"... While I was screaming at my TV and marching in the streets in protest of the Patriot Act,

[struggle4progress]

the Afghanistan War and later the Iraq War, Glenn Greenwald 'was ready to stand behind President Bush' and wanted to 'exact VENGEANCE on the perpetrators.' And he 'believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgement deferred to', which of course included the passage of The Patriot Act on October 26, 2001. So yeah, Glenn Greenwald, why exactly should I listen to him now?" http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/glenn-greenwald-supported-president-bush-as-he-signed-the-patriot-act/

[BumRushDaShow]

1. K&R

[railsback]

2. I'll give Greenwald the benefit of the doubt on that one

We were all pissed at everyone. What I won't give him a pass on is his condoning of Citizens United. THAT is just f*cked up in the head.

[NoPasaran]

3. A little tip

Screaming at your TV is not effective form of protest. It can't hear you.

[think]

4. I support the author for protesting the wars & Patriot Act.

Hopefully the Bush era Patriot Act & the Dept of Homeland Security will be abolished and laws put in place to ban the privatization of our national security.

Sure that won't happen but why not set the goals high and compromise from there. We are after all talking about the fate of America's National Security.

America's National Security that has been compromised because of the involvement of private contractors that hide behind secret laws.

Sorry if you disagree and feel the the current arrangement is the best of all possible worlds.....

As for Greenwald. What does it matter? The other whistle blowers are saying the same thing.

Should we ignore Tamm, Binney, Wiebe, Drake, Tice, & Edmonds also?

[leveymg]

5. It's fascinating to see you scour the Internet for negative things to post about Greenwald.

Last edited Sun Jul 28, 2013, 09:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Every day. You had a similar obsession with Wikileaks and Julian Assange's alleged character flaws before that.

What's eating away under your skin about this topic?

[BumRushDaShow]

6. Are you averse to those who research stories vs echo-chamber posting?

[leveymg]

35. How is the OP telling us anything Greenwald does not himself write in the Intro to his own book?

Talk about echo chambers and distortion.

[blm]

7. I can understand why, mark. Tracking Snowden's resume and some early

Greenwald couldn't help but remind me of a number of past operations executed in order to make it appear to be far removed from the actual perpetrators of an operation with a larger goal in mind.

From day one it smelled like a BFEE op to rehab Bush's legacy on this and so that Jeb2016 could benefit from the widespread use of the phrase 'no difference between Obama and Bush'.

This will serve them in 2014, too.

They are masterful at this, mark.

I don't think Greenwald has it in him to admit how manipulated he was, and I'm sure Snowden doesn't realize much, himself.

Seriously, when all is said and done, there really wasn't anything released that wasn't already known to a great extent. I think some of the Dem senators acting outraged are trying to play catch up now that the media is finally showing some interest in the issue they ignored for 10 years, because it sure wasn't on their radar when many of us here were hollering about it.

BTW - have you noticed how much the Bushes have been out and about so publicly the last few months? The whole family, it seems.

Funny how that works.

[chimpymustgo]

8. Obama is now a tool in the BFEE. I'll trust Snowden and Greenwald over all those liars.

[blm]

10. Why? The Snowden dog and pony show probably put Obama in the position of having

to cooperate more with the Bushes. You didn't notice the timing on all of this? Between that and the immigration bill, he's been pretty stuck. See what happens when the Clintons and the Bushes keep running the party and the country....but, in their 'own' way, of course.

[chimpymustgo]

11. blm, I misjudged you. To write off this heroic effort to expose the massive abrogation of our

civil liberties as a "dog and pony show" tells me we have nothing else to discuss.

[OnyxCollie]

20. I concur.

You think you know somebody, and it turns out they've completely lost the plot.

[randome]

31. Perhaps you can cite the evidence S&G provided that shows illegality or abuse by the NSA.

They loudly proclaim they don't like how the laws and regulations are set up then one runs to Hong Kong and then Russia, giving national security information to Chinese journalists and then Der Spiegel.

Where is the evidence of illegality or abuse?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[blm]

37. You misjudged the Bushes. You aren't understanding a word I said.

What was exposed that we didn't know here at DU by 2003?

Then Congress institutionalized the program in 2006. Are we supposed to PRETEND we didn't know all this then just because the corporate media finally chimed in? If you don't know how to see past the surface and put it into context of the much LARGER picture, then run with what you got, chummy, but I'm not going to play along like I had no idea and now need to be outraged because there is a Dem in WH.

