any of them.

I don't see a reason to give Greenwald a pass, either. That's all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #33)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:18 PM

35. I don't

It is an area of intense disagreement for me. Just like his failure to include Ron Paul's racism, misogyny, etc in his analysis. But I look at his work & analyses in total and not based on one issue. Much like Hitchens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #35)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:19 PM

37. Fair enough. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #17)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:18 PM

36. Democrats who voted for the damn

thing with the exception of a small minority like Lieberman for example, did it because they were afraid of the Rove machine in the next election and hoped that Georgie wouldn't actually use it to invade. It turned out they hoped stupidly of course.

You are free to interpret it differently of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:56 AM

23. Wow, totally wow. Incredibly wow!!

Greenwald deferred to Bush's authoritah when he was in the White House, but not to Obama's!!

Wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 01:15 AM

26. I actually bought that book when it first came out

And I got as far as those paragraphs and decided there was absolutely no reason to read further. Someone was visiting us and saw the book and said, oh, is that interesting? And I said, you want it? And I gave it to him and never looked back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #26)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 01:49 AM

27. Seriously,

"And I got as far as those paragraphs and decided there was absolutely no reason to read further. "

...I wouldn't have been able to get past "trusted Bush," and that was in the preface.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:21 PM

38. Glenn Greenwald, Closet Bush Supporter

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:23 PM

39. Deluded

blowhard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:36 PM

40. this person makes an interesting critique of Greenwald

Unlike some people, he's not motivated by fury that Glenn is criticizing his favorite politician.

Unlike some people, he's not waging a vendetta against Glenn.

Unlike some people, he's not attempting to destroy Glenn's reputation.

But he does make some interesting speculations about Greenwald's motivations. I find it believable and I can relate to it. I didn't support the Iraq war, but I still felt betrayed at the total lack of WMDs and the other revelations that came out after the war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #40)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 02:18 PM

41. Well

"Unlike some people, he's not motivated by fury that Glenn is criticizing his favorite politician.

Unlike some people, he's not waging a vendetta against Glenn.

Unlike some people, he's not attempting to destroy Glenn's reputation. "

...unlike Greenwald, some people are not attempting to malign random people on the Internet:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=95092

Seriously, ask the DUer who was referred to as "simple-minded" in Greenwald's recent article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 02:28 PM

44. yeah, there are a lot of dems you can hang with that

 

unfortunately

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:48 PM

47. Your incessant need to tear down Greenwald..

only makes me like him.

You have very little credibility in my book, but I have a good memory. I have seen you change your position from one day to the next, depending on what stance the administration takes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #47)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:55 PM

49. funny

that's the way I feel about our Democratic President . . . GG's incessant tearing at the guy just makes me like him better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #49)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 04:06 PM

50. Can you cite some examples of my "incessant tearing at the guy"?

I mean, if I am indeed incessant, this should be an easy task.

"Prosense" has written dozens of posts on Greenwald, just this week.

What's more, do I have a reputation for changing my views, sometimes from one day to the next, based on what the White House does?

"Prosense" wrote very vehemently against the Payroll tax holiday one day, but the very next day was 100% in favor of it when the administration endorsed the plan.

Have I been generally right or wrong? I repeatedly warned that the administration was underestimating the depth of the crisis and needed to do more. "Prosense" claimed that they had done more than enough, we were in a real economic recovery and good times were just around the corner.

Someone here has a credibility problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #50)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 04:24 PM

54. Here's

an example of his "incessant" tearing down of Obama supporters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=95092

"Prosense" has written dozens of posts on Greenwald, just this week.

What's more, do I have a reputation for changing my views, sometimes from one day to the next, based on what the White House does?

"Prosense" wrote very vehemently against the Payroll tax holiday one day, but the very next day was 100% in favor of it when the administration endorsed the plan.


I have been accused of posting pro-DLC stuff (whatever that means).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1504796&mesg_id=1504856

Still, if you think that criticizing me will stop me from criticizing Greenwald, you're sadly mistaken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #54)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 01:14 AM

99. "I have been accused of posting pro-DLC stuff (whatever that means). "

Pro-DLC (however defunct) means supporting neo-liberal as opposed to traditional FDR "New Deal" fiscal policies.

Neoliberals also tend to be more pro-intervention in foreign policy than anti-war liberals.

Neoliberal vs FDR liberal is the divide within the Demoratic Party and at DU.

I cannot fathom how any regular at DU would not understand what this "means" by now.

Here are the first two websites (aside from wiki) I found on a DLC neoliberal search. I added the bold for emphasis.

