The Daily Banter’s Official Helpful Media Guide for Interacting With Glenn Greenwald

gg_morning_joe

So you’re a mainstream media organization and you’re about to book Glenn Greenwald on your show or feature him in an interview segment. And why not? He just broke a story that everyone is falling all over himself to agree is one of the most significant news items of the last several years; it only makes sense that you and your organization would want to be granted an audience with the world’s new Hero Journalist, the man whose fearlessness and tenacity supposedly puts you and your kind to shame and reminds us all how important the Fourth Estate can be as a check against rampant governmental corruption and the authorities’ ongoing violation of our precious civil liberties.

While Greenwald may be unfamiliar to many average Americans and most established news organizations consider him little more than a footnote in the modern press — an intelligent but stridently utopian-minded provocateur operating right at the event horizon where journalism plunges off into unapologetic advocacy — we here at The Daily Banter have had a long and fruitful relationship with him. Most who write about or argue politics on the internet know Greenwald and few have a neutral opinion of him, but we really do think we’re special here at Banter — that we’re experts in the study of “Glennology” — because of the sheer volume of copy we’ve managed to glean from his very existence upon this planet, to say nothing of his ongoing contributions to political shtick.

So, with that in mind, we’d like to offer our services to the various mainstream news organizations who are now lining up to kiss Glenn’s ring in the wake of his stories in The Guardian on the NSA’s apparent data-mining of American citizens through telephone and tech companies and his interview with the man behind the leak, 29-year-old Edward Snowden. Talking to Glenn Greenwald, particularly if you’re an “establishment” news outlet, isn’t the same as talking to any regular doof off the street; you’ve got to be prepared and be on guard at all times for reasons that will become clear presently. The best advice we can give you right off the bat is that when dealing with Greenwald, it’s important to keep in mind the words of Tangina Barrons to the hapless Freeling family as it prepared to confront the ghost that was terrorizing it in the 1982 film Poltergiest: Clear your mind — it knows what scares you.

1. Glenn Greenwald Is Always Smarter/Better Than You This morning on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Greenwald got into a minor tiff with show co-host Mika Brzezinski when she dared to question the conclusions he drew in his reporting, namely that what the NSA has been doing for years is very likely illegal. Brzezinski asked whether there’s been any judicial oversight of the data-mining program, which would, ostensibly, make it not necessarily a good idea but also not illegal. Greenwald, of course, wasn’t having any of that, particularly considering where the questioning of his claims was coming from: a highly-paid, highly-placed puppet of the government and stenographer of its propaganda. He immediately accused Brzezinski of reading “White House talking points” which were false. Because that’s how Greenwald operates: If you work for a major media organization and you don’t see things Glenn’s way, which you very likely won’t because you’re at least somewhat tethered to a desire to report objectively, your unquestioning fealty to authority instantly renders your opinion worthless. Glenn Greenwald, you see, is journalistic integrity’s last man standing and is therefore always within his right to condescendingly lecture you. This is especially true when we get to point number two…

2. Glenn Greenwald Is Always Right Over the weekend, not more than a couple of days after the initial report from Greenwald broke, Bob Cesca picked apart the findings of both Greenwald and The Washington Post, revealing the ways in which their respective stories, while not without substance, were nowhere near the bombshells they were being touted as. The Washington Post almost immediately began adjusting its story and making “clarifications,” essentially covering its ass in the wake of shoddy and misleading reporting, but Greenwald stood firm. Why? Because he’s incapable of admitting to mistakes or seeing nuance, even when pointed out by intelligent and well-meaning sources. Greenwald’s version of reality is reality and his viewpoint remains intransigent even when facts come to light that thoroughly contradict his claims. Not only that, but Greenwald has smugly deemed for all of journalism — and really the American citizenry in general — what its priorities should be, which trespasses truly rise to the level of high crimes and which can be overlooked in the name of serving the greater good, as determined by Glenn Greenwald. And as with Mika Brzezinski — and many, many others — if you dare to confront Greenwald or to question his credibility or his motives, get ready for his signature response…

3. Glenn Greenwald Is Almost Certainly Going To Call You Names at Some Point Being a good journalist is a little like being a scientist: You should constantly be testing your theory and findings for signs of confirmation bias or an agenda that’s getting the better of your commitment to the truth. In other words, you should be trying to prove yourself wrong as often as you’re trying to prove yourself right. Greenwald, for all his insufferably sanctimonious journalistic posturing, is driven by an unwavering agenda and determined to obsessively propagate a singular narrative — that President Obama is bad. Over the past few years, first at Salon and now at The Guardian, he’s regularly drawn from a grab bag of dirty tricks and offenses to journalistic integrity both in his columns and in the defense of his opinions. They include innuendo, personal smears, outright lies, unsupported claims, and statements rife with unacknowledged hypocrisy. Just two months ago, in an expansive and exhaustively detailed piece, The Daily Kos picked apart a series of Greenwald stories and the conclusion it came to — what it dubbed “The Final Word on Glenn Greenwald” — was anything but ambiguous:

“He mixes high-concept political commentary with the lowest forms of tabloid propaganda in service to a religiously anti-Obama narrative, cavalierly dispenses with even the barest semblance of truth, honesty, and intelligent thought when it suits him, applies double standards and doublespeak when convenient, and is rewarded for it with major online media syndication. In other words, he is far more a part of the problem than any likely role the remainder of his content could play in solutions. There will always be a market for lazy, exploitive, tabloid demagoguery that conceals and distracts far more than it illuminates or focuses, but there will also always be people who see it for what it is and call it out. That doesn’t mean Greenwald’s articles should never be used as a conduit to other information, but in light of his routine and unrepentant excesses as an allegedly professional commentator, there is no justification for ever using him as a direct or sufficient source. However, whatever the problems with his own commentary and interpretations, he may be considered indirectly useful as a link aggregator toward more credible sources than himself.”

Greenwald consistently and almost exclusively writes about four or five subjects. They’re his pet issues and they illustrate his belief that they’re not only above reproach but, again, that they’re more important than any other issues that may expose hypocrisy on Greenwald’s part. Disagree and you’ll be relentlessly attacked by Greenwald, who will either call you names or simply question your credibility on the matter. If you don’t think Bradley Manning is a saint and a hero and that the potential for him to have put lives in danger by exposing classified national security material to the public isn’t as important as everyone knowing America’s dirty secrets — or if you believe drone technology is an imperfect but necessary deterrent to future attacks on the U.S. — you’re a sociopath. If you take a stand against drone warfare that’s really nothing more than a giant helping of self-serving stagecraft, then it won’t matter if the rest of your political beliefs and pursuits are deplorable, you’re worth lauding. If you see nuance in President Obama’s positions on various controversial subjects and don’t consider his administration to be the equivalent of Bush’s indelibly corrupt reign and legacy, you’re a “cultist.” Again, he’s never wrong. And not only are you wrong if you disagree with him — you’re an idiot.

We’re of course not saying that Glenn Greenwald isn’t worth talking to about his NSA story. In fact, we’re not even saying that Greenwald’s NSA story isn’t a story (although it’s certainly not the story Glenn wants the world to believe it is). What we hope to do by creating this little Greenwald primer is educate the unfamiliar — in Greenwald’s eyes, the ignorant — so that any media organization that puts itself in the unenviable position of daring to speak to Glenn in a way that isn’t 100% affirming of his journalistic prowess and doesn’t stroke his leviathan ego to completion knows what it’s getting itself into. We have no doubt that, since this is the internet, some will accuse us here at The Daily Banter of engaging in ad hominem attacks against Greenwald. Here’s the thing about that, though: What some would call ad hominem, we can easily defend as simply asking that, when you’re dealing with Glenn Greenwald, you consider the source. Greenwald’s report may not be completely riddled with inaccuracies, but he’s not reporting in a vacuum; his “bombshell” is the culmination of an obsessive dislike for the Obama administration — and any report that influenced by agenda always needs to be eyed with suspicion and gone over with a fine-toothed comb.

