Glenn Greenwald: Supporting the Effort to Find 270 Kidnapped Nigerian Girls is “Horrifying”

In response to an op/ed in The Guardian that calls for feminists in the west to support the effort to find 270 teenage Nigerian girls kidnapped by Islamic jahadists known as Boko Haram, Glenn Greenwald tweeted the following:

greenwald_boko_haram

So according to Greenwald supporting the effort to find these girls whom the terrorist abductors plan to sell into slavery is ignorant, “horrifying” and “The Next Western Intervention.”

Okay. Awful.

The kidnappings weren’t horrifying — but standing “in solidarity with these girls, their mothers, and their fathers,” the point of the op/ed, is “horrifying” to Greenwald. Perhaps if it was 270 Edward Snowdens who were abducted, Greenwald wouldn’t be so heartless. Meal ticket, etc.

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
  • http://www.libertariancomment.com/ Glenn

    Just let Greenwald keep talking and his popularity will decline. He’s just lucky Snowden picked him – otherwise he’s mostly just a Marxist rabble rouser of the Chomsky type (only nowhere near as smart).

  • john

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/islamists-free-kidnapped-nigerian-schoolgirls/story-e6frg6so-1226887579471

    Two to three weeks ago. Says those girls are already free.

    What’s more likely, we’re invading Nigeria for oil, or the media suddenly cares about Africa?

    Find a real news source.

    • http://www.libertariancomment.com/ Glenn

      Did you really just claim that “we’re invading Nigeria for oil” – I mean are you that insane?

  • doyougetmesweetheart

    I just read thru a couple pages of these comments – and man; it is amazing how easily you people are duped by the man who wrote this article who is well-known for his bias against Greenwald. Greenwald is calling the incident “horrifying” because of the video that the Boko Haram intends to showcase all over the world: “There will be worldwide condemnation of a new video showing Boko Haram cruelly and barbarically using 200 kidnapped girls to bargain for the release of prisoners and exploiting innocent young girls for political purposes.” Greenwald is unarguably “horrified” that the girls are being exploited for political purposes – not that the U.S. is jumping on the bandwagon – although, that in itself, is dubious. It would behoove all of you to use the brains you were born with and wonder about such an extraordinary & inordinate allegation such as the one that is put forth here. Don’t be so mindless and such pushovers for someone else’s prejudice. Clearly; none of you know anything about Greenwald, or you wouldn’t be so easily fooled. Get with it and think for yourselves.

  • Will

    “Consequently, your calls for the United States to get involved in this crisis undermines the democratic process in Nigeria and co-opts the growing movement against the inept and kleptocratic Jonathan administration. It was Nigerians who took their good for nothing President to task and challenged him to address the plight of the missing girls. It is in their hands to seek justice for these girls and to ensure that the Nigerian government is held accountable. Your emphasis on U.S. action does more harm to the people you are supposedly trying to help and it only expands and sustain U.S. military might.”

    http://www.compareafrique.com/dear-americans-hashtags-wont-bringbackourgirls-might-actually-making-things-worse/

  • http://www.ballistictruth.tumblr.com/ rolandbyronhenry

    No. Greewald was making a good point that when the U.S. goes somewhere, no matter the stated intention, we just spend years slaughtering and funneling money our of our own country.

  • Will

    So now a bunch of people who a few weeks ago could not find Nigeria on a map to save their life (and probably still can’t) are advocating sending in American special operations forces into enact a massive rescue operation because SEAL TEAM 6 MOTHER FUCKER!!!!!

    While I think that Glen Greenwald’s unqualified denunciation of military intervention is too dogmatic (Bosnia was an act of American military interventionism that went well) the caution that his tweet points to is very well warranted. For two reasons.

    1-Humanitarian interventions are not uncommonly used by states as pretense to enact more long term and nefarious geopolitical/strategic objectives.

    2-Such interventions often have unintended consequences (the invasion of Iraq which deposed a brutal dictator and unleashed a civil war that arguably continues to this day).

    3-Hostage rescue operations do not always go well.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/nigeria/9132481/British-hostage-killed-in-failed-SBS-rescue-bid.html

    Do any of the cheerleaders of American going over and kicking ass and taking names have an understanding of the ethno-religious strife that currently grips Nigeria? Do they have an understanding of what motivates Boko Haram and how the organization has risen to power? Do they have any understanding of what long term effects American military intervention in this part of Nigeria? What effects that intervention will have on the current instability in the country that led to the rise of boko haram in the first place? Is it possible for local officials and forces in Nigeria to reach an agreement with boko haram that will get the girls back?

    I don’t know the answers to any of those questions. And I would be willing to bet that neither does anybody currently commenting on this thread.

  • Thomas Bradford
  • Cathy Moore Casper

    Greenwald, kiss my lilly white. You are such a horrible person. Do you not understand what these girls might be going through, might be experiencing and you said this crap? ESAD.

  • Trulyunbelievable2020

    Hello! I am the grammatical subject of a sentence! The verb (or verbal clause) describes an action that relates to me!

    In the sentence: “The ability to ignore virtually history when advocating for The Next Western Intervention is as impressive as it is horrifying” I am “The ability to ignore…,” and the verb “horrifying” describes an action that I am performing. Please note that “the ability to ignore” is not the same as “the effort to find!”

    Then kindly enjoy your 8,000 views! Perhaps if you keep on blatantly misrepresenting your opponents’ positions, this disaster of a web site will stay afloat! Have a nice day!

  • NotBobCesca

    “Simple question. Are you Nigerian? Do you have constitutional rights accorded to Nigerians to participate in their democratic process? If not, I have news for you. You can’t do anything about the girls missing in Nigeria. You can’t. Your insistence on urging American power, specifically American military power, to address this issue will ultimately hurt the people of Nigeria.

    It heartens me that you’ve taken up the mantle of spreading “awareness” about the 200+ girls who were abducted from their school in Chibok; it heartens me that you’ve heard the cries of mothers and fathers who go yet another day without their child. It’s nice that you care.

    Here’s the thing though, when you pressure western powers, particularly the American government, to get involved in African affairs and when you champion military intervention, you become part of a much larger problem. You become a complicit participant in a military expansionist agenda on the continent of Africa. This is not good.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/09/nigeria-hashtags-wont-bring-back-our-girls-bringbackourgirls

  • NotBobCesca

    Another typical Cesca distortion. What a fucking tool.

  • Churchlady320

    This is right up there with the outrage from the Institute for Policy Studies when we sent a whole 300 advisors and support to Uganda to help them fight off the Lord’s Resistance Army. Human rights groups had ASKED for this support, but IPS hollered it was an invasion of Uganda for OIL. Except – Uganda has little oil, AND if you want to pillage, you send 30,000 or 300,000 troops, not 300.

    The desire for outrage trumps logic every day of the damned week.

  • Jim Olson

    Baaa! Baaa! Listen to the comments onTDB They all sound the same. Why is that?

  • D_C_Wilson

    Bob, you just don’t understand what Greenwald meant. He was merely stating that everything the US government does is wrong, no matter what the context. Besides, none of those kidnapped teenage girls ever spoke out against NSA metadata collection, so they don’t matter to him.

  • gray

    The tweet was despicable. Also the notion that Greenwald’s partisans get outraged because they believe someone has taken something out of context to stir the pot is beyond irony.

  • D_C_Wilson

    If the US wasn’t doing anything, Greenwald would be screaming about how Obama doesn’t care about poor people in Africa. But it does take a special kind of asshole to take an effort to help rescue teenagers about to be sold into slavery and turn it into an excuse to attack those who are offering aid.

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

    Nice work, Bob. 6,000 views might keep your column afloat another month.

  • user xyyyz

    Greenwald has been selectively taken out of context…
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/464466197271302146

    • conundrum

      Perhaps it will give Greenwald some empathy for all those he harms when he takes a line in a powerpoint slide out of context and hangs a whole fantasy on it.

    • D_C_Wilson

      Maybe Greenwald should think his tweets through more carefully before hitting “send.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that using the word “Horrifying” to describe offering support to save teenage girls who have been kidnapped and are about to be sold into slavery, rather than the act of kidnapping them ifself, could easily be taken “the wrong way.”

      • Churchlady320

        Except he said what he meant, but trying to walk it back is his stock in trade.

      • Trulyunbelievable2020

        “Horrifying” refers to “the ability to “ignore,” not to “support to save teenage girls.”

        It’s a pity that many schools no longer offer instruction in basic grammar.

        • D_C_Wilson

          You’re right, it’s a real pity. If they did, maybe more would realize that “horrifying” is a term to describe a mass-kidnapping, not the fact that everyone else isn’t using it as an excuse to bash the people who are offering to help.

          • Will

            That’s actually vocabulary, D_C_Wilson. Not grammar.

      • Will

        His tweet was pretty clear. He was making the same point that numerous Nigerian activists have been making.

        For example:
        http://www.compareafrique.com/dear-americans-hashtags-wont-bringbackourgirls-might-actually-making-things-worse/

        • D_C_Wilson

          Which is a terrible point to make in light of a humanitarian effort.

          • Will

            No. It’s a perfectly legitimate point to make if you have bothered to look in depth at the way that humanitarian gesture wrapped in the form of military aid have often been used in ways that are either nefarious or have unintended consequences that create more harm than the issue they intended to remedy. That does not mean that being hostile to American military air/intervention is always correct. America’s intervention in Bosnia had a positive outcome. However that is the only such intervention that I can think of which is clear cut. So, while Greenwald, along with some Nigerian activists, may be incorrect in this instance your blanket denunciation of the caution that they are urging (hyperbolically in Greenwald’s case) smacks of historical amnesia. And Bob Cesca’s framing of Greenwald’s comments was just deplorable and completely intellectually disingenuous.

  • Lady Willpower

    Sorry, Nigerian schoolgirls. You have failed the Greenwald Purity Test. Sucks to be you.

  • Frau From Fly-Over USA

    Of course he doesn’t care about the fate of women held in forced captivity and exploitation of men: he’s a libertarian. I am sure his pet rock Snowden backs him on his.

    • don

      So, is that the crux here? Government is the defense of women from the vile exploitation of men? If you feel that way I could see how an all powerful government might be a good thing. So, Libertarian minded people are against women because they are for limited Government? If your a woman who depends on government. Unless, of course, that government is populated by men who want to use it to exploit you further then you got a bigger problem. Now, possessing and knowing how to use a weapon kind of prevents this spiral in the first place. Why women are against guns is beyond me when a gun is the great equalizer in this dynamic. No, its better to depend on a bunch of bureaucrats quoting rules, using questionable ethics, and hiring mercenaries for your safety. Especially when most of them are men. Makes sense to me.

      • Frau From Fly-Over USA

        look you thinking about your gun *cough* dick. Thanks for proving my point. Women, guns, what’s the difference. just tools to use.

        • don

          Good rebuttal: you have a dick so you don’t know how to deal with people who have dicks being dicks.

      • D_C_Wilson

        So, what is the free market solution for teenagers being kidnapped and sold into slavery. Oh yeah, more guns!

        • don

          Ignoring the free market noise … what solution do you suggest that does not involve a weapon? Are you going to tax the kidnappers?

          • D_C_Wilson

            I didn’t say it wouldn’t involving weapons.

            So, what is your free market solution?

          • don

            You brought up free markets … I don’t see the relevance.

          • D_C_Wilson

            You said the government couldn’t be trusted, so what is your solution? Stop dodging the question.

          • don

            Not dodging anything. Though I would like too I don’t think I can protect girls a half a world away. Can you?

          • D_C_Wilson

            The question wasn’t about what you would personally do. The question was, what do you think should be done? And yes, you are dodging.

          • don

            I don’t think there is a realistic solution. I wish there was. What do you think should be done?

          • BumpIt McCarthy

            Hmmm, let’s see….how about if we started by sharing intelligence with the Nigerians, maybe sent a small task force of advisors on how to conduct quiet inquiries, you know, all that horrible stuff known as anti-terrorism.

            Or, maybe Glorious Putin would let Ed look up the relevant information in his stash of Very Bad Secrets the Government shouldn’t know, and he could fax it, after it’s properly vetted by his new buddy.

          • don

            Ah, its “Flipnt McCarthy” :). Yep, let’s send the map with the red arrow on it saying “Here are the Girls” (sharing intelligence). Send in a group of Americans (quietly means no weapons) to talk to the locals who are scared to death of the guys with guns but they will talk to us since we don’t have guns. Now, we have found the girls because somehow technological magic makes us better at knowing their country better than they do and since we are “The International Community” these guys will just give them up and say they are sorry. I think its a cracker jack plan :). What could go wrong?

          • Churchlady320

            So doing nothing is the only role for the US and EU nations all trying to help. Hmmm. Interesting “solution”.

          • D_C_Wilson

            We have resources we can share with the NIgerians, satellite imaging, material support. There’s no easy solution, but that isn’t an excuse for not offering what help we can.

          • don

            Well of course you provide what you can. Its not like I am sitting here with the pictures of where these guys have taken the girls and out of some kind of political principle I am sitting on something that would help any Nigerian authorities.

            I think it boils down to this fact: if there is such lack of government, capability, and concern in the community that a religious nut can kidnap 300 girls, make a video proclaiming what he is going to do and do it without fear of retribution for the local police, their Fathers, their Mothers, or the local community as a whole it is hard to see how the American Government can effect a reasonable solution.

