PDA

View Full Version : Glenn Greenwald's recent columns expose liberal hypocrisy




deadfish
02-22-2013, 05:52 PM
Glenn Greenwald is possibly my favorite journalist, although I like Matt Welch a lot too. Don't forget to check for Glenn's responses in the comments, he doesn't hold back when responding. one of the reasons I enjoy following him.

Obama officials refuse to say if assassination power extends to US soil (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/22/obama-brennan-paul-assassinations-filibuster)
The administration's extreme secrecy is beginning to lead Senators to impede John Brennan's nomination to lead the CIA
Friday 22 February 2013

The Justice Department "white paper" purporting to authorize Obama's power to extrajudicially execute US citizens was leaked three weeks ago. Since then, the administration - including the president himself and his nominee to lead the CIA, John Brennan - has been repeatedly asked whether this authority extends to US soil, i.e., whether the president has the right to execute US citizens on US soil without charges. In each instance, they have refused to answer.

Brennan has been asked the question several times as part of his confirmation process. Each time, he simply pretends that the question has not been asked, opting instead to address a completely different issue. Here's the latest example from the written exchange he had with Senators after his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee; after referencing the DOJ "white paper", the Committee raised the question with Brennan in the most straightforward way possible: ...

As always, it's really worth pausing to remind ourselves of how truly radical and just plainly unbelievable this all is. What's more extraordinary: that the US Senate is repeatedly asking the Obama White House whether the president has the power to secretly order US citizens on US soil executed without charges or due process, or whether the president and his administration refuse to answer? That this is the "controversy" surrounding the confirmation of the CIA director - and it's a very muted controversy at that - shows just how extreme the degradation of US political culture is. ... Read More (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/22/obama-brennan-paul-assassinations-filibuster)


DOJ kill list memo forces many Dems out of the closet as overtly unprincipled hacks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/11/progressives-defend-obama-kill-list)
Last week's controversy over Obama's assassination program forced into light many ignored truths that were long obvious

But the most significant factor was the behavior of many Democratic pundits and self-proclaimed progressives. Given how glaring all the assembled evidence was of Obama's dangerous radicalism, they faced a serious dilemma: how to fulfill their core purpose - defending Obama no matter what he does - while maintaining a modicum of dignity and intellectual coherence?

Some of them, like MSNBC host Touré Neblett, invoked the language of John Yoo to outright defend Obama's assassination powers on the ground of presidential omnipotence: "he's the Commander in Chief", he intoned. But the explicit submission to presidential authority necessary to justify this was so uncomfortably similar to Bush-era theories, and the very suggestion that MSNBC commentators would be saying any of that if it had been Bush's program rather than Obama's was so laughable, that this approach provoked little beyond widespread ridicule.

A slightly different approach was chosen by the Daily Beast's Michael Tomasky, a supremely loyal Obama acolyte. He wrote a whole column devoted to pronouncing himself "suspicious of high-horse denunciations" because the question here is such "a complicated one". It's so "complicated", he says, because he's "always written about politics with part of [his] brain focused on the question of what [he] would do if [he] were in Politician X's position". ... Read More (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/11/progressives-defend-obama-kill-list)


Glenn Greenwald has a superb twitter feed (https://twitter.com/ggreenwald) as well

Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald
What's more bizarre: that Senators are asking the President if he can execute Americans on US soil w/o charges, or that he won't answer?

As great as these two paragraphs are from @ESQPolitics, the last 2 sentences are perfect on every level http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Outlaw_In_The_Oval?src=rss … [links to story below]

A Bad Idea Gets Worse (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Outlaw_In_The_Oval)

This is what happens when you elect someone -- anyone -- to the presidency as that office is presently constituted. Of all the various Washington mystery cults, the one at that end of Pennsylvania Avenue is the most impenetrable. This is why the argument many liberals are making -- that the drone program is acceptable both morally and as a matter of practical politics because of the faith you have in the guy who happens to be presiding over it at the moment -- is criminally naive, intellectually empty, and as false as blue money to the future. The powers we have allowed to leach away from their constitutional points of origin into that office have created in the presidency a foul strain of outlawry that (worse) is now seen as the proper order of things. If that is the case, and I believe it is, then the very nature of the presidency of the United States at its core has become the vehicle for permanently unlawful behavior. Every four years, we elect a new criminal because that's become the precise job description. ...

sailingaway
02-22-2013, 06:05 PM
I follow him on twitter. I really like him on civil liberties and foreign policy, but he is a progressive when it comes to economics. He is also more collectivist than I like in social matters.

deadfish
02-22-2013, 06:08 PM
I follow him on twitter. I really like him on civil liberties and foreign policy, but he is a progressive when it comes to economics. He is also more collectivist than I like in social matters.

I agree. But his journalism is well sourced, fact checked, and usually have 2 or 3 updates to the column and ongoing debate in the comments. Not very many columnists that put in that kind of follow up work.

sailingaway
02-22-2013, 06:09 PM
I agree. But his journalism is well sourced, fact checked, and usually have 2 or 3 updates to the column and ongoing debate in the comments. Not very many columnists that put in that kind of follow up work.

I agree. It is a pleasure to read sourced, journalism.

itshappening
02-22-2013, 06:30 PM
I agree. But his journalism is well sourced, fact checked, and usually have 2 or 3 updates to the column and ongoing debate in the comments. Not very many columnists that put in that kind of follow up work.

If only he would apply the same research, sourcing and fact checking to deficits, the debt, taxation etc...

deadfish
02-22-2013, 06:53 PM
If only he would apply the same research, sourcing and fact checking to deficits, the debt, taxation etc...

The sources are all keynesian theories... So yeah, I guess your point remains true.

Peace Piper
02-22-2013, 07:03 PM
His latest article is, as usual, brilliant. Was going to post it


If only he would apply the same research, sourcing and fact checking to deficits, the debt, taxation etc...

If he quit writing tomorrow and spent the rest of his life cruising Rio's beaches or rescuing dogs he will have still done more than 99% of other all other reporters, let alone people in general, to bring this horrid policy to light. He deserves a lot more credit than he gets. He writes sometimes 5 times a week, yet some can criticize him for not doing enough. Unbelievable.

Greenwald Rocks absolutely. The reverberations of his work have just begun.

Inkblots
02-22-2013, 07:19 PM
I follow him on twitter. I really like him on civil liberties and foreign policy, but he is a progressive when it comes to economics. He is also more collectivist than I like in social matters.

Greenwald is absolutely and undeniably a liberal -- and one of the few on the modern left worthy to claim that noble heritage. I disagree with him completely on probably 60% of the issues, but if he were on a presidential ballot against Obama, Romney and Bob Barr, I'd vote for him over any of them. Unlike them, he's a man of principle.

HOLLYWOOD
02-22-2013, 08:00 PM
Even if Greenwald is a liberal... His push on exposing the Imperial Empire and shadow government that control the "Politburo Marionettes" of Capital Hill is a big plus.

WAR and the Security Industrial Complex are the greatest threats to Americans. Violation of the US Constitution, almost all the amendments, Inflation taxation, FEDERAL RESERVE, and a lower standard of living as government grows it's Fascism.

He's a major ally, all the internal spending on social programs e.g., Social Security, Head Start, etc can be addressed later, we need allies from all groups, the more we unite against these wackos that have hijacked the government into this Imperialistic Fascism of opresssion, while taking everyone rights away bit by bit(exception: Elitists/Gov JUST US), needs to be the #1 priority of every American citizen.

Make Friends... united across all groups, races, creed, persuasions, we win.

deadfish
02-22-2013, 08:20 PM
I was not following news closely when the drone memo was leaked. I was boggled by the sudden attention that the death of Alwaki's son was receiving. Wasn't this like old news? Better late than never was my thought at the time.

Has anyone been reading the comments? Post any good responses if you see them.




@HistoryNeverRepeats -

That being said, Glenn, why so uncritical of Rand Paul's position and motives??
Oh come on, Rand Paul would vow to filibuster Ayn Rand if she was a Democratic nominee. That he happens to be asking the right questions in his letter to Brennan does not mean the filibuster threat is anything other than standard-Republican 'anti-Obaba' playbook congressional obstruction.

[Greenwald] This is so wrong on so many levels that I barely know where to begin.

First, most Republicans support Brennan. Most Republicans particularly support Obama's drone program. Lindsey Graham said he intends to introduce a resolution praising Obama for the drone DOJ white paper.

So your claim that Paul's position is "standard-Republican 'anti-Obaba' playbook congressional obstruction" is the exact opposite of reality. Most Congressional Republicans are on the exact opposite side of Paul on Brennan, drones and the issue he's raising.

Second, your claim that Republicans oppose anything Obama does is totally false. As but one example, they voted to confirm Leon Panetta as DoD Chief unanimously. All but 3 Senators just voted to confirm John Kerry as Secretary of State. Claiming that they just oppose all of Obama's appointments is false. They support many of them.

Third, although I disagree with you about Paul's motives - he has a much more impressive record on these civil liberties issues than most national Democrats - I don't really care about his secret motives. Aside from the fact that I can't know them, I judge politicains on what they say and do, not their secret motives for saying and doing it.

deadfish
02-22-2013, 08:24 PM
This video was linked in the comments. I had never seen these.

MTV Holocaust: The Holocaust Happened to People Like Us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlwGppiYqBo

purplechoe
02-24-2013, 01:43 PM
I follow him on twitter. I really like him on civil liberties and foreign policy, but he is a progressive when it comes to economics. He is also more collectivist than I like in social matters.

He's one of the few lefties that I respect and will actually bother to hear what he has to say. He's not afraid to point out the hypocrisy of the left. I respect those those that do that. Since I'm on the other side of the spectrum, I feel it is my duty to point out the hypocrisy of the right...

http://25.media.tumblr.com/c5d9591410db7101126c6daaac13e8a5/tumblr_mhgnnmR75e1rcik4do1_1280.jpg

I wish there were more like him on both sides of the spectrum...

Lucille
02-24-2013, 06:26 PM
God bless that man.

Related: The Sources of Partisan Bias (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-sources-of-partisan-bias/)


Christopher Caldwell examines why partisans are more supportive of policies when they are carried out by “one of their own”:


Just as likely, the process moves in the opposite direction. Outlooks are driven by allegiances, not vice versa. “When people feel a sense of belonging to a given social group,” the authors write, “they absorb the doctrinal positions that the group advocates.” Perhaps disturbingly, this means partisan shifts need not be driven by political events at all. The right analogy, [Green, Palmquist, and Schickler] suggest, is not a contract between a party and its followers but a religion….Asking about policy preferences is like asking which is the best mother – the one who waits at home with buttered toast or the one who always has an encouraging word? Most people will answer: the best mother is my mother. They may answer the same way if you ask them whether the best president is the one who uses drones against terrorists or the one who does not.

There is something to this. Most issue activists, ideological voters, and high-information voters will presumably react to the same policy in more or less the same way no matter the party or politician identified with it, but they make a point of taking an interest in policy issues for their own reasons that make this sort of partisan bias much less likely. Party activists will react to a policy according to how advantageous and useful it is for their party, and strong partisan voters will tend to follow their lead. For partisan activists and voters, the first question is not, “Is this a good or defensible policy?” The first question is, “Does this help my party on issue X and make it more likely to win elections?” This approach to policy questions doesn’t make much sense to issue activists and voters, for whom advancing the desired/best policy is the most important or perhaps only reason to be involved in political life.
[...]
To be a partisan is to trust that those leaders are generally working in your best interest. The fact that this is frequently not true doesn’t seem to destroy that trust. The last thing that partisans want to hear is that their trust is misplaced, because this throws their reason for being a partisan into doubt. On the whole, partisans are unmoved by the argument that they are contradicting their principles by supporting a given administration policy, because their partisanship does not come from adherence to a set of principles that can be contradicted.

deadfish
02-27-2013, 10:29 PM
What's this now? Andrew Sullivan now chiming in against the secretive drone policy...

Release The Assassination Memos (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/02/26/release-the-assassination-memos/)
Feb 26 2013 @ 12:05pm

"I think my patience broke with the revelation that the Obama administration was more willing to give Butters some bullshit info on Benghazi than to give any ground on releasing the full, complete, original memos used to justify the assassination of Americans who have joined the Jihadist enemy. The cynicism was staggering. Those of us who supported Obama need to express our disgust and anger at this – especially those of us who have defended the drone program as, within key judicial and congressional constraints, sometimes the least worst option in keeping us safe.

This cannot be regarded as somehow a state secret. It divulges no plans; it just explains to American citizens the criteria by which their own president can kill them from the sky without any due process. If the torture memos could be released by this administration, as they were, so can these. And not just to some Congressional Committee – to all of us.

Here’s a question Rand Paul has asked of John Brennan and to which the administration has never given an answer:


"Do you believe that the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a US citizen on US soil, and without trial?”

What excuse does Brennan have for not answering this? I’m with a recent stellar Greenwald post on this. Until he does, he should be kept from his nominated post at the CIA. This is a core rupture of the Constitution – as core as the rupture of executive torture. It redefines the relationship between the executive and the people he or she serves. It makes our president judge, jury and executioner of any American citizen anywhere in the world, including the US. We already know that the executive seized a US citizen without charges under Bush-Cheney and tortured him into a physical wreck of a broken soul. Torture is always illegal and evil; self-defense in a just war isn’t. But if the war is against your own citizens, then the very least that those citizens deserve is a full accounting of the rationale behind such a disturbing power-grab. ... Read more (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/02/26/release-the-assassination-memos/)"



We need to be the wedge that breaks apart liberals from the democrat party and this is the perfect issue. We are the wedge and Rand is the sledgehammer poised to strike.