Ellsberg never said Obama was a worse President than Nixon was

[Blue Bike]

What's a good way to pretend that Dan Ellsberg is an exaggerating kook?

Easy. Just pretend that he said Obama is a worse President than Nixon was, period, without noting that Ellsberg's comparision focus on specific aspects of the Presidency: transparency and press freedom.

Not health care, not jobs. That's not Ellsberg's focus. Obamacare is an important achievement by Obama and the job situation has improved compared to what it was under Bush.

Irrelevant points are used by Ellsberg haters to "debunk" things he never said, such as:

If Obama was worse than Nixon, how come he won re-election against Romney?

To stick to what Ellsberg said would force Ellsberg haters to discuss a topic they avoid like a hot potato: NSA Spying on all Americans.

In short, let's stop spinning so much and get to the point.

[PATRICK]

1. Nixon was paranoid

and too often mistaken completely, yet he had a big distrust of the Intel establishment. Hoover had him by the short hairs. They were too big and independent of his control anyway. In short, it was very personal.

I don't know if the healthier minds and better personal ethics, by comparison, of Clinton or Obama were too naive about this business, but maybe we needed for personal fear and paranoia since it now seems to be completely justified- except we are all pretty laid back by comparison to Nixon. Do we even know who we are trusting? Those people in DC who think they are not in all those files or exempt somehow from abuses?

And forget about the president since we haven't had one who could cope with this creature or be radical enough to go the other way, even eliminate big chunks of it. Just ask yourself about the unseen access and judgments that are and will take place by someone who gets the responsibility. What would Hoover do? What would anyone regardless of whether it is one of the very many officials in DC any sane human being never would have given that power in the first place. Officials we have had, abound now, and will get worse of, in whatever meaningless future this plan slouches toward.

The problem remains. A GIANT political change on behalf of the people and the commons. The crust we have now, almost everywhere, is coming to represent the very worst of human anti-potential. Only a living future is not expendable.

[Savannahmann]

2. So far as I can tell, you're absolutely right.

The link. http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/17/obama_worse_than_nixon_pentagon_papers

James Goodale the lawyer who represented the NY Times in the Pentagon Papers debacle during the Nixon administration said it in an interview on Democracy Now! I can't find a quote attributed to Ellsburg. But what Goodale said was this.

AMY GOODMAN: You say that President Obama is worse than President Nixon.

JAMES GOODALE: Well, more precisely, I say that if in fact he goes ahead and prosecutes Julian Assange, he will pass Nixon. He’s close to Nixon now. The AP example is a good example of something that Obama has done but Nixon never did. So I have him presently in second place, behind Nixon and ahead of Bush II. And he’s moving up fast. And if he goes ahead against Assange, he’ll at least be even, and we’ll have to see how that prosecution, if it takes place, comes out, because maybe he’ll pass him.

But there is no icon that can survive when the apolgoists run about demanding absolute loyalty to the Naked Emperor. We used to be true Democrats. We used to stand for principle. We used to believe that the party was larger than the man. We used to believe that defending principle meant that when someone violated it, we noticed that they had violated that principle first, and that they were a Democrat second.

Imagine it if we were preparing for the 1968 conventions today. Imagine the discussions. "LBJ escalated the Viet-Nam war, we have to stop it. It was all cranked up over a lie."

There would be people arguing that defending the war was the only way to protect the Democrats. That is the position we are in today. We are watching our world crumble, and instead of demanding that we change our outlook, accept reality and stop immoral and illegal actions. We are literally arguing that any call to do so is part and parcel of huge RW plot to destroy Obama. The RW LOVES THIS CRAP. We're supposed to hate spying on our citizens. We're supposed to stand for Civil Rights. Instead we now discuss the same RW crap from a couple decades ago. We're recycling their arguments, and acting like this is perfectly normal.

If you wonder why we're losing support for this crap, it's because the people are waking up. The longer we sit on the fence, unable to decide what matters more, Constitutional Civil Rights, or Intelligence Industrial Complex, the more we will suffer. Both at the Ballot Box, and within the world.

[Bonobo]

3. Great post and it needs to be read by everyone.

I hope you won't mind me kicking and recommending that everyone read this and keep it kicked for at least as long as that POS post was around.

[ProSense]

4. Pentagon Papers lawyer on Obama, secrecy and press freedoms: 'worse than Nixon'

Pentagon Papers lawyer on Obama, secrecy and press freedoms: 'worse than Nixon'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/19/goodale-obama-press-freedoms-secrecy-nixon

"Ellsberg never said Obama was a worse President than Nixon was"

I guess Greewald sucks for writing that headline.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023221885

[eomer]

8. That headline seems to be talking about James Goodale, not Daniel Ellsberg.

I don't think Ellsberg is a lawyer, is he? Looks like his studies were all in economics.

James Goodale is a lawyer and is whom the headline was talking about. From the Guardian article:

The paper's general counsel at the time, James Goodale, said that he counseled the paper to publish despite "the more likely scenario that everyone feared was the fact that they could have gone to jail," and he subsequently became an outspoken defender of press freedoms. He now has a new book entitled "Fighting for the Press" in which he argues, as the Columbia Journalism Review puts it, that "Obama is worse for press freedom than former President Richard Nixon was."

So it looks like Greenwald doesn't suck at writing headlines, rather it was your reading of them that was the problem.

[ProSense]

11. You're right. I was completely wrong.

I will delete the reference to Nixon.

[eomer]

26. Thanks, appreciate you looking into it and responding. n/t

[marmar]

5. That Ellsberg post was truly one of the most desperate, pathetic OPs I've ever seen on DU ......

....... When someone uses a bottom-feeding right-wing blog to attack someone like Ellsberg, you know they're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

[ProSense]

6. Actually,

"That Ellsberg post was truly one of the most desperate, pathetic OPs I've ever seen on DU ......"

