Greenwald is excellent at finding excuses for his support for Bush and the War on Terror

[Cali_Democrat]

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 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.

During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11. Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, 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/

[cantbeserious]

1. People Change - Sometimes For The Better

eom

[blue neen]

2. Interesting.

.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. So what's your point?

Or is this just a human interest story?

[Hissyspit]

9. There is none...

beyond catapulting the ad Hominem ad Infinitum.

It's kind of sad.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. I wish I was a sociologist.

This place would be a gold mine for sociology research.

[QC]

13. To say nothing of Abnormal Psychology. n/t

[Puglover]

133. Agreed.

I'd give anything to be a fly on the wall while some of these keyboard warriors tilt at their windmills.



Woot! Up to 1 recs. You guys so speak for DU.

[Scootaloo]

60. Sadly, internet anonymity makes it all impossible to verify

...unless the behavior of people when granted intrnet anonymity is the focus of your research...

[Cali_Democrat]

14. Oh...you again

You really don't like it when your precious is exposed.

Too bad.

[Hissyspit]

21. Oh... You again.

He's not my precious and you've posted the same old shit yet again. Nothing new.

[msanthrope]

19. How is quoting Greenwald an "ad Hominem?". I'm intrigued by your logic here.....

The OP is using Glenn Greenwald's own words..... how is that an attack on him???

[Cali_Democrat]

25. How dare I use Greenwald's own words against him!! It's an attack on him!!

[Hissyspit]

29. You didn't.

[Cali_Democrat]

36. Did he not support Bush and the War on Terror?

[NuclearDem]

55. Did Obama not support the religious' anti-marriage equality bullshit?

Plenty of people have been in favor of equality for decades. Why wasn't he in favor of it?

You really want to go down that road?

[Hissyspit]

56. No, he didn't.

"Bush violated FISA ... because he wanted to violate the law in order to establish the general 'principle' that he was not bound by the law, to show that he has the power to break the law, that he is more powerful than the law.
- Glenn Greenwald

"The Bush administration has been trying to reduce this country to a collective version of that affliction. And it is hard to imagine what a nation fueled by such fear can accomplish. The administration has managed to get away with the Orwellian idea that fear is the hallmark of courage, and a rational and calm approach is a mark of cowardice. They have been aided in this effort by a frightened national media and political elite that lives in Washington and New York -- two "target-rich" cities -- and that has been so petrified of further attacks that they were easily pushed into a state of passive, uncritical compliance in exchange for promises of protection."
- Glenn Greenwald

See? Stupid game you're playing and nobody wants to play.

[Cali_Democrat]

68. Yes, he did.

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.

During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11. Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, 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.

[Hissyspit]

72. Like I said.

Stupid game.

[Luminous Animal]

64. Yep. Just like the right slammed Gore for inventing the intent. Fox news has made an entire

successful Dem bashing enterprise doing exactly that.

[Hissyspit]

27. It's in the subject line.

[Hissyspit]

33. Oh for fuck's sake...

They were put into a context.

[msanthrope]

44. Did he not support Bush and the WOT??? As a proud 10%er on 9/12/01,

I wonder what the heck he saw in Bush.

[20score]

139. It is sad, but I believe dangerous too.

These people who have changed their stance on spying because of who happens to be in charge - and will change it again when the leadership changes - are more than just amoral douches, incapable of critical thought. They are standing in the way of a solution to a very serious problem.

Supporting corporatist policies wished for by the worst authoritarians in history.

I hate them... but I digress.

[Cali_Democrat]

12. I find his support for Bush and the War on Terror interesting...

no objections when Bush signed the Patriot Act. Look down thread....he also railed against immigration and had a white supremacist as a client.

He wants a white America. Clearly a black President just doesn't sit well with him. That's probably why he constantly attacks Obama even though he had no objections to some of those same policies when the person in the White House was white.

[MannyGoldstein]

62. Hillary Clinton supported the same

As did John Kerry, Joe Biden and a handful of others. Can you do me a favor and ping me when you post similar screeds on those others, too?

[Cali_Democrat]

75. Did John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton rail against immigration

and have a white supremacist as a client?

