HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The Top 5 Exaggerations B...

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 02:43 PM

 

The Top 5 Exaggerations By Glenn Greenwald On NSA - Extreme Liberal

I have analyzed Glenn Greenwald’s writing many times over the years. His slick use of rhetorical devices, and his propensity to exaggerate, jump out at me and smack me upside the head when I read his writings. I’ve compiled what I think are the top 5 exaggerations by Glenn Greenwald since the NSA story broke. These are mostly from his appearances, where he apparently feels more free to exaggerate than when he commits something to paper.

Before I get to the list, I feel it is my duty to point out Glenn’s incredible hypocrisy about the right of privacy.

In his one big case as a lawyer, defending the white supremacist Matt Hale, Glenn Greenwald was smacked down by the judge for unethically recording witnesses without their knowledge. Mr. Privacy, Glenn Greenwald, invaded the privacy of witnesses in order to defend that vile creature...

http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2013/06/13/the-top-5-exaggerations-by-glenn-greenwald-on-nsa/

94 replies, 7459 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 94 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Top 5 Exaggerations By Glenn Greenwald On NSA - Extreme Liberal (Original post)
michigandem58 Jun 2013 OP
randome Jun 2013 #1
backscatter712 Jun 2013 #2
pkdu Jun 2013 #4
Kolesar Jun 2013 #3
nineteen50 Jun 2013 #45
giftedgirl77 Jun 2013 #57
dkf Jun 2013 #5
Scootaloo Jun 2013 #6
xtraxritical Jun 2013 #51
burnodo Jun 2013 #71
tavalon Jun 2013 #7
VanillaRhapsody Jun 2013 #12
tavalon Jun 2013 #13
VanillaRhapsody Jun 2013 #16
Whisp Jun 2013 #64
VanillaRhapsody Jun 2013 #69
randome Jun 2013 #17
usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #42
randome Jun 2013 #53
usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #54
randome Jun 2013 #59
usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #61
reteachinwi Jun 2013 #65
randome Jun 2013 #68
reteachinwi Jun 2013 #72
randome Jun 2013 #73
SidDithers Jun 2013 #8
think Jun 2013 #9
jeff47 Jun 2013 #21
think Jun 2013 #25
jeff47 Jun 2013 #27
think Jun 2013 #33
jeff47 Jun 2013 #37
think Jun 2013 #46
jeff47 Jun 2013 #94
reusrename Jun 2013 #67
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2013 #35
think Jun 2013 #36
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2013 #38
think Jun 2013 #40
chimpymustgo Jun 2013 #58
DevonRex Jun 2013 #10
Hissyspit Jun 2013 #22
DevonRex Jun 2013 #30
LineLineLineLineReply ?
Hissyspit Jun 2013 #41
DevonRex Jun 2013 #48
Hissyspit Jun 2013 #74
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2013 #49
msanthrope Jun 2013 #11
Cha Jun 2013 #15
ucrdem Jun 2013 #18
Cha Jun 2013 #91
ucrdem Jun 2013 #19
SidDithers Jun 2013 #20
Ikonoklast Jun 2013 #26
msanthrope Jun 2013 #34
Hissyspit Jun 2013 #75
msanthrope Jun 2013 #76
Hissyspit Jun 2013 #78
msanthrope Jun 2013 #80
Hissyspit Jun 2013 #81
msanthrope Jun 2013 #83
Hissyspit Jun 2013 #84
okaawhatever Jun 2013 #29
msanthrope Jun 2013 #39
Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #55
msanthrope Jun 2013 #60
Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #62
msanthrope Jun 2013 #70
Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #63
msanthrope Jun 2013 #66
Hissyspit Jun 2013 #82
msanthrope Jun 2013 #87
Hissyspit Jun 2013 #89
Number23 Jun 2013 #85
msanthrope Jun 2013 #88
Cha Jun 2013 #92
Tarheel_Dem Jun 2013 #90
Cha Jun 2013 #14
Hissyspit Jun 2013 #23
zeemike Jun 2013 #24
MNBrewer Jun 2013 #28
Bobbie Jo Jun 2013 #77
FSogol Jun 2013 #31
PSPS Jun 2013 #32
usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #43
sulphurdunn Jun 2013 #44
Egalitarian Thug Jun 2013 #47
One of the 99 Jun 2013 #50
JNelson6563 Jun 2013 #52
Kolesar Jun 2013 #56
Major Hogwash Jun 2013 #79
Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #86
Progressive dog Jun 2013 #93

Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 02:50 PM

1. "The United States government, collectively, thinking as one giant Dr. Evil..."

 



Dr. Evil was more credible than Greenwald & Snowden.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 02:53 PM

2. *PLONK*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 02:56 PM

4. Doin a lotta PLONKIN there dude, please add me to the list if

Not on there already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 02:55 PM

3. Greenwald is fantasizing that Snowden has some secrets he can use to get his criminal charges reduce

That's the leverage that Snowden has. Deal with him or he will compromise US security and/or jeopardize US contacts in other countries. He said that on Chris Hayes show on MSNBC on Thursday.

Glenn went to law school for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 05:11 PM

45. You make it seem like David has all the cards to play against

goliath poor ole goliath has no protection against the insect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 06:19 PM

57. hmm, there is a special word for those types

 

of actions. What's it called?

Oh yeah extortion. I would have had at least some respect for the guy if he would have leaked the first set of information & worked from there. But telling the Chinese Intel just made him a great big douche.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 03:04 PM

5. Lol! Extreme liberal!!! Is that supposed to be a slur?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 03:08 PM

6. It's the name of the blog he's quoting from n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #6)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 05:38 PM

51. A cheap shot to get clicks I think.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 06:46 PM

71. It means "extreme Democrat"

 

An "extreme" liberal would be more upset about the trashing of the Constitution

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 03:11 PM

7. Nice diversion,

but it's still true that the NSA is spying on We The People.

Try again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 03:39 PM

12. and that doesn't make Snowden a hero any more than it just made you

 

However, you didn't take information to the Chinese so no one will call you a traitor for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 03:43 PM

13. And you have so missed the point of what is going on right in front of you

Stop looking at the people and start looking at what they've tried to show you. The people are unimportant, the information vital to the survival of this nation. Which, btw, is on it's last legs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #13)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 03:54 PM

16. Oh good gawd...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 06:29 PM

64. China - Most Favored Nation...

 

so what's the big deal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #64)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 06:42 PM

69. Yeah....why not tell everyone that works at NSA they can blab all they want about our

 

secret programs...apparently it just isn't that big of a deal to some people!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 03:57 PM

17. "...it's still true..." How do you know this?

 

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #17)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 05:02 PM

42. it was just revealed by the whistle blower

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to usGovOwesUs3Trillion (Reply #42)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 05:48 PM

53. It was alleged by Snowden.

 

So far nothing no evidence to match the claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #53)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 05:51 PM

54. Right, among others who are/were in a position to know

 

We can all agree that we need an investigation, e.g. Church Hearings and for the SCOTUS to weigh in on all this, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to usGovOwesUs3Trillion (Reply #54)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 06:20 PM

59. I wouldn't have a problem with a 'Secrecy Commission' or some such.

 

A group to evaluate what needs to be secret and what doesn't. OTOH, that's sort of what Congress does, too.

I just think the panicked reactions are overblown. Besides, Obama already has a commission of some sort that is examining how to declassify documents. I forget what it's called.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #59)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 06:23 PM

61. Full investigation and a SCOTUS descision

 

Good, see we can agree on something

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #17)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 06:34 PM

65. The NSA verified it?

 

It is against long standing Agency policy to comment directly on any classified matter, and its Directors have consistently refused to confirm or deny any Agency activity when questioned by the press. But when the UK Guardian broke the story of the PRISM leak, the Director of National Intelligence promptly confirmed the document as authentic, calling the leak “reprehensible”:

“The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans.” – James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence[9]

This very unusual confirmation raises more questions about the PRISM document than it answers.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/nsa-deception-operation-questions-surround-leaked-prism-documents-authenticity/5338673

http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/869-dni-statement-on-activities-authorized-under-section-702-of-fisa

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reteachinwi (Reply #65)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 06:40 PM

68. PowerPoint is a tool used by bureaucrats. It's not to be taken seriously.

 

A person putting together a PowerPoint presentation is nearly always concerned with putting pretty shapes and colors on screens.

