Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Greenwald now says Snowden's email is irrelevant after calling it the "biggest news" one day ago [View all]Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)191. A few things:
1) BOG applauds? What do you mean?
2) What about Greenwald's past?
Greenwald's own words:
<...>
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 presidents ultimatum to the Taliban and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan when our demands were not met. Well into 2002, the presidents 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 presidents 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/
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 presidents ultimatum to the Taliban and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan when our demands were not met. Well into 2002, the presidents 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 presidents 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/
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
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
Oh...did you know he also defended a white supremacist?
Glenn Greenwald Unethically Taped Witnesses While Working for Matt Hale, White Supremacist.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
200 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Greenwald now says Snowden's email is irrelevant after calling it the "biggest news" one day ago [View all]
Cali_Democrat
May 2014
OP
So because another website also described Glenn Greenwald's hilarious contradiction,
Cali_Democrat
May 2014
#33
Actually a comment at the end of an article I was reading while crusing google news...
Cali_Democrat
May 2014
#42
Why is it their exclusive story when anyone in the world could have seen these quotes
pnwmom
May 2014
#81
Enrique is the one who's been trolling RW sites. There's no evidence Cali has been.
pnwmom
May 2014
#48
Sorry, once is enough. If there's something specific you're talking about, tell me. n/t
pnwmom
May 2014
#61
I did talk about it. You weren't able to get it. Have a nice weekend.
DisgustipatedinCA
May 2014
#73
Don't sweat it. Guess who else used to be a card carrying Republican. Elizabeth Warren, the one...
Tarheel_Dem
May 2014
#94
Interesting post! I have to admit that I was also unaware that the mission of LGF had changed
Number23
May 2014
#101
Yeah, the guy who runs it went and got saved and switched sides in 2009.
DisgustipatedinCA
May 2014
#75
Uh oh. Now you've REALLY earned the scorn of the Greenwaldians. Of course GG says he had politcal
Tarheel_Dem
May 2014
#80
Early on, I objected to Greenwald's obvious ignorance re technology,
Benton D Struckcheon
May 2014
#2
LOL. Of course that is expected of a proven liar. The PTL Club won't mind tho. n/t
Whisp
May 2014
#3
How embarrassing, or shameless, to post links that prove the untruthfulness of your own claims.
woo me with science
May 2014
#140
EXHIBIT A of the diversion & twisting to mislead that has become so familiar from the NSA Defense.
woo me with science
May 2014
#144
Yes, it is. I saw it, and it's a misread. It also has nothing to do with the point I made. n/t
ProSense
May 2014
#72
Did you notice that Glenn Greenwald referenced a DUer in his twitter feed?
Cali_Democrat
May 2014
#7
Oh come on, how 'bout for those of us who don't tweet? The curiosity is killin' us.
Tarheel_Dem
May 2014
#40
GG=Sheister. Once an ambulance chaser, always an ambulance chaser. I'll bet Pierre is spending....
Tarheel_Dem
May 2014
#69
when is he going to release the names ? and isn't there some other big thing he says that still
JI7
May 2014
#9
people are upset, they made a huge thing out of all of this but the actual things that come out
JI7
May 2014
#19
Sibel Edmonds says you DO NOT want to stir up GG's devotees. She's, obviously, had some brushes....
Tarheel_Dem
May 2014
#43
tell us something we don't know....there is some of that kind of creepy right here on DU!
VanillaRhapsody
May 2014
#157
And they have absolutely no sense of irony. Apparently, all his detractors are "paid".
Tarheel_Dem
May 2014
#159
I have an idea of his DU name, but won't say aloud. Nasty, horrible, thin skinned,
Tarheel_Dem
Jun 2014
#177
Ty for pointing out that the OP is yet another attempt to identify inconsistency where none exists.
Vattel
May 2014
#17
Well Nance, sometimes in the haze of committing crimes, you can't expect to remember everything.
Tarheel_Dem
May 2014
#99
Cause Snowden is a super cracker (tt) , he'll crack a file and store it in his cerebral cortex !!!
uponit7771
May 2014
#167
No 'hero' uses this amount of sophistry during just normal questioning... they're full of crap
uponit7771
May 2014
#168
Ummm, fuckin no Snowden said he DID invoke proper channels.. he fuckin lied... PERIOD
uponit7771
May 2014
#166
this is like Benghazi when republicans go on about "why didn't he call it terrrosim"
JI7
May 2014
#11
I'm neutral on Greenwald -- disagree with some things; agree with others.
WorseBeforeBetter
Jun 2014
#192
That's fine. I agree with green footballs on some things and not on others.
Cali_Democrat
Jun 2014
#193
just like some of greenwald's previous views on immigration and the war on terror disgust me....
Cali_Democrat
Jun 2014
#195
The NSA did not say they had no emails, they said they had no email that documented concerns
karynnj
May 2014
#121
GG trying to keep himself relevant.. like when he "expertly previewed the 2012 election"..
Cha
May 2014
#28
My dear Cha, you find the most interesting stuff on the internetz. How did I miss that gem?
Tarheel_Dem
May 2014
#32
LOL...the look on Joy Reid's face as Greenwald was rambling on about Benghazi...
Cali_Democrat
May 2014
#154
GG is his own worst enemy like ES. Have you seen this?.. It's like this guy read my mind!
Cha
May 2014
#155
Only people who hate Obama and view him as the enemy suggest that Benghazi involves wrongdoing
stevenleser
Jun 2014
#171
LMAO! This is what happens when you twist facts to fit theories instead of vice-versa.
stevenleser
Jun 2014
#169
You were, perhaps, expecting consistency from GG? GG's motto: 'If it don't make money, it don't....
Tarheel_Dem
May 2014
#29
You mean like the folks who have pet billionaires? That the kind of "funding" you mean?
Tarheel_Dem
May 2014
#64
GG and ES are Liars.. and we're suppose to "yawn" because their "Fan Club" says so..
Cha
May 2014
#49
I dunno.. maybe both equally. I do know that Snowden's Lies are nothing to "yawn" about..
Cha
May 2014
#84
If you enjoy anyone's 'apoplexy', you may have deeper problems than you imagine.
randome
May 2014
#138
Ah, agreement is so much more pleasant than batting our heads against each other!
randome
Jun 2014
#196