            I think the worry is that once again, we are getting involved in a region, ripe with resources, but no self organizing government (At least not one that is sufficient) and we will once again create a death and destruction dynamic such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

            THE bottom line is this unfortunate fact: There is no magical political theory nor any sense of right or wrong that can compete with a person with a gun. If someone with a weapon is telling you what to do, either you pick up a weapon and stand apposed, acquiesce, or take the chance they won’t shoot you. If you stand apposed you have a chance. You can’t hire it done (Police/Military). You can’t wish it done. I don’t care if you are Liberal, Conservative, or whatever. Learn to use a weapon and that will, ultimately have the best chance, of making all the weapons irrelevant.

          • D_C_Wilson

            Or it will get everyone shot.

            it is hard to see how the American Government can effect a reasonable solution.

            Actually, the American government has more guns than anyone else in the world, so by your standard, they should be able to do anything they want.

          • don

            No, that’s the fallacy. It is the individual standing up with a gun to stand apposed that makes the difference. Again, you can’t hire it done.

          • D_C_Wilson

            Yes, an individual with a gun standing up against an entire army of terrorists has been successful exactly never.

          • CL Nicholson

            And if it involves a weapon, so what? The US government is trying to help Nigerian rescue 250 teenage girls from a real world Craster’s Keep. Boko Haram aren’t exactly pacifist Quakers. I’m not huge on using violence but these men are heartless animals who terrorize little girls and their families for the crime of reading. And if some of these monsters meet their maker at the end of Special Forces sniper rifle – we should care because….DROOONES? Give me a break.

          • don

            Hey man. Let’s get this straight. I am all for killing those SOBs. Let’s not conflate what I would do and what I would have my government do. I honestly don’t think we have a difference of opinion about right or wrong here. It’s about what is possible and consequence.

          • Guest

            what does the fate of hundreds of kidnapped girls have anything to do with your paranoid fear of having your penis extentions taken away? Will you please fuck off back to your dark dank basement.

      • BumpIt McCarthy

        Women are much more likely to be shot when there’s a gun in the house: http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb/24/news/la-ol-guns-women-increased-risk-of-being-shot-studies-20140224

        Great Equalizer nothing. The Libertwit fantasy of citizens blasting burglars and fascist hoardes is just so much role-play garbage. Citizens end up blasting themselves, their family and pets,and women get the worst of it.

        • don

          Yes, you are right. Guns carry an intrinsic risk and living next to them and increases your chance of being shot just like living next to water increases your chance of downing. Life is full of decisions about what kind of risk is acceptable or what risks are worth taking. There is no such thing as a zero risk life.

          • BumpIt McCarthy

            That’s such an amazing insight: life is full of decisions. Sad thing is, the gunshot victim is not the one who usually makes the decision. LIBERTY!

            When will gunshot victims stop selfishly impeding gun owners’ careful risk analysis with their irresponsibly puncturable bodies?

          • don

            Your inverted metaphor conflating victim hood with self speaks reams about you.

          • Frau From Fly-Over USA

            and that’s how you loose, dick-gun lover.

  • Aatticus Flacko

    Just for fun, google Glenn Greenwald and Malala Yousafzai, the young lady shot in the head by the taliban for daring to get educated. Yeah, I didn’t find anything either, despite this being one of the grossest violation of civil liberties.

    And whenNeda Agha-Soltanwas shot in the heart in Iran, he turned it into another anti US screed. http://www.salon.com/2009/06/24/photos_10/

    His first paragraph ended with “that single image has done more than the tens of thousands of words to
    dramatize the violence and underscore the brutality of the state
    response. ” So not Iran’s response, but ‘the state’.

    I don’t think he’s an anarchist because his mansion in brazil and pending Intercept book promo, but he’s certainly an evil prick.

  • Peter James

    Oh man,…
    The Greenwald Trolls are out in force today with this article.

    Looks like someone put up the Bat(shit) signal and they all came-a-crawling out of their lairs to their Dark Knight’s rescue like moths to a flame.
    ….or in Greenwald’s case, flies to a flaming pile of poo.

    He’s the hero they worship but not the one they’re smart enough to know is taking them all for a ride.

    (okay, I’m done with the Batman puns).

  • HOTDOGTSUNAMI

    Now if they were white American children, we’d have 3 tank battalions, 10 companies of Marines, 30 surveillance drones, and we’d have brought in a voodoo priest to summon General Patton from the dead to hunt down the terrorists responsible for the kidnappings.

  • kaydenpat

    The West is not trying to intervene in Nigerian affairs except to the extent of finding the kidnapped girls. What should the West do, in Greenwald’s opinion? Stand back and do nothing? The Nigerian government appears to need all the help it can get.

    • Patrick Doyle

      Let’s date-stamp this. Be suspicious when US officials start expressing concern for the safety of foreign women and children (see Kuwait, Iraq, Iran.) The outcomes of such campaigns have rarely been human rights victories.

      • BumpIt McCarthy

        Except that they are actually missing,not a PR attempt dreamed up by corrupt expats hoping to be installed as premier once the bombing stops.

        The Nigerian government is corrupt enough already, rich enough already, and corporate friendly enough already, so that the most fervid neocon fantasizing is really unnecessary.

        Sometimes 270 missing girls are just 270 missing girls, needing more assistance than their government has given them.

        You should look at some Nigerian websites instead of going straight to Anti-American knee-jerk polemics in loyal Greenwaldian ignorance.

        • Patrick Doyle

          Dollars to donuts, this will be Front #6 in the WOT in a few months. Just hear the Village utter the word “Islamic terrorist” and watch the magic happen.

          • Churchlady320

            They already have. Boko Haram has some loose ties to Al Q’aeda, and even they have denounced this act. But they are, indeed, terrorists, they tend to be Islamic though they have killed both Christians and Muslims, so what the HELL is your rather lamely mumbled point?

      • Churchlady320

        In fact this administration has improved their safety considerably, and the fact you do not know it says how little you pay attention.

  • Patrick Doyle

    How does recognizing and questioning the motives behind the sudden US interest in Nigerian affairs and it’s citizens after the Village yells “Islamic terrorist” equate to advocating the abduction of innocents? Ya’ll are so blinkered by Obama loyalty that you can’t even recognize how ignorant you sound to the reality-based community.

    • 624LC .

      Is it questioning or offering another one of his patented asshole commentary on a situation he knows two shits about? I think your windowless room filled with greenwald posters could use some cleaning. You being a member of a reality based community is too ironic.

      • Patrick Doyle

        Try again Tiger, you’ll get there eventually.

        • 624LC .

          Sorry. Not interested in asshole island. But you enjoy yourself, kitten.

    • Peter James

      >>>>”How does recognizing and questioning the motives behind the sudden US interest in Nigerian affairs and it’s citizens after the Village yells “Islamic terrorist” equate to advocating the abduction of innocents”

      Because it’s not “sudden” : YOU just haven’t been paying attention.

      And who said anything about “advocating the abduction of innocents”?
      Maybe you need to learn how to read before wading into more complex tasks like asking coherent questions.

      Also, what does “Obama loyalty” have to do with this, or anything for that matter?
      Since when does the interest in the safety of African girls have to be tied to Obama, who’s done nothing more than anything any other US president would have done in this situation?

      And YOU are preaching to other people about a “reality-based community”????
      A Greenwald fan thinks he’s a member of any “reality-based community”???

      Don’t make me laugh with that nonesense..

      • raina

        not to mention why grace his presence in, what is in his view, a not reality base community. Trolling.

    • i_a_c

      Because you’re saying “USA teh wurst!!!” in the middle of a humanitarian crisis with which this country is trying to assist using a modicum of resources. Your slippery slopes are especially slippery. That makes you an asshole like Ron Paul.

    • Churchlady320

      First – we offered support BEFORE that, and we’ve known their loose ties to Al Q’aeda – that has denounced this act – for a long time. We were asked to help, period. We did not go there uninvited nor are we doing it alone. So it’s your ignorance that seems palpable.

  • petesh

    GG is in the running for most prolix blogger of all time, so why does he Tweet so much? I’m actually trying to be understanding and kind and empathetic and all that good stuff. In his regular prose, he feels the need to be so precise and qualified and referenced and explanatory that he risks boring his readers to death; and in his tweets he overreacts in the other direction. Perhaps he hasn’t found his appropriate medium yet. Or maybe he just enjoys trolling people and then spouting vitriol in their general direction. That’s not really a great way to keep increasing an audience, though. Perhaps someone should point that out to him.

  • Isaiah Earhart

    Greenwald’s tweet was about the necessity of finding historical context in Western Interventionism, not about finding the girls.

    Cesca,

    This article is a stupid smear on Greenwald, and you know it. If your intention of this article is to mislead your readers while simultaneously making them dumber, congratulations!

    • glebealyth

      Thank you, Cesca. I hoped someone other than me would point that little fact out to the illiterate knee-jerkers whose eyes have passed over this article with no information or understanding being present in their skulls.

    • i_a_c

      No, tying this atrocity to “western intervention” at all is what’s offensive. Throwing what would certainly be a humanitarian operation in the same boat with imperialism or whatever hobby horse Glenn is riding at the moment makes him no better than the isolationist Ron Paul.

    • Peter James

      You might want to ask Greenwald where his perspective on that “historical context in Western Interventionism”, was when he was gleefully and gladly offering his “full support” and loyalty to Bush’s decision to invade Iraq on the search for WMD and to “oust a dictator” ….as well as due to some links or some other to 9/11.
      Or something.

      You Greenwald supporters are as comically oblivious and laughably lacking self-awareness or any sense of irony whatsoever (just like your hero), as you all are pungently stupid and bone-headed.

      Greenwald doesn’t get to preach to anyone, anywhere about “Western Interventionism” as long as he has that on his record.
      Ever.

      • Isaiah Earhart

        He does not like Western Military Intervention.

        Your comment is not quite as stupid as this article, but it tries hard.

        Endeavor to persevere, Peter Nobhead, endeavor to persevere…..

        • Peter James

          >>>>”He does not like Western Military Intervention.”

          Really?

          Let’s hear it from the man himself….

          >>>>” 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.”

          -Glen Greenwald, 2005
          “How Would A Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok.”

          How does it feel to be so stupid?
          Does it hurt?
          Like an ice-cream headache kind of hurt or more like a stub your toe against the table leg kind of hurt?

          And I’ll keep repeating it as much as you keep trying to pretend it doesn’t exist and as long as you keep bringing up stupid points.

          Dumbass.

          • Isaiah Earhart

            Greenwald does not like Western military intervention.

            How does it feel to rewrite shit that has no relevance?

            How does it feel to embarrass yourself repeatedly by saying the same stupid shit over and over and over again?

            Yes, please state again how Greenwald wrote that he was misguided in trusting the Bush Administration.

            Please embarrass yourself further by quoting a book Greenwald wrote about the Bush Administration that ran amok.

            Your argument is so stupid it makes me laugh.

            Idiot.

          • JozefAL

            Would you care to explain what Greenwald MEANT in the quoted passage? It seems to me that Greenwald DID LIKE “Western military intervention”–at least through 2005.

            In other words, about the same time that POPULAR OPINION against the Iraq invasion was starting to turn AGAINST Dubya, THAT was when Greenwald’s “dislike of Western military intervention” started to change. But before then? Not so much. Greenwald was a CHEERLEADER for the Bush “intervention.” And no matter how you or the other Greenwaldites want to “rewrite” his history, it canNOT be rewritten.

            By the way, does Greenwald approve of “Eastern military intervention?” I certainly haven’t heard him condemning Putin’s role in the Ukraine situation nor Putin’s ANNEXATION of Crimea. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was a saying in the LGBT community, “Silence = death,” referring to the AIDS crisis. Well, as far as I’m concerned, “Greenwald’s silence = Acceptance of Putin’s intervention.”

      • Patrick Doyle

        Hating on GG has become a surefire way to quickly identify fake liberals who’d sell their grandmother to keep a well-connected Democrat in office, no matter how little he or she espouses actual liberal policies while in power. Y’all may as well vote for Republicans, your tribal childishness only discredits the cause of liberalism and sends votes their way anyway. Go away, please.

        • Charlie B

          You hit the nail on the head. They’re fake liberals for whom EVERY issue is just another club to whack their opponents over the head with. If Greenwald was regularly writing in praise of Obama instead of criticizing him, Bob’s asshat followers would be giving him a free pass on supporting the Iraq War ten years ago.

          Notice how they don’t go into a frenzy at the mention of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, or Joe Biden, even though they are far more responsible for the war then Greenwald was. Why? Because Clinton, Kerry, and Biden are Democratic Party politicians, and that makes it all OK.

          • Peter James

            >>>>”If Greenwald was regularly writing in praise of Obama instead of criticizing him, Bob’s asshat followers would be giving him a free pass on supporting the Iraq War ten years ago.”

            Wait, so your criteria for us on whether someone should “get a free pass” (does anyone really deserve one?) for supporting the war, is that they are Obama supporters?

            You do realize that Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden who BOTH voted for that war still BOTH get bashed for their support of that war by the so-called “Obama supporters” who nonetheless still support them? (You see, we INTELLIGENT human beings can do this nifty thing called holding to opposing views in our heads at the same time. You should try it sometime)

            >>>”Notice how they don’t go into a frenzy at the mention of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, or Joe Biden, even though they are far more responsible for the war then Greenwald was. Why?”

            Because they’re not the big HYPOCRITES about supporting that war the same way that Greenwald is and have repeatedly apologized (or at least expressed regret) for their decision to do so, unlike your “dear Leader”.

