Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Glenn Greenwald: About that Iraq withdrawl --- Iraqi government refused to let them stay.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 09:59 AM
Original message
Glenn Greenwald: About that Iraq withdrawl --- Iraqi government refused to let them stay.
Edited on Sat Oct-22-11 10:05 AM by Better Believe It


About that Iraq withdrawal
By Glenn Greenwald
October 21, 2001

President Obama announced today that all U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of the year, and this announcement is being seized upon exactly the way you would predict: by the Right to argue that Obama is a weak, appeasing Chamberlain and by Democrats to hail his greatness for keeping his promise and (yet again) Ending the War. It’s obviously a good thing that these troops are leaving Iraq, but let’s note three clear facts before either of these absurd narratives ossify:

First, the troop withdrawal is required by an agreement which George W. Bush negotiated and entered into with Iraq and which was ratified by the Iraqi Parliament prior to Obama’s inauguration. Let’s listen to the White House itself today: “’This deal was cut by the Bush administration, the agreement was always that at end of the year we would leave. . . .’ an administration official said.” As I said, it’s a good thing that this agreement is being adhered to, and one can reasonably argue that Obama’s campaign advocacy for the war’s end influenced the making of that agreement, but the Year End 2011 withdrawal date was agreed to by the Bush administration and codified by them in a binding agreement.

Second, the Obama administration has been working for months to persuade, pressure and cajole Iraq to allow U.S. troops to remain in that country beyond the deadline. The reason they’re being withdrawn isn’t because Obama insisted on this, but because he tried — but failed — to get out of this obligation

Third, there will still be a very substantial presence in that country, including what McClatchy called a “small army” under the control of the State Department. They will remain indefinitely, and that includes a large number of private contractors.

Read the full article at:

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/21/about_that_iraq_withdrawal/singleton/


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



U.S. Troop Withdrawal Motivated by Iraqi Insistence, Not U.S. Choice
by Yochi J. Dreazen
October 22, 2011


President Obama’s speech formally declaring that the last 43,000 U.S. troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year was designed to mask an unpleasant truth: The troops aren’t being withdrawn because the U.S. wants them out. They’re leaving because the Iraqi government refused to let them stay.

Obama campaigned on ending the war in Iraq but had instead spent the past few months trying to extend it. A 2008 security deal between Washington and Baghdad called for all American forces to leave Iraq by the end of the year, but the White House -- anxious about growing Iranian influence and Iraq’s continuing political and security challenges -- publicly and privately tried to sell the Iraqis on a troop extension. As recently as last week, the White House was trying to persuade the Iraqis to allow 2,000-3,000 troops to stay beyond the end of the year.

In Washington, many Republican lawmakers had spent recent weeks criticizing Obama for offering to keep a maximum of 3,000 troops in Iraq, far less than the 10,000-15,000 recommended by top American commanders in Iraq. That political point-scoring helped obscure that the choice wasn’t Obama’s to make. It was the Iraqis’, and recent interviews with officials in the country provided vivid evidence of just how unpopular the U.S. military presence there has become -- and just how badly the Iraqi political leadership wanted those troops to go home.

The only major Iraqi political bloc that was willing to speak publicly about a troop extension was the Kurdish alliance which governs the country’s north and has long had a testy relationship with Maliki and the country’s Sunni and Shia populations. But even Kurdish support was far from monolithic: Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish lawmaker considered one of the most pro-American members of parliament, said in a recent interview that he wanted the U.S. troops out.

Read the full article at:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/u-s-troop-withdrawal-motivated-by-iraqi-insistence-not-u-s-choice-20111021?print=true
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. Glenn Greenwald has to be the grumpiest guy on the planet.
Edited on Sat Oct-22-11 10:03 AM by jefferson_dem
...Or he likes to play that role, at least. A total tool. :thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I take it you can't refute anything in his article. Is that right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. There's nothing to refute.
In fact, I would attest that Greenwald routinely wallows in a state of hopeless doldrums. This latest column is simply another illustration of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Thanks for the honesty. Greenwald's article stands as written and can't be disputed by you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobbie Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. Good grief
Edited on Sat Oct-22-11 02:32 PM by Bobbie Jo
:eyes:

A regular Perry Mason, that one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
22. it's funny that anyone thinks those kind of vapid talking points that are repeated ad nauseum on TV
are actually respectable in discussions with real people.

You can be happy about the withdrawal or not, but facts is facts: the Iraqis demanded it, forced Bush's hand, and Obama wasn't able to change their mind even though he tried.

None of that is disputable unless someone wants to claim that Obama secretly wasn't twisting the Iraqis arm too hard with the hope that they wouldn't back down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #22
33. We're talking about removing troops from the field of battle in a useless war, correct?
Then the difference of whether it was President Bush, President Obama, the President of Iraq, or the tooth fairy who caused it come about isn't really a deal breaker . . unless you're a smug, hypocritical warmongering Republican in Congress who can't concede that bringing the troops home is extremely popular with the American people since there were no WMDs in Iraq to begin with in 2003, and the timing of the troops arriving home while President Obama is currently sitting in the White House makes it appear that President Obama is the person that is responsible for it, since most people weren't paying attention when President Bush made this agreement in 2006 to begin with anyway.

yurbud, I'm right with you on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #33
58. that's how it appears, but if you don't look at the details of what's actually going on...
you can unpleasantly surprised by future events.

Someone trying to rob you could accidentally give you the heimlich maneuver and save your life. You wouldn't make them your primary medical caregiver as a result.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #22
109. Obama had already stated this timeline 2 years ago.
what facts were provided that Obama begged for troops to stay? Do we have phone conversations or something or spin?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zyzfyx Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-11 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #4
94. Doldrums?
You think he's depressed? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OwnedByFerrets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
61. If McCain had his way - 100 years in Iraq - he'd be even grumpier
I imagine. There's a substantial media bias toward finding something negative - or manufacturing something negative - about every good thing that is accomplished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-11 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
104. "I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011" -- President Obama, 2/27/09
http://www.usnews.com/news/obama/articles/2009/02/27/president-obamas-speech-on-ending-the-war-in-iraq?PageNr=2

Remarks of President Barack Obama - As Prepared for Delivery
Responsibly Ending the War in Iraq
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Friday, February 27, 2009
http://www.usnews.com/news/obama/articles/2009/02/27/president-obamas-speech-on-ending-the-war-in-iraq
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
2. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
JoePhilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
5. The effort to try to ensure that Obama gets no credit for anything good he does never stops.
"It took too long."
"He did it too fast."
"He didn't really do it."
"He didn't really want to do it."
"Some one else made him do it."
"Its good, but some one else really did it."
"Ok, he did it, but its not really that important."
"Ok, he did it, but he's planning to undo it later."
"He's going to do something really bad later, just you wait."

Its endless.

Bottom line ... its been a tough week for the Obama bashers on both sides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
32. Dude, you are the absolute bomb!
:yourock:

It's funny as hell cause it's true. Anything to blunt any credit this president might get. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #32
118. So it's more important to "give the President credit" than it is to make America better?
Edited on Fri Oct-28-11 12:57 AM by ClassWarrior
NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #5
52. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
57. You just won DU
:headbang:

I'm bookmarking this stupid thread JUST for your post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #5
117. Why do you ridicule people who just want a better America? Are you satisfied...
...with an America that's less than it could be?

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
7. The media
love to make up their own talking points.

The National Journal:

That impasse makes Obama’s speech at the White House on Friday less a dramatic...The White House said Obama was pleased with the coming troop withdrawal because it kept to his “core commitment” – frequently enunciated during the campaign – of pulling all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of the year. “We never wanted a residual force in Iraq,” a senior administration official insisted.

Seriously, which point are they trying to argue? It seems the point of the piece is to simply detract from the significance of the announcement.

September 6: U.S. pulls 700 troops from Iraq, denies report of mass withdrawal

<...>

But as they prepare to exit, administration officials in Washington were denying a news report claiming the White House wants to keep fewer U.S. troops in Iraq beyond this year than previously believed. According to Fox News, the White House is considering keeping just 3,000 troops in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31 deadline for nearly all servicemembers to be out of the country, per the existing bilateral security agreement between Washington and Baghdad. Previous news reports said the administration wanted to keep 10,000 troops in Iraq.

On Tuesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said the new report was not accurate.

“If the Iraqi government makes a request of us, we will certainly consider it,” he said, sticking with the U.S position and deferring to Baghdad.

Pentagon press secretary George Little also quickly dismissed the report, saying in an email, “No decisions on troop levels have been made.”

<...>

This bogus rumor started with Fox Noise and the rest of the media ran with it. In fact, even after the report was denied in early September, last week the media reported that the President abandoned the plan.


U.S. Forces in Iraq Prepare for Transition

WASHINGTON, Oct. 17, 2011 – The military is using an old camping adage as U.S. Forces Iraq continues to move service members out of Iraq and transfer control to the Iraqi government: “Leave the site in better shape than you found it.”

“Eight years of continuous conflict has resulted in a substantial amount of equipment, supplies, property and personnel still in Iraq, and we'll withdraw with the constant threat of enemy attack and the potential for bad weather, and we're doing so in a deliberate, measured manner, ensuring we protect service members, civilians, contractors, equipment and property, and we intended turnover bases, and we have been, better than we found them,” Army Maj. Gen. Thomas W. Spoehr said during an Oct. 13 “DODLive” bloggers roundtable.

Spoehr – deputy commanding general of U.S. Forces Iraq -- said the transition is of unparalleled magnitude. In 2008, U.S. forces numbered 165,000, residing on 505 bases, he said. Today, U.S. forces are 41,000 strong, living on 22 bases. On average, his mission still requires him to withdraw 520 people each day, he added.

The general said plans under the 2008 bilateral security agreement -- which states that all U.S. forces will withdraw from Iraq by Dec. 31 -- are on track. U.S. Forces Iraq is making the withdrawal with budgets in mind, Spoehr said, selling a large amount of equipment, infrastructure and recyclable waste to the Iraqi military and government agencies.

“We sold 6.8 million pounds of scrap just (this month), and since Sept. 1, 2010, we have sold more than 142 million pounds of unserviceable material through scrap sales,” he said. He added that the sale of equipment has saved American taxpayers $600 million in shipping and transport costs alone.

<...>


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
9. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #9
67. Greenwald may or may not be "professional", but he most certainly is not "the left".
He's looking at Gary Johnson in 2012. ;) As Thom Hartmann used to say, "Libertarians are just Republicans who wanna smoke dope, and get laid". Greenwald is a Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #67
110. Amen. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
10. LOL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MjolnirTime Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
11. Why would Greenwald stop making up shit now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. What -- specifically - is "made up" in the article?
Specifically?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BklnDem75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
12. More spin from Bitter Glen
Let's all pretend that if Obama really wanted to stay in Iraq a few more years, we wouldn't be there a few more years. It's just hard to take these bloggers seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MNBrewer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Despite considerable time and effort put forward by the Obama administration
the effort to negotiate extending the presence of US troops in Iraq failed. Thus the troops will be leaving on the originally agreed upon time frame. The President announces it as though it were some kind of diplomatic coup.

If the only criticism of Greenwald that can be mustered is that he's grumpy, gloomy and bitter, it's hard to take that criticism seriously.

There's plenty to be grumpy, gloomy and bitter about in the present Administration.

Just because he doesn't swallow the White House-approved happy pills doesn't make his commentary WRONG.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BklnDem75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. It was Obama's decision. The end
You're wrong on one thing, being bitter is a perfect and understandable reason to disregard anything Glenn has to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #12
24. And if Obama refused to leave Iraq do you think he was prepared to renew the Iraq war?

A half million fresh troops in Iraq might be enough to put down Iraqi resistance to a decision by Obama to not withdraw. Where would those troops come from and do you really think the public would support a new massive U.S. military "surge" in Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BklnDem75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Ask Moammar
I'm sure he had those same questions. We're heading out of Iraq because Obama decided it was time. We can pretend these smear jobs are accurate, but it kills the whole ruthless warmonger memo. Are you sure you want to stick to that story?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
14. Wow. You't think Glenn pissed in our Wheaties.
Edited on Sat Oct-22-11 11:39 AM by lumberjack_jeff
The truth is this: we're cheering Obama for an outcome that he worked hard to avoid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
17. Regardless of why we're leaving now
or under what circumstances, the fact of the matter is that we are leaving and, more importantly, respecting the SOFA drawn up towards the end of the Bush (mis-)administration, which the Iraqis apparently insisted on maintaining. It's not clear who in the Administration (Obama? Panetta?) wanted to keep some troops in Iraq longer or why but if it is the case that the Obama Administration wanted to keep some troops there longer and the Iraqi government told us that it wanted us out as planned, at least we are doing the right thing by respecting the Iraqi government's wishes and not seeking to impose ourselves on them.
Are Romney, McCain, et. al saying that they would have wanted us to disrespect the Iraqi government and ignore the "freedom" of the Iraqi people. Since they are busy criticizing President Obama over simply upholding our obligations to the Iraqis and respecting their wishes, it's apparent they don't care about the Iraqis' feelings on the matter (to say nothing of the fact that this was negotiated under GWB). I'm sure none of them believed it was wrong to impose our will on Iraq back in 2003 either. :puke:
For whatever reason we are now leaving (which was the plan all along anyway), it is a good thing and something to be applauded IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xocet Donating Member (699 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
18. Reality and facts are always more important than the person who is President...
By all means, bring the troops home now!

Just don't forget to bring the contractors and the mercenaries home as well, and don't lie about the reason that this is to be done.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngkorWot Donating Member (792 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
20. lol, what a bitter little loser.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
21. Unrec...
Keep trying.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #21
77. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
LittleBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
23. Being forced to leave constitutes an "accomplishment"
We're just desperate to deprive him of his "achievements." :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fuddnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 04:59 AM
Response to Reply #23
38. Another Bush policy implemented!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Facts are facts. This was an agreement signed by Bush several years ago. And it's been reported fairly widely that Obama has been trying to negotiate an extension of troop presence.

The biggest sticking point was the status of forces agreement, which provides for immunity for crimes committed by our soldiers. People will only stand for their citizens being raped and murdered for so long.

I was against the war before it started. I've been against all the wars we're currently involved in. I'm against our next imperial move. But, lets talk about the facts, and quit trying to spin them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
25. Thanks. We'll file Greenwald's opinion in the same place as John Bolton's
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #25
45. Is that a bit of the Constitution I see in there?
Oh, well. We don't seem to need that anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #45
56. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
27. Glenn Greenwald: Total asswipe, and human waste of space.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #27
46. Your use of limited language is a give away...for deep thinking about this....
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #27
68. Yeah, that Glen is just like a mix of a murderer, a rapist, a child molester, and Mr Potter rolled
up into one.

That dastardly fuck dares tell the truth that cannot be denied so let's attack him as a person.

You guys are breathing my air.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #68
113. You probably know the "dastardly fuck" much better than me.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-11 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #27
100. But you agree that he is right though?
I mean you don't address the issue at all. So, we get that you have a "thing" for Glen, but since you ignore the premise, we must assume that you let it stand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
29. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
30. unrec Glenn 'the schmuck', aka Eeyore
the donkey brays yet again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-11 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
31. The antiwar movement has won! President Obama has been forced to bring our troops home!


This is a time to celebrate.

The Iraqi government didn't cave in to Obama's demands and insisted on the total U.S. withdrawl of troops from Iraq.

As we all know, for months the Obama administration attempted to cut a deal with the Iraq government to keep thousands of U.S. combat troops in Iraq. But, the Iraq government wouldn't and couldn't cave in to Obama's insistence on immunity from prosecution for possible future illegal and/or criminal activity by Obama's military "warriors".

We and the Iraqi people have won!

President Obama and others who wanted to keep U.S. troops and military bases in Iraq have lost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lord Helmet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. so the antiwar movement forced his hand with an agreement Bush signed?
:dunce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #34
42. The anti-war movement isn't taking credit for Iraq's decision to not allow U.S. troops remain.

I'm sure that anti-war activists are pleased by Iraq's decision to demand Obama remove his "warriors" from Iraq.

We all know that President Obama tried for months to strike a deal with the Iraq government to permit U.S. troops and bases to remain in Iraq.

But you already know that, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lord Helmet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #42
48. Your own words: "The anti-war movement has won!"
Luv your posts here. They are a laugh a minute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Well we clearly did win! All U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Iraq. Do you call that a loss?

Of course, the Iraq government made it possible for us to win on that issue by demanding that the Obama administration withdraw the troops from Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #31
35. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #31
116. But NATO! US hegemony! Why would the US cede to the WHIMS of such a pithy state?!
I thought the US was all powerful and did whatever it wanted!

Oh right, it did under Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomKoolzip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
36. I remember when Greenwald was considered a hero around DU.
Edited on Sun Oct-23-11 12:10 AM by RandomKoolzip
Back during the Bush years. Greenwald has remained ideologically consistent ever since then, but this thread and others wherein he is quoted exhibit that Greenwald's views draw little but ire and dismissal around DU now. I wonder why that is? His message never changed.

Having a Dem in charge sure brings out the worst in a lot of Dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 03:55 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. Most "Democrats" don't like third party b.s. dressed up as "constructive criticism".
This guys unpacks Greenwald pretty well. Glenn Greenwald is Ralph Nader repackaged, but the goal is the same, and that's the total destruction of the Democratic Party, which is why they almost completely ignore and/or openly support the Republicans. Like Nader, Greenwald was also hoping for some billionaire to take on the two party duopoly. An indepedently wealthy candidate who can purchase the office of president? Koch Brothers, anyone? I don't know if Glenn is getting his talking points from Nader, or the other way around. :shrug:

"One of his hopes for 2012 is that candidates will emerge to take on the red and the blue teams — he is keeping an eye on Gary Johnson, a two-term Republican governor of New Mexico, who is pro-gay and antiwar, and who could run with a Democrat like former Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold. He would also be happy to see a billionaire run without the help of either party, to “disrupt the two-party stranglehold.”

Greenwald believes the same manipulation of the two-party system is essential in the fight for gay rights. He says he is encouraged by the rise of the Log Cabin Republicans—not because he likes a thing the GOP endorses, but because “it sends a signal to Democrats that they can’t keep using gay voters as an ATM machine.”

Then, there’s the issue of his overall political acumen and whether he has a well-formed and resolute set of political values. His written output suggests that Greenwald is politically engaged primarily by civil liberties and security state issues. He writes comparatively little about economic quality of life issues like wealth and income disparities, life opportunities and other forms of economic and social justice, including the rights of workers to act in solidarity to form unions and collectively bargain through their labor unions. And now, in learning he’s open to supporting Republican Gary Johnson, we see enough to know it’s almost certain he doesn’t share with liberals and progressives the core belief that the government has a necessary and essential role in taming the excesses of capitalism or of addressing our existential challenges as a species.

By saying he might support Gary Johnson, Glenn Greenwald has now demonstrated that he is a narrowly-focused advocate who cares about only a few issues, and is not a liberal or progressive with a broad sense of the common good. He’s also a poor political analyst, for if can’t he recognize the damage that would be unleashed by having as a president someone who cavorts with 9-11 truther Alex Jones and who in 2008 endorsed nutball libertarian Ron Paul for president, why pay attention to what he says outside the narrowly legal boundaries of his claims about the government, our politicians and public policy?"


http://rootedcosmopolitan.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/glenn-greenwald-neither-a-liberal-nor-a-progressive/


In 2005, Glenn had some very Minute Men type views on immigration which I found shocking. You've leveled a charge that Greenwald was a DU hero at one time, so was President Obama. Things change. Oh well....:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fuddnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 05:06 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. For anyone old enough to remember,
Ralph Nader was a national treasure and a hero.

Don't blame him for Bush. Blame the treasonous SCOTUS. And Jeb Bush. And Katherine Harris. And Joe Lieberman. Voter purges, roaadblocks on election day, non-postmarked ballots, Republican thugs, unintelligible ballots,and a back-stabbing Lieberman cost Gore the election. Not Nader.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 05:18 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. "Gore = Bush"? How was that, in any way, helpful? Nader had every right to run,
but don't diminish his responsibility for Bush II. I'll never forgive him for that, just as I'll never forgive Greenwald for espousing the same line of shit today. He, like Nader, is not a "Democrat", and I don't do third parties, and neither does DU. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-11 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #39
96. Blame Gore for running a shitty campaign
and acting pretty odd too. And although I didn't believe it at the time, we do have a choice between two corporate owned parties. The differences between the two aren't as large as advertised. Nader was right about this as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #37
43. I suppose you have a link to back up your charge about Glenn in 2005
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-11 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #43
101. That one hasn't backed up one of his hateful rants yet.
You would almost think there was something about Glen that bothered him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-11 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #43
107. Here ya go -- some pure wingnut garbage from GG in 2005
... And yet few problems are more pressing. Over the past several years, illegal immigrants have poured into the United States by the millions. The wave of illegals entering the country is steadily increasing. The people living in the border states of California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico know this flow has to be drastically slowed and then halted. The situation is so dire in that region that the Democratic Governors of Arizona and New Mexico were forced to declare States of Emergency as a result of the flow of illegals into their states and the resulting, massive problems which it brings.
The parade of evils caused by illegal immigration is widely known, and it gets worse every day. In short, illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone ...

Saturday, November 19, 2005
The GOP fights itself on Illegal Immigration
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/gop-fights-itself-on-illegal.html

And here's GG defending whackadooble xenophobe Tancredo:

... Willis references a post by Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly, which quotes a letter from anti-illegal-immigration Congressman Tom Tancredo to his supporters in which Rep. Tancredo asks for help in what Tancredo calls the "struggle to preserve our national identity against the tide of illegal immigrants flooding the United States." In response to Tancredo’s letter, Willis snidely writes:
Hey, Tom Tancredo . . . Just say "white power" and get it off your chest.
So, there’s Willis' self-satisfied decree, in its vapid entirety. According to Willis (and many of Drum's commentators, if not Drum himself), anyone who believes that it’s important for a nation to be comprised of citizens who have at least some joint national allegiance and a minimal common foundation -- never mind a common language in which they can communicate with one another -- is a White Supremacist bigot ...

Saturday, December 03, 2005
Yelling "racist" as an "argument" in the immigration debate
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/yelling-racist-as-argument-in.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #107
120. Thanks for digging that up s4p. Like I said, a libertarian is a Repuke who wants to smoke dope,
and get laid. GG is no different. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #37
47. Do you stand behind this part of the article you quoted


First, this bit of slipperiness about his living inBrazil, and why:

Given Greenwald’s intellectual fecundity and argumentative ferocity, being gay may be the least interesting thing about him. But even Greenwald doesn’t claim that his sexual orientation doesn’t matter. After all, if he were straight he would be living in Manhattan, his home for most of the last 20 years. Instead, he lives in Rio de Janeiro, barred from moving to the United Stateswith his Brazilian boyfriend, David Michael Miranda.

“Brazil recognizes our relationship for immigration purposes, while the government of my supposedly ‘free,’ liberty-loving country enacted a law explicitly barring such recognition,” says Greenwald, referring to the Defense of Marriage Act with the disdain he typically shows for policies he believes are eroding Americans’ freedoms. Greenwald’s attacks on the powerful make him a tempting target for reprisals. So it’s no surprise that, soon after he started blogging, critics sometimes tried to out him in a game of “gotcha”. But what upset Greenwald was the implication that he had been closeted in the first place. “There was nothing to out,” he says. “I’ve been as out as I can be since I was 20.”

I don’t know if the faulty claims here are from Greenwald, the writer, or a combination of the two, but it hardly makes sense that the only reason Greenwald isn’t living in theUS is because he’s gay. He evidently comes and goes through the US as he pleases, and his partner says he used to travel everywhere with him but now he sometimes has to stay inRiobecause of his studies. And there’s certainly no prohibition against being gay and having a committed partner.

Of course it’s completely plausible that what’s really happening is unconscionable but not dark and menacing. If Greenwald were straight and met a woman inRio, he could have married her and eventually—although not with a certainly and probably not without hassles–gotten her a visa so they could live together in the US. But he can’t do that officially and easily with a same-sex partner, so therefore it’s possible that his choice is live in the US but not be able to bring his partner in to the US permanently, or just say “screw it, I want to be with him, and we can either have a crappy long-distance relationship across national borders or I could live with him in Rio and travel to the US when necessary.”

That Greenwald and others who love someone of the same sex may be forced to make such a choice is unjust. I admit that in the past I had thought “you know, if he cares so much about the US then why doesn’t Greenwald just live here and fight to make it better instead of staying in Brazil.” But I was wrong. If indeed his partner can’t get permanent resident status in the US, who are we to say that Greenwald should stay here and deny himself love and domesticity?

how mother fucking generous of him to stop judging gay people who choose love harshly. Oh, and Greenwald is trying to make his country better by writing his op eds. what a fucking douchbag and bigot to boot and this is your source, just lovely.

But if Greenwald lives in Brazil because he wants to live with the man he loves, while unjust and makes the US worthy of criticism, it’s not close to being true that he’s “barred from living in the United States with his boyfriend.” It’s more likely true that, like plenty of couples, same-sex as well as hetero, that because they’re unmarried his partner can’t live permanently in the US, but unlike hetero couples they don’t have the option of changing that by getting married. That’s horrible, but not as ominous sounding as saying he’s barred from moving to the US.

and this is rich. Just like an opposite sex unmarried couple, except in one way, what way is that again. Oh right, we can't get fucking married and have our fucking country accept that marriage. Just what should Greenwald call this situation. His boyfriend can get a non working visa for 6 months then go back and wait to get another, etc. Wouldn't you call that banned from living with your husband (they are married now)? And you rely on this bigotted douchbag. shame on you

end of quote bold added by me italics are my text.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #47
73. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-11 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #47
102. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #37
64. oooooooh, them's definately fightin woids!
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #37
71. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
seaglass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #37
111. Greenwald never supported Johnson. Funny how you keep trying to push this point even though
there is no quote from GG.

This is a quote from GG regarding Johnson:

"How small and broken a brain is required to equate (a) praise for a candidate's specific views & their impact with (b) supporting them."

It really isn't even worth arguing on these threads because those who don't like what Greenwald has to say (and we ALL know why that is) ALWAYS personally attack him/his character but NEVER have the brains to refute his points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #111
112. What's the point of "refuting" rightwing (libertarian) garbage? We have different heroes.
Deal with it. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #36
55. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #36
114. +1
When logical and ideological consistency aren't highly valued over party loyalty, well...there are several unpleasant scenarios where that leads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
41. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
44. tough week for glen. ghadaffi goes down and a troop withdrawal n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #44
54. Hey you!!!
Leave Glenn ALLOOOOOONNNNE!!!!!!ELEVENTYHUNDRED!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
50. Poor glenn. He should write a regular column for the dungeon. Nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Or infowars...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. Or counterpunch...
Edited on Sun Oct-23-11 01:27 PM by ClarkUSA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
59. Shhhh, we're pretending it's about keeping promises.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. & some here can pretend REAL GOOD
when they want to!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
62. I find it exceptionally strange that even though two articles are quoted
by two different authors, only one author is being personally criticized, and he is the gay one. Odd indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. He seems to be the most hated progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #62
72. 'Cause Yochi J. Dreazen's dreck isn't posted weekly at DU...nt
Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
65. Um, hello, how could it be Iraq's choice?
Was it Iraq's choice that we were there win the first place? :rofl:

How were we there at all if it was a "choice" for Iraq?

If we wanted to stay, we'd stay, whether Iraq wanted us to or not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-23-11 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. because we signed an agreement stating that we would
leave at the end of 2012. The issue became keeping some soldiers but we wanted immunity and Iraq wanted no immunity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BklnDem75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #65
84. Apparently, Obama's an evil warmonger...
and completely powerless to keep us in a country we invaded at the same time. All this spinning is making me dizzy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cottonseed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
69. Plop
Too predictable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GSLevel9 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
70. K and R for the refreshing smell of the truth on DU. Nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobbie Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-11 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #70
95. Sniff
Smells like horseshit to me, with a hint of troll.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
74. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
75. Thank You Iraq Government!!!! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobbie Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-11 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #75
106. What about the British and the French?
Edited on Wed Oct-26-11 10:15 PM by Bobbie Jo
Mirror image spin. :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #106
108. Iraq is kicking us out, what does the French and Brits have to do with it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobbie Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #108
115. LOL
It's just that you sound a bit like McCain breaking his neck to avoid any untoward compliments.

See: Libya

:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
76. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
great white snark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #76
79. Greenwald is no Democrat.
No comment on the "Bad Obama" comments on this Democratic website?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #76
80. WTF are you? Do you support Gary Johnson as well? That's the problem many of us have with GG.
Glenn's work would probably be much better suited to FR, than here. He's not a Democrat, and he's certainly no progressive. That's "who we are". I hope you get equally as outraged at some of the ridiculous attacks on the president in this forum? :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #80
119. and you apparently are ok with the bigot you quoted in the OP
so who is worse?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #76
82. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
78. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
81. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
83. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DisgustipatedinCA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
85. I think Glen Greenwald wrote an excellent article
I can't find anything in his article to refute, and I cannot see any valid refutation of Greenwald's article anywhere in the thread, despite all the extra assistance that those who hate Greenwald are receiving.

There should be a forum where it's permissible to like Glen Greenwald and to try to defend what he has said in his writings.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pmorlan1 Donating Member (763 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. Hear hear
I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pmorlan1 Donating Member (763 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
86. Greenwald was spot-on
I think Greenwald wrote a great piece on this. From what I can see in this thread no one is refuting the facts, they just don't like Greenwald.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #86
93. We don't like folks who endorse Republican candidates. You?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-11 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #93
98. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-11 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #93
99. Is that the royal "We"
Speak for yourself.

When someone says something real, I listen. Please note at least two threads on DU where very staunch Obama fans are quoting GG with praise.

You can't just attack the messenger. You need to try to address the issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-11 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #99
103. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-11 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #103
105. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 09:39 PM
Response to Original message
88. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
89. Susan Rice's interview with Rachel yesterday makes short work of this opinion piece.
Speculation and pontification occur in a vacuum, we'll all get that.

Susan Rice, however, recounted the moves behind the scenes and they are nothing short of jaw-dropping.

----> http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/ambassador-rice-on-what-guides-u-s-foreign-policy/65i0yxo?from=
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #89
90. Thanks for sharing that AK.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #90
91. Hi.
:fistbump:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-11 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
92. I'm confused, what army would Iraq have used to force ours out of the country?
We did a pretty good job of destroying the one they had in 1990 and finished it off by 2003.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-11 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #92
97. Most Iraqis want to see the U.S. leave their country.
A lot of these people are willing to what's necessary to make that happen. So far, the Iraqi government has helped keep a lid on that. Continuing the occupation in defiance of the negotiated withdrawal date and the Iraqi government would further destabilize the country and undermine the the authority of the government. You'd probably have a lot of people in government aiding a new wave of insurgency and civil war if we continue to occupy. The U.S. doesn't want a failed chaotic state in Iraq. That helps Iran. And we don't want thousands more U.S. dead every year trying to regain control, this time without the help of an Iraqi government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 16th 2024, 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC