Greenwald attacks Warren for her statements on Israel/Gaza says she sounds like Netanyahu

[stevenleser]

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/08/28/elizabeth-warren-speaks-israelgaza-sounds-like-netanyahu/

The last time Elizabeth Warren was asked about her views on the Israeli attack on Gaza – on July 17 – she, as Rania Khalek put it, “literally ran away” without answering. But last week, the liberal Senator appeared for one of her regularly scheduled “office hours” with her Massachusetts constituents, this one in Hyannis, and, as a local paper reported, she had nowhere to run.

One voter who identified himself as a Warren supporter, John Bangert, stood up and objected to her recent vote, in the middle of the horrific attack on Gaza, to send yet another $225 million of American taxpayer money to Israel for its “Iron Dome” system. Banger told his Senator: “We are disagreeing with Israel using their guns against innocents. It’s true in Ferguson, Missouri, and it’s true in Israel . . . The vote was wrong, I believe.” To crowd applause, Bangert told Warren that the money “could have been spent on infrastructure or helping immigrants fleeing Central America.”

But Warren steadfastly defended her “pro-Israel” vote, invoking the politician’s platitude: “We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one.” According to the account in the Cape Cod Times by reporter C. Ryan Barber, flagged by Zaid Jilani, Warren was also asked about her Israel position by other voters who were at the gathering, and she went on to explain:

“I think the vote was right, and I’ll tell you why I think the vote was right. America has a very special relationship with Israel. Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of the world where there aren’t many liberal democracies and democracies that are controlled by the rule of law. And we very much need an ally in that part of the world.”
.
.
.

(more at above link)

[MohRokTah]

1. .

[Hissyspit]

8. Yawn.

[MohRokTah]

14. .

[MADem]

24. Well....

http://www.calmclinic.com/anxiety/signs/yawning

[MohRokTah]

43. .

[MADem]

56. It is what it is....!

If it's "nuthin' but a thang" why comment at all?

I think we're seeing a bit of that "protest too much" business happening up in here.

[Hissyspit]

52. No.

Sorry.

[MADem]

55. Don't be sorry, now! nt

[geek tragedy]

2. .

Echoing Benjamin Nentayahu (and Hillary Clinton), Elizabeth Warren’s clear position is that Israel bears none of the blame for any of this.

[Hissyspit]

11. Yawn.

[Tarheel_Dem]

35. Tiger Beat much?

[Hissyspit]

41. Substanceless.

[Tarheel_Dem]

47. Too rich.

[Hissyspit]

50. And there's the rolling on the floor smiley.

You do realize it may be simply that I disagree with Sen. Warren?

[Tarheel_Dem]

53. Say hi for me.

[Cali_Democrat]

128. And your yawns in this thread are just packed full of substance

What a joke.

[Hissyspit]

164. Actually, they are perfectly appropriate substance in response

to calculated calls for popcorn in this thread.

Believe me, there's plenty of joke here, but this is not it.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

62. Good one

[Tarheel_Dem]

65. It's funny cuz it's true. Thanks to Whisp!

[Hissyspit]

71. No, it's not.

It's pathetic.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

72. AWWW

Someone's sacred cow got gored.

[Hissyspit]

74. He's not my sacred cow.

But it doesn't fucking really matter to you, does it?

[Tarheel_Dem]

100. Well, if he's not, you sure give a pretty good impression.

[Hissyspit]

165. I don't have problems with disagreeing with Glenn Greenwald.

I have problems with flame bait, smear tactics, bringing right-wing tactics, to DU, projection, knee-jerk defense of partisanship, deliberate ignoring of facts that have been pointed out previously, and most of all misrepresentation, as I've pointed out many times here and which each time gets ignored in favor of ad Hominem attacks.

[seveneyes]

3. Dealing with Hamas terrorists and their supporters requires honest speaking like Warren does so well

Those who side with Hamas are in the minority.

[JaydenD]

4. I like Warren, I think she is a basically honest, and very brave, person

in a job wracked with pitfalls.

Her being pro-Israel does not bother me at all, she is simply trying to keep her job. There is nothing I know about her history that would make me think she was a warmonger for doing so. But I can't say that about some others who have leapt upon Netanyahoo's lap to comfort him.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. Trouble in Paradise?

[conservaphobe]

6. ...

[Hissyspit]

9. Yawn.

[conservaphobe]

12. No thanks. Spam has too much sodium. nt

[QC]

23. Pretzels are pretty salty, too.

And let's not even get started on pretzel pizza.

[conservaphobe]

25. Those new pretzel buns at Wendy's are pretty damn good.

I make exceptions for those.

[Union Scribe]

28. Some people are afraid of pretzels

and get all worked up thinking about them. One might say they're pretzel_worriers. Oops I hit underscore instead of space.

[Union Scribe]

20. Yeah what's with all the conservatives

eating popcorn in this thread?

[conservaphobe]

21. And look at all the roaches it attracted.

Try not to drop anymore popcorn on the floor, guys.

[MohRokTah]

44. Tehre are no conservatives in this thread.

I take offense at your accusation.

I await your apology.

