Skip to main content

Below is a statistical and case-by-case review of 30 articles from Glenn Greenwald's Salon archive.  I will say in introduction that it is sad and ridiculous that I have to do this level of work for some people to even acknowledge what is clearly evident from Greenwald's writing: That it is riddled with unsupported, innuendo-based tabloid politics, conspiracy theories, and personal smears selectively targeted at Democrats and President Obama in particular.  I realize it may be a fool's errand to do research on behalf of people who are determined not to know something, but at least I can satisfy both myself and anyone else concerned with the quality of information that Glenn Greenwald should not be regarded as an authority.

I would note that I've seriously wondered whether or not writing this would be helpful to overall progressive causes.  Regardless of the vileness and mendacity of so much of Greenwald's content, and the fact that his purest venom is typically reserved for liberals who have the unmitigated gall to be effective politicians, it is entirely possible that the result of his commentary (intended or otherwise) is to draw greater public attention to real issues of concern.  Does his work have beneficial effects on discourse despite its egregious ethical and factual flaws, or does he poison real issues by distracting from them with so many petty, intractable prejudices and false insinuations?

On reflection, and based on how I've seen his writings used here and in other progressive forums, it seems likely to me that the effect on the wider community is exactly the same as the face-value content: Spreading hate, paranoia, and disinformation against the Democratic Party among its progressive base, and thereby undermining our causes.  However, that is not the source of my criticism here - merely a fact that precludes any political excuse to ignore the repugnant reality of what Greenwald often does.

I.  Review Background:

This review was initiated in order to fulfill a promise I made to certain of Greenwald's supporters here on Daily Kos who were offended by seeing him dismissed, and demanded that I justify my comments about him.  This was a reasonable demand, but occurring within the context of similar discussions occurring over a couple of years where I've answered the same demand only to see the information ignored, forgotten, and then challenged once again not long thereafter, I was skeptical of the sincerity of the request.  Part of the reason I'm undertaking this review is in order to address my own skepticism on that point, so that any subsequent demands along these lines can be answered with a single link to this post without having to repeat the same work.

Now, my original promise - which I made unsolicited, so the responsibility for it is all mine - was that I would review Greenwald's entire Salon archive.  There are a few things to point out: (1) I was drunk when I made that sweeping promise, and therefore wasn't especially mindful of the fact that (2)the archive is 173 pages long, containing about a dozen articles per page, for well over fifteen hundred articles total.  For the sake of practicality, I looked at limiting the scope only to the most recent four years, beginning with his commentary on Inauguration Day of the first term.  If that were my standard, the archive would shrink to 103 pages - still well over a thousand articles.  But at my observed rate of carefully parsing articles, this would have taken me over two months of work, if I worked on it every single day.

So I proceeded forward from articles beginning January 20, 2009, reviewing the content of each in detail, and identifying problems of logic, factuality, evidence, innuendo, personal attack, and other flaws along the way.  I finally decided I had seen enough when I had reviewed 30 articles, because of those 30 - whose content I had not known in advance - fully a third came up with problems I identify below, and at least two articles were so riddled with flawed and propagandistic content as to be irrevocably corrupt, deceptive, and unethical.  In other words, they were not random anomalies cherry-picked out of some otherwise distinguished career, but commonplace examples heavily represented in the reviewed sample.  

I am mindful that these 30 articles, as numerous as they sound, only span a period of a few weeks, and as such I've gone through different pages of the archive at random looking for evidence of some major change in the pattern, but neither that effort nor my experience from prior run-ins with his content tells me there is anything unusual about the examples highlighted below.  Content such as this is ubiquitous, and he has continued writing like this after departing Salon to work for the Guardian.  

II.  Review Results:

Here are the numbers:

Total articles reviewed: 30
Articles with identified problems: 10
Total problems identified: 26
Lies: 2
Innuendos: 13
Contradictory statements: 3
Hypocritical statements: 2
Personal smears: 4
Unsupported claims: 2
Both outright lies were, surprisingly, about the Democratic Party rather than Barack Obama, but innuendo (groundless insinuation) is Greenwald's favorite illegitimate tool when discussing the President.  The contradictions I note refer to instances where Greenwald says something that discredits - or at least casts doubt - on an earlier statement of his without acknowledging the dissonance.  Hypocritical statements are those involving a moral judgment that apply standards his own comments violate, or that appear to impose Catch 22s, and as such admittedly have a subjective aspect to my identification of them as such.  The personal smears, however, are explicit and do not require any interpretation to identify.  Unsupported claims are just that - he says things that might or might not be true, but which he either won't or can't possibly demonstrate (e.g., reading Barack Obama's mind, and invariably finding fault via telepathy).

If these numbers were extrapolated to the entire archive up to the most recent posts, and we set the number of articles at 1000, the result would be 67 overt lies, 67 unsupported claims, 133 personal smears, and 433 innuendos.  Quite a career.  That is, of course, assuming (based both on anecdotal experience with subsequent articles, and random perusal thereof) that his other work does not drastically improve in moral, ethical, and factual content...or that he hasn't gotten any worse.

III.  Case-by-case Analysis

Here is a case-by-case breakdown of false or unsupported claims, innuendos, personal smears, various other content problems - it starts off relatively subtle, but soon escalates into examples of truly surreal propaganda:

1.  The effects of Obama's refusal to investigate Bush crimes (1/20/2009)

Innuendo 1:

[...]and these excerpts from that discussion are ones which not only every establishment media figure, but also many anti-investigation Obama supporters, should read[...]
 The implication was that being an Obama supporter implied being opposed to opening criminal investigations into Bush regime figures.  Since there is no evidence the President has ever attempted to stop any such investigation from occurring, and no polling data to indicate that any significant proportion of Obama supporters would be against these investigations - and plenty of us have been strongly in favor - Greenwald is already making an improper and unjustified insinuation on Obama's first day in office.

2.  The impact of Obama's latest excellent DOJ appointments (1/20/2009)

This was back in the day when Greenwald occasionally had something positive to say about the administration, although despite the largely upbeat tone of this article, he still somehow finds an excuse to make a jaundiced insinuation about the President's values and intentions:

Innuendo 2:

It is virtually impossible to imagine that particular group of individuals placing political allegiance to Barack Obama over the principles they have so forcefully advocated over the last several years.
 The implication being that "political allegiance" to President Obama would involve taking actions that violate those principles, which suggests they are principles not shared by the President.  This is still Obama's first day in office, and already his morals are suspect from Greenwald's perspective.

3.  Mohammed Jawad and Obama's efforts to suspend military commissions (1/21/2009)

This article was, on the whole, quite good, informative, and important.  Which is why it's very unfortunate that one of his claims is an outright lie:

Lie 1:

[...]tribunals that were created when [Obama's] own political party, in the weeks before the 2006 mid-term elections, helped to enact the Military Commissions Act.
 Senate Democrats voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006 by 32 to 12, and House Democrats voted against it 162 to 32.  (Source).  Apparently the Democratic Party was strongly opposed, and most likely the opposition was even stronger among rank-in-file members (the people who actually comprise a political party) than Washington insiders.

4.  To favor due process is to favor Terrorists' Rights (1/26/2009)    

This is also largely a decent piece, but he revisits Lie 1 in innuendo form:

Innuendo 3:

[...]exactly the kind of hearing which the 2006 U.S. Congress, when it enacted the Military Commissions Act (with the support of most of the Washington Establishment), voted to abolish.
 I guess 73% of Democratic Senators and 84% of Democratic Congressmen didn't count as part of the "establishment."  But since any claim about the "Washington Establishment" tends to imply a moral equivalency between the parties, it's obvious why the comment is problematic in light of how the vote actually went.

5.  Continuing Bush policies in Afghanistan and Israel (1/26/2009)

Innuendo 4:

Rachel Maddow highlighted all of the right questions, pointed to a number of vital parallels between our occupation of that country and the Soviet Union’s self-destructive attempt to control it, and tried — with total futility — to induce key Obama ally Sen. Claire McCaskill to address any of these questions in a meaningful way.
 What exactly was it that made Claire McCaskill a "key" Obama ally, other than the fact that - according to Greenwald (since the video is no longer available) - she gave an evasive interview about her support for the administration's foreign policies?  It's a subtle thing, and maybe it was just an innocent turn of hyperbole, but the effect is still to exaggerate the association with the President himself (not merely "the administration") of a Senator whose performance he had just ridiculed.  And as we will begin to notice further on, Greenwald tends to be rather emphatic in personally identifying Obama when being critical of administration policies, but becomes much more abstract when being neutral or (increasingly rarely) positive.