            Try to see if you can work out how that works

            And while you’re at it, let me know how it feels to know that you can never bash Obama on the one biggest foreign policy blunder of the past decade and indeed this century so far – for which he was openly against from the start – and which you have to accept that your “dear leader” and hero, Greenwald, was a big supporter of.

            Does it hurt knowing that?
            Does it burn?

        • Peter James

          >>>”Go away, please.”

          Make me.

          Or even better, take your own advice.

          You can’t answer any of the points I raised so you launch into a childish rant about selling grandmothers and some nonsense about “actual liberal policies”.

          Laughable.

          The Intercept is that way.

          Feel free to see yourself out and go back to your asylum.

        • BumpIt McCarthy

          You’re hardly doing GG any favors by admitting he’s your litmus test for proper politics. You just emphasize the cultish and illogical thinking necessary to be one of his adherents.

          Democrat in power insufficiently pure? Vote for the Unicorn Party or don’t vote at all! If GG doesn’t approve, Down With Up!

  • Lodge

    How is that a surprise ? This dude, Assange, Snowden … they’re all self centered pieces of you know what !

  • i_a_c

    lol, everything is the Next Western Intervention to these nutjobs. The US has been “about to invade Iran” for like a decade now, according to them. They need a new hobby.

    • villemar

      Reminds me of how Snowwald’s hero Ron Paul has been predicting an 800 trillion percent inflation rate right around the corner for the past 25+ years.

  • Steven Skelton

    I wonder if you read Ben’s column regarding the treatment of Tucker Carlson at The Raw Story. Your headline says that Greenwald finds “supporting the effort to find…is horrifying. The actual tweet said “the ability to ignore history while….is horrifying.”

    Totally different noun there Bob. Totally different meaning. You are now better today than the group your partner scolded yesterday.

    That makes me sad. I like you Bob. Your a passionate and zealous warrior of the opinionate….but sometimes a little too much so. Don’t disrespect the truth in your assault on your enemy. Be better than that.

    • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

      Nope. His tweet is critical of “advocating” for an intervention in service of rescuing those girls. By the way, there’s nothing in The Guardian post about intervention, just “standing in solidarity.” How does history have anything to do with that? Greenwald stepped over the line big-time. He blanket labeled any support for rescuing those girls as ignorant, “horrifying” and made it seem as if it would be another US military deployment that will surely go terribly awry.

      • don
        • petesh

          Huh? 1. That is not the post in question. 2. The post you link Greenwald would agree with, no?

          • don

            Yes … I am guessing he would agree and I am guessing is the context of the tweet …

      • 624LC .

        Bob: STEVE LIKES YOU!! HE REALLY LIKES YOU!!!!

        • Steven Skelton

          I’ll go a step further. I admire Bob. I admire the success he has had doing what he is passionate about. He loves what he does and has figured out a way to make enough money from it to live in Hawaii and pursue his passions. If that isn’t the American dream, I don’t know what is.

          Is it worthy of mockery that I would like him? Have we come to a point where we can’t both like and disagree with somebody?

          I say fuck that, and fuck you if that’s what you believe.

          • don

            Wow. I could be living in Hawaii based on this? I changed my mind …. Glenn Greenwald is a evil Kochtard who clearly enjoys watching little girls die! Click on me!

          • Steven Skelton

            That is funny shit!

            But it does illustrate the absurd way we handle disagreement nowadays.

          • don

            I know. It is amazing.

          • 624LC .

            Yeah, you two idiots are hilarious.

          • don

            Hey, that’s idiottard to you!

          • 624LC .

            No… Being old school here – you are simply an idiot.

          • don

            Oh come on man … surely you can better than that? Perhaps one of your colorful non sequiturs like : your opinions can’t be right since you clearly ass raped a donkey this morning wearing a “i love biggots” t shirt on proving you just hate Democrats and Obama.

          • 624LC .

            Why would I need to go beyond ” you are an idiot”? It is short and simple …like your attention span and wit.

          • don

            There you go :). I knew you couldn’t resist. Though I was hoping for a little more imagination.

          • Steven Skelton

            I find novelty in the belief that no sentient human can disagree with another sentient human.

          • Isaiah Earhart

            Now that is funny shit! touche!

          • 624LC .

            Fuck you and your hurt fee fees. It is amazing that you would like anyone like bob cesca when your entire profile is a testament to standing up for bigots and sociopaths

      • Steven Skelton

        The tweet itself says “ignoring history while advocating…” That’s a very different thing Bob. It may be that also is critical of an intervention, but it’s unfair to say he says he’s horrified by it.

        • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

          You’re taking his tweet out of the context of the article he was responding to.

          • Isaiah Earhart

            Read the second to last paragraph.

            “It is my view that there is a case for military assistance” ~author

            This is the advocacy his tweet was responding to.

      • Patrick Doyle

        My god – did they pay you real American money to write this? Did you skip the day they covered context in American Lit? Where does GG say that the US aid is horrifying? He says that the ability to ignore the history of the players is both “impressive” and “horrifying.” How is that condemning the general desire to rescue those girls? Lame. Try bringing your “A” game next time you wanna knock a Pulitzer Prize winner down a few notches.

      • Isaiah Earhart

        There is a quote in the article that actually states that the author believes there is a case for military intervention in the second to the last paragraph.

        ” It is my view that there is a case for military assistance” ~verbatim

        You need to read closely before you spout nonsense and context free bull shit.

  • Leota2

    I’ve got a five year old pair of tennis shoes that I would listen to
    more than Glenn Greenwald.

  • elgallorojo

    Bob, he couldn’t fit that into a tweet, as you couldn’t find the time to denounce Hitler in your entire article, or even any article you wrote yesterday to the best of my knowledge (see how that works, slime-master?). Your obsession with making everything GG says — and doesn’t say — sound Evil is truly asshatilicious. p.s. He’s making a general point about U.S. pretexts for governmental military intervention, not the horror of this particular situation or doing nothing about it. Did you in fact ask get his opinion on what he thinks should be done about it? No, you didn’t. Yet you opened up your big yap anyway. I’m beginning to think you’re a bad person, Bob.

  • vp

    The only people who support this guy on what he does are ObamaHaters who hope for another terrorist attack so they can blame Obama or those that far left and Libertarians who make the Tea Party look sane.

  • vp

    I really hope the rest of the blogs at least post this comment but I doubt it. They are seriously either Obamahaters that wish a 9-11 on the U.S. as long as Obama is President or they are far left wingers that make the Tea Party look sane.

  • vp

    This guy is a piece of work. Why doesn’t MSNBC, Tiimes , HuffPo and the rest of his bootlickers post this? Covering a leak is one thing. But when you compromise our national security just for notoriety is another. They should have locked this guy up the day he stepped foot on U.S. soil,

    • don

      Explain … “compromise our national security”? How?

      • vp

        If you don’t think that allowing our enemy (in this case al-Quada and it’s affiliates) to know how we use certain technology and methods to pick up their “chatter” or how we monitor their communications to prevent an attack on the U.S. or our kids fighting over there then I can’t help you.

        • don

          If your premise was true … where is the evidence that the NSA`s tactics have prevented such an event? Trust me, if there was even one there would be three movies already out about it let alone it being mentioned every time the NSA tactics were attacked.

          • vp

            Like the NSA is going to broadcast which tactic worked? C’mon your smarter than that. That would be worse than what Greebwald is doing. Have a good one.

          • don

            Think about it. If snowden has “given away” the secrets … Then why not come forward and defend highly questionable constitutional tactics? The enemy knows then anyway …. right?

          • vp

            ……huh?

          • don

            The point is … there is no there there. IF Snowden has compromised methods and tactics why not reveal to us being spied on at least one example where these methods and tactics saved lives. Surely there is one in the last 13 years? They don’t because there isn’t one. You don’t need the entirety of the NSA to listen to Johnny Terrorist.

          • vp

            Right, sure. Like the CIA and NSA are going to announce to the public their methods and secrets of how they intercepted al-Quada messages which prevented certain attacks.. “I” stands for intelligence and “S” stands for security . Seriously, you know how dumb that sounds? Now if you are a special intelligence officer that which sounds like you are then I’d say you got something there. But I assume your not and based on this last response you need not reply to me. You told all I need to know about you.

          • vp

            Here. Have a nice day. http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/25/terrorists-try-changes-after-snowden-leaks-official-says/. And no, they aren’t going to cite the specific cases and they shouldn’t. You honestly think they should or would? If you do then you better join the flat earthers association as well. Good bye.

          • vp

            The CIA and the NSA would’nt and should’nt need to defend anything they do if it’s constitutionally “questionable” unless ordered by a court to do so. And no, we don’t know if the enemy found out anything . But the mere fact that Greenwald and Snowden just put classified intell out there for the enemy to digest could compromise our security. And I don’t want to wait until the next terrorist attack to find out and I guarantee the majority of the American people feel the same. What they did is dangerous and wrong. And they both should be tried for treason.

          • dbtheonly

            Vague memories of a statement to the effect that some 50 attacks were prevented.

            Sorry I can’t be more specific.

          • vp

            The NSA and the CIA for that matter (they work hand in hand) wouldn’t be spy agencies if they told us which tactics worked nor is it our place to know.

          • Peter James

            >>>>”If your premise was true … where is the evidence that the NSA`s tactics have prevented such an event?”

            How in the world do you expect them to prove something like that to YOU – lacking any security clearance as you obviously do – and in a manner that wouldn’t compromise any of their current operations and activities?

            And even knowing that they can’t obviously prove (or disprove) it to a substantive degree that you would accept, doesn’t that make you a jerk for asking them to prove something to you that you know they can’t (not for lack of proof, but rather practicality)?

          • don

            No. It doesn’t make me a jerk. You make assumptions that aren’t true about me and the people you so implicitly trust. Your idealism is laudable but ultimately misplaced in my opinion.

          • Peter James

            >>>>”No. It doesn’t make me a jerk. You make assumptions that aren’t true about me and the people you so implicitly trust. ”

            Okay then, explain to me how you expect them to prove to you something that can only be proven (or disproven) through the use of, and with access to classified material, when YOU lack the security clearance to see said materials?

            Do you know or do you not know that you more than likely lack the necessary security clearance level to be given access to any proof that it worked?

            If the answer is “yes”, you do know, then, yes, YOU,.ARE. A JERK.

          • don

            I am confused by your question. If I answer that I don’t have sufficient clearance and I assume there hasn’t been a positive intervention I am a jerk?

          • Peter James

            If you answer that you don’t have sufficient clearance (which you DON’T) and you know the only way you’ll ever get to see any proof (which in all likelihood includes CLASSIFIED material that affects even CURRENT operations), then it means that you KNOW (even if you’ll never admit it) that you’re asking a question to which you can not get an answer (to your satisfaction) and which then allows you to claim that the question wasn’t answered or proven, ostensibly thus proving your point – when the reality is otherwise.

            All of which in turn DOES make you a jerk.

          • don

            Well, I won’t discuss clearance levels since I don’t think it is necessary.

            There is a huge difference between operational security, secrecy on methods, and policy secrecy.

            Keeping operational secrets makes sense but there is a shelf life on that. Keeping the secret what we invade tomorrow at dawn is important. Keeping the secret after we invade is silly.

            How to build a particular weapon needs to be secret. Mostly to prevent an enemy from knowing to to build it or to defeat it. However, keeping a entire weapon system, especially one that has global or universal implications would be questionable ethically. For instance, if the US government had developed a secret weapon that could kill everyone on Earth if detonated by a massive solar flare shouldn’t the people be made aware of its existence to debate if possession of said weapon is worth the risk?

            Policy Secrecy is different from those two. While detecting someone’s intention to cause harm and/or demonstrated ill will towards the US or the public is policy is a laudable goal how preeminent is the secrecy of the policy when compared to the potential damage to the integrity and trust of the people with respect to the government? This trust is critical if our form of government is to be effective and long lasting. Shouldn’t these techniques, at the very least, be vented in a general sense with over-site by selected people (Congress) so that the public narrative is confirmed to be consistent with the necessarily secret implementation? If you are going to keep policy secret you better have a dammed good reason to do so and be prepared to explain yourself when you are found out. I think this third one is the most relevant here.

            In simple words? Just because I ask these questions does not make me a JERK :). I believe in the US and the Constitution it represents. Asking these questions are part of defending that Constitution.

          • conundrum

            I think at this point it is very clear, more people trust the government than trust Greenwald or Libertarians. It’s amazing that the Libertarians who ran the on-line illegal drug market “Silk Road”, or facilitated Snowden selling out his country would even dare to ask us to trust them.

          • swiley

            Here’s a good example: http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/11/feds_acknowledge_warrantless_w.html

            Now will you acknowledge that there are legitimate purposes for FISA-authorized wiretapping by law enforcement, and it’s not just the big bad NSA DRONES NOBAMA snooping Glenn Beckwald’s internet history.

          • don

            Thanks for the link. Interesting story. I think we are talking about domestic spying and it states clearly they were wiretapping abroad. I also think that the Snowden allegations and the NSA obfuscation is not about a proper FISA filings but about broad sweep intelligence gathering on the American people.

          • swiley

            No – domestically, the NSA collects and stores *metadata*, requiring a regular old warrant to listen in on the contents of calls and internet traffic, if only US citizens are under surveillance.

            This case involved an American, who was within the US, communicating with foreign citizens (Saudi Arabian). Under the 2008 revision of the law, such communications can be monitored without a warrant.

            “FISA allows the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency to physically and/or electronically eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and legal residents suspected as acting as agents of foreign governments. Many of the government’s targets are later charged criminally as terrorists or spies.

            The law was amended in 2008 to allow the U.S. to electronically eavesdrop on foreign targets even when the surveillance happens to pick up the emails or phone calls of Americans.

            Tuesday’s notice was the first formal indication that the government had used that amendment, known as Section 702, to intercept communications overseas that ultimately helped the FBI make its case against Mohamud.

            A criminal complaint signed the night of Mohamud’s arrest made it clear that Mohamud had exchanged emails with friends in the Middle East.

            One of those contacts, a Saudi national named Amro Alali, had previously attended Portland State University. The FBI characterized Alali as a wanted terrorist during Mohamud’s trial.”

            Of course, Greenwald dismisses the efficacy of implementing such tactics. “The reality is if you have an open society, you can’t prevent attacks like this.” https://www.seattleprivacy.org/moyers-greenwald-bombings-no-excuse-to-curtail-privacy/

            Keep that in mind as you read the 19-year-old would-be terrorist’s chilling words: “I want whoever is attending that event to leave, to leave either dead or injured.”

          • don

            I think the question at hand is NSA recording and storing data on US citizens, especially in general.

            The first statement in the article is:

            The government on Tuesday gave its first formal notice that warrantless wiretaps overseas helped make its terrorism case againstMohamed Mohamud.

            Again, I thank you for the link but I don’t think it satisfies what I was looking for as proof that the issues being dealt with required the secrecy and extraordinary violation of the public’s trust.

            Now let’s return to the issue I thought we were debating. Take PRISM.

            From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)

            Documents indicate that PRISM is “the number one source of raw intelligence used for NSA analytic reports”, and it accounts for 91% of the NSA’s Internet traffic acquired under FISA section 702 authority.”[15][16] The leaked information came to light one day after the revelation that the FISA Court had been ordering a subsidiary of telecommunications company Verizon Communications to turn over to the NSA logs tracking all of its customers’ telephone calls on an ongoing daily basis.[17][18

            Now, I could listen to an argument that they want tracking a suspect’s movement after they become a suspect. I can also understand why they would want to know something in the past. Hell, I can understand why they would want all of us to wear lapel cams. The issue is are there sufficient safe guards to prevent abuse. Considering the existence of the program was not revealed to the public for debate and safeguards were not vented reveals outside the national security structure the fallacy of the reassurances they have given seems pretty self evident.

            Now, let’s consider Boundless Informant a program that reports on the amount of Metadata being recorded. That was not disclosed to the US Congress and the NSA erroneously or intentionally offered misleading assurances this data was not being collected.

            There are others but I think I have made my point.

            Why is it so unreasonable to be suspicious here? Again, could you provide me a reason why these programs (in general) were kept secret? Wouldn’t an honest player want the vetting of the US system of checks and balances that includes the public?

          • swiley

            “provide me a reason why these programs (in general) were kept secret?”

            I dunno, maybe the fact that revealing specific operational details might, ya know, compromise agencies’ clandestine capabilities. Congress was briefed over a dozen times since the 2008 FISA renewal. Do you suggest intelligence agencies disclose the secret inner workings of every single program they conduct? Robust oversight is necessary, but in the absence of proven wrongdoing, i.e. deliberate, continued abuse, what exactly do you propose should be done about the programs, assuming they are ruled constitutional in line with Smith v. Maryland?

          • don

            I think you ask a good question. My answer is that extraordinary power requires extraordinary over site and credibility. I think, unfortunately, the credibility of the government players is questionable at this point. One could argue implicit and explicit in the Constitution is the requirement NOT to trust government. I also think the compromise argument is a red hearing. How does the public knowing about PRISM or its general capabilities compromise its effectiveness? How is over site possible when the public doesn’t know?

          • swiley

            Jesus. So the President should live-tweet his daily intelligence briefing? The Pentagon should be open for public tours? C’mon, man.

          • don

            I think the public oversite and constitutional checks on the president are extraordinary. The Pentagon oversite is also extraordinary not to mention the looming check of the code of military justice system. I don’t see anything like that for the NSA.

          • conundrum

            Of course you don’t. You don’t want to see it. Oversite by the FISA court? Congessional oversight? Executive branch oversight? Ever heard of these things?

          • conundrum

            Snowbots and Greentards are as useless as “Occupy Wall Street”; they are a rable that would like us to believe they are a movement. They are so proud to have no leaders, but then that means there is nobody to negotiate with, nobody to be held accountable for a reasonable and consistent position. In the end, there is nothing to be done but ignore them, and that is what is happening. In a year or two, “Intercept” will be no more, and people will ask Snowden who? In Russia you say? So?

          • conundrum

            Libertarians like to sound all reasonable by talking about “safegards”, even as they dismiss the value of all the safegards that are already in place. The fact is Libertarians are nut cases who just plain hate government; they want the “freedom” to break any law they disagree with, like selling drugs or not paying taxes. And for this “freedom”, they willing to sacrifice American lives.

    • Isaiah Earhart

      Because this piece is a complete sham. There is no honesty here; there is no context written here, and only the dumbest readers on the planet would fall for this piece of shit article.

      • vp

        Can you prove the article wrong? Bob has the dates, times, etc. documented right there. If you can prove it’s a sham I’m sure everyone on this link will give you the courtesy to do so. If not then don’t read the blog.

      • Peter James

        >>>”here is no honesty here; there is no context written here, and only the dumbest readers on the planet would fall for this piece of shit article.”

        Kinda like YOU fall for Greenwald’s shit all the time.

  • Trulyunbelievable2020

    Here are some quotes from radical libertarian and Koch minion Glenn Greenwald on the Koch brothers (full article available here: http://www.salon.com/2011/03/27/koch_2/ )

    [Re: a Weekly Standard interview with the Kochs] “In this article one finds the purest and most instructive expression of billionaire self-pity that I think I’ve ever seen — one that is as self-absorbed and detached from reality as it destructive. It’s really worth examining their revealed mindset to see how those who wield the greatest financial power (and thus the greatest political power) think of themselves and those who are outside of their class.”

    “[T]his Weekly Standard interview shows how delusional and extreme the Koch Brothers are — though in ways quite representative of other resentful elites.”

    “For billionaires to see themselves as the True Victims, to complain that the President and the Government are waging some sort of war against them in the name of radical egalitarianism, is so removed from reality — universes away — that’s it’s hard to put into words. And the fiscal recklessness that the Kochs and their comrades tirelessly point to was a direct by-product of the last decade’s rule by the Republican Party which they fund: from unfunded, endless wars to a never-ending expansion of the privatized National Security and Surveillance States to the financial crisis that exploded during the Bush presidency. But whatever else is true, there are many victims of fiscal policy in America: the wealthiest business interests and billionaires like the Koch Brothers are the few who are not among them.”

    “[T]he Koch brothers go far beyond mere writing about political issues. They single-handedly fund advocacy groups and covert campaigns on a wide variety of highly controversial issues that adversely impact huge numbers of people. That they expect to be able to do that without any vigorous response or opposition or anger is just reflective of their oozing sense of entitlement: the same syndrome that leads them to perversely believe that the True Victims in America’s political culture are its wealthiest and most powerful.”

    • don

      LOL … well done.

      • Trulyunbelievable2020

        And… crickets…

        • don

          Yeah, there is not a lot of Mea Colpa spirit when it comes to facts around here unless perhaps if you make “tard” a suffix …. like say factard. So, I’ll help you out … that was some serious fucking factards you laid out man. :)

          • Badgerite

            Culpa. Mea Culpa. There is no such thing as Mea Colpa.

          • don

            Thanks, edited and corrected. :)

    • KarenJ

      Evidently immediately after the publication of that article in 2011 the Koch brothers sent Greenwald a suitcase full of cash…the equivalent in activist/journo terms to “contributing to a political campaign”….what occurs with our bought-and-paid-for corporatist politicians.

    • Richard_thunderbay

      I’m curious to read the Daily Banter articles that have described Greenwald as a radical libertarian. Could you provide some links? Thanks.

    • reggid

      Do you really want to compare quotes? Shall we quote what the “progressive” GG has said about undocumented immigrants? Or how he characterized the victims murdered by his white-supremacist clients? Or how he supports Citizens United? Yeah, he’s quite the progressive, that Greenwald.

  • Dizivi

    Translating…

    Greenwald: The hell with the missing girls! Drones and NSA are the REAL dangers!

    • don

      Hum. Interesting juxtaposition. Actually, if you are a little girl in the wrong place at the wrong time Drones can be a problem.

      http://www.democracynow.org/2013/10/25/a_drone_warriors_torment_ex_air

      • Badgerite

        So, the US cannot act to help the Nigerian government recover these girls because of drones? Really?
        I don’t see the connection. Are you saying we are going to use drones to recover the girls or attack Boko Harem with drones. I do not think that very likely.
        The US has recovered hostages in Africa before. If drones would be used they would only be used for surveillance. I am guessing they would provide mostly intelligence as to location and logistics or special ops.
        Which does not seem to awfully ‘interventionist’ to me.

        • Trulyunbelievable2020

          I think his point (and correct me if I’m wrong) is is that when Greenwald questions the efficacy of a certain approach to dealing with a violent group that has placed children’s lives in dangers, his very humanity is questioned.

          And yet when our government acts in way that is guaranteed to kill children, those of us who get upset about it are mocked as “emoprogs.” Those kids’ lives suddenly don’t seem all that important.

          • Badgerite

            I don’t use that term. In fact I don’t know what it means.
            But I digress. I don’t fault you for caring about children.
            I fault you for defending Greenwald’s utter lack of concern for these children. What’s more, these are the kinds of groups that in particularly defined areas ( Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan) that drones are used against. And you can see what they are capable of. Many years ago, the US was trying to kill Ayman Zawahiri, the current leader of Al Qaeda. They ended up bombing a house with his wife and child in it. Should they not have tried to get him?
            When they killed Bin Laden, they also killed his young son. Should they not have tried to kill Bin Laden?
            But actually, these are two separate issues and only someone like Greenwald or his supporters could possibly conflate the two.
            This is more like Rwanda.

          • don

            I think the error in your analysis is lies in your statement “utter lack of concern for these children”. Really? So, your premise is that if I don’t agree with your policy I am advocating kidnapping and sexually exploiting children? I don’t really think you mean that but that is the logical conclusion of your premise. A premise born out of a natural human instinct and a good one. But, also a very manipulable one. One, that this government and others has used more than once to cover less egalitarian motives.

            As for drones. There is a natural check and balance about actually having to watch someone die when you kill them. I think drones are the military, and even more horrifically, bureaucratic equivalent of a slaughter house. In other words “I like meat and will continue to eat it but I couldn’t actually kill and slaughter the animal” logic. There are a lot of people that look at the military or “operational intelligence” in general this way. Can’t imagine how that could go wrong ;).

            It is a good question though. How many innocents have to die to get one bad actor? It may be wrong but I don’t think zero is an unreasonable answer. Certainly it does not warrant ridicule.

          • Badgerite

            What you don’t agree with, for the record, is an article in the Guardian entitled
            Western Feminists Should Speak Up For The Kidnapped Nigerian Girls.
            And what she advocates is just that. Calling a hateful outrage for what it is. A hateful outrage. And calling on it to be condemned world wide, certainly by all women and feminists but I’m sure by all religious leaders as well. This is “horrifying” to you and Greenwald because of drones? You object to the “efficacy” of her urging people world wide to condemn this tragedy in Nigeria because of Iraq?
            And my analysis is flawed?
            PHONY!!!!!

          • don

            Perhaps you should read this. It might provide context. Should we listen to the guy who has seen the snowden dump or attack him when he tells us to be cynical about our government`s motives?

            http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/06/western-intervention-nigeria-kidnapped-girls-corruption-boko-haram

          • Isaiah Earhart

            Your analysis is beyond flawed. Your analysis is stupid.

            Read better, spout gibberish less.

          • Peter James

            Can’t be repeated or emphasized enough…

            Greenwald:-

            ” 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.”

            In fact, see yourself to shutting up and take all the seats.

          • Isaiah Earhart

            Yes, Greenwald wrote this.

            He hates the Bush Administration and has written and spoke about his hatred for the Bush Administration countless times.

            Now what?

            Your comment is irrelevant and stupid.

          • Peter James

            >>>>”Yes, Greenwald wrote this.”

            That’s all you needed to say.

            The rest of what you wrote in that paragraph is nonsense and bullshit which is irrelevant.

            I’m sure he’ll also claim now to hate White Supremacist Mathew Hale, whom he defended in court and whose hate-crime victims HE (Glen Greenwald) once called “odious and repugnant”

            Just like Greenwald himself and his single-brained supporters like you.

          • Isaiah Earhart

            LOL.

            Guppy.

          • conundrum

            Ah!, but that President was a white Republican.

            I can see why Snowden and Greenwald get along so well together, same prejudices.

          • Jim Olson

            Mindnumbingly stuipid.

          • Badgerite

            And if that were true, we had no business hunting down and killing Bin Laden. His son who was about 16 was killed in the attack. Or taking any action at all after 9/11. And if we took no action, how many more innocents would die at the hands of these people. We would, in fact, have met Bin Laden’s expectation of being a ‘paper tiger’ that would retreat. He said we loved life too much, where they loved death and martyrdom. This was, after all, his grand strategy.
            He would hit the US hard. Show our vulnerability. We would retreat from the region and the world. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda would be seen as the “strong horse” and people would follow. He was not going to stop unless we stopped him. You do know that.

          • don

            Rest assured that you are talking to a man who thinks that, if convinced the Bin Laden legend were true, would have tactically nuked Torra Borra to kill him to make the point you advocate including killing the innocents you and I feel for. There is no doubt that a greater evil argument can be made at times. It can’t be policy though and in especially the current environment where governments world wide are corrupted so badly.

          • Badgerite

            So Bin Laden is a legend that is not true?

          • don

            Bin Laden was a real person. The fact that the Bush folks backed away at Torra Borra shows that either THEY didn’t believe he was ultimately responsible or that they needed him alive or perceived to be alive to sell the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan and provide an enemy for the war on terror. EITHER WAY … the official story on who he was or what he did became a Legend … a story from the past that is believed by many people but cannot be proved to be true.

          • Badgerite

            MmmmmmHmmmmmm.

          • dbtheonly

            Or the Bush Administration was not convinced that Osama would be killed by the atomic explosion?

            But I’ll certainly give you that the Bush Administration lost the hunt for Osama in the Iraq War.

          • Badgerite

            I would not have been willing to “nuke” Torra Borra to get him.

          • don

            I know … it’s a tough choice. Kill bin Laden there … it’s a mess but it’s very rural so the collateral damage is minimal … tactical nukes are relatively clean …. justice is exacted …. our a decade of war … a million dead in Iraq … a lot of children … not to mention Afghanistan is not necessary.

            And you have made the policy demonstration that if someone attacks the us with massive death we will respond swiftly and substantially.

          • Badgerite

            Uh Huh.

          • dbtheonly

            Just for it, wasn’t Osama’s “young son” like 22 or so?

          • Badgerite

            He has several sons. The only body retrieved was Bin Laden’s so I think there is some confusion as to which son was killed.

          • dbtheonly

            There were the two guys hiding Bin Laden killed & memory isn’t good enough to remember the other details. Thanks for the clarification.

          • Badgerite

            Both of them were killed. One of them was the ‘courier’ who inadvertently led them to Bin Laden. And one of Bin Laden’s sons. Initial reports had it as the son of his youngest wife, Amal.
            He would have been somewhere in his teens. But it was dark and they only retrieved Bin Laden’s body. So reports as to who else died besides the two men ( which are identified through their pictures which were taken of their bodies) depend on the family and the Pakistanis. ????
            But the point is the same. His wife, Amal, was only wounded. But if necessary, I’m sure they would have killed her to get to him.
            And the question would be, is that alright? Since earlier strikes on Bin Laden that might have killed him long before 9/11 were forgone due to the possibility of civilian deaths, was that something that should have deterred special ops after 9/11?
            And should it deter them now in seeking to kill the leadership of Al Qaeda?
            And that is a different question from whether it is alright to kidnap young girls for sale into sexual slavery. One might be defensible. That other is clearly not defensible.

          • dbtheonly

            I would have supported the killing of Osama’s wife had it been necessary. I’m glad it wasn’t.

            I am confident President Obama does not desire nor relish the civilian deaths consequent to killing terrorist leaders. We’re back at the question of what the Greenwaldians would do instead.

            We get no answer but are told that terrorism is the fault of Israel & the US. Even if we accept this & “blame America first”; there’s still no answer about what needs to be done to stop the terrorists.

          • Badgerite

            I agree. Their analysis never holds up under close examination.
            It’s as if they are stuck back at the Vietnam War. This is not the Vietnam War. Not even close.

          • dbtheonly

            It’s worse. On this thread, it’s been suggested that the US Ambassador green lighted Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. Thus the US is complicit/responsible for the 1990 Gulf War.

            On another article’s comments; it was suggested that American Busineses were responsible for WWII. (?) I didn’t follow up on how America is responsible for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Hitler’s attack on Poland would be a greater stretch.

            American Imperialist wars include WWI,

            I was tempted to ask how American Imperialism started the Civil War ( though I think I know the answer) and the Revolution. In the end I just don’t have the time or inclination to chase down those theories.

          • don

            Yep. Thanks.

          • missliberties

            That must be why Greenwald refuses to criticize Russia, or Syria, or any other leaders involved in genocidal authoritarianism.

          • Badgerite

            The efficacy of the approach he questioned was for those who support human rights to speak out against the actions of this group and others who deny the rights of women.
            He thinks this approach is “horrifying”.
            Let me quote from the article in question:

            “If anyone needed proof that there are men in this world who hold wells of hatred for women so deep that that they believe there is justification in their systematic rape, torture and imprisonment, then this is it. This man grins out from the screen-grabbed footage as he declares that “women are slaves” in the name of Islam”
            “It goes without saying that there is no justification in religion, or culture or ideology for this barbaric slavery of forced child marriage. A practice that affects 10 million children worldwide. Iraq laws put the age of puberty at 9 years old. Yemen has no minimum age for marriage. India has 40% of the world’s child brides. It is a massive and enduring problem that has been brought into sharp relief by the tragedy in Nigeria.”

            She then goes on to call on all women and feminists to speak out against this world wide. Every where it is encountered.
            And this is somehow “horrifying” to Mr. Sensitive, Glen Greenwald. I never liked him. And now I know why. He is a phony.

          • Isaiah Earhart

            Read accurately. Glenn didn’t say that women speaking out about the terrible treatment of women worldwide. He was talking about Western Interventionism done without historical understanding.

            Read more. Spout bullshit less.

          • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

            Keyword: “advocating.”

          • Isaiah Earhart

            Keywords: “ignoring virtually all history.”

            You took Greenwald’s intent completely out of context, and now you have some ignorant readers frothing out the mouth at your drivel that provides no insight into the concerns he actually raised.

            This article is a disgrace. you have made your readers dumber.

          • Isaiah Earhart

            “It is my view that there is a case for military assistance”

            Greenwald, in my view, responds to the above words by the author, as the author does not examine the historical context in which US “military assistance” does or does not assist in helping women worldwide. ~Without historical context is horrifying. NOT what your drivel would indicate.

          • Peter James

            >>>>”He was talking about Western Interventionism done without historical understanding.”

            Sorta like the invasion of Middle Eastern countries by Western powers looking for oil….er… I mean WMD.

            Read the Preface to his book ” “How Would A Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok.”

            Written by Greenwald himself…

            To wit (re: the decision to invade of Iraq by Bush)…

            “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.”

            You can shut up now and take a seat in the corner.

          • Isaiah Earhart

            Hello Peter James,

            This is written in the past tense about an administration Greenwald has excoriated both in public speech and in writing many times since.

            Your espousal of this paragraph as proof Greenwald likes Western Military Interventionism is stupid.

            Shut you pie hole, dummy. LOL

          • Peter James

            >>>>”Your espousal of this paragraph as proof Greenwald likes Western Military Interventionism is stupid.”

            The purpose of the paragraph was to show that Greenwald like Western Military interventionism (by his own admission since it was written by HIM) when it suits him and when it’s convenient to do so before turning around and claiming he’s against it when it’s no longer convenient nor viable.
            So his sudden change of heart now, is laughable to say the least especailly when placed in the context of inability or unwillingness to apologize for prior support nor even admit he (And Bush) were wrong.

            >>>>>”This is written in the past tense about an administration Greenwald has excoriated both in public speech and in writing many times since.”

            Never once did he say he was sorry for that support in that preface or anywhere, even as he was excoriating the likes of Biden and Hillary for doing the same.

            Never once has he ever offered THIS president anywhere close to the same support for missions that WERE justified (i.e. NOT based on LIES) and had the support of the global community and caused nowhere near the same level of loss of human life.

            THAT makes him a big fat HYPOCRITE.

            Feel free to have another seat or slink back to whatever Greenwald cesspool or sceptic tank you crawled out of.

          • Isaiah Earhart

            THIS President is the LIAR in Chief. At least the other LIAR in chief had Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Powell do his lying for him.

            I am sorry you are so hurt that Obama is a killer and a liar. Does it hurt deep down that you and your gullible ilk were so credulous as to support this crooked administration?

            I feel bad for you, but you should really just admit that your man (Obama) played you like the stupid fool you are.

            Can you write something relevant, or is saying stupid irrelevant shit all you are equipped to do?

      • Dizivi

        Since when else has Greenwald said anything else BUT his pet peeves. Your idol is a narcissist who cares only about himself and his hobby horses.

      • Badgerite

        Maybe. But they are not the problem here. In this instance. If you look for complete consistency in the world I am pretty sure that that is a fool’s errand.

        • Isaiah Earhart

          Especially if you looked for consistency in US foreign policy. An idiots errand, in fact.

          • mrbrink

            Ridiculous generalization.

  • don

    Ok, People. Some of you may be too young to remember the selling of the first Gulf War but it went something like this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu8CCJTJCQk

    Yes, they actually used a false narrative about Iraqi soldiers ripping babies out of incubators to sell the war.

    Now, for some reason, you seem to think that now is different than then. I am not sure why especially after Gulf War II sold by an even bigger fantasy about weapons of mass destruction. (Do you guys even remember Abu Ghraib?) And, you can’t excuse your girl Hillary as she voted for that war lock block and tackle because of a “failure in intelligence”. That is just bullshit. Luckily, for Obama, he was recorded giving an obscure speech about not supporting the War. That fooled me and I voted for him. At least he hasn’t officially put boots on the ground in Libya and Syria … yet.

    Keep saying to yourself:

    AFTER WHAT WE HAVE DONE IT WILL TAKE AT LEAST A GENERATION OR RESTRAINT TO REGAIN CREDIBILITY TO DO GOOD THINGS IN THE WORLD WITH MILITARY FORCE

    So, how credible is the story? How can we help without causing or aggravating the catastrophe? The bait is always simple moral outrage. Take caution in your tone before you start down a path to send mine and others 23 and 19 year old sons to Nigeria.

    And, by-the-way, why are people on this blog so upset at Edward Snowden? Perhaps you should read about the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Elsberg. He only started the ball rolling on ending the catastrophe of the Vietnam War. Another gigantic war sold on bull shit.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

    • dbtheonly

      I don’t remember that. I remember Iraq invading Kuwait.

      • don

        Do you remember arming (including Chemical Weapons) Saddam to fight a ten year war with Iran the decade proceeding? Another attempt to blunt a greater evil? Perhaps reading the case of Ambassador April Glaspie and how murky this all gets when viewed notionally.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

        • villemar

          Translation: But but but Loud Noises! Hot water burn baby! Look over here!

          • Trulyunbelievable2020

            As a professional translator, I must say that this translation really fucking sucks.

        • Badgerite

          Europe had more to do with arming Saddam with chemical weapons. The US provided intelligence. But his chemical weapons capability ( VX gas, etc) came mostly from Germany and Italy also, I believe. The US did send some anthrax samples allegedly for use in developing vaccines. But it was later found to have been used to experiment on prisoners. Sound like anyone you know from the past. This is what Saddam Hussein was capable of and you blame the US for what he did, as if his regime played no part in this, and then you blame the US for going after him. Which is it?
          Are we to blame for what he did or are we to blame for ending his regime? Or are we just to blame, period?

          • don

            Well, I think this is the heart of the problem. Sadaam was a moronic evil mess but we got involved with him to protect oil interests and to counter a theoretical threat from Iran. Sadaams morality wasn’t questioned until he became a threat to more oil interests by invading Kuwait and threatened the Saudi regime and more oil interests. Then we get told emotionally charged legends about iraqi soldiers pulling babies out of incubators to stir support for a grand war. Nigeria …. rense and repeat.

          • Badgerite

            Not worth responding to because it is a stupid comparison.
            Rinse. Repeat.

        • dbtheonly

          Even more fun. Those Iranian weapons had been traded to them by President Reagan.

          But so what? Neither the weapons, nor prior US support forced Saddam’s to invade Kuwait.

          And it was a lot more than just the US shoving him out again. Just about the entire world had a hand in it.

      • Patrick Doyle

        I remember April Glasby telling Saddam “No objection from us, that’s a local border dispute.”

        • dbtheonly

          So what?

          Blessedly neither the Bush Administraton; nor the rest of the world agreed.

    • Badgerite

      Seriously. You are comparing this to the Gulf Wars. Either of them?
      That is truly ridiculous. I still remember Rwanda. And the genocide that went on there that could have been stopped by just the tiniest show of interest and the tiniest show of force from anyone.
      Anyone. Even UN troops with blue helmets. Belgian troops remember. They were there under UN auspices and were ORDERED to do nothing.

      • i_a_c

        It’s pathetic. Every time the US does something somewhere else, these lunatics insist it’s a precursor to war. They are no different than Ron Paul fanatics.

        • Patrick Doyle

          Coz we all love little ponies and unicorns and always strive to do our Very Best For the Children.

  • DJ Mauri

    Remember that this is the same guy who gives speeches at the Cato Institute, wishes Obama supporters would be raped and thinks Anwar Al-awlaki was unjustly murdered. You know, the Al-Qaeda propagandist. Recently he smeared Max Fisher, who works at the liberal Vox website, as an anti-Palestinian who supports the genocide of all Muslim people in the region. He called him a “uber-nationalistic imperial spokesmen” because he had the TEMERITY to say that the Palestinians attacked the Israelis in the 1947 civil war, and that the Arab States struck first in 1948.

    Um….are we now seriously arguing over what happened in the 1947-49 war? The Arab states were peaceful bystanders in that conflict? He also laughably attacked the maps Fisher posted of the region, saying that it showed pro-Israeli bias. I’m a fierce critic of the right-wing government of Israel today, am no fan of AIPAC, and their history has some dark spots; but to attack the founding of the Israel as genocide? Glenn Greenwald is a supreme asshole and it disgusts me that other progressives that I respect, laud him as the shining beacon of journalism.

    • Trulyunbelievable2020

      1) “Remember that this is the same guy who gives speeches at the Cato Institute…”

      He published one paper (praising drug decriminalization in Portugal) and spoke at one event (where he savaged the Bush approach to executive power). He’s also worked with the ACLU and spoken at Socialism Conferences.

      Sorry to keep repeating myself, but you folks seem to want to keep citing this fact as if it were proof positive of his hardcore libertarianism.

      2) “wishes Obama supporters would be raped..”

      When and where? Please provide a link, since I’m almost certain that this never happened.

      • DJ Mauri

        I’ll correct myself just a little, he tweeted how obama supporters, if they were raped by the President, would “say it was justified [and] noble – that he only did it to teach us about the evils of rape.” He was supporting a fan who said “Obama could rape a nun live on NBC and you’d say we weren’t seeing what we were seeing.” He supported his followers saying this and actively participated in the discussion. This got a lot of attention in early 2012, with the Grio posting a great article on this. http://thegrio.com/2012/01/02/glenn-greenwald-defends-obama-could-rape-a-nun-attack/

        I understand he doesn’t regularly attend or speak at Cato conferences, and your examples are true, but his behavior has been regularly endorsed by the Cato Institute http://shoqvalue.com/why-libertarian-organizations-like-the-cato-institute-love-the-nsa-outrage/

        I have no love for the NSA, and think it needs significant reform; but Greenwald frequently misleads, lies and smears decent people, so I vigorously disagree with his tactics. Also attacking the President ad nauseum on a program that he didn’t even create and can’t easily dismantle is intellectually dishonest. Massive government agencies like the NSA, Social Security, Medicare, Department of Education, etc…are hard to get rid/reformed once they’ve been established, as many conservatives can attest to.

        FYI These right wingers were incredibly disappointed in Ronald Reagan in 1988 http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488 , and look what happened to Reagan’s popularity with conservatives since then.

      • Badgerite

        Who cares what he calls himself. I call him something else.

  • ctrenta

    This latest comment of his is right up there with the “Obama could rape a nun” tweet.

    http://thegrio.com/2012/01/02/glenn-greenwald-defends-obama-could-rape-a-nun-attack/

    • mrbrink

      All respected journalists equate support for President Obama with support for raping a nun.

      It’s called, Journalism, Doh!

  • NintendoWii10

    Yet the Progressive Unicorn Brigade (PUBs) continue to label Snowdenwald a journalist. What a crock of shit!

    • Isaiah Earhart

      Greenwald is a journalist.

      A fine journalist at that.

      • Lady Willpower

        A true journalist cares about getting the story right, not confirming their own preexisting biases.

  • Neddy Merrill

    I’ve always seen Greenwald as a Manichean asshole. But libertarian asshole works just as well.

    • Trulyunbelievable2020

      The guy’s a total fucking Donatist.

  • Trulyunbelievable2020

    This reminds me of when certain libertarian ratfucking Koch-sucker assholes opposed the invasion of Iraq. I can only assume that they took this position because they wholeheartedly supported Saddam’s regime. Certainly no good liberal would support rape rooms.

    • Nick L.

      It is intellectually dishonest to compare the sending of advisors to Nigeria to help secure the return of these girls to the Iraq war. They are qualitatively and quantitatively different. If you define western intervention as any assistance provided by a western country to a nonwestern country, then I suppose you were shocked and appalled by US nuclear disaster response personnel going to Japan after the Fukishima disaster.

      Ultimately, Greenwald’s is a familiar libertarian argument of the same strip as those from the Mises Institute that state “of course slavery was bad, but what was worse is the US government trying to do anything to stop it”. That Greenwald sees the US providing assistance and advice to the legitimate government of a foreign country upon their request in order to save innocent victims as a greater evil than just letting these girls be sold into slavery, is telling of his character.

      • Trulyunbelievable2020

        (Two part post)

        1) It would certainly be intellectually dishonest to compare the limited assistance that the US is actually proposing to the invasion of Iraq. But no one is actually making that argument here.

        If you look at the tweet that Cesca quotes in context, you’ll see that Greenwald was responding to this column in the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/06/western-feminists-kidnapped-nigerian-girls-boko-haram?CMP=fb_gu

        If you actually read that column, you’ll see that the author appears to be calling for intervention on a scale that goes far beyond sending a few military advisers. She’s talking about the responsibility of the West to effect a major cultural shift in Africa, a project that can in fact be compared to the way Bush talked about bringing “freedom” to Iraq.

        The only possible objection to this sort of crusade that she identifies relates to the “fear of interfering, for appropriating the struggles of others, or for failing to understand the relevant cultural and religious politics.” She doesn’t seem to acknowledge the possibility that such a wide-scale attempt to transform Africa might cause increased suffering for Africans themselves, just as our intervention in Iraq undoubtedly caused a great deal of Iraqi suffering.

        It’s this historical blindness– not Obama’s proposed intervention– that Greenwald was calling “horrifying.” If anyone is being intellectually dishonest, it’s Mr. Cesca, who seems to be deliberately twisting Greenwald’s words.

        • Trulyunbelievable2020

          2) “Ultimately, Greenwald’s is a familiar libertarian argument…”

          I realize that the notion that Glenn Greenwald is a hardcore libertarian ideologue is widely accepted here, so it may be futile to even argue the point. But here goes:

          You’re absolutely correct to argue that opposition to “humanitarian interventions” is a hallmark of libertarian foreign policy. But it’s not exclusively a libertarian viewed. There’s a healthy segment of the left that shares this skepticism.

          In my experience, actual libertarians aren’t shy about claiming the label. They don’t repeatedly deny that they are libertarians (as Greenwald has). They don’t stake out positions on issues like Occupy Wall Street that fly directly in the face of libertarian consensus (as Greenwald has). They don’t try to hide their support of Hayek and von Mises. They proudly cite them.

          Does Greenwald agree with libertarians on some issues? Absolutely. Does that make him a libertarian? I don’t think so. Unless, of course, any democrat who has called for the legalization of marijuana is by definition a libertarian. Again, politics makes strange bedfellows. It’s not really that shocking.

          • dbtheonly

            Well indeed, is one a Libertarian if one refuses to accept the label? Can any label be anything more than a shorthand where each one of us has a position of a near infinite number of political issues?

            And, just for it, Libertarianism is not just an ideology of the right. At least in the 1970s there were leftist Libertarians, which may well be the source of, “that opposition to “humanitarian interventions” you cite. Though for myself, I haven’t seen “Western Imperialism” and “Tsunami Relief” used in the same sentence.

            Perhaps it’s more that Greenwald, et. al. are nervous in supporting any US anti-terrorism activity.

          • Trulyunbelievable2020

            “Perhaps it’s more that Greenwald, et. al. are nervous in supporting any US anti-terrorism activity.”

            I think that’s a completely reasonable reading of his position (and mine too, incidentally). It’s certainly a position that reasonable people can debate, although it lacks some of the shock value of “Greenwald Says Supporting the Effort to Find 270 Kidnapped Nigerian Girls is ‘Horrifying.'”

          • Nick L.

            He rejects the notion that people in the west should speak up for kidnap victims.

          • dbtheonly

            Okay. Good so far though the knee-jerk anti-Israel and anti-American reactions can be a bit much.

            But terrorists are bad people and they do bad things. And while flying planes into buildings is bad; I don’t think it’s as bad as kidnapping young girls to sell into sex slavery.

            So where’s Greenwald’s outrage? Is it pointed at the terrorist kidnapper slavers? No. It’s pointed at an article suggesting that the “West” take actions to see it stopped. Greenwald chose the word horrifying. Bob tossed it back at him.

          • Badgerite

            Who cares?

          • Jeff Cramer

            I think Greenwald is what Chomsky is “libertarian socialist.” or what is refer to “libertarian left.” The term doesn’t make much sense, but as DBtheonly mentions there were leftist libertarians.. All I say, he embraces a good deal of libertarian stuff, but the things on the left he embraces aren’t exactly the norm of most liberals or the Democrat party in general. For instance, you mention Occupy Wall Street as one. And I don’t think the libertarian right cares about Manning either. But having said that, embracing a few left ideas or that Glenn is not 100% a Ron Paul type doesn’t exactly exclude Glenn from the libertarian label here. I mean, he does agree a lot with the libertarians and Ron Paul has met with Glenn.

          • andyk304

            No, sorry, but Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist. Greenwald is an anarcho-capitalist or anarcho-individualist. the only thing that they seem to have in common is a distaste for the nation-state. There’s no effing way Chomsky would give a pass to the Citizen’s United decision as Greenwald did. There’s no effing way Chomsky gives a pass to Matthew Hale.

            http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/noam-chomsky-kind-anarchism-i-believe-and-whats-wrong-libertarians

        • Badgerite

          This is truly stupid and dishonest.
          The article is entitled (wait for it)

          Western Feminists Should Speak Up For The Kidnapped Nigerian Girls.

          The “major cultural shift” she would be talking about, then, would be brought about by speaking up and condemning the actions of this group and their ideology as horrifying. And in fact, that is the tenor of her whole article. She says nothing about war or military intervention.
          And Greenwald pipes up that he finds her urging to speak up and condemn these cruel actions on the part of this group and other such groups is “horrifying”. What a fucking ass.

          • Patrick Doyle

            Just quote the word “horrifying” and make up stuff to go before and after it that has nothing to do with the context of what’s being criticized. That there’s Loyalist Journalamism 101 – straw men arev faor game coz your readers are all too lazy to verify anything before spouting off on it. Your welcome.

          • Badgerite

            This is quoted from the comment that I was responding to by Trulyunbelievable2020. above.

            “If you look at the tweet that Cesca quotes in context, you’ll see that Greenwald was responding to this column in the Guaridan”

            And “this column” was exactly entitled
            Western Feminists Should Speak Up For The Kidnapped Nigerian Girls.
            And the article says just what the title implies. It advocates speaking against what Boko Harem did as an outrage.
            And Trulyunbelievable there seemed to think that justified Greenwalds tweet.
            Your welcome.

          • Badgerite

            What context? According to trulyunbelievable2020 the context that elicited the Greenwald tweet was an article in the Guardian calling on Western Feminists to speak out against the kidnapping. And if that is truly the case, going off on a tangent about the ‘horrifying’ history of ‘western intervention’ is really twisted.

        • petesh

          Did you READ the Guardian opinion piece?

        • Nick L.

          The only issue a reasonable person should take with that op/ed is that Boko Haram has been doing some heinous shit to little boys for a while now and only with this kidnapping to we hear of an effort to speak up for the victims.

          But the author doesn’t say anything of military involvement.

          • schticknic

            I guess “It is my view that there is a case for military assistance, but on a more basic level, there are things that we can do to support those who are begging for help” doesn’t count…wow, the Greenwald haters are out in force. Nice try smearing him as a crazy Libertarian notwithstanding his repeated explanations … wow, you people are dim. We even have the “he refused to denounce ‘x'” trope above. Good Job!! Ugh…

      • raina

        well stated.

      • Leota2

        This.

      • Benthedailybanter

        Bravo. Exactly. It’s so typical of Greenwald to change the topic when it’s something that doesn’t fit his world view. Nigerian girls get kidnapped, therefore DRONES!!! You can agree with Greenwald that Western imperialism was bad and destructive, but what the hell does that have to do with assisting the search for the kidnapped girls? Sure, the US uses things like this to boost its image/help with its interests in the region etc etc, but so what?

  • CL Nicholson

    Wow – only an asshole libertarian could find something wrong with looking for 200 kidnapped teenage girls. And Greenwald is just such an asshole.

    But he brings up an interesting point, even if he is being a dick (as usual) – to support US intervention, folks would have to admit that not all US military might is a bad thing. What if Obama used all the tools at his disposal to find these kids? What if Obama decided to use CIA/NSA resources (drones, phone taps, etc.) to find these kids and Boko Haram back Bronze Age? Dollars to doughnuts we could create 80-ft tapestry with the rendered garments among the Sirota/Greenwald/Assange crowd.

    • Badgerite

      I think you hit on the real reason Greenwald would find their rescue so “horrifying”.

      • Patrick Doyle

        Nope, he finds the sudden interest from US officials in an Islamic country under humanitarian pretenses horrifying. The smart moneysays this kidnapping saga won’t be the end of US involvement in Nigeria. Only a fool would bet otherwise.

        • Badgerite

          “He finds the sudden interest from US officials in an Islamic country under humanitarian pretenses horrifying”
          He would. And that is why he is an asshole.
          The kidnapping of 30 young girls and the slaughter of a village is hardly a “pretense”.
          Charlie Rose had on a guest tonight on his show who is intimately involved with the issues of child sexual slavery in Africa. A nun who cares for many survivors of this practice and their children. She was very supportive of any efforts that the Obama administration could make to help rescue these girls and publicize the plight of others.
          I understand that the issue is not on a par with David Miranda having to spend 9 whole hours detained at Heathrow and prevented from going into the hall to purchase a Coke, but I think it an important human rights issue nonetheless.

        • Badgerite

          The word “involvement” is rather ambiguous. That can take in just about anything. Yes, I’m sure we will still have ‘involvement’.
          The nature of that involvement though, will not involve a military overthrow of the current government or occupation of the country. That bet I would take.

          • Patrick Doyle

            I see you’re into nostalgia. Dollars to donuts there’ll be U.S. drones and advisors arriving forthwith. See Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan.

          • Badgerite

            I doubt drones unless they are for surveillance.

          • Badgerite

            I don’t think Boko Harem has that much support in the country.
            It would seem they are too extreme even for Al Qaeda Central.
            At least that is what has been said on the BBC. Groups like this alienate the population. Go figure.
            Frankly, I think Nigeria can and will fight its own battles
            Because I don’t think that the people there want to have their lives controlled by the kind of people that took their children as sexual slaves and killed hundreds of villagers. That, however, would seem a worse thing to me than American ‘involvement’. Greenwald and his supporters seem to think that if America isn’t ‘involved’ somehow the result will be better. Iraq is American free today. Things are not only not better, they are probably worse. America is no where to be seen in Syria and that doesn’t seem to have worked out that well for the populace. And this is why Greenwald is an asshole.
            To him, the great crime is US ‘involvement’. Not what is or will happen to people there. If Boko Harem, by some satanic turn of events, should take over Nigeria, in his universe this would be better than US ‘involvement’. And in yours too.
            But not for the people of Nigeria.

    • petesh

      There is nothing in the piece he was reacting to that calls for US intervention (or British — it’s a British writer in a British paper), even by implication. It’s not just an asshole response, it’s paranoid.

  • villemar

    Horrible fucker. I say good, let him and his sociopathic anarcho-nihilist Cultists continue to marginalize themselves by sticking up for the poor downtrodden underdogs in Boko Haram. What a miserable prick.

    • Trulyunbelievable2020

      Yes or no question: did you accuse those who criticized the decision to invade Iraq of “sticking up for Saddam Hussein?”

      • villemar

        Putting aside your sick, drooling bugfuck psychotic comparison between the invasion of Iraq and offering assistance to a country who has asked for our help finding kidnapped schoolgirls allocated for slavery and abuse, I will indulge your syphillitic hallucination that has about as much to do with the kidnapped girls as the Second Peloponnesian War and tell you that I, unlike your Messiah Glenn Greenwald, was against the invasion of Iraq. Again, not that that has anyfuckingthing to do with anything.

        But I really want you to personally spread Glenn’s message far and wide. Retweet the above, share it on social media. I really want you to hitch your wagon to Boko Haram’s star. Just think, Obama = Evil and Boko Haram = Good. Shouldn’t be to hard to remember. Now go and spread Glenn’s message!

        • Trulyunbelievable2020

          Wow, what an impressive range of adjectives!

          The point, however, stands: opposing any given remedy that is proposed to combat an evil should not be confused with supporting the evil itself.

          If you actually think that everyone who is concerned about expanded US military activity in Africa thinks that “Boko Haram= Good,” then you’re delusional.

          • Badgerite

            Well, exactly how would you find a remedy. All ears? What would you suggest? Oh yeah. Nothing. I believe this group recently assaulted a village with hundreds dead. So they haven’t limited their activities to stealing young girls for sexual bondage.
            Personally, I think your concern should be the other way around.
            I would be more concerned about the spread of groups like Boko Harem and how they are plaguing the populace with their thinly veiled cruelty.

          • Trulyunbelievable2020

            It’s very, very sad and I don’t claim to have a remedy. (It’s worth keeping in mind that no one in power does either– I don’t think you’ll find anyone claiming that the relatively limited assistance that we seem to be talking about right now is going to be a magic bullet that will definitely result in these girls gaining their freedom.)

            In many ways, though, this really seems like the issue we faced with Saddam Hussein. He really was a terrible guy. No one doubted that he was a dictator who had massacred enormous amounts of people. But as we saw, that didn’t mean that America doing something about it was necessarily preferable to doing nothing.

            Am I happy with this state of affairs? Of course I’m not. I really wish it was just a matter of summoning the will to “do something.” But it’s not.

          • Badgerite

            Are you kidding me? Of course we can help. This is a rescue operation. The US can provide sophisticated intelligence and special ops. They rescued a single woman held hostage for months from a frigging tent in the middle of the night in the middle of Africa because her health was failing. It was risky but they succeeded. They managed to rescue Captain Phillips from a dingy in the sea with a gun to his head.
            This has nothing in the world to do with Iraq or what the US did in Iraq. That was a war and an occupation. Of the entire country. It was the overthrow of a government.
            We are talking about a rescue operation. Logistics and special ops. Not every action involving the military is a war. In fact, most aren’t.

          • Steven Skelton

            Thank God for people like you. Far too often emotion trumps reason.

          • 624LC .

            Yeah fuck those girls… It’s all about the Glenn!

          • beulahmo

            Ooh. How passive aggressive of you, and completely expected.
            If we don’t provide the help (in this case, utilizing the vast array of advanced resources and technology at the command of U.S. military personnel), what will happen to those girls? Do you have an alternative proposal that would be more effective at providing aid here? No? It’s about morality? Okay. Do you have a more morally suitable proposal for providing aid here?

            I know the answer in advance: it’s “No.”

            If your preference is that we refrain from offering aid in the form of utilizing resources available to U.S. military, even if it means these girls will never be rescued, then you are — by default — resigning yourself that their fate at the hands of Boko Haram must be the price of maintaining your sense of superior moral integrity. By default, you are giving refuge to what Boko Haram is doing.

            You and Greenwald are the definition of deadly, destructive passive aggression. You can deny that you’re — by default — supporting Boko Haram, but that means nothing. Pointing to problems of semantics won’t absolve you or Glenn Greenwald from the horrible meaning of your position on this situation.

        • 624LC .

          Beautifully said. The acolytes that continue to come out of the rental units in greenwald’s colon and try to explain his level of bullshit never ceases to amaze me. How twisted a fuckhead can you be to promote the opinions of this nihilistic ex-pat? This is a serious matter which does not need the input of the boy from ipanema. Maybe greenwald and his minions should focus on how Russia’s proposed crackdown on internet blogging keeps it the progressive haven that the meal ticket Snowden claims it is and leave real world issues to
          grownups.

          • Badgerite

            Up vote for truly impressive imagery with particular emphasis on “rental units in Greenwald’s colon”.

          • beulahmo

            Wow. That was an incredibly satisfying response. It was…beautiful. Just beautiful. :::dabs eyes:::

        • Seedee Vee

          Yeah, invasions have nothing to do with each other.

          Except the “invasion” part.

          And brave armchair warriors, such as you villemar, basting in your bile and hatred of people that are actually successful in criticizing the Western-militaristic-brain-dead government that would be in charge of any invasion (I mean rescue mission) in Africa, will be nowhere in sight when it inevitably goes bad.

          And brave armchair warriors, like you villemar, will be seen as the incompetent spawn of American Know-nothing Motherhood and American Testosteronically Supplemented Fatherhood. Because we all know that you believe that Africans are too stupid to do anything on their own and they will need our “help” in solving, yet another, problem.

          • villemar

            Please, please, please let this be the one issue that you put all of your efforts into. Raise the alarm bells on this as loud and as often as possible. U.S. hands off Boko Haram! Down with Western Imperialism! Summon all of your energy you can muster on this issue and don’t forget to give Glenn Greenwald all of the credit. Go! Go! Go! And yes, I am a bloodthirsty warmongering fascist Elevendy Kajillion times worse than Hitler/Pol Pot/Caligula/Vlad the Impaler combined. Make you angry? Great! Use that anger!

        • Jim Olson

          Is there a string coming out of your back?

        • Will

          Looks like somebody was recently gifted a thesaurus.

      • Badgerite

        NO.

      • vp

        No. I call them wise.

      • https://twitter.com/DrMatthew Dr. Matt

        What does Saddam Hussein have to do with 270 kidnapped girls?

        Are you pretending to be retarded?

        • Bubble Genius

          I don’t think Tu2020 is pretending.

          • https://twitter.com/DrMatthew Dr. Matt

            Touche’

  • Tort Master

    Trying to sound profound, he comes off as a dick. Like Moe Howard in a tuxedo in Jerks of All Trades.
    Just know that Greenwald gets all snotty whenever the United States intervenes with malaria and AIDs prevention funds, earthquake and tsunami relief, drought aid and such. It probably drives the Koch brothers mad as well. Klansmen too.

    • CL Nicholson

      Just know that Greenwald gets all snotty whenever the United States intervenes with malaria and AIDs prevention funds, earthquake and tsunami relief, drought aid and such. It probably drives the Koch brothers mad as well. Klansmen too.

      Or as Greenwald would call them, his boss and his former clients, respectively. That’s the problem with libertarianism – taken to its logical conclusion, its really self centered, childish philosophies.

      • Trulyunbelievable2020

        “Or as Greenwald would call them, his boss and his former clients, respectively.”

        On what basis are you claiming that the Koch brothers are Greenwald’s “boss?” Because he wrote one paper (on drug decriminalization in Portugal) and participated in one debate (on the dangers of Bush’s theory of executive power) through the Cato institute?

        So the Kochs are the bosses of everyone who ever was affiliated with Cato in any way? You do realize that that would include folks like Markos Moulitsas and Lawrence Lessig, right?

        I’ll say it again: people who are libertarians aren’t squeamish about calling themselves libertarians. They don’t repeatedly deny it.

        • CL Nicholson

          Not a huge fan of Markos or Lessig either. And yes , GG is a libertarian who has shown to ignore seriously troubling politics because some is nominally anti surveillance. He made his bones shilling for the billionaire, anti government Koch brothers, and he’s making even more shilling for the billionaire, anti government Omidiyar.

          • Trulyunbelievable2020

            I will repeat: Greenwald has worked with the Cato institute on two occasions. The first involved the publication of a paper lauding drug decriminalization in Portugal. The second involved his participation on a panel discussion on Bush administration abuses.

            I have two questions:
            1) Do you actually oppose his opinions on either of these issues?
            2) How much money do you think he made through his involvement on these two occasions?

          • reggid

            LOL — first you insisted it was “just one paper.” Now it’s a paper and a panel. But of course, you’re still not being accurate — he was also paid several thousand dollars to give the keynote address to Cato’s big-money donors. Why are you so bent on soft-peddling and misrepresenting GG’s Cato ties?

          • Trulyunbelievable2020

            Sorry, it was an honest error. To my knowledge, Greenwald has been directly involved in the following Cato events:

            1. 2008: He presented a speech on Bush administration abuses.

            2. 2009: He published a report on drug decriminalization in Portugal.

            3. 2010: He participated in an online debate in which he was pitted against former Bush administration officials.

            The fees for those two papers and that one speech were my standard writing and speaking fees.

            I’m not 100% certain on the exact number of times that he’s spoken at Cato. He writes this: “I spoke three times at Cato for free: once to debate the theme of my 2007 book on the failure of the Bush administration, and twice when I presented my paper advocating drug decriminalization.”

            He claims that he has received only standard speaking fees for his presentations at Cato and that this has been a very small fraction of his income.

            If you have any more information on other events or payments he may have received, please do let me know. I have no interest in brushing anything under the rug, because I, unlike most people here, don’t think that any involvement with the Cato Institute should be treated as a black mark. It seems obvious to me that those who work for political change will sometimes ally with groups that they agree with on one issue while continuing to disagree with them on others.

          • reggid

            LOL — keep back peddling, goofball. First, you claimed it was just one paper. Then it was just a paper and a panel. Now it’s a paper, a panel, a speech, and a keynote address. Hmmm . . . that sounds an awful lot like Being affiliated with Cato, no? Class dismissed, clown.

          • Isaiah Earhart

            You are the clown. He is more affiliated with the Socialist party than Cato.

            Read more, spout gibberish less.

          • reggid

            LOL — looks like the Daily Kos emo-prog trolls have arrived to defend their anti-progressive, libertarian hero, GG. Did Glenn himself send you an email, troll, or do you take your marching orders from one of his asshole followers at Kos? Glenn is the one who denies that he’s affiliated with the Cato Institute, fool — don’t get angry at me just because he’s a liar.

          • Isaiah Earhart

            He is more of a Socialist that a Cato institute affiliate.

            Read more. Spout stupid shit less.

          • mrbrink

            He’s a self-promoter. Spreading his appearances around is called “networking.” Like a snobby blogger cocktail party– no different from those who attend W.H. correspondence dinners. If there are so-called socialists calling this “horrifying” they’re out of their gourds. But for argument’s sake, could you provide a link to the socialist party calling this “horrifying?” Should be under the header: “Workers of the world unite– to not give a shit about freeing oppressed peoples.”

          • Jeff Cramer

            Exactly, Greenwald’s speech again is like his blogs – primarily about drones and surveillance. He doesn’t get into economics, so that’s how both Cato and Socialist parties ask him to speak and since they are in agreement with Glenn, that’s all the easy for him to show up.

          • Peter James

            >>>>”He is more of a Socialist that a Cato institute affiliate.”

            Don’t forget…

            Former Bush/Iraq War/Patriot Act supporter, and former White Supremacist Mathew Hale defender in court.

          • Isaiah Earhart

            Oh, you finally admit “former supporter.”

            Well, your remedial sophistry seems to be running out of steam.

          • Seedee Vee

            What a winning vocabulary you have, Ms. emo-prog troll hunter.

            Who are you fighting for?

          • reggid

            I’m fighting for the 270 girls who were kidnapped and are being sold as slaves — so that makes you fighting for . . . the Islamist thugs, murderers, and child rapists who kidnapped them?

          • Jim Olson

            No.

          • Jim Olson

            I shopped at a supermarket yesterday, but I am not affiliated with that supermarket.

          • reggid

            Um , did you write a paid report for the supermarket? Did they have you on a panel at the supermarket? Did you give paid speeches and a keynote address at the supermarket?

          • Jim Olson

            Goofball? clown? Veddy persuasive.

          • reggid

            Yes, like you, the Greenwald worshipper above is a clown and a goofball. Don’t blame me just because you worshippers can’t handle the fact that your hero is such a dishonest “journalist.” Tell us — why do you think your fellow clown above repeatedly lied about Greenwald’s ties to the Cato Institute? Is it because, like Glenn himself, you losers like to deceive people about his actual agenda?

          • Jim Olson

            Worshipper? Asserting facts not in evidence. I’m agnostic. Lied? I saw no lies. perhaps mistake is the word you are looking for, or do you claim to know intent? At least the “clown” above has made a credible case for his assertions, without the need for unnecessary invective. Perhaps if you follow his lead you may be able to see how it is done.

          • reggid

            Yes, fool — FACTS like Greenwald’s long association with the Koch-funded Cato Institute. You know — the fact he keeps fraudulently trying to deny.

          • Jim Olson

            Stop embarrassing your self. If you want to live in a black and white world, where an entity has a position on one issue that you disagree with and this makes them irredeemiable evil, well fine, I prefer not to look at things in so simplistic and counterproductive a way. That means I am an adult.

          • reggid

            Greenwald is a heartless asshole, and his heartlessness and assholishness pervade all he does. I have no use for heartless assholes. Sorry your pathetic hero-worship cannot handle someone criticizing Glennie. Maybe you should try getting a hobby other than trolling the net 24/7?

          • Seedee Vee

            I bet Greenwald had a few undisclosed dreams about it too. What’s that worth in dumbfuckland?

          • Badgerite

            I wouldn’t care what he calls himself. As one can clearly see by his current comment, his ideas, taken to their logical conclusion, mean that the world is to stand by and watch while a heartless thug terrorizes and kills families and villages. And if a country offers help to find and secure the release of this groups hostages/slaves/female children, (the ones that they have said they would sell into bondage) that country is somehow in the wrong. Interventionist.
            This isn’t interventionism. This is aid to people in terrible distress.
            I realize their privacy is not at stake. Only their lives and their liberty. God he is a real dick sometimes.

          • Isaiah Earhart

            You have literacy issues.

            Read what he actually wrote.

          • Badgerite

            I did. And it’s crap.

          • CL Nicholson

            Wasn’t a resident scholar at Cato at one point? its not like he’s some random blogger writing a think piece for Jezebel.

            I don’t agree with him that we live in a ‘surveillance state’, its a gross and silly misnomer left-leaning anarchists and libertarians like to throw around to avoid actually discussing real details about what our security/spy agency can do vs what they’re actually doing.

            Greenwald is a paranoid anti-statist Luddite screaming at the clouds about technology he barely comprehends – taking his lead from a second rate dude bro hacker who has even less knowledge about US history, politics or law. Its the Blind leading the Blind – and that has always been my issues with the NSA stuff.

            As for decriminalization of drugs in Portugal – I don’t know what their drug policies are & I’m more concerned about our own drug policies.

          • Seedee Vee

            “I don’t agree with him that we live in a ‘surveillance state’, its a
            gross and silly misnomer left-leaning anarchists and libertarians like
            to throw around to avoid actually discussing real details about what our
            security/spy agency can do vs what they’re actually doing.”

            You really are a dumbfuck, aren’t you?

          • Lady Willpower

            Somebody just earned their Merit Badge.

          • Mike Lumisch

            You can drop the mic now.

            This says everything that needs to be said, in one neat little package.

          • NotBobCesca

            Don’t expect rational answers from Bob’s little club of losers.

        • reggid

          Let’s be accurate: Greenwald didn’t just “write one paper” for the Cato Institute — he was also the keynote speaker at the Cato Institute’s annual big-donor fund-raiser, for which he was paid huge money.

          • Trulyunbelievable2020

            How much money?

          • Isaiah Earhart

            Greenwald has also been a annual speaker at the Socialist Conference.

            So let’s be accurate.

          • Jeff Cramer

            Glenn would speak with anyone provided there’s some agreement with drones and Snowden. That’s how Cato and Socialist Conference got him.

          • doyougetmesweetheart

            What are you suggesting would be the nature of the “agreement with drones and Snowden” of which you speak? Like; something along the lines of protecting Snowden? The man who put his life on the line to tip off his fellow Americans (that’s you; that’s me) that our Constitutional rights were being violated? Hmmmm? Why wouldn’t Greenwald want to protect Snowden? Why wouldn’t you deem it appropriate? Snowden shouldn’t even have to be in hiding – upon release of the info that our Constitutional rights were violated, the President should have called for an immediate investigation of the NSA; in keeping with the oath he took to swear to uphold and protect The Constitution when he was inaugurated. Greenwald was the only journalist who had enough courage to back Snowden’s play – and any decent American who cares about keeping our freedom should rally around people like Greenwald & Snowden. What are you all thinking?

        • Sean Richardson

          “people who are libertarians aren’t squeamish about calling themselves libertarians. They don’t repeatedly deny it.”

          If the label is exclusively self-applied, then it is completely meaningless. Of course, it has a definition, against which Greenwald’s stated beliefs can (and have) been judged.

          • Trulyunbelievable2020

            Please see my post above where I quote extensively from a piece by Greenwald savaging the Koch brothers and their mindset. Then please explain to me how that squares with your definition of free market libertarianism.

          • Badgerite

            I believe we have moved on from ‘libertarian’ to asshole.

          • Seedee Vee

            Keep your personality out of this.

  • Joy

    Dear Progressives,

    This man is a Libertarian. This simple fact explains everything you couldn’t quite understand about him. I am sorry. We’ll still put presents in your stocking every year anyhow, since now you know he won’t be delivering them from his bunker full of guns and gold coins. The end.

    • NotBobCesca

      No, he isn’t…that’s just another lie peddled by half-wits like Bob.

      “I don’t really care what labels get applied to me. But – beyond the anti-war and pro-civil-liberties writing I do on a daily basis – here are views I’ve publicly advocated. Decide for yourself if the “libertarian” label applies:

      * opposing all cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (here and here);

      * repeatedly calling for the prosecution of Wall Street (here, here and here);

      * advocating for robust public financing to eliminate the domination by the rich in political campaigns, writing: “corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture” (here and here);

      * condemning income and wealth inequality as the by-product of corruption”

      Funny, that doesn’t sound very “Libertarian”

      Not that it matter to Bob’s Ship of Fools.

  • Bubble Genius

    He’s a fucking cock.

    • Badgerite

      That too.

    • Jim Olson

      Indefinite pronoun is indefinite.

  • raina

    Srsly??

    He just can’t bring himself to say anything good about the USA, can he?

    • kaydenpat

      Until a Republican is in the White House perhaps. He seemed to have liked Bush.

    • doyougetmesweetheart

      What – you living in a cave; or in a dream world? Why do you think our own ‘powers that be’ refrain from searching out the unfound missing children in this country? Because they know where they are taken, and it ain’t no place nice. If you people only knew what’s really going on behind those closed doors, you’d see things in a whole different shocking light. And, how come you all ain’t getting all up in arms about the Falon Gong group in China that we ignore? All they did was stand up for human rights – and the government corraled ‘em all up and are using them for ‘organ harvesting’ – and our government is fully aware of that – and doing nothing about it – and we’re supposed to be a country who believes in common human rights. How does that grab ya?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jane-Snape/100001971991197 Jane Snape

        We’re talking about a guy who backed invading Iraq and didn’t have any real problems with Bush the Younger until the latter part of Term Two.

        • doyougetmesweetheart

          That you would make such a ludicrous statement about Greenwald reveals that you know nothing about the gentleman’s character. Since you said it with such authority, though, I am certain that you can substantiate the veracity of what you said. That said; do share with us, please; the source for your information – keeping in mind that there are very few sources for truth in journalism today.

  • reggid

    Greenwald ably proves, once again, that under all his bluff and bluster, he is, at heart, simply an asshole. How any progressive can support this douchebag is beyond me.

    • missliberties

      Progressives were duped, by this asshole. What the hell is wrong with him?

      • villemar

        Well, I wouldn’t so much call them “Progressives” as I would “Spoiled, entitled, angry white children who want to watch the world burn because they have emotional problems.”

        • Trulyunbelievable2020

          And a few spoiled, entitled, angry Muslim children who applaud their efforts.

      • vp

        I never was from day one,

      • doyougetmesweetheart

        No – YOU; and the rest of the pushovers in this comment section – were duped by the author of this article – he is well-known for his bias against Greenwald.

        • missliberties

          The thing is I have a bias against Greenwald. I can’t stand him. He IS the biggest gas bag preening as a journalist in world history. He supported the Iraq War, then flip flopped on that one.

          Glenn is little more than an attention whore, spewing hyperbole that makes some people ‘feel good’ because apparently freedom is anarchy, and revealing nationalal security methods, secrets, operatives is just the “IN” thing to do.

          He’s just mad cause he got caught cheating on his taxes, and he is a shitty trail lawyer who lost a case defending a Nazi.

          He uses a flood of words, fire hose style, so that he sounds smart. He’s a fool in my book, and I despise how he has fooled you. And so many others.

          • doyougetmesweetheart

            Okay – at least you admit that you are biased – I’ll give you credit for that. However, when one is making an evaluation of someone or something that they are biased about, it cannot be a fair evaluation. Because, a biased perspective takes a departure from accuracy and objectivity – and the perspective is connected to their values – and is not an objective and balanced assessment. Subsequently, everything that is
            said from that point onward cannot be valid; by default.

            Greenwald is closely connected to Edward Snowden, and was instrumental in tipping us off that our Constitutional rights were being violated by the NSA’s ongoing insidious, instrusive, and unlawful surveillance. That should be very important to you because it violates our Constitutional rights.It follows that once Greenwald had publicly taken such a stand, wheels would be
            set in motion to discredit both he and Snowden. How else could the government’s misbehaving miscreants shift the focus off their extraordinary misdoings? Their position demanded that they strive to make Snowden & Greenwald look bad – because the fact that the government had been operating in secrecy, is proof that they knew that what they were doing is wrong. They didn’t want to get caught. The NSA is spying
            on American citizens under the guise of “National Security” – but the government has been using national security as the excuse for all of their unlawful misdoings for years now – and now that their cover has been blown, that excuse no longer
            works. Even the most ardent dumbed-down American is now hip to the fact that they’ve been duped all along; and are realizing that the government players are not what they portray themselves to be … and we can thank the succession of individuals like Greenwald, Snowden, and Manning; who bravely stepped forward and exposed the government; for that awakening. Greenwald’s objective has never been to betray our country – conversely, it is his disdain for the ongoing betrayal performed by the government, of the American citizens, that was and is his driving force. It is extremely misguided for you to actually think that Greenwald “revealed national security methods, secrets, operatives because
            his imperative is to be part of the in-crowd.” Greenwald is so far removed from that inclination, that it truly escapes me how you cannot or will not see and know that. Let us not forget JFK’s cautionary statement:

            “There is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security, will be seized upon by those anxious to expand it’s meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.”

            So … you must be called upon to substantiate what you said with factual information. Please do tell us what “national security methods” you think Greenwald revealed; what “secrets and operatives” he gave up; and what it is that he does, that
            demonstrates that he wants to be part of the “in crowd” – and who is it that comprises the in-crowd anyway? While you’re at it, also explain what you meant when you said, “He uses a flood of words, fire hose style, so that he sounds smart” ; and what it is that he did to warrant being called “a fool.” Also define “how he has fooled us” – because he has, in actuality, behaved in a very straight-forward manner. Perhaps you do not understand that it is not possible for someone else to make a fool out of anyone – the person who has been “fooled” brings that on himself. As well, what exactly is a “trail lawyer”? Is that a lawyer who defends trails? Or did you mean to say “Trial Lawyer”?

            Looo-seee; you got some splainin’ to do!
            In closing, I urge you to ponder on this thought:
            “To hate is like drinking salt water. The thirst grows worst.”

    • Trulyunbelievable2020

      That’s funny. A read a piece* at another website run by another partisan mouthpiece that he is a “committed radical leftist,” and a “Marxist-Leninist” who, “blames the financial services industry for the nation’s financial troubles.”

      Actually, that piece, for all of its flaws included on kernel of wisdom: “Greenwald’s work has certainly endeared him to libertarians, with whom the lawyer-turned-journalist has had associations over the years, but the simpler explanation for his outreach is that politics makes strange bedfellows.”

      * http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/glenn-greenwald-raving-leftist/

    • vp

      Me either and I certainly lean progressive on most issues.

    • https://twitter.com/DrMatthew Dr. Matt

      Not progressives….rather, dudebros and wingnuts. Dudebros are so far left that they converge with the extreme right (i.e., wingnuts)

      • vp

        Nailed it.

    • LadyBligh

      I’m a liberal, and I’m definitely not backing him on this one.

    • Jim Olson

      Almost everything is beyond you.