To portray a PowerPoint slide as a serious document shows how little some people have worked in an office environment. It is not used as an agency directive. It's not used for anything other than quick messaging displays.

It's a goddamned toy and Greenwald has shown his naivete about such matters to try to get us to swallow this as something nefarious from the NSA.

It's on the level of someone sketching shit out on a napkin and then calling it golden.

And this is what Greenwald led off with.

And this is beside the fact that 'direct access' on the PowerPoint slide most likely refers to secure FTP servers, not 24/7 monitoring of the Internet. It's just ludicrous to think that the NSA is watching everyone.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #68)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 07:20 PM

72. A person putting together a PowerPoint presentation is nearly always concerned with putting pretty s

 

That was my point. Something about this story seems not to add up. It is a feint, fighting the enemy where he is not, a diversion. From what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reteachinwi (Reply #72)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 07:24 PM

73. My apologies for misinterpreting you, then.

 

I think when confronted with just about any document, it's difficult to not say anything. If Clapper had said nothing, however, it would have confirmed the worst fears of those who run to fear like moths to a flame.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 03:16 PM

8. HUGE K & R !!!







Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 03:16 PM

9. So I should keep focusing on Greenwald and

 

not the spying by the NSA which a FISA court already ruled has violated the constitution?

I should accept that US Senators need to get permission to tell me that?

I should be OK with not knowing the existence of this ruling because it's classified?

I should disregard the other whistle blowers who followed the chain of command and are ignored?

I should trust the NSA that they are no longer violating the constitution because they said so?

I should bury my head in the sand and pretend my civil liberties haven't already been infringed upon albeit legally in most cases perhaps illegally in others since the govt made it legal to do so?

I should understand that basically EVERYTHING my govt does needs to be classified so no leaks can damage the hidden agendas of banksters and the MIC?

I should accept the "least untruthful" answers given by Clapper because those are the best answers we get to hear?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 04:13 PM

21. The problem is many of the claims are based only on Snowden and Greenwald.

They released a limited number of documents that don't back up all of their claims.

As a result, their credibility is actually quite important. They could have released everything, and thus taken themselves out of the discussion. But they didn't. Kinda odd for 'bold truth tellers'.

not the spying by the NSA which a FISA court already ruled has violated the constitution?

Nope, sorry.

The 'spying' as done under the Bush administration did not have a warrant. Which is why it was unconstitutional. Now they get warrants. Ta-da!

I should accept that US Senators need to get permission to tell me that?

You got that backwards. Congresspeople had to give the executive branch permission to keep things secret in 1947. Why would congresspeople not be able to change that program?

I should be OK with not knowing the existence of this ruling because it's classified?

Are you OK with not knowing the exact details of how our nuclear warheads work?

Just trying to figure out if you think it is ever OK for the government to keep secrets.

I should disregard the other whistle blowers who followed the chain of command and are ignored?

Such as? Or were their powers of ignoring so great that these people vanished from the face of the Earth?

I should trust the NSA that they are no longer violating the constitution because they said so?

No, but that's why both other branches of our government are monitoring the program....when those brave Senators you mention above bother to show up for their briefings.

I should bury my head in the sand and pretend my civil liberties haven't already been infringed upon albeit legally in most cases perhaps illegally in others since the govt made it legal to do so?

They stopped being your records in 1979. Kinda hard to claim your liberties are being violated by selling information that you don't own.

I should understand that basically EVERYTHING my govt does needs to be classified so no leaks can damage the hidden agendas of banksters and the MIC?

