Glenn Greenwald on This Week

Glenn Greenwald appeared on This Week With George Stephanopoulos to tell Martha Raddatz about the lack of oversight on the NSA warrantless wiretapping program.

"We keep hearing that there's all kinds of robust oversight by Congress," Greenwald said, adding that lawmakers had provided "very detailed letters trying to get this information and they're being blocked from getting it and they've said, and other members have said that they are forced to learn about what the NSA is doing from what they're reading in our reporting."

"I think the most amazing thing, one of the most amazing things in this whole episode, Martha, there is a 2011 opinion, 86 pages long from the FISA court, that ruled that much of what the NSA is doing which is spying on American citizens is both unconstitutional in violation of the Fourth Amendment and illegal, a violation of the statute," he continued. "This opinion remains a complete secret. The FISA court has said they have no objection to having it released, but the Obama administration insists it has to be secret."

"Both members of Congress and others have been requesting simply to read that court opinion. And the intelligence committee that is led in the House by Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), who represents the NSA district, receives all kinds cash from the defense and intelligence agencies, industries, have refused to allow them access."

Greenwald has documented proof members of Congress are being denied information into the NSA program.

Glenn Greenwald Said What?

I have defended Glenn Greenwald in the past. However, this quotes from Greenwald comes off as a threat to the United States.

"Snowden has enough information to cause harm to the U.S. government in a single minute than any other person has ever had," Greenwald said in an interview in Rio de Janeiro with the Argentinean daily La Nacion.

"The U.S. government should be on its knees every day begging that nothing happen to Snowden, because if something does happen to him, all the information will be revealed and it could be its worst nightmare."

Greenwald's work getting Snowden to reveal the level of wiretapping is important journalism. Greenwald damages himself when he airs thinny-veiled threats at the U.S. government. It comes off as bullying and may make the public less sympathetic to Snowden's legal status.

Quote of the Day

"I'm really sorry, Milissa Harris Perry, that I forced you to talk about Snowden & barred you from discussing our multiple NSA revelations."

Glenn Greenwald, on Melissa Harris Perry's shoot the messenger coverage of Edward Snowden.

Glenn Greenwald Speaks About Edward Snowden

Glenn Greenwald spoke at Socialism 2013 about how he came to meet Edward Snowden. Greenwald goes on to explain the reasoning behind Snowden leaking the information that the NSA was spying on American citizens. Greenwald said that Snowden knew that he would become a fugitive and hunted for the rest of his life. This video is must see for people interested in the Snowden story.

Update: one thing that is mentioned by people that know Greenwald is that is is very funny. Greenwald makes several strong points about the media with fantastic humor. Greenwald is funny.

Update: Greenwald interviewed by Eric Bolling on Fox and Friends. Somewhere Joy-Ann Reid's head is exploding.

David Gregory's Poor Journalism

I have not been a fan of Meet the Press host David Gregory. My long-standing view is that Gregory is a dancing buffoon that publicly admitted on Twitter it is not his job to fact-check the statements of his guests. This past Sunday, Gregory framed a question in a manner that accused Guardian columnist Glenn Greewald of breaking the law.

"To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden, even inhis current movements, why shouldn't you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?" heasked.

Greenwald replied that it was "pretty extraordinary that anybody who would call themselvesa journalist would publicly muse about whether or not other journalists should be charged with felonies," and that there was no evidence to back up Gregory's claim that he had "aided" Snowden.

If this was an Obama administration official saying this to Gregory, the questions he should have asked were is the Justice Department going to indict Greenwald? How exactly did Greenwald aid and abetted Edward Snowden? Are you willing to go on the record with these accusations? If this administration official couldn't answer the first two questions and wad.'t willing to go on the record then he was bullshitting Gregory. Gregory could have checked with other sources. Most likely Gregory recited what his unnamed source told him ithout ever fact-checking his statements.

The Foreign Policy Worldview of Glenn Reynolds

I am sure people read Glenn Reynolds' blog InstuPundit for nuanced punditry on foreign policy.

