String, direct from the Horse’s Ass himself.
One relevant graf here:
I believed that Islamic extremism posed a serious threat to the country, and I wanted an aggressive response from our government. I was ready to stand behind President Bush and I wanted him to exact vengeance on the perpetrators and find ways to decrease the likelihood of future attacks. During the following two weeks, my confidence in the Bush administration grew as the president gave a series of serious, substantive, coherent, and eloquent speeches that struck the right balance between aggression and restraint. And I was fully supportive of both the president’s ultimatum to the Taliban and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan when our demands were not met. Well into 2002, the president’s approval ratings remained in the high 60 percent range, or even above 70 percent, and I was among those who strongly approved of his performance.
St. Glenn also makes this completely astonishing assertion (bolding mine):
What first began to shake my faith in the administration was its conduct in the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in May 2002 on U.S. soil and then publicly labeled “the dirty bomber.” The administration claimed it could hold him indefinitely without charging him with any crime and while denying him access to counsel.
I never imagined that such a thing could happen in modern America— that a president would claim the right to order American citizens imprisoned with no charges and without the right to a trial. In China, the former Soviet Union, Iran, and countless other countries, the government can literally abduct its citizens and imprison them without a trial. But that cannot happen in the United States—at least it never could before. If it means anything to be an American citizen, it means that we cannot be locked away by our government unless we are charged with a crime, given due process in court, and then convicted by a jury of our peers.
Because apparently Greenwald’s history classes didn’t touch on that teeny-tiny little thing known as Executive Order 9066.
And though he certainly isn’t REQUIRED to speak out about the abuse and outright murder of street kids in Brazil—where he actually lives—it certainly raises legitimate questions about why this holier-than-thou “civil liberties” blogger has never, to the best of my knowledge, called out the government and police in Brazil for their widespread crimes against human rights with the same fervor that he condemns drone strikes—drone strikes that, again, were unleashed as part of wars he supported in the first fucking place.
I have no problem with him defending Matthew Hale—even the most reprehensible people deserve their day in court. But I do have a problem with his hyperbolic and disgusting rhetoric (see a pattern) directed at the victims.
And to hear this asshole scream about “Guilt by association” vis a vis Benjamin Smith/Matthew Hale when he does the same fucking this with anyone who commits the terrible crime of largely supporting Obama (or at least not hating the president as Glenn “Illegals” Greenwald deems fit), is just fucking rich.
And now I expect we’ll have the Flying Poop-Throwing Greenwald Monkeys descending upon us.
Comment by Oblomova on
01/02/12 at 06:11 PM
