The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
35 votes

Jeremy Scahill: The War Party

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I like this guy.

He`s been there and done that !

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people that pay no price for being wrong.
Thomas Sowell

If interested

Link to source...

Credit should be given where credit is due:


and the youtube link is there with the original post,
but two is better than one.

I admire Jeremy's journalist

I admire Jeremy's journalist work as a foreign corespondent. I agree with any of his analysis regarding American foreign policy including Snowden's revelation of massive spy program within the country. What I don't get is his views on American domestic policies and his public disparaging remarks about Alex Jones who clearly is on the same wave length about US foreign policy as Jeremy.


I think the pieces of the puzzle that are confusing to you are due to the fact that (IMO) he's controlled opposition.

Controlled opposition

Controlled opposition against/for whom? Sorry but what does "IMO" mean?

I can't say for sure

I know he was blasting Alex Jones as being a loony conspiracy theorist and praising Amy Goodman (whose sugar daddy is George Soros from "Democracy Now"). Plus he's working w/ Greenwald, who I also don't trust (search "Glen Greenwald" on for why) . Top that off with working for Pierre Omidyar (essentially an oligarch). The picture to me is that there are a lot of "red flags" there.


In my opinion


we have had the warfare party for 120 years.

And people have been talking about it for almost 100 years. And Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell have been talking about it for 50 years.
Jeremy Scahill is just soooo much smarter than everybody else. He was able to spot Obama a mile away. How bout you own your mistake about your fanatic statism and realize that you are a fascist?

The fed is the problem Scahill. Not Obama, not Bush, not Clinton. When you can finance your wars on debased currency, you can go to war forever.



And you don't need to infer to illuminati or rothschilds to talk about the fed either.

Here, here!!!

I couldn't care less if the Rothschilds ruled the world, or the Rockefellers, or the Bushes, or Pres. Obama and Janet yellen. I just want to keep what I earn and live free and in peace.


I don't trust Scahill but that was a good speech


Me Either..

I don't trust him, nor do I trust Greenwald.

And here's another reason why: Their new boss (owner) has helped fund the Ukrainian coup.

That's silly.

That's silly. Pando does in-depth investigative journalism by reading press releases on Omidyar's site. What a "bombshell". Greenwald has done infinitely more good for the world than Pando and BFP.

And saying donating to pro-Democracy groups is funding a coup is a bit hyperbolic right?

Check out for activism and news.

You Might

want to watch the Ron Paul piece at Ron Paul Institute where he makes the important connection between funding *pro-Democracy* groups and the actual impact said funding has on the political process over there. Not hyperbole at all. It's the one from 2004 during the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. So if you think it's silly to make such a connection, then you must think Dr. Paul silly for making the same connection.

Also, no one will accuse Pando of being "in-depth" or exemplary when it comes to journalism. It doesn't make what they have reported (or re-reported) less true, and the point of what they reported is important because Greenwald and his butt kissers have set him up on a morality pedestal where he does not belong.

P.S. "infinitely more good for the world" is a bit hyperbolic, right?

It's silly to imply that

It's silly to imply that Omidyar donated to fund a coup. Political change and revolutions are complex. The factors, influence and purposes are nuanced and often misguided. Omidyar donated because he thought it'd be good. And I don't agree with everything Dr. Paul says.

Pando and BFP just hate Greenwald and they're unnecessarily attacking him and First Look. There's no purpose except to be vindictive.

And yes it's hyperbolic to use "infinitely".

Check out for activism and news.


It's not silly. And it's not an implication. It is evidenced from documentation that he donated. It is also evidenced from documentation and testimony that such funds have been used to overturn a constitutional, democratically-elected president/administration. It's a totally reasonable conclusion.

Next, how do you know why he donated? Are you a close personal friend? Are you in his head? Whatever his "reasons" for donating, the point is that he is active -- a-c-t-i-v-e -- in causes about which he cares (I know , how dare But if this active approach translates to the newsroom where Greenwald is supposed to be acting *independently* (and Scahill is on record that Omidyar is very communicative internally), then we have decent reason to notice and consider Greenwald's journalism as potentially contaminated by Omidyar's activism -- whether or not such activism leads to coups. And where such activism is not in bed with the U.S. government, then it's far less concerning. But where it is, such as in this matter, how can I be confident that Greenwald would be independently examining the U.S. role as such, when his boss was a partner in it, unwittingly or not? I for one do not believe you get to where Omidyar is and remain very naive. But that's my opinion.

