Every time, Mr. Greenwald backs up his opinions and assertions with facts. He seeks out the opinions of those who disagree with him. While he did want Obama to win over John McCain, he hasn't let partisan loyalties blind him from calling out actions of the Obama administration he feels are against the US constitution or legal morality. He has no problem pointing a finger at Obama administration scandals.
Then - you've got the dickheads.
The headline? Obama seeks $83.4 billion more for Iraq, Afghanistan wars
President Barack Obama asked Congress on Thursday for $83.4 billion for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressing for special troop funding that he opposed two years ago when he was senator and George W. Bush was president. This would push the costs of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since Sept. 11, 2001.
This is the headline from a submitter on Digg. Wait - Obama opposed troop funding two years ago? I mean, that would be kind of horrible, right? Especially if he wants to spend money now-
Then, you can read the article:
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama wants Congress to act quickly on his $83.4 billion request for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, an appeal that's disappointing the most liberal, anti-war wing of his party.
But with the president promising to remove all combat troops from Iraq by the end of August 2010, his Democratic allies in control of Congress are sure to approve the spending without the type of tortuous battle that characterized their dealings with former President George W. Bush.
Obama's request Thursday, which included money to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, would push the cost of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. The additional money would cover operations into the fall.
Huh - so he's spending money so he can support the troops while pulling them out of Iraq. But - didn't he oppose troop funding?
First of all, the bill in question funded all of the ongoing military operations in both theaters, not just "the troops who carried out the surge," as McCain's comment implied.
Secondly, it's misleading to say Obama didn't want to fund "the troops." He said he would support a bill that included a plan for bringing troops home. "We must fund our troops," Obama said. "But we owe them something more. We owe them a clear, prudent plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war. ... We must negotiate a better plan that funds our troops, signals to the Iraqis that it is time for them to act and that begins to bring our brave servicemen and women home safely and responsibly."
If that one vote of Obama's constituted an attempt to "prevent funding to the troops," then almost every Republican in the Senate did the same when they voted against a $124-billion appropriations bill on April 26, 2007, that would have funded operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but also required Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. (McCain missed the vote on that bill, which passed 51-46 and was subsequently vetoed by Bush.) It wasn't the idea of funding the troops that Bush and the other Republicans were opposing, it was the strategy that the bill would have enabled.
OK - so Obama never opposed troop funding, and he wants to fund their needs in the Iraq war while he pulls them out. That actually sounds - reasonable.
But wait - what about the pizza that Obama ordered? From, across the country?
How much does Obama love his pizza? So much that he is willing to fly a chef 860 miles to Washington D.C. to make him a personal pizza.When you're the president of the United States, only the best pizza will do - even if that means flying a chef 860 miles.
Chris Sommers, 33, jetted into Washington from St Louis, Missouri, on Thursday with a suitcase of dough, cheese and pans to to prepare food for the Obamas and their staff.
He had apparently been handpicked after the President had tasted his pizzas on the campaign trail last autumn.
Hey, you guys know what says you are really sincere about this whole Global Warming thing that you want to use to justify an economy crushing cap and trade program? Jetting a dude across the country to make you a freaking pie.
Dude, what a douchenozzle that Obama must be! Ordering pizza from across the country and - wait, what's that? It's a big fat lie?
The best one is the first: Ace of Spades slammed Obama's environmental cred for "jetting in" Pi's chef, making it seem as though the guy was hopping a private gulfstream, or worse, partying down on Air Force One .
* In fact, Chris Sommers flew commercial.
* Not only that, he flew coach.
* Not only that, he had already planned a business trip to DC, so the restaurant paid for his travel!
John also told me that Chris Sommers is one of the most dedicated people he knows to the environmental cause.
* In fact, his restaurant buys carbon credits from a wind farm in Colorado.
* Not only that, they recycle about 75% of their waste.
* Not only that, John himself is going into the green building business. You couldn't find a worse case for environmental hypocrisy.
Finally, Barack Obama isn't saddling the American taxpayer with the tab for this feast. He's picking up the tab, for local ingredients, out of his own pocket.
The problem here, is that there are very reasonable and fact based debates that should be going on with the Obama administration, over defense spending, speed of Iraqi troop withdrawals (or whether we should at all), TARP money - all sorts of things can and should be debated.
Based on facts. Based on things that have actually happened. Based on reasonable, realistic arguments and debates. There's plenty there - look at how much stuff Greenwald is getting!
When you feel the need to lie and make stuff up to support your position - especially lies that are easily and quickly disproven, then you make yourself look worse to everyone but your ever dwindling base. And just makes us want to trust you that much less.