..I've seen worse:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023087676
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023080227


Posting a link to a Greenwald article quoting Ellsberg is not even in the same league as the above

Ellsberg has said Obama is worse than Nixon and that he should be impeached
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023221885

[Mojorabbit]

31. I don't know why I clicked on the links. As usual, waste of time. nt

[woo me with science]

29. +1

[Marr]

30. +1

[Bonobo]

7. K&R

The post you refer to was was deceptive and sleazy in the extreme.

[Iliyah]

9. Yes I've noticed

the over the top threads and outrageous comments and posts made. No matter What Pres O says and do it's call his fault and yes he's worst than Nixon, Reagan and W . . .

I find it amazing to sickening. The corporations are making good on dividing the nation . . . NOT

GOPers will be voted out and I have no doubt on that.

[geek tragedy]

10. Ellsberg said Obama should be impeached and removed from office.

So, he really doesn't respect the fact that Obama was elected or give a shit about anything else Obama has done.

He wants Obama gone. That would likely mean Biden too, since Biden was in all of these discussion.

Which means President Boehner.

[HardTimes99]

12. Best demystification of the attacks upon Ellsberg I've read. To wit,

they create a strawman Ellsberg they can then knock over (by ascribing to him views that he does not hold and has never put forrward), all the while distracting and silencing Ellsberg's ideas.

And that's only if you get past the ageist attacks ("he an old, crazy fucker&quot and McCarthyite slurs by association ("Gasp. He knows Greenwald professionally.&quot

As one wag put it, if Jesus returned to earth and criticized the National Surveilllance State, the apologists would attack Jesus variously for his a) poverty, b) association with Judas, c) non-violence. Ab-so-lutely friggin' incredible.

[geek tragedy]

13. Would Jesus want the 2012 Presidential electionb nullified? nt

[HardTimes99]

18. Jesus would want the 2000 Presidential election nullified (or at least

all the ballots counted).

[geek tragedy]

19. So Jesus would oppose attempts to impeach and remove Obama from office, then? nt

[HardTimes99]

22. Who would Jesus drone? Since we're going down this path, let us

proceed there with all deliberate speed.

I'm an atheist, not a Christian, so I must rely on my memories of my Protestant (emphasis Lutheran Missouri Synod pre-Preuss) upbringing and subsequent studies in college in the history of the Protestant Reformation to answer.

Jesus is quoted as saying, "Render unto Caesar that which is Ceasar's." Now this statement has received narrow and wide interpretations over the 2,000-some years since Jesus' ostensible words first appeared in print. At its narrowest, the words mean people should fucking pay their taxes. At its widest, it means that the secular realm deserves proper respect and deference, as does the spiritual realm. Thus, the Jesus of the Gospels would probably take a pass on whether Obama should be impeached, preferrring to leave that to the secular authorities. About the only thing I can see Jesus wanting Obama impeached for might be Obama's coddling of the banking sector, given Jesus' behavior toward the money changers in the temple.

Having said that, Jesus would probably invite Obama to resign his office and become a 'fisher of men.' Would Obama accept that invitation?

[geek tragedy]

24. Obama is Caesar, not a disciple. nt

[HardTimes99]

25. You heard it here first, folks! GeekTragedy has called Obama

an Emperor.

Shock! Horror! Clutching of Pearls!

The heavens shall soon fall!

N.B. The disciples were 'fishermen' before they became disciples, i.e., 'fishers of men.'

[geek tragedy]

27. He's the government. Metaphor. nt

[Art_from_Ark]

32. Caesar = dictator

Not a very good metaphor for an elected leader

[Marr]

17. Funny-- a great example of what you describe is just above your own post.

[Marr]

15. We have a few people here who very predictably smear anyone who

makes the president look bad, or expresses admiration for someone who has made the president look bad. I usually don't even bother engaging them anymore-- it makes me feel dirty.

[Iliyah]

23. Same at y'all!

Predictably much?

Look in the mirror please - lol

I've also noticed that while our civil liberties are being crushed in the USA, most I've read on these post especially the forever ranting about NSA, et al., and its Pres O, and he's horrible and the worst, the other crucial matters are not being talked about unless it comes from mostly poster who are concerned about many matter of the US.

That said, seems like bashers only focus one subject and nothing else wherein most supporters of the president and the Dems can focus on all. Say its desperate because thats is the easiliest way to find fault in someone's comment or post, but I find it strange that these posters, bloggers are only on one subject nothing else which to me is basically a orchestrated effort to get these people away from "other" important matters. The posters who can discuss other subjects know that the NSA matter is just as important as the others, but are artfully dismissed as Obama supporters.

The opposite party mainly the GOP/Libertarian hopes with dutiful glee that you stay home or vote for them. Hurray!

My observation and I'm running with it - LOL

[ananda]

16. It's a mistake to just compare Obama to Nixon.

The bigger question is: what has changed since Nixon?

Two factors are technology and corporatism which have been
pre-empted by privateers and the MIC. This is a whole new
ballgame, ya'll.

[Karmadillo]

20. Stop it. How can we smear Ellsberg if you're going to keep posting facts?

[stupidicus]

21. that's common for rightwingers and some lefties alike

to take a very narrow case someone made and attempt to widen it into areas the one presenting it never made a case for or intended to address.

thanks for pointing that dishonest and/or dumb process out in this instance

[pnwmom]

28. If Nixon had had access to the internet and today's computers

he would have done much more damage than he did. The comparison isn't valid.