I see that a celebrity from cable TV is leading the Rec List today with an attack on Glenn Greenwald. In the interest of discourse and pluralism, I include part of Mr. Greenwald's response to Mr. Olbermann, and a link to his full response in this diary.
I have no doubt that some will attack me for presenting a view contrary to the views presented by the cable TV celebrity. But the FISA bill matters. The Constitution matters. My own self respect and nearly 40 years of fighting for progressive change require me to provide this to those who wish to hear.
I understand Olbermann says: "I don't know much about Mr. Greenwald and I didn't read his full piece." Yes, Keith Olbermann is quite a celebrity. So fucking what that he does not know Greenwald!
Many here, including Markos, consider Greenwald an excellent progressive. I first saw Greenwald's work being quoted by Markos here. Now Markos may [or may not] disagree with Greenwald on this issue, and either position's fine.
I'm about principles, not persons. I don't even have cable TV and rarely see Mr. Olbermann. Please forgive me if I fail to genuflect to him and his ideas, just because they are from him and he is a celebrity.
More, after the fold.
Yesterday, a Greenwald post criticized Olbermann for changing positions on FISA:
On January 31 of this year, Keith Olbermann donned his most serious face and most indignant voice tone to rail against George Bush for supporting telecom immunity and revisions to FISA. In a 10-minute "Special Comment," the MSNBC star condemned Bush for wanting to "retroactively immunize corporate criminals," and said that telecom immnity is "an ex post facto law, which would clear the phone giants from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with [Bush's] illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass email."
Olbermann added that telecom amnesty was a "shameless, breathless, literally textbook example of Fascism -- the merged efforts of government and corporations that answer to no government."
Keith Olbermann: Then and now
Then Greenwald critcized Olbermann for changing positions, quoting his exact words:
But that was five whole months ago, when George Bush was urging enactment of a law with retroactive immunity and a lessening of FISA protections. Now that Barack Obama supports a law that does the same thing -- and now that Obama justifies that support by claiming that this bill is necessary to keep us Safe from the Terrorists -- everything has changed.
Last night, Olbermann invited Newsweek's Jonathan Alter onto his show to discuss Obama's support for the FISA and telecom amnesty bill (video of the segment is here). There wasn't a syllable uttered about "immunizing corporate criminals" or "textbook examples of Fascism" or the Third Reich. There wasn't a word of rational criticism of the bill either. Instead, the two media stars jointly hailed Obama's bravery and strength -- as evidenced by his "standing up to the left" in order to support this important centrist FISA compromise
snip
OLBERMANN: Senator Obama also refusing to cower even to the left on the subject of warrantless wiretapping. He's planning to vote for the FISA compromise legislation, putting him at odds with members of his own party . .
Keith Olbermann: Then and now
Here's video of Olbermann and Alter on Obama's FISA stance
Olberman his has diary attacking Greenwald on the Top of the Rec list, as a media celebrity should in the progressive blogosphere. Please go read it and come back.
Here's the link: Well, You Stumped Me
Here is some of Greenwald's response. Please read the whole thing. Make up your own mind outside of the glitz of TV celebritydom.
Olbermman then denies that he was justifying Obama's support for the FISA bill but then goes on to do exactly that:
[quoting Olbermann]
Seriously, there is little in the polls to suggest McCain has anything to run with other than terror . . . . So why hand them a brick to hit him with -- Obama Voted Against FISA -- if voting Aye enhances his chances of getting himself his own Attorney General to prosecute FISA.
[Greenwald] How can Olbermann accuse me of distorting his commentary and deny that he's rationalizing Obama's support for the bill and then write the above -- which does nothing but justify Obama's support for the bill? That's exactly the mentality I was criticizing yesterday -- that Obama should be excused for supporting this assault on core Constitutional liberties and the rule of law because doing so is necessary to avoid appearing Weak on Terrorism. That's the behavior which Obama has repeatedly vowed to reject, and it's that precise mentality that has to be extinguished, not perpetuated.
Keith Olbermann's reply and Obama's Secret Plan to Protect the Rule of Law
Greenwald goes on to discuss Obama's supposed "secret plan," a plan apparently Mr. Olbermann believes exists, and a plan about which Markos said on Olbermann's show:
Well, if that's the strategy, he has said nothing to indicate that and this is not the sort of thing that I think you have to keep quiet and secretive.
Please read this. Decide for yourselves.
Keith Olbermann's reply and Obama's Secret Plan to Protect the Rule of Law
But beyond all that, to give Obama a pass on his support for such a heinous bill -- one which Dean himself describes as a grave assault on the Constitution -- based on this imagined secret plan for the Good that Obama is harboring is to illustrate exactly the sort of blind faith in political leaders that is so dangerous. That's been the Right's mentality to excuse every last thing Bush does.
snip
No political leader deserves that sort of blind faith -- not Bush and not Obama. That's how a small child thinks about his Daddy, not how a citizen should think about a political leader
Keith Olbermann's reply and Obama's Secret Plan to Protect the Rule of Law
This is not about Olbermann and Greenwald. To me, it's about the progressive movement. If it's just about a person, Obama, right or wrong, then count me out. I learned during the Vietnam War that "my country, right or wrong," was immoral. We have a ethical obligation to ourselves and our nation to object when acts are wrong. The same is true with candidates that we support.
If we stand for something, then we must have the strength to say to our leaders, good men and women all, you're wrong here. I support you, but on this issue, you're wrong.
People may get angry about me bringing this here, but it needs to be said. I support Obama against McCain, but I have to speak up on this. As you may have divined, I believe Greenwald is correct on most of this. What do you think?