[last1standing]

127. So you hate the ACLU, as well?

You must since you're attacking a civil rights attorney for protecting civil rights.

[okaawhatever]

4. Typical Greenwald. It's sort of like his position on privacy. He was against it before he was for

it. Why wasn't he so concerned with privacy when he was charged with violating the privacy of a client as an attorney? Remember, video taping him without his permission?

Greenwald's past shows his true character. He's a true slimeball.

[msanthrope]

6. He taped a witness, violating the court rules of Illinois...losing the case for.

his.white supremacist client. It's not just that he was taping a witness....he was fucking incompetent as an attorney. But, CCR won, so that's good.

[okaawhatever]

8. that's right. I forgot about his white supremacist client. True class act, that one. nt

[msanthrope]

16. You know, I've been told he's a "civil rights" attorney. I'd like to know what civil right

he was protecting when he was Matt Hale's civil attorney in a patent dispute... the patent dispute was between Matt Hale and another white supremacist organization.

[msanthrope]

5. Let's not forget the utterly racist viewpoints,.either.....

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

[Cali_Democrat]

7. So Greenwald is also a racist piece of shit

Fuck that guy.

[msanthrope]

11. Choosing to be the attorney for a white supremacist in a patent dispute would indicate to

most people that you have a screw loose.

Remember....he's a "civil rights" attorney because of his representation of Matt Hale in his patent dispute, Oh....and he defended Hale when he was sued by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of victims of Hale's racism (they'd been shot by a member of Hale's 'church')

[sheshe2]

15. Wait Wut?

Bush gave "serious, substantive, coherent, and eloquent speeches. Okay that did it for me! Glenn, he said this about Dubya!??!? Is he talking about the same person we all love to hate? Seriously? Now I know for a fact that he is delusional. Keep on talking Glenn, please do.

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.

Thanks for the laugh Cali_Democrat!

[msanthrope]

22. He's talking about the bullhorn at the WTC speech....that speech happened

in those two.weeks.

[Whisp]

17. ty Cali, I forgot about this

as the president gave a series of serious, substantive, coherent, and eloquent speeches that struck the right balance between aggression and restraint.

anyone who would say this about the mass murdering drug addled psychopath can't be trusted.

[Luminous Animal]

26. 80% of the country agreed with him. And there are still DUers that believe invading Afghanistan was

the right thing to do. Do you believe invading Afghanistan was wrong?

I do and I did then and participated in anti-invasion activism.

[Whisp]

31. I never agreed with one damn thing that addled mass murdering fuck said

and never will.

I stayed up countless nights with imaginery hot pins to stick in the fuckers eyes.
Now I see people here treat our President Obama like that scum of the earth throwback and it pisses me off.

[Luminous Animal]

38. Really. I was out in the streets protesting. What stopped you from publicly advocating for your

beliefs?

[Whisp]

48. I was in the streets too, pal.

and who are you question anything about my beliefs. They are clear to me and I don't give a flying what you think.

[grasswire]

128. Canadians protested Bush?

Where was that?

[Cha]

95. Yeah, he was totally duped and loved him some

George bush.. all almost as much as he spews his venom like some addled snake at President Barack Obama.

[Whisp]

104. "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"

that's GG's hero!
About the same communication skills too!

[frwrfpos]

18. Greenwald was wrong then and its sad that he was duped by the very evil and violent Bush regime

Does he still support these positions? I know I didnt, but I wasnt as easily duped as this guy was.

I still dont understand why this means in regards to Greenwald?

[Luminous Animal]

40. He wrote 3 books slamming the Bush regime. How convenient for people to forget that.

[Whisp]

65. the convenience was for GG when he recongized he was on the wrong side.

the slippery fuck

[Luminous Animal]

70. The wrong side of what.

[Whisp]

77. of incredible bad judgement in regards to the Mass Murdering Chimp.

was it bad judgement tho, or just hedging bets and what will sell best for the most at a specific time. In other words, just a grubber without conscience.

