The time when Glenn Greenwald was finally right

I rarely agree with proven sock puppet Glenn Greenwald. But he does have the admirable quality of being willing to criticize the President and other lefties when they fail to live up to the Greenwald standard of liberal perfection. In his typical long winded and multiple times updated, extended, and revised post today, he nails all the things about Obama that drive the left crazy. They are all issues that could potentially drive independents away from the Democrat party in November. Here’s a sample:

 The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations withdronescluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has wagedan unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.

He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs, including those parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes is as strong as ever.

As we say in the rest of the political world, no sh*t Sherlock. Useful idiots all. Image courtesy of saberpoint.

Colorblindness is bad, multiculturalism is good
"Anti-Semitism has become almost wholly the province of the Left today"
  • I was interested to see how Greenwald was a proven sock puppet.  Presumably the “proof” was spelled in the link “All that changed today,” but that’s a dead link.

    • He was caught on multiple occasions at multiple sites a few years back.  People had first noticed that some commenters used identical language to defend Greenwald across various websites, then that much of that language was phrased just as Greenwald himself did, then finally they traced several to the same IP he had used to comment under his own name.  He tried to claim it was his roomie using his computer when he was out.

      The guy is a joke.  All he is is a whiny leftist.  His writing reminds me of what Dr. Johnson replied to an unsolicited manuscript from an aspiring author:  “Received your ms. Tuesday last, and found it to be both good and original.  However, the parts which were good were not original, and those which were original were not good.”

      Is GiGi right this time?  Who knows?  Who cares?  As Bill Clinton used to say, “Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then.”

      • sablegsd

        Hogs have bad eyesight.  They rely on their sense of smell.  Leave it to billary to get it wrong.

  • herddog505

    Weird, isn’t it?  Barry has done these things, yet the left, which professed to hate them when Bush did them still loves him, while they right, which was more or less OK with them when Bush did it, still hates him.

  • Bryce Davey
  • Greenwald, with whom I also seldom find myself in agreement, makes a good point about the intellectual dishonesty of the partisan left as well.

    “The very same people who in 2004 wildly cheered John Kerry — husband of
    the billionaire heiress-widow Teresa Heinz Kerry — spent all of 2008
    mocking John McCain’s wealthy life courtesy of his millionaire heiress
    wife and will spend 2012 depicting Mitt Romney’s wealth as proof of his
    insularity…”

  • Anonymous

    Yes, this is yet another in a long list of examples of how the political left/Democratic party completely squandered their chance to govern.  And they did it by betraying all the things they pretended to espouse as core beliefs while they were the minority/loyal opposition.  The War on Terror and soak the rich flip-flops are big, but so is their complete abandonment of “fiscal responsibility”, “net spending decreases”, and “Pay-As-You-Go” budgeting for new government spending, that they preached so religiously before they took control of Congress in 2006.  Republicans would be smart to run and re-run those videotapes as campaign commercials, and remind the American people how utterly dishonest the Democrats have been.

    • Anonymous

      Democrats have “core beliefs”?  They act as though everything is ‘relative’; depending on the person, day, or time and who is in the White House.

      • @GarandFan:disqus ,

        Democrat’s demonstrably have one core belief: that saying (and doing) whatever they think they need to say (or do) to win the current election is the best thing to do.

  • Anonymous

    The question is, does a president follow or subvert the Constitution? 

    The present president and the last president have subverted the Constitutional order in major ways.   Bush II and Obama make Nixon look like George Washington.

    Greenwald is among the few who have consistent principles.  He’ll be among the first to be tossed into the detention camps – if not worse.

    • retired.military

      But you will still gleefully cast your vote for Obama.

      • Stephen

        Compared to the morons the right keeps cycling through the weekly “Republican front runner” sweepstakes, it’s a cakewalk for Obama.

    • Fortunately, the Constitution itself provides a mechanism and arbiter for resolving “disputes arising under this Constitution,” the Courts.  So if you were correct, the Courts would have ruled these things unconstitutional when challenged.

      If you don’t support the Court’s right to decide the questions, you don’t support the Constitution.  It’s not a freakin’ buffet where you pick and choose provisions to uphold, Chomsky.

      • Anonymous

        Adj – a sincere question here.  While I agree totally with your last paragraph, it begs the question, if a Justice makes a decision based on their biased opinion, and bases it on what that particular justice “interprets” the constitution to mean rather than the literal interpretation, has the justice violated the Constitution?   If so, then, has that Justice violated the Oath Of Office and subject to impeachment?  A simple case in point, the Second Amendment “……..the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

      • Anonymous

        Not every executive violation of the Constitution ends up in court, like Obama making war on Libya without a vote of Congress.

        Many of the Bush violations, like electronic surveillance and detention of U.S. citizens without due process, were stalled in courts for years.  In several cases, courts ruled against the Administration, and orders were appealed and stalled.  The number of authoritarian judges has also increased over the years.

        Depending on the courts to protect you from unconstitutional executive action is like depending on a sand bank to stop the tide.  You could ask the surviving U.S. citizens of Japanese descent imprisoned without charge during WWII about that.

        • Anonymous

          “Many of the Bush violations, like electronic surveillance and detention
          of U.S. citizens without due process, were stalled in courts for years.”

          If you are referring to “The Patriot Act”, who knew that ‘the president’ could pass legislation on his own.

          • Anonymous

            Suffice to say you don’t know what you’re talking about.  None of those things I mentioned were in the PATRIOT act.

          • Anonymous

            Ah, the beauty of being non-specific.

          • Anonymous

            like warrantless electronic surveillance and detention of U.S. citizens – those were not authorized by the PATRIOT Act.  Anyways, the Constitution trumps any law. 

        • Jay

          To be fair, Clinton used warrantless wiretaps as well.

      • Jay

        If you don’t support the Court’s right to decide the questions, you don’t support the Constitution.

        This is the same 9 judges that have said the police can come into your home under any circumstances created, intrude without a warrant, and that you lose your rights as a citizen at the border.  I’m supposed to believe these 9 judges know these rights?  After they’ve ruled that the 4th Amendment is indeed a myth?

  • The Constitution and the rest of our body of laws pertain to Citizens and Legal Residents of the United States.  Electronic communications which pass through the United States but which do not terminate with United States Persons (Citizens and Legal Residents) are not protected by the fourth amendment.

  • Your “Proven” link is for WARRANTS issued under “Sneak and Peak” provisions.  Thus not warrantless.

    Your “Even more here” link is an article full of assertions demonstrating zero proof.

    The FAIL is strong with you.

    • Jay

      I see.  Asking you to look at all of the information and come to your own conclusions about the FISA laws is too hard for you.  Instead, you don’t look at how most terrorism provisions are used on US citizens without much in the way of provisions.  And not knowing who Chris Soghoian is as a self professed “IT Geek” means you have no idea of what IT really is.  You have no understanding of the implications from Hepting v AT&T and the retroactive immunity clause.  Nor will you understand how the 4th Amendment has been gutted in this regard.

      Sad that you choose to remain ignorant of such an issue that should be important to those that speak to conservative ideals.

      • I see.  Rather than present the proof demanded of another you present innuendo and assertions.

        I’ve read FISA and reported on it rather a lot between 2003 and 2009.  To this day NO ONE has been able to show an actual abuse of the act.

        Note also I said nothing about Soghian.

        Making shit up runs strong with this j.

        • Commander_Chico
          • Again, allegations vice proof.  No sworn statements. No findings of fact. No verdict before a trier of fact (jury) or confession.  In addition, these allegations refer to satellite phone conversations allegedly intercepted over the air (from a foreign nation) vice tapping of data lines within the United States.

          • Jay

            Rodney, you have no idea what’s happened because of the Patriot Act, FISA, or CFAA.

            Washington Post – 

            The FBI illegally collected more than 2,000 U.S. telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist or simply persuading phone companies to provide records, according to internal bureau memos and interviews. FBI officials issued approvals after the fact to justify their actions.

             How did they get away with it?  Post it notes

            And yet here is the perfect chance for you to rail against Obama because you know what he did?  He made those unlawful searches legal to protect the FBI for not following the rules.  The same FBI using widespread cheating on their tests that they made the test easier.

            The same FBI that regularly abuses the National Security Letter to search for information.  And note, their manual allows them to abuse the procedures

            And the biggest story of all, the FBI was caught doing surveillance against a kid for a comment made by his friend on Reddit.

            The Executive Branch has been abusing the process, making it unconstitutional.  The process is flawed and abused to the point that there is no system.  How very surprising that yet again, you miss all of this information.

          • Moving the goal posts again (or is that yet again?).  Having struck out proving any illegal wire taps, you’ve now moved on to LUD (Line Useage Details).

            The FAIL remains strong with j.

          • Jay

            I’m not moving a damn thing.  You’re just being obtuse.

          • congratulations j, you just graduated from FAIL to damn liar.

          • Jay

            No, you haven’t made any factual rebuttal, merely made assertions.  The proof is in the links that you choose to ignore.  

            Congratulations Rodney, you fail at debating.

          • Now j is moving on to the oft repeated form of lying.

            Propagandize much?

  • Jay

    Rodney, that’s your area of expertise.  Come back when you have an argument.  You’re just going further and further into ad homs and (yet again) not looking to debate.