6.  Dick Armey and post-partisan harmony (1/29/2009)

Lie 2:

I’m glad that the stimulus package yesterday — which Democrats watered down and comprised on as much as possible to please Republicans — did not attract even a single Republican vote in the House:  not one.
 At the time Greenwald wrote this, only the House version of the stimulus bill had been voted on, and there was no numerical necessity to compromise with Republicans in the House - which is why that never happened.  There may or may not have been compromises with centrist or Blue Dog Democrats in the House, but the extent of such a need would be doubtful given the 52-vote margin at passage.  In other words, Greenwald just didn't think the bill as introduced was sufficient, and from that conjured out of thin air the idea that Democrats had somehow deliberately capitulated to Republicans even in the absence of a political rationale for doing so.

This is an early example of another Greenwald behavior pattern: When he doesn't like the outcome of a process, rather than looking at the process to find out how something happened, he simply makes up a narrative about corrupt motives and weak morals among Democrats to explain it without supporting evidence.  He does not appear to seek any deeper or more rational explanation for the output of American politics than to declare that everyone who disappoints him is either a coward, a fool, or a villain.  Even in the Senate version of the bill, which wasn't voted on until later, the actual compromises with Republicans were limited to negotiations with three Republican Senators - Snowe, Collins, and Specter - two of whom were needed to reach the 60-vote threshold for passage.  In other words, the process unfolded more or less as the composition and rules of the Senate dictated.

7.  Obama fails his first test on civil liberties and accountability — resoundingly and disgracefully (2/9/2009)

While I might agree with the title - the Justice Department's decision to maintain Bush regime "state secrets" positions with respect to torture victim lawsuits was certainly a failure of leadership - the body of the article takes its criticism well beyond a Presidential failure to impose change at the DOJ and instead posits an alternate universe where Barack Obama is not only the dictator of Justice Department policy, but someone intimately and personally involved in establishing the doctrines laid out in specific legal briefs.

Personal smear 1:

Yet here is Obama, the very first chance he gets, invoking exactly this doctrine in its most expansive and abusive form to prevent torture victims even from having their day in court[...]
 Greenwald proposes a vivid image of the President as the devious, two-faced, inwardly-smirking villain who, having snuck into office by artfully deceiving everyone with a two-decade career of supporting the Constitution, now belts out laughing maniacally from the White House as he signs his name in blood to the legal brief continuing the Bush regime's state secrets claims.  The only problem is that this portrayal is baseless, delusional fiction: Greenwald has no evidence of presidential directives to continue the Bush policy, and no evidence of the President's agenda being reflected in it.  

All he knows is what we know: That the President failed to appoint people who would affect change in this area.  Out of his disappointment with the result of that process, Greenwald constructs an alternate universe where "Obama" is another word for "government," and the failures thereof all add up to a personal indictment of the morals and motives of the President - a theme that has since become Greenwald's signature.  We can't demand journalistic thoroughness in political commentary, but basic respect for reality is not optional when you represent yourself as a voice of truth, reason, and political accountability.  The only way to credibly hold a President accountable is to first have some vague incling of what a President is, and be willing to communicate that clearly to an audience.  Mr. Greenwald does not do that here, or indeed anywhere: If he does not like the output of a process, he simply lashes out personally at whatever Democrat is most politically prominent regardless of their actual systemic roles.

There's more of the same in several other parts of the article:

That’s what Barack Obama is now shielding from judicial scrutiny.  Those are the torture victims he is preventing from obtaining judicial relief in our courts.  And he’s using one of the most radical and destructive tools in the Bush arsenal — its wildly expanded version of the “state secrets” privilege — to accomplish all of that dirty work.
 Barack Obama standing in the courthouse door like George Wallace blocking the schoolhouse.  It's melodramatic enough that you would almost forget there is no evidence for any of it - no Executive Orders, no White House policy papers signed by the President or his immediate staff, no correspondence between the President and Attorney General on the subject, no reports of subordinates dissenting over it and being shut down by the Oval Office, nothing.  