Glenn Reynolds, Sept, 11, 2001

GEORGE BUSH IS NOW THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD: People always say that about Presidents, of course, but usually it's only notionally true. Now, if he wants to nuke Baghdad, there is nobody to say him nay -- and damned few who would want to. That's a danger if he goes off half-cocked, but I don't think there's much risk of that. But I wonder: do the people behind this assault realize what this means?

Glenn Reynolds, November 23, 2010

North Korea fires artillery barrage on South. If they start anything, I say nuke ‘em. And not with just a few bombs. They’ve caused enough trouble — and it would be a useful lesson for Iran, too. We can’t afford another Korean war, but hey, we’re already dismantling warheads. . . .

As we can see, Reysnolds' foreign policy evolved in nine years from nuking Iraq to nuking North Korea. In Reynolds' defense, he is an idiot.

Hat tip to Glenn Greenwald.

Bipartisanship At It's Worst

Salon editor Joan Walsh tweets this fun fact about Senate Democrats attempts at bipartisanship to Republicans.

Sen. Health Committee included 160 GOP amendments on the #hcr bill, but no Repubs, including McCain, voted on it.

Eric Alterman makes the argument President Obama is feigning bipartisanship in order to win public support. I have misgivings with Alterman's thesis. Mainly, it isn't working and Obama is still making bipartisan overtures. Public support for Obama has been eroding. What we do know is Obama negotiated a secret deal with the pharmaceutical industry. Blogger Glenn Greenwald suggested the White House only floated the public option to appease progressives.

In this context, it appears likely that the “public option” was never a serious White House commitment, but merely a bargaining chip to string along progressives, one which would be ultimately sacrificed to secure industry and Blue Dog support. Either that, or the president failed to use to his substantial institutional weapons to compel party support for his plan (note how, in the past, Rahm Emanuel was extremely aggressive, even threatening, in pressuring defiant House progressives to support legislation the White House favored).

Obama seems more interested in a political victory than true health care reform. A bill with no individual mandate, guaranteed issue, minimum package or public option would not be reform. Progressives have to be concerned about Obama signing a bill that would mandate every American buying private health insurance. The insurance industry would have less incentive to lower prices. The pharmaceutical industry is a sign Obama may go in that direction.

Meeting Joe Klein

Aimai writes about a meeting he recently had with columnist Joe Klein at a cookout. Klein did not like having his pro-Bush columns brought up.

Or maybe they do. Yes, I guess they do. I was standing at the cookout minding my own business when Klein started pontificating for the rubes on how “surprising” and “shocking” it was that Grassley, of all people, should have come out and endorsed the “death panels” lie. I walked up and said “why are you surprised?” [edited to remove typo] to which he, in best pundit debater fashion (never allow yourself to admit you were just posing!), shot back “who says I'm surprised?” I said “well, you did. You just started your lecture saying “Its surprising.”” Its not surprising, the republicans have nothing left to lose and nothing left to gain at this point outside of pleasing the crazy base and attacking Obama and the dems.”

We were off and running. He then said that its true the fringe republicans were “crazy” but perhaps no crazier than the “crazy left” under Bush. I thought he meant the “truthers” so I said “name me one person in congress or the Senate who was as crazy on any topic as these Republican senators and Congressmen who sign on to the birther and deather stuff are now?” Evading this question he said “well, Glenn Greenwald is crazy—he's a civil liberties absolutist.” Now, me, I come from a long line of civil liberties absolutists so I said “I admire Glenn Greenwald's work immensley but it must be very embarrassing for you, of course, because he's been eating your lunch for years.” (!) I think this must be something of a sore point for him. He began shrieking “Glenn Greenwald is EVIL! EVILl!..do you know what he did? He “sicced” his blog readers on my EDITOR and she was going through a DIVORCE at the time.” Really? I said, politely, that was very wrong, if it happened.

Actually, Jane Hamsher published the contact information of Klein's editor Priscilla Painton. Like a bad journalist, Klein can't even get his facts straight about who sent her readers after his editor.

Greenwald took Klein to task for repeating Republican talking points. Klein's sources fed him the garbage Democrats wanted FISA court approval for foreign surveillance targets. Democrats never had that in the bill. Time was forced to put a correction at the beginning and end of the article. This is why Klein thinks Greenwald is evil.