No, actually the vast majority of the government's activities are still public. And lots of the MIC work is somewhat public - for example, the government publishes information every time Booz wins a contract.

You just have to bother spending time digging through Fed Biz Ops, which is admittedly much less fun than railing against people.

I should accept the "least untruthful" answers given by Clapper because those are the best answers we get to hear?

Alternatively, you could wonder why congresspeople are busy setting up perjury traps instead of attending briefings. You know, actually doing oversight instead of looking good on a blog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #21)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 04:26 PM

25. Railing I am...... Apparently you've not seen these:

 

(Bold added for emphasis.)

FISC Will Not Object To Release of 2011 Court Opinion That Confirmed NSA’s Illegal Surveillance
By Sreeja VN | June 13 2013 1:32 AM

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISC, ruled Wednesday that it has no objection to the release of a 2011 opinion of the court, which found that some of the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs under the FISA Amendments Act, were unconstitutional.

~Snip~

San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, or EFF, had filed a lawsuit last year seeking a release of the FISC court's 2011 opinion.

However, the ruling will not make the opinion immediately available to the public, and EFF will have to pursue the matter in a lower court -- where it initially filed its plea -- which would then decide whether the document is eligible to be released under FOIA....

Full article:
http://www.ibtimes.com/fisc-will-not-object-release-2011-court-opinion-confirmed-nsas-illegal-surveillance-1305023


Or this:

Justice Department Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance

Government lawyers are trying to keep buried a classified court finding that a domestic spying program went too far.
—By David Corn
| Fri Jun. 7, 2013 12:22 PM PDT


~Snip~

This important case—all the more relevant in the wake of this week's disclosures—was triggered after Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Senate intelligence committee, started crying foul in 2011 about US government snooping. As a member of the intelligence committee, he had learned about domestic surveillance activity affecting American citizens that he believed was improper. He and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), another intelligence committee member, raised only vague warnings about this data collection, because they could not reveal the details of the classified program that concerned them. But in July 2012, Wyden was able to get the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to declassify two statements that he wanted to issue publicly. They were:

* On at least one occasion the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held that some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

* I believe that the government's implementation of Section 702 of FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] has sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law, and on at least one occasion the FISA Court has reached this same conclusion.

For those who follow the secret and often complex world of high-tech government spying, this was an aha moment. The FISA court Wyden referred to oversees the surveillance programs run by the government, authorizing requests for various surveillance activities related to national security, and it does this behind a thick cloak of secrecy. Wyden's statements led to an obvious conclusion: He had seen a secret FISA court opinion that ruled that one surveillance program was unconstitutional and violated the spirit of the law. But, yet again, Wyden could not publicly identify this program....

Full article:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/justice-department-electronic-frontier-foundation-fisa-court-opinion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #25)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 04:37 PM

27. And neither of those are relevant to your previous statements.

The main thrust of your arguments is the executive branch is all-powerful due to the classification system. That isn't true. The executive branch had to get explicit authorization from Congress to create that system.

Why do you think Congress can create a system, but is then forever enslaved to it and not able to make any modifications?

Or are you gonna post some more quotes from Holder to avoid answering that question too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #27)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 04:48 PM

33. I provided factual evidience to back up statements in regards to the NSA law violations & senators

 

needing permission to expose the violations.

Are you denying that a US Senator had to get permission to tell us this? Are you denying that the NSA violated the constitution in light of the secret FISA court ruling?

If you prefer to dismiss the facts because they don't fit your narrative so be it but the facts are what they are.

I'm not sure what you are talking about but it certainly isn't what I am talking about.

I said NOTHING about the executive branch so please don't stuff words in my posts that aren't there.

As for modifying congress it should be done and it sucks that Wyden needed permission to tell us that the NSA was caught violating the constitution.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #33)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 04:59 PM

37. If you provided that information, the word "Congress" would appear in it.

I said NOTHING about the executive branch

Which branch of government do you think contains the NSA?

Are you denying that a US Senator had to get permission to tell us this?

