Glenn Greenwald is Ralph Nader

[Whisp]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/glenn-greenwald-is-ralph-nader.html

By Jonathan Chait (interesting read)

The debate over domestic surveillance is not a debate about what we think about Glenn Greenwald. But Greenwald is a fascinating character. His resemblance to Ralph Nader is not one that, so far as I can tell, anybody has thought to make. But the resemblance is striking. It’s not a resemblance of historical place — Greenwald is neither going to lead a new regulatory wave nor get a Republican elected president. The resemblance is characterological and ideological.

---

Greenwald, like Nader, does not believe in meliorist progress. If you are not good, you are evil. Even at the heyday of his career, when he was one of the most powerful figures in America and his brand of crusading regulation reigned nearly unchallenged, Nader was constantly denouncing congressional liberal allies for failing to pass sufficiently pure iterations:

---

That is the echo of Greenwald’s suspicions of the Democratic agenda. President Obama scaled back some of the Bush administration’s anti-terror policies — torture, warrantless wiretapping — but kept in place others. One could make the case that he did not change enough, but that is not a Greenwald sort of argument. He insists that Obama is worse than Bush. Obama’s health-care reform was not just a step along the way to Greenwald’s ideal, it was a monstrous sellout that probably did no good at all (“there is a reasonable debate to be had among reform advocates over whether this bill is a net benefit or a net harm.”).

---

For Greenwald, like for Nader, the evils of liberals loom far larger than the evils of conservatives. The most annoying question in the world is the one posed to them most frequently: Aren’t the Republicans worse? They are loath to give their critics the satisfaction of an affirmative response, which they fear will justify ignoring their urgent denunciations. So much of their intellectual energy is devoted to formulating complex chains of reasoning as to why just the opposite is true.

[Cooley Hurd]

1. You're attributing motives to a journalist...

...who has never shown anything but objectivity in his published writings. What he's said outside of his public writings might be a matter of debate, but his journalism standards has been fair.

[Whisp]

3. doesn't seem he is too objective, how can that be a fair journalist? n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

6. The othe poster just stated that his work is objective. Did you read what was said to you?

or are you really being that utterly rude and dismissive to another person? Because, damn.

[Whisp]

8. So there is disagreement on Greenwald's objectiveness.

And this is being rude and dismissive to 'another person'?

oiy.
That's all you got?

[Bluenorthwest]

13. So it was just a nonsensical, pointless bit of chat.

A: So have you been shopping?
B: No. I've been shopping.

[Whisp]

14. I don't understand what you are doing.

I disagree with another poster. What's the big deal? Does that certain poster have the power to shut down any discussion, that he/she has some insider absolute truth to all that no further discussion is allowed, because it would be 'rude' to do so?

I am just guessing, but this is the part that I believe will upset many people here - especially coming from, what you said, Chait being an Iraq war supporter who is also assumed to be a bush teamster:

President Obama scaled back some of the Bush administration’s anti-terror policies — torture, warrantless wiretapping — but kept in place others. One could make the case that he did not change enough, but that is not a Greenwald sort of argument.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. I would just be interested to hear the meat of your disagreement, you content Greenwald

is not objective but you did not give reasons for that contention. If there is a basis for your point of view, I'd like to hear it.
But Chait and Greenwald have an ongoing feud, you seem to be touting Chait, who was a senseless cheerleader for Bushco's Iraq invasion as if he's somehow credible. He's not credible, and not very objective about Glenn, nor about his own horrific errors and blood clown act in the media touting the benefits of bombing Iraqi kids.
You are the one flying the Chait flag here. I'm the one flipping the bird to the Chait flag.

[Whisp]

20. the OP pretty well makes the claim that GG and Nader are more anti-liberal than anti-republican.

I don't care who Chait is, I think he is revealing something that I agree with.

by what I have heard and read of Greenwald, this fits very well into what kind of character I think he is. A dog with a bone and won't let go. How can that be objective?

[MNBrewer]

65. There ARE reasons to think that certain flavors of "Liberal" are MORE damaging

than certain flavors of Republican. Especially those flavors of Liberal that are almost indistinguishable from Republican.

For example there are "Liberal Democrats" today who say they would have been considered Moderate Republicans 25 years ago.

[flamingdem]

113. Are you a Libertarian?

Just curious, I get this from reading your posts. Not to mention your attacks

[MNBrewer]

114. I'm not a Libertarian

I'm a socialist on the economic scale, but am more libertarian on the social issues scale.