Glenn Greenwald has been looking to take down Obama and feed his own depthless narcissism for years now. He just managed to accomplish one of these goals in spades: If you’re a mainstream media outlet thinking of giving him airtime or copy space, you’re naturally increasing his visibility. Just be warned about what you’re up against. It damn sure isn’t the intellectual and journalistic honesty and relentless quest for the truth Greenwald would have you believe.

Like Us On Facebook!

More on the Banter:

George Clooney: "We Cannot Be Told We Can’t See Something by Kim Jong-un, of All F*cking People"

George Clooney: "We Cannot Be Told We Can’t See Something by Kim Jong-un, of All F*cking People"

George Clooney tried to organize Hollywood to stand against the Sony hackers. No one would stand wit[Read more...]
The Daily Banter NSFW Video Mail Bag

The Daily Banter NSFW Video Mail Bag

In this week's NSFW Video Mail Bag, the guys talk about a particularly bizarre life choice, and the [Read more...]
The Daily Banter Video Mail Bag: Ben, Chez and Bob Discuss Cuba, Greenwald, Florida and Hippies!

The Daily Banter Video Mail Bag: Ben, Chez and Bob Discuss Cuba, Greenwald, Florida and Hippies!

In this week's Video Mail Bag, the guys talk about Cuba, Florida's place on the electoral map, Green[Read more...]
Fox News Thinks 'The Interview' Flap Is Obama's Fault

Fox News Thinks 'The Interview' Flap Is Obama's Fault

It must be completely exhausting to work at Fox News, where literally every effing thing is Obama's [Read more...]
America, Fuck No: Paramount Now Surrenders on "Team America" Because We Suck
  • kat

    you call attacking journalists for telling the public about secret illegal programs, and defending the political establishment; journalism? hahahahaha. you people are soooooooo dumb. hahahaha

  • kat

    you can add “pulitzer prize winning” to that list. hahahaha. this article is so devoid of intellectual value, and the comments are hilarious!

  • SocraticGadfly

    Actually, I can question Greenwald, and have on my own blogging (I’m also a paid member of the media, but not on the national scene), without buying into every claim of Dear Leader (that’s Obama!) or Obamiacs. I certainly reject Obama and Obamiacs’ defense of drone warfare. As for depthless narcissism, there’s plenty of that at the White House.

  • Das Schtaunkhauser

    I for one never listen to Greenwald because people who tell me Obama is good are acting in my best interest. I never question authority, and think you shouldn’t either.

  • http://www.swift2.blogspot.com Swift2

    I used to follow him on Twitter, but he wrote something, during the election, that made me tilt my head: he said Obama WAS cutting Medicare by $100 billion, after Mitt wasn’t saying that any more. I did some googling to check reputable sources. I replied publicly to say it was money for individuals that was no longer necessary after the ACA to pay the hospitals, that it was money saved, and that I was already seeing the benefits in my Medicare. I didn’t get a thoughtful answer, I was called a typical Obamabot. Another time I wondered if it was fair to call the killing of Al-Awlawki a murder, since he joined with those who were making war on us. War mongering totalitarian names. I unfollowed him. I have moved in the past few years from thinking of Libertarians as being sometime allies and sometimes harmless nuts to True Believers. It’s no accident that Ron Paul supports the Confederacy, and thinks that Lincoln was evil. It’s just the nicest face possible put on a very old, undemocratic religion of the wealthy.

  • n0npr0phet

    Are all your posts so corporate apologist or are you just dabbling as a corporate apologist?

  • Hooker Jay

    Objectively speaking, Jay Rosen would puke his shoes reading this hit piece. Especially when he got to the DailyKos part. Talk about pure projection. Apparently the Kossack who wrote “The Final Word On Greenwald” didn’t bother to remember that blog readers had THEIR final word on Orange Inc. LLC when Markos instituted “Blogroll Amnesty Day” — otherwise known as “Operation: Hide The Fugly Cousins” — where his blogroll went on through a purity purge.

    Mary Scott Connor of MyLeftWing got purged …

    Booman good purged.

    Lee Papa/Rude Pundit got purged.

    And all in response to the fallout over The Catholic League’s fatwah on “Anti-Catholic Bloggers” i.e. back when Amanda from Pandagon and Melissa “Ms. Shakes” McEwan were hired by the Edward’s Campaign, and then hocked, pawned, and house-wiggered faster than Obama hocked, pawned, and house-wiggered Brad Manning, the public option, etc …

    • villemar

      The fuck are you on about?

  • http://classicalvalues.com/ TallDave

    Yawn. You guys loved GG when he was attacking Bush.

    • Florida Squeezed

      GG was unknown during the Bush Presidency.

  • PJ Schwackhammer

    Pretty funny… replace “Glenn Greenwald” with “Noam Chomsky,” and you’d barely have to rewrite the rest of this article. It’d still be dead-on correct.

  • chrisj

    If GG just steps it up a notch or two, he might start to compete with Lewis Black, and provide great comic relief instead of mediocre journalism.

  • H S

    All you really have to do to get an idea of who GG is, is to read the comments of his supporters. Some of the most vile, irrational, and sociopathic replies ever seen since the time I browsed Red State for kicks.
    On that alone I do not doubt your article one bit. I guess the left really do have their own teabaggers.

  • Mr X

    He calls you names because you’re a WH defending to the death hack. I hope 10 whistleblowers come out with the proof that your god Obama has been reading NSA metadata with his breakfast. God knows even if he hasn’t Valerie Jarrett has which is why a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who couldn’t keep her mouth shut had to brag about Obama having the mother of all databases.

  • http://norwegianshooter.blogspot.com/ Mark Erickson

    This is great, right down to pre-buting the ad hominem response. How prescient! Because it is ad hominem. And pure assertion. Now I haven’t read the links yet, but I will. I’m sure it will be as entertaining as this was.

    • http://norwegianshooter.blogspot.com/ Mark Erickson

      Yup, I went two or three links deep into the self links. Ben admits in every post he’s a tone troll. Chez slavishly repeats GG slavishly repeats himself. Bob is only different in length. Pathetic.

    • http://norwegianshooter.blogspot.com/ Mark Erickson

      Oh, and wtf does “strict, constructionist view of politics” mean, Ben?

  • JesusSoc

    The USA has turned into East Germany, even though the NSA is more powerful and invasive than the Stasi ever were, and the story here is Glenn Greenwald making an ass out Mika Brzezisnki? BTW her father is a leading figure in the CFR, Tri-lateral Commission, Bildeberg, and every other organization dedicated to reducing the world population to cowed subjects under the boot of global plutocratic tyranny.

    • Pavel Chichikov

      Have you ever lived in an eastern bloc country?

      In Moscow the security services controlled the traffic lights, controlled the metro, had 28 thousand plain clothes operatives at their disposal in the city alone, had ears on the phones, eyes on the post, etc. Everyone carried an internal passport, was required to possess a document to live in Moscow, to travel to other parts of the Union; the authorities had the power to detain persons for two years without charges and without legal representation. etc. The city was attended by permanent garrisons of special military forces on the outskirts. The authorities also had powerful paramilitary forces at their disposal.

      The slang term in the Russian language for policeman means “garbage.”

      I don’t know about the GDR, but the US is not likely to be a contemporary version of it.

      • JarekAF

        I don’t endorse JesusSoc’s comment but I don’t think you have it right.

        The United States need not look like Russia to become a police state. To wit, the most effective police state’s are the one’s in which people believe they are most free.

        • Pavel Chichikov

          I’m in a position to compare an authentic police state with the US.There is no comparison.

          If you tell me that there might be one some day, then I can’t argue about a possible future. It remains in the realm of the presently non-existent.

          • JarekAF

            ok, speaking in your capacity as an expert on living within a police state, please answer this question for me:

            Does everyone who lives in a Police State, realize they’re living in a Police State? Or do some think they’re free?

          • Pavel Chichikov

            I’m not an expert on anything.

            In general, in my opinion, people who have lived in or traveled to places which are not police states are aware of the contrast. Others may not be, and may think that everything about a police state is normal and not unusual.

            My landlady in Moscow, who had lived as a child in the States, was aware of the difference, but could not understand the American objection to carrying an internal passport. She was a person of both worlds.

            A resident of Moscow might be well aware of the difference. Someone living in an isolated village on the White Sea might not.

          • Mr X

            Then what are all the hollow point bullets and MRAPs for?

        • Mr X

          East Germany lasted a lot longer than the Third Reich.

      • Mr X

        Too many guns. Too many guns. Which is why they’re creating this total surveillance state in hopes of starving patriots out by denying them employment systematically. More East Germany rather than hardcore Nazi tyranny.

    • Lady Willpower

      I heard he also flooded the water supply with fluoride.

    • villemar

      HOT WATER BURN BABY!!!!

  • Pavel Chichikov

    USA Today reports that Booze Allen Hamilton has fired Snowden from his 122 thousand dollar a year job. In the Guardian story Snowden says he has given up 200 thousand a year. What does the 78 thousand dollar discrepancy mean?

    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      “What does the 78 thousand dollar discrepancy mean?”

      Snowden’s a damn liar?

      • Pavel Chichikov

        Maybe so. I’ve felt that at the least his assertions are unexamined.

        A person whose job it was to analyze these assertions would feel that we are only at the beginning of evaluating them.

        To me, the only unchallengeable assertion to date is that he has defected to China.

    • JarekAF

      Bonus, COLA and per diem.

      • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

        keep telling yourself that. Maybe you’ll even begin to believe it.

        • JarekAF

          You tell me then. I don’t have any better information than you. Neither BAH or the government have challenged his credibility.

          Though, because of his leak, we’ve caught the head of the NSA in a lie before Congress, which is a felony.

          The leaker’s credibility isn’t an issue. What’s sad is that when it was Nixon, he tried his hardest to smear the credibility of Daniel Ellsberg. Whereas here, sadly, it’s much of the media is lining up to do the smearing instead.

          • Pavel Chichikov

            It is of course an issue. How could it not be? This is such an important matter – how can we not examine every detail for its credibility?

            Nor could the government necessarily challenge details without disclosing reserved information.

            We simply at this point do not know.

          • JarekAF

            Ok but neither BAH or the government are questioning his credibility.

            Are you concerned though with the credibility of the NSA and their safeguards, especially given that the NSA head was caught lying to Congress? What are your thoughts on that?

          • Pavel Chichikov

            I’m not a child and I do not assume that everyone is telling me the truth. If I see an obvious discrepancy I take note of it. I assume that officials are like everyone else – they occasionally try to deceive. I know no one of importance, and no one of importance has confided their intentions to me.

            It seems to me though that many of us have uncritically accepted what we’ve read in the press. Some of us are believers in what is at this point little more than a self-reported personal legend . I don’t have to accept that uncritically either.

          • Mr X

            Clapper lied. And if he thinks he can just get away with it all, I’ve got news for him. The 10th Amendment Center’s going to create model legislation holding federal officials accountable for felony wiretapping residents of particular states. Not only will he not be able to vacation in Jackson Hole, Wyoming should he be so inclined, he might get arrested in another state on an outstanding warrant of felony wiretapping. This shit isn’t a game people the States are going to rise up against federal tyranny if you just engage in jibbering hipster negs on behalf of Obama and being a chump for the police state.

            Laugh now fed trolls on this forum. You won’t be laughing when some of your colleagues get what they deserve for shitting on the 4th Amendment — a jail cell.

          • villemar

            When will you be firing on Fort Sumter then, Cletus?

      • Pavel Chichikov

        You know this for a fact? Is it a supposition?

        • JarekAF

          Yes, it’s a supposition. Like your supposition that he’s defected to China.

          • Pavel Chichikov

            You mean he really wasn’t in Hong Kong? Or perhaps the Chinese security services would not be interested in discussing matters with him. He bores them.

            Perhaps he wound up in China because he felt that the Chinese are known to respect freedom of speech and personal privacy. Or perhaps he did not know that Hong Kong is only a special administrative area of China and has limited autonomy.

          • Mr X

            No he’s too high profile now for the Chinese to blackbag him. But if he’d fled to any EU country or the UK he’d already be in a Latvian black torture site.

          • Pavel Chichikov

            All they have to do is threaten to extradite him to the States.

    • Mr X

      Oh gee, maybe Booz Allen lied?

  • JesusSoc

    Obama is nothing more than liberal cover for the same establishment that supported George W. Bush.

  • http://twitter.com/rickroberts Rick Roberts

    Get ready for the sock puppets! They always rally to defend.

    • Mr X

      if Greenwald has sock puppets they don’t get paid by the tweet or post unlike the White House 1,500-strong troll army.

  • http://humanistcafe.wordpress.com/ humanist cafe

    A persuasive summation, indeed. Greenwald has ‘progressed’ from activist to crusader and from crusader to political vigilante. Rationality is not a strong suit nor is objectivity a guiding principle.

    Self-important, self-appointed moral absolutists are tedious bores who frequently play out their own psychological dramas through ’causes’. They are company not to be kept and writers to be read with the proper dollop of caution.

    As a matter for the academic, there is room for Greenwald in the political discussion. He does, at least, provoke lively debate. As for real world politics – the kind that Obama deals with – best to keep the Greenwalds away. While Glenn appears to have a talent for rhetorical grenade tossing, he impresses as a man who has neither built nor led. If he had, he might know that as often as not, imperfect options confront decision-makers. And, they don’t have the luxury of a pundit’s bubble to dither in.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

    The Glennbots are coming………and they’re a bunch of ignorant f-king bores, along with resembling Pavlov’s dogs.

    • Lady Willpower

      It’s like they’re all reading from the same prepared handout.

      • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

        Honestly, Glenn and his crowd of boy sycophants make me nauseous.

  • i_a_c

    I’d just like to point out that numerous commenters here apparently are using the Greenwald playbook by calling people obot cultists and loyalists and the like.

    A common thread seems to be the accusation that somehow the writers and commenters now support certain policies now that a Democrat is doing them. I wonder how many people here suddenly support the PATRIOT Act and indefinite detention after decrying them before? I’d venture damn near zero. I certainly don’t support either of those things.

    This exemplifies the exact attitude that Chez writes in his post. If you don’t subscribe to emotional, good v. evil, black and white thinking along the lines of Greenwald et al., and instead apply shades of gray and nuance, then you’re a party loyalist. I prefer to call it critical thinking, but your mileage may vary.

    • i_a_c

      One more thing, a minor quibble with the piece is that the Daily Kos article linked is a diary by a particular user, not by anyone on Daily Kos staff.

    • JarekAF

      Greenwald playbook by calling people obot cultists and loyalists and the like.

      Project much? You realize two comments below is “Glennbots coming” and “Glenn cultitsts” and half of the other comments call his fans “Greenwald sock puppets.”

    • Mr X

      And you assholes all call us Paulbots — well that’s more the fake Rightists who would lick Obama’s boots if he took their 401ks and guns tomorrow.

  • Lady Willpower

    82 comments!? Somebody rang the dinner bell.

    • i_a_c

      How many are Greenwald sockpuppets? The thing about sockpuppets is that they can provide armor for otherwise thin skin.

      • Lady Willpower

        It’s hard to tell, because all of his followers are as unpleasant as he is. It’s like they all share the same brain.

        • KarenJ

          It’d be interesting to see if they all share IP addresses with Glenn…

          • http://www.cvn71supportgroup.8k.com/ GunNut2600

            This is why President Obama is justified here. With this NSA progra, we can track these idiots. They have all the right in the world to say their crap. But they need to face the reprocussions for their racists and anti-American views.

      • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

        I’d guess, at least a few. And GG has the thinnest skin of anyone I know.

  • Royq

    This is really well done. It’s a testament to your patience having waded through a swamp of drivel for the sake of creating a sort of useful taxonomy–sort of like classifying weeds. But it’s a useful reference, especially in light of Greenwald’s preferred tactical feint of employing hysteria as a means of deflecting criticism from his rambling and incoherent arguments.

  • answerfrog

    Ironically, he’s pretty intolerant of free speech. I tweeted him a single objection, he sent a snarky reply and BLOCKED me!! LOL. My tweet wasn’t rude in the slightest, just challenged his argument. Such is his deep principled commitment to free discourse. LOL

    • Lady Willpower

      He likes to block people who disagree with him. He did the same to me.
      But don’t worry, that won’t stop him from sending his psycho minions after you on Twitter (or anywhere else). Courage!

      • KarenJ

        I’ve been blocked by GG, too. But that doesn’t keep me from Tweeting ABOUT him, nor does it keep me from reading his Twitter stream.

        • Mr X

          You people get blocked because you deserve it.

          • villemar

            I am going to ask the mod of this page to block you. Because you deserve it.

  • JarekAF

    Greenwald is a huge asshole but I think that’s a feature for a reporter, not a bug. Nevertheless, these following statements are objectively false:

    is driven by an unwavering agenda and determined to obsessively propagate a singular narrative — that President Obama is bad.
    And this: Glenn Greenwald has been looking to take down Obama . . .for years now.

    He was also looking to take down Bush for years then. The guy is very critical of the US government, regardless of who’s in power. I value that in a journalist.

    • Cobbesca

      Chez knows his audience. Those falsehoods were meant to rile up the indigenous Cescan Obots.

    • truthzone333

      Ummm…no he was not looking to take down Bush for years, at least not during the height of the Bush presidency. Yes he wrote a book critical about the Bush administration…in 2006, when most of America had finally come to terms of what a disasterous President G. W. Bush was which was unfortunately almost at the end of the Bush presidency. Greenwald’s thoughts on Bush before then? This is from the preface of his 2006 book,:

      “Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president’s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.” ~ Glenn Greenwald
      http://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index.cfm?fuseaction=printable&book_number=1812

      First the obvious question, name ONE legitimate progressive who has ever felt this way about G. W Bush or supported the Iraq War? Which is why I wonder how many on the Left like Michael Moore could be so easily fooled and not see through this Greenwald guy who wrote the above about G.W. Bush yet has displayed such pathological hatred towards Obama. He trusted Bush and deferred to Bush’s national security judgement when President, while he attacks Obama at every stage, even when Obama does something he should agree with. What exactly is the difference between Glenn Greenwald and the typical Republican wingnut other than the fact that he has apparently suckered so many on the Left?

      • JarekAF

        He wrote 3 books criticizing George W. Bush. He wasn’t politically engaged until 2004/5. He became politically engaged because of Bush’s serious crimes. The portion you’ve excerpted from his book explains why he was so wrong. I don’t know why you’re unable to process that?

        Those are all the facts necessary to debunk your unhinged screed. I don’t know what “legitimate” progressive has to do with anything.

        He trusted Bush and deferred to Bush’s national security judgement when President, Yes, like 70% of Americans at the time.

        First the obvious question, name ONE legitimate progressive who has ever felt this way about G. W Bush or supported the Iraq War?

        What that has to do with anything is beyond me.

        • KarenJ

          When in doubt about what direction one’s craving for attention should take, write a book — or three. Or have a ghostwriter do it for you.
          — Sarah Palin Grifting Playbook

          • JarekAF

            What are you talking about? He wrote 3 books criticizing the Bush Admin (and Republicans) on Civil Liberties. I don’t understand your comment. Are you saying he didn’t actually write his own books?

          • truthzone333

            Please refer to my response to Jarek above. If you still don’t get it, I can’t help you.

          • truthzone333

            Wow, you really are delusional where Greenwald is concerned, aren’t you? Has someone coined the term “Greenwaldbot” yet?

          • JarekAF

            You’ve written a lot of incoherent gibberish. I don’t think that makes me delusional.

        • truthzone333

          He wrote 3 books criticizing Bush in 2006 and afterwards ie at the end of his presidency and that still does not change his stated support for Bush AND the Iraq War as per his own words. Big deal he wrote 3 books after he remained silent after the damage had already been done by Bush in one and a half terms in office in 2006 when everyone and their mother was finally criticizing the farce called the Bush presidency. And don’t let me get into the fact that he didn’t become politically engaged until 2004/2005. 9/11 happened in 2001, and the fact that Greenwald remained silent or didn’t care enough to protest what should have been obvious to any idiot in regard to the illegality of the Iraq War is only further indictment against Greenwald…who is I might add a Constitutional attorney. Hey if you’re defending him because you are a progressive who doesn’t want to admit to being suckered by him just say so, but don’t make dumb excuses for him which end up only making him look worse.

          • JarekAF

            I’m sorry but you’re making absolutely no sense. Please backup and try to clarify whatever point it is you’re trying to make.

            From 2005-2008 he was extremely critical of the Bush administration. Before that he didn’t write publicly. I’m sorry you’re unable to comprehend basic facts. It’s a fact he criticized Bush for years before he began criticizing Obama. That’s a fact whether he was supportive of the Iraq War (like 70% of Americans, including Kerry and Hillary) or not. He criticized Bush for years.

            Unless you can post a link to prove this assertion [70% of Americans supported the Iraq War] after no WMDs were found, which happened in the first year of the war, that’s a bald faced lie.

            Ok, but from the link you sent earlier, GG said that after no WMDs were found, he concluded reluctantly that the war was the wrong course.

            secondly, name me one notable on the Left who trusted Bush and deferred to his judgement…ever.

            I can think of a few Democratic Senators and Congressman. But, WHAT’S THE POINT OF THIS QUESTION! IT’S NOT WHETHER GG IS LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE. My only point here is that he was also critical of Bush. He wrote 3 books criticizing Bush. These are simple facts.

      • Mr X

        Books take time. Especially if you have a day job.

  • Best Cheese in Greenland

    I’m new to this site… just more or less given up on the Guardian after being put on pre-mod yet again, so hopefully this place will be a little more adult. However, reading through this, I’m not sure if the agenda isnt more ‘pro-Obama’ than ‘anti-Greenwald’. If Greenwald was towing the party line on Obama at least, would he be facing this criticism?

    • http://www.cvn71supportgroup.8k.com/ GunNut2600

      He was a great journalist when he went after the abuses of the Bush White house. Then he went crazy racist and started baselessly attacking Obama for the same abuses. I for one look forward to his indefinite stay in a perfectly legalish prison, getting waterboarded for being a terrorist supporter.

      • Cobbesca

        This ladies in gentlemen is the exact reason why you can’t trust a zealot; they cannot see the hypocrisy that’s written in their own words. It’s just like a Bushie only for the other team. Spectacular! Thanks for dropping in.

      • JarekAF

        Then he went crazy racist and started baselessly attacking Obama for the same abuses.

        When did he go crazy racist exactly?

        • http://www.cvn71supportgroup.8k.com/ GunNut2600

          I will try to type this as slow as possible cause i suspect you have a head injury. President Obama has a Peace Prize. Ergo, he is against torture unless its REALLY SUPER LIKE TOTALLY necessary. They don’t just give those to any asshole. Except for Kissenger. He is a conservative and therefore a war criminal.

      • JesusSoc

        So if you question Obama you’re a “crazy racist”? Yes, you are indeed a cultist.

        I supported Obama twice and totally regret it. He was always nothing more than liberal cover for the ruling elite, the surveillance state, and the banks. He can peddle his class warfare, “millionaires and billionaires” bs all he wants. It’s nothing more than pandering to his pathetic base.

        • http://www.cvn71supportgroup.8k.com/ GunNut2600

          The diseased Republi-tard is something terrifying to behold. How do you sleep at night knowing your lord and master Cheney is no longer in charge?

        • Mr X

          Paging Peter Thiel! Paging Peter Thiel! We need a libertarian fig leaf for our banksterism and the police state we’re creating to protect ourselves during the collapse. Can you help us?

          “Sorry, I already tried with Beck but he’s too freakin crazy to be useful, even for trolling Alex Jones.”

    • Cobbesca

      Nope.

    • Mr X

      There aren’t too many adults here who can debate facts. Expect jibbering hipster negs not facts or sober realizations of what a police state means — BLOODSHED that makes 1861-1865 look like a gentlemanly picnic. Total surveillance plus the desire for total control = another side that has nothing left to lose. Did I mention there are 150 million rifles of military utility in this country?

      • villemar

        Again, when will you be firing upon Fort Sumter? That worked out so well for you guys last time.

  • macwhirr

    The thing I like about Glenn Greenwald is that he doesn’t seem to think that corruption and totalitarianism are bad when one party indulges in them, but OK when the other party does it. He seems to simply be against corruption and totalitarianism.

    • Cobbesca

      Bingo! That’s why the Cescan obots hate him. He’s turned his hyper-critical eye towards their bestest friend. Plus he’s smug, that’s the clincher.

    • JarekAF

      Bbbuuutttt he supported the Iraq war in 2003!

  • Cobbesca

    Chezca has a sad. Boy they hates them some GG. Enough to take the time to sardonically compose this heaping pile of unctuous nothing. We’re in high school again, only with a higher word count. You completely went off the rails by depicting GG as having an “obsessive dislike of the Obama administration .” Just the right trigger words to get the Cescans all up in arms-gotta generate some clicks amirite? Don’t forget the little tiff you had with the Cescans when you had the temerity to write about the DOJ AP investigation. They all came after you, even Ashby took some time out to school you in proper Cescan etiquette. And for all your vaunted expertise in Glennology, your disdain for GG has made you believe GG’s critique is unique to the Obama administration. What a factually incorrect crock of shit. Oh yeah, you know who else is smug? You are. I’ve been reading you for some time so smug is as good a word as any but it fits you to a T. By the way signature strikes are sociopathic but who cares sometimes we gots to kill some innocents so Chezca and crew can get hard. Was that ad hominem enough for you? Jesus H Christ on a drone you people are fucking insane.

    • TheyreBothWrong

      “your disdain for GG has made you believe GG’s critique is unique to the Obama administration.” That’s what so weird about the attacks on GG. People are actually commenting and writing that he defend Bush war and surveillance policies when there’s an entire efin archive of articles on Salon showing he did the exact opposite. I swear it’s like Neocons defending Bush during the Bush years and I think they honestly can’t see their own hypocrisy.

      • gn

        In his own words:

        This is not to say that I was not angry about the attacks. I believed that Islamic extremism posed a serious threat to the country, and I wanted an aggressive response from our government. I was ready to stand behind President Bush and I wanted him to exact vengeance on the perpetrators and find ways to decrease the likelihood of future attacks. During the following two weeks, my confidence in the Bush administration grew as the president gave a series of serious, substantive, coherent, and eloquent speeches [I would use absolutely none of those adjectives to describe George W. Bush’s speeches—gn] that struck the right balance between aggression and restraint. And I was fully supportive of both the president’s ultimatum to the Taliban and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan when our demands were not met. Well into 2002, the president’s approval ratings remained in the high 60 percent range, or even above 70 percent, and I was among those who strongly approved of his performance.

        […]

        Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president’s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.–Glenn Greenwald

        Yes, he has since published many pieces denouncing Bush but the above is Greenwald describing himself and his unbelievable initial response to Bush. While many of his derided “Obamabots” were on the streets protesting fabricated justifications for war as well as intelligence leaks and CIA outings (sound familiar???) to shut down opponents, this guy considered Bush’s bs “eloquent” and worthy of trust. He has no right to be on any sort of high horse, lecturing anyone else. His stridency and sloppiness make him a terrible reporter.

        • TheyreBothWrong

          So anyone who once supported the war but later realized it was wrong (like many vets have) have no right to criticize either Bush or Obama. Shit I once supported Obama and now I don’t. Damn I better STFU then. Lulz. Who’s on the high horse again?

          • gn

            That’s not what I said. I said that GG is on a high horse and frequently goes over the top, lecturing and denouncing people (not simply disagreeing) for not sharing his views re: the Obama administration. It’s difficult to accept such stridency and zealousness from someone who previously thought Bush should get the benefit of the doubt. As I said below, I think it makes sense to read a wide variety of less-strident, more factual analysts.

        • Cobbesca

          By your logic, since Cesca once voted for Nader, he should never comment or analyze anything political. Good to know.

          • gn

            Not what I said. My issue is with GG’s stridency and sloppiness which are especially difficult to take considering his own background. I don’t believe that anyone should be barred from discussion, but since GG likes to make himself the story as well as demonize people with whom he disagrees, his own follies are relevant.

          • JarekAF

            Ok, so you don’t actually have any factual critiques. You just think he’s a huge asshole. Ok, that’s fine. But that doesn’t actually say anything about the quality of his journalism.

          • Mr X

            Maybe he is a gay asshole? So what!

        • JarekAF

          That was the preface of his book explaining how we was wrong. And you hold that against him? 70% of Americans supported the Iraq war.

    • Mr X

      The only one that evokes more hate than Greenwald on the fanatic police state neocon Right is Ron Paul. He’s like Van Helsing to their parasitic vampire status,

      • villemar

        Did Van Helsing ride a whimsical, steampunk jalopy like DOCTOR Paul does? I don’t remember that Hugh Jackman movie very well but I do recall some anachronistic steampunk elements.

  • boogaooga

    Let the substance free smears begin!

    • JarekAF

      Wasn’t that the article?

      • boogaooga

        That’s what I meant–the above article, which is crap. Glenn Greenwald is mean! He is so unlikeable!

  • JustTheFacts

    I believe you are right.
    Mr Greenwald got a bit testy this morning on “Morning Joe’s” program when Mika Brezhenski had questioned him . Greenwald did not like it one bit.
    You can see it on the Internet video

  • Churchlady320

    Wonderful – absolutely WONDERFUL analysis! And funny,too, which makes it memorable. Greenwald has just entered the dark underside of the RW with his determination to accept “nullification” of all things legal he chooses not to like. His devotion to Bush, to the Iraq war, and thus to the ILLEGAL wiretapping done by Bush in defense of that war, makes every single thing he says a lie. Mika was correct – we got, through enormously hard work of human and civil rights groups, court orders mandating warrants and other rights. We have an administration that is NOT wiretapping any of us at all. But Glenn LOVED that when it was Bush and hates the restraint shown by both courts and this administration. Why? Well, what is different about this president… Greenwald needs to be called out, and this article did the trick. Thank you!

    • TheyreBothWrong

      Well you are just factually misinformed. For years Greenwald criticized Bush’s wars and the Bush surveillance state at Salon. Don’t take my word for it explore the Salon archives yourself. Read some of those articles and cite where he was devoted “to Bush, to the Iraq war, and thus to the ILLEGAL wiretapping done by Bush in defense of that war.”

      Seriously, you can disagree with him all you want but making baseless dishonest claims is a very Neocon thing to do, don’t you think?

      The archives are here, http://www.salondotcom/writer/glenn_greenwald/page/103/

      And here is just one of his countless critical article on Bush policies: (from 2006) The Bush doctrine under surveillance, http://www.salondotcom/2006/08/17/nsa_michigan/

      I gather you objected to the Bush surveillance polices, so I am left wondering why you abhorred The Bush surveillance state but now defend the Obama surveillance state?

      • gn

        Perhaps you are a victim of GG’s terrible reporting. Indeed, unlike him, many of us objected both to the Iraq War, and to Bush’s claims that 9/11 meant that he could disregard basic constitutional protections, such as seeking a warrant to guarantee judicial oversight, when conducting surveillance programs. GG’s “bombshell” “expose” was news of a WARRANT obtained to view metadata in order to detect potentially troublesome patterns re: overseas-US communications. The hypocrisy is in people screaming about this program yet who chose to give Bush the benefit of the doubt.

        • TheyreBothWrong

          What the hell are you talking about? Are you serious or just trolling? Look at the Salon archive. It’s all right there, article after article slamming Bush’s warfare state and surveillance state.

          And yes it is hypocritical to have given Bush the benefit of the doubt (which the Salon archive proves Greenwald didn’t do) but it’s also just as hypocritical to have denounced the Bush surveillance polices but then go ahead and give Obama the benefit of the doubt.

          • gn

            He initially supported both the war and Bush’s warrantless and extraconstitutional surveillance programs, as he believed that Bush should have the benefit of the doubt. That he hopped atop the bandwagon and turned into a zealot in latter years does not negate nor erase that initial impulse and lack of judgment.

            There’s nothing hypocritical about denouncing Bush’s claims that he need not seek judicial oversight for his programs (despite the fact that the courts generally grant most warrants) versus being fine with the current WH seeking warrants for their surveillance programs. I’ve never claimed that police or intelligence have no right to obtain warrants to solve or prevent crimes. My issue with Bush is that he believed 9/11 gave him carte blanche to conduct his programs with no judicial oversight. GG’s reporting is generally dishonest and shoddy, and his NSA “bombshells” are no exception.

          • TheyreBothWrong

            “He initially supported both the war and Bush’s warrantless and extraconstitutional surveillance programs.”

            Citation please. In his own words not someone’s interpretation since that’s a pretty big claim you’re making.

          • Guest

            As to you’re other point. So you would be fine if Bush got secret legal authority and used the legal system to prevent a court from determining if what he was doing was legal or not. If Bush had done just that then you’d be fine with Bush’s surveillance polices correct?

          • gn

            “Secret legal authority” I don’t understand your point. Look, I’m someone who has been a critic of Bush since before his inauguration (due to the Brooks Brothers riots and disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida). I never thought that someone who would go to such lengths to get in power deserved the benefit of the doubt. The issues that many of us had with Bush is that he claimed that due to the war on terror, some of his surveillance programs should be exempt from judicial oversight. President Obama makes no such claim, and as a matter of fact, the “bombshell” which GG dropped was news of a WARRANT granted to view certain types of metadata. His reporting is really bad. I encourage you and others to read beyond GG; please read a wide range of serious analysts from different viewpoints and then come to your own conclusions. GG appeals to the lowest common denominator with histrionics and sensationalism in place of calm facts. I think that you should do more research on Bush-era surveillance programs and the valid objections to them.

          • TheyreBothWrong

            So getting a court to rubber stamp a secret warrant is judicial oversight. Good to know, I’ll be sure to trust all future presidents with such power. Both Republicans and Democrats.

          • gn

            Our problem with Bush is that he refused to submit to judicial scrutiny. If you want to move the goalposts and set a new and double standard for President Obama, so be it. But your charge of hypocrisy is false.

          • Cobbesca

            And how has Obama submitted to judicial scrutiny when no one has any standing (see State’s secrets) to challenge his policies? Same problem. Watch the Gellman interview, you may be enlightened.

          • gn

            By obtaining a warrant in accordance with the law and contrary to Bush’s post-9/11 actions. If you don’t like the FISA law, seek to change it, don’t merely hold the President to a standard not held by any other.

          • Cobbesca

            How can the FISA laws be changed if they can’t be challenged in court? Remember States secrets nullifies standing so no court challenge, no change in FISA. You can’t have it both ways dude.

          • gn

            Same way the FISA law was passed: Congress. That’s how the three branches work. Liberals during Bushism never argued that we can just nullify laws that we don’t like. The issue was that Bush didn’t think he needed to follow all of them or even submit to the scrutiny of a court which indeed grants most warrant requests. I’m not a dude but I’m sick of seeing people trying to hold this President to a new and double standard.

          • Cobbesca

            That’s not judicial scrutiny my friend. That’s a legislative procedure. Anything else?

          • Cobbesca

            By the way, since the allegations are that there is a secret interpretation of the FISA law this new interpretation has certainly not been adjudicated in the courts. So you can get all the rubber stamped warrants all you want (FISA seems to be a compromised and weak process anyway) but we have no way of knowing their constitutionality nor any way to challenge their legality because they’re state’s secrets. Ergo no standing; no judicial scrutiny. Everything is secret that’s the problem.

          • http://www.cvn71supportgroup.8k.com/ GunNut2600

            Seriously…this is like taking crazy pills right? The mental gymnastics people are willing to do just to maintain the support of their guy is hilarious. The same exact behavior Obama supporters are doing is the same behavior they attacked Bush supports for. The complete lack of self reflection is breathtaking.

          • JarekAF

            President Obama makes no such claim, and as a matter of fact, the “bombshell” which GG dropped was news of a WARRANT granted to view certain types of metadata

            He published the ORDER which is the WARRANT. It’s that the WARRANT is secret is the issue.

            There are secret laws and secret interpretations of those laws and secret opinions refuting the administrations interpretations of those laws. A couple Senators have issued warnings but have said that since they’re classified, they can’t say more.

          • gn

            I’ve quoted him upthread.

          • Mr X

            Well hell I supported the Iraq War now I believe the only big war likely in the near future is between Americans. You people still apologizing and viciously attacking Greenwald wake up this is just the beginning discrediting him won’t stop the tsunami of leaks on the horizon. Once people inside NSA realize it’s being used to build dossiers on every American in terms of their reliability under a totalitarian regime they will leak it.

          • Mr X

            People make mistakes. It’s owning up to them that’s hard. Hell I used to know some of the big wig neocons and work pretty close to them. It’s your inability to admit Obama played you all for fools with his happy no more surveillance state talk that is tragic.

          • villemar

            WAKE UP SHEELPE!!!11!! FEMA CAMPS!!1! PROJECT 21!! KILLUMINATI!! LOUD NOISES!!!111!!

        • JarekAF

          Indeed, unlike him, many of us objected both to the Iraq War, and to Bush’s claims that 9/11 meant that he could disregard basic constitutional protections, such as seeking a warrant to guarantee judicial oversight, when conducting surveillance programs.

          It’s really sad that you actually believe this. Really sad. Glenn was the loudest voice against Bush’s warrantless surveillance programs. He wrote a book on it. These very issues you objected to, are the issues that pushed him into reporting.

          The hypocrisy is in people screaming about this program yet who chose to give Bush the benefit of the doubt.

          It’d be hypocritical if he was silent on Bush. He wrote 3 books criticizing Bush on Civil Liberties. He gave Bush the benefit of the doubt on the Iraq war, like 70% of Americans, including Hillary and John Kerry. And because he was so wrong (and appalled by Bush’s use of the war authority to trample everything) he wrote and wrote and that’s how he became known in politics. This is something Liberals should support.

          • Mr X

            Nah, Greenwald’s criticisms of Dubya can all be memory holed. Ignorance is strength for the koolaid drinking Obamanista!

        • Mr X

          the WARRANT as you call it is horseshit. It’s toilet paper. Any warrant that allows for gobbling up even just ‘metadata’ from one billion phone calls fails the 4th Amendment test. And if the courts have ruled metadeta is not protected they’re simply WRONG. Courts also ruled Korematsu had to go to the 1940s version of the FEMA camp.

          • JarekAF

            Courts also ruled Korematsu had to go to the 1940s version of the FEMA camp.

            Korematsu has never been over ruled and is considered Constitutional to this very day.

      • http://www.cvn71supportgroup.8k.com/ GunNut2600

        Stop being racist. Seriously…if you can’ t tell the difference between Bush and Obama and you think its even moderately appropriate to hold Democrats to the same moral restrictions we want from the GOP, you are racist just like this Glen honkie Chez says I need to ignore.

        • TheyreBothWrong

          Damn, for a minute I thought you were serious. It’s hard to tell if people are serious or just trolling over here.

          • http://www.cvn71supportgroup.8k.com/ GunNut2600

            I know…i got to work on it.

    • JarekAF

      But Glenn LOVED that when it was Bush and hates the restraint shown by both courts and this administration. Why? Well, what is different about this president… Greenwald needs to be called out, and this article did the trick. Thank you!

      I don’t know what you’re talking about. He wrote 3 books criticizing Bush on Civil Liberties. He even attacked the Republican brand calling them phonies on the deficit and “being tough on Defense.” from the Left.

    • Mr X

      Yes, nullification, that dastardly right wing idea advocated by none other than Thomas Jefferson and James Madison against the Alien and Sedition Acts. But of course, they were slave owners, so anyone who says the states can nullify a grossly unconstitutional law should be black bagged by DHS. It’s trendy, don’tcha know? Maybe you can shoot some of those hollow point rounds with big butch Janet Napolitano while you’re at it. You mistake the restraint of patriots and Oath Keepers within the military for D.C.’s ability to win a Second Civil War. In fact, D.C. would lose and lose badly because there would be no front lines and every globalist politician would scurry off in their private jets leaving D.C. worshipping chumps hungry in the dark.

      • villemar

        I bet you’re a big Alex Jones fan.

  • nathkatun7

    Wow! This is the best and insightful examination of the phenomena that is Glenn Greenwald! I Still don’t get it why this guy intimidates/terrifies so many so called journalists.

    • Churchlady320

      He doesn’t, nathkatun – he intimidates other pundits. Journalists aren’t intimidated at all. It’s just that there are fewer of them these days.

  • Scopedog

    Game, set, match–fantastic post, Chez.

  • Jack Carlton

    Excellent post, Chez.

    • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

      Seconded!

  • Victor_the_Crab

    I been waiting for you to opine about Greenwald’s “bombshell” of a story for days, Chez. And you did not dissapoint me. Thanks for the humorous and insightful column.

  • DaeguDave

    Bitter much? All of you combined will never be half the journalist Glenn Greenwald is.

    • Lady Willpower

      Greenie’s supporters are such a delightful bunch.

    • Scopedog

      To paraphrase Bill Duke in PREDATOR: “If Glenn Greenwald’s a journalist then I’m a goddamned Chinaman.”
      And no, Chez–and Bob, and Ben for that matter–do not come across as bitter. They’re just tired of Greenwald’s shtick and are not afraid to call him out on it.

      • Lady Willpower

        I love Bill Duke.

    • nathkatun7

      So, which journalism school did Glenn Greenwald attend? I thought he started out initially as a pundit who was, supposedly, well versed in Constitutional law. If Greenwald is a great journalist I must be a great engineer because I have some passing knowledge about engineering

      • JarekAF

        Right, because all great journalists go to journalism school? You realize that the author of this article (a journalist) didn’t attend journalism school.

    • Victor_the_Crab

      Poop your big boy pants much?

  • iknowcarol

    Daily Banter staff: get a day job. This is pathetic.

    • Lady Willpower

      WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!

      • dbtheonly

        LW,

        You left out Hitler. It’s not a Greeenwald comment section until Hitler shows up.

        • Lady Willpower

          Obama>Bush>Hitler

    • nathkatun7

      Like your leader, Glenn Greenwald, you are good at calling people names when you are unable to offer a rational response to what they wrote.

    • Victor_the_Crab

      They do have a day job. Calling out the bullshit that the likes of Greenwald keep spewing out.

    • Mr X

      All Obama sock puppet media financed by Soros or Center for American Progress or Buffet is pathetic.

      • villemar

        Shit man, I get to collect my Obamabucks while sitting in my Cadillac trolling on my Obamapad while getting blown by illegal welfare queens. Pretty cushy life I have, huh? You must be totes jelz.

  • Lady Willpower

    Let me quote from one of Greenwald’s random supporters*-

    “Greenwald only has a New York Times Best Selling Book on the Bush Administration and its abuses of power. And he has one of the most-read blogs on the Interent, after 9 months of blogging. And Senators read from his blog at Senate hearings and his posts lead to front-page news stories in major newspapers.”

    *a supporter who happens to have the same IP address as Glenn himself.

    • nathkatun7

      And Greenwald has the audacity to accuse people who disagree with him of being Obama cultists. I think the most angry cult, which is always on the ready to pounce on people who disagree with their master, even though the disagreement may be very mild, is the Glenn Greenwald cult!

      • JarekAF

        disagree with him of being Obama cultists.

        What else would explain certain Liberals willingness to defend (i) indefinite detention, (ii) refusing to send the GITMO detainees back to where they came from, (iii) expanding the War on Terror in secret, (iv) targeting Americans for death without due process and (v) countless other instances of Liberals changing their position’s on issues because Obama is now doing it?

        Did you see the chart from yesterday? only 35% of Liberals approved of NSA spying when it was Bush in 2006. Now it’s about 55%. It don’t think “cultist” is the right word. But Obama’s ability (by embracing policies of Bush) to turn what once extreme, into a mainstream bi-partisan consensus, is undeniable.

        • KarenJ

          It was the Republican-controlled U.S. House that continues to allow (i) indefinite detention, and (ii) refusing to send the GITMO detainees back to where they came from, by virtue of the recent NO vote on closing Gitmo.

          “expanding the War on Terror in secret”? — what secret? I remember reading a USA TODAY article in 2006 about NSA spying.

          “targeting Americans for death without due process”? Wasn’t it the Republicans who refused en masse to allow due process in American courts for captured suspected terrorists? Didn’t the Republicans “award” undeserved political status to these terrorists by recommending military court trials for them? And how many AMERICANS are we talking about, “targeting”? Two verifiably dangerous traitors living (and dying) in a country known to be a terrorist safe haven?

          • JarekAF

            indefinite detention.

            Yah, Obama signed that bill. But you only blame the GOP controlled House. They’re all bad actors here.

            refusing to send the GITMO detainees back to where they came from, by virtue of the recent NO vote on closing Gitmo.

            Wrong. Obama can send the vast majority of them home tomorrow. He doesn’t because of political cowardice. This has nothing to do with Congressional obstruction. Closing GITMO is Congressional obstruction. Sending detainees to the United States is Congressional obstruction. Sending them back to the country they’re from is on Obama.

            Wasn’t it the Republicans who refused en masse to allow due process in American courts for captured suspected terrorists? Didn’t the Republicans “award” undeserved political status to these terrorists by recommending military court trials for them?

            Yes, the Republicans are bad. That doesn’t excuse Obama.

            And how many AMERICANS are we talking about, “targeting”? Two verifiably dangerous traitors living (and dying) in a country known to be a terrorist safe haven?

            He was never charged with a crime. The US declared him an Enemy and that was that. The only thing that he’s guilty of is espousing repellent views. But that’s constitutionally protected free speech.

          • Treading_Water

            Each detainee can leave that limbo through one of four different routes: a civilian trial, a military tribunal, a foreign country’s prison system or freedom.

            …the first two routes – civilian trial or military tribunal – were blocked by Congress, which passed legislation barring the federal government from funding trials for Guantanamo detainees or buying a prison in the U.S. to house them.

            The third route… is only legal if the U.S. can be sure that the detainees will not be tortured there.

            The fourth route, freedom, actually already applies to 86 of the 166 detainees. The U.S. government believes they can be safely released back into the world, but it has nowhere to send them. For many of these individuals, their home country will not take them or might torture them, meaning the U.S. has to find an entirely different country to
            release them to.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/04/30/obama-just-gave-a-powerful-speech-about-the-need-to-close-gitmo-so-why-hasnt-he/

            From the Very Liberal Washington Post.

            So it’s not as simple as you seem to think, unless you’re talking about hiring some border coyotes to sneak them across and simply release them into their country illegally, to hell with the consequences.

          • JarekAF

            I’ll take Freedom for the majority that have been cleared for release.

            That article misrepresents the Waivers.

            It states: Recent congressional legislation allows the Pentagon to get a special “waiver” allowing it to ship detainees to third countries, but only if a senior administration official pledges that the receiving country can guarantee that the detainee will never take up (or, in some cases, return to) terrorism against the U.S..

            There is an exception to this requirement that Obama can avail himself of. Because, of course, it’s impossible to certify that someone will never do anything in the future.

            It’s better described here:
            Next, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel must sign a national-security waiver asserting that the transfer is in the interests of the country and that the risk of recidivism has been mitigated…After the U.S. waiver is signed, the administration must notify Congress of its intent to transfer the detainees 30 days in advance.

            So they only need to certify that (i) releasing is in the national security interest of the US and (ii) reasonable steps to reduce recidivism are being undertaken.

            http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/05/why-yemeni-gitmo-detainees-arent-going-anywhere-now/65522/

            From the Very Liberal Washington Post.

            Ok one, the editorial page is neo-conservative. Not Liberal. The particular author you cited, Max Fisher, is generally thought of as Liberal. I don’t know the point of you calling the Wpost Very Liberal? My initial claim is that Liberals defend holding people in GITMO. And you’ve linked to an article of a Liberal defending holding people in GITMO (it’s not Obama’s fault!). Whereas, that’s patently false. He has all the authority he needs to send home the vast majority. He doesn’t because of political cowardice. If I was his political adviser, maybe I would advice him to maintain course and not use the Waivers. But that doesn’t deny that Obama has the ability to do the right thing. But he won’t unless we as Liberals call him out. It sickens me that innocent men are being force fed against their will. And it sickens me even more when my fellow Liberals make excuses for Obama. The Republicans suck. They’re war mongering freak shows. We’re supposed to be better than that.

          • Mr X

            Karen, we all acknowledge that the GOP until the StandWithRand moment had been almost hopeless on civil liberties. But now there is some hope, while Dems with a few honorable exceptions have the Obama millstone around their necks. Graham and McCain are increasingly not just disliked but hated in their own party.

        • ffakr

          (i) I’m not aware of any Liberals willing to defend indefinite detention, but if you say so it must be the prevailing position.

          (ii) Not all countries of origin are willing to take Gitmo detainees back. You’d wonder why another country wouldn’t want to take back the guys we’ve spend a decade radicalizing.. huh. i should probably also mention that Obama was not able to transfer detainees to US prisons because Congress refused to authorize any funding for the purpose of removing them. Funny how Congress controls the strings of the purse. Damn Constitution. Oh yea, even under GWB.. most of the detainees have been returned to their countries [or other countries that would take them]. I believe there’s about 1/8 there now of the total taken in.

          (iii) I’m also unaware of any polls of liberals that asked “do you support expanding the war on terror in secret?”. Perhaps you can point them out to us. It’s easy to caricature someone when you ascribe asininely vague positions to them.

          (iv) I’m also not aware of targeting Americans for death by drone as being a major Liberal rallying point. I’ve got to get out more.
          I do, however, think there’s an argument to be made for calling in an air-strike on a US Citizen who’s over-seas fighting against our nation. Then again, I might be a dirty liberal but I’m not so much against the idea of targeting foreign leaders for assignation in a time of war which I believe may be a violation of the Geneva conventions [I could be mistaken]. Seems a bit hypocritical to say it’s fine to go hunting grunts through a sniper scope, but hunting their commander through a drone camera is a crime.
          Do I know or even believe that the Obama administration hasn’t been dangerously cavalier about this? I can’t say do. I guess that makes me a bad straw-man liberal to you.. not fully supporting drone strikes on Americans and civilians.

          (v) I see a consistency in Liberals’ willing to take nuanced views of issues. Black and white, good versus evil absolutism was something I had come to expect from the Right, not from liberals. Apparently I was wrong.

          You see, 35% of Liberals approved of the NSA spying under Bush when he was doing warrantless wiretaps and violating the law. We had stories about Data-taps into AT&T POPs collecting every bit of data [not just Meta] and Datamining every bit of it. We had illegality.
          Today you have 55% of Liberals approving of the Obama Administration requesting warrants from the FISA court to instruct Version to retain Meta, and then going to FISA to request searches across that data and further content from those searches. You see, it’s totally the same thing.

          A real liberal, by my estimation, would demand a debate on whether we should be doing this. A polemicist would declare that the illegal actions of one Administration are exactly the same as the legal actions of another and that anyone who believes there is a sliver of light between them is hypocritical.

          Oh yea, a real liberal [by my estimation] is honest about the facts. That’s why I’ll remind everyone that the law allows FISA requests to be put in retroactively. The government can, in fact, search that collected Meta and demand taps through FISA without having a judge sign off on a warrant for 30 days [if I recall correctly]. That’s pretty bad IMHO. I understand the motivation for emergency access to data when National Security is at stake but it’s ripe for abuse. That’s what the Bush Admin did, they just ignored the FISA warrant requirements. From what we know so far, that’s not what the Obama Administration is doing.

          You see.. [not doing] = [doing] or you’re a liberal apologist.

          • JarekAF

            (i) I’m not aware of any Liberals willing to defend indefinite detention, but if you say so it must be the prevailing position.

            That’s not how Liberals defend indefinite detention. They defend it by excusing Obama from having to sign the law. Did Obama sign a law that granted him the authority to detain American citizens indefinitely and without due process. Yes.

            But when I point this out, I get fellow Liberals telling me how he had to sign the law. How it wasn’t his fault. How the authority isn’t really there (ACLU disagrees).

            This is also how Liberals (as well as anyone) defends torture. I’m against torture but . . . . Which means, that person isn’t really against torture.

            Here’s another one for Liberal’s hypocrisy on torture:
            (i) The guy who blew the whistle on torture = in jail for disclosing secrets (secret being, the US tortures).

            (ii) The torturers and those who authorized it — all Free.

            Obama has a positive obligation under the Geneva conventions to prosecute Bush et al. for torture. He doesn’t out of political cowardice.

            A real liberal, by my estimation, would demand a debate on whether we should be doing this.

            Yes, and we should welcome that debate. I don’t care if GG is a Liberal or not. But he explicitly says many times that this should be debated.

            Sorry but I couldn’t follow the rest of your comments.

          • joe smith

            Liberals are a cancer to freedom.

        • Mr X

          You just hate the prez because he’s black. Standard braindead reply to everything.

        • Jan Civil

          “certain Liberals willingness to defend indefinite detention” – your straw man does everything you need to make this point, which isn’t really a point. of course you’re supporting Greenwald, the master of this approach.

          Maybe you confuse some people backing Obama for signing the NDAA fy2012 for support of the language of three subsections in it. Maybe you’ll simply ignore the signing statement, the subsequent directive, that is was a veto proof bill which is what happens to fund the whole of the national defense and a veto will have been a slap in the face to the entire nation, and just to score rhetorically and satisfy a certain crowd which doesn’t appear to be much of the electorate. Maybe you’re just very stupid.

        • Jan Civil

          Another thing you’ll want to ignore is that there have been changes in the way the NSA business is handled in this adminstration. Because evidently you, like Greenwald, are not very honest intellectually and it occurs to you this makes you look critical, rather than BEING critical. You glibly receive this stuff, swallow it rather whole it would appear, and spit it back up on cue. SQUAWK!

    • js hooper

      LMAO…I love Greenwald’s shameless sock puppetry. It’s really comical and it highlights one of his core traits.

      He thinks everyone is dumb and is constantly trying to masquerade as something he is not.

      • KarenJ

        As usual, the mainstream media is booking him for seemingly back-to-back interviews (seems like it on MSNBC) — new shiny object, looky here! And it’s the rare interviewer who pursues a line of questioning even as feebly as Mika Brzezinski did, to elicit some kind of legitimate sourcing from Greenwald.

  • blackdaug

    “Disagree and you’ll be relentlessly attacked by Greenwald, who will either call you names or simply question your credibility on the matter.”
    Don’t forget….you will be also be treated to the relentless attacks of his minions….who should be arriving here like an unwelcome crowd of pitchfork waving villagers in …three ….two…..one…

    • Victor_the_Crab

      Let ‘em. All they’re going to do is bump up Chez’s view totals on his column, like they did for Bob’s yesterday. That should make Chez, Ben, and everyone at the Daily Banter happy.

    • Scopedog

      Yep. Criticize the great and powerful (and always f’ing right) Glenn, and you will face a merciless attack by his….well, I guess the best word to describe them would be “drones”, right?

      • JustTheFacts

        Anybody who is associated with Fox News is NOT good. Not a good thing for Mr. Greenwald.

    • Schneibster

      A lot of them work in IT and will kick you off various sites if you disagree. I just got kicked off MoJo and I’m pretty sure that’s why.