He chose the declassification route. That doesn't mean it is the only route available to him.

Congress has the power in this conflict. They could end the entire classification system tomorrow. Alternatively, they can use "the power of the purse" to end any program they don't like.

You are continuing to claim the executive branch, including the NSA, is all-powerful.

Are you denying that the NSA violated the constitution in light of the secret FISA court ruling?

Nope, I'm not. But that's why policies changed and the 2010 law was passed. Or were you just assuming the rulings were current?

If you prefer to dismiss the facts because they don't fit your narrative so be it but the facts are what they are.

You should stop talking to mirrors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #37)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 05:15 PM

46. So a FISA court ruling from 2011 is not valid because they changed the law in 2010?

 

Please do tell me how that works. I'm not privy to the changes you refer to so it may be possible but on the surface it sounds circumspect at best.

And while you are it if you could please provide a link to back up this claim I'd appreciate it as I've never seen anything in this regards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #46)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 01:42 PM

94. No, the ruling was about how they did things before the 2010 law.

The date of the ruling has not been released, as far as I can find. The discussion about the ruling was that the Bush administration was "doin' it wrong", and the 2010 law and new policies were designed to comply with the ruling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #21)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 06:39 PM

67. Perjury trap? Bwaahhhaaahahahha

 

He gave notice, in writing, days in advance, the EXACT wording of the question...

Hell of a sneaky thing to do.

I can't believe I'm even responding to this.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 04:56 PM

35. You should question why this came up out of the blue when progress was being made on gun control.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #35)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 04:58 PM

36. Gun control?

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #36)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 04:59 PM

38. I'm sorry, did I distract you?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #38)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 05:01 PM

40. heheh

 

yes you did....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 06:19 PM

58. Excellent questions, all. Answers: NO! Spying. Lies. BS

Do NOT fall for the shiny object diversion.

Do NOT miss the point.

Remember the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)


Response to DevonRex (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 04:18 PM

22. Repeat after me:

It's different when the government does it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #22)


Response to DevonRex (Reply #30)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 05:01 PM

41. ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #41)


Response to DevonRex (Reply #48)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 07:49 PM

74. O.k. I remember seeing those. Not sure what it has to do with my point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 05:28 PM

49. How many times have we seen this in a murder mystery?

 

Thump thumpity thump thump thump snap crackle pop.

Guy: "I did it darling, I finally did it. I pushed her down the stairs."

Mistress: "That's wonderful dear, I,...wait a second, are you calling me from your home phone?"

Guy: "Yes, why?"

Mistress: "Well, don't you think it's going to look a little suspicious when the police check the phone records and find out you called ME instead of 911?"

Guy: "What?"

Mistress: "I should have known when you told me you voted for Dubya TWICE."

Guy: "Huh?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 03:35 PM

11. I wrote an OP on his wiretapping last year...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 03:45 PM

15. "Slimey fuck", indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 04:00 PM

18. Indeed squared.

Scary guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #18)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 11:11 PM

91. Here's your Squared, ucrdem.. "Glenn Greenwald expertly previews the 2012 election"



"Note where he wonders if President Obama’s supporters would be enthused enough in 2012 “to get out of bed” and vote …. oh boy.

…. and not once in the entire interview did the ‘king’ of civil liberties mention GOP voter suppression efforts.

But, hey, not an issue that concerns him, of course."


http://theobamadiary.com/2013/06/16/glenn-greenwald-expertly-previews-the-2012-election/

Straight from the ass's mouth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 04:01 PM

19. KnR.

Highly recommended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 04:04 PM

20. +1...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 04:33 PM

26. And a racist when he thought no one was looking.

That was his actual excuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #26)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 04:51 PM

34. Oh yeah...his racism is disgusting and defended here by his fans...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #34)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 07:52 PM

75. "As my subsequent writing reflects over the next many years, this post does not remotely reflect my

views on immigration."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #75)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 08:03 PM

76. What, he wrote it by mistake? Or was it just that he wrote something that he realizes bit him on

 

the ass?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #76)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 08:05 PM

78. I guess he changed his mind.



When I was a weekly newspaper editor back in the early Nineties, I wrote some op/eds I wouldn't want anything to do with today.