[Enrique]

7. I disagree with his conclusion

That, ladies and gentlemen, is your inspiring left-wing icon of the Democratic Party.

A lot of people other than Greenwald have said this about Warren, I think it's the same mistake people made with Obama. Love them all you want, but they are NOT left-wing, and neither of them have claimed to be.

[flamingdem]

18. Neither is Greenwald

[Tarheel_Dem]

30. "Neither is Greenwald". When will folks figure this out? Libertarians suck!

[flamingdem]

49. ya can say that again

Libertarians suck!

Rand Paul/GG 2016 Repuke partay

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

63. Yep.

[MADem]

59. July, 2014

He's front and center in the latest issue of the CATO mag-- not even trying to HIDE it anymore...! FWIW, the latest issue of Cato's Tiger Beat is all about "MAINSTREAMING LIBERTARIANISM."

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2014/8/cprv36n4.pdf

It's rough to get played so thoroughly, I suppose, but there comes a point in time where ya gotta cut your losses.

[Tarheel_Dem]

64. As recently as that? Come on, who didn't know that GG was all Koch'd up? He loves him some

billionaire$. Economically speaking, GG has one goal ($$$$), and that goal runs counter to what most progressive minded people are fighting for. He routinely runs inteference for some of the most despicable, money grubbing assholes on the planet. The internet liberals that he has managed to suck in would feel nothing but shame if they only knew how.

Oh, and Libertarians still suck!

[MADem]

96. He's definitely hooked up with the cash crowd.

I think it's interesting that he's not even trying to deny it anymore.

When he goes after Liz Warren, and he has done this at least twice, you've gotta figure he's serving somebody--after all, no one rides for free; he's gotta EARN that cash he's raking in.

[Tarheel_Dem]

98. Do you know if he's ever opined about her economic policies? They wouldn't benefit hi$ paymaster$.

[MADem]

107. I don't know, but I get the sense his job now is to nip at her heels.

He wants to create FUD with her supporters, many of whom, up to now, held the both of them close to their hearts. It's all part of the "MAINSTREAMING LIBERTARIANISM" touted in that slimy CATO rag.

He's trying to tamp down enthusiasm for her. He's softening up his fans to expect these kinds of swipes. The real hard hits will probably come later, if, say, she's nominated for an administration position like Treasury Secretary or the successor to Yellen at the Fed.

[Tarheel_Dem]

113. Rand Paul must be so proud. He snagged a big one when he got GG, a major league asshole &

quintessential attack dog. I'm not a Warren '16 advocate (YET), but I can definitely see why Libertarians would want to tamp down the enthusiasm in it's relative infancy. Why SOME folks haven't yet figured out that "Libertarians are just Republicans, who like to smoke dope & get laid", is beyond me.

[MADem]

120. I don't think they want her replacing YELLEN at the Fed--that would be their worst nightmare.

Not "Warren 16" because that's not going to happen. She's made a Sherman statement on that score, even though a very few here don't recognize it. She knows her own mind.

However, when a politician endorses a candidate, it's not like they don't expect something in return. EW signed the "Run Hill Run" letter. If HRC runs I can see EW campaigning and fundraising on her behalf.

We all know that EW has specific talents in specific areas--it's how she got the Banking Committee as a freshman in the Senate.

If she became the Fed chair, she could make life Very Miserable Indeed for the Libertarian Moneybags, the Banksters, and their friends and associates. That's why I think they want to trash her. They want to waylay that "More Clout and Respect Than Greenspan Ever Got" candidate for the Fed Chair before there's any traction for her appointment....because with the right Senate, that advise and consent vote would consist of them hauling EW in on a palanquin and tossing rose petals at her as they sing the Hallelujah Chorus while calling the roll!

[Luminous Animal]

77. It's a good interview. Thanks for the link.

[MADem]

95. A good interview, and a clear association! nt

[Luminous Animal]

103. Link to full interview with Obama and Fox's O'Reilly. A clear association.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/03/transcript-full-interview-between-president-obama-and-bill-oreilly/

[MADem]

111. Grasping at straws there, I'd say.

CATO isn't a media outlet with a broad reach, that in some parts of the country (like very northern Maine) is the ONLY "over-the-air" affiliate that is available to the poor and rural (and their news affiliates would broadcast something like that from their cable partner). People who don't give a crap about politics watch Fox cable news, too, because they like the simple delivery and the bright colors. They also enjoy big headed male announcers who make them feel important and special, and female announcers who stare through the camera lens lovingly with pouting red lips and generous/revealed bosoms.

These poor people getting their Fox dose from an OTA affiliate, or these non-political dolts sitting in front of their fancy big screens who like the boobs and bright colors, don't subscribe to the CATO Institute rag, which reaches a very small, specific, wealthy, elite group of LIBERTARIANS who have a very singular mission, which is to shrink government, social programs, safety nets, and any element of public life that serves to help, uplift or advance the least among us, down to a small enough size to be drowned in a bathtub.

So, trying to compare that apple to that orange just ain't gonna cut it. Valiant effort, but no sale.

[Luminous Animal]

127. Nope just guilt by association and an appeal to authority. Obama can express his ideas through any

outlet but others can't, As if the only way we can legitimately express our ideas is through corporate sanctioned means that will reach the widest audience possible.

[MADem]

138. Yes. You're comparing a very large apple to a very small orange, and your analogy is a huge fail.

No one is preventing Greenwald from going on Fox News--in fact, he's graced their screens on more than one occasion. He appears to be VERY comfortable with the Fox interviewers, in fact.

Unlike Obama, though, Greenwald provided an interview to CATO because he associates himself with their Libertarian philosophies, and he has been on their payroll for many years now. He's dancing with the one whut brung him, in essence.

That's obvious to anyone not deliberately deluding themselves about his association with that group, which has a very singular focus.

You don't see Obama giving interviews at CATO, now, do you? Taking stipends from them to do lengthy research projects? Appearing at their fundraisers?

Of course not.

[stevenleser]

153. Oh that's priceless. I recognize among many Greenwald fanboys/fangirls, folks who have criticized me

for going on Fox.

[MADem]

154. Greenwald apparently likes going on Fox, and giving INTERVIEWS. He's done it often enough!

It's "OK" if you're Greenwald, apparently....not "OK" if you're POTUS... or YOU!

Say, you haven't given any interviews to the Koch-owned, Libertarian, CATO magazine, have you?

Neither has Obama!

[msanthrope]

159. Greenwald wrote policy whitepaper for CATO....something his fans like to forget. nt

[MADem]

160. They kept him on the payroll while he wrote it, too--it wasn't "piecework."

Afterwards, they had him present it, and they served him up like an adorable little Libertarian hors d'ouvre at one of their big fundraisers.

There can be no question that he's been up to his ass in CATO money and influence for a long while now, and I guess now that he's got this new FIRST LOOK gig he isn't even trying to hide it anymore.

The only way he could "salvage" his reputation, oddly enough, is if it were revealed he was an intelligence asset, along with his "source," Snowden!

[msanthrope]

161. Yeah---he was a perk at one of the donor dinners. They also funded his tour through the midwest,

and his debate series in 2012.

Koch money must taste sweet.

[anti partisan]

168. I wish there was some TOS-able offence related to clearly fallacious attacks

This isn't even a matter of different people having different beliefs.

It's one side deliberately distorting reality in order to create a quasi-reality where the administration is all good, and all his critics are conspiring for some sort of evil entity hell-bent on "bringing Obama down". When in fact in most cases these critics are fighting for ideals that these same fallacious character assassins used to at least superficially support during the Bush administration.

[Cha]

119. Maybe it's just a Rand Paul kinda thing..

[MADem]

121. Mmm hmmm!

Exactly!

[BlueCaliDem]

10. Oh. That's pretty disappointing.

I understand that the U.S. has to help Israel against so many enemies in their region, but the questioner was correct; we can make better use the money they send to Israel to fix our crumbling infrastructure, create jobs while we're at it, and help those poor and lost children fleeing from certain torture, rape, and death in Central America. I would've thought that Senator Warren would be for that.

Very disappointed.

[anti partisan]

13. And this is why...

This is why certain people ran and continue to run a disinformation and character assassination campaign against one Glenn Greenwald. He always makes a clear and compelling case that blind partisanry will not solve the woes of our nation. Warren has always held these views but I've been seeing enthusiastic support and near-worship for her as a person. I still like her fine because she overwhelmingly does more good than bad in the Senate (she isn't tipping any scales on the foreign policy front - nearly the whole Senate supports those views), but politician worship is dangerous.

Progress over politics 2014, 2016, and beyond!

[MohRokTah]

45. Actually, most people who have a problem with GG have it because he's a Libertarian fuckwit. eom

[Ikonoklast]

80. Warren must have GG's handlers undies in a wad. They sent him out to attack her.

Money and fame are all GG has ever been after, the Koch's have it, GG wants it.

He does as he is told, like a good little lackey.

[MADem]

101. David Koch heavily funded Scott Brown's campaign, and Scottie still

couldn't beat "the perfesser" as he derisively termed her.

Here's Scottie, bootlicking for dollars:

[anti partisan]

125. Except for the fact that he's not a Libertarian but hey let's not let facts get in the way

[MohRokTah]

135. But he IS a Libertarian. eom

[anti partisan]

155. No matter how many times you repeat a lie, it doesn't magically become factual

Here's what Greenwald himself had to say in his blog:

Ever since I began writing about politics back in 2005, people have tried to apply pretty much every political label to me. It's almost always a shorthand method to discredit someone without having to engage the substance of their arguments. It's the classic ad hominem fallacy: you don't need to listen to or deal with his arguments because he's an X.
Back then - when I was writing every day to criticize the Bush administration - Bush followers tried to apply the label "far leftist" to me. Now that I spend most of my energy writing critically about the Obama administration, Obama followers try to claim I'm a "right-wing libertarian".
These labels are hard to refute primarily because they've become impoverished of any meaning. They're just mindless slurs used to try to discredit one's political adversaries. Most of the people who hurl the "libertarian" label at me have no idea what the term even means. Ask anyone who makes this claim to identify the views I've expressed - with links and quotes - that constitute libertarianism.
I don't really care what labels get applied to me. But - beyond the anti-war and pro-civil-liberties writing I do on a daily basis - here are views I've publicly advocated. Decide for yourself if the "libertarian" label applies:
* opposing all cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (here and here);
* repeatedly calling for the prosecution of Wall Street (here, here and here);
* advocating for robust public financing to eliminate the domination by the rich in political campaigns, writing: "corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture" (here and here);
* condemning income and wealth inequality as the by-product of corruption (here and here);
* attacking oligarchs - led by the Koch Brothers - for self-pitying complaints about the government and criticizing policies that favor the rich at the expense of ordinary Americans (here);
* arguing in favor of a public option for health care reform (repeatedly);
* criticizing the appointment of too many Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street officials to positions of power (here, here and here);
* repeatedly condemning the influence of corporate factions in public policy making (here and here);
* using my blog to raise substantial money for the campaigns of Russ Feingold and left-wing/anti-war Democrats Normon Solomon, Franke Wilmer and Cecil Bothwell, and defending Dennis Kucinich from Democratic Party attacks;
* co-founding a new group along with Daniel Ellsberg, Laura Poitras, John Cusack, Xeni Jardim [sic], JP Barlow and others to protect press freedom and independent journalism (see the New York Times report on this here);
* co-founding and working extensively on a PAC to work with labor unions and liberal advocacy groups to recruit progressive primary challengers to conservative Democratic incumbents (see the New York Times report on this here);
To apply a "right-wing libertarian" label to someone with those views and that activism is patently idiotic. Just ask any actual libertarian whether those views are compatible with being a libertarian. Or just read this October, 2012 post - written on Volokh, a libertarian blog - entitled "Glenn Greenwald, Man of the Left", which claims I harbor "left-wing views on economic policy" and am "a run-of-the-mill left-winger of the sort who can be heard 24/7 on the likes of Pacifica radio" because of my opposition to cuts in Social Security and Medicare.
There is no doubt that I share many views with actual libertarians, including: opposition to a massive surveillance state, support for marriage equality for LGBT citizens, restraints on government power to imprison or kill people without due process, opposition to the death penalty and the generally oppressive US penal state, contempt for the sadistic and racist drug war, disgust toward corporatism and crony capitalism, and opposition to aggressive wars and the ability of presidents to wage them without Congressional authority. It's also true that I supported the Citizens United decision on free speech grounds: along with people like the ACLU and Eliot Spitzer (the only politician to put real fear in the heart of Wall Street executives in the last decade and probably the politician most hated by actual libertarians).
Liberals and libertarians share the same views on many issues, particularly involving war, civil liberties, penal policies, and government abuse of power. That is why people like Alan Grayson and Dennis Kucinich worked so closely with Ron Paul to Audit the Fed and restore civil liberties.
But "libertarianism" has an actual meaning: it's not just a slur to mean: anyone who criticizes President Obama but disagrees with Rush Limbaugh. Anyone who applies this label to me in light of my actual views and work is either very ignorant or very dishonest - or, most likely, both.

[MohRokTah]

158. Doesn't matter how much he denies it, he's a Libertarian.

He's the one being either very ignorant or very dishonest.

[anti partisan]

162. Omg you can't possibly be serious at this point!

[img][/img]

[MohRokTah]

167. Absolutely serious. Nice pic of GG.

[freshwest]

170. That's my problem with him. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother.

[Tarheel_Dem]

48. Why is an "anti partisan" attracted to a site devoted to "Electing Democrats"? We are by nature....

"politics" oriented here, and statements like yours don't seem to fit the established TOS:

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

I realize you're just regurgitating GG's talking points about "both parties are the same", but until Skinner changes his mind, this site still supports and votes for Democrats, and you can't get much more "partisan" than that.

[anti partisan]

126. The only time I have suggested voting for a 3rd party candidate or a Republican

..is when I said I would vote for a goat over Hillary Clinton. I do not take that back.

[Tarheel_Dem]

132. Uhm...okay?

Still doesn't answer the question why an "anti-partisan" would wanna make their home on a "partisan" site with a clear mission statement. But...mmmmkay.

[w4rma]

15. Looks like the neoliberals/neocons might have found a wedge to claw on to.

No national politician will be completely against AIPAC. It's a campaign loser, currently. It would be nice to see a reasonable and opposing lobby, that can wield just a portion of the clout that AIPAC commands.

[stevenleser]

16. Well, that's your choice for it to be a wedge, right? You can choose to give a person some slack

to disagree with you on a certain amount of issues or not.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Indeed she does. Justifying the mass murder of civilians is hardly progressive.

[Ichingcarpenter]

22. 504 children killed in Gaza

[oberliner]

136. Does the Al-Mezan Centre have a Syrian counterpart?

Or does this sort of tracking only get put out there for Palestinians?

[woo me with science]

38. +10000

How revealing is the corporate posters' assumption that liberals would cringe to criticize Warren, or any other politician, on this.

Sad and pathetic, how the corporate cult of personality automatically assumes that everyone else is in a cult of personality, too.

[leftynyc]

19. Yawn

The purity police strike again. It's obviously not enough that the majority of Americans and Democrats alike disagree with Mr. Greenwald on this issue. Thankfully I don't look to him to define what I consider a liberal.

[freshwest]

171. Correct, he's not liberal or progressive.

[treestar]

26. Reminding me of Prosense and her blue links

Glenn and his red links.

I could see supporting the Iron Dome system though, thinking it could protect Israel without their "having to" bomb Gaza back. At least not as much.

The settlements issue seems clear to me. If we support and defend Israel, we make a reasonable request that they stop increasing the settlements.

[gratuitous]

27. I read the column

I'm not sure where what Greenwald had to say qualifies as an "attack"; it seems more like a straightforward report on Warren's position, interwoven with Greenwald's disagreement with that position. From the column:

"In her defense, Warren has long been clear that this is what she would do. Her Senate campaign website still contains statements such as 'it is a moral imperative to support and defend Israel” and ”as a United States Senator, I will work to ensure Israel’s security and success.'

"During her time in the national spotlight, Warren has focused overwhelmingly on domestic issues, rarely venturing into foreign policy discussions. Many of those domestic views, particularly her strident-for-D.C. opposition to banks, have been admirable, elevating her to hero status for many progressives.

"But when Warren has spoken on national security, she has invariably spouted warmed-over, banal Democratic hawk tripe of the kind that she just recited about Israel and Gaza. During her Senate campaign, for instance, she issued wildly militaristic – and in some cases clearly false – statements about Iran and its nuclear program that would have been comfortable on the pages of The Weekly Standard."

From the sound of it, Greenwald is suggesting that Warren should do her homework in foreign policy and national security like she does - and does very well - on domestic issues.

I'd be interested to see how that qualifies as an "attack."

[DisgustipatedinCA]

39. You'll probably be waiting a long time.

It was not an attack. It wasn't exactly expository writing either--Greenwald did editorialize a little, but not to the point of "attack".

[Douglas Carpenter]

57. Now wait a second, you're responding with reason and facts - that's a low down dirty tactic

[Luminous Animal]

60. These days, any criticism of our "leaders" is an attack.

[stevenleser]

97. Oh please, characterizing her as being "just like Netanyahu" on this? That is a hyperbolic attack

directly aimed at separating her from her base.

[malaise]

147. +1,000

Well said

[SidDithers]

29. Greenwald attacking Democrats...

Now, there's something you don't see everyday.

Sid

[Tarheel_Dem]

31. Sid, you never fail to say what we're all thinking.

[gratuitous]

46. Can you point out the attack?

Because after reading the column, I don't see it (my post above), and the original poster seems to have finished with this thread.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

32. and she does. nt

[Blue_Tires]

33. Another day, another Greenwald smear against Dems/Dem voters

GG just needs to drop the pretense and be Rand Paul's campaign manager full-time...

[Hissyspit]

51. Another day, another attempt to smear Greenwald instead addressing issues.

Greenwald has criticized Paul, too.

[Blue_Tires]

58. Greenwald criticized Paul?

When did I miss this mythical occurrence? You ought to read GG's twitter feed sometime; he's practically pimping Paul on a daily basis -- So if this criticism exists, it's only ONE versus the million other times he's cheered Paul on...

And until Greenwald chastises the other 99.9% of GOP congresscritters who have more extremist views about Israel instead of just singling out Warren; and until he finds the sack to criticize the Israeli government without always needing to "link" their actions directly to the White House or Democratic senators, I'm going to continue to justifiably call his punk ass out....Problem??

[Luminous Animal]

67. Links for some of Greenwald's views when Bush was in the White House

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/openly-debating-us-involve_115314968593755505.html

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/is-israels-war-also-our-war.html

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/various-thoughts-on-israeliour-war.html

http://mondoweiss.net/2007/06/glenn-greenwald-2.html

http://www.salon.com/2010/03/23/israel_32/

http://www.salon.com/2009/01/14/friedman_7/

http://www.salon.com/2010/03/27/israel_33/

[Hissyspit]

73. Yes, he did.

I do read his Twitter feed.

I read lots of people's Twitter feeds.

[Octafish]

34. She does sound like Netanyahu.

So does most of the rest of Congress.

As for Greenwald, he's doing what used to be called "Journalism."

[hifiguy]

68. This.

Netanyahu could say "I am putting all the Gazans into concentration camps. Tomorrow. Forever." in those very words, and virtually every US politician would get up on their hind legs and beg for a doggy treat.

[leftynyc]

145. Are you being hyperbolic

or do you truly believe that nonsense?

[Octafish]

149. What part is nonsense, leftynyc?

Greenwald reported what Sen. Warren said.

Sen. Warren sounded almost word-for-word what Sec. Sen. First Lady Clinton said.

Greenwald reported the facts.

That is what a journalist is supposed to do.

He also connected some of the dots, putting the subject in context for readers.

That is what an news analyst does.

What part is hyperbolic?

[leftynyc]

150. Your whole post was hyperbolic

First the suggestion Israel would put anyone in concentration camps then the suggestion our government wouldn't do anything. All complete hyperbolic bullshit.

[Octafish]

152. So where did I write that or where did Greenwald write that?

Show.

[alarimer]

70. I agree with this.

I wish Warren and others felt free to buck the system on Israel. As far as I am concerned, Israel is a rogue state and we should not support them. But AIPAC pulls the strings with Congress and until get true campaign finance reform, they always will when it comes to Middle Eastern policy.

We need more journalists like Greenwald, not more corporate bull-hockey.

[CrawlingChaos]

78. + infinity

[pa28]

36. Nuff said! I'm finally convinced Glen Greenwald is an attention seeking anti-dem nacissist.

In fact I'm throwing them both under the bus immediately.

Hahahaha. Just kidding!

They have opinions I sometimes disagree with and I continue to respect them both.

[Peacetrain]

37. Elizabeth Warren is now in the cross hairs of one Mr. Greenwald? Why am I not surprised??

She is a Democrat after all.

All groups have a political agenda but those who embrace it libertarianism, will promote what ever little they have in common with any group across the spectrum to try and grab power.

Run do not walk from any libertarian practitioner you may have the misfortune to run across..

How do you recognize them quickly (Libertarians).

By the knife they just stuck in your back.

(By the way, she is NOT running for President, so if you agree or disagree with her political stance, it is not motivated by Presidential politics)

[freshwest]

172. Yeah, the old 'Gonna give you a pat on the back, friend' ploy. Here's another opinion:

From Angry Black Lady in 2012:

http://angryblackladychronicles.com/2012/01/12/tim-wise-on-the-lunacy-of-greenwald-and-the-progressive-pauliban/

[randome]

40. Is this the grand finale fireworks he promised??!!

Everything that comes out of Greenwald's mouth should be prefaced with his answering this question: What about the grand finale, Glenn?


[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Cali_Democrat]

42. LOL. What the hell ever happened?

He promised a fireworks show and we got nothing...

[MADem]

122. Indeed, we were promised a "This is the cereal that's shot from guns"

moment, weren't we?

[Douglas Carpenter]

54. Progressive on everything except Palestine does seem to be the norm and even the most liberal

politicians know what happens to the political careers of those American office holders who make a habit of defying Israel.

[shaayecanaan]

114. Its a good litmus test

If a liberal supports the Palestinians (Dennis Kuninich, John Conyers) you can be pretty sure he's a liberal, as he sure as shit wouldn't be paying the political price of doing so otherwise.

On the other hand, if the faux-left flavour of the month (eg John Edwards, Elizabeth Warren, Anthony Weiner) is posing as a lion-hearted liberal but offering boilerplate support for Israel, well you can draw your own conclusions.

[oberliner]

163. Kucinich: I stand in solidarity with Israel as it battles the terrorist infrastructure...

From the John Conyers website:

As a strong supporter of Israel, Representative Conyers has worked hard to promote peace in the Middle East and ensure Israel’s lasting security.

[shaayecanaan]

169. from al jazeera

Domestic terrorism

In 2010, the FBI described Odeh's killing as an "active, ongoing priority investigation'' and noted a $1 million reward.

At the time of the attack, the FBI said they believed the bombing was the responsibility of the Jewish Defence League. A lawyer for the group denied the allegations and asked for a retraction.

Odeh, a regional director for the ADC, was killed as he opened the door to his office on October 11, 1985, the day after he said on television that PLO leader Yassir Arafat was a "man of peace" for his role in securing the release of passengers from the Achille Lauro, a hijacked Italian cruise ship in Egypt.

Odeh, who emigrated from Palestine and became a US citizen in 1977, was described by both Jews and Arabs as a nonviolent man who advocated compromise.

John Conyers, a Representative for Michigan, said on Monday that he wanted the relevant House subcommittee to convene a hearing on the bombing.

"We're going to pursue it vigorously and we're not going to let any more time lapse," Conyers said.

"We're going to continue to help all of the organisations that are involved build up more and more support for us getting to where we ought to be in terms of a horrific, violent crime that has, I think, been put on the back burner for far too long."

The Justice Department had no immediate comment.

[Chan790]

61. I'm confused...

there are still people who actually pay attention to what Glenn Greenwald says?

I thought everybody had tuned out that histrionic twit by now...even when I basically agree with his premise, as I do here, he's simply unbearable. It constantly amazes me that a hack carrying water for the racist libertarian RW would have any credibility on liberal message boards. What's next? Apologia from DUers for Rand Paul?

Just because it's not a great thread until someone says it...Fuck Glenn Greenwald.

[Tarheel_Dem]

66. "there are still people who actually pay attention to what Glenn Greenwald says"? Yes, but fewer.

[Hissyspit]

75. Yes.

You are confused.

[Chan790]

86. ...but apparently not about Greenwald.

[RandiFan1290]

69. GREENWALD!!!

[Crunchy Frog]

76. Well, she is still a politician, after all.

I don't have a problem with Greenwald pointing that out.

[Cad Bane]

79. Greenwald is a douchebag

He's Rand Paul's boy.

He's a libertarian Republican who's opinion shouldn't be valued on the left or in Democratic politics.

[Dragonfli]

81. Nice to see you back again, tell me.

How does it feel to die and be born again? I find reanimation fascinating ever since I saw the B movie (re-animator) the first time.

[Autumn]

84. I'm going to sit here with my beer and pretzels

Good to see you Dragonfli.

[Dragonfli]

88. Pretzels are salty things existing just to raise blood pressure

But the beer helps to wash it down.

[Autumn]

89. Beer makes them much more palatable.

Funny thing when I saw your reply to me I saw, Pretzels are silly things and they are

[QC]

92. Little Caesar's has a pretzel pizza.

Maybe we will get some of that again soon. It's always been tasty.

[FrodosPet]

108. Different stroke for different folks, but speaking as a native of SE Michigan

As well as a fan of the Tigers and Red Wings, all I can say is...

Ewwwwwwww!



I am sorry, it's probably elitist of me, but I would rather go hungry than buy a Hot 'N Nasty from Little Sleazer's. I'll save my pennies and nickels for Buddy's, Green Lantern, or at least Jet's.

Life's too short to eat cardboard pizza.

[QC]

146. Pretzel pizza is a very special pleasure, though,

and something of a DU tradition.

[Puglover]

116. At the risk of sounding not with it........

I honestly don't follow Greenwald. At all. Seen him on Rachel etc. but honestly don't know that much about him.

But he is super awesome with chocolate crunchy sauce simply for his ability to make all the right heads explode.

[QC]

141. The reaction he inspires is fascinating.

If Dr. Pavlov had had DU Greenwald threads, he wouldn't have had to torment all those dogs.

[Hippo_Tron]

82. I think Iron Dome money is well spent, money on offensive weapons maybe not so much

[Autumn]

83. I was disappointed in her response but everyone is entitled to an opinion.

At one time I was very pro Israel but that has sure changed. Opinions evolve and so do people. Greenwald is right.

[whatchamacallit]

85. +1 n/t

[Autumn]

87. I'm not about to throw her or Glen under the bus.

[whatchamacallit]

93. Difficulty with nuance seems to be a facet of the authoritarian mindset

Some folks seem incapable of accepting that you can support people conditionally; in different ways, at different times, for different reasons.

[Autumn]

94. They have a real problem with that.

[Luminous Animal]

106. And neither did Greenwald. Which is clear to those who read the article.

[Autumn]

110. She shares the same opinion on Israel as the other Democrats in office,

But I'm sure some are excited that they can use both of them to trash each other.

[Luminous Animal]

112. Yep. (n/t)

[PFunk]

90. And this is why I want her to stay as senator and NOT run for president.

Glen may be a creep at times but he's right on this one. Her domestic policy is spot on the the last thing we need heading the white house is a full blown AIPAC fan (how ever most dems are like that now).

[ucrdem]

91. First look at old news LOL.

"But last week . . . as a local paper reported"? Gather round as ace journalist Glenn reads us last week's newspaper.

[stevenleser]

99. It's the surprising and insightful (LMAO) analysis that makes the article a journalistic treasure

Sure it's week old news, but can you imagine, it's "The Greenwald!". And it's "The Greenwald" attacking a Democrat! How surprising is that? And it's one of the progressives' favorite Democrat. He's trying to show she isn't a pure enough progressive.

That's such a surprising new angle for him!

[ucrdem]

118. Pretty tame for the Greenwald. I think DU covered it better in LBN.

Which is probably where Glenn came across it.

[KoKo]

102. Agree with Glenn on this. I have her Signature because I liked her stance against Wall Street

Criminality. And that's why I support her, for now. Because I know she won't be President...but, I support her for standing up to Wall Street and hope she gets into Debates (If we Dems are even allowed to have them for 2016). I wouldn't support her candidacy for President when she quotes Netanyahu....but, we are aways away from her declared running. So...for now her message about "WS" is one I want our Dem PTB to hear.

She caved on [b"Human Rights," in this Statement supporting Israel, though. And, I wouldn't vote for a Dem Candidate like that in the General Election. I would dump my "EW" Signature.. I would try to find another candidate or do a Write In.

[Cali_Democrat]

105. So you wouldn't vote for Warren in 2016 even though you have a Warren 2016 signature?

[KoKo]

115. I like her position on Wall Street Criminals....and want her in the Primaries....

and unless she changed her position on the Gaza Crimes...I wouldn't vote for her in the General. And, If she changed her position on Gaza Crimes...I'd want it verified. I doubt she would do that. But, she's the only one speaking out about "Unfair Economy for the under 1 or 2% Average American and lack of prosecution for the Wall Street Criminals. Yet, she'd have to add Netenyahu's Crimes into that for her to be acceptable to me on Foreign Policy.

I am making it clearer for you....although I know you read my full reply. 's

[itsrobert]

104. Leave Greenwald Alone

[DanTex]

109. Uh oh. Mommy and daddy are fighting. What happens now?

[AZ Progressive]

117. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of Israel..."

[Lil Missy]

123. Greenwald is a freeper jackass. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

129. Someone better tell Rachel Maddow, stat!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025272922

[ecstatic]

124. ..

BTW, I like Warren, but obviously disagree with her stance on this issue. I just want to see how the "troll from the left, Greenwald worshippers (even though he's a kkk defending right winger)" will handle this.

[Report1212]

130. Not about Greenwald vs Warren -- she took a position far to the right of Obama

nt

[joshcryer]

131. You can tell it's election season.

[MFM008]

133. well now I know

Warren thinks its ok to bomb hospitals? Ok fine. whatever. She will not get my vote. At this point Hillary isn't looking good either.

I may vote for the nominee just have to work to make sure its not them. Imagine, having to vote against a warmongering woman for Martin O Malley or Bernie Sanders.

[Warren DeMontague]

134. It's like that time captain cognitive attacked the dissonance duo

Yeah, just had to get that in there.

[stevenleser]

142. Hitting some folks with CD and watching their reactions is exactly the reason for this OP.

there is a lot of CD inherent in politics in a Democracy.

Some folks here pretend that it is possible to field a perfectly pure candidate and that the 'evil' Democratic Party establishment (frequently referred to them as either third way or DLC or neoliberals or whatever the pejorative du jour) is preventing them from doing so.

And they believe these perfectly pure candidates, who currently cannot get the senate or house to line up behind them in almost anything, would as President be able to lead both houses to pass wave after wave of perfectly progressive legislation. When the reality is, as hard as it would be (nearly impossible) to get these folks elected, the difficulties they would experience attempting to govern progressively if actually elected would make getting elected seem trivial.

And the reason for that is, the grassroots of this country by far are not progressive and are not sold on the value or efficacy of progressive ideas. So, for anyone (ahem, RNC, all of its PACs, KOCH brothers, Rove's Crossroads, etc.) wanting to demagogue against an elected Progressive President, it would be really simple to do so.

Trying to elect a progressive is putting the cart before the horse. There are certain progressive ideas that are now accepted, and we should elect a candidate that is going to run with those.

[Scuba]

137. She lost my support over these statements.

[SidDithers]

139. DU Rec for pissing off all the right people...nt

Sid

[stevenleser]

140. Like Warren D. just said in the post above yours, it's Cognitive Dissonance for many folks

I'm sure many folks who want Warren to run in 2016 because Hillary isn't pure enough want to defend her from Greenwald.

But they can't do that without using some of the same verbiage we use to defend President Obama and so if they do it, it validates everything we have been saying to them about Obama for six years now.

The same goes for Bernie Sanders who has also voiced similar statements supporting Israel.

It gets to the heart of the problems many here have with understanding what politics in a Democracy is about at a fundamental level.

To quote the Stones, you don't always get what you want.

[Union Scribe]

143. No, it's really not, and this thread is a massive fail.

It's humorous how people think that if they can find some fissure between two people critics of the President's policies like, that they can cause some kind of ideological collapse. It presumes that everyone operates as if they were personality cultists and that we'll have to "choose" between the two people. But the premise is flawed and the attempt inevitably fizzles out.

Those of us who support Warren over Clinton aren't doing so with the idea that Warren is our savior as has been so often remarked by some corners. There's no implosion forthcoming over disagreeing with her on an issue here or there. "But, Clinton! Warren agrees with Clinton on an issue!" So what? Clinton doesn't have my support and it sure as hell isn't over one issue. Yes, both Clinton and Warren are wrong on this issue. And maybe others! Finding some overlap between her and Warren doesn't vindicate Clinton and it doesn't ruin Warren. Once again it's the flawed idea that critics demand perfection, which apparently some have repeated so many times here and in their minds that they've begun to believe it.

So no, this doesn't "gets to the heart of the problems many here have with understanding what politics in a Democracy is about," but it does rather expose the problem with people who obviously don't understand where policy critics are coming from. Maybe it's time to stop assuming what we think and using those ludicrous caricatures as a way to "get" us.

[MADem]

157. Bernie spent some time as a young adult on an Israeli kibbutz.

He is one of a number of Jewish legislators on the Hill. I can't understand why anyone would be shocked or surprised at his POV.

I think some people don't quite "get" that we're all a product of our experiences. I'm sure his life experiences, like anyone else's, played some role in informing his views.

[Union Scribe]

144. ...where? nt

[SidDithers]

148. Yawn...nt

Sid

[MADem]

156. DU rec for introducing some serious cognitive dissonance into the mix.

The lockstep purists need to uncouple from the My Way or Highway train, and think contextually. Big picture, long view...!

Or throw the baby out with the bathwater!

Or would that be under the bus? That bus isn't going anywhere, I'd say--there's a party happening under there....under that bus is where the elite meet, tout suite!

[Hissyspit]

166. You mean most of DU?

Yeah misrepresentation does piss off a lot of people here.

[merrily]

151. Either you like her vote or you don't.

Focusing on the remarks, instead of on the vote, seems silly to me.

She said what just about any politician who voted as she did would say if challenged on the vote.