I don't have the dogma of property rights that Libertarians have, but I do believe that individual human people should be pretty much allowed to do whatever they want as long as no other person is directly harmed.

[baldguy]

22. Greenwald? Objective?

[Cooley Hurd]

24. Give me examples where he hasn't been?

You don't know much about journalism, do you?

[arely staircase]

29. he admits as much in the article in the OP

“I approach my journalism as a litigator,” he said. “People say things, you assume they are lying, and dig for documents to prove it.”

[Cooley Hurd]

37. ...and that's journalism.

I've read articles by him - many over the years - in which he is critical of government when it is in the wrong. No matter who is leading the government. That is the epitome of non-bias. You're just cheesed because he criticized our guy this time.

[arely staircase]

38. no, that is advocacy not impartiality

the job of a journalist is to look at and report all of the facts. the job of a lawyer in to prove your side's case not present all the evidence regardless of what conclusion it leads to. he admits he approaches his writing like a lawyer.

[Cooley Hurd]

40. "the job of a journalist is to look at and report all of the facts"

No, that's the job of a stenographer.

[arely staircase]

41. no a stenographer just rights down what is said

they don't go out and investigate and find facts to report.

[Cooley Hurd]

45. Exactly. That's what Greenwald does. He is an Investigative Reporter.

[arely staircase]

50. but he does not report the facts that run contrary to his already determined

narrative.

[Cooley Hurd]

52. "already determined narrative"

And, since you're a mind-reader, that would be...?

[arely staircase]

53. well clearly he didn't tell us that snowden had taken the job at BAH in order

to steal information. are we to believe he didn't know that? after spending so much time interviewing him? Snowden offered that info to the Chinese newspaper and they reported it.

[Cooley Hurd]

55. Do you think if Snowden went to CNN, THEY would've reported it?

Or even MSNBC??

And how do you know what Greenwald knew? I certainly don't.

[arely staircase]

67. hell yes

If the most wanted US fugitive told them he had taken the BAH job for the sole purpose of committing espionage, you don t think they would have reported that?

It is a reasonable conclusion that Greenwald knew it.

Look, this whole subthread started with you asking for an example of him not being impartial. I gave you quote where he says he approaches his job as a journalist the same way he does being a litigant. Trust me an impartial litigant is an oxymoron. A litigant is an advocate for a specific person or position, they are by definition NOT impartial. They would and should be disbarred if they were. You say he is impartial and won't even take his word for it that he is not. So if he can't convince you I know I'm not about to.

[Cooley Hurd]

70. I've read his work for well over 10 years now...

If he is a "litigant" for a specific point-of-view, then he sucks at it because he's written about malfeasance from both sides of the political spectrum. Your ire appears to stem from the fact he is challenging the Obama Admin, while ignoring his great work during the Bush admin - especially during the attempt by the Bush admin to stack the US Attorney roster with religious and partisan clowns.

[HangOnKids]

92. Of Course You Want Facts, Of Course You Want Them To Be The Ones You Agree With

[arely staircase]

97. no that would be greenwald nt

[HangOnKids]

98. Gee Down To Neener Neener?

[arely staircase]

100. I.D.B

world tour '03!

[MNBrewer]

66. He questioned the claims of the Bush Administration, as he does of the Obama Admin

So he's biased???

[alarimer]

77. All these people liked him when he picked on Bush.

Now that their idol is the one being criticized, they hate the messenger. They cannot handle the fact that Obama has doubled down on Bush's policies especially with regards to the surveillance state, ILLEGAL drone striked, destruction of civil liberties, etc.

Hypocrites.

[baldguy]

31. Just one?

Remember Snowden's Powerpoint slide? Greenwald was so stoked to promote himself using that lie that he didn't even bother to find out what it was actually saying.

Greenwald hates any who demeans themselves by actually winning an election, and he has a chip on his shoulder the size of Connecticut. He's about as objective as Rush Limbaugh.

[Cooley Hurd]

39. "Greenwald hates any who demeans themselves by actually winning an election"

He doesn't hate anyone. He is an investigative reporter. That is a reporter who investigates, opposed to being a stenographer. If the trail leads to the discovery of questionable practices by his subject(s), he unbiasly reports on it.

He wrote stories that were very unfavorable to the Bush Admin. Lots of them. I read them all. The fact that he wrote stories that were unfavorable to the Obama Admin, of which I voted for TWICE, only illustrates to me that he is TRULY unbiased.

