General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums‘Bullsh*t!’ Greenwald and Iraq Vet Blow Up on Real Time over Snowden Leaks
Bullsh*t! Greenwald and Iraq Vet Blow Up on Real Time over Snowden Leaks
by Josh Feldman | 10:53 pm, June 20th, 2014 video 239
During Friday nights Real Time, Glenn Greenwald battled Paul Rieckhoff, Iraq War veteran and founder of Iraq and Afghansitan Veterans of America, in a massive shouting match over whether Edward Snowdens leaks damaged the country and helped the terrorists. And even Bill Maher had to push back on Greenwald, citing a Bush-era national security official he trusts who said Snowden actually did help the terrorists.
Rieckhoff was bothered by the fact that Snowdens hiding in Russia. Greenwald shot back, That is total bullshit! They fought over why Snowden had to flee and the systematic attack on whistleblowers in the United States. Rieckhoff shouted, How do you know the information he revealed did not cost American lives?
They kept going back-and-forth over what Snowden did, with Greenwald asking somewhat bewilderedly, So were just supposed to take the governments word? Rieckhoff responded, And were supposed to take your word?
Watch the video below, via HBO:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bullsht-greenwald-and-iraq-vet-blow-up-on-real-time-over-snowden-leaks/
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
Octafish
(55,745 posts)This guy even laughs about it.
Another peacenik I remember tried to bring it to our attention but got tossed under the bus by those who find soft ways to say, "Give war a chance."
randome
(34,845 posts)And who cares what the has-been President -worst in our history- might have said in a past decade? He's gone.
Greenwald is here and now and I'm prepped for his grand finale fireworks show!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
Octafish
(55,745 posts)The guy ignored warnings bin Laden was determined to strike "in the U.S."
The guy protected his chief financial backer at ENRON.
The guy turned the NSA loose on America.
The guy tortured innocent people, including children.
Among other various treasons, war crimes and things.
So, no. He's not gone.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)So they are NOT gone and are still trying to 'touch' things and turn them into shit.
An entire shit load!
I didn't know Maher would cave. No one is immune to their influence.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)for $200 the answer is...
"And who cares what the has-been President -worst in our history- might have said in a past decade? He's gone."
What is something someone looking forward and not backwards would say!
That's correct!!!
treestar
(82,383 posts)We believe ! We believe! Blind trust in journalists is allowed! It's all in who you put your blind trust in!
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)He proved that statement in the video.
I despise the fucker more than any other rightwingnut out there, and mark my words, Greenwald is a rightwingnut.
He also uses the wingnut tactic of always talking over his adversary.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)won't make it true. Conserve your energy.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
Cha
(297,196 posts)fans.. he can do no wrong just like GG says.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)He repeatedly says stupid shit that isn't true.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Truth hurts, don't it?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)I appreciate journalists who still do their job, and abhor tools, shills, trolls, and authoritarians.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Just like your hero, GG.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)your obsession. Have a good day tilting at windmills.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It's sad, really.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)But hey, I can't help you if you don't want help.
Hestia
(3,818 posts)get to watch it)
GG stated that there are still thousands of documents that haven't been released as of yet because of security concerns. Wikileaks is pissed because newspapers are still sitting on these docs. There are so many that they have to be researched first to make sure that no one dies.
I thought dude from Vets Organization was rude as hell - aggressive, only he is right, etc., wouldn't let anyone else speak. I think the surprising thing is how much he was defending the NSA and croaking their line about "american's dying" - like GG said, where are the bodies if this is true? When Where and How?
I yelled - go watch the PBS Frontline special United States of Secrets - it's all people in the gov't covering their asses and has absolutely nothing to do with 'security.'
More CYA happening on NSA and it looks like they have a new spokes model.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)I am thrilled we have exposed what the government is doing. I want more and not less transparency. The system is so rigged that our elected officials cannot even discuss this at a policy level with their constituents.
I have said this before and I will say it again. Even if Congress and the President agreed to dismantle the CIA, the NSA and any number of other clandestine organizations and defunded them they would continue to operate as if nothing happened. They are a government unto themselves, not answerable to anyone but themselves. This is how bad things have gotten.
That form of big brother is much, much worse than the threat of any domestic or foreign adversaries including terrorists. It tears at the fabric of our democracy worse than 9-11 or Pearl Harbor. It rips at the very essence of a government that serves at the will of the people and not the other way around.