That was a 6 yrs ago: 3 weeks after I began blogging, when I had zero readers. I've discussed many times before how there were many uninformed things I believed back then, before I focused on politics full-time - due to uncritically ingesting conventional wisdom, propaganda, etc. I've written many times since then about how immigrants are exploited by the Right for fear-mongering purposes. I'm 100% in favor of amnesty, think defeat of the DREAM Act was an act of evil, etc. That said, I do think illegal immigration is a serious problem: having millions of people live without legal rights; having a legal scheme that is so pervasively disregarded breeds contempt for the rule of law; virtually every country - not just the U.S. insists on border control because having a manageable immigration process is vital on multiple levels. But that post is something I wrote literally a few weeks after I began blogging when nobody was reading my blog; it was anything but thoughtful, contemplative, and informed, and - like so many things I thought were true then - has nothing to do with what I believe now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #78)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 08:23 PM

80. I'm glad you are posting his rationalizations. I especially like how he blames his racism on

 

the MSM.

Look, I actually hope the GOP takes Glenn's advice on how to deal with "illegals." It'll make 2016 easier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #80)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 08:31 PM

81. I see.

He isn't allowed to become more enlightened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #81)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 08:36 PM

83. If you can provide any evidence of that enlightenment, why don't you? But recent events, including

 

Greenwald's absolutely disgusting bullying of AngryBlackLady indicate that he exactly what he was in 2005--a racist and a bully--

http://angryblacklady.com/2012/01/02/greenwald-a-bridge-too-far/

One commenter at that site said it best--


sherifffruitfly | January 2, 2012 at 11:33 pm | Reply


IMO we’re watching a microcosmic version of the 60s party realignment. A bunch of white so-called “progressives” are magically discovering their ronpaul states’ rights libertarian core roots, now that we have a black President. They are aligning themselves appropriately to this discovery.

Obviously this is on a much smaller scale than the 60s realignment, but the qualitative similarity is there nevertheless. They will be much happier in their new home. It remains to be seen if there are enough of them to yield a result analogous to the “you’ve lost the south for a generation” result of the 60s realignment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #83)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 08:37 PM

84. Oh good grief.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 04:38 PM

29. Amen to that. IMHO Glenn also didn't vet any of this info because he was second choice and was

trying to beat WaPo to press. WaPo consulted with gov't on national security exposure. When they didn't agree to meet Snowden's timeline he called Glenn. Clearly Snowden needed his China story out to coincide with the Chinese visit.
I understand many Jewish people are critical of him for his positions on various Israeli affairs. Don't know much about that, though.

Real group of "heroes" here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okaawhatever (Reply #29)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 05:00 PM

39. His defense of Joseph Massad's linking of Zionism with Nazism is pretty disgusting...

 

Last edited Sun Jun 16, 2013, 05:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Massad was so anti-Semetic that AlJazeera refused to publish him.








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #39)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 05:56 PM

55. That never happened. He criticed AJ for silently yanking Massad's article that they published.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/21/al-jazeera-joseph-massad-retraction

I spent much of the weekend emailing various Al Jazeera officials for comment, to no avail. Everyone either ignored my multiple inquires or said they were barred from commenting and referred me to the head of the outlet's PR department, who never responded. How can a media outlet possibly publish an Op-Ed, quietly delete it six days later in response to controversy, and then fail to utter a single word about what happened? Was there a fabrication or some glaring, retraction-worthy error in Massad's Op-Ed? Was it a mistake for Al Jazeera to have published it in the first place, and if so, who made that mistake, what was it, and why did it happen? Who made the decision to take the extraordinary step of deleting the Op-Ed, and what was the rationale for doing so?