[baldguy]

43. He didn't really investgate Snowden, did he?

And he hasn't corrected any of his "errors" in the original story, has he?

Real objective. Right.

[Cooley Hurd]

48. And these "errors"...

...are?

[baldguy]

73. You can't be that ignorant & out of touch. Can you?

Saying that the NSA program was operating without warrants:
http://blog.reidreport.com/2013/06/greenwald-and-the-guardian-try-again-only-this-time-theres-warrants/

Saying that PRISM had direct access to the servers for US service providers (which I already mentioned):
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174783/glenn-greenwalds-epic-botch#axzz2XZ1oysk3
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174816/response-glenn-greenwald#

Repeating Snowden's claims that he could read The President's email & that the NSA is listening in on everyones phone calls:
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/snowden-and-greenwald-beginning-to-self-destruct-the-nation-and-mother-jones-raise-questions/
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/greenwald-sticks-with-his-story-in-spite-of-growing-questions/

Even the libertarian nutcases at Reason are criticizing him"
http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/11/the-supposed-dangers-of-advocacy-journal


These are the simple facts:

-The NSA is not listening to all your phone calls & it is not reading all your emails.

-Having the metadata about phone calls and emails is not the same as the content & the identity of the sender and receiver.

-Snowden, as the employee of a private contractor, did not have the ability not the authority to tap anyone's phone. He was not able to listen in on the President's phone calls.

-The programs Snowden exposed are not unconstitutional or illegal.

These are Snowden's central allegations. None of them are true. The President has repeatedly said that they are not true. Members of the House & Senate Intelligence Committees have repeatedly said that they are not true. Most knowledgeable legal experts are saying that they are not true. The text of the warrant Snowden provided to Greenwald proves that they are not true. It covers only anonymous metadata, which isn't linked to any particular individual without a further warrant.

Greenwald didn't feel it was necessary to try to verify any these allegations, and just printed them as-is. And now, with Snowden's story falling apart, Greenwald refuses to print a retraction or make any corrections for these lies.

It's beyond belief that this guy still has supporters on DU.

[Cooley Hurd]

75. Ignorant?

Going ad hominem, eh?

I've read his work for well over a decade now. Despite the American corporate media links you've provided, his work and his lack-of-bias speak for themselves.

[baldguy]

82. That's it: Ignore anything that casts doubt on your erroneous preconceptions.

You can't stand the idea that your idol has feet of clay.

Where's the ad hominem in showing point by point where Greenwald was wrong in his original story? Answer: there isn't any. If you can't understand this then I can only conclude that You don't know much about journalism, do you? (Talk about ad hominem!)

[HangOnKids]

96. Please stop with the comedy! 8 hidden posts and you have this kind of moxie?

You have some nerve.

[baldguy]

101. What I have is knowledge of the truth & the ability to articulate it to those less informed.

Some of those who cherish their confusion (as in this thread) don't like hearing the truth, and so I'm subject to baseless attacks by them - especially when it puts a crack in their dogma. The fact is they won't (or can't more likely) offer any refutations, so I get silenced instead.

[HangOnKids]

102. Keep telling yourself that

I'm sure it helps I hope it gets better baldy.

[baldguy]

103. You don't see the previous poster replying, do you?

[Galraedia]

99. “People say things, you assume they are lying, and dig for documents to prove it.” ~Glenn Greenwald

Greenwald is an advocate, not a journalist. Greenwald doesn't look for the truth, he looks for ways to support his own narrative.

[Cooley Hurd]

108. If that's the case, then he was an advocate for the Democratic Party when he was writing about Plame

...and now he's an advocate for the Republican Party because he wrote about Obama's failure to rein in the NSA.

Which is it?

[OilemFirchen]

105. "Greenwald started his blog Unclaimed Territory in October 2005"

Just how much "well over a decade" is less than eight years? Is it something you learned in your fancy journalism school?

[Cooley Hurd]

107. So my memory didn't serve me as well as I thought...

...and I'm not a journalist, but I know many who are. Greenwald has been consistent in his objectivity.

[frazzled]

2. I see him more like a Jerry Falwell

that is, someone who is so bound to his ideological purism that he would, say, choose, of his own volition, to defend the nation's most infamous and scurrilous neo-Nazi, on a copyright case regarding the name of the Nazi church (already in use by another church), and believe in doing so he is protecting the First Amendment to its core. (The Nazi ended up, eventually, in prison for soliciting a hit on the judge who tried that case; a judge whose mother and husband were eventually murdered in her house.)