I also don't really care whether Pando or BFP have good motives or not. If what they report is verifiable (and it is, by Greenwald's own admission), then it's the message and not the messenger I will consider.

Wasn't there massive

Wasn't there massive corruption and voting issues that led to the Orange Revolution? And non profits working towards transparency and democracy (however they define that) mean they're overthrowing the government? You seem to analyze this without considering the bad side of Russia.

And I think First Look should be critically looked at, especially if there's influence editorially. But not to demonize them and go on ridiculous witch hunts. What has Paul Carr done in comparison?

Anyway, you've constructed a completely evidence-lacking theory that Omidyar is a billionaire and hence he's an evil globalist. And every action he does is to destroy the US or something. Okay...

Check out for activism and news.

Are you drinking...

First, you have no clue from what I have written in this thread what I think about Russia in this. I have limited my concerns to the relationship that Omidyar has alongside the U.S. government in assisting a government overturn in Ukraine (regardless whether he "meant" to), and to the potential that such a relationship could influence Greenwald's objectivity as a journalist. Period. I have made no mention whatsoever how I think Russia is playing in the game.

Second, I have not demonized First Look. Why would I care to demonize First Look? They are not a dog in the race for this discussion. I also don't give a f** what Carr has "done." I am questioning the potential conflict of interest and integrity of Greenwald's "government watching" as a result of knowing the Omidyar/U.S. cooperation in this situation. I am interested in the CONTENT of things (including Greenwald's reporting). I don't care about relative contributions to society that any one individual or groups are making. It's the substance of their deliverable that matters to me. Hello? Knock, knock, hello? Can we get past the emotional here?

Third, I have not constructed a theory. I have raised a question about Greenwald's reporting objectivity. There is a suspicion, not a theory. And my god, where on earth did anyone generalize that b/c Omidyar is a billionaire he is an evil globalist? That is ludicrous. If I had made such a leap, I would agree I need a headslap. But I could not make such an argument because I do not believe that if one is a billionaire that one is, ipso facto, an evil globalist. Which leads naturally to the...

Fourth point ... you conclude that I somehow suggest that "every action he does is to destroy the US or something..." POW! You must f**ing be kidding. This is truly off the reservation and not even remotely associated thought to anything that I have tried to say. Okay...

I was referring to BFP and

I was referring to BFP and Pando demonizing Greenwald.

And I misinterpreted this part, "I for one do not believe you get to where Omidyar is and remain very naive.". I took that as you meant he was participating in some globalist machinations by his donations.

Sibel Edmonds is wrong, and her remark that she's been "vindicated" is laughable. I understand you don't trust Greenwald and it's fashionable to bash everyone unless they believe exactly what we think they should.

Let's keep attacking the activists and each other. Meanwhile...

Check out for activism and news.


I don't expect Greenwald to believe like me. I do expect him to remain truly objective in his reporting if he is going to claim such about his reporting.


Can you prove what you have said beyond intuition and anecdote?


...not about proof. It's about questioning and observing. Documents shared in the original article by Pando apparently prove Omidyar's money went to Ukraine (I say apparently, because we only have an alleged photo/copy of the document - I would need to requisition the actual document myself to raise it closer to the standard of proof).

Whether that means Greenwald's reporting will be influenced remains to be seen. I think when you say "intution," you probably meant to say "innuendo." I don't think it's fair to accuse Greenwald of anything at this point. I think it's beyond fair to be suspicious, however, when his boss is in partnership with the U.S. government and he claims to be an *independent* journalist committed to exposing the overreaches of his boss's partner, the U.S. government. There is more than ample reason to suspect conflict of interest.

Can you prove you are not an idiot?


but I think it's because he's uber-socialistic, which may be more of a character flaw than an integrity flaw. me either, he cares way too much about making money, just like almost all other journalists, and THAT is why he believes the official story is views 9/11 Truth with contempt.

I truly believe he would see

I truly believe he would see the joke that is the official story about 9/11, if he didn't need to deny 9/11 Truth to stay in the good graces of people like Amy Goodman, and other gatekeepers. He is way too smart to believe the official story.

He doesn't seem like a coward in the slightest,

so what do you think his motivation would be for towing the line for Amy Goodman? The whole democracy now stuff makes very little sense to me.

He wants to earn a living!

He wants to earn a living!

He doesn't strike me

as profit driven either, though. Maybe journalistic ego or fame, but is there actually much money in what he's doing. We read literary smut that gets marketed well, not things like dirty wars.