Cha
(297,196 posts)in him.. he'll save ya.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)of news outlets and reporters. How can Snowden be considered some sort of a hero by putting the US in possible danger of those documents falling into the hands of enemies ?
Not every one is to be trusted in this world. Snowden alone proved that by his theft.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,956 posts)Some here have said that's where Glenn Greenwald's heart really lies.
FWIW Paul is no Libertarian and very recently came out as anti-choice.
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20140621/NEWS02/140629825/Rand-Paul-defends-%26%238216unborn%26%238217-at-GOP-gathering
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)And make no mistake, Greenwald is and always has been a Libertarian wingnut who will take anybody who is slightly Libertarian over any Progressive.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)progressive men should smarten up and fight for federal protections for reproductive choice for all women. that would end the RW hold on a huge amount state races. I am fed up with my body being used as a wedge issue to lure RWers to vote to control it. we are past the tipping point on this. but some are obsessed with "someday" becoming a totalitarian state for them, when in big ways it already is for a lot of women. I thought when we started jailing women for being pregnant or trying to deny them abortions to save their lives more would care. The disregard for a majority of Dem voters lives here is astounding. I am not fond of Hillary, but this short sighted bullshit is pushig me towards her.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Here is the link, the discussion starts around the 2:40 mark.
http://www.hbo.com/real-time-with-bill-maher#/real-time-with-bill-maher/episodes/12/322-episode/video/322-june-20-overtime.html/eNrjcmbO0CzLTEnNd8xLzKksyUx2zs8rSa0oUc-PSYEJBSSmp-ol5qYy5zMXsjGyMXIyMrJJJ5aW5BfkJFbalhSVpgIAXbkXOA==
Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)is still allowed here, except to be derided, is beyond me. He works against Democrats, which is expressly forbidden here.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)I didn't/won't watch this episode cuz I can't stand to look at GG when his mouth's moving.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)during the segment that discussed potential republican candidates that would have a chance against Clinton.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,956 posts)and those who want less surveillance are now supporting Rand Paul.
I watched the show last night.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Maybe you took a little nap and dreamed up your scenario
Here's the link:
http://www.hbo.com/real-time-with-bill-maher#/real-time-with-bill-maher/episodes/12/322-episode/video/322-june-20-overtime.html/eNrjcmbO0CzLTEnNd8xLzKksyUx2zs8rSa0oUc-PSYEJBSSmp-ol5qYy5zMXsjGyMXIyMrJJJ5aW5BfkJFbalhSVpgIAXbkXOA==
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,956 posts)Didn't take you long.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,956 posts)Not the broadcast.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)I almost think that someone has stolen your password and is posting ignorant stuff here on DU. Mark my words.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)And 20 plus posts each and every day, working folks can not do that.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and besides what does that have to do with anything? Are you making an accusation?
Cha
(297,196 posts)wrong.. poor thing. Too bad he's wrong.
mimi85
(1,805 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)Greenwald was bull-dog - went in that way - and Rieckhoff was self-righteous all night. Each asked the other to prove a negative. Meh
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Why should we listen to those duped into killing the wrong people in Iraq defend the government line?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Executive Director.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12257#.U6WvYrAg_L8
The guy's a war hero, his work is important, so I don't mind him being rewarded.
What I do mind is every time I see him on television, Rieckhoff misses the point.
From SourceWatch w. links:
"Although frequently identified as being against the war in Iraq, and his organization Operation Truth as being 'anti-war', Rieckhoff states that he is speaking out about the war, not against it."
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Interesting. Thanks Octafish!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Operation (Un)Truth
A Trojan Jackass for the Anti-War Movement
by STAN GOFF
CounterPunch, Weekend Edition April 2-4, 2005
Fayetteville, North Carolina
"To mark the second anniversary of the U.S.-led war in Iraq on March 19, various anti-war groups are planning to protest in Fayetteville, N.C., the home of Fort Bragg. Its not the protest, but the location that has some people upset.
"An organization representing veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan said demonstrators are wrong and insensitive to take their complaints to Fort Bragg, because it blames the warriors for the war.
"The decision makers are not at Fort Bragg, they are in Washington. Rallying against the war by marching at Fort Bragg is like protesting the cows if you dont like McDonalds, said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Operation Truth."
-from "Anti-War Groups Protesting US Troops Instead of Decision-Makers," by Susan Jones, CNSNews.com, March 17, 2005
Everyone knows the story of the Trojan Horse. An act of friendship used to smuggle the enemy force inside your gates.
Actually, thats the dumbed down version.
The Greeks led the Trojans to believe that the great wooden horse was a Greek war offering to Athena, alleging it had been abandoned on the battlefield. The Greeks left a soldier behind, pretending he was now a non-combatant, to convince the Trojans that if they didnt carry the ligneous steed back into fortified Troy, the Trojans themselves would risk the wrath of the goddess Athena. Its a better story this way. Maybe its a more apt metaphor, too, for what Paul Rieckhoff and "Operation Truth" are up to with the antiwar movement.
Paul Rieckhoff, a former first-looey in the Reserves who went to Iraq, has now found his political niche as a plant for the Democratic Party, using his outfits non-profit status to give him plausible deniability. The NGO in question is Operation Truth, which has somehow managed to pass itself off as an antiwar group every since its inception while explicitly not taking a position against the war. Its a little like calling Camille Paglia a feminist or James Carville a leftist. Say it a couple of times in the press and its riveted together in the public consciousness. Feminist Camille Paglia "from the left, James Carville." Basically, people can get away with any damn thing these days, or think they can. Not this, though.
Let me be frank. Operation Truth is a sham, and its staff commandant is a jackass.
SNIP...
Anyone who cares to search Rieckhoffs Operation Truth website, by the way, hungry for a single statement opposing either the invasion or occupation of Iraq will go home with an empty stomach. Thats because it is not an antiwar NGO. It is criticizing the conduct of the war and the actions of the Republican administration on veterans benefits in a way calculated to bewilder people into believing it is an ally of the antiwar movement.
CONTINUED...
http://www.counterpunch.org/2005/04/02/a-trojan-jackass-for-the-anti-war-movement/
PS: You are welcome, whatchamacallit. A rule of thumb for me is to be extra-critical of anyone allowed to voice an opinion on tee vee -- that includes Bill Maher and his guests. It's not that they are all corrupt, just enough of them to cast doubt on the body as a whole.
elias49
(4,259 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Duppers
(28,120 posts)Exactly! It was frustrating to watch.
JI7
(89,248 posts)HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Try harder next time at bat.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)I liked it when he said "How do you know ,let me finish ,How do you know"
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I respect Rieckhoff, who masterfully revealed just what a thin-skinned turd Greenwald is.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)comity.
I get that Greenwald's performance last night was shallow and disappointing. But I encourage you to not emulate that behavior and show some maturity in your responses.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)that casting anyone who doesn't hate Greenwald, a "worshipper", is kinda stupid?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Cha
(297,196 posts)Lancero
(3,003 posts)ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Needless personal attack on posters in this thread. This person has several posts in the thread and most of them are nothing but attacks on others
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 22, 2014, 12:32 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Lots of people are dishing it out with equal vitriol on the other side. I don't personally believe it looks like there's any way to fairly balance this thread.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Personal attacks are one thing, and shouldn't be tolerated, but alerting for using the word "turd"?
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Clean up your potty mouth.
UTUSN
(70,686 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Prove that nobody was hurt by your post that I'm replying to. Go on, I'll wait. Nobody anywhere was hurt in any way by it, and you're 100% sure? Take your time.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)think
(11,641 posts)SamKnause
(13,101 posts)Thank you Edward Snowden.
Thank you Glenn Greenwald.
Thank you WikiLeaks.
Thank you Julian Assange.
Thank you Chelsea Manning.
Thank you Daniel Ellsberg.
Thank you to all the whistleblowers and the few true journalist fighting to shed light on the truth !!!!!!!!!!!!
grasswire
(50,130 posts)...for speaking truth to power and for being on the right side of history.
More information, more illumination, more sunshine is always best.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)the security of the United States and its citizens are accidentally, or by design, let out to enemies determined to do the US harm. Loose lips sink ships.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)You sound completely ....... fill in the dots
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)No question about it. That damn Snowden and Greenwald!
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)jollyreaper2112
(1,941 posts)Greenwald could very well be a horrible shit and an egotistical fuck and have terrible motives and still be right when he tells you your hair is on fire. He can be awful and still correctly pointing out Obama failings.
When the counter against someone's point results in ad hominem, that makes me think the point is valid.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Ad hominem used to be a GOP way of deflection. Still is. Makes me wonder about those who use that sort of thing here, nowadays.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)because lord knows there was no problems with NSA before President Obama...right Snowden?...right Greenwald?
Your underwear is showing...
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)I had imagined such needlessly insulting rhetoric would be beneath you. Randome found the only way possible to elevate their already disingenuous attacks on critics of the NSA here, and that's the crap you want to associate with. A bloody crucified stuffed animal.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)for some poster with standards of conduct. Thanks for setting me straight. I guess you also aren't the poster scolding someone upthread for not promoting comity and being immature.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)community. When they become DUers, or Democrats trying to get elected, they are then due and owed what every other DU member is owed......comity.
It's not like I called anybody a piece of shit used car salesman, after all...
Cha
(297,196 posts)giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)but he sure plays one on tv.
Cha
(297,196 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)If you're in favor of profanity, you should love that image! It profanes Greenwald and Religion at the same time. AND it profanes Greenwald Religion! How much more 'out there' can it get?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]
Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Getting the leaks out, who is Snowden a patsy for, we have a right to know this information. If he does not do this then he is not being truthful and should not be trusted.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)You need to be thinking about writing more intelligent posts.
Snowden isn't a patsy for anyone. I wonder who these perpetual anti-Snowden posters are a patsy for?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)scapegoat. red herring. person accused of a something as a cover for a bigger
more elaborate crime
Hey, I did not advise him of any of his moves. He's not my patsy. He also "did a heck of a job", says Putin.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Too many spy novels for you! You're starting to make things up.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)What could Greenwald be afraid he can nit complete his job as a journalist?
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Snowden gave the documents to trusted journalists including The Washington Post and The Guardian. He asked those entities to research and vet the documents so that nothing would be released that would endanger any lives. And that is why only a tiny part of the documents have been released. And likely most of it will not be released.
This was a logical, methodical, careful process.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Employment within the NRA, apparently many do not understand why this would be required.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... which journalists could be trusted, and which could not? When and how did he vet them? How did he determine who was trustworthy, and who was not?
And how did he know that none of the aforesaid "trusted journalists" wouldn't inadvertently leak information that shouldn't be broadcast, or be tempted by the big bucks some would be willing to pay for said documents?
"He asked those entities to research and vet the documents so that nothing would be released that would endanger any lives."
How would a journalist determine what information might endanger lives? And why should the security of our country, and the lives of individuals in its service, be dependent on the judgment of someone who has no real knowledge of what the consequences of publishing certain information could be?
This was not a "logical, methodical, careful process" by any stretch of the imagination. It was incredibly irresponsible.
If only that plane in Copenhagen had intercepted Snowden before he ... well, that's another story.
Your naivete is stunning.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]The night is always young. It's never too late.[/center][/font][hr]
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... in order to pick up Eddie in Moscow!!!
ancianita
(36,053 posts)for that effort, and you actually sound like many unread rush-to-judgment Republican journalists when you don't make that kind of background effort. For anyone who's read Greenwald's book, it's clear that your own naivete is what's "stunning." Pages 53 - 80.
If you question the very people who received the documents, there's no serious discussion that either you or a number of other clever-by-half'ers here can really engage in, anyway.
The Maher show distorted each participant's knowledge such that the underwater iceberg of their expriences doesn't even get addressed here.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... I don't see how reading his version of events would be in any way enlightening - and, in any event, would be beside the point. It is Snowden who owes his fellow citizens an explanation - and shelling out money for Greenwald's book shouldn't be part of the equation.
Snowden stole thousands upon thousands of documents, and then turned them over to others without even knowing their contents himself, no less what the consequences of their disclosure might be. There is no getting around that fact - as much as the Snowdenistas would like that fact to just go away.
Relying on Snowden's judgment as to who is trustworthy and who isn't would appear to be foolish at best. Thus far, his "good sense" has led to being stranded in a country where his freedom is restricted, not knowing what his fate will be from one day to the next - while his good buddy, Greenwald, is making a shitload of money from Snowden's escapades.
ancianita
(36,053 posts)who hated liberals for the last eight years -- they were people giving you information that you have a right to know.
NO whistleblower steals. You paid for that information and you have a right to the knowledge of what the government is doing. When this government keeps its surveillance from you, it is stealing from YOU. Journalists jobs are to keep government representing the interests of the many over the moneyed few.
Even your gut should tell you that when you have a founding document that proclaims rules that all laws must follow, your government doesn't get to make 'secret' laws contrary to that document. Until we citizens approve a new Constitution that allows such 'secret' laws, this government's secret laws are null and void, and Congress is committing criminal acts by enacting further secret laws they know to be unconstitutional.
You get evidential proof of your government lawbreaking across sixteen agencies, but you yourself are suckered in by this government's words; a government that even before this proof, you KNEW constantly betrayed your rights as it promised to keep you "secure" through the Patriot Act and the NDAA authorizations.
Now you're suckered by the NSA's "official story" outcries such that you must see any journalist not on their "approved" list as an "ista." It's clear from your derogatory "Snowdenistas" that you have little idea of who or what secures or endangers your freedoms. You insult the majority of DU'ers (see recent WillyT polls) by calling them that. You would have hated Daniel Ellsberg, who calls Snowden an even more important whistleblower for our time than Ellsberg himself was for his time. Ellsberg never makes his claims lightly.
Yet you do. Your confidence is bluster, empty of fact. Knowledge costs, but you'd save your Greenwald book money over hearsay instead of opening yourself to new information.
Never forget that for Americans, "the debate" isn't what the NSA or any of their media machine tell us it is. Or who it is. The Debate is really about our government's complete betrayal of its oath to uphold this country's Constitution, shredding its citizens' privacy and that founding document. Now we have proof.
People of all political parties and socioeconomic classes should be able to get behind that.
Don't be a dupe of protection racketeers. That game is still running but most of us see it for what it is. Scapegoating Snowden or Greenwald won't work anymore. Think about it.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... on the fact that Snowden has yet to offer any evidence for his allegations, i.e. he could read Obama's email, he could track anyone's on-line purchases as they happened, he could "read your thoughts as you typed them", etc.
When asked point-blank by Brian Williams what illegal activities the NSA was engaging in, Snowden could not come up with a single example. Not one.
It is not Snowden's call, nor Greenwald's, as to what is Constitutional and what isn't. And it's not your call either.
Snowden is a common thief, and Greenwald is a huckster looking to make money.
It's amusing to see people like yourself yelling DON'T TRUST A THING THE GOV'T SAYS, while they are busy swallowing every word the Thief and the Huckster are selling - despite the fact that neither have offered an iota of proof for their assertions.
The only thing GG has accomplished is selling paranoia to people like you. Perhaps a late night TV infomercial is in the offing, where GG will be promoting his "Official Tin-Foil Hat", absolutely guaranteed to keep the NSA from being able to read your thoughts.
It is interesting that you think asking pertinent questions and expecting factual answers is "scapegoating". For most people, asking pertinent questions is exactly that - asking pertinent questions. The fact that the Thief and the Huckster cannot answer those questions speaks for itself.
The facts remain: Snowden is stranded in Russia, and GG is making a shitload of money while Eddie ponders his still unknowable fate. But that's what Hucksters do. They package their snake-oil in small portions, and sell it piecemeal to the local yokels, who are convinced that they will be enlightened by revelations that never materialize. And, more often than not, that's what Thieves do - they place their trust in fences who promise to sell their wares and split the profits - unless, of course, the Thief is rendered unable to collect for some reason - like being stuck in Russia without any access to the money that's being generated by the sale of their stolen goods.
The "dupe" here is people like yourself, who believe in the government's complete betrayal of its oath to uphold this country's Constitution, despite the fact that neither Snowden nor Greenwald, when asked, could come up with a single instance of the NSA having done anything that is illegal or unConstitutional.
THAT, my friend, is being "suckered in". And you have been suckered in to the nth degree.
ancianita
(36,053 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 23, 2014, 09:04 AM - Edit history (1)
long enough to have good reasons not to. Your "pertinent" questions are a substitute for reading the sources themselves for the answers. "People like me" tell you to read more widely but you're simply too closed minded to bother.
You act as if one moment of not answering an interviewer is The Single Exception disproof that science disproves some hypothesis with. You show no patterns of credibility flaws in any of the documents that they've published, regardless of how they deal with 'gotcha' interviews by mediocre hacks.
Still, you'd have to cite the instances where either Snowden or Greenwald were speechless. You'll have to go a long way to show that the documents published are a sucker's trick play, regardless of the messenger attacks on these threads.
Luxuriate in your authoritarian bubble.
Edit: Second paragraph for clarity! (ugh)
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... healthy.
When one decides that skepticism is only applicable when the gov't is speaking, and is never applicable when the likes of a Greenwald or Snowden are speaking, one can be appropriately described as a DUPE.
"You act as if one moment of not answering an interviewer is The Single Exception disproof that science disproves some hypothesis with. You show no patterns of credibility flaws in any of the documents that they've published, regardless of how they deal with 'gotcha' interviews by mediocre hacks."
That screed is so grammatically nonsensical, I am truly at a loss for words. Anyone who puts a question point-blank that is unanswerable is "a mediocre hack"? I'd say the fact that the question couldn't be answered is proof of who the "hack" is.
Asking the obvious question - "What illegal activities is the NSA engaging in?" - is a "gotcha" question? I haven't heard THAT excuse since Sarah Palin declared that asking what newspapers she reads was a "gotcha" question.
"Your "pertinent" questions are a substitute for reading the sources themselves for the answers." The "sources themselves" have yet to produce evidence of their allegations. So I should read them because ...?
When Eddie & The Cruiser come up with actual evidence to support their allegations, I will be all ears. So far, they have produced zero evidence of anything.
"People like me tell you to read more widely but you're simply too closed minded to bother." People like you have also told me to read the Bible in order to understand how Noah loaded dinosaurs onto the ark.
Believe what you want to believe - that's your prerogative. I require proof of allegations made - and thus far, Greenwald/Snowden have offered no proof whatsoever of their allegations. None. Zero. Nada.
ancianita
(36,053 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 23, 2014, 09:13 AM - Edit history (1)
the readings are the proofs, unless you yourself have to see the files from Greenwald's or Poitras' thumb drives. Others have seen their digital proofs and published them. But now you say that evidence isn't good enough?
I'll be at a conference seeing Greenwald this Thursday, will raise your questions and get back to you.
I require proof of allegations made - and thus far, Greenwald/Snowden have offered no proof whatsoever of their allegations. None. Zero. Nada.
I'm to conclude that the proof that's been posted online by the Guardian and in Greenwald's book isn't proof to you, then. Are you saying that the 150 documents I saw published are fabricated? That Snowden and Greenwald are lying?
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)than for Greenwald, who supported the invasion of Iraq.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)who's purported peace organization isn't really against the invasion of Iraq. Rieckhoff went to Iraq, so there is a good chance he too supported it at one time.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)and risked his life for his country. Far more than Greenwald ever did.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Response to babylonsister (Original post)
Post removed
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Then fuck him. He's a veteran, but he doesn't give a shit about human beings.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Screw Rieckhoff.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)Trashing both Rieckhoff and Greenwald instead of what they were debating. This place has turned into a grade school debate forum.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)In fact, right after Rieckhoff pointed it out (that the debates revolve around Snowden and Greenwald), Greenwald lost it.
And that is exactly what is happening this thread. Rieckhoff owned Greenwald over that shit.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)joshcryer
(62,270 posts)I'm saying it's by design. You don't sell books writing policy, you don't get hits on websites discussing core issues. 95% of all threads even on DU are flamebait titled.
randys1
(16,286 posts)You know what they say in AA, principles over personalities.
Glenn Greenwald may be an arrogant ass, so waht.
someone said he is a rightwingnut, i dont believe that for a second.
Is he taking a position similar to Rand Paul and does that make me uncomfortable, hell yes, but given the past few years of insane secrecy and others shit, I am not to quick to dismiss him...
ancianita
(36,053 posts)Reickhoff needs to round out his experience with some college level history reading.
Cha
(297,196 posts)else's fault. Paul Rieckhoff as a former soldier has every right to voice his opinion and he doesn't need to read GG's damn book to do so.
You know nothing of this Soldier's experience.
ancianita
(36,053 posts)That was rude. I saw how he tried to raise his voice and talk over Greenwald, using the RW tack of repeating the same word, phrase, question as if the repetition itself was Right. Truth. He was trying to verbally bully Greenwald. Greenwald was right. He had not a shred of evidence for his claims.
I know nothing of this soldier's experience? What. Now we have to be in the same battle zone to describe loud overtalking bullying? His service in a corporate war makes him an expert on intel more than Greenwald's journalistic experience with Snowden? Puh-lease.
Anyone working anywhere near the military knows what he faced. I lived on two army bases, married to an officer, taught troops and worked in the base NCO club. You know nothing of my experience, either. We all don't have to have been in a battle zone to express our opinions about matters of national security.
Rieckhoff still needs to read a damned book on the historical political and intel context that sent him there.
Cha
(297,196 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 22, 2014, 12:40 AM - Edit history (1)
even as that arrogant bully Glenn Greenwald tried to shout him down.
More Snowden leaks - and this time Al Qaeda is the surveillance target (+video)
".. But what caught my eye in one of the unredacted slides was the mention of Al Qaeda in Iraq being a particular target of the NSA's efforts. The slide reads: "Visual Communicator Free application that combines Instant Messaging, Photo-Messaging, and Push2Talk capabilities on a mobile platform. VC used on GPRS or 3G networks." The next five words were what the Times tried and failed to redact: "heavily used in AQI Mosul Network."
The aim as described in the documents is to target mobile phone apps that can give away a target's physical location. The utility of this in tracking terrorists hardly needs to be stated. The document describes a program focusing on clear security interests Al Qaeda in Iraq, now calling itself Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) killed thousands in Iraq during the US-led war there and continues to carry out suicide bombings and attacks on civilians there on a weekly basis. ISIS is also deeply involved in the civil war in Syria, and the groups ties to Al Qaeda make it an obvious security concern for the US.."
snip//
"..But his claim that "none of this has anything to do with terrorism" is not reasonable. That's pure nonsense -- as is his attempt to suggest that any revelations of eavesdropping techniques can't do any harm because terrorists already know all about it. Terrorists may know that the US is trying to spy on them as best it can (just as Germany and France know that). But knowing the precise method is another thing altogether."
MOre..
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0130/More-Snowden-leaks-and-this-time-Al-Qaeda-is-the-surveillance-target-video
http://www.correntewire.com/when_their_sons_go_to_fight_and_lose_their_lives
ancianita
(36,053 posts)Seriously. We must have watched two different shows. I saw and heard Rieckhoff raise his voice and talk over Greenwald in response to G's "bullshit," which admittedly was an escalation. But. Just because the man does good work for vets doesn't make him an intel or policy expert about what revelations secure or endanger our freedoms.
Fact: there was no leaking to terrorist organizations. This is part of the propaganda shift away from the national discourse about the NSA's criminality, which is the whole purpose of Greenwald's book and Snowden's leaking documents to him and another US citizen. Not to terrorists. If your bolding above proves these docs' influence on Al Qaeda behavior lately, you're grasping. And you're buying CSM's speculating that Snowden's info moves terrorists but our defense industry's arms sales don't.
Yes, terrorists read Western news. The NYT's poor vetting of the docs is exactly why Snowden didn't want the docs given to NYT to start with. Now that the paper's relatively safe from MIIC suppression, it messed up as he predicted it would. That's not Snowden's doing nor his fault. It still doesn't prove that Al Qaeda didn't already know the methods of surveillance used against them. They did. Their use of the hawala money systems and message couriers proves that. This article on misused documents being Snowden's fault is case building for treason when it's just as much a report on bad journalistic vetting.
For Americans, "the debate" isn't what media and the NSA or any of their media machine tell us it is. Ellsberg said that public figures made the same charges of "endangerment" against him, as well. Americans know that this debate is really is about our government's complete betrayal of its oath to uphold this country's constitution, shredding its citizens' privacy and the constitution as a piece of paper in the name of warmongering and fearmongering, along with journalism's utter failure to report anything but what the MIIC approves. Now we have proof. People of all political parties and socioeconomic classes can get behind that.
Scapegoating Snowden won't work anymore.
Cha
(297,196 posts)what Snowden did. GG is just a Bully.. his MO.. over and over and over again.
ancianita
(36,053 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 22, 2014, 10:43 AM - Edit history (1)
that Maher's show usually allows for an audience that wants humorous introduction and prioritizing of currents morethan it wants any analysis, anyway.
I've seen Reickhoff before. He's doing great things, but he's one who is used to expecting others to shut up when he speaks. In the civilian world, that's not going happen in give-and-take discussion.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)lumpy
(13,704 posts)What do you know about Rieckhoff's education?
Cha
(297,196 posts)ancianita
(36,053 posts)That, among others, was a claim disguised as a question.
Stop the free floating snark. It's empty posting.
ancianita
(36,053 posts)about Rieckhoff's education.
Cha
(297,196 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Greenwald was mostly silent until someone uttered a specious comment or disinformation. He was not going to be silent in those circumstances.
It is Rieckhoff who escalated.
The audience reaction to them tells the story. Greenwald was cheered.
ancianita
(36,053 posts)the focus of that segment, but Rieckhoff was spouting some talking points that showed he hadn't done enough homework on the connections between military activity and NSA activity. IIRC.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)As soon as it got warm, the segment was over. That seemed odd to me.
ancianita
(36,053 posts)that the show's not designed to give in depth analysis to, anyway. Humorous commentary is preferred to serious analysis, and you're right about how he shies from heated debate. His format tends to cut that stuff off, so I don't worry much about how oddly this ended.
We need more analysis and less cheap scapegoating of bearers of bad news. Though it's frustrating, we'll just have to, as some announcers glibly say, "leave it there."
navarth
(5,927 posts)I always like Paul Reickoff before but this exchange hurt him. Greenwald could have done a better job probably, but Bill's show just isn't the venue for the kind of discussion needed about this issue. All we ended up with was people talking over each other. Lots of heat, but not much light.
Kinda like these kinds of threads on DU. I'll take what Octafish and a few others had to say here and leave the rest.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)If Snowden hadn't leaked? I do like Obama for the most part, but the escalation of the NSA stuff has really disappointed me. But is rather know than be ignorant about such things. There is no bliss in ignorance when it comes to our government.
Cha
(297,196 posts)thanks babylonsistah!
ancianita
(36,053 posts)The exchange (hope this shows up):
grasswire
(50,130 posts)The other guy gets nothing from them.
ancianita
(36,053 posts)Stellar
(5,644 posts)Cha
(297,196 posts)More Snowden leaks - and this time Al Qaeda is the surveillance target (+video)
".. But what caught my eye in one of the unredacted slides was the mention of Al Qaeda in Iraq being a particular target of the NSA's efforts. The slide reads: "Visual Communicator Free application that combines Instant Messaging, Photo-Messaging, and Push2Talk capabilities on a mobile platform. VC used on GPRS or 3G networks." The next five words were what the Times tried and failed to redact: "heavily used in AQI Mosul Network."
The aim as described in the documents is to target mobile phone apps that can give away a target's physical location. The utility of this in tracking terrorists hardly needs to be stated. The document describes a program focusing on clear security interests Al Qaeda in Iraq, now calling itself Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) killed thousands in Iraq during the US-led war there and continues to carry out suicide bombings and attacks on civilians there on a weekly basis. ISIS is also deeply involved in the civil war in Syria, and the groups ties to Al Qaeda make it an obvious security concern for the US.."
snip//
"..But his claim that "none of this has anything to do with terrorism" is not reasonable. That's pure nonsense -- as is his attempt to suggest that any revelations of eavesdropping techniques can't do any harm because terrorists already know all about it. Terrorists may know that the US is trying to spy on them as best it can (just as Germany and France know that). But knowing the precise method is another thing altogether."
MOre..
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0130/More-Snowden-leaks-and-this-time-Al-Qaeda-is-the-surveillance-target-video
http://www.correntewire.com/when_their_sons_go_to_fight_and_lose_their_lives
Thank you, Paul Rieckhoff
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)are proving to be a greater threat to our self determination, individual liberty, standing in the world, and broad prosperity than every threat they supposedly defend us from (they aren't defending us, they clearly see us as the big threat and to be controlled).
As such, i believe that for the long term interests of the world and the American people they are being to reserved with the documentation and that it should ALL go out burning sources, methods, revenue streams, personnel, tactics and means because we are now for a number of reasons completely out of control of these monsters we have allowed to be created in our name and we are the primary source of our own greatest international challenges and promoters of what in short order become or gravest threats.
At this stage the reset button is the best hope to corral the shadow government and the forces of entropy and avarice that dominate it and the elected government.
BURN THE WHOLE BALL OF WAX! We cannot ride the tiger, it is the threat to consume us not the random bands we create, motivate, push to extremes, supply, and train in the previous cycle of games in various orders.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)do anything about the NSA, he wouldn't be writing a toothless appropriations amendment that will serve him on the campaign trail, but will affect the NSA not one jot.
What Sensenbrenner would be doing is starting the debate over the 2015 reauthorization of Section 215, which is what Sensenbrenner really, really, does not want to talk about. Because that, Logical, is the big enchilada that Sensenbrenner is trying to distract from.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Cha
(297,196 posts)snip//
"And it got even louder and more contentious when Rieckhoff pressed Greenwald further on the issue of whether Snowdens leaked documents have endangered American lives. I have to say kudos to Mr. Rieckhoff for confronting Greenwald over his aggressive certainty that nobody could possibly be harmed by the information hes released. Greenwalds attitude about this issue is incredibly cavalier, and it was good to see someone who didnt just accept his facile rationalizations for a change."
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43519_Glenn_Greenwald_and_IAVAs_Paul_Rieckhoff_Get_Into_a_Shouting_Match_on_Real_Time