Or to vigorously defend Citizen's United on the same grounds, of absolute free speech.

It's a kind of blindness.

But Chait is right that for G & N, the evils of liberals loom far larger than the evils of conservatives. I find it unfathomable that so many here seem to like him so much. It would be one thing if this were just anti-government sentiment (something with which I don't agree, but understand the psychology of it); but it's anti-liberal sentiment.

[burnodo]

4. Sounds like your average Nader-hater to me

nothing to see here

[Enrique]

5. what Chait says about Greenwald isn't true

Chait has been mischaracterizing Greenwald for years.

[arely staircase]

42. he's way too easy on the guy nt

[LWolf]

7. .

[Hydra]

15. Couldn't have put it better myself

Apparently when people break the law at the highest levels now, it's "ideological purity" to want it to stop and for heads to roll.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Chait was another huge Iraq War cheer leader over at the New Republic

He was super certain that Iraq had WMDs galore, utterly convinced of this. He also said he thought that invasion would make life instantly better for Iraqis, when truth is tens of thousands of them died for that folly, that crime.
Chait and Greenwald both supported the Iraq war and like Sullivan, never allowed that massive and murderous error of judgement cause even a moment's hesitation before his next pontification of great certainty.
He is one of my least trusted of all commentators.

[Whisp]

10. I don't know Chait, but I am getting to know Greenwald.

I'll put Chait on my list for later.

For now Chait's observations on GG puts some pieces together that I had laying around and the comparisons to Nader have some meat.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Chait agrees with power. So during the time between the 2000 election and the certification

of W for certain, Chait had to write about something, and that something was Nader. That way he did not have to be too harsh on either Gore or Bush, not knowing which one was going to be power, and thus the setter of Chait's opinions. He and Greenwald share many of the same flaws, they exploit a 'feud' between them endlessly, Nader is one of the thematic footballs in their 'we are both wrong about lots of right wing shit we buy into but listen to us quarrel like crazed libertarians' act.
Barf. Chait has no redeeming features. I mean, you can find lots of praise for Obama to quote, but also lots of praise of Bush. He's written hundreds of pieces at TNR. Read away.

“I don’t think you can argue that a regime change in Iraq won’t demonstrably and almost immediately improve the living conditions of the Iraqi people.” Chait on Hardball, just before the Shock and the Awe.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. I think touting a pundit you don't know is a mistake.

“I don’t think you can argue that a regime change in Iraq won’t demonstrably and almost immediately improve the living conditions of the Iraqi people.”
Chait on Hardball, just before the Shock and the Awe.

[Whisp]

21. You are free to make an OP on Chait's history.

this post is about the similarities between Nader and GG.

And I find it interesting, no matter who the messenger is. If Chiat has an opinion on say, whether to invade another country, then I will surely look at his words in a different way, thanks to your warning about him.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Chait is the author of the OP, his history and hyperbolic style is very much the subject.

I've read his blathering labels for lots of people. Don't want to talk about him, don't use his words as your calling card. Write your own.

[Whisp]

25. I think Greenwald fits the description quite well.

I don't trust him, I think he's a fake and a charlatan with an agenda and I also think he's got ugly people that like Rands supporting him.

I have every right to believe these things as you do to support him wholeheartedly, as you appear. If someone like GG hates the President with such vigor, that alone makes me very suspicious of his motives and who he is really working for.

but hey, this is only democratic underground. My apologies for be 'partisan'.

[MNBrewer]

69. Did you REALLY just say

in essence "I don't know much about Jonathan, but he said REALLY bad things about Glenn and I kinda sorta already thought Glenn was an asshole.... I'll bother to find out whether Jonathan is trustworthy later."

[Whisp]

71. yeh, pretty well.

This Jonathan guy seems more trustworthy to me than Greenwald. Oh, and btw, Greenwald was a Iraq war supporter too - but instead of fessing up he tried to lie about it.

so yeh, pretty well!

[MNBrewer]

74. I think Greenwald is wrong about some things

but I trust him.

[babylonsister]

57. He had a moment's hesitation...

Iraq: What I Got Wrong, and What I Still Believe

By Jonathan Chait


Since it’s Iraq War mea culpa week, I ought to fess up for those readers who didn’t follow me ten years ago and admit that I supported the war. I was wrong about it. But the conclusions I’ve drawn from the episode are not the conclusions many other liberals have drawn. Since I am asked about this periodically, I should explain why.

more...



http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/03/iraq-what-i-got-wrong-and-what-i-still-believe.html

[Whisp]

59. ty, great read. nt

[The Link]

11. Iraq war cheerleader attacking Greenwald.

Shocking.

[Whisp]

17. There were a lot of Iraq war cheerleaders

Does that mean you don't believe a word that Hillary Clinton speaks?

And this is a different matter, to me. This Chait fellow, who I had no idea of who he was/is - does strike some chords that speaks to the essense of the Greenwald character. I can very well see what he means when he talks of Nader and GG's similarities and tactics.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Here is Chait on Hillary Clinton, first his classic Hillary Clinton, Fratricidal Maniac

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-3916817.html

And then in 2011, out of the blue and just for the hell of it..

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2011/09/one_big_reason_not_to_wish_hil.html

[Marr]

36. Wow, we're blowing off Iraq War cheerleading now?

Well, as long as you're only doing it to smear journalists who question executive overreach, I guess that's ok.

[baldguy]

27. Greenwald was an Iraq War cheerleader.

http://thedailybanter.com/2012/07/glenn-greenwald-attacks-writers-for-supporting-iraq-war-when-he-did-too/

And then he tried to deny it:
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/04/glenn-greenwalds-hilarious-denial-about-his-support-for-iraq-war/

[Pirate Smile]

56. I was waiting for someone to point that out.

[Kolesar]

58. I had missed that GG was a warmonger

I used to banter with him in his comments sections at Salon.com. It wasn't fun. After he badgered the Democrats in his column, he would proceed to hector any commenter who didn't kiss his ass.

Salon became lame and I had quit reading before he left Salon.

[Whisp]

61. ow ow ow!

GG: The reality is that almost everything Tom Friedman says on Iraq is designed to make people forget his actual, candidly expressed views about why he thought the war was just — probably the most viscerally repellent comments anyone with a large mainstream platform has spouted in the last decade.

Cohen: I’m astonished at Greenwald’s complete lack of self awareness on issues like this. His entire blog is devoted to attacking the Left for crimes he himself is guilty of supporting without the faintest whiff of acknowledgement. It’s a perfect example of cognitive dissonance, and one that has allowed Greenwald to lecture everyone else without feeling the slightest bit ridiculous.

[Number23]

118. I love Whisp but you are OWNING this thread.

[Tarheel_Dem]

32. Selective memory much? You do know which Greenwald we're talking about, right?

He was almost Britney-like in his "deferring" to Bush's judgement.

Glenn Greenwald’s Hilarious Denial About His Support for Iraq War
By Ben Cohen · April 08,2013

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/04/glenn-greenwalds-hilarious-denial-about-his-support-for-iraq-war/

[rhett o rick]

26. Ahhh, the weekly, "Ralph Nader hater post". You really need to get over it.

This is a class war between the 1% and their authoritarian minions, and the rest of us.

You may think they (the 1%) may love you now, but they wont take you home from the dance.

Choose the side of freedom and liberty and forsake the authoritarian false gods.

[last1standing]

28. He lost me at "his brand of crusading regulation reigned nearly unchallenged."

Whatever anyone thinks of Nader's run for the presidency in 2000, he did a lot of good as an activist pushing for regulations that have made all of our lives better. Chait makes him sound like some thug who ran roughshod over the entire government forcing everyone to bend to a need for useless regulations.

I happen to like having a seatbelt in my car and if Nader had to twist some arms to get that to happen, great!

[Whisp]

30. To me there are 2 Naders: Unsafe at any Speed

and Unhinged at any Screed.

I sure do agree that he has done some great service to all, but those times seem to be over for him and us.

[last1standing]

34. I hope you're wrong. Nader could still do a lot of good.

I voted for Gore but never understood the hatred for Nader even during the darkest days of the bush presidency (which means all eight years). Nader didn't cause Gore to lose, incompetence, ignorance and corruption did. I would never suggest that anyone shouldn't be allowed to run for office regardless of their views or the votes they might pull away. We can't save democracy by restraining democracy.

Anyway, Nader is Nader just as Greenwald is Greenwald. Love them or hate them they serve a vital purpose by expressing their views and opposing any infringement on what they believe is right. They don't hinder us from making an informed decision, they advocate for their beliefs, which is what an advocate should do. We, as citizens and consumers of information have a responsibility to take that information and compare it with other views and then decide what we think is right.

Personally, I think the energy being wasted on Greenwald would be better served going after the Koch Bros. and the other republicans who are trying to restrain democracy. They are the only winners in this debate.