You are welcome.


http://www.democrats.com/new-democrats

Related terms:

•Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)
•centrist

The Democratic Party became a liberal party largely through the "New Deal" policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the Great Depression. Before FDR, "laissez-faire" or "free-market" policies were the only policies acceptable to America's ruling elites. FDR's New Deal policies used government spending power to create jobs for the masses of unemployed, and used payroll taxes to provide retirement security through Social Security. FDR also created regulatory agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to avoid another financial crisis.

FDR's liberal policies were supported by Democratic and Republican administrations until Ronald Reagan began a conservative counterattack against FDR's policies in 1981. After 8 years of Reaganism, conservative Democrats began embracing the Reaganite assault on liberalism, and called themselves "New Democrats" to distinguish themselves from traditional FDR-inspired liberals. These "New Democrats" drew support from large corporations that wanted a return to "laissez-faire" policies to get out from under regulations.

http://www.socialistalternative.org/publications/election2010/ch4.html

Neo-Liberalism and the Democratic Party

Under the leadership of Bill Clinton, the Democrats created the Democratic Leadership Council to craft a clear neo-liberal doctrine for the Democratic Party that became enshrined as their main policy. Promising to adopt these policies, Bill Clinton won widespread corporate endorsement as the candidate for the Democratic Party in 1992.

The same policies of neo-liberalism are now at the heart of both political parties. Both are committed to profit maximization for the tiny elite that owns the major companies and the places we work. In the present crisis, this capitalist elite is not reinvesting to rebuild the U.S. economy. At present, big business is sitting on $1.5 trillion. It refuses to invest in productive jobs, yet it demands massive cutbacks in Medicaid and other social services.

This takes us to the main problem of our time. Capitalism can't continue to grow the economy. It has choked on the massive debt bubble it has created. It is now turning inward to take back the gains won in the past by workers. In order to become profitable, it is demanding we reduce the share of wealth we as workers get.

The Financial Times of London documented three main trends that are devastating the living standards of working people in the U.S. First is a longer-term decline of U.S. capitalism since 1973. In that time, the annual income growth of the bottom 90% has been flat while the income of the richest 1% has tripled. Second is the fact that this decline has sped up in the last decade. Even during the boom from January 2002 to December 2007, the median U.S. household income fell by $2,000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #50)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 04:27 PM

56. Glenn? Is that you?

I'm pretty sure the "GG" in bigtree's post was Glenn Greenwald, not you. Unless you are he.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #56)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:06 PM

63. Too focused on protecting Greenwald. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #50)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:08 PM

64. greenwald at the president

not about you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #47)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 04:13 PM

51. Well,

Your incessant need to tear down Greenwald..

only makes me like him.

You have very little credibility in my book, but I have a good memory. I have seen you change your position from one day to the next, depending on what stance the administration takes.


...your defense of him make me question his credibility. I too have a good memory. I do change my mind sometimes, but I never trusted Bush or supported the Iraq war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #51)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 04:20 PM

53. What would my defense have to do with his credibility?

You exist in one dimension.

If Obama is for it, you are for it.

If Obama is against it, you are against it.

You don't have a mind to change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #53)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 04:25 PM

55. And

"You exist in one dimension."

...you apparently can't stomach criticism of Greenwald. So who are you to talk?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #51)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 04:31 PM

57. There are a few ex-Republican, ex-Bush voters on this board...

Should we out them? Should we make them include their past affiliations in their sig lines? Are their current posts on DU suspect?

Which witch should we hunt next?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #57)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 04:41 PM

58. Wait

"There are a few ex-Republican, ex-Bush voters on this board..."

...you're equating random posters with Greenwald?

Seriously?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #58)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 04:48 PM

60. If we, as DUers can accept personal reformation from our members

(and some of those are prolific and well liked) why would we hold Greenwald to a higher standard?

Which witch will we hunt next? Will it be a DUer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #60)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 04:53 PM

61. Your

If we, as DUers can accept personal reformation from our members

(and some of those are prolific and well liked) why would we hold Greenwald to a higher standard?


...false equivalency aside: If Greenwald once trusted Bush, why can't he understand that people posting photos aren't exhibiting the tendicies of Nazi supporters?

Seriously, the strange attempts to defend Greenwald against criticism almost make it seem like a crime to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #61)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:17 PM

65. Your posts are not intellectual criticism. That is, you do not argue the topic

at hand.

When will you expose DUers who were once Bush supporters?

