Glenn Greenwald

[MaryAnne]

Vs. Richard Haas.

As a long time fan of Greenwald, I was surprised to see how hysterical he came across this morning on Joe.

Richard spoke very calmly,saying," The only person who broke the law is Snowden."

He said NSA was according to US law,all went through the Courts. Joe interrupted Haas with his usual tirade. Mika stepped in to provide balance.


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/

Mike Rogers said," Greenwald does not know the first thing about NSA!"

I think I remarked last week that Rogers,Mich. sounds like a sensible Republican,one of the few around today.

I will now wait for Arkady to get me on Greenwald,but I calls 'em,as I see them!

 

[ElGringo]

Vs. Richard Haas.

As a long time fan of Greenwald, I was surprised to see how hysterical he came across this morning on Joe.

Richard spoke very calmly,saying," The only person who broke the law is Snowden."

He said NSA was according to US law,all went through the Courts. Joe interrupted Haas with his usual tirade. Mika stepped in to provide balance.

Mike Rogers said," Greenwald does not know the first thing about NSA!"

I think I remarked last week that Rogers,Mich. sounds like a sensible Republican,one of the few around today.

I will now wait for Arkady to get me on Greenwald,but I calls 'em,as I see them!

I like Mike Rogers too, I hear him interviewed on one of the local talk stations frequently. However, Rogers doesn't know the first thing about the NSA either. Rogers is a former FBI agent and while that does put him on the fringe of the intelligence community neither his time in the FBI nor his time in Congress qualifies him to speak on the NSA.

I have a hard time believing that anything regarding national security which is put out there for public consumption is legitimate. If Greenwald is known to be a level-headed, rational man but blows his stack when talking about a topic which is known to be censored in our media, that smacks of frustration. This is speculation on my part but perhaps he is frustrated because he knows something that he is prohibited from saying in public?

Don't fall for this "direct access to tech company servers" misdirection. If the NSA is indeed tracking Internet traffic ( and they are ) then they don't need access to the servers from a few companies, what they're looking at are the Top Level Domain routers. Anyone hungry for some Red Herring? I hear the NSA has some.

 

[MaryAnne]

I did not see frustration .Greenwald is on right now,in a rerun.

I am sorry,but I would trust Haas,and Rogers on this one.

While all are ranting about how ,"Republicans are dead," I see a man like Rogers coming up in that party. Yes,I know Mike is former FBI,but he has to know how the system works.

If Republicans were smart,they would lock up Cruz,Paul, McConnell ,Boehner, Ryan and Cantor, throw away the key,and start looking at the sensible in the party.

I am sure the NSA needs some sun light,but I can tell you,I have no use for those in Congress,who just want to sling mud,or worse.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

The Washington Post and Glenn Greenwald both made some claims that were incorrect. the WP corrected theirs while Greenwald only dug in deeper.

Greenwald has gotten on my last nerve for years. he's PERFECT and everyone else is a know-nothing....just ask him.

 

[MaryAnne]

That is the same feeling I have,Julie. I watched the rerun at 8,to see if my first Impression was correct.

Glenn started out OK,but then went ballistic when Haas said the only lawbreaker here,is Snowden. Led by Joe, Glenn went off!

I think Glenn just went over the edge with his fame.

 

[Arkady]

Vs. Richard Haas.

As a long time fan of Greenwald, I was surprised to see how hysterical he came across this morning on Joe.

Richard spoke very calmly,saying," The only person who broke the law is Snowden."

He said NSA was according to US law,all went through the Courts. Joe interrupted Haas with his usual tirade. Mika stepped in to provide balance.


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/

Mike Rogers said," Greenwald does not know the first thing about NSA!"

I think I remarked last week that Rogers,Mich. sounds like a sensible Republican,one of the few around today.

I will now wait for Arkady to get me on Greenwald,but I calls 'em,as I see them!

I didn't see the appearance, but at this point, it's hard for a patriot NOT to come across as a little hysterical. We have the US government seizing call information about American citizens without any individualized suspicion of involvement in any crime. When it was happening under Bush, the entire Left was objecting -- with Obama being one of the most eloquent of us (and a co-author of a bill that would have prevented the government from doing exactly this). But now that it's Obama's government that's doing it, the authoritarians on the left have spun 180-degrees and are acting like this stuff they previously objected to vehemently is no big deal, and that any person who has remained true to his principles after the presidency changed hands is being hysterical.

The nation is divided, not between Republicans and Democrats, but between the principled and the partisans.

 

[ElGringo]

The nation is divided, not between Republicans and Democrats, but between the principled and the partisans.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[fairsheet]

The nation is divided between people who are convinced that their principles make them "principled" by definition, and people who understand that even people who disagree with their principles, are principled.

This is a 3rd-grade "Illogic". I'm surprised at how many feel it though.

 

[Craig]

The nation is divided between people who are convinced that their principles make them "principled" by definition, and people who understand that even people who disagree with their principles, are principled.

This is a 3rd-grade "Illogic". I'm surprised at how many feel it though.

Other such words include "morals" and "values". Perhaps "sense of humor" as well.

Regular accusations of lack of these vague attributes is an internet staple.

 

[MaryAnne]

I didn't see the appearance, but at this point, it's hard for a patriot NOT to come across as a little hysterical. We have the US government seizing call information about American citizens without any individualized suspicion of involvement in any crime. When it was happening under Bush, the entire Left was objecting -- with Obama being one of the most eloquent of us (and a co-author of a bill that would have prevented the government from doing exactly this). But now that it's Obama's government that's doing it, the authoritarians on the left have spun 180-degrees and are acting like this stuff they previously objected to vehemently is no big deal, and that any person who has remained true to his principles after the presidency changed hands is being hysterical.

The nation is divided, not between Republicans and Democrats, but between the principled and the partisans.

Do you remember what happened in Boston? Then people went off because they did not follow through on the Bomber, but,they did not have enough evidence to do anything.

We have no secrets any more with the Internet,and the hysteria now is laughable.

 

[fairsheet]

Other such words include "morals" and "values". Perhaps "sense of humor" as well.

Regular accusations of lack of these vague attributes is an internet staple.

I don't mind it so much when people describe themselves as "principled" or their ideas as "principles". What I don't like so much, is when they imply that since they've arrived at a "principle", all other ideas are by definition, "unprincipled". And therefore, they needn't defend their "principle", because "principled" is inherently superior to "unprincipled".

 

[Craig]

I don't mind it so much when people describe themselves as "principled" or their ideas as "principles". What I don't like so much, is when they imply that since they've arrived at a "principle", all other ideas are by definition, "unprincipled". And therefore, they needn't defend their "principle", because "principled" is inherently superior to "unprincipled".

Whew.

Uh...well...yeah, exactly.

How many times have you seen someone write "go get a sense of humor" when senses of humor don't match? Or seen someone write XXXX has no values...when they clearly have values, just different ones then the person stating the other person does not. When someone intones "family values"...always ask; which family? Medici? Manson? Addams?

 

[fairsheet]

Yeah...it's risky to say "go get a sense of humor", when what YOU wrote isn't the least bit funny to anyone else! Now THAT'S one I've probably guilty of now and again.

 

[Arkady]

The nation is divided between people who are convinced that their principles make them "principled" by definition, and people who understand that even people who disagree with their principles, are principled.

This is a 3rd-grade "Illogic". I'm surprised at how many feel it though.

A person can disagree with my principles and be principled. However, if a person agrees with a principles when that's convenient, then disagrees with the exact same principles when that becomes convenient, that isn't principled. Obama is a good example. That scumbag agreed with me strongly about these issues when he was running for president and pretending to care about civil liberties was a convenient strategy for collecting liberal votes in the primary. Then, once president, he flip-flopped, when it became more convenient to sell the liberals down the river and kiss neo-con ass. If he'd stuck to principles I disagreed with, I could still call him principled, but he instead goes with whatever is politically easiest at the moment.

 

[Arkady]

Do you remember what happened in Boston? Then people went off because they did not follow through on the Bomber, but,they did not have enough evidence to do anything.

We have no secrets any more with the Internet,and the hysteria now is laughable.

I agree that the hysteria is laughable. But the hysteria is among those who have been driven into such shameful paroxysms of fear that they'll justify any government overreach, so long as somebody is making the phantom promise of a little more security. "Oh dear, oh dear, four people died at a marathon, please, show me where I can sign my rights away to Big Brother!" It's pathetic. Americans should be made of sterner stuff.

Some of us are.

 

[MaryAnne]

I agree that the hysteria is laughable. But the hysteria is among those who have been driven into such shameful paroxysms of fear that they'll justify any government overreach, so long as somebody is making the phantom promise of a little more security. "Oh dear, oh dear, four people died at a marathon, please, show me where I can sign my rights away to Big Brother!" It's pathetic. Americans should be made of sterner stuff.

Some of us are.

I think you are missing my point.There has to be compromise between privacy and safety.

As to Obama being a "Scum bag," there is a huge difference between campaigning and being President.

We can sit and criticize,but have not the slightest idea what we would do in that chair.

I am not ready to tear Obama down.i leave that to the Republicans,and those who do.

I do see the white hair getting whiter each day. It must be a horrendous job,trying to do right,while you have crackling hyenas all around you,just waiting for your slightest mistake.

 

[ElGringo]

Arkady, everything you just said is bullshit.

 

[Drumcollie]

It is nice to see the left talking about their own...Glenn Greenwald...the man who gave up constitutional law for a tin foil hat.....at salon.com...waste of thread space here.

 

[MaryAnne]

DC, if you read my posts,you will know I post how I feel.

I think Greenwald went over the top on this,because,in this case he took the word of some one,who is doing great damage to our security..

Now,I know Government can go too far,but when people die like on 9/11,and in Boston,both were failures on the part of our security.

I am not in either party on this.

 

[fairsheet]

A person can disagree with my principles and be principled. However, if a person agrees with a principles when that's convenient, then disagrees with the exact same principles when that becomes convenient, that isn't principled. Obama is a good example. That scumbag agreed with me strongly about these issues when he was running for president and pretending to care about civil liberties was a convenient strategy for collecting liberal votes in the primary. Then, once president, he flip-flopped, when it became more convenient to sell the liberals down the river and kiss neo-con ass. If he'd stuck to principles I disagreed with, I could still call him principled, but he instead goes with whatever is politically easiest at the moment.

That was a whole lot verbiage, simply to affirm me.