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. They both make me....

[Whisp]

35. I scry with my little eye and see

a person in a robe just out of the mouth, with what looks like a sash or belt - two arms are clear. Head is downward.

[WilliamPitt]

44. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Best one yet.

[Whisp]

46. Hello, how is the weather your way today?

[GeorgeGist]

47. Jonathan Chait is ...

Joe Lieberman.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. Yeah, right. And, he has a fake birth certificate and was born in Kenya.

[Whisp]

51. I didn't know that!

that explains A LAWT!!!

[Kolesar]

54. Nader terrified the corporatists into creating RW think tanks to counter him

Greenwald is a corporatist

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/22/citizens_united/

[last1standing]

104. "I believe that corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses..

... afflicting our political culture."

That doesn't sound like a corporatist to me. I don't agree with everything Greenwald writes in that column, but I don't think it furthers the discussion to purposely distort his words.

If you wanted to point out how wrong we was about the effect of corporate money has had since he wrote that column you'd be on firm ground. If you wanted to point out that he's promoting an absolutist belief regarding the 1st Amendment that doesn't wash with reality, I'd agree with you there as well. But that column in no way makes Greenwald a corporatist and saying it does only weakens the argument you want to present.

[winter is coming]

60. "His resemblance to Ralph Nader is not one that, so far as I can tell, anybody has thought to make."

With good reason.

[MNBrewer]

62. Oh LORD!!!

The Greenwald Smear Machine just orgasmed! The Greenwald/Nader-haters just jumped the shark.

[99Forever]

63. Nice...

... steaming pile you found there.

Kinda stinky tho.

[Whisp]

72. this is true. GG smells even a bit worse now than he did yesterday. n/t

[99Forever]

85. The smell is your usual...

... stinkbait.

It always smells the same, exactly like what we use to fertilize our garden. (We garden organically.)

[Whisp]

86. you make such a good argument, I'm about the change my mind on GG.

[99Forever]

87. I don't argue with ...

... starry eyed sycophants.

[Whisp]

89. I love him, I love him, I love him

aaaahhhhh. There, I got my fix.

Did you get yours of hate?

[99Forever]

91. Are you hallucinating?

[Historic NY]

93. Your killing me.........

[ucrdem]

64. Chait: Greenwald "insists that Obama is worse than Bush."

Bingo. So do his confrères Scahill, Hedges and of course Chomsky. I've been pointing that out for months. Nice to see it in print, thanks Whisp!

K'n'R

p.s. as for the rest, well, Chiat is far too kind.

[GoneFishin]

68. Nonsense. --> " For Greenwald, like for Nader, the evils of liberals loom far larger than

the evils of conservatives. "

[DisgustipatedinCA]

76. I can see that truth hurts you & makes you lash out like a person

with no goddamned idea what they're talking about, having long ago abandoned reason for paranoid squawking and hatesquealing. Greenwald has written several good pieces on the NSA's spy program. He got his facts right, and we needed to have this information. Your hatred for Greenwald seems a little deranged, but completely predictable.

[Whisp]

78. now who is the lasher squawking paranoid here.

hatesquealing.

Has a really nice sound to it. And just the right amount of syllables.

Hatesquealing.

I think I'll name my new goldfish that.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

79. Good plan. Enjoy your weekend.

[Whisp]

80. is that the new 'Bless your Heart' thingie now?

enjoy your weekend?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

83. No. It was supposed to have functioned as the terminus of this conversation.

I imparted to you what I meant to, and was signifying in a friendly-if-brief way that I was finished. Bidding you a good weekend simultaneously acted as a social nicety, the kind of thing that permits those in advanced civilizations to more or less get along with one another, even when we have serious and structural disagreements. Have a good weekend.

[JTFrog]

90. I said good day!

Sorry, that was just so Fez.

You sure made an interesting entrance for someone claiming advanced civilization.

[UTUSN]

81. R#14 & K for, yip. n/t

[giftedgirl77]

84. Greenwald & Nader have

been special pals for quite a while. He has given speeches on his behalf as well as expressed his hopes that eventually libertarians & progressives will join together to for a new party.


http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/

[Whisp]

95. that's Joy Reid! yay, reading that for sure, ty.

what a creepy fucker!