The Democratic strategy on the FISA legislation in the House is equally foolish. There is broad, bipartisan agreement on how to legalize the surveillance of phone calls and emails of foreign intelligence targets. The basic principle is this: if a suspicious pattern of calls from a terrorist suspect to a U.S. citizen is found, a FISA court warrant is necessary to monitor those communications. But to safeguard against civil-liberty abuses, all records of clearly nontargeted Americans who receive emails or phone calls from foreign suspects would be, in effect, erased. Unfortunately, Speaker Nancy Pelosi quashed the House Intelligence Committee's bipartisan effort and supported a Democratic bill that — Limbaugh is salivating — House Republicans believe would require the surveillance of every foreign-terrorist target's calls to be approved by the FISA court, an institution founded to protect the rights of U.S. citizens only. (Democrats dispute this interpretation.) In the lethal shorthand of political advertising, it would give terrorists the same legal protections as Americans. That is well beyond stupid.

Reprint the spin without actually vetting the source. Klein actually believed House Republicans wouldn't falsely slime their Democratic counterparts. How does someone this naive become a star columnist.

Gitmo to Close

Remember this gem from Glenn Reynolds yesterday.

OBAMA IS BACKTRACKING ON CLOSING GUANTANAMO BAY any time soon. Apparently he’s concluded that it’s not as easy as it sounded back during the campaign.

The Associated Press reports President-elect Barack Obama will close Guantanamo Bay the first week of his administration. Obama will use an executive order to issue the closing of the detainee facility.

My take continues to be Obama is committed to closing Guantanamo Bay. Obama sees Gitmo as a political and civil liberties disaster. Sec. of Defense Robert Gates lobbied to close Gitmo since 2007. Gates has a President-elect that will allow him to implement his policy.

Glenn Greenwald is upset Obama isn't closing Guantanamo Bay the first day of the administration.

As Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt documents, Obama today rather clearly stated that he will not close Guantanamo in the first 100 days of his presidency. He recited the standard Jack Goldsmith/Brookings Institution condescending excuse that closing Guantanamo is "more difficult than people realize." Specifically, Obama argued, we cannot release detainees whom we're unable to convict in a court of law because the evidence against them is "tainted" as a result of our having tortured them, and therefore need some new system -- most likely a so-called new "national security court" -- that "relaxes" due process safeguards so that we can continue to imprison people indefinitely even though we're unable to obtain an actual conviction in an actual court of law.

There is no question many innocent men were sold to the CIA by Afghan tribal lords and Pakistani officials. Corrupt men sold other men to the CIA for quick cash. That doesn't mean Gitmo doesn't have dangerous terrorists. Obama can't release these men. Prosecution is difficult because of confessions given under torture. Greenwald too easy dismisses the dilemma facing Obama.

Greenwald knows Obama appointed Dawn Johnsen to the Office of Legal Counsel. Greenwald called the appointment "may be Obama's best yet." Johnsen wrote a Slate op-ed condemning the OLC authorizing the White House to use torture in interrogations.

I want to second Dahlia's frustration with those who don't see the newly released Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) torture memo as a big deal. Where is the outrage, the public outcry?! The shockingly flawed content of this memo, the deficient processes that led to its issuance, the horrific acts it encouraged, the fact that it was kept secret for years and that the Bush administration continues to withhold other memos like it--all demand our outrage.

Obama is surrounding himself with people against torture. What Greenwald and Jeralyn Merritt want Obama to be confrontational. That is not Obama's style. Obama will never be John Conyers or Howard Dean. Obama will use popularism to pass his agenda. That is how he got elected. That is how he will govern and it will drive progressives crazy.

Wingnut Contest

Kevin Drum is running a contest for the worst wingnut blog posts of all-time. Unsurprisingly, Glenn Reynolds is one of the nominees.

Reynolds disses Glenn Greenwald for attacking his post. Reynolds links to another post he wrote in defense of his views. He never linked to the Greenwald piece. It is an unwritten blog law to not attack another blogger's post and and link to it. Reynolds does this all the time. He really is that insecure.

This is the wingnuttery that Drum and Greenwald rightfully point out as terrible.