No media outlet can possibly do something like this without publicly accounting for what happened and expect to retain credibility. How can you demand transparency and accountability from others when you refuse to provide any yourself? Refusing to comment on secret actions of this significance is the province of corrupt politicians, not journalists. It's behavior that journalists should be condemning, not emulating.

Media outlets do occasionally retract stories or even Op-Eds, but they then provide an explanation. Earlier this year, the Observer published a repellent Op-Ed by the British columnist Julie Burchill, which contained all sorts of ugly slurs against transgendered people (it was also published in the Guardian's online Comment is Free section). In the wake of intense condemnation, the Observer decided to retract the Op-Ed and remove it from the site. The paper's editor, John Mulholland, issued a statement explaining the retraction, and the paper's readers editor (the rough British equivalent of an ombudsman), Stephen Pritchard, then wrote a detailed account of what happened.

Although I condemned the original Op-Ed, I did not agree with the decision to delete it. For one thing, it's a futile gesture: in the internet age, everything published is permanent. For another, it's contrary to the journalistic ethos: although it would have been appropriate to decide in the first instance not to publish it, once a decision is made to publish something, it should not be removed merely because it provokes controversy or even offense. Retractions should be reserved for serious factual errors. But at least the Observer transparently explained its actions and provided an account of what it did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #55)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 06:20 PM

60. You conveniently forget his racist tweet and link.....

 

http://muckrack.com/ggreenwald/statuses/336137676895952896

Just who are "the usual suspects?" And did you read what was posted at the link he provided?? Sure...you can post his stuff from the Guardian, but Mr. Greenwald likes to use his twitter feed to really stir the shit and be a racist bully...

http://thegrio.com/2012/01/02/glenn-greenwald-defends-obama-could-rape-a-nun-attack/












Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #60)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 06:26 PM

62. There was nothing racist in the Al Jazeera tweet...

and nothing racist about the nun joke. I remember a similar joke about Bush posted on DU but in Bush's case, he was raping a boyscout. Personally, I didn't find either joke amusing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #62)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 06:42 PM

70. I really cannot believe you defend the racist behavior detailed by AngryBlackLady--

 

http://angryblacklady.com/2012/01/02/greenwald-a-bridge-too-far/

And you didn't answer my question--who are "the usual suspects" that Mr. Greenwald is referencing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #39)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 06:28 PM

63. By the way, Al Jazeera subsequently reposted the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #63)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 06:39 PM

66. I guess Greenwald's anti-Semitism was appealing, then. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #66)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 08:34 PM

82. False claims of racism and anti-Semitism.

So there's nothing to find appealing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #82)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 08:45 PM

87. Who are "the usual suspects" Mr. Greenwald referred to? Care to explain that comment?

 

I am glad you are bumping this so more people see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #87)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 09:02 PM

89. The pundits, etc. who constantly unwaveringly use false claims of anti-Semitism against any critics

of said purveyors of those tactics or of the government of Israel and its actions as a tactic of censorship.

It's not that hard to understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 08:39 PM

85. When I saw "Matt Hale" thought about you and your OP

I wonder if Glen will address the inconsistencies in what he's reporting now and what he did back then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #85)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 08:46 PM

88. I am sure that Glenn thinks there is no inconsistency--his wiretapping was justified. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #85)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 11:15 PM

92. Hi 23.. Here's Greenwald being a consistent asshole. "Glenn Greenwald expertly previews the 2012"



"Note where he wonders if President Obama’s supporters would be enthused enough in 2012 “to get out of bed” and vote" …. oh boy.

…. and not once in the entire interview did the ‘king’ of civil liberties mention GOP voter suppression efforts.

But, hey, not an issue that concerns him, of course."


http://theobamadiary.com/2013/06/16/glenn-greenwald-expertly-previews-the-2012-election/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 09:51 PM

90. Slimy fuck, and possibly racist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 03:43 PM

14. This is NOT a diversion.. They are FACTS that question Glenn Greenwald's credibility.. deal with it.

From your link, michigandem.. thanks.