Snowden may have let YOU in on a secret, but, some of us were talking about this stuff over a decade ago. Nothing changed significantly except the massive media interest, which should clue you in right there.

So...how DO you like all the positive attention the entire Bush family has been getting the last few months? More to come.

[leveymg]

33. I think the Obama Presidency is off the track, and the Bushies are simply doing what they do best:

Last edited Sun Jul 28, 2013, 10:18 PM - Edit history (1)

taking advantage of the paralysis of another Democratic President in order to finish the job of wiping us off the map as the dominant world power. That enterprise goes back to Grandpa Prescott's affinity with fascism and positive hatred of FDR and all things populist and remotely democratic and egalitarian, which at one time in the rapidly receding past, the United States was.

Obama's larger economic and strategic troubles were largely inherited, of course, but his foreign policy really started to go awry when he allowed Hillary and Petraeus to do their serial regime change things in the MENA without any unifying strategy to make it work to the benefit of anyone other than the usual suspects and wannabe regional superpowers, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Those two will do nothing but destroy everyone else in the area to assure their own dominance -- theirs is but a marriage of convenience that will, inevitably, have a very bad end for the U.S., which will finally be forced to choose between them, with fatal results, once we have reduced all their rivals to smoldering rubble.

In the meantime, we are expected to dutifully be led by the nose into the arena, again and again, where we will gore and trample some more pathetic victims holding short swords (with no idea about how to use them) to the thunderous applause of the crowd and amusement in the royal boxes. We are only to be kept around so long as we continue to follow the yanks on the ring in our nose. All thoughts of resisting the tugs seems to be leaving us of late. It must be the loss of blood to the bull's brain.

[blm]

36. For obvious reasons, Obama's is a VERY weak presidency. I think we both know why

Last edited Mon Jul 29, 2013, 01:14 AM - Edit history (1)

that is - there is really only one entrenched power in this country. But, I'm not going to pretend that he accumulated enough power on his own to counter those forces. Clintons made sure of that. That is why I objected so strongly to Hillary as Sec of State. She's the reason Syria wasn't dealt with diplomatically when the only window of opportunity was there from 2009-2011.

As far as Snowden and Greenwald go, it's good to remember Bushes like to 'roll out the new product in September' and they prepare the road carefully in the months beforehand.
They managed to squeeze a huge CURRENT media story out of something that had limited interest in the past. But there was precious little 'new' about that story. TIA ring a bell? We all knew it still went on. Newly covered by mainstream media? Yes. But, significantly new? No.

Am I going to pile on an already weak president because of not so new information that is just now getting massive public attention? No. That only serves the interests of the Bushes.

[Robb]

39. Not for nothing

Your posts are ALWAYS worth reading.

[leveymg]

40. I hope you don't think the point of the criticism here is to assist Bushco. I agree they are again

belly up to the big table, and playing their hands. But, really, if Snowden was all contrived they underestimated the genuine pushback that has emerged to revelations that we are ALL being watched all the time -- rubberstamp FISA warrants renewed every 90 days -- much as these same master players greatly underestimated the pushback that followed the realization that WMD was an illusion, and a sloppy one at that.

Things have a way of running out of control of BushCo, which is why I don't really think this is their work. I can't see anyone with a lick of sense and control over the deck dealing them the aces again.

[blm]

44. I agree with you partly. If Congress curbs some of the operation

then that would be good for the country, however, I don't believe it actually CAN be undone to any significant degree.

I disagree with you about 'control over the deck' and the Bushes. They should have been down and out by 1993 and they rose again. They have FAR more power even out of the WH then Dems ever manage to accrue while IN the WH.

I don't think you picked up on the other bit of timing, mark, besides the Bush legacy rehab tour the family has been on the last few months. China. Bushes have zealously guarded their grip on all US-China matters since the 70s. You think that bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was really just an 'accident' as the CIA claimed? That bombing canceled Clinton's trip to China. Bush even fVcked Clinton out of building a relationship with China and we all know what favors Clinton did for Poppy. BTW - that 'bombing' was the only time the CIA had input into an operation like that. They said they had the wrong address, it was supposed to be an ammo warehouse. Except the guy in charge of the op ended up getting PROMOTED by Bush shortly after Bush too office.

You know GHWBush, Prescott Bush and Jackson Stephens made the deals with the Chinese industrialists in the 70s that would move US manufacturing base to China. Stephens had Walmart in his back pocket and laid it on the table. What happened next? Bushes and their global fascist agenda marched through the next 3 decades.

When NSA story came out it was right at the time Obama was attempting his summit with Chinese leaders.