In addition to praising Johnson, who announced for president this week, and promoting the idea of a Johnson- Russ Feingold ticket, as he did again recently in an interview with Out Magazine, Greenwald offered a few insights into his way of thinking:

- He called President Obama a “political coward” whose entire history, as a student, a writer, an organizer and as a politician, is one of accommodation of entrenched power, to whom he never wants to be seen as a “threat” (27:58)

- He said Democrats have stigmatized the idea of supporting third parties or not voting at all, “by what is perceived to have happened in 2000 when Ralph Nader supposedly siphoned off votes and helped elect George Bush,” (24:50)

- He lavishly praised not just Wikileaks and Bradley Manning (who he called “probably the most heroic figure we’ve seen in at least a decade.” but also tea partyers who strike fear into the hearts of politicians by “acting very threateningly,” and “taking guns and machine guns” to their protests (49:10);

- And he expressed support for the Citizens United ruling, dismissing the concerns over corporate “personhood” by saying that if the government can restrict corporate speech, it could strip corporations and “entities” like the ACLU of all of their constitutional rights, saying it’s better that the government not limit corporate speech, but rather that it create a generous public financing system that would match one campaigner’s $50 million in corporate cash with $50 million for his or her opponent from the federal government (32:33);

[flamingdem]

110. This asshat is destructive

and anti-American.

[Whisp]

111. That is crazy tea bagger talk, is what it is.

The spewing hate is so similar to what the Baggers say about the President.

And Alan Grayson supposedly supports this guy? I'm pretty sure one of Grayson's hit and run posts here were supportive of Greenwad and Snow (hey, good name for a shitty band, Greenwad & Snow). And some here on DU supports this vile piece of shit? wtf.

I never did like Greenwald, from way back. I remember hearing him around the time Jane Hamsher was sabotaging the Dems. I remember them as tag teaming in some way. But what I am reading here is outrageous.

I am disliking him more every day, and more perplexed every day that teabagging mentality has no party lines.

[flamingdem]

112. I'm really wondering who is orchestrating the release of new intelligence

such as US spying on EU from today.

In the article it says that this was known over 5 years ago -- so the EU knew it was going on.

However, people who want to jump the bandwagon don't read the small print.

Greenwald is a propagandist, Assange hates the EU since they're after his behind.

I wonder if they're coordinating. More likely it's the whole resentment filled Wiki team doing it.

Sadly Michael Ratner from the Center for Constitutional Rights is on their team. I thought he
had a brain but he's down with the bs.

[Fire Walk With Me]

94. Obama has twice signed the NDAA section 1021, which is the indefinite detention of US citizens

with neither trial nor representation. He gave us extra-judicial execution of Americans suspected of terrorism or terrorist association. With the domestic terrorism undertaken against the Occupy Movement, we have lost the 1st Amendment. With the DHS saying they can seize personal electronics on a hunch along and within 100 miles of the border, it is the death of the 4th Amendment. With this week's ruling that silence in court can be used against you, it is the death of the 5th Amendment. And notice the arguments against the 2nd Amendment? As well as the chilling effect all of the metadata collection has put upon journalism (sources clamming up) and the crack down upon whistle-blowers...

Do not paint Obama as an unfortunate inheritor of the neocon/Bush power grab initiatives. He has taken them far further, paving the way for a horrific future.

[OilemFirchen]

106. Most impressive!

Two of the world's worst "journalists" publicly comparing their penile dimensions.

Journalism ain't dead, after all. It's merely morphed into a badly-drawn Popeye cartoon.

[Whisp]

109. kick

[Scurrilous]

115. Excellent article.

[Whisp]

116. kick

[Number23]

117. That is one doggone interesting read. Explains alot about GG and his "admirers"

This bit in particular:

Greenwald, like Nader, marries an indefatigable mastery of detail with fierce moralism. Every issue he examines has a good side and an evil side. Greenwald, speaking not long ago to the New York Times, said something revealing about his intellectual style:

“I approach my journalism as a litigator,” he said. “People say things, you assume they are lying, and dig for documents to prove it.”

That is a highly self-aware account. Of course, the job description of a litigator does not include being fair. You take a side, assume the other side is lying, and prosecute your side full tilt. It’s not your job to account for evidence that undermines your case — it’s your adversary’s job to point that out.

That "black and white, hear no differing beliefs/values" mind set etc. sums up so many of GG's frothing fans.

[Whisp]

119. If you haven't, you should see this DU post by msanthrope:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211

Glenn Greenwald Unethically Taped Witnesses While Working for Matt Hale, White Supremacist.
For me, Glenn Greenwald has always been an asshole. There's never been a point in time when I admired him, and then disliked him because of his stance on Obama. I have always found Glenn Greenwald to be unerringly poor at choosing who to associate with, and defend.