Which witch will you hunt next?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #65)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:22 PM

66. Here's Greenwald on another Iraq war supporter:

Just think about this: Joe Klein is someone who went on Meet the Press in February, 2003 and urged that the U.S. invade Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings.

http://www.salon.com/2009/08/23/joe_klein/


"When will you expose DUers who were once Bush supporters?"

I'll leave that to Greenwald. He has already exposed a DUer for being "simple-minded."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #66)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:51 PM

69. Hmmmmmm.Greenwald had no powerful platform to promote the war...

Klein did. Greenwald passively trusted the government, Klein actively supported the government. Greenwald evolved and wrote "How Would A Patriot Act." That is, he came to understand that he was on the wrong track. He grew and learned as a human being. Similar to some well respected ex-Republican DUers. And hell, some of those ex-Republican DUers even voted for Bush! Even Greenwald didn't do that!

When are you going to expose them? Because I know you know who they are. One, in particular, is an ally.

I am looking forward to your posts that exposes ex-Republican DUers past political affiliations.

Which witch will you expose next?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #69)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:13 PM

74. Hmmm?

"Greenwald had no powerful platform to promote the war...Klein did. Greenwald passively trusted the government, Klein actively supported the government. Greenwald evolved and wrote "How Would A Patriot Act." That is, he came to understand that he was on the wrong track. He grew and learned as a human being. Similar to some well respected ex-Republican DUers. And hell, some of those ex-Republican DUers even voted for Bush! Even Greenwald didn't do that!"

So Klein's support for the war was different from Greenwald's support for the war, but now that Greenwald has a platform he's the same as a DUer? Why are you talking about people who voted for Bush? Did Klein? What the hell does that have to do with supporting the Iraq war, "which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings"?

Greenwald:

"I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration... I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country... I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #74)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:32 PM

77. "I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration" Until he did and wrote a book.

When are you going to expose the ex-Bush DUers?

Which witch will you go after next?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to ProSense (Reply #79)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:00 AM

86. When are you going to expose the ex-Bush DUers?

Which witch will you hunt next?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #86)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:03 AM

87. Wait

"When are you going to expose the ex-Bush DUers? "

...didn't I say I would leave that to Greenwald?

If you're interested in helping him out, go ahead. I'm not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #87)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:05 AM

88. Are you saying that Greenwald has already exposed Bush supporting DUers?

When? Where?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #87)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:22 AM

93. In case you missed post #88. When and where did GG expose ex-Bush DUers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 05:26 PM

62. A fucking Bushie

Holy shit!

Don

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #62)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:31 PM

67. There are several of them here on DU. Shall we expose them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #62)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:56 PM

72. Media Matters! Started by a fucking Bushie. Holy shit!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:56 PM

71. How many anti-Greenwald pieces do you intend to keep posting?

 

don't get me wrong - in a way it's a welcome change from all the pro-Obama propaganda you normally post....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slay (Reply #71)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:05 PM

73. Until Debs (oops -I mean Greenwald)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slay (Reply #71)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:15 PM

75. Well,

"How many anti-Greenwald pieces do you intend to keep posting?"

...I plan on posting criticisms of Greenwald as I see fit.

"don't get me wrong - in a way it's a welcome change from all the pro-Obama propaganda you normally post...."

See even you find some relief in them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #75)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:58 AM

85. Yay! The more the better!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slay (Reply #71)

Sat Jun 8, 2013, 12:08 AM

102. Exposing the facts on Greenwald.. is a neverending necessity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:25 PM

76. You have upset Team Heather

Now you've gone and done it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JNelson6563 (Reply #76)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:13 PM

78. Apparently. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:43 AM

83. All on the front page of GD right now. Do you see the futility?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:51 AM

84. .

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:13 AM

89. Kick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #89)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:13 AM

90. Thanks n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #90)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:16 AM

91. You are welcome! You are THE voice of DU!

You should write a book and title it, "How Would a Democrat Act"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #91)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:17 AM

92. No

"You are THE voice of DU!"

...you are. I insist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #92)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:24 AM

94. No! I insist! Beauty before age!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #94)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:22 AM

96. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 11:19 PM

97. Oh geez, how'd I miss this? It's my favorite rightwing shill,,,eerrr I mean "civil" libertarian.

Nothing like being admonished by an undercover Republican. He's vile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 11:39 PM

98. So?


Lots of people supported the war. Gave bush something like a 98% approval rating.

I didn't support the war, or bush, but maybe you should go around DU and root out the ones who did.

Then we can get them in front of a firing squad.


Seems all really petty to me. Did he say a bad thingy about obama?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread