Message auto-removed

[Name removed]

[joshcryer]

1. He makes things personal for click bait.

And people fall for it.

[grasswire]

2. ugly, isn't it? nt

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Because he was a supporter of Bush his invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

7. And those Dems have been attcked for it just like Greenwald. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

90. But not by the the same people, IIRC

For example: do you agree that Hillary, Kerry, Biden and that crowd made a staggering, tragic mistake by their IWR votes? That while most Democrats were able to make the right decision, the ones that didn't either didn't have the brainpower to correctly assess the facts, or else made a decision to cause massive murderous mayhem to simply further their political goals?

[Cali_Democrat]

91. I'm not sure I yunderstand your point

Hillary, Kerry and Biden were attacked for their Iraq war votes, were they not? Greenwald is also attacked over his previous support.

[MannyGoldstein]

95. But it seems to me that those people who attack Snowden and Greenwald for their support

of the Iraq War don't speak out about the infinitely-more-important issue of Hillary et. al. voting for war.

[Cali_Democrat]

98. So, in your opinion, people aren't speaking out enough against Hillary and her vote?

I've seen a lot of people attack Hillary for her vote. I'm surprised you haven't seen it.

I'm not exactly sure what you want people to say or how often you want them to say it.

Should every DUer create at least one post daily attacking Hillary for her Iraq war support? Would that finally earn them a certified liberal ID card?

Frankly, I'm still not getting you....

[scarletwoman]

14. That is a fucking lie, and I'm damn sick of you and your friends constantly hammering on it!

A FUCKING LIE.

You guys lie and twist and spin and twist and spin some more. Your whole case against Greenwald is built on BULLSHIT.

[Mnemosyne]

20. What scarletwoman said.^^^^^^ nt

[Cali_Democrat]

25. You're the one who is lying, twisting and spinning

Greenwald never said that he wanted an aggressive response from our government after 9/11?

He never said that he was ready to stand behind Bush?

He never said he wanted to "exact vengeance" on the perpetrators of 9/11?

<...>

This is not to say that I was not angry about the attacks. I believed that Islamic extremism posed a serious threat to the country, and I wanted an aggressive response from our government. I was ready to stand behind President Bush and I wanted him to exact vengeance on the perpetrators and find ways to decrease the likelihood of future attacks. During the following two weeks, my confidence in the Bush administration grew as the president gave a series of serious, substantive, coherent, and eloquent speeches that struck the right balance between aggression and restraint. And I was fully supportive of both the president’s ultimatum to the Taliban and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan when our demands were not met. Well into 2002, the president’s approval ratings remained in the high 60 percent range, or even above 70 percent, and I was among those who strongly approved of his performance.

<...>


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.

http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/glenn-greenwald-supported-president-bush-as-he-signed-the-patriot-act/

[Whisp]

37. Greenwald thought Bush made eloquent speeches...

Last edited Sun Jun 1, 2014, 10:55 PM - Edit history (1)

that struck the right balance between aggression and restraint.

What An Asshole Idiot. The both of them.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Cali_Democrat]

106. LOL!

[Whisp]

110. Can you imagine if a DUer said those nice things about the Mass Murdering Dim Son

at that time? They'd be run out on a rail in 2 seconds.

Yet GG has this special Cloak of Protection of accidental ignorance and should just be forgiven.

[OilemFirchen]

123. Logic?

Didn't you just start a thread entitled "Why is there hostility for Glenn Greenwald?"? Is that the non-sequitur?

[OilemFirchen]

137. Your choice.

That's only logical.

[Whisp]

125. Then why wasn't your OP about the NSA?

[OilemFirchen]

138. So you DON'T want an answer to your question?

I want my money back.

[OilemFirchen]

147. I wanna speak to the manager.

NOW!

[Agschmid]

149. The quality of this discussion is simply astounding.

[Historic NY]

163. For a person who doesn't care you've made 65 post in one day...

and he or Snowden have been your main topics. Enjoy your stay.

[scarletwoman]

58. Yeah, this is exactly how you do your bullshit.

What you posted is an excerpt from the forward to his book, How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values From a President Run Amok in which he explained that he, like most Americans at that time, thought that our government knew what it was doing, so he simply went along with it. He was apolitical, didn't even vote.

But you won't post the REST of his forward where he explains how the scales fell from his eyes and he decided to do something about it - and so he started a blog in 2005 to expose the lies and malfeasance of the Bush Adminstration. 2005, this was AFTER the wars were already going. 2005 was when he made his FIRST public pronouncements about his opinions on the wars and the Bush Administration - and his public life began with writing piece after piece in opposition to them.

Prior to 2005 he did not write one public word about Bush or the wars or anything else. NOT ONE PUBLIC WORD.

So you're smearing him based on his own admittance that he was just going along with things, not questioning, like most Americans at that time, until he realized that something was really rotten about what was happening. And once he had that realization, he started blogging, and his blog was all about calling out the Bush Administration.

And let me point out again, that the excerpt you and your friends so love to wave around like a bloody shirt is from his forward to his book titled, How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values From a President Run Amok Yeah, that's the kind of book a Bush supporter would write.

The stench of how you folks twist this is absolutely unbelievable. It makes me gag.

[Whisp]

66. I want to hear more about how Greenwald thought Bush the Chimperor Idiot Son made eloquent speeches.

[scarletwoman]

76. So fucking what? It's in the forward to his book, he's admitting he was ignorant at the time.

So, no one ever gets to wake up and change course? So, the fact that he started his blog to OPPOSE the Bush Adminstration - his first PUBLIC words about Bush and the wars means nothing?

I'll say it again, the stench of what you're doing makes me gag.

[Whisp]

92. how can we be sure he still isn't ignorant?

we can't.

[scarletwoman]

99. Well, you CAN be damn sure that he wasn't supporting Bush and the wars in all the years

he was blogging AGAINST them.

I think it's about time you shut down that particular smear.

[Whisp]

104. Around the time everyone else who supported the war backstepped...

GG made a 180 when it was fashionable to do a 180 to save his ignorant skin.

[scarletwoman]

107. Did you take a poll?

Who is this "everyone else"? Do you have proof that by October 2005 no one in America supported the war anymore?

My gawd, the stench of desperation...

[Whisp]

116. Most network yappers were hot for war.

You don't remember that? Where all the guests were rah rah military let's go get the war on and hardly a reasonable voice contrary to the madness was allowed to be heard. Phil Donahue had a good anti-war voice and was fired for it - you had to have real guts to speak out against the PNACers and their pet.

It was Fashionable to cheer for war, until it wasn't. And now they all act like they were on the right side of it all along forgetting the record is there.

That is Stench, ma'am. You had to be a stupid idiot to believe Bush or have a job on a network you wanted to keep. GG was the stupid idiot, the Chris Matthews and the military were the job keepers.

[scarletwoman]

124. And what network was Greenwald on prior to 2005?

What network was he on after 2005? He was a blogger back then, just one among many. The first time I ever saw him on TV was when Bill Moyers had him on, quite a few years after he was doing his blog.

Your "arguments" just get more and more ridiculous.

[Whisp]

135. His opinion was that Bush did the right thing

and now that GG has made this nice spotlight on himself and with First Look at Me! Media, it is not inappropriate to show how wrong his thinking was then, and all accounts show it probably still is.

The fact he wasn't on network prior to 2005 has nothing to do with anything. My point was he went along with Bush's stupid war, until he couldn't. Not necessarily because he changed his ignorant mind, but because the winds were blowing differently and cowards always check the wind.

[scarletwoman]

151. Just keep repeating yourself.

Apparently you think it makes you right if you say the same things over and over.

[Whisp]

152. Then why are you replying each time?

[Luminous Animal]

111. To save his "ignorant skin" from what? Spell it out.Step by step. What was he saving.

Oh, neither Clinton or Kerry have backtracked from there VERY influential support for the war.

I cannot wait for your consistent condemnation of them.

[Cali_Democrat]

71. So he did indeed support Bush and his wars just like my first post in this thread had stated.

He only backed away when the war became an unpopular clusterfuck...and he was trying to sell his book. This is simply additional confirmation that he's all about the money.

Greenwald himself admits his cheerleading of Bush.

Using his own words is a smear?

So be it.

[scarletwoman]

83. How the fuck did he "cheerlead"?

He did not write one public word about supporting Bush at that time. No one would have ever known anything about how he felt about Bush pre-2005, if he hadn't brought it up in the forward to his book in order to recount his political awakening.

Twist and spin, twist and spin...

[Cali_Democrat]

88. OK he didn't "cheerlead"...

he just said he was "ready to stand behind President Bush" and he strongly approved of Bush's performance. He also said Bush "was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to"...

Greenwald also mentioned that he "accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country."

Thank you for correcting me, scarletwoman.

[scarletwoman]

94. Okay, AGAIN - this is from the forward to his book where he explains where he was at BEFORE

HE WOKE UP!

This is just ridiculous.

You know the song, "Amazing Grace"? You know the lyric that goes, "I once was blind, but now I see"? What you guys are doing is saying, "See?, See? He's blind, he said so!" And when someone points out to you that the words actually say he "once was blind", you just go, "No, no! He said he was he blind! He's blind!" And when it's pointed out to you that he said "now I see", you just carry on saying "He's blind! He said so!"

So, the hell with it.

[Cali_Democrat]

96. Yes...and my very first reply in this thread stated the following:

"he was a supporter of Bush his invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq".

I was correct in my assessment. This whole sub thread turned out to be pointless.

[Electric Monk]

100. Lying by omission, also known as exclusionary detailing.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lying_by_omission

[Cali_Democrat]

101. So stating that Greenwald supported Bush and his wars is a lie

even though Greenwald himself said that he supported Bush and his wars?



Also, if you read the link I posted, it mentioned that the language is from his book.

How is that omission?

[Electric Monk]

115. When you leave out the rest, for context, yes, it is indeed a lie. A lie of omission. Like I said.nt

[Cali_Democrat]

119. My first link mentions that it's from his book.

How is that omission?

[scarletwoman]

145. Your first link is to a blog post by someone doing the exact same smear job you're doing.

An honest link would be a link that goes directly to Greenwald's entire preface. But you wouldn't want to make it that easy for people to see for themselves how you're twisting what Greenwald actually wrote. You send them to a blog post echoing your own spin, and maybe they'll bother clicking on another link in that blog post that DOES take them to the whole preface, and maybe they won't.

You know what? Since you've posted that same link to that same blog post before, I clicked on it sometime back. And then I clicked on the link that goes to Greenwald's whole preface. And that's how I saw through this whole load of bullshit about "Greenwald supported Bush".

[scarletwoman]

102. And it's a totally dishonest smear, since he never wrote a single word supporting Bush.

You're accusing him of a ThoughtCrime, and excoriating him for not being against those things before he came out in public AGAINST those things.

That is so egregiously dishonest, it's breathtaking.

[Cali_Democrat]

105. Greenwald did indeed support Bush and his wars

so my first post in this thread is accurate.

Like I said, this whole subthread turned out to be utterly pointless.

[Luminous Animal]

118. So did Ms Clinton. And she has never retracted. Greenwald did.

Hillary Clinton stands by her vote to support war crimes.

Greenwald wrote an entire book rejecting his support.

[Cali_Democrat]

120. Ya...and Hillary is attacked for her support of Bush's war. nt

[Luminous Animal]

126. As she should be. Because she stands by that support. Greenwald rejected it...

and wrote THREE books rejecting that support.

[Cali_Democrat]

129. Anyone who supported that clusterfuck should be whacked for it. nt

[Luminous Animal]

140. So. You won't vote for Ms Clinton if she is the candidate.

My daughter, 13 years old, collapsed and sobbed on my knees at "shock and awe". It was horrific. The massive slaughter. Welcome Madam President Clinton. Supporter of that slaughter.

[Cali_Democrat]

141. I've stated numerous times she wouldn't be my first choice. nt

[Luminous Animal]

154. I had no comfort to offer to my little girl who knew little girls were being bombed.

Near 70% of the U.S. population supported invading Iraq. Most of our democratic reps voted to give an idiot president an authority to do so.

My 13 year old daughter was willing to get arrested (and yes... her dad and I tried to talk her out of it) for protesting a war that our Democratic "leaders" will not apologize for supporting said war and continue support their decision.

And somehow Greenwald is an asshole?

[Cali_Democrat]

155. Like I said

Anybody who supported that war should be whacked for it...again...and again......and again.....

[Luminous Animal]

156. Looking forward to seeing your posts 2016. I'll have to keep my mouth shut like I had to in 2012.

[Luminous Animal]

160. Do you have the courage of your convictions that my 13 year old did?

Will you vote for Ms Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee?

[Blue_In_AK]

134. ScarletWoman, you rock!

[Electric Monk]

136. +1

[Smarmie Doofus]

153. +1. The Truth, and nothing BUT the truth.

Just not the *whole* truth.

[Mojorabbit]

165. I don't understand why you are so obsessed with him. It seems kind of creepy. nt

[840high]

43. +10

[MrMickeysMom]

103. Ahhh--^^^^---THIS would be right!

Evidence within this thread…

Amen, scarletwoman...

[scarletwoman]

108. Thank you.

This shit just gets real old. And it pisses me off.

[G_j]

113. as if it's not obvious

the venom literally drips from their posts

[scarletwoman]

117. Like I said, the stench makes me gag.

Thanks, G_j.

[G_j]

133. I so-so-so much agree with you!

I'm glad you said it, you speak for me too!
it really gets to me. It's little use getting involved in the discussions because it's really a major energy drain and just a bad vibe. It would seem like that's the purpose.

[scarletwoman]

150. I usually avoid it. I've only gotten down in the dirt with these folks one other time.

I just get fed up with the bullshit sometimes.

[Cha]

35. GG's exact quote from one his books on his "trust in the Bush admin".. he sounds like an idiot..

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.

[Whisp]

44. ''the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan''

[Cha]

48. 'the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan''?! That sure stands the hell out doesn't? So

fucking clueless.

[cantbeserious]

4. Shooting The Messenger - Oldest Ploy In The Book

eom

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Greenwald also referred to Benghazi as a scandal and railed against undocumented immigrants. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

13. You tell me:

His own words:

And yet few problems are more pressing. Over the past several years, illegal immigrants have poured into the United States by the millions. The wave of illegals entering the country is steadily increasing. The people living in the border states of California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico know this flow has to be drastically slowed and then halted. The situation is so dire in that region that the Democratic Governors of Arizona and New Mexico were forced to declare States of Emergency as a result of the flow of illegals into their states and the resulting, massive problems which it brings.

The parade of evils caused by illegal immigration is widely known, and it gets worse every day. In short, illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone. Few people dispute this, and yet nothing is done.

SNIP......


But one of the most disturbing and destructive aspects of illegal immigration is that it is illegal. Indeed, that is the precise attribute which separates good immigration from bad immigration. Why should Republicans, or anyone, shy away from pointing out that illegal immigration, among its many evils, is “illegal”? That is just absurd. Moreover, it is precisely the fact that illegal immigrants enter the country illegally that spawns justifiable resentment, not only among large clusters of middle-of-the-road voters, but also among the very legal immigrant population about which Sanchez is so concerned. Emphasizing the "illegal" part of this problem is what Republicans need to do more of, not less.

SNIP..

The real irony here is that the problem of illegal immigration is actually one of the very few of the ever-dwindling number of issues that has the opportunity to forge common ground among factions of voters which are, these days, engaged in a ceaseless war with each other. Being worried, and outraged, about illegal immigration is not confined to the extreme precincts of conservatism. Middle-class suburban voters whose primary concerns are local and pragmatic, rather than ideological, know the danger which illegal immigration poses to their communities and to their states, and they want something done about it.


http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/gop-fights-itself-on-illegal.html

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

21. That's a stance I can't agree with him on.

I don't know the 'many evils' of 'illegal immigration', unless he means the way in which it leaves undocumented workers open to exploitation and criminal predators, since they often don't dare to report crimes committed against them.

[Cali_Democrat]

36. LOL....Greenwald says something and then backs away when it's convenient...

....6 years later in this case!

He backed away from Bush after his war became an unpopular clusterfuck.

He was waving those pom poms as we went in, but then backed away when it became unpopular because he knew it would hurt his bottom line.

Thousands of Americans dead and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead. Trillions down the drain...and he supported it.

What an asshole.

[Cha]

38. You have a lot of big fucking nerve talking "Obama cultist" with your little altar set up to

worship fucking Greenwald.

[Cha]

45. Oh, "Obama cultist" isn't a personal attack?

[Cha]

50. Oh, your hero GG called us "Obama cultists".. excuse the hell out of me. Fuck off Greenwald..

you freaking asshole.

[Cha]

52. Yeah, GG can dish it out but he can't handle any criticism.. he comes back with his stupid insults..

so yeah.. he can fuck off.

[scarletwoman]

69. They don't want you to notice that.

They have it in for Greenwald, and no amount of reason or facts or rational argument will sway them.