[Luminous Animal]

101. Remind me again of those Dems who voted against invading Afghanistan?

[Whisp]

106. remind me again why you think Georgie was so great

[Luminous Animal]

115. Remind me again of all those Dems in Congress that thought Georgie was so great?

And in the next Presidential election... If you are a Democrat, you WILL be voting for a Democratic candidate that supported invading Afghanistan and also Iraq. And has not repudiated either.

[Whisp]

117. no, I don't think Hillary was so great.

I don't think you know me.

[Luminous Animal]

121. But you will vote for her despite her unrepentant support for Iraq and Afghanistan.

But you slam Greenwald who rejects both and wrote 3 (count that 3!) books against the Bush admin. And blogged against the Bush Admin from 2005 on.

[Whisp]

125. no, I won't vote for her because I can't. I'm not American.

But if I were she would be the LAST choice on the Dem side.

IF she was against a Huckabee and all those... things, and needed a vote I would have to not only hold my nose, but dive deep into a septic tank while doing the hold.

Hillary is like GG, I don't like either. They go wherever the fucking wind blows best for themselves.

[Luminous Animal]

20. Yes. An *excerpt* of his book slamming the Bush Admin (he wrote 3 of them) explaining his political

awakening.

I see ex-Republicans celebrated regularly on DU. And Greenwald wasn't even a Republican.

You and your source are no better than Fox News who are well celebrated by taking things out of context and pretending to make it the whole.

So how about we read it in full:

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

I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday. —Abraham Lincoln

I never voted for George W. Bush—or for any of his political opponents. I believed that voting was not particularly important. Our country, it seemed to me, was essentially on the right track.Whether Democrats or Republicans held the White House or the majorities in Congress made only the most marginal difference. I held views on some matters that could be defined as conservative, views on others that seemed liberal. But I firmly believed that our democratic system of government was sufficiently insulated from any real abuse, by our Constitution and by the checks and balances afforded by having three separate but equal branches of government. My primary political belief was that both parties were plagued by extremists who were equally dangerous and destructive, but that as long as neither extreme acquired real political power, our system would function smoothly and more or less tolerably. For that reason, although I always paid attention to political debates, I was never sufficiently moved to become engaged in the electoral process. I had great faith in the stability and resilience of the constitutional republic that the founders created. All that has changed. Completely. Over the past five years, a creeping extremism has taken hold of our federal government, and it is threatening to radically alter our system of government and who we are as a nation. This extremism is neither conservative nor liberal in nature, but is instead driven by theories of unlimited presidential power that are wholly alien, and antithetical, to the core political values that have governed this country since its founding.

And the fact that this seizure of ever-expanding presidential power is largely justified through endless, rank fear-mongering—fear of terrorists, specifically—means that not only our system of government is radically changing, but so, too, are our national character, our national identity, and what it means to be American.

Our country is at a profound crossroads. We must decide whether we want to adhere to the values and principles that have made our country free, strong, and great for the 217 years since our Constitution was ratified, or whether we will relinquish those values and fundamentally change who we are, all in the name of seeking protection from terrorism. I genuinely believe that we are extremely lucky to be the beneficiaries of a system of government that uniquely protects our individual liberties and allows us a life free of tyranny and oppression. It is incumbent upon all Americans who believe in that system, bequeathed to us by the founders, to defend it when it is under assault and in jeopardy. And today it is.

I did not arrive at these conclusions eagerly or because I was predisposed by any previous partisan viewpoint. Quite the contrary.

I first moved to Manhattan in 1991 to attend law school at New York University, and lived and worked there for the next fifteen years. Manhattan was my home and place of work on September 11, 2001. On that day, Manhattan felt like a nightmarish mix of war zone, police state, and anarchy all rolled into one. I don't know anyone whose outlook on politics wasn't altered in some meaningful way on that day. But soon we realized that our country, its institutions, and its people are strong enough to withstand any terrorist attack or any group of terrorists, and, for those who had not lost friends or family, life seemed to return to normal more quickly than anyone could have anticipated.

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.

What first began to shake my faith in the administration was its conduct in the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in May 2002 on U.S. soil and then publicly labeled "the dirty bomber." The administration claimed it could hold him indefinitely without charging him with any crime and while denying him access to counsel.

I never imagined that such a thing could happen in modern America— that a president would claim the right to order American citizens imprisoned with no charges and without the right to a trial. In China, the former Soviet Union, Iran, and countless other countries, the government can literally abduct its citizens and imprison them without a trial. But that cannot happen in the United States—at least it never could before. If it means anything to be an American citizen, it means that we cannot be locked away by our government unless we are charged with a crime, given due process in court, and then convicted by a jury of our peers.

I developed an intense interest in the Padilla case. It represented a direct challenge to my foundational political views—that we can tolerate all sorts of political disputes on a range of issues, but we cannot tolerate attacks by the government on our constitutional framework and guaranteed liberties. My deep concerns about the Padilla case eroded but did not entirely eliminate my support for the president. The next significant item on the president's agenda was the invasion of Iraq. While the administration recited the standard and obligatory clichés about war being a last resort, by mid-2002 it appeared, at least to me, that the only unresolved issue was not whether we would invade but when the invasion would begin.

During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11. Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president's performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.

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

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

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

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

The 9/11 attacks were not the first time our nation has had to face a new and amoral enemy. Throughout our history, we have vanquished numerous enemies at least as strong and as threatening as a group of jihadist terrorists without having the president seize the power to break the law. As a nation, we have triumphed over a series of external enemies and overcome internal struggles, and we have done so not by abandoning our core principles in the name of fear but by insisting on an adherence to our fundamental political values.

In response to the many controversies and scandals concerning its misconduct, the Bush administration has invariably dismissed them, focusing instead on deliberately spreading an all-consuming, highly exploitative fear of terrorists. No matter what the accusation, the administration trots out its favorite tool: manipulative fear-mongering. Public appearances by senior Bush officials over the last four years have rarely missed the opportunity for a calculated and cynical invocation of mushroom clouds, homicidal dictators, and a never-ending parade of new and destructive weapons. The language of fear is the Bush administration's lingo.

Upon drawing these conclusions, I developed, for the first time in my life, a sense of urgency about the need to take a stand for our country and its defining principles. I believe that the concentrated and unlimited power now claimed by President Bush constitutes a true crisis for the United States—that it has the potential to fundamentally change our national character, to irreversibly restrict our individual liberties and to radically alter our core principles. It is not hyperbole to observe that we are moving away from the founding principles of our constitutional republic towards theories of powers that the founders identified as the hallmarks of tyranny.

Despite the significance of these developments, Bush's radical theories of power have barely even been acknowledged, let alone analyzed and trumpeted, by the national media. One of the few places where any of these issues were being discussed was on the Internet, on online political web logs, or "blogs."

In October 2005, I started my own blog, and chose as its name "Unclaimed Territory"—a declaration that my particular political passion has no grounding in any partisan loyalties or ideologies. Instead, my passion emanates almost entirely from a fervent and deeply held belief in the supremacy of our constitutional principles and the corresponding duty of every American citizen to defend these liberties when they are under assault. Although I lacked any specific plan, I created my blog with the goal of finding a way to discuss and publicize just how radical and extreme the Bush administration had become. My blog quickly grew far beyond anything I imagined, with a daily readership of 10,000 within three months.

On December 15, 2005, The New York Times published a journalistic bombshell when it revealed that for the last four years, the National Security Agency has been eavesdropping on American citizens in violation of the law—because it had been ordered to do so by President Bush. From the start of the NSA eavesdropping scandal, I began writing every day about what I believed were the profoundly important legal, political, and constitutional issues raised by the Bush administration's secret surveillance program.

This is not about eavesdropping. This is about whether we are a nation of laws and whether, in the name of our fear of terrorists, we will abandon the principles of government that have made our country great and strong for more than two centuries.

My blog has become one of the principal online gathering places for citizens of every ideological perspective and background who are truly alarmed by the law-breaking powers seized by the Bush administration, and who want to take a stand in defense of the principles of government and the Constitution. Original reporting on my blog led directly to frontpage news stories on the NSA scandal in media outlets such as The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and Knight-Ridder. And when the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on March 31, 2006, regarding Senator Russ Feingold's resolution to formally censure the president, Senator Feingold read from my blog as he questioned one of the committee's witnesses, former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean. Let it not be said that our voices cannot be heard in the halls of government.

I began my blog because I believed my country needed whatever talents or knowledge I had to offer. Our basic system of constitutional liberties is at risk. I say that because we are a country in which the president has said—expressly and repeatedly—that he has the power to act without restraints, including the power to break the law. He has not only claimed these powers but has exercised them repeatedly over the course of several years. And he still has more than two and a half years left in office.

Even when the other checks on our government fail, citizens always have the ability to take a stand for their country. For that to happen, the first requirement is that Americans be fully informed of the objective facts regarding just how radical and extreme our government has become under George W. Bush, and the sweeping, genuinely un-American powers that one man has claimed. I began my blog to provide those facts and to take a stand in defense of our nation's founding principles. That is also why I've written the book you now hold in your hands.

[msanthrope]

24. You are violating copyright....the site you have linked to has permission

to post this excerpt...you do not. Please edit....per the DU TOS, at the bottom of the page.

Copyright by Glenn Greenwald.  All rights reserved. No part of this book maybe transmitted in any form by any means without permission in writing from the publisher, Working Assets Publishing (www.workingassetspublishing.com).

[Luminous Animal]

28. No. I got permission to post in full which I can supply to the Admins if necessary.

[msanthrope]

30. From whom???

Copyright by Glenn Greenwald.  All rights reserved. No part of this book maybe transmitted in any form by any means without permission in writing from the publisher, Working Assets Publishing (www.workingassetspublishing.com).

[Luminous Animal]

34. You have your answer.

[msanthrope]

41. Who gave you "permission" to post copyrighted material? If you are posting on behalf of Greenwald,

shouldn't you disclose that relationship??

[Luminous Animal]

47. Awful bossy, ain't cha. Honest Guvner I ain't no Greenwald mole.

[msanthrope]

59. Then who gave you permisson to post Greenwald's copyrighted material?

If it was the publisher why not just say that?

If Greenwald gave you permission to post his material, then why not say so?

[Luminous Animal]

66. Why is the sky blue?

[Gravitycollapse]

123. You realize it's possible to obtain permission without having a relationship?

Is this news to you?

[msanthrope]

124. The half-hour that elapsed between the posting of the OP and the posting of the excerpt

indicates something different to me.

[Gravitycollapse]

126. Did I miss the day when everyone on DU was mailed a crystal ball?

Can I still redeem the offer?

[Whisp]

49. then we have our answer as well.

[Luminous Animal]

51. Really? And what would that be?

[msanthrope]

74. Yes...we do. I think it's sad that Greenwald won't post for himself, though. nt

[Luminous Animal]

107. Poor poor Mr. Greenwald who answers a request from a stranger. How suspicious.

[msanthrope]

111. So Greenwald gave you permission??? Why didn't you just say that? nt

[xocet]

96. Good on you! It is interesting how they whine when their propaganda is being eviscerated. n/t

[Hissyspit]

37. Oh for fuck's sake.

[morningfog]

119. Too long, Cali Dem didn't read.

[bravenak]

23. And he's awesome at shameless self promotion.

Like the Don King of journalism.
And the things he said about undocumented workers lets me know he's an asshole.

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.

Whoa!!! I never knew about this. The more I read about him the less I respect his views.

[Luminous Animal]

42. Really. Because he has disavowed those views. Or is President Obama the only human being

on earth allowed to evolve.

Remember Obama's views on marriage equality?

[msanthrope]

46. Kindly post Glenn's evolution on his racism concerning "illegals." nt

[Luminous Animal]

50. Kindly search out for yourself.

[bravenak]

87. No.

[joshcryer]

61. Here's where he half heartedly backpeddles:

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

His excuse? He'd just started blogging.

Then you have this piece: http://www.salon.com/2009/03/16/immigration_4/

while others are forced into very risky or otherwise untenable predicaments (living in the U.S. illegally, entering sham marriages, making huge sacrifices of career, livelihood and family to live abroad)

[msanthrope]

79. He's a hypocrite on immigration, which isn't surprising. nt

[joshcryer]

85. His positions are hard to nail down because of lawyer speak.

But you can figure it out, you just can't "prove" it.

[msanthrope]

90. There we disagree. I think GG's writing on immigration is clearly racist, and I don't

think that's changed.

[joshcryer]

98. Oh, I was talking on issues he writes most about.

As far as immigration, yeah, I don't disagree.

[msanthrope]

108. Well...if he took clear stands, his illiberal attitudes would be apparent.

And that's not what he's paid for.

[joshcryer]

114. +1

You put it much better than I could.

[bravenak]

71. Why are you bringing up the president in reference to my comment about Glen Greenwald?

Is your hatred of the president so palpable that you can never pass up a chance to spew vile towards the president? Why do you hate the president so much that even when he is not the subject of discussion you must let me know that president Obama is the most horriblest person ever?

I'm not talking about President Obama. I'm talking about Glenn Greenwald.

I didn't know he had said things like that, this is the first I've heard of it today. Therefore, I have not heard any disavowals in the last 20 minutes since I read that statement. Go ahead and post his disavowals if you please. I'll read them.

[Luminous Animal]

81. Because everyone gives Obama a pass for his evolving views but others are not.

Yes. He said things like that. And yes his readers slammed him. And yes. He listened and learned from his readers. I was one of them.

And yes. I read human being referred to as "illegals" regularly here on DU and, yes; I call these DUers out every time I see it.

And no. I will not do your research for you.

[bravenak]

89. Nobody gives Obama a pass.

It's funny to me when people act like this president has gotten a pass compared to other presidents.
Okay, so it's been easier for the black guy than it had been for all of those white guys that came before him. Bullshit. Okay. That's just bullshit.
Obama has had it much harder than all of the presidents that came before him. Period. Saying he gets a pass is just trying to justify the irrational hatred towards this President.

[Whisp]

94. what's the difference between scuzzy GG and Obama?

about 6 million years of evolution, if you want to talk about that.

[Cha]

93. Glenn Greenwald is a manipulator junkie.. no one needs to twist his shit..

He's all over it. I've never had anything but disdain for the propaganda meister.

Fucking attentionwhore.

[bravenak]

99. Apparently he's disavowed all of his positions that sucked.

But I'm supposed to do my own research to find it.

And while we're on the subject of Glenn Greenwald, did you know President Obama is the worst person ever, and he gets a pass on everything?


I don't know what that has to do with Glenn Greenwald, but whatever. That's the go to response around here.

[Cha]

130. He may have disavowed his allegiance to bush.. 'cause

where's the money in that?

But, he was totally duped and loved him almost as much as he spews his venom like some addled snake at President Barack Obama.

He calls Obama supporters "Obamabots".. 'cause you know.. his followers aren't greenwaldbots .

[last1standing]

32. If you twist Greenwald's words so obviously here, why would anyone believe anything else you write?

Your posts come across as little more than misleading propaganda meant to deceive the ignorant, which has obviously worked with some of our less gifted members.

[Cali_Democrat]

35. But you're clearly one of our "gifted" members, right?

[last1standing]

39. I'm not falling for your misleading propaganda.

so I guess that means I'm more gifted than those who actually believe your posts. But then so is your average mongoose.

[Cali_Democrat]

43. "I'm more gifted than those who actually believe your posts"

You go on with your bad self.



BTW....it's not about believing my post or not. Those are Greenwald's exact words in the article.

[last1standing]

45. His exact words that you take out of context and twist to suit your needs.

So again, yeah. I'm more gifted than anyone who would believe such clumsy, misleading posts.

[Cali_Democrat]

63. How did I take his exact words out of context?

[last1standing]

76. LOL! It's been explained already in the thread.

Do you not read your own threads? Of course you don't. They might expose you to new ideas that conflict with established beliefs.

[Cali_Democrat]

82. Thanks for the non-answer...you gifted poster you.

[last1standing]

84. Thanks for proving my point... you ..... poster you.

[Luminous Animal]

53. I am a gifted member because I actually read Greenwald's entire preface to his book slamming Bush.

Did you?

[Marr]

67. I don't think anyone does, outside of that dedicated 25 or so. /nt

[last1standing]

73. Ah yes, the Swarm.

Twenty-five members, 25 IQ points, combined.

[Oilwellian]

52. Does this mean you won't vote for Hillary?

And you don't support Obama's SOS, Kerry? LOL

[Luminous Animal]

57. Nice!

[Marr]

69. Ow-- good question.

I wouldn't expect an actual answer, of course.

[Oilwellian]

83. Well, I could name more...

but, no need.

[Cali_Democrat]

80. If Hillary does run...I likely would not vote for her in the primary. nt

[Oilwellian]

86. Mmm hmmm

Likely?

[Cali_Democrat]

88. Who's running?

[Cali_Democrat]

131. If you tell me who's running

I'll tell you who I'll vote for as of now.

Go.....

[SMC22307]

54. "extremeliberal"?

One doesn't need to read beyond that to know it's going to be bullshit...

[last1standing]

78. Extremecultist would have been more truthful.

But these people have never let the truth stand in their way, have they?

[SMC22307]

103. The manipulation in these shitty blogs is stunning.

Extreme Liberal
Where liberalism is alive and well!

I’m a liberal that is extreme in some ways and not in others. I support President Obama and make no apologies for it. I think he has done a phenomenal job, especially when you consider that he inherited a huge mess and has faced unprecedented opposition from a lazy & desperate Republican Party. I’m a film producer/director/editor, adjunct professor, technician, media critic and photographer when I’m not reading left wing blogs and typing on this one. – On Twitter @ExtremeLiberal or Email at liberalforreal (at) gmail.com

I believe you, Oh Liberal One!

[Thinkingabout]

58. Isn't it interesting the mkre said the clearer it becomes. They sit on a few daysof drought

And out pops another story. They lead back to President Obama. When the mud settles and the water runs clear it will produce and like a wave big enough to surf will explain the whole conspiracy.

[SunsetDreams]

91. Thou Shalt Not Take The Greenwald Name In Vain...

I don't care if he walks on water and springs gold eternal...he slipped in a giant blue sinkhole when he supported the Bush Administration.

[Union Scribe]

92. "extremeliberal"

Lol, riiiiiiiiight. What's that guy's name whose crap got spread on DU all the time last year, Spamden? Or is this some other character assassin who thinks the failed PR tactic of smearing Greenwald and Snowden will make the NSA issue go away?

[NuclearDem]

97. Ah, Third Way Spanny and his "pragmatic" liberalism.

[Union Scribe]

118. I imagine their slogan is inspiring

something that captures the firm commitment of pragmatism to possibly eventually move in the general direction of progress. Like, "Yes we might!"

[Cali_Democrat]

100. Those are Greenwald's exact words

I know it's painful. Not only did he support Bush, but he railed against immigration and had a white supremacist as a client.

The truth hurts and can be painful.

[NuclearDem]

102. So what bearing does any of that have on Obama not prosecuting war criminals and bankers?

Hint: none the fuck at all.

[Cali_Democrat]

105. Union Scribe railed against my source...the link in the OP

It's irrelevant because the source uses Greenwald's own words.

[NuclearDem]

110. Again, what bearing does it have on Obama's refusal to prosecute the war criminals and bankers?

Basically, you took a point someone made that was critical of Obama and just went "yeah, well, you're a poopyhead".

[Cali_Democrat]

122. Refusal to prosecute bankers?

Does this count?

U.S. preparing civil charges against Citigroup, Merrill Lynch: sources

(Reuters) - The Justice Department is preparing to file civil fraud charges against Citigroup Inc and Bank of America's Merrill Lynch unit over their sale of flawed mortgage securities ahead of the financial crisis, according to people familiar with the probes.

Civil investigators have compiled evidence that allegedly shows that investors lost tens of billions of dollars after purchasing securities Citigroup had marketed as safe even though the bank had reason to believe otherwise, one person said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/17/us-usa-doj-banks-idUSBRE9BG1DG20131217

What about this?

Justice Department opens investigation into JP Morgan Chase manipulation of energy markets

(Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice for possible manipulation of energy markets following the company's settlement of civil allegations last month with a separate federal energy agency, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, citing people familiar with the case.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/jpmorgan-chase-energy_n_3781836.html

And this....

JP Morgan Chase (the nation's largest bank) is being investigated by the DOJ over mortgages

JPMorgan Chase said Wednesday it's under federal criminal investigation over its sale of mortgage securities, potentially making the biggest U.S. bank by assets the first large financial institution to face criminal sanctions over securitization practices that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/jpmorgan-doj-investigation_n_3721741.html

Oh...this too....

Bank Of America Goes To Trial Over Mortgage Fraud Charges

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Bank of America Corp heads to trial this week over allegations its Countrywide unit approved deficient home loans in a process called "Hustle," defrauding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the U.S. government enterprises that underwrite mortgages.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/24/bank-of-america-mortgage-fraud-charges_n_3981355.html?utm_hp_ref=business

Sugar on top (from Treasury Dept):

JPMorgan blocked probe in Madoff case: government official

The U.S. Treasury Department's Office of the Inspector General was examining whether JPMorgan interfered with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's attempts to probe the bank's relationship with Madoff, Rich Delmar, counsel to the inspector general, said in an email to Reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/16/us-jpm-treasury-probe-idUSBRE9BF1F220131216

For good measure....

Bank of America loses Justice Department civil fraud suit

NEW YORK -- Bank of America has lost a major civil fraud case brought by the Justice Department, a major victory for the federal government as it continues to pursue cases stemming from the financial crisis.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/23/business/la-fi-mo--bank-of-america-loses-justice-department-civil-fraud-suit-20131023

More....

Wells Fargo fails to end U.S. mortgage fraud lawsuit

(Reuters) - A federal judge has rejected Wells Fargo & Co's bid to dismiss a U.S. government lawsuit accusing the nation's largest mortgage lender of fraud, a victory for federal investigators pursuing cases tied to the recent housing and financial crises.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/24/us-wellsfargo-lawsuit-mortgage-fraud-idUSBRE98N0WT20130924

[NuclearDem]

135. Oh, a bunch of civil fraud cases. Fucking bravo.

I'm sure the people screwed by the financial crisis will feel better knowing JPMorgan and BoA have to pay a fine they can make back in a few days.

Wake me when Jamie Dimon and friends are in prison and their earrings have been seized as proceeds from a criminal enterprise.

[last1standing]

109. Cali_Democrat: "Greenwald is excellent."

Your exact words. I'll make sure you quote you on that.

[Union Scribe]

113. See post 20 for more of his words.

The ones you guys want removed so badly. The ones cherry-pickers like "extremeliberal" (lol, sorry, that is just...too too).

Yes, truth can be painful. What I don't know is how, with these dull relentless attack threads, you could know that.

[SMC22307]

112. Spamdan is listed on his blogroll. And others from the *pragmatic* brain trust...

Smartypants, Bob Cesca, The Obama Diary.

They got at least one right: Charles P. Pierce.

[Union Scribe]

116. But at least this one is an EXTREME pragmatic. nt

[SMC22307]

120. Spoken like a true dudebro firebagger.

Sheesh.

[SoapBox]

129. ...what a dumbass.

Stay in your new country Greenwad...just SHUT the fuck up...you make my ears hurt.

[Progressive dog]

132. Greenwald does whatever keeps him in the limelight and

in the 1%.

[Bluenorthwest]

134. So what's your opinion of Hillary and of John Kerry, both of whom actually voted with Bush

for war? If you do not see both of them as unfit for service, this is some disingenuous as well as very dishonest stuff. So you obviously would refuse to vote for Hillary, right?

[20score]

136. WTF! He's talking about Afghanistan, not Iraq.

I was for Afghanistan until 2002/2003. But prtested the Iraq War with all I had.

What a lame ass character assassination.

Try being a good human and fight against the spying. People attacking the messenger that shed light on a fascist program make me ill.

[Jamaal510]

137. You're not going to

change a lot of minds even with this thread. Some DUers will still obviously defend him and take him seriously, and will still continue to find something to rail against the President for. These people will still be paranoid about having a surveillance program (despite other countries having one, also). Nevertheless, it's good that you've put GG's exact words out there.

[treestar]

138. Interesting you'd think he'd support the NSA metadata

I guess he did when Bush was in office.