You know I don't believe in coincidences whenever the Bush family happens to benefit from those coincidences. And they are benefitting from every angle on this story.

They are LONGTERM PLAYERS.

[leveymg]

57. House of Saud, House of Bush, Middle Kingdom.

I agree that has been a powerful confederation, and was a decade ago the world's dominant player. But, the Chinese are shrewd enough to hedge their bets, and won't stick with a partner who is proven unreliable. The Bush family isn't what it once was.

The Saudis are still throwing good money after bad at the problem, but even they are moving forward with their own independent political-military capability and hope to achieve more by simply putting their own people in place in the region they really care about, which is MENA, rather than buying access and protection from BushCo. China's primary concern is maintaining access to resources and markets. They won't do anything that's high-risk, like an out-of-the-ordinary intelligence operation to subvert Obama. They have far more to lose than to gain by such a truly hostile act.

The US is still a market to be milked via WalMart and Exxon but we are not viewed as the dominant yet compliant mercenary and economic power we once were. But, we should still be feared, and have the ability to subvert and take down almost any regime. The Saudis in particular need to remain mindful of that.

My bottom-line assessment is that the Saudis and China are now largely playing with each other, and no longer follow the lead of Bushco. If anything, our former partners, along with the Euros and Russia, would love to see us now waste what remains of our ability to borrow to project power globally by overextending it against Syria, Lebanon, and Iran, so that they can further displace the U.S. globally.

Obama is playing a difficult hand with a short stack of chips.

[blm]

59. See that reality, though, from the POV of the Bushes who felt THEY owned China policy

and are willing to do anything to KEEP being the architect of US-China relations.

Orchestrating events to block relationships with any other US figure would be a standard op for them. Hell - we know they managed to keep Reagan from much of their doings.
Looking away any time the Bushes are benefitting from 'perception' doesn't fly for me.
Bushes as a non-player in the whole scenario doesn't comport with their history.

[leveymg]

60. I haven't seen any real indication that the actors at the point of this drama --

Greenwald and Snowden -- are Bush operatives. I've seen some of the attempts around here to make a connection (mostly based in their libertarian ideologies), but it doesn't ring true or pass the sniff test for me. If you have something that you think is persuasive, please link it, and I'll take another look.

- Thnx

[blm]

62. I don't think they are knowingly. Just like I don't think Christopher Drogoul thought

he was actually involved in treason. He was just doing his job, wasn't he? He ended up getting the public scrutiny and charges against him, though, while Bush, Kissinger and their operatives skated away, yet again, scot free.

And I think you may have glossed over Snowden's resume - at every stage he was in a position loyal to Bush at the CIA or at a Bush loyal firm. Dell and Booz have NEVER been nonpartisan. Snowden seems like someone easily swayed to me. Stoke his libertarian 'concerns' over what was basically already known and then set him loose on the Democratic president...ONLY on this Democratic president. Shades of John Hinckley.

I think Snowden and Greenwald would not see themselves as operatives and so would not present themselves in a way that would be obvious to all. You think Bernstein saw Woodward as an operative?

It's the coincidences, mark...there are just too many and all to the benefit of Bushes. Bush legacy rehab. China. Jeb2016. "No difference between Bush and Obama" and Greenwald blurring the lines between Bush's TIA/NSA timeframe and Obama's NSA timeline. Sorry, but, Greenwald is so dug in to his position of targeting and blaming ONLY Obama that he is suspect to me. Whether he realizes he's acting as a tool or not.

Besides - what REALLY new came from the 'revelations' OTHER than the wave of corporate media interest? The corpmedia with no interest in TIA or illegal wiretapping of citizens or widespread surveillance or legislation written in 2006 to let telecoms off the hook for criminal surveillance RETROACTIVELY . Sorry, but this gal don't ride turnip trucks. History has a way of proving me right on my analysis about BushInc operations 95% of the time. Who else should I trust?

[blm]

52. Check out this timing, mark.....

Obama, Chinese president talk North Korea, cybersecurity at summit

By Daniel Arkin, Staff Writer, NBC News
President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping finished a second round of talks Saturday, bringing to a close a two-day summit said to have been a warm and laid-back counterpoint to the oftentimes frigid and tense relationship between the two global superpowers.
North Korea and cybersecurity were among the key issues discussed in a series of wide-ranging and largely informal conversations at the Sunnylands desert retreat near Palm Springs, Calif.


Obama and Xi did not make statements to the press after their talks wrapped up at noon Saturday, but the Chinese leader said Friday that he and Obama “reached important consensus on these issues,” potentially setting the stage for a stronger alliance between the two nations after nearly a half-century of mutual mistrust.
>>>>>
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/08/18851618-obama-chinese-president-talk-north-korea-cybersecurity-at-summit?lite

[OnyxCollie]

41. The interests of the Bushes have been served very well by an already weak President.

The Carlyle Group Has Made $2 Billion Off Of Booz Allen
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2013/06/10/the-carlyle-group-has-made-2-billion-off-of-booz-allen/

In 2008, the Carlyle Group made a large $910 million investment to buy a majority stake in Booz Allen’s government consulting business. The deal saw Booz Allen’s big government advisory unit, which produced most of the firm’s revenue, split off from its corporate consulting group, on the eve of the financial crisis.

But Washington-based Carlyle, which has a long and successful history doing deals involving government contractors, has really made the Booz Allen deal work. It has been an amazing transaction for Carlyle. The private equity firm has made $2 billion in realized and unrealized profits on the Booz Allen Hamilton deal so far. Its $910 million investment is now worth $3 billion.

~snip~

Carlyle took Booz Allen public near the end of 2010. The IPO was modest, raising $238 million and pricing at $17 a share, the lower range of what was forecasted at the time. The stock market has never been a big fan of Booz Allen—the stock is currently changing hands for $17.29. As recently as March shares of Booz Allen were trading for $12.59, but they have rebounded strongly in recent weeks.

Stock investors may not be too keen on Booz Allen, however, debt investors love it. As a result Booz Allen has been able to borrow money at relatively cheap rates in the debt market and pay fat dividends to Booz Allen’s shareholders. Because of its big equity position, most of that money has gone to private equity funds run by Carlyle.

[blm]

46. Bush loyal firms have been operating just about everything related to intel community since the 80s.

No Dem president has been able to make a dent. The firms involved in this nation's security infrastructure and intelligence apparatus have been part of Bush's circle for decades. I don't see that changing.

Keeping Obama from accruing any significant power of his own enables the Bushes to proceed.

Obama had a small window of opportunity to accrue power. He couldn't do it.


I just expected more folks here at DU would KNOW this by now.

[rhett o rick]

9. Another Greenwald obsession thread. Do you guys do one a day and alternate? nm

[Fumesucker]

14. We should be so lucky

[Progressive dog]

21. I don't think they're even trying to match the

"it's not about Snowden threads". It would be tough to even come close. And then there are the "President of Bolivia's plane forced down" threads.

[rhett o rick]

47. Democrats usually side with whistle-blowers and not the authoritarian state. nm

[Progressive dog]

63. Authoritarian state!!!! Since we don't have

an authoritarian state it would be pretty tough to side with it.

[rhett o rick]

64. Maybe not in your denial bubble, but I consider a government that collects personal

data on all Americans and compiles and furnishes it to who knows who, and brutally beats the crap out of protestors, and double-tap drone kills, and tortures prisoners at Gitmo, and has a defense industrial complex that is bleeding the middle class dry, as authoritarian. You should read the book "The Authoritarians".

I am curious why you used "progressive" in your DU handle? Are you trying to convince others or just yourself?

[Progressive dog]

83. "double-tap drone kills" kind of explains which Hollywood

genre you base your theories on.
I already got that you don't know or care to know what authoritarian means.
I'm impressed, The Authoritarians" is a real book with a real author, but I'll pass.

I am curious why you used "progressive" in your DU handle?

For giggles, I thought I'd answer this. When someone like yourself conclusively demonstrates that words like authoritarian are used simply because you like to call names, I assume that you would use progressive as a gold star, without regard to meaning. You don't have to refer to me as progressive if you don't want, Ill consider the source.

[rhett o rick]

87. Talk about a load of rhetoric. I am impressed, but for giggles you never told why

you choose to include the word progressive in your name.

And I do know what authoritarians are. They stand out here in DU like sore thumbs. Never discussing issues but only post to attack with ad hominem comments and ridicule. They dont like whistle-blowers, investigative journalists, protestors, and the left. They fight like hell to maintain allegiance to the all-mighty state. Basically they are conservatives and dont meet the criteria for being "politically liberal".

[Progressive dog]

88. No you obviously wouldn't know an authoritarian if he bit you.

You think discussion involves calling people names. That makes you something, but not an authoritarian.

[rhett o rick]

66. You choose Gen Clapper, Gen Alexander, Herr Mueller and Comey over

Plame, Wilson, Wyden, and Udall. Do you realize we are in a class struggle and Clapper and friends are not our friends?

Does their manly authoritarianism make you feel secure. And shame on anyone that would dare to take that away from you.

[Progressive dog]

82. No, you chose to take turn a handful of

complaints into an authoritarian state. I'll bet the vast majority of Americans don't agree with you. There are 1.4 million Americans with TS clearances now and you can name a handful who even support your spying on everyone meme, probably considerably less who would call the USA authoritarian. You can probably name none who would claim it as a class struggle. Sounds to me like making mountains out of dust bunnies.
Childish name calling only serves to highlight the lack of substance in your post.

Does their manly authoritarianism make you feel secure.

[Egalitarian Thug]

69. You should go up against it before making a pronouncement as ignorant as that. n/t

[Progressive dog]

84. I'm "going up against it"

and I'm ignorant if I haven't. It must be the US government be ause they authoritarianed me.

[NuclearDem]

71. Are you sure about that?

Because the scar just above and behind my right ear from a totally-not-authoritarian Chicago PD nightstick I earned for protesting NATO might say otherwise.

[Progressive dog]

86. The Chicago PD is part of the Federal government now.

The NATO secretly took them over, Snowden told Glenn and Glenn told us, which proves it.

[NuclearDem]

90. The NSA is one part of the authoritarian state

And yet another is crushing protests and dissent with overwhelming police presence and violence.

Wonderful strawman you made though.

[Progressive dog]

91. All local governments work with the NSA

and NuclearDem told me so, so it must be true. It is a "straw man" to think that those state and local govenments are real, because NuclearDem told me so. It's all part of one authoritarian state and he knows this since he got hit on the head in Chicago.

[NuclearDem]

92. Are you dense? I never said the NSA had control of local governments and police

In fact, I made a point that the NSA spying and the militarization of individual police departments are separate issues, though both contributing to the development of an authoritarian state.

[Progressive dog]

93. It's just one authoritarian government is what you claim

exaggerating that claim is like adding 2 feet to the height of Mt. Everest, so I thought you wouldn't mind.
You do remember bringing up Chicago, don't you?

The NSA is one part of the authoritarian state

And the NSA has nothing to with the authoritarian state of Chicago.
The scar is on your head, right?

[heaven05]

12. just

because he(greenwald), NPR, NYT and all the rest of the so-called liberals and their organs backed bush and were/are snakes in the grass doesn't mean they won't slip up and do something right every once in a while. As long as we get some light shined on the dark underbelly of american government procedure, we have a chance to fight back, I think.

[Fumesucker]

13. Hillary Clinton did worse than that

She voted for the IWR.

[Th1onein]

15. ONCE AGAIN, it's all about the messenger. What ABOUT the NSA spying?

Why do we have to hear this crap over and over and OVER again? Why is it always about Greenwald and Snowden, and NEVER about the spying?

Please, get a different record to play. We are SICK of this tune!

[Zorra]

42. Because addressing the issue would invite meaningful discussion, which

is exactly what they are trying to deflect, and avoid, by constantly posting nothing but strawmen.

Democrat: What about NSA spying?

Persona: Snowden is a traitor!

Democrat: What about NSA spying?

Persona: Greenwald supported the War in Iraq!

Democrat: What about NSA spying?

Persona: Snowden is going to stay in Russia!

Democrat: What about NSA spying?

Persona: You are a Paulbot!

Democrat: What about NSA spying?

Persona: It's racism, pure and simple!

ETC.

[Th1onein]

43. Hey, I'm putting anyone who attacks about Snowden and Greenwald, instead of NSA spying

on IGNORE. I am dead sick of this bullshit.

They have an agenda, and it's to keep us busy with THEM, instead of taking action.

[CakeGrrl]

70. What IS the course of action here?

I mean HERE on this site.

How does one demonstrate their bona fides so as not to be labeled a "defender of the surveillance state"?

[Th1onein]

80. I can only say how I judge things.

When someone continually posts negative shit about Snowden or Greenwald, I have to consider them focused on, and wanting others focused on, something other than the real issue: spying on Americans.

[kentuck]

16. I believe he was with about 90% of America at that time...

Somebody at DU called us the 10% 'ers. We were the minority opinion by far but our viewpoints became the main view point by the time Bush and Cheney left office. What was his approval rating again?

[NoOneMan]

51. 90% was a mindless, anti-intellectual, angry mob

I can't give credit to anyone who ever gets caught up with mob mentality or rabid nationalism. Though, it doesn't mean the NSA isn't spying on us now

[TomClash]

17. And now that the situation has worsened . . .

. . . you have apparently determined that the proper response is attacking one of those who has been converted to the cause of liberty and privacy instead of opposing creepy, burgeoning surveillance. How does that compute?

[kentuck]

18. Consistency is....

...the hobgoblins...

[zeemike]

27. You really need the whole thing cause some may not know.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)

[Progressive dog]

19. ^^K&R^^^nt

[bvar22]

22. The entire Centrist Democratic Party Leadership supported the Iraq War,

AND the Patriot Act.
President Obama SIGNED the New, Improved, and even MORE Powerful Patriot Act in 2011, AND the NDAA.

...but YOU want to blame Greenwald for AGREEING with the Democratic Party leadership in 2003, and MOST of America.
At least Greenwald has "evolved", unlike Hillary Clinton who STILL insists that invading Iraq and the Patriot Act were and ARE the right things to do.

Where are YOUR threads condemning the Democratic Party leadership for the re-authorization of the Patriot Act in 2011?

...or can you convince me that it is "different" when Obama does it?

[JoeyT]

23. I remember prostesting the Patriot Act too.

Weird how a bunch of the people that protested that stuff with me are now totally cool with that stuff.

So why should we listen to anyone that wasn't ok with this shit but is now ever again?

[Hydra]

26. I think you nailed it best

I was upset at the people backing Bush at the time, but I can accept that some people trusted the gov't when it shouldn't have. To the ones who are doing it again...you guys have NO excuse.

[Savannahmann]

24. Many people fell in line, only to realize their mistake later.

Most Democrats voted for the PATRIOT ACT. Most still vote for the reauthorizations. A vast majority of people supported it, now, not so much. Times change, people realize mistakes. Are you suggesting that we never want to welcome someone who has done so? Must they be pure of thought since birth to be allowed to speak out against an injustice?

Must they be guilty for life?

[Civilization2]

25. Just more denialism, no one is asking you to "listen to him" only consider the facts.

A pointless an feckless attempt at an attack piece on a reporter,. not the story, not the facts, not reality.

I am sure most of you where "stand(ing) behind President Bush" when he "struck back for 9/11" what does it have to do with TEN YEARS LATER and revelations about NSA/CIA spying and data mining the world??

Just more denialism.

[djean111]

28. I guess "purity" is a double-edged sword......

We emo-prog whatevers are sneered at as purists, but purity counts when digging up stances from years ago.
So - is the new Obama embrace of gay marriage stricken from The List, since we have a record of him saying marriage is between a man and a woman (2008)? Why listen to anything he says now?

[Yavin4]

29. It was different back then. The President wasn't a Black guy.

The NSA story has been around since 2006, and yet in 2013, many people are losing their shit over it.

[OnyxCollie]

32. And in 2008, the Democratic party,

which could have done nothing, letting the FISA amendments sunset and return to pre-Bush status, instead voted to make it "legal," letting both the Bush administration and the telecoms off the hook.

I was pissed off that the Dems did that then, and that they continued it now.

I don't give a fuck that the President is black. Domestic surveillance is wrong. I think giving the President a pass because he's black and a Democrat shines poorly on you.

[Yavin4]

45. Not giving anyone a pass

Just find it odd that so many people are so upset over a 6 year old story. Where were people back in 2006 when this story broke initially?

[ljm2002]

77. Even if it were true...

...that nothing has been divulged that we didn't know 6 years ago... so what? Is there a statute of limitations or something, on the issue of mass surveillance? After (say) 5 years, time's up? Or are we allowed to belatedly come to our senses and then discuss it and do something about it? Your position suggests that the only acceptable response now is "Damn, we missed our chance, now we have to live with it"?

[blm]

65. It's not about YOU - it's the flurry of media attention that wasn't there when it

was going on illegally since 2001, and when Congress institutionalized the program in 2006. Fer chrissakes there isn't anything 'revealed' that most regulars here at DU didn't know since 2001 when we were fighting TIA.

It's the media focus on this story as Snowden versus Obama when Obama entered office with this program in place.

That doesn't smell to you?

[OnyxCollie]

72. Well, there is the FISA court order to Verizon.

That's a piece of evidence that wasn't there before.

NSA spying prior to Snowden's leak was kinda mythical. People had talked about it for years, but no one could really produce any evidence. As such, it was hard for many to take it seriously, let alone understand its consequences.

It's as if someone smuggled an alien corpse of of Area 51; you can't say, "Why is this such a big deal to everyone? We expected that this had been going on for years."

Lastly, if Snowden's leak was orchestrated by a NGO, another state, or a coalition of states, I welcome it. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Obama and the Democrats (and the Republicans, of course) aren't doing me any favors. The whole system is corrupt. Tear it all down. This is why I think it's not the BFEE bringing down Obama. Snowden's leak is fucking it up for the 1%.

[blm]

75. Then you don't understand all the different levels they operate on.

Making it appear to come from the left was always a good laugh for them. They don't do these ops for ONE purpose, they orchestrate to get multiple results all to their benefit.

The Dem senate and the house can put together all the legislation they want to curb PRISM, but, Bush's TIA will continue unabated because they were wired far more than the US government ever will be. Heck - all those firms working for NSA are THEIR cronies. Always have been. Always will be. Snowden will have changed nothing, but, made it easier for Americam people to swallow another Bush in the WH, after all, there's no difference, right? And the Bush family is SO nice, especially the first President Bush shaving his head for that little boy, and George and Laura building that women's clinic in Africa, and, oh yeah look at all the Republicans hoping Jeb runs in 2016, and he supports immigration, too....nice, moderate Jeb, not like scary Ted Cruz......right?

And...China.

[OnyxCollie]

81. We're witnessing the collapse of a hegemon. (Enjoy the ride.)

Between the US and its closest ally, Great Britain, they've got the financial markets rigged and they're spying on everyone.

This may lead to war, or it may lead to war AND a collapse of the financial system, or the regimes that are currently in place may carry the rest of the states through this unscathed. Who knows what will happen.

This is much bigger than the Bush clan.

[blm]

89. I can understand why you would think that, but....

the Bush operation has always been a global one, and it dates back centuries. And they succeed because practically every move they make has been covert. Everyone in this country should know by now how it came to be that the US manufacturing base started moving to China in the 70s through deals made by the Bush brothers, GHW and Prescott. Do they? No. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone at a college campus who could tell you.

[blm]

48. And we knew about TIA back in 2002. None of us believed the program was stopped

in 2003 just because the WH and the corpmedia said so.

[ljm2002]

78. So now it's too late...

...to discuss the issue, or to do anything about it? Is that what you are suggesting?

[Javaman]

30. Meh, hit and run post.

duly noted

[ucrdem]

34. Nice footwork, Glenn . . .

but I don't buy it.

[liberal_at_heart]

38. how have we come to a point in history when we can only agree with someone if we agree with

every other thing that person has ever said or done before? Is that even possible? If Greenwald defended the wars or the Patriot Act then I disagree with him on that. That does not mean I can't agree with him that the NSA has gone too far in spying on civilians phone records.

[PowerToThePeople]

50. This is a good point.

Is it because we want a true liberal to stand up and say something against these GWB tactics? If someone that is truly a libertarian stands up to say something, is it the right saying Obama and his tactics suck? What are we trying to defend ourselves from?

[Luminous Animal]

76. Actually he didn't defend either. He was a private citizen with no blog, hadn't written any books

he was ambivalent about politics but, in the face of the facts of the mass lying by the Bush admin, he had a political awakening.

So, he started a blog in 2005 and wrote a book published in 2006 titled "How Would A Patriot Act". In essence the book challenged his own apathy and offered a challenge up to others. He continued to criticize the Bush admin on his blog and he wrote two more books critical of the Bush admin.

Here is my post on this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=journals&uid=129546

In the lead up to the Iraq war, Glenn was a private citizen. He didn't have a blog. He hadn't written a book. He hadn't appeared on TV. He had no national or international voice to influence public opinion.

I wanted to shed some light on one of the current smears against Greenwald. The man wrote 3 books and thousands of blog posts against the Bush regime, the surveillance state and the erosion of our civil liberties. But he didn't get to that point naturally or easily. Below is an excerpt of the preface to the book "How Would A Patriot Act?" A book in which he unrelentingly exposes the Bush admin and the lying warmongers and the architects of the imperial presidency. It's a rare person who can admit that they were wrong (and I applaud those high-profile Democrats in government and the media who supported Bush's invasion of Iraq - those that did actually have the power and the platform to speak out publicly against the Iraq war - who have subsequently apologized for their support) and I admire Greenwald for openly admitting his political evolution.


How Would A Patriot Act?: Defending American Values from a President Run Amok
By Glenn Greenwald 2006

(Emphasis mine)

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

It is not desirable or fulfilling to realize that one does not trust one's own government and must disbelieve its statements, and I tried, along with scores of others, to avoid making that choice until the facts no longer permitted such logic.

Soon after our invasion of Iraq, when it became apparent that, contrary to Bush administration claims, there were no weapons of mass destruction, I began concluding, reluctantly, that the administration had veered far off course from defending the country against the threats of Muslim extremism. It appeared that in the great national unity the September 11 attacks had engendered, the administration had seen not a historically unique opportunity to renew a sense of national identity and cohesion, but instead a potent political weapon with which to impose upon our citizens a whole series of policies and programs that had nothing to do with terrorism, but that could be rationalized through an appeal to the nation's fear of further terrorist attacks.

And in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion came a whole host of revelations that took on an increasingly extremist, sinister, and decidedly un- American tenor. The United States was using torture as an interrogation tool, in contravention of legal prohibitions. We were violating international treaties we had signed, sending suspects in our custody for interrogation to the countries most skilled in human rights abuses. And as part of judicial proceedings involving Yaser Esam Hamdi, another U.S. citizen whom the Bush administration had detained with no trial and no access to counsel, George W. Bush began expressly advocating theories of executive power that were so radical that they represented the polar opposite of America's founding principles.

With all of these extremist and plainly illegal policies piling up, I sought to understand what legal and constitutional justifications the Bush administration could invoke to engage in such conduct. What I discovered, to my genuine amazement and alarm, is that these actions had their roots in sweeping, extremist theories of presidential power that many administration officials had been advocating for years before George Bush was even elected. The 9/11 attacks provided them with the opportunity to officially embrace those theories. In the aftermath of the attack, senior lawyers in the Bush Justice Department had secretly issued legal memoranda stating that the president can seize literally absolute, unchecked power in order to defend the country against terrorism. To assert, as they did, that neither Congress nor the courts can place any limits on the president's decisions is to say that the president is above the law. Once it became apparent that the administration had truly adopted these radical theories and had begun exerting these limitless, kinglike powers, I could no longer afford to ignore them.

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

[Cali_Democrat]

49. Kick and rec

[progressoid]

53. As did Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry, and Harry Reid, and Diane Feinstein, and

Harkin, and Dodd, and Nelson, and Nelson, and Dorgan, etc etc etc.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. So the Patriot Act is bad, then?

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. then he turns his back on Bush, the Iraq War and the Patriot act and start smeaing them

AS they say - haters are going to hate and smearers are going to smear. Greenwald did not begin his smear career with President Obama - he was doing it way back before Obama came to the White House. It seems that he thinks that just because someone is in powerful position - that they are supposed to be criticized - Imagine that!~!

2008 Bill Moyer interview with Glenn Greenwald about the George W. Bush legacy

http://billmoyers.com/content/glenn-greenwald-on-the-george-w-bush-administration-and-the-rule-of-law/

He also wrote three books about the George W. Bush Administration; The New York Times-bestsellers How Would A Patriot Act? (2006) and Tragic Legacy (2007), and his 2008 release, Great American Hypocrites.

[Scurrilous]

56. Kick

[LittleBlue]

58. So the PATRIOT Act is good?

Because Greenwald did X in the past, I should support NSA spying and the PATRIOT Act.

Righto

[Fire Walk With Me]

61. Didn't he later write three books against Bush? HMmm....and the NSA and Obama are STILL wrong. n/t

[NuclearDem]

67. Alright, we get it, you guys were right and GG was wrong

A lot of people were wrong, including me back in those days. We were fooled because the institutions we were supposed to trust--Congress, the White House, the NY Times, MSNBC, the LA Times, and just about every other branch of the media--lied to us and failed us all so spectacularly.

Now, with that in mind, would the anti-Greenwald/Snowden crowd that's trying to guilt people over being wrong about the original Patriot Act pretty please stop the petty bullshit attacks those of us who pledged to not be fooled a second time?

[LondonReign2]

68. Were you screaming at your TV when Obama reauthorized the Patriot Act?

[burnodo]

73. or droned women and children to death?

[ljm2002]

79. Excellent question...

...although it appears the person who made the OP has left the building.

[ljm2002]

74. 'exact VENGEANCE on the perpetrators.'

You know something? After 9/11, I too wanted to exact vengeance on the perpetrators.

I will never say that someone who was wrong on the Iraq war issue, should never be listened to again. Especially when they have acknowledged being wrong, apologized for it, and also: wrote several books and articles eviscerating the Bush administration's policies and decisions following 9/11.

YMMV.

[SidDithers]

85. DU rec...nt

Sid