"And the number 1 exaggeration is……drum roll please……this little gem from his appearance on Morning Joe where Mika dared to challenge him.

The objective of this is to enable the NSA to monitor EVERY SINGLE CONVERSATION AND EVERY SINGLE FORM OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR!

Ding, ding…..we have a winner! “…NSA to monitor EVERY SINGLE FORM OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR” Chew on that one for a while. How many millions of NSA employees do you suppose it would take to do that?

How in the hell can Glenn Greenwald get away with saying such crap on national television without someone challenging him? Anyone falling for his hyperbole and paranoia really needs to wake up, do a reality check and then get a grip. It’s one thing to be outraged about our government stepping on our privacy rights, with checks and balances within all three branches of government, but it is quite another to buy into the idea that the objective of the NSA is to “monitor every single conversation and every single form of human behavior”.Come on, why the exaggerations? Is it because the truth doesn’t accomplish Glenn Greenwald’s goal of world domination? (That was me exaggerating.)

P.S. When I first learned that my phone calls were being kept track of, well over 30 years ago, when I first saw a phone bill that had the numbers listed and the times the calls were made, I was a little concerned. I didn’t freak out, I just accepted that with new technology, that was the world we lived in. That was 30 freaking years ago. Since then, Google can target ads for snowblowers on damn near every web page I go to, because one day, I did a search for snowblowers.

If you weren’t aware that all your electronic communications are out there for anyone with even a little bit of technical ability to grab on to, I really think you need to pay a little more attention.

I didn’t like the idea of it over 30 years ago, but having accepted that fact so long ago, I have a hard time getting too upset about it now. I take comfort in the fact that I am not a criminal and frequently think that if someone is “monitoring” my calls or emails, they are bored shitless."

Gotta love Jim.. Extreme Liberal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #14)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 04:20 PM

23. It will be possible some day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 04:22 PM

24. When I see someone call themselves an "Extreme Liberal"

The first thing I think of is right wing hyperbole...sorry but it is true...that is what they do to deceive, thinking that if they tell you they are Extreme Liberal you will think that they share some liberal belief.

Sorry, but the credibility of this has been exposed to my thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 04:37 PM

28. Smear Machine: DU Edition is working overtime these days

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #28)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 08:03 PM

77. These days?

The DU "smear machine" has been on full tilt boogie since 2008. Funny that you think it's a problem now.

It's called criticism, right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 04:43 PM

31. Great post. K & R. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 04:46 PM

32. Oh, very well then! I guess I'm OK with domestic spying after all!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 05:06 PM

43. oh, yeah... some wordpress guy just persuaded me that it's ok to spy on everyone

 

thanks for sharing that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 05:10 PM

44. This post begins

 

with an ad hominem attack on Greenwald and then progresses to an appeal to authority fallacy using simple rebuttals by the head of NSA, the NY Times and others as proof that Greenwald's assertions are either exaggerated or false. Next comes the appeal to common practice fallacy, which claims this spying on Americans is fine because it's been going on for a long time. Regardless of the merits of Greenwald's case, these kind of shoot the messenger counter arguments are quite frankly pitiful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 05:15 PM

47. Yargle Bargle Blargh!!1! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 05:31 PM

50. So Greenwald defended a white supremacist and

is a fan of Ron Paul. Well that tells me all I need to understand why he has been going after the President for the past few years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 05:40 PM

52. You're still here?

I can't believe this OP still stands and you have not yet been shown the door.

You go too far friend. This is not a post of praise for one of DU's most sacred of golden calves.

Julie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JNelson6563 (Reply #52)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 06:15 PM

56. Huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 08:12 PM

79. Excellent.

"You won't have to clean out the cistern this week, Smithers."

"Thank you, Mr Burns."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 08:41 PM

86. Shortly Snowden will be arrested and tried for his criminal acts and the the cause will get a new

Snowden replacement and this will continue to turn over and over. Three hots and a flop for the next and next and next. What about our right to be free from this continuous crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #86)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 01:23 PM

93. I can agree with that nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread