unlike sniveling cowardly Greenwald - Biden and Clinton stand by their Iraq War and Patriot Act

[Douglas Carpenter]

support. The same can be said for Kerry and almost every prominent Democratic Party leader. They - unlike the treacherous Greenwald They have shown that true leaders don't apologize and don't say they were wrong.

To add insult to injury Greenwald - not only turns on Bush and the Iraq War and the Patriot Act he writes a whole bunch of books and articles and gives a whole bunch of talks against all of it - even when Bush was still in the White House and the war in Iraq was still raging away.

It seems that he thinks that just because someone is in a powerful position - that they are supposed to be criticized -

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.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

1. Yeah, these true peoples have the courage of their misguided convictions to stand tall on them

How honorable... in bizarro land!

[Douglas Carpenter]

3. if people going changing their minds just because they learned something or looked at something

differently - my goodness - what might that lead to?

[Union Scribe]

5. Madness, that's what!

These flip-floppers can have their fancy heliocentric solar system and silly notions of "progress".

[noise]

2. He wrote a book

explaining how the powerful are held to a different standard. Pretty farfetched IMHO.

[hootinholler]

35. Please warn of graphic images n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

36. GOD DAMN IT!

This needs a FUCKING WARNING!!!!!!!!


WTF is this lately? People getting their fucking jollies out of posting blood and gore.

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. you know in much of the world these are the scenes shown on the prime time nightly news

when war is under way. Maybe if Americans had a bigger dose of reality of what war really is all about - a lot of people would be less caviler about the whole damn thing. As long as the public can be duped into believing that bombs only kill bad people minus a few minor exceptions - selling war is a lot easier for the war makers.

[Generic Other]

43. That blood was spilled in our name

We paid for each and every bullet. Shutting your eyes does not erase your culpability -- all our culpability.

Don't whine about having to view the results of our criminality as a rogue nation. I think every American needs to have these images pasted on their refrigerator doors along with their own children's school pictures. Get some fucking perspective. You voted in the asshats who ordered this.

[MotherPetrie]

6. K&R -- Brilliant.

[Enthusiast]

7. It is....nt

[cantbeserious]

8. The Character Assassination Continues

eom

[Katashi_itto]

9. So shredding the constitution and standing by it, along with a fake war is a good thing?

Man, this is total Freeperville.

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. It's a test of one's mettle. (spelling corrected)

Does one change their mind when they learn something new or look at something differently? Or do they man up and refuse to be terrorized by reality's ugly head?

[Katashi_itto]

13. Ahhh, brilliant sarcasm. I get it

Took me a sec, way to early in the morning...dragged myself in from doing sword katas and am really not awake..

This is good!

[eilen]

14. not metal. mettle.

met·tle
/ˈmetl/
Noun
A person's ability to cope well with difficulties or to face a demanding situation in a spirited and resilient way.



oh, and I disagree with you. Criminally stubborn about self-serving restrictive, unconstitutional and murderous policy is not a positive character trait. See: George Bush. I believe a President was threatened with impeachment because of it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. I stand corrected - (on the spelling)

But a real man has a spine. And there somethings a real man never does. They don't eat quiche. They don't carry on about how The Piano was a brilliant film. And they don't admit they were wrong.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

16. Well, there WAS a good film about a piano ...

Ok, maybe "good" is over-stating it ...

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. well I think would have preferred it to "The Piano"

Although the folks at the Cannes Film Festival clearly disagreed when they proclaimed it the Best Picture of the year for 1993 . And clearly folks in the American Academy of Film disagreed when they awarded it three Oscars at the Academy Awards - so what do do I know? - I found it torturous. And that is being generous.

[Fire Walk With Me]

10. Obama can never, ever do any wrong. Got it. Even the Bush-sourced "patriot act" is good. Check.

Edit: Oops, OP = Sarcasm. As they say, not sure if The Onion or reality.

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. it is getting harder and harder to tell these days

[sabrina 1]

11. I thought they just agreed with Bush's war. But I see your point, admitting you were so

wrong, especially when you could actually help make that tragic war happen, unlike private, unknown at the time, citizen Greenwald, that would be WEAK wouldn't it?

Shame on Greenwald for admitting he was wrong and then trying to make up for it.

Thanks for straightening us out on this puzzling situation.

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. knr

[treestar]

20. Biden and Clinton were elected to an office

Glenn just carps at what they do.

[Fumesucker]

23. Yes, being in elected office makes them much less responsible for things

Typical American principle of reverse responsibility, if you have vast power you can do nothing wrong and if you do happen to do something wrong no one will be so gauche as to mention it, if you have no power everything you do is wrong and must be punished to the full extent of the law and maybe a bit more just to be sure.

[whatchamacallit]

37. Nonsensical distinction

betrays desperation. Go after Greenwald on something that makes sense or risk looking like idiots.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

21. And they still accomplish more on the toilet than GG will

in a lifetime.

[bowens43]

52. So in your opinion the measure of a man is how much he shits?

very strange

[ProSense]

22. "I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration."

I can criticized Greenwald because I've never said that. I never supported the war.

It's hilarious to see Greenwald being defended by comparing him to elected Democrats.

Back in 2002 and 2003, Democrats like Kerry were demanding that Bush not launch the invasion. Kerry and Kennedy actually made highly publicized criticisms leading up to Bush's illegal invasion.

Greenwald was still hanging on to his "trust" in Bush.


"I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023362984

[NuclearDem]

25. Greenwald apologized. He was not an elected official who voted for the war.

Biden and Hillary have not. They are elected officials who voted for the war. I guess they were hanging out to their "trust" in Bush as well.

Glad you mentioned Kerry, though, because despite his "demanding that Bush not launch the invasion" and his "highly publicized criticisms leading up to Bush's illegal invasion", he ended up in the Yay column.

[snappyturtle]

26. +! nt

[JaneyVee]

28. Lets not forget WHY they voted for it. One, they were lied to by

The administration who stated they had evidence of WMDs, and two, Bush administration said the mission would only take 3 months.

[whatchamacallit]

40. Which is likely why Greenwald supported it (at first)

You guys can't win this one, know when to let go.

[Carolina]

44. Lied to?! Puhleeze

Common sense would have told such political cowards as Biden (the alleged foreign policy expert), Clinton (who was aware of PNAC's plans during Bill's second term), and Kerry (who knew the Bushes were liars from his investigation of Iran-Contra) that a country that had been under UN sanctions since the first Gulf War (1991) and then periodically bombed during the Clinton years could not have morphed into a military threat to the US by 2002. Moreover what chemical WMDs Saddam had, had been given to him by the US during the Reagan-Bush years when Iran and Iraq were at war (1980-1988) and the US was aiding its puppet Saddam because it was still mad about Khomeini in Iran! Add to such background facts that weapons inspectors in 2002-2003 had found nothing and were not allowed to complete their task (read Scott Ritter).

Biden and those like him (especially Clinton and Kerry) showed no knowledge (or were willfully blind) of fact or history with their IWR votes. They acted cravenly with their eyes on the 2002 midterms (though their seats were safe) and the 2004 Presidential election. They are prototypical examples of Profiles in Cowardice. They had a chance to back their words with the action of voting NAY; they could, and should, have heeded the sage words of Robert Byrd and Edward Kennedy who gave superb speeches with lessons about pre-emptive, unnecessary, costly war... and voted NO.

But these duplicitous, career pols played the game, aided and abetted Bush by providing bipartisan cover, and lived to garner more power. They are thus just as culpable as Bush for the resultant death, destruction and debt. And if they are proud of themselves, then their shamelessness knows no bounds!

[whatchamacallit]

38. How can they not see the incredible hypocrisy and stupidity of attacking Greenwald on this?

Robot Shark Fail.

[LondonReign2]

33. Oh Greenwald changed his mind, did he?

We certainly can't have that.

Was it sorta like this, but in reverse?

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't be changed to make that legal.

ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

[Efilroft Sul]

42. Oh, SNAP!

The GROUP ain't gonna like that blast from the past.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. Wow.

nt

[Bluenorthwest]

49. Your hypocrisy is that you support other war supporters and cheerleaders and yes voters

While leveling criticism at one guy based on the same thing. You supported Hagel for Sec of Defense who voted Yes on IWR, all funding requests, who is anti gay and opposes a woman's reproductive freedom. If you support that you have no standing to criticize anyone else for having supported the war.
Selective judgment of others is indicative of prejudiced views. 'I love some who supported the war, but that guy is horrible because he supported the war.'

I mean, at least you don't ever cite that Andrew Sullivan, who was running nationally syndicated cheer leading columns for the war only later to 'recant'. You'd never cite him, that's something at least.

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. knr

[JaneyVee]

27. False. See video below:

[Douglas Carpenter]

29. Role Call vote on Iraq War Resoltion - Delaware Joseph Biden (D): Yes Thomas Carper (D): Yes

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm

Senate Roll Call: Iraq Resolution
Friday, October 11, 2002




Following is an alphabetical listing by state of how each senator voted on President Bush's Iraq resolution. A "yes" vote was a vote to grant President Bush the power to attack Iraq unilaterally. A "no" vote was a vote to defeat the measure. Voting "yes" were 29 Democrats and 48 Republicans. Voting "no" were 1 Republican, 21 Democrats, and 1 Independent.


Alabama Jeff Sessions (R): Yes Richard Shelby (R): Yes
Alaska Frank Murkowski (R): Yes Ted Stevens (R): Yes
Arizona Jon Kyl (R): Yes John McCain (R): Yes
Arkansas Tim Hutchinson (R): Yes Blanche Lincoln (D): Yes
California Barbara Boxer (D): No Dianne Feinstein (D): Yes
Colorado Wayne Allard (R): Yes Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R): Yes
Connecticut Christopher Dodd (D): Yes Joseph Lieberman (D): Yes
Delaware Joseph Biden (D): Yes Thomas Carper (D): Yes
Florida Bob Graham (D): No Bill Nelson (D): Yes
Georgia Max Cleland (D): Yes Zell Miller (D): Yes
Hawaii Daniel Akaka (D): No Daniel Inouye (D): No
Idaho Larry Craig (R): Yes Mike Crapo (R): Yes
Illinois Richard Durbin (D): No Peter Fitzgerald (R): Yes
Indiana Evan Bayh (D): Yes Richard Lugar (R): Yes
Iowa Charles Grassley (R): Yes Tom Harkin (D): Yes
Kansas Sam Brownback (R): Yes Pat Roberts (R): Yes
Kentucky Jim Bunning (R): Yes Mitch McConnell (R): Yes
Louisiana John Breaux (D): Yes Mary Landrieu (D): Yes
Maine Susan Collins (R): Yes Olympia Snowe (R): Yes
Maryland Barbara Mikulski (D): No Paul Sarbanes (D): No
Massachusetts Edward Kennedy (D): No John Kerry (D): Yes
Michigan Debbie Stabenow (D): No Carl Levin (D): No
Minnesota Mark Dayton (D): No Paul Wellstone (D): No
Mississippi Thad Cochran (R): Yes Trent Lott (R): Yes
Missouri Jean Carnahan (D): Yes Christopher (Kit) Bond (R): Yes
Montana Max Baucus (D): Yes Conrad Burns (R): Yes
Nebraska Chuck Hagel (R): Yes Ben Nelson (D): Yes
Nevada John Ensign (R): Yes Harry Reid (D): Yes
New Hampshire Judd Gregg (R): Yes Bob Smith (R): Yes
New Jersey Jon Corzine (D): No Robert Torricelli (D): Yes
New Mexico Jeff Bingaman (D): No Pete Domenici (R): Yes
New York Hillary Clinton (D): Yes Charles Schumer (D): Yes
North Carolina John Edwards (D): Yes Jesse Helms (R): Yes
North Dakota Kent Conrad (D): No Byron Dorgan (D): Yes
Ohio Mike DeWine (R): Yes George Voinovich (R): Yes
Oklahoma James Inhofe (R): Yes Don Nickles (R): Yes
Oregon Gordon Smith (R): Yes Ron Wyden (D): No
Pennsylvania Rick Santorum (R): Yes Arlen Specter (R): Yes
Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee (R): No Jack Reed (D): No
South Carolina Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D): Yes Strom Thurmond (R): Yes
South Dakota Thomas Daschle (D): Yes Tim Johnson (D): Yes
Tennessee Bill Frist (R): Yes Fred Thompson (R): Yes
Texas Phil Gramm (R): Yes Kay Bailey Hutchison (R): Yes
Utah Robert Bennett (R): Yes Orrin Hatch (R): Yes
Vermont James Jeffords (I): No Patrick Leahy (D): No
Virginia George Allen (R): Yes John Warner (R): Yes
Washington Maria Cantwell (D): Yes Patty Murray (D): No
West Virginia Robert Byrd (D): No Jay Rockefeller (D): Yes
Wisconsin Russell Feingold (D): No Herb Kohl (D): Yes
Wyoming Mike Enzi (R): Yes Craig Thomas (R):

[JaneyVee]

30. Sure he voted for it, under false pretenses. The administration said

They had evidence of WMDs and that the mission would only last 3 months at most. You said they stand by their decision, I'm showing you they do not.

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. does he agree or disagree with John Kerry that he would have voted for it anyway?

Has he said clearly and unambiguously that he made a mistake by voting for the IWR?

And is it fair to Say that Sen. Biden was a Middle East Foreign policy expert for decades prior to casting his vote?

[Carolina]

41. Then he was inexcusably STUPID

to believe the administration!

Common sense would have told such political cowards as Biden (the alleged foreign policy expert), Clinton (who was aware of PNAC's plans during Bill's second term), and Kerry (who knew the Bushes were liars from his investigation of Iran-Contra) that a country that had been under UN sanctions since the first Gulf War (1991) and then periodically bombed during the Clinton years could not have morphed into a military threat to the US by 2002. Moreover what chemical WMDs Saddam had, had been given to him by the US during the Reagan-Bush years when Iran and Iraq were at war (1980-1988) and the US was aiding its puppet Saddam because it was still mad about Khomeini in Iran! Add to such background facts that weapons inspectors in 2002-2003 had found nothing and were not allowed to complete their task (read Scott Ritter).

Biden and those like him (especially Clinton and Kerry) showed no knowledge (or were willfully blind) of fact or history with their IWR votes. They acted cravenly with their eyes on the 2002 midterms (though their seats were safe) and the 2004 Presidential election. They are prototypical examples of Profiles in Cowardice. They had a chance to back their words with the action of voting NAY; they could, and should, have heeded the sage words of Robert Byrd and Edward Kennedy who gave superb speeches with lessons about pre-emptive, unnecessary, costly war... and voted NO.

But these duplicitous, career pols played the game, aided and abetted Bush by providing bipartisan cover, and lived to garner more power. They are thus just as culpable as Bush for the resultant death, destruction and debt. And if they are proud of themselves, then their shamelessness knows no bounds!

[Bluenorthwest]

45. And yet 23 Senators with the same case presented to them voted NO.

So the false pretenses did not fool everyone, now did they? They fooled the foolish.

[closeupready]

48. Exactomundo.

[joshcryer]

62. You didn't even need to assume WMDs to conclude that, btw.

The 23 Senators voting no used common damn sense. Bush didn't have a UN resolution to invade Iraq (Resolution 1441 did not enable that at all), and the Bush administration kept parroting the idea that they didn't need a resolution to invade Iraq because the NFZ was still in effect and we were "still at war" with Iraq. The Bush administration at the time made it abundantly clear that they felt that they still had authorization to invade going on old Gulf War resolutions (UN resolutions 688 and 665) which progressives noted at the time pointed out was utter bullshit (myself getting in trouble for it because people misinterpreted that as "support" for Bush's view).

Those Senators need only to have listened to the rhetoric coming out of the Bush administration to know that he was going to invade whether or not Saddam complied with the weapons inspectors. Indeed, until the day war was declared the weapons inspectors were looking at sites in Iraq. Bush told them to GTFO and of course they complied because who wants to be a weapons inspector in a war zone?

With that knowledge, and the rhetoric was loud so anyone could see it and understand the posturing, no ethical politician would have voted for it. It wasn't about WMDs from the get-go, it was about revenge for Poppy and an oil grab.

This site gives the best overview of the situation there was: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/

In particular the 12000 page Iraq report that proved that Saddam had already destroyed most of the weapons (in the case of some of those weapons they were improperly destroyed which is why casings and such were "found" years later, but it was all unusable, which for all intents means destroyed, and if the inspectors were allowed to do their job they would've eventually found those casings). People doubt he did it but he did it because he was afraid of an internal uprising getting a hold of those weapons.

BTW, any Senator would've had access to those reports about WMDs. It shows a true lack of judgment for any of them to have voted for the war.

[joshcryer]

60. Scott Ritter, Robert Fisk, Hans Blix, and suicided David Kelly dispute that.

There were people on the ground, talking about the WMD farce, from the start. Most notably Scott Ritter personally visited Kerry to explain to him that the WMD thing was a pure farce.

[LWolf]

32. Except that they WERE wrong. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. that's not excuse and no reason to admit it.. Do we want to be led by wimps who admit they

were wrong?

[LWolf]

65. Maybe.

I want to be led by those who are usually right, and who are strong enough to admit it and evolve when they're not.

[snappyturtle]

34. Really?

They have shown that true leaders don't apologize and don't say they were wrong.

I don't think the American people believe any elected leader is perfect. Therefore, mistakes can be made. Apologizing and admitting wrong makes them more human....and electable....in my eyes. imho


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To add insult to injury Greenwald - not only turns on Bush and the Iraq War and the Patriot Act he writes a whole bunch of books and articles and gives a whole bunch of talks against all of it - even when Bush was still in the White House and the war in Iraq was still raging away.

Just like many authors and millions of protestors did to shut down the Viet Nam 'conflict'. Was that weak and wrong too? (We can remember John Kerry as speaking out.)

[closeupready]

46. OMG, did the Symbionese Liberation Army get to you, too?

Wow. I thought that was a strictly West Coast thing, ca. 1970 or so. Who knew?

[Douglas Carpenter]

50. no, they all over the place

[bowens43]

51. So basically you believe that

it's better to be wrong and deny it then to be wrong and admit it........


Wow

[Douglas Carpenter]

57. that's what real men of principle would do. Did Stalin ever admit he was wrong?

[Bluenorthwest]

53. I loved this thread.

Just wanted to say that. The line about the Piano made me laugh.

[Douglas Carpenter]

54. thank you , I appreciate that

Last edited Tue Jul 30, 2013, 06:24 PM - Edit history (1)

[randome]

55. You know you've lost the high ground in a debate...

...when you think you're Stephen Colbert.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Douglas Carpenter]

56. . You know you've lost the high ground in a debate...

when you have to attack the messenger while ignoring the message

[AgingAmerican]

61. Are you ignoring Glen Greenwalds message (NSA surveillance)

and attacking him instead?

Just curious....

[Douglas Carpenter]

63. some people sometime try to use irony to make their point

[joshcryer]

64. Clinton's weasely floor speech on the Iraq War Resolution:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2667891

I'm going to highlight the weasely bits because I want people reading this to see how Hillary knowingly aided and abetted a war criminal (I will explain after the quotations):

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

...

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

...

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

...

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons.

...

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Pretty good, huh? She wanted the UN to get involved before Bush invaded but she was alarmed by unilateralism! Yet, she knew that passing the resolution enabled unilateralism! But the "present facts" made it "not a good option." Cute, eh? This, despite the Bush administrations run up to the war and demands to attack using old, obsolete, Gulf War era resolutions!

If, if, if! But she knew damn well that she was enabling a unilateral attack.

At the end she reveals herself (and thus invalidates her talk of diplomacy and assuring UN resolutions were upheld, and assuring that weapons inspectors were allowed to do their job):

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret.

Except, dear Hillary, Saddam destroyed those weapons in 1991:

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

Boom. Hillary aided and abetted a war criminal as testified in his own biography signed off by him and is why he can't visit certain EU states because he'll wind up in the fucking Hague.

[alarimer]

66. An honest person admits when they are wrong.

And Clinton and Biden were wrong then and are wrong now.

They are cowards for not doing so.

The Iraq war was criminal and they should be held responsible for it.

[GiaGiovanni]

67. I gave you a rec for style points

[hobbit709]

68. Of course, being of the privileged class, they didn't risk facing rendition or other such things.