Yeah, there has been a lot of pro-war gloating. And I guess that Dawn Olsen's cautionary advice about gloating is appropriate. So maybe we shouldn't rub in just how wrong, and morally corrupt the antiwar case was. Maybe we should rise above the temptation to point out that claims of a "quagmire" were wrong -- again! -- how efforts at moral equivalence were obscenely wrong -- again! -- how the antiwar folks are still, far too often, trying to move the goalposts rather than admit their error -- again -- and how an awful lot of the very same people who spoke lugubriously about "civilian casualties" now seem almost disappointed that there weren't more -- again -- and how many people who spoke darkly about the Arab Street and citizens rising up against American "liberators" were proven wrong -- again -- as the liberators were seen as just that by the people they were liberating. And I suppose we shouldn't stress so much that the antiwar folks were really just defending the interests of French oil companies and Russian arms-deal creditors. It's probably a bad idea to keep rubbing that point in over and over again.

Nah.

My all-time favorite wingnut post is by John Hunderaker. I can never really get mad at Power Line. I find their wingnutery too damn funny. Unfortunately, comedy isn't Hinderaker's intenntion.

It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.

Reynolds and Power Line are the gift that keeps on giving to the Left. Thank the blogging Gods for Conservative lawyers.

Quote of the Day

"Instead of reinforcing the important proposition -- defined by the Iraq Study Group-- that a military strategy for Iraq is necessary but not sufficient to solve the myriad political problems of that country, Reid has mistakenly argued that the military effort is lost but a diplomatic-political strategy can still succeed."

David Broder

Two points.

1. If Broder actually thinks the Bush administration is following the guidelines set forth by the Iraq Study Group then he is as delusional everyone inside the Beltway believes he is.

2. Reid didn't mistakenly argue anything. There is no military option for America in Iraq. There is a civil war between the Sunnis and Shi‘ites. There is no way militarily to make these people want to live in peace with each other. For Broder to argue that the military option is still viable is foolish.

Broder also compares Reid to Alberto Gonzales. Harry Reid's approval rating in the Harris Interactive survey is up from this time last year. Senate leaders usually have low approval ratings. Reid's 22 percent is still better than Dick Cheney's approval rating. Democrats in Congress are polling at 35 percent. Congressional Republicans are at 22 percent. Reid as Senate Majority leader deserves credit for helping Democrats poll better than the GOP.

For Broder to compare Reid to Gonzales is bizarre. Reid is in in solid standing with his party. Republicans are publicly asking Gonzales to resign. No one questions Reid keeping his job. Getting in a verbal sparing match with Dick Cheney does zero damage to Reid. In fact, it helps him with the Democratic base. Cheney's base of support is nearly nonexistent.

Glenn Greenwald give a perfect example of Broder's hypocrisy. The pundit felt that Bill Clinton should have resigned for lying about the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Washington, D.C.: Mr Broder, if you feel Karl Rove is owed an apology from the pundits and writers over Valerie Plame, did you also call for an apology to the Clintons after Ken Starr, the Whitewater investigation and the failed attempt to impeach President Clinton? If not, why not?

David S. Broder: As best, I can recall,I did not call for such an apology. My view, for whatever it is worth long after the dust has settled on Monica, was that when President Clinton admitted he had lied to his Cabinet and his closest assoc, to say nothing of the public, that the honorable thing was for him to have resigned and turned over the office to Vice President Gore. I think history would have been very different had he done that.

In the same online chat, Broder is asked if Bush and Cheney should resign for lying about bogus links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Broder's answer is truly amazing.

David S. Broder: I think if you want to disqualify as lying everyone in government who believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, you would empty not only the White House but most of Capitol Hill. I think the way to do that is through election, not mass resignation. Resignations seem appropriate to me when individual responsibility is clear and unique.

Apparently, Broder doesn't read the stories in his own paper about the White House using false intelligence and overstating the threat to sell the Iraq invasion to the public. Broder was one of the columnists cheering the war on. The great thing about being an op-ed writer is they never have to worried about getting fired. Bill Kristol got hire to Time and I be hard-pressed to think of when he was ever right about Iraq.