Why not just impeach Obama?

[ProSense]

Impeach Obama? The Republicans face a conundrum they must decide whether to throw their security state under the bus to get Obama ... LEGITIMATELY ... or preserve it and let Obama slide.

It's a real political titty twister.

There is nothing there in Benghazi, the IRS, Obamacare, etc, etc. But in the NSA and CIA conduct, as directed by the Oval Office in true Hoover/Nixon-esque style, there may actually be real legitimate fodder for an Impeachment attempt.

The Senate would never convict, but I can see Republicans gin this up for the 2014 midterm, and then carrying it out after the midterms so we spend the last 2 years of Obama's administration playing Impeachment Theater thereby neutralizing the administration for the remainder of it's existence.

And as much as I am a loyal progressive Democrat .... I almost want them to do it, because honest to god, Obama and his administration is an obscenity in these matters. The conduct of him and his minions has been that of Big Brother lackeys and not loyal American patriots. It is disgusting.

Shame on you Mr President. Grow up and stop acting like a fucking high school shithead.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1278503/52672436#c28

People are so anti-Obama after buying into Glenn Greenwald's fiction, now focusing on that RW asshole Assange, that they think impeachment is a good idea.

Here's my point: Fuck Greenwald, Snowden and Assange. Fuck 'em.

[JI7]

1. whoever wrote that is an idiot

[Coyotl]

9. I'm not giving them that much credit, plus the writing is terrible.

Reality is out there for those who seek it.

[Scootaloo]

2. Would you like a paper bag, ProSense?

[ProSense]

3. Will it help

amplify this: Fuck Greenwald, Snowden and Assange.

[Scootaloo]

4. No, but since you're offering, we can all be sure Assange would take you up on it

Good luck with that - be sure to tell him what an athlete he is, since he's been running through your mind so much. That line ALWAYS works.

[freshwest]

23. You mean G.A.S., the Flatulent Trio full of hot air and the stink of sulfur? I hate that smell!

[babylonsister]

5. Doesn't sound like a 'loyal progressive' democrat-

sounds like a spoiled brat who didn't get his/her way despite a lot of progress in other areas.
I can handle honest criticism and disappointment, but this is over the top for a 'loyal progressive' dem.

[ProSense]

7. Oh, the

Internets is crawling with the "loyal progressive" types who jump to support every libertarian/RW position.

[Cali_Democrat]

8. I wonder what their DU handle is. nt

[Blue_Tires]

19. +1

His/her biggest fallacy is the assumption that the GOP gives a shit about dismantling the security state they helped set up...I really wish someone had the stones to ask that poster "And what happens next after the impeachment, smartass?" Yeah, now that there is a lot of attention on it for the moment Repubs are giving their little media-friendly soundbites of outrage and keeping up their 'We're shocked, SHOCKED!' pretense...But we all know the truth...

It's just like the 2012 primary arguments on DU:

Them: "We totally need to send a message as a party and primary Obama! He shouldn't feel like he has a challenge-free ride to the nomination!"

Me: "But popular sitting presidents don't usually get primaried by their own party..."

Them: "Don't you get it? This is our chance to elect a REAL liberal and get rid of the GOP-appeasing corporatist! Don't you believe in democracy and the people having a right to choose?"

Me: (Posts the list of every prominent and fringe Democratic pol who said they supported Obama and had no interest in seeking the 2012 nomination)..."OK, since all these potential candidates are OUT, who would you draft as a challenger who has a snowball's chance of winning AND would undoubtedly pull the nation into a farther leftward direction?"

Them: (no response and they never returned to the thread, but just like clockwork a few days later, the same crowd would post the same "Primary Obama" OP and the whole dance started anew....)



Bottom line is "Jester" is nothing more than a troll, albeit one more clever than the average amateur....

[uponit7771]

90. +1

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Greenwald and his minions would love nothing more than for Obama to be impeached.

Too bad for them it will never happen.

[Hissyspit]

43. Do you think Greenwald wanted George W. Bush impeached?

He spoke on television constantly about Bush's impeachable offenses.

"Minions"

[DonViejo]

120. You wrote...

Do you think Greenwald wanted George W. Bush impeached?

He spoke on television constantly about Bush's impeachable offenses.

Is this true, Hissyspit? Have a link? Thanks in advance.

[Hissyspit]

124. Greenwald was fairly constantly on Countdown with Keith Olbermann

and other shows on MSNBC (and a few other networks, I believe) outlining the Bush administration's civil liberties and Constitutional violations. I posted these appearances and blogs here, for several years. That is how most DUers first became aware of him. These posts often went to the top of the recommendations page (along with Constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley.)

I don't know that he ever advocated for Bush's impeachment. As far as I know, despite what Cali Democrat claims, he has never advocated for Obama's impeachment, either, but Greenwald did write THIS about Bush in 2007:

...when it comes to Bush's extremism and lawbreaking, we're not imposing consequences slowly. We're not imposing consequences at all. Quite the contrary, we're moving in the opposite direction -- when we're not affirmatively endorsing and providing protection for that conduct, we're choosing not to know about it, or simply allowing it to fester. And the more that happens, the less that behavior becomes the exclusive province of the Bush administration and the more it becomes our country's defining behavior.

This could still all be reversed. The NYT article today reveals new facts about the administration's lawbreaking, lying, and pursuit of torture policies which we had decided, with futility, to outlaw. The Congress could aggressively investigate. Criminal prosecutions could be commenced. Our opinion-making elite could sound the alarm. New laws could be passed, reversing the prior endorsements and imposing new restrictions, along with the will to enforce those laws. We still have the ability to vindicate the rule of law and enforce our basic constitutional framework.

But does anyone actually believe any of that will be the result of these new revelations? We always possess the choice -- still -- to take a stand for the rule of law and our basic national values, but with every new day that we choose not to, those Bush policies become increasingly normalized, increasingly the symbol not only of "Bushism" but of America.

Here's Greenwald in April 2008:

John Yoo's Memorandum, as intended, directly led to -- caused -- a whole series of war crimes at both Guantanamo and in Iraq. The reason such a relatively low-level DOJ official was able to issue such influential and extraordinary opinions was because he was working directly with, and at the behest of, the two most important legal officials in the administration: George Bush's White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, and Dick Cheney's counsel (and current Chief of Staff) David Addington. Together, they deliberately created and authorized a regime of torture and other brutal interrogation methods that are, by all measures, very serious war crimes.

Greenwald did say this, when asked specifically about, Obama and impeachment over intervention in Libya:

"In theory, when the president violates the law and the Constitution, that's an impeachable offense. At the same time we have set a very low standard for our tolerance rampant presidential law-breaking."

Not exactly him "love nothing more than..."

[Cali_Democrat]

167. LOL Jonathan Turley?

The same guy who supported the impeachment of Clinton over a blow job?

I love how you bring him up! Fan of his?

Awesome!

Just...awesome!

[Hissyspit]

171. All of DU was a fan of his.

He was an excellent critic of the Bush administration's Constitutional violations. He was wrong about Clinton. (I actually never said anything about what I thought of him.)

Goddamn, you are a dishonest debater.

Do me a favor. This statement: "Greenwald and his minions would love nothing more than for Obama to be impeached."

Post some kind of supporting evidence for it.

[Cali_Democrat]

174. All of DU? Bullshit.

There were (and still are) a shitload of DUers who despise that asshole.

In addition to supporting the impeachment of the last Democratic president, Turley is also big on gun ownership and he dissed the intelligence of the first Hispanic Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor.

And YOU decided to bring his name up. YOU decided to bring up his name in a thread discussing the impeachment of Obama. That same asshole wanted the last Democratic President impeached.

You really should be more careful with what you post.

[Hissyspit]

175. They were fans of his commentaries about the Bush administration.

When everyone here was desperately hoping for Bush to be impeached, the President who SHOULD have been impeached. You know exactly what I meant.

Just stop it.

[Cali_Democrat]

178. I still can't believe you brought Turley into this discussion.

That says a lot about you IMO.

[Hissyspit]

181. No, it fucking doesn't.

For fucks sake, all you can EVER do in your discussions is attempted character assassination or implications of deviant political association. It's crap debate.

[Cali_Democrat]

201. Again....you exposed yourself

First with Greenwald and then by bringing up Jonathan Fucking Turley.

Unreal.

[msanthrope]

212. I was never a fan of Turley because of his self-serving BS about Bill Clinton...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1257095

[Hissyspit]

213. I clearly meant of his appearances on Olbermann at the time.

His analyses were spot on. He's been a dork at other times.

But it's actually really beside the point.

[msanthrope]

215. No...Turley's always been a self-serving Libertarian shit head. nt

[Hissyspit]

217. He was dead on about Bush.

And most everyone here at the time realized that.

Or do you not think Bush violated the Constitution and committed war crimes?

See? I can play the game, too.

[msanthrope]

218. He was dead on but did nothing, did he? Turley wanted Clinton impeached and filed suit against Obama

Against Bush he went on tv. Great.

[Cali_Democrat]

157. "Do you think Greenwald wanted George W. Bush impeached?"

Ummm read my post again. I said "Greenwald and his minions would love nothing more than for Obama to be impeached."

I bolded it just for you because apparently you failed to understand my extremely short post.

[Hissyspit]

163. Oh, for chrissake, read post #124.

I know exactly what you wrote.

[Cali_Democrat]

165. You're still having trouble comprehending my short post which is no surprise.

I never mentioned Bush.

You did, my dear.

[Hissyspit]

166. Yeah, now why did I do that?

You made a claim with nothing to support it.

Go re-read #124.

[Cali_Democrat]

168. Still not getting it. You're fascinated with Bush.

I never mentioned him.

[Hissyspit]

173. Yeah, I brought up Bush in a thread about impeaching Presidents.

Why in the world would I do that?

[snot]

176. Hissy, don't let Cali_Dem waste your time and attention.

You have better work to do elsewhere.

[Hissyspit]

177. Boy, you aren't kidding.

[Cali_Democrat]

179. LOL

You're the one who replied to me first.

[ucrdem]

183. Yep.

Then abolishing the IRS, then bombing Iran.

[CK_John]

10. They will, its in their bucket list. The House will tarnish his legacy and the Senate will acquit.

[ProSense]

12. Well, fiction is popular. n/t

[Marr]

11. Rumsfeld blamed cameras for the Abu Ghraib backlash.

That's basically what NSA apologists do as well. They point at the people who made the outrageous policies known to the public, and say they're to blame for the public reaction.

It's the policy that's the problem, not the fact that the public knows about it.

[ProSense]

13. Everytime I look at Obama, I think "Rumsfeld."

"That's basically what NSA apologists do as well. They point at the people who made the outrageous policies known to the public, and say they're to blame for the public reaction. "

Is this your comment in support of impeachment? Or am I missing the point of your comment related to the OP?

[Marr]

15. It's my comment in response to your pavlovian ranting about Snowden, Assange, and Greenwald. /nt

[ProSense]

17. This: Fuck Greenwald, Snowden and Assange. Fuck 'em.

?

[11 Bravo]

26. I'm kind of digging the slightly angry version of ProSense. (And I agree with every fucking word ..

you said!)

[Pirate Smile]

53. Me too

[Historic NY]

91. ...

[Hissyspit]

125. Why?

[leftynyc]

184. Same here (n/t)

[madinmaryland]

112. That's odd. I thought DUer's were supposed to love and revere Snowden

and Assange and their whistleblowing?

[leftynyc]

185. It's okay to admit

you were wrong.

[Blue_Tires]

14. So now Dems want to impeach a Dem president?

We've actually come full-circle to that point now??

One of the reasons I left Kos behind years ago is because it was a haven for Ron Paul '08 cheerleaders...Sad to see they never got around to a housecleaning...

[ProSense]

18. At least

"So now Dems want to impeach a Dem president?"

...he has the "true believers" on his side. They're no match for the kewl ones who salivate over libertarian/RW drivel.

[freshwest]

128. They're fanatics determined to take over the web. The infest every venue.

Kochroaches always leave toxic crap and eggs.

[TheMathieu]

16. People like the author of that drivel are no more Democrats

than the fleas are the cat or dog they inhabit.

And I'm including the Snowden/Greenwald fan club in that statement...

Deal with it.

[JoeyT]

22. And the security state fan club aren't liberals or progressives.

The Dick Cheney wing of the Democratic party.

[ProSense]

25. Who

"And the security state fan club aren't liberals or progressives.

The Dick Cheney wing of the Democratic party."

...the hell is a "fan" of the "security state"?

Don't confuse being a fan of Greenwald, Snowden and Assange with altruism.

They are, in fact, a good way for the libertarian/RW asshats to get their anti-Obama hate on by wrapping it in anti-NSA clothing.

These assholes aren't concerned with policy or trying to change it. Their only concern is to keep fanning anti-Obama flames.

They have more in common with "Dick Cheney" than some Republicans.

[JoeyT]

45. Obama bought this mess when he defended it.

If he didn't like it, he could've scaled it back. He could've not repeatedly defended it. Had he not given his all to protecting it, the flames would've been anti-Bush flames. The only person that fanned anti-Obama flames was Obama.

The people that consistently defend the security state, constantly parrot talking points put out to minimize the security state, and insist that anyone that opposes the security state is a libertarian would be considered fans of the security state. The people that use the most right wing talking points that ever existed (Why do you hate America? We support the troops! Keeping America Safe! America needs a strong military. Seen all of those here.) at anyone that opposes secretive government agencies being given carte blanche to do more or less whatever they want or people that oppose constant military misadventures in whatever country we've decided didn't have enough people pissed off at us enough to consider terrorism a good idea.

Plenty of Democrats have a lot in common with Cheney. A flat loathing for a whistleblowers of any kind, for starters. A desire to constantly redefine torture to ensure that whatever we do, it isn't torture. Force feeding = torture according to pretty much every group in the world that concerns itself with such things. Well, except the people that really don't want it to be torture, because we don't torture. Minimizing war crimes, especially the ones committed by Cheney and Bush. He's a big fan of that.

Impeaching Obama isn't the answer. Giving him crap until he starts reeling the NSA in is, because no matter how much I disagree with him on this issue, he's still on the same side I am. If every president I disagreed with was impeached, we'd go through ten a week.

[ProSense]

51. And

"Obama bought this mess when he defended it.

If he didn't like it, he could've scaled it back. He could've not repeatedly defended it. Had he not given his all to protecting it, the flames would've been anti-Bush flames. The only person that fanned anti-Obama flames was Obama. "

...what the hell does that have to do with advocating impeachment? Nonsense. The reality is that those who are latched onto Greenwald's hyperbolic drivel aren't interested in anything Obama has to propose.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024473684

[Jamaal510]

41. Holy shiz,

I didn't know Dick Cheney was a Democrat! Guess we'd better tell the Republicans that he possibly supported somebody for VP who wanted to expand health care and raise taxes on the rich.

[zeemike]

67. No one said he was

They said some Democrats are Dick Cheney.

[TheMathieu]

149. "Dick Cheney wing"

Not even worth a response.

[laundry_queen]

180. Yet here you are. nt

[Historic NY]

94. They are some of the same Liberterian "assholes" that have...

invaded here. Its Democratic Underground not some liberterian loverfest.

[Cha]

119. Okay, I'm dealing with it..

[Thinkingabout]

20. It seems to be a favorite pastime with many people, to attempt to run scandal after

Scandal, leak something, the RW loves their propaganda because it makes them feel good. It will be revealed the conspiracy behind lots of their crap, does it reach impeachment, no.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

21. I can see Republicans calling in Alex Jones to testify.

[freshwest]

29. Well, they have to save their manhood, you know. See, the truth is out there!

Proof of Obama's evil plan!

Soon Alex Jones will be strutting around in a short skirt and wearing lipstick!

Odd, nothing ever made me want to do that.

[Jamaal510]

47. I just saw the Young Turks

video about Alex Jones ranting with no shirt on. He makes Limbaugh look sane in comparison, doesn't he?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

64. Considering the Republicans made Limbaugh an honorary member of Congress.

[freshwest]

115. Well, having heard Rush since the early 90s and Alex in the late 90s, they are kindred racists.

Neither any different than a Teabagger. He made a prediction that Obama was going to fly in blacks to take over America:

[noiretextatique]

24. the other obama derangement syndrome

pick some ridiculous post written by a so-called progressive to support a failed obama policy. and no...he's not the only president to blame for the NSA.

[ProSense]

27. "ridiculous post written by a so-called progressive"

Right, the diary is filled with those "so-called progressive&quot s)

Last time I checked "failed" policy isn't grounds for impeachment.

[Skittles]

28. aw, now you've done it

the word "failed" will afflict them with the vapors

[ProSense]

30. "the word 'failed' will afflict them with the vapors"

Do you mean "them" as in those who realize that it's fucking absurd to advocate impeaching Obama?

Gonna post about us "Tiger Beat" types who have fucking sense?

[babylonsister]

32. No fighting!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

104. "a loyal progressive Democrat" ... "and not loyal American patriots."

I *ain't* buying it, either.

[grahamhgreen]

31. Do you believe in the right of due process?

[ProSense]

33. Yes, and Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis were murdered. You? n/t

[grahamhgreen]

54. Of course:) So you would agree that a drone strike on an American violates his right to due process?

[ProSense]

61. Yes, if he's not a fucking terrorist. Still,

you do know that terrorists, American or otherwise, can turn themselves in, don't you?

[grahamhgreen]

65. How do you know he's a terrorist without due process?

[ProSense]

71. The same way bin Laden and all the other terrorists are known. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

108. You mean the same way we knew there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? By Intel that is not

only flawed, but corrupt?

Can you seriously ask us to trust our intel, even as Clapper lies to us?

There are hidden agenda at work here. Or not so hidden.... just money to be made and power wielded. Some folks are not to be trusted. They lie. And by now I'd guess you have first hand evidence that they're not all that bright

Do you really think they're leading you and your offspring to a brighter, more secure future?

We believe there is a reason for due process.... and that eliminating it is the road to totalitarianism.

In my view, rule by a Unitary Executive is a recipe for disaster.

Let's face it, the "terrorist" of today is the "Commie" of yesteryear.

[cherokeeprogressive]

160. AFTER they've committed an OVERT terrorist act. Got it.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[msanthrope]

221. In the case of Awlaki, do you deny that the BA bomb plot was an overt terrorist act? nt

[OnyxCollie]

73. They can turn themselves in.

Like Fred Korematsu.

And be imprisoned.

If they don't turn themselves in, the government can decided it's "not feasible" to bring them to justice, and can assassinate them.

Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at Northwestern University School of Law
http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2012/ag-speech-1203051.html

Now, I realize I have gone into considerable detail about tools we use to identify suspected terrorists and to bring captured terrorists to justice. It is preferable to capture suspected terrorists where feasible – among other reasons, so that we can gather valuable intelligence from them – but we must also recognize that there are instances where our government has the clear authority – and, I would argue, the responsibility – to defend the United States through the appropriate and lawful use of lethal force.

[ProSense]

98. "And be imprisoned."

So you're advocating: Leave the terrorists alone?

[OnyxCollie]

101. Korematsu v United States

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1944/1944_22

Innocent until proven guilty was a quaint concept.

[ProSense]

102. "More like you're a hack apologist. "

You're dead to me!

[OnyxCollie]

109. My wish came true!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

121. So then you don't believe in due process. Please say what you mean...it's easier for everyone.

[msanthrope]

214. No...it does not violate his right to due process if he a person that falls under the AUMF

of 9/18/2001, and is non-custodial.

You are conflating "due process" with a right to access an Article III court. Further, you seem to think American citizenship is a protective shield. It is not.

[OnyxCollie]

62. Anwar Al-Awlaki and Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki were murdered.

Julian Assange only has to step outside the Ecuadorian embassy to be murdered as well.

Documents Reveal Extensive NSA Targeting of WikiLeaks
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/18/headlines#2181

A new report based on top-secret documents from Edward Snowden has revealed how the United States and Britain targeted the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks after it published documents on the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. According to a report co-authored by Glenn Greenwald and published by The Intercept, Britain’s top spy agency secretly monitored visitors to a WikiLeaks site by collecting their IP addresses in real time. Meanwhile, the National Security Agency added WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange to a "manhunting" target list alongside al-Qaeda suspects. The leaked documents also show the United States urged its allies to file criminal charges against Assange over the Afghan War Logs. We’ll be joined by Julian Assange and his attorney, Michael Ratner, after headlines.

Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at Northwestern University School of Law
http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2012/ag-speech-1203051.html

Furthermore, it is entirely lawful – under both United States law and applicable law of war principles – to target specific senior operational leaders of al Qaeda and associated forces. This is not a novel concept. In fact, during World War II, the United States tracked the plane flying Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto – the commander of Japanese forces in the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Midway – and shot it down specifically because he was on board. As I explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee following the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the same rules apply today.

Some have called such operations “assassinations.” They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced. Assassinations are unlawful killings. Here, for the reasons I have given, the U.S. government’s use of lethal force in self defense against a leader of al Qaeda or an associated force who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful — and therefore would not violate the Executive Order banning assassination or criminal statutes.

[ProSense]

68. So was

"Anwar Al-Awlaki and Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki were murdered."

...Kamal Derwish, but that was when Greenwald didn't see the need to have a single fit of outrage that a U.S. citizen was killed without due process.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x787226

[OnyxCollie]

84. So Obama's just like Bush.

Killing U.S. citizens without due process.

Officials: American al-Qaeda can be targeted and killed
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-12-03-american-al-qaeda_x.htm

The Bush administration sees it differently. In killing him, the administration defined Derwish as an enemy combatant, the equivalent of a U.S. citizen who fights with the enemy on a battlefield, officials said. Under this legal definition, experts say, his constitutional rights are nullified and he can be killed outright.

I think Bush should have been impeached for this; why shouldn't Obama?

[ProSense]

87. More like Greenwald is a hypocrite. n/t

[OnyxCollie]

89. More like you're a hack apologist. nt

[ProSense]

99. Oh, you're upset.

[OnyxCollie]

107. I'm still waiting

for you to post a link to any criticism you had made of President Obama for failing to prosecute the Bush administration for the illegal war in Iraq, or torture, or for lying about filibustering retroactive immunity for telecoms.

You can excuse all that... because Obama!

That's pretty fucked up, ProSense.

[ProSense]

113. LOL!

"That's pretty fucked up, ProSense."

"I'm still waiting" for you to stop crying because I said: Fuck Greenwald, Snowden and Assange. Fuck 'em.

[OnyxCollie]

123. Laughing at torture, illegal war, and domestic spying is what RWers do.

Har har, indeed.

[ProSense]

130. You still here?

[OnyxCollie]

187. You still putting up lame defenses

in an effort to excuse the continuation of Bush's policies by Obama?

Why, yes. Of course you are.

[msanthrope]

216. Actually..you are conflating due process with a right to an Article III court. They are not the

same. I see no reason why non-custodial combatants who fall under the AUMF of 9/18/2001 should be considered custodial, do you?

[NYC Liberal]

79. No due process is required to take out a solider on the battlefield.

People screaming about "murdering American citizens with no trial" are being purposefully disingenuous by deliberately conjuring up an image of an innocent "Average Joe" walking down Main Street in Anytown, USA, suddenly getting blown up by a Hellfire missile.

These "American citizens" are waging war in foreign countries against the US. No due process is required to engage them on the battlefield. Or do you think the Constitution requires we arrest and hold a full jury trial for every single soldier we face in warfare before doing anything to them?

[Hekate]

136. Thank you, thank you, thank you

THAT is the part that has been missing from the discussion.

[redgreenandblue]

186. Except when you define the whole world as a battlefield and leave the decision who is a combatant up

to a leader without any accountability, then this is a text-book example of dictatorial powers.

Battlefields are regions in which battles are actively taking place. What you are doing is extending this definition to include "any civilian in the world who the leader decides may possibly be a threat at some later point".

Seizing wartime powers and extending them beyond actual battlefields is a standard mechanism in establishing dictatorial powers.

[NYC Liberal]

209. I am doing no such thing.

When a person voluntarily goes and wages war against the US, they have waived their due process. They are engaging in warfare and they can rightfully be treated as soldiers on a battlefield. The constitution has never required due process for soldiers on the battlefield; that would be absurd.

[redgreenandblue]

210. And the president decides without accountability who has done such a thing.

He can decide that Anwar al-Awlaki, or Julian Assange, or Nelson Mandela, or Martin Luther King has waged war on the US and have him killed as a "soldier on the battlefield". There are no channels through which this decision can be appealed.

These are nothing less than dictatorial powers.

[msanthrope]

219. Actually...you are factually incorrect. The AUMF of 9/18/2001 would only encompass Awlaki. As all

3 branches of government have ratified it, it is hardly an exercise of dictatorial powers.

And yes....you can appeal your JSOC designations. Mr. Awlaki chose not to.

[bvar22]

208. If the curent Drone Strikes were limited to "solider on the battlefield", I would agree.

Unfortunately, the current Drone Assassination Strikes are NOT limited to soldiers on battlefields in a declared WAR.

FAIL.

[Boom Sound 416]

34. Is this a FB post?

[kardonb]

35. pro sense?

this is load of bull lucky , senseless , gibberish . Go back to Faux news , buddy !

[Demo_Chris]

36. If we were discussing things Bush was doing most here would support impeachment...

But that was back when we were anti war and anti domestic spying, back when we though corporatists in the White House were a bad thing. These days you are labelled a 'purist' -- as if this were an insult -- for holding true to progressive beliefs.

[ProSense]

37. You know why?

"If we were discussing things Bush was doing most here would support impeachment..."

Because Bush deserved to be fucking impeached.

If you look at Obama and see Bush, then something is missing.

[Demo_Chris]

52. Yes, the 'something missing' is as small as a single letter. nt

[ProSense]

57. No difference. Too bad the laws didn't allow Bush to run again.

Just think about the unity!

Ludicrous.

[Demo_Chris]

60. If he had done so, and as a Democrat, some here might have supported him. nt

[treestar]

75. False. Bush did different things

That is what right wingers say, anyway.

[freshwest]

131. Does that mean you favor impeachment? n/t

[Mojorabbit]

202. +100 nt

[geek tragedy]

38. can't blame Greenwald, Snowden and Assange for the existence of shitheads on the Internet nt

[ProSense]

39. Can I blame them for being "shitheads on the Internet"?

[Cha]

72. Yeah, I think we can blame

GAS Baggers for being ratfucking shitheads on the internet.

[Jamaal510]

50. True dat.

The shitheads were around long before the Gang Green Gang got famous. All those 3 are doing is capitalizing on the existing Shitheadom.

[Hissyspit]

40. Bullshit.

Quit attacking transparency, journalism and whistleblowing.

If Obama is impeached it will be because it is a fundamentally flawed politicaliticized process and Republicans are hypocritical sociopaths, and not because of Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange.

[ProSense]

42. Well,

"Bullshit."

...back at you.

"Quit attacking transparency, journalism and whistleblowing."

What? You misunderstood. I'm attacking Greenwald's fictional reporting, lame ass envy of the President, his hyping a RW asshat (Assange) and the confused Snowden who is still stuck in Russia.

"If Obama is impeached it will be because it is a fundamentally flawed political process and Republicans are hypocritical sociopaths, not because of Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange."

Obama is not going to be "impeached," and yes "Republicans are hypocritical sociopaths."

[Hissyspit]

44. You can call it fictional reporting all you want because of butthurt.

That doesn't make it any less bullshit.

And, no, Obama's not going to get impeached.

[ProSense]

46. You're right

"You can call it fictional reporting all you want because of butthurt.

That doesn't make it any less bullshit."

...it isn't "fictional reporting," it's "bullshit."

LOL!

[Hissyspit]

48. You know I was talking about what you were saying.

Now you're just being juvenile.

[ProSense]

86. No, Greenwald's schtick is BS. n/t

[Nanjing to Seoul]

49. Yes. . .we were all against the snooping under Bush. But now that Obama has taken over the program

we are all wrong to criticizing it.

Fuck Greenwald, Snowden and Assange indeed. Your love for authoritarian constitution destruction is sad, sickening and disgusting.

[ProSense]

56. Yes,

"Yes. . .we were all against the snooping under Bush. But now that Obama has taken over the program

we are all wrong to criticizing it. "

...I remember exactly what how I felt about "snooping under Bush."

I railed against Bush's illegal spying on Americans. Actual spying http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2461323

For example, this quote, "Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal," is about illegal warrantless wiretapping, and that was what Bush was accuse of.

The program was in fact a wide range of covert surveillance activities authorized by President Bush in the aftermath of 9/11. At that time, White House officials, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, had become convinced that FISA court procedures were too cumbersome and time-consuming to permit U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies to quickly identify possible Qaeda terrorists inside the country. (Cheney's chief counsel, David Addington, referred to the FISA court in one meeting as that "obnoxious court," according to former assistant attorney general Jack Goldsmith.) Under a series of secret orders, Bush authorized the NSA for the first time to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mails between the United States and a foreign country without any court review. The code name for the NSA collection activities—unknown to all but a tiny number of officials at the White House and in the U.S. intelligence community—was "Stellar Wind."

http://web.archive.org/web/20081216011008/http://www.newsweek.com/id/174601/output/print

Note, this is inside the U.S. and involves bypassing the FISA court to actually "eavesdrop."

Republicans fought to make that legal, and succeeded in doing so before Democrats were able to force an expiration of the law.

From a post last year:

There have been a number of media reports using the same Obama quote to basically claim that he once called out Bush, but then embraced the policy. They are intentionally conflating a quote about the PAA with his position on the 2008 FISA amendments, which he voted for. They are not the same thing. The PAA was a Republican effort to absolve Bush.

While the article mentions that Obama voted against the Protect America Act (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00309), there is no mention of the fact that the Act expired in early 2008.

Senator Mitch McConnell introduced the act on August 1, 2007, during the 110th United States Congress. On August 3, it was passed in the Senate with an amendment, 60–28 (record vote number 309).[12] On August 4, it passed the House of Representatives 227-183 (roll number 836).[12] On August 5, it was signed by President Bush, becoming Public Law No. 110-055. On February 17, 2008, it expired due to sunset provision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007#Legislative_history

The amendments to FISA made by the Act expire 180 days after enactment, except that any order in effect on the date of enactment remains in effect until the date of expiration of such order and such orders can be reauthorized by the FISA Court.”[38] The Act expired on February 17, 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act#Protect_America_Act_of_2007

Here's Bush's statement at the time: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080214-4.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023026724


"Fuck Greenwald, Snowden and Assange indeed. Your love for authoritarian constitution destruction is sad, sickening and disgusting."

I'll say it again: Fuck Greenwald, Snowden and Assange.

As for the rest, it pretty much captures how I feel about Greenwald groupies.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

70. If the program is still in existance after all of this, it's all on Obama now. He is on the wrong

side of the constitution. And he is damned wrong!

Country before personality cult, please. Obama has no bigger supporter here than me, but when he's wrong, he's wrong!

[ProSense]

83. The program I mentioned is not still in existence.

"Country before personality cult, please. Obama has no bigger supporter here than me, but when he's wrong, he's wrong"

Greenwald's entire rep is built on a "personality cult." In fact, so is Snowden's.

Supporting the President is supporting the President. Acknowledging when he's wrong doesn't require buying into Greenwald's BS.

[Jim Lane]

197. You are unwilling to concede an iota of good faith on the part of anyone who disagrees with you.

You write, "Greenwald's entire rep is built on a 'personality cult.' In fact, so is Snowden's." In #56, you refer to "Greenwald groupies" without defining the term.

First, your statement about Snowden is ludicrous. No one but Snowden's personal friends had heard of him before his disclosures. His reputation is based entirely on the substance of what he provided.

There is some component of "personality cult" in the reputations of well-known public figures, with Barack Obama and Rush Limbaugh being two prominent examples. Each of those men has followers who will support a particular position solely or primarily because he supports it. There are people who could fairly be described as "Obama groupies" or "Limbaugh groupies".

Greenwald is somewhere in between Snowden and the Obama/Limbaugh types. Unlike Snowden, he's been around long enough to build up something of a personal following, but he's still well behind Obama and Limbaugh in terms of the number of people who would agree with what he says solely or primarily because he says it.

So what I'd like to know is: Am I a Greenwald groupie? I agree with him often but not always. I'm not a libertarian -- I don't think taxation is theft or that EPA regulation of toxic emissions is tyranny -- but I am a civil libertarian. I support the Bill of Rights. I deplore the way its principles have sometimes been violated, as in the Japanese internment during World War II. Greenwald has frequently criticized some contemporary policy as being a similar violation, and in my opinion his criticisms (some during the Bush administration and some during the Obama administration) have frequently been correct.

Is showing that a person agrees with the substance of a specific Greenwald criticism of Obama, or with the substance of several specific Greenwald criticisms of Obama, sufficient evidence to establish that that person is a "Greenwald groupie"? If not, what else is required?

By the way, I voted for Obama and I oppose impeachment. If you choose to respond to me, please don't revert to a denunciation of impeachment. Yes, that was the subject of your OP, but I'm responding to posts #56 and #83, neither of which mentions impeachment. It doesn't count as threadjacking when the OP, #56, and #83 were all written by the same person.

[ProSense]

200. Oh please,

You are unwilling to concede an iota of good faith on the part of anyone who disagrees with you.

You write, "Greenwald's entire rep is built on a 'personality cult.' In fact, so is Snowden's." In #56, you refer to "Greenwald groupies" without defining the term.

First, your statement about Snowden is ludicrous. No one but Snowden's personal friends had heard of him before his disclosures. His reputation is based entirely on the substance of what he provided.

...those who have hyped Snowden to mythical status, comparing him to everyone from Ghandi to King to Jesus, aren't interested in opinions that hold is "reputation" in a negative light. They can't accept that everyone doesn't buy into Snowden's persona or eat up all the misleading information Greenwald publishes.

There is some component of "personality cult" in the reputations of well-known public figures, with Barack Obama and Rush Limbaugh being two prominent examples. Each of those men has followers who will support a particular position solely or primarily because he supports it. There are people who could fairly be described as "Obama groupies" or "Limbaugh groupies".

Greenwald is somewhere in between Snowden and the Obama/Limbaugh types. Unlike Snowden, he's been around long enough to build up something of a personal following, but he's still well behind Obama and Limbaugh in terms of the number of people who would agree with what he says solely or primarily because he says it.

Yes, I'm sure that's why the constant threads about Snowden's Nobel Prize nomination, his Christmas message. next move, etc.


If you're interested in what "Greenwald groupie" looks like, look around this thread.

[Jim Lane]

206. What I see when I look around this thread is: ....

more candidates for the title "Obama groupie" than "Greenwald groupie".

I say "candidates" because I presume good faith on the part of my fellow DUers. It takes strong evidence to overcome that presumption and to conclude that someone is taking a particular position solely or primarily because Obama takes it or because Greenwald takes it. The defenders of Obama have made a better start toward providing that evidence than have the people who agree with Greenwald.

I also see more evidence of "Greenwald derangement syndrome" than of "Obama derangement syndrome" (to introduce two other terms that focus on personalities rather than issues). The GDS is evident in numerous posts that bash Greenwald personally. The posters on the other side have tended to defend Greenwald against personal attacks (without treating him as infallible) while bashing Obama over substantive policy differences they have with him. Obama defenders have also made substantive arguments but, in this thread at least, have been more likely to descend into mudslinging.

[ProSense]

207. Well,

What I see when I look around this thread is: ....more candidates for the title "Obama groupie" than "Greenwald groupie".

...that's surprising given this:

I say "candidates" because I presume good faith on the part of my fellow DUers. It takes strong evidence to overcome that presumption and to conclude that someone is taking a particular position solely or primarily because Obama takes it or because Greenwald takes it. The defenders of Obama have made a better start toward providing that evidence than have the people who agree with Greenwald.

I also see more evidence of "Greenwald derangement syndrome" than of "Obama derangement syndrome" (to introduce two other terms that focus on personalities rather than issues). The GDS is evident in numerous posts that bash Greenwald personally. The posters on the other side have tended to defend Greenwald against personal attacks (without treating him as infallible) while bashing Obama over substantive policy differences they have with him. Obama defenders have also made substantive arguments but, in this thread at least, have been more likely to descend into mudslinging.

That comment is a failed attempt to appear objective.

[freshwest]

132. Journaling those links...

[LiberalLovinLug]

55. Oops...

Looks like I stepped into the Stasi State Fan Club

[ProSense]

63. Oops

"Looks like I stepped into the Stasi State Fan Club"

...hyperbolic misuse of words. That's the problem with jumping on bandwagons.

[Maedhros]

58. Pssst.

Greenwald isn't publishing fiction. He has actual proof and evidence and stuff.

[ProSense]

69. Yes,

"Greenwald isn't publishing fiction. He has actual proof and evidence and stuff."

...it's fiction. He takes a bunch of information, selectively dumps it, and builds his narrative around it. That was clear from the very begining.

[Maedhros]

80. I'm ignoring the person who responded to my post, but I'm guessing the response

included this:



Am I right?

[ProSense]

85. How did you find the thread?

Oops.

[paulkienitz]

59. "RW asshole Assange"?

WikiLeaks got going during the Bush years, when we were at our deepest in Iraq. The main consequence of its leaking has been to bring a democracy movement to the Arab world. Before Wikileaks he was active in a movement to help protect children in abusive families. Doesn't sound RW to me.

And the critique of Snowden... what is this, climate change denial for the espionage industry?

[ProSense]

76. He's a Rand Paul supporting RW hack. n/t

[paulkienitz]

211. if so, so what?

I don't see how this kind of reverse red-baiting should change my opinion of his accomplishments. He certainly hasn't been a friend of the one percent or the military establishment. As far as this conversation goes, I can't yet say the same of you.

[JoePhilly]

66. The idiots who didn't get their primary of Obama, now want to impeach.

Apparently.

Dems might as well stay home in 2014 and 2016.

It doesn't matter.

Let's let the GOP run the world again ... like we did from 2000-2007.

How bad could it possibly be?

I think that's the real goal of articles like these.

The GOP might not be able to suppress the vote sufficiently. Need to help them get Dems to stay home.

[freshwest]

133. They have lots of help. Obviously, they didn't suffer under Bush. /t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. Fuck the NSA and those who run it and support the surveillance state.

[ProSense]

77. Yeah!!! And Fuck Greenwald, Snowden and Assange. Fuck 'em. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

78. Do they support the NSA and the surveillance state? Do you?

[uponit7771]

93. Yes, they were VERY VERY quite when it was just those Muslims...............................and shit

[cherokeeprogressive]

162. ^^^THIS^^^

[Gravitycollapse]

81. I don't support impeachment because the demands are a moving target.

However, if we stopped it from moving, if we stopped the political pandering, party loyalty and actually devoted ourselves to stringent ethical principles, the issue of impeachment becomes somewhat more clear.

Basically what I'm saying is that in a totally objective political reality, pretty much every president in modern history has committed an impeachable offense. So to say that Obama has committed an impeachable offense becomes rather meaningless if all we're doing is comparing one politician to another (a subjective political reality).

[7962]

82. Assange is a right winger? Thats a good one. What a joke.

From what Ive read, most of them hate Assange as much as anyone else.

[ProSense]

92. "principle of 'non-violence' could include being against both drone warfare and abortion"

Julian Assange Praises ‘Innovator’ Matt Drudge, ‘Principled’ Rand Paul

Friday morning, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange participated in an online chat session hosted by Campus Reform, in which he offered up some special praise for conservatives Matt Drudge and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). Assange applauded The Drudge Report for disrupting the “self-censorship of the establishment press” and held up Paul as one of the most “principled” members of the U.S. Congress.

Responding to questions from Campus Reform editor-in-chief Josiah Ryan, Assange began by calling Drudge a “news media innovator” who has been on the rise since the Monica Lewinsky scandal. “It is as a result of the self-censorship of the establishment press in the United States that gave Matt Drudge such a platform,” Assange said, “and so of course he should be applauded for breaking a lot of that censorship.”

He also noted that social media has supplanted much of what Drudge is known for, which he described as “collecting interesting rumors that looked like they might be true and publishing them.” Assange said he only agrees with “some” of Drudge’s political opinions.

“I am a big admirer of Ron Paul and Rand Paul for their very principled positions in the U.S. Congress on a number of issues,” Assange said, saying they have been some of his “strongest supporters” when it comes to attacks on WikiLeaks. He called the position of the “libertarian Republican right” an “interesting phenomenon.” He pointed out that they principle of “non-violence” could include being against both drone warfare and abortion.

-snip-

http://www.mediaite.com/online/julian-assange-praises-innovator-matt-drudge-principled-rand-paul/

[freshwest]

134. DOH! Don't get any further RW then that. Except for Beck and Jones. n/t

[Marr]

169. Obama praises Republican Tom Coburn:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2014/01/17/obama-tom-coburn-white-house-republican/4584015/

And here he is, praising Reagan!

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/politics/21seelye-text.html

And here's Dick Cheney praising Obama!

http://www.salon.com/2011/01/17/cheney_obama_national_security/


OMG-- Obama is a Republican, Prosense! At least, by the"logic" you use...

[7962]

223. Excellent point!! For anyone who wants to see it, anyway. nt

[msanthrope]

220. Yeah...his Wikikeaks Party in Australia aligned themselves with the right...pretty sad. nt

[Fumesucker]

88. Nutpicking...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nutpicking

nutpicking

The practice of sifting through the comments of blogs, email threads, discussion groups and other user generated content in an attempt find choice quotes proving that the advocates for or against a particular political opinion are unreasonable, uninformed extremists.

When Jonah has no substantive arguments for his point, he frequently resorts to nutpicking in order to demonize progressives.

[ProSense]

95. Advocating the impeachment of Obama is definitely nutty. n/t

[Fumesucker]

96. Yeah, and you can pick 'em

Merde stirring is an art form that is easy to learn but hard to master.

The Boobstar Galactica threads were getting boring anyway, I'm about burned out on them.

[ProSense]

97. It's funny how offended people get when nuts are called out.

[Fumesucker]

105. You're an amazing person ProSense

I really admire your dedication to your cause.

[ProSense]

100. See what

I mean:

"More like you're a hack apologist."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024523599#post89


Leave Greenwald alone!!!

[TheMathieu]

151. It's more like scooping than picking when you focus on that insane portion of our party. nt

[Fumesucker]

155. Clinton came out of impeachment stronger, it raised his approval rating

Despite the worst the M$M could do, including hiding Newt Gingrich's affair during impeachment, it became obvious the Republicans were deranged and the public saw through their bullshit.

Nowadays the Republicans would get slaughtered in public opinion if they tried to impeach Obama.

I'm not for it but I don't think it would be a disaster and might even be a plus.

[ReRe]

103. One question to start with, ProSense...

...Who is "The Jester" on dailykos? And what/who was he commenting to? Thanks.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

122. I'll answer. Someone Kossians (Kossacks?) consider to be a troll.

Someone republished in the "Thursday Worst Diary Competition" for this gem:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/22/997577/-The-Case-for-Martial-Law

Why s/he is peddled at DU as some sort of legitimate LoyalProgressivePatrioticDemocrat voice is quite the puzzler, eh?

[ReRe]

159. Thanks, WBB

Exactly as I thought. We don't know WHO Mr Jester really is, and what his true political stripe or real agenda is. What I do know is that he sure provided an opportunity for ProSense to get away with cursing certain Free Speech activists on DU. I'm not aware of anyone on DU advocating for the impeachment of the PO on the grounds that Mr Jester mentions. Have I missed those impeachment conversations started by DUers, beside this one?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

203. I haven't see any, but I have only so much time per day to devote to DU...

much as I *love* it here. That Kos post screamed "troll," most definitely when I landed on "titty twister" and the loyal, patriotic nonsense.

It was posted to make "progressives" look bad, and the usual suspects glommed on to it. The other usual suspects called bullshit. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. It's the post-2008 DU. What's funny is that usual suspects #1 get nasty when usual suspects #2 call bullshit, offering up no substance, just "absurd!," "nonsense!," "why so upset?!," and " ".

[ProSense]

127. It was to

"Who is 'The Jester' on dailykos? And what/who was he commenting to? Thanks."

...this diary: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/18/1278503/-NSA-s-Plan-To-Get-Assange-and-Wikileaks

It was significant because it was rec'd by the person who wrote the diary and others. There are other responses supporting the gist of the comment.

[ReRe]

170. That was a non-answer

Look it... why is it so hard for you to agree to disagree and to not be so explosive? The idea of impeachment of PO is so ridiculous that I almost didn't click on your OP. That is, until I seen your name as the author of it. And now I see, after reading down the thread, that it was simply an opportunity to curse Assange, Greenwald & Snowden. The obscene secrecy is what you should be saying "fuck you" to.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

205. It always is.

And just for kicks, start using "GASbaggers": Greenwald - Assange - Snowden. Isn't that clever?!

[arely staircase]

106. another shark jumped nt

[Pretzel_Warrior]

110. I concur. Make it so, #1!

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/1556433152/h91E71669/

[freshwest]

135. PW, for blazing color, always add '.jpg' to cheezeburger pics! That's a good one, but no, no lock!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

158. Thanks for the tip! Seriously!

I saw it showed only a link and was too tired and lazy to figure it out at that point.

I was being completely sarcastic about impeachment so I thought I'd be sarcastic about thread lock.

[freshwest]

161. Yes,. this is a reverse psychology thread. But, I think we agree on this:

[Pretzel_Warrior]

164. yeeaahhh!! awesome graphic. lol.

[truebluegreen]

111. here's my point: trashing.

[mopinko]

114. cia directed by the oval office

of all the bits of ods that i find laughable is the idea that because he is cic, he controls every twitch of the mic. and this by the biggest believers in every other ct.

[eridani]

116. "Please Mr Fox, whatever you do, don't throw me into that briar patch"

Impeachment would do for Democrats what it did for us back in 1998--make us much more popular.

[freshwest]

142. Perhaps. But Clinton didn't accomplish his original agenda, it was immediately set upon and attacked

and then Gingrich shut down the government. The current group of gangsters are more radical and unfortunately more popular than the GOP was back then. Citizens United was not in force nor was media anywhere near as consolidated as it was then. Only if as a class those whose lives Obama has helped rise up at the polls, they will be able to paralyze his last two years in office. In the mean while, they continue to steal the states from under us.

[ProSense]

117. Yet Another Highly Misleading GCHQ/NSA Article From the Intercept

Yet Another Highly Misleading GCHQ/NSA Article From the Intercept
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024524855

[DeSwiss]

118. Hmmmm.....

People are so anti-Obama after buying into Glenn Greenwald's fiction, now focusing on that RW asshole Assange, that they think impeachment is a good idea. Here's my point: Fuck Greenwald, Snowden and Assange. Fuck 'em.

I noticed that you left out Chelsea Manning. The reason? A little to dicey for you to go after a soldier? Someone gay? Someone who gave pictures of our soldiers killing innocent children and reporters? Those weren't justified Obama deaths in your eyes? So you leave her out of it, huh? You sure you don't want to include Chelsea in your FUCK 'EM ALL soliloquy?

And you're also saying that the theft of every single American's personal data doesn't bother you, huh? That without benefit of warrant, cause nor reason, you're all for the government rooting through anyone's information that it pleases? So what would bother you? How far would you let Obama go before you'd condemn his acts? Do you even have a pencil to draw a line with?

Actually, the three people you mentioned had nothing to do with opening up my eyes about this President. For me it was when he started killing US citizens without benefit of a trial because of his new fancy definition of ''due process'' that says he can and nobody's gonna stop him. And then the murdering of innocent babies and their mothers didn't help his cause with me either.

- So I guess if that makes me anti-Obama so be it. I was this way from the start even before I ever heard of Assange, Greenwald and Snowden. Or, Obama for that matter......

[ProSense]

126. That's

"I noticed that you left out Chelsea Manning. The reason? A little to dicey for you to go after a soldier? Someone gay? Someone who gave pictures of our soldiers killing innocent children and reporters? Those weren't justified Obama deaths in your eyes? So you leave her out of it, huh? You sure you don't want to include Chelsea in your FUCK 'EM ALL soliloquy? "

...because I said exactly what I meant: Fuck Greenwald, Snowden and Assange. Fuck 'em.

[DeSwiss]

129. Ah, I see. So it's a case of:

[center][/center]

[Armstead]

137. Oh FER F--K SAKE!!!! How 'bout THIS?

Forgive my Hyper-Typing, but this crap is upsetting. So.....3,2,1...Armstead calms down.

There is a fact that transcends whether or not President Obama is a good president.

Since 9-11-2001, the United States reacted to the prospect of further terrorism in an extraordinarily sweeping way, that led to an escalation of widespread surveillance and invasions of privacy, limitations on freedom of travel, dubious treatment of foreign prisoners, shortchanging of due process in certain instances, and other related consequences. (Not to mention two wars.)

Since 2001, NOT since Obama became president. (Actually there were tendencies in this direction before 2001, but that was the watershed when it really kicked into overdrive.)

That is a TOTALLY LEGITIMATE AND NECESSARY subject for public examination, criticism, debate and public input as to the appropriate extent of this, the trade offs that are necessary to protect ourselves, etc....A public debate and watchdog function -- which is what democracy is supposed to be about.

And in order for that to occur, information about what the government is actually doing regarding these things is necessary. Not every little jot and tittle, and certainly not specific information that would truly endanger national security. But enough to know what type of activities ate going and to what extent. And what real or potential abuses and overstepping of bounds might be taking place.

Wherever one stands on the spectrum of opinion about that, this issue is larger than any individual politician. It is not a fricking test if one is a good Democrat or a real liberal or loyal to President Obama.

Nor is it about whether liberals and wingnuts might agree on certain things on the matter. It is not about some mythical "fan club" for Greenwald Snowden, et. al. This should be a non-partisan, non-ideological debate. Reasonable liberals, moderates and conservatives have an equal stake in the basic importance of FREEDOM and PRIVACY.

If the GOP ever starts using the issue as a tool for impeachment, that is certainly cause for opposition. But it hasn't happened yet, and is not likely to.

In the meantime is there any way to actually keep the conversation on this issue focused on the big picture, and stop clouding it up with distracting American Political Idol nonsense?

[ProSense]

139. "Oh FER F--K SAKE!!!! " What does any of that have to do with advocating impeachment? n/t

[Armstead]

141. Because there is no big move towards impeachment over this....It is a strawman

[ProSense]

146. The OP comment is not a "strawman." Someone made it.

That is what is being discussed.

[Armstead]

147. The writer of the OP is a hothead blogger. Fine have fun with it.

The blogger mentioned in the OP is angry at what he perceives as abuses. He is basically just another voice as we all are.

He didn't express it very eloquently. But dwelling on that kind of nonsense -- and reading the responses creating the illusion of Greenwald fan clubs, etc. -- is just distracting from the real issues involved.

[ProSense]

150. LOL!

"He didn't express it very eloquently. But dwelling on that kind of nonsense -- and reading the responses creating the illusion of Greenwald fan clubs, etc. -- is just distracting from the real issues involved."

...the reaction to any criticism of Greenwald is what is shining a light on the "Greenwald fan clubs."

I mean, people get vicious.

"More like you're a hack apologist."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024523599#post89

[Armstead]

152. Greenwald is somewhat of an asshole. Snowden seems to be one too.

But I sure as hell want to know how extensively my government is intruding on the privacy and freedom of the citizenry, and whether they are going overboard with it to the determent of freedom and the right to privacy.

If an asshole provides information about that, then the information is what is important. not whether the messenger is an asshole or not.

You want to spend your time obsessing over Greenwalds personality, have fun. You want to use a yardstick of whether exposure of abuses is a political plus or minus, have fun.

If you want to call people with those larger concerns members of a Greenwald fan club, or victims off Obama Derangement Syndrome or something like that? That's just stupid.

[ProSense]

153. Gee thanks

'You want to spend your time obsessing over Greenwalds personality, have fun. You want to use a yardstick of whether rexposure of abuses is a political plus or minus, have fun. "

...for the permission. You can call him "somewhat of an asshole."

I'll cut to the chase: Fuck Greenwald, Snowden and Assange. Fuck 'em.

[Armstead]

154. No, you fuck 'em...They're not my type.

[OnyxCollie]

188. Struck a nerve, eh?

That's twice now that you've posted my comment about you're being a hack apologist.

Don't get mad at me. I was only pointing out that you're failing miserably at your job.

[ProSense]

190. No, I posting to show how utterly whining and vicious Greenwald fans become when he's criticized.

[OnyxCollie]

191. You're projecting again.

You keep up those RW tendencies, and people are gonna talk.

[ProSense]

192. LOL!

"You keep up those RW tendencies, and people are gonna talk."

Did you know Greenwald supported the Iraq war?

[OnyxCollie]

193. LOL!

Did you know Obama tried to extend the stay of the US troops in Iraq past the SOF agreement that the Bush administration had made, but had to give up because the Iraqi government refused to give immunity(!) to US troops after Chelsea Manning revealed US war crimes against the Iraqi people?

[ProSense]

194. Oooh,

"Did you know Obama tried to extend the stay of the US troops in Iraq past the SOF agreement that the Bush administration had made, but had to give up because the Iraqi government refused to give immunity(!) to US troops after Chelsea Manning revealed US war crimes against the Iraqi people?"

..."tried"? I say Greenwald supported the Iraq war, and you respond with Obama "tried."

Obama ended the Iraq war, which Greenwald supported.

Greenwald fans need to stop crying whenever he's criticized.

Oh,

[OnyxCollie]

195. I take back what I said.

Hack apologist gives you too much credit. You're pathetic.

(Apologies if your six-year old niece has taken over your account.)

[ProSense]

199. "Hack apologist gives you too much credit. You're pathetic."

I guess I should stop criticizing Greenwald. There's no telling what you'll do.

[PoliticalPothead]

138. I'm certainly not supportive of this impeachment attempt, but the author does have a point.

Benghazi and the IRS may be fake scandals, but the President is handing Republicans a REAL scandal on a silver platter with all these NSA abuses.

[ProSense]

140. Republicans

"Benghazi and the IRS may be fake scandals, but the President is handing Republicans a REAL scandal on a silver platter with all these NSA abuses."

...are hypocrites, and they have no intention of reforming the NSA.

[freshwest]

143. They could have defunded the Patriot Act too, if they wanted it gone. They want these programs kept

Last edited Wed Feb 19, 2014, 02:28 AM - Edit history (1)

in place for the very worst of reasons. Imagine a Cruz or Paul presidency with their fanatic hatred of so many Americans, able to abuse this for real. They are pushing self-hatred in Democrats to get that chance.

[ProSense]

189. Never going to happen because

"They could have defunded the Patriot Act too, if they wanted it gone. They want these programs kept"

...there is a new anti-NSA hero, Sensenbrenner, now bill as "even the c0-author of the Patriot Act says it doesn't permit (insert bullshit claim)."

Again, this isn't about changing policy, it's about pushing enough hyperbolic drivel by a bunch of hypocrites to claim that Obama is doing exactly what Bush did...actually he's worse.

Laughable assholes.

[JustAnotherGen]

198. +1000

[whatchamacallit]

144. Yes fuck anyone who exposes malfeasance

and makes it harder for the love to flow. Dumbest fucking shit I've ever read.

[freshwest]

145. Before I share a graph for this, let me say: Fuck this guy and the Randian horse he rode in on.

Naturally, with the GOP taking the Senate in a few months, the mathematics on the chart will be out of date.

[silvershadow]

148. Not if we take back the house. That's a thought. Why don't we work on that?

That said, if impeachment were to bring about removal of the national police state, it might to something to ponder. Hmmm.

[Rex]

156. ...

[Union Scribe]

172. I see you've run out

of comments to complain about here and decided to drag some over from DK to continue your tireless crusade against people giving us information you'd rather they not.

[ucrdem]

182. You can fool some of the people all of the time . . .

Of course, it helps if they're fools to begin with. But let's be nice and call 'em swing voters.

And as much as I am a loyal progressive Democrat .... I almost want them to do it

[Renew Deal]

196. Is Limbaugh writing for Daily Kos?

"Impeachment, minions, shithead". So much for Kos being a "progressive" site.

[dionysus]

204. what DUer wrote that? nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

222. AMEN!! And the ACLU, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch too. They can take their U.S.

Constitution, their civil liberties, their right to privacy and their liberal Western Democracy and shove it up their ass. We don't want it! We don't need it! We LOYAL Democrats stand in 100% solidarity with the Neoconservative Republicans by standing up for a STRONG security state unhampered by weak kneed civil libertarians who are nothing but a drag on the Democratic Party!

[ProSense]

224. Here is

"AMEN!! And the ACLU, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch too. They can take their U.S."

...the ACLU's response to President Obama's January proposal (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024347726), you know the ones Greenwald called PR.


Obama administration starts to implement changes to NSA phone records program
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024473684

<...>

Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office mirrored his sentiments. "It's good to see that some of the president's reforms to the bulk collection program have been implemented," she said. "What we need now, though, is not tinkering around the edges but an end to bulk collection. If the president won't end the program, then Congress must pass the USA FREEDOM Act and shut it down permanently."