Case in point:

Glenn Greenwald made a choice to defend Matthew Hale in a series of civil lawsuits that Hale faced after he encouraged shooter Benjamin Smith to go on a two-state shooting rampage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Nathaniel_Smith

If you don't know who Hale is, well, he's a pretty famous white supremacist who is currently serving 40 years for soliciting the murder of a federal judge who ruled against him in a trademark case. Who put him away? Patrick Fitzgerald. (Yes. And Mr. Greenwald got an FBI visit regarding the passing of coded messages by Hale while under SAMS restrictions.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_F._Hale

Mr. Hale, for his role in the shootings, was sued by a number of survivors. This included a case filed by two teenage Orthodox Jewish boys. And another case filed by a Black minister. These people were selected by Benjamin Smith because they looked like the religious/ethnic minorities they are.

And Glenn Greenwald called them 'odious and repugnant' for suing his client--

Indeed the Center's suit appears to link Hale's rejection into the bar to Smith's "rampage." In late June, the state bar's Committee on Character and Fitness again denied Hale's petition to join the bar. Smith, who had testified as a character witness for Hale that April, began shooting two days later. "Immediately after the Illinois State Bar's decision and as part of the World Church of the Creator's war, Smith ... began a rampage of genocidal violence," the lawsuit states.

And while Hale himself has linked the shootings to his bar application in the past, he said Tuesday that it's ridiculous to think he had any control over Smith.

SNIP

Further, Greenwald said, "I find that the people behind these lawsuits are truly so odious and repugnant, that creates its own motivation for me."

The first suit, filed in state court by Chicago attorney Michael Ian Bender on behalf of two Orthodox Jewish teens shot at in Rogers Park, is pending, though a circuit judge in Chicago threw out allegations that Smith's parents were somehow responsible for the shootings.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/hale/hale33.html




It wasn't enough that Glenn took the case, which was his right to do. No--he had to insult the Plaintiffs--shooting victims. And then, he unethically taped the witnesses he subpoenaed, even directing their statements. A court found that he violated TWO separate rules--


"The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel's conduct unethical under two separate rules: Local Rule 83.58.4(a)(4), prohibiting "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;" and Local Rule 83.54.4, stating "a lawyer shall not ... use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of person.""ANDERSON v. HALE 159 F.Supp.2d 1116 (2001)

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20011275159FSupp2d1116_11178.xml

He also attempted to manipulate the witness statements, per the magistrate's findings of fact-

"A 52-page transcript of one conversation showed defendants' counsel steered the conversation by eliciting particular responses to detailed questions, leading to more detailed questions, to lure the witness into damning statements for later use." Anderson v. Hale, 202 F.R.D. 548 (N.D.Ill. 2001),




That's right--Glenn Greenwald, self-proclaimed civil rights lawyer, violated the civil right of witnesses. The New York Bar later wrote a clarifying opinion on the ethics of said taping, referencing this case--

http://www2.nycbar.org/Publications/reports/show_html.php?rid=122


And of course, Glenn Greenwald thinks Matthew Hale is wrongly imprisoned by Prosecutor Fitzgerald.

"Mr. Greenwald, who said he believed that Mr. Hale was wrongly imprisoned, said he did not recall the exact message Ms. Hutcheson relayed to him, or the person it was intended for, but that he had declined to deliver it. He called the message "a caricature of what a coded message would be.""

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/09/national/09hale.html?pagewanted=print&position=


I've never been enthralled by Glenn. And I wasn't surprised to find out all this information, either. I wonder where, and if, Mr. Greenwald retains a law license.

[SidDithers]

120. DU rec...nt

Sid

[Cleita]

121. Why? Is he running for President, or any other elected office?

That would make him like Ralph Nader. Greenwald is a journalist and it's his job to question those elected officials. That's supposed to be what freedom of the press is whether you agree with his position or not.

[Whisp]

122. kick

[Whisp]

123. Reading Greenwald is annoying as heck.

ElizabethR
Please - Reading Greenwald is annoying as heck. He is sanctimonious and a pugnacious 'writer'. So determined to be right and states he is never wrong, like a prosecuting attorney.

I am glad Chait is calling him on his moralistic ' get government' all costs obsession.

11 Hours Ago
Reply|Like

[Zoeisright]

124. Greenwald is a hack.

I don't trust a word he says. He's also stupid and a pawn of the right.