[Cha]

27. Greenwald is a singularly clueless "ratfucker" as when he "expertly previewed the 2012 election"..

[Cali_Democrat]

29. LOL!!! That video is AWESOME!!! Greenwald wanted so badly for Romney to win. nt

[Cha]

40. I bet he voted for the asshole if he voted at all. nm

[Historic NY]

162. LMMFAO.....

[uponit7771]

8. He's racist liar who supported Bush's bs war until crap went south

[WorseBeforeBetter]

10. Because Obama. (n/t)

[MohRokTah]

12. Because he's an asshole. eom

[baldguy]

16. And he makes a profession out of it.

He's certainly no journalist.

[baldguy]

23. Someone who wouldn't have touched the Snowden debacle with a ten-foot pole.

And if they did, for a start they would have acknowledged, investigated & exposed Eddie's difficulties with factual information, and do everything they could to not become a part of the story.

Instead, Greenwald has done everything he can to make Snowden into an unimpeachable star - and hitched his own wagon to it.

[baldguy]

31. Um ... Everything?

[QC]

18. Here's an interesting older thread on that very subject.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297376

[OilemFirchen]

86. Here's another:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002102119

This one starts with Glenn's hilarious nun-raping joke. Some of the comments are priceless.

[Enrique]

22. jealous of his Pulitzer Prize

[baldguy]

28. Much like Bill O'Reilly's.

[grasswire]

39. O'Reilly has a Pulitzer? nt

[Enrique]

41. he must be mistaken

O'Reilly won the Nobel Peace Prize, not the Pulitzer.

[baldguy]

54. Greenwald didn't with the Pulitzer either.

Sort of the point.

[Cha]

79. Oh right.. GG got a Pulitzer so he can do no wrong. It must be

that

[treestar]

33. We don't agree with him

He's a libertarian. Why should we like him any more than we like other libertarians, republicans or right wingers?

[Whisp]

46. of course you wouldn't

[Whisp]

53. Let me ask you what truths the Libertarians and the Republicans with their willnot Teabaggers

have had lately.

I think you might have stumbled onto the wrong site if you are doing that schtick that 'both/all parties are the same' because that is bullshit of the Greenwaldian sniff.

[Whisp]

63. You said: ''Truth is a function of one's political party? I don't think so.''

The stench and rot and lies from the RWers and Baggers mound can't be compared to the Democrat's pile. It's Really interesting to see that you think they do.

[OilemFirchen]

109. That's admirable.

What was your previous username, then?

[Cha]

70. He doesn't want to answer your question so he tries to distract with some red herring about

"ad hominem". He wanted to know "why the hostility toward greenwald" and we're telling him.

[treestar]

122. Using the term truth to refer to one's own opinion

is a bit much. And Glenn issues opinion screed, not journalism. People end up talking about him rather than the issues, and he likes it that way. Thus injecting himself into the story.

[Cha]

60. Yep, he's an idiot Libertarian who calls us "Obama cultists" and then his fans wonder why the

hostility?

"That's why Obama cultists have to dig back 6 years into my archives to try to find things to discredit me."

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5035976

Tell ya what.. Greenwald's his own worst enemy and discredits himself every fucking day.

[RKP5637]

85. Wow, this is all very revealing. Lots of controversy about him, I didn't

realize how much until I started reading this thread.

[scarletwoman]

112. Just bear in mind that the "controversy" is being carried out by dedicated ratfuckers.

I've seen exactly how they do it. They take a quote out of context, spin it, twist it, and then proclaim it as "proof" of whatever sin they're accusing Greenwald of committing.

[bravenak]

55. Why do i feel like you have been here before?

I just get this strange feeling that i have read comments from you before, are you on another site?
It's like deja vu.

[JI7]

61. you are correct

[bravenak]

65. Thank you.

I figured.

[Aerows]

56. He revealed some ugliness that our government took part in

That is always viewed as hostile by those that like things just the way they are, Constitutional or not.

[frazzled]

62. I've disagreed with his political views for eight years

I realized that with his first book, in 2006, which I actually was stupid enough to buy at the time. (I gave it away after reading the intro.) So it's largely ideological: he's closer to a Ron or Rand Paul for me than to any kind of liberal. His support for the Citizens United decision did not help. He seems to me the male Ayn Rand of the new millennium. I've made my opinions of him known for many, many years, well before he left for the Guardian and long before the name Edward Snowden was known.

But then there's the sleazy stuff I didn't like on top of it: the behavior during his defense of the truly scum neo-Nazi. The self-promotion, the coy dissemblings about not being able to come back to the US (first because he couldn't get married here, then because he would surely be arrested: not).

In general, why should I like someone with whose positions I disagree and who rubs me the wrong way as a huckster and zealot and not quite honest person. And I'm ENTITLED to my opinions about this. You're entitled to yours. I don't even know why this question should be asked.

[JI7]

67. well, it worked out and he was able to come back, and just in time to promote the book and make

the movie deals.

[frazzled]

72. Yeah, well that's the kind of dissembling I was talking about

I'll be arrested the moment I step foot on American soil!
They're spying in your panties!
This is huge news! This is so not significant!

He really gets my craw.

[DCBob]

64. hero worship for a used car salesman sums up my feelings.

[Whisp]

73. the Real piece of shit used car salesman that should fuck off. n/t

[sheshe2]

78. Ummmm~ you do read DU don't you...

Then you have your answer.

[Agschmid]

75. Do you have hostile feelings towards him?

Why or why not? You did give a ton of context in your OP so I am curious.

I am somewhat ambivalent about this whole thing.

[Agschmid]

80. What do you feel the gist of the hostility is from now that you've gotten some answers?

[carolinayellowdog]

82. cognitive dissonance

given the evidence, someone is lying to us and it can't possibly be the government, because. It just can't.

[carolinayellowdog]

87. double plus ungood! more perplexing to me isn't the hate but the compulsion to restate it 10x daily

Ritualistically, in organized groups. I love our Manny, but anyone here who was chilled by the two-minute hate rituals in 1984 knows that the real Emanuel Goldstein of DU is Greenwald.

[villager]

93. and it's getting more and more viciously dissonant

...as this thread makes so searingly clear

[reddread]

114. doing a lousy job of it, too.

[madfloridian]

130. A couple of thoughts on Greenwald through the past few years.

Greenwald defends himself on Iraq

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/10024931400

About Iraq...no he did not support it.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/472

Glenn's rant about the Blue Dogs

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/2423

Greenwald quotes Howard Dean on the dangers of staying in Iraq

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1763

[Oilwellian]

132. There was an interesting DU site search recently

That showed some amazing results. I'll leave the results of the common phrases and names we see here day, after day, after day, to your imagination.

"nsa fan": 81
"snowden fan" 3190
"greenwald fan": 3500
"nsa fans": 259
"snowden fans": 6630
"greenwald fans": 4050

On edit: here's one more:

"fuck Greenwald": 996,000

This is fun.

[Cali_Democrat]

139. ...

"Obama fan" 13,100 results

"Fuck Obama" 4,500 results

[OilemFirchen]

146. Not sure the methodology...

but here are a few more useless numbers:

"obamabot": 13,100
"authoritarian": 30,400
"penis": 33,100
"kitteh": 18,000

[Tarheel_Dem]

143. Welcome Back!

[Agschmid]

144. Here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025036592

[Rhiannon12866]

148. Thanks for providing the answer!

[Blue_Tires]

157. I'll be a succinct as I can

Because I've worked in print journalism 2-3 career changes ago, I can see the dozens of ways Greenwald is full of shit that many observers can't:

1. He has been a brazen hypocrite since day one from every conceivable angle...
2. He cannot separate his outrage over the NSA from his blind hatred of Obama and those who voted for him...
3. He has covered the story in a duplicitous, sensationalized, slanted and one-dimensional manner...
4. His ego makes him believe he's Jesus on the Journalism Cross, and while he is a decent opinion blogger and columnist, he has always been a mediocre reporter and even worse writer...Not to mention he has proven to be completely incapable to dealing with criticism...

[Hekate]

159. I've always wondered (in a non-hostile way) why his sources end up in jail or exiled or...

...hiding out in an embassy. It's always been one of those things that make me go hmmmmm.

[OilemFirchen]

164. Judas Iscariot is the more appropriate response.

You argue like a serpent.

[OilemFirchen]

167. History.

Speaking of which:

Sorry, I should not post on my own thread anymore.

Ironic.

[OilemFirchen]

169. Sweet dreams.

Be comforted by my error. Thought you'd been locked out of your own thread.

Premature, I guess.