Unsupported claim 1:  

This was an active, conscious decision made by the Obama DOJ to retain the same abusive, expansive view of “state secrets” as Bush adopted, and to do so for exactly the same purpose:  to prevent any judicial accountability of any kind, to keep government behavior outside of and above the rule of law.
 Where exactly is he getting this information?  Greenwald cites no leaked memos or internal deliberations as evidence of his interpretation.  He has no basis whatsoever for stating categorically what are or are not the intentions of the Holder Justice Department in allowing state secrets to be invoked, let alone the President, to whatever extent he was involved (if at all).  Greenwald's claim about the process that led to the decision and the DOJ's intentions in making it are pulled out of thin air.

Personal smear 2:

It will be extremely difficult for even the most loyal Obama followers to deny that this was an active and conscious decision on the part of the Obama DOJ to embrace one of the most extreme abuses of the Bush presidency.
 At this point, a mere three weeks into the Obama Presidency, Greenwald has already decided that Obama is the Enemy and anyone who would question his baseless, unsupported claims about the President is a "loyal follower" acting out of blind piety.  This article is really the jumping off point where his writings about the Obama administration begin to seriously depart from conscientious criticism into increasingly toxic realms of bigoted screed and conspiracy theory.  Note that at no point does he have any suggestion for what the President himself should personally do within the context of his authority to rectify the problem.

8.  The 180-degree reversal of Obama’s State Secrets position (2/10/2009)

Unsupported claim 2:

From the Obama/Biden campaign website, mybarackobama.com, here was what the Obama campaign was saying — back then — about the State Secrets privilege:
[...]The Bush administration has ignored public disclosure rules and invoked a legal tool known as the "state secrets" privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court.
Apparently, the operative word in that highlighted paragraph — unbeknownst to most people at the time — was “the Bush administration,” since the Obama administration is now doing exactly that which, during the campaign, it defined as “The Problem,” the only difference being that it is now Obama, and not Bush, doing it.
 Except the real operative "word" (sic) is "more than any other previous administration," which is why that phrase was used instead of attacking the privilege entirely on the basis of how it was applied.  And, as far as I can find, that statement is still correct, regardless of the moral outrageousness and constitutional danger of invoking it to prevent lawsuits by torture victims.  The unsupported implication is that the Obama administration reversed itself from this campaign statement, which would require some evidence that they had surpassed the Bush regime in number of state secrets invocations.  No such evidence is forthcoming in the article, nor indeed could such evidence have existed in the third week of the new administration.  

Personal smear 3:

[...]and for Obama followers eager to find an excuse to justify what was done[...]
 Basically just a careless repetition of Personal smear 2: In other words, doubting the logical validity, accuracy, thoroughness, or honesty of Glenn Greenwald's claims about the Obama administration and the President personally marks you as an amoral automaton who is every bit as spasmodic in defense of the President as Greenwald increasingly shows himself to be in attacking him.  

Innuendo 5:

To underscore just what a complete reversal the Obama DOJ’s conduct is, consider what Seante Democrats were saying for the last several years.  In early 2008, Sens. Kennedy and Leahy, along with Sen. Arlen Specter, sponsored the State Secrets Protection Act.  It had numerous co-sponsors, including Joe Biden.  In April, 2008, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill, with all Committee Democrats voting for it, along with Specter.  The scheme of restrictions imposed on the privilege by that bill was the consensus view of the pre-2009 Democratic Party.
 Greenwald cites no evidence that the Democratic Party had rescinded its support for legislation introducing restrictions on use of the state secrets privilege, or even that the administration opposes such legislation: He simply insinuates without basis that because the Justice Department under a Democratic administration has made a particular claim about current law, the entire Democratic Party must ipso facto now be opposed to a new law we have previously supported.  

Hypocrisy 1:  

We don’t actually have a system of government (or at least we’re not supposed to) where we rely on the magnanimity and inherent Goodness of specific leaders to exercise secret powers wisely.  We don’t actually have a system of government (or at least we’re not supposed to) where we rely on the magnanimity and inherent Goodness of specific leaders to exercise secret powers wisely.  That, by definition, is how grateful subjects of benevolent tyrants think (“this power was bad in Bush’s hands because he’s bad, but it’s OK in Obama’s hands because he is good and kind”).
 Greenwald has spent quite a lot of breath implying that we can and should rely on the magnanimity and inherent goodness of a President to dictate who the DOJ investigates, who they prosecute, and what legal arguments are advanced in specific civil cases rather than on the professional judgments of US Attorneys - in other words, that we should look to Richard Nixon and George W. Bush for advice on how the White House should relate to the Justice Department.  In fact, his entire line of attack on Barack Obama vis-a-vis the DOJ boils down to the President's "failure" to do so.  

He (Greenwald) uses doublethink to imply that authoritarianism in service to freedom would be justified (let alone definitively possible), and a President's respect for the Constitution on the part of his own direct authorities is inexcusable if the result is that authoritarian elements are able to exploit his scruples.  In other words, the ends justify the means so long as the ends are Glenn Greenwald's.  Thus we find him accusing Barack Obama of "authoritarianism" for not politicizing the Justice Department and not imposing his arbitrary will on federal law enforcement.  

Self-contradiction 1:

Writing at FDL in September, 2008, Obama’s new OLC official, Assistant Attorney General Marty Lederman, criticized the exact State Secrets privilege theory embraced yesterday by the Obama DOJ:
 So President Obama - who, if you'll recall from Personal smear 1 above, was just waiting on the edge of his seat to personally invoke states secrets privilege in a DOJ civil case as soon as he could - had appointed an Assistant Attorney General who had publicly taken a position against just that, on multiple occasions, over the two years prior to his appointment.  That's some deep conspiracy there.  Or we can go crazy and suppose that the President appointed him because litmus tests over specific cases were never part of his selection process, since he respects the role of the Justice Department.  Heck, let's go outright bonkers and suppose Obama appointed the guy because he agrees with him on state secrets.  

Personal smear 4:

There is no reason to rely on Obama’s good character or judgment, particularly since he has demonstrated that it’s insufficient.
 Based on a single decision by an institution not properly under the direct management of the President, Greenwald has decided categorically that Barack Obama is a terrible person and an incompetent leader.  This kind of careless arrogance and irrational bigotry is one of Greenwald's less pleasant trademarks.

Innuendo 6: Saying "Obama DOJ" once or a few times is a reasonable, shorthand way of saying "Obama administration DOJ" - thus informing the reader which administration you're talking about - but having done that, it starts to become conspicuous the more you repeat it in a single article.  Especially an article suffused with (justifiable) outrage over something the Justice Department had done.  In this article, Greenwald not only says "Obama DOJ" eleven times, but never just says "DOJ" at all other than in a quotation.  And that is particularly interesting in light of another fact: Given the subject, how many times would you guess he mentions the Attorney General, Eric Holder, in a 20-some paragraph article?  One?  Two?  Three?  Nope.  Zero.  Never.  

He never once mentions Eric Holder in an article about the Justice Department.  Instead, he repeats "Obama DOJ" over, and over, and over...and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over.  The high official directly, institutionally responsible for the decision being criticized is never mentioned at all, while the one with indirect authority via appointments gets an 11x helping of personal association with the offending institution.  One would think if Greenwald actually cared about holding public officials accountable, he might mention the people who actually did what he's criticizing, at least once or twice.  But as we will see with sickening regularity, accountability is never the highest priority - Greenwald's inexplicable personal war against Barack Obama is.  

9.  Congress takes first step to impose limits on Obama's executive power (2/12/2009)

Innuendo 7: Notice how in the title it's "Obama's" executive power, not just executive or presidential power in general.  I guess "Congress takes first step to impose limits on executive power" just wouldn't have been as effective for Greenwald's purposes, let alone something as inconveniently accurate as "Congress takes first step to limit Justice Department power."  If we were to broadly apply his logic across the board, the title he uses could mean anything from a Constitutional amendment altering the powers of the Presidency to Congressional limits on the authority of the Postal Regulatory Commission over stamp prices.  But since the whole point was to insinuate a confrontation between Congress and the President that wasn't occurring, this tabloid-level innuendo was a feature, not a bug.  

As we will see increasingly often, Greenwald has developed at this point what we might call "Obama Tourette's," repetitively dropping the President's name into every negative context possible, whenever possible, no matter how tenuous the justification.  A single disappointment with a single federal institution in the first three weeks of the Obama Presidency drove him off the Deep End, and he's been there ever since.

Self-contradiction 2:

Earlier this week, I wrote about the State Secrets Protection Act of 2008, which was co-sponsored by numerous key Senators [including Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, as well as the Senate Judiciary Committee's Chair (Pat Leahy) and ranking member (Arlen Specter)], and which was approved by the Judiciary Committee last year with all Democrats voting in favor. [...] Yesterday — as an obvious response to the Obama DOJ’s support for the Bush view of the privilege — Leahy and Specter, along with Russ Feingold, Claire McCaskill, Sheldon Whitehouse and Ted Kennedy, re-introduced that bill in the Senate. [...] Several hours before the Senate bill was introduced, several key House Democrats introduced a similar bill in the House.
 Apparently the spineless, quasi-Republican Capitulo-crats who Greenwald lambasted in Lie 1, Lie 2, and Innuendo 3 really sound like they're on the ball now, a mere 2-3 weeks later - now that their actions serve his anti-Obama narrative rather than directly contradicting it.

Innuendo 8:

A President who seeks to aggrandize his own power through wildly expansive claims of executive authority ought to be vigorously criticized.
 Good thing Barack Obama is not that President.  Unless Greenwald is withholding some direct quote, Executive Order, or memo from the White House asserting what he insinuates the President's position to be.

Hypocrisy 2:

Restoration of that system [Congressional oversight] is of far more enduring value than Obama’s issuance of magnanimous and irrevocable-on-a-whim decrees.
 And yet on which subject does Greenwald expend the greater passion and rhetorical ruthlessness?  It's not even close - incessant Obama Tourette's on the one hand whenever the President fails to issue "magnanimous and irrevocable-on-a-whim decrees," even where basic governmental ethics might preclude them, and then a relative handful of occasional, brief, off-hand acknowledgements of the entire Legislative branch of government.

10.  Obama and liberals: a counterproductive relationship (2/13/2009)

Innuendo 9: The title implies that Obama is not a liberal.  Greenwald is welcome to his opinion on that matter, but why embed it in manipulative rhetorical tactics instead of openly discussing it?

Innuendo 10:

Prioritizing support for a political leader as the highest objective is horribly bad for both a political movement and the leader.
 Prioritizing opposition to a political leader as the highest objective is horribly bad for both a political movement and the leader.  See what I did there?  The difference is that my implied criticism is targeted at a specific person whose record of doing just that is being established right here in this examination, while he is broadly implying that general support for President Obama in the liberal community is a product of an obsequious and irrational personality cult.  

Three weeks into the first term, and Greenwald has already settled into what would become teabagger memes before there even was a Tea Party: Obama the Wagnerian dictator and, simultaneously, weak-kneed milquetoast, both supported by armies of faceless and mindless "followers" (see Personal smears 2 & 3).

Innuendo 11:

During the 2008 election, Obama co-opted huge portions of the Left and its infrastructure so that their allegiance became devoted to him and not to any ideas.
 The word "co-opted" is a blatant insinuation that Barack Obama orchestrated some kind of fiendish, nihilistic plot to deceive people about his values and politics - and apparently the vast majority of his administration that has pursued liberal policies was part of the devilish conspiracy to cunningly draw our attention away from the areas where the President and/or (and there is an or, Mr. Greenwald) his appointees have disappointed.  Moreover, the rest of the comment is a rather savage and indefensible personal condemnation of everyone who supports the President as mindless tools who have abandoned their values.  Greenwald's Enemies List just keeps getting bigger the more frustrated he becomes.

Self-contradiction 3:

Many online political and “news” outlets — including some liberal political blogs — discovered that the most reliable way to massively increase traffic was to capitalize on the pro-Obama fervor by turning themselves into pro-Obama cheerleading squads.  Grass-roots activist groups watched their dues-paying membership rolls explode the more they tapped into that same sentiment and turned themselves into Obama-supporting appendages.  Even labor unions and long-standing Beltway advocacy groups reaped substantial benefits by identifying themselves as loyal foot soldiers in the Obama movement.
 Got that?  Obama's campaign drove attention, membership, and money to liberal activist groups, blogs, and labor unions.  The fiend!  It must take an awesomely devilish conspiracy to "exploit" and "betray" the Left by flooding it with cash and eyeballs.

 Innuendo 12:

Part of the political shrewdness of Obama has been that he’s been able to actually convince huge numbers of liberals that it’s a good thing when he ignores and even stomps on their political ideals [...]
 The problem with this comment is that Greenwald has never shown that the President did anything of the sort - once again, he just doesn't like the outcome of a handful of practical instances (in fact, at this point, just one) where a liberal administration didn't produce the result he wanted, and from that pulls elaborate conspiracies and personal moral perversions on the part of Barack Obama out of thin air.

Innuendo 13:

Hordes of Obama-loving liberals are still marching around paying homage to the empty mantras of “pragmatism” and ”post-partisan harmony”
 Just one of many increasingly deranged iterations of the "followers" smear from above.  A comment like that would rightly be regarded as trolling on Daily Kos.

IV.  Conclusion

No matter how large you expand the scope of the inquiry, Greenwald's record since Barack Obama took office is rife with exactly the same kind of commentary identified here.  Now, it's true that the problematic excerpts are generally a minority of the content in articles, and articles containing that content are a (large) minority of the total reviewed, but you can't get a little bit pregnant - especially not when representing yourself (and being represented by those who support you) as some kind of courageous voice of truth.  

Greenwald is most definitely not that.  Rather, he mixes high-concept political commentary with the lowest forms of tabloid propaganda in service to a religiously anti-Obama narrative, cavalierly dispenses with even the barest semblance of truth, honesty, and intelligent thought when it suits him, applies double standards and doublespeak when convenient, and is rewarded for it with major online media syndication.  In other words, he is far more a part of the problem than any likely role the remainder of his content could play in solutions.  

There will always be a market for lazy, exploitive, tabloid demagoguery that conceals and distracts far more than it illuminates or focuses, but there will also always be people who see it for what it is and call it out.  That doesn't mean Greenwald's articles should never be used as a conduit to other information, but in light of his routine and unrepentant excesses as an allegedly professional commentator, there is no justification for ever using him as a direct or sufficient source.  However, whatever the problems with his own commentary and interpretations, he may be considered indirectly useful as a link aggregator toward more credible sources than himself.

Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 12:53 AM PT: Meteor Blades and I have had a pretty interesting discussion about Lie 2 in comments.  What he tells me in comments is that there was a significant perception of compromise having taken place on the part of the House version of the stimulus bill, even before there was a stimulus bill.  I haven't been able to quite understand how this works - how does one compromise what doesn't exist?  But it seems worth noting, even though Greenwald appears to have possibly taken some rumor he heard and run off the deep end with it.  Still seems like a made-up claim.  I'll need more evidence to downgrade it from a lie to an unsupported claim.


Poll

What's your favorite thing about Glenn Greenwald's writing?

7%6 votes
62%49 votes
6%5 votes
2%2 votes
7%6 votes
5%4 votes
3%3 votes
3%3 votes

| 78 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I suggest you head over to The Guardian (9+ / 0-)

    and posit your thesis there, where Mr. Greenwald now dwells.

    I don't suppose diaries on Daily Kos are always on his radar.

    Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man; we shall this day light such a candle by God's grace in England as shall never be put out.

    by Bollox Ref on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 05:47:55 PM PST

  •  This should be an interesting thread. (8+ / 0-)

    :)




    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
    ~ Jerry Garcia

    by DeadHead on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 05:51:40 PM PST

  •  That's a lot of work you've posted! I'm too lazy. (14+ / 0-)

    In an ideal world, your hard work should foster a substantive discussion, but I'm afraid we don't live in an ideal world.

    "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

    by sebastianguy99 on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 05:53:47 PM PST

    •  We're Also Living on a Very Slow Traffic Night nt (6+ / 0-)

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 06:02:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm too lazy too, but I made a drunken promise. (11+ / 0-)

      And a drunken promise is sacred.  Within reason.  

      Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

      by Troubadour on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 06:04:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hmm. (10+ / 0-)

        Well, considering that this diary is in response to my previous kudos diary in favor of Glenn Greenwald's luscious writing, I guess I can see why you think this would be a worthy effort.

        But it's not.

        Opinions are not "unsupported claims", "innuendos", "lies", and/or "personal smears". Barack Obama is not your personal friend, Troubadour. He's a fucking politician. We hired him to do a job, and there are plenty of people (both on DailyKos and otherwise) who are unhappy with the job he's doing right now.

        Myself included.

        Btw, you can't label something a "self-contradiction", since you don't know Glenn Greenwald personally. You can't read his thoughts and you have no idea what he's feeling.

        That's also called an innuendo, just so ya know.

        Next time you make a drunken promise to me, you are hereby released from your obligation to keep it.

        Who cares what the fucking Republicans would vote for? They'd vote for cooking poor children and exporting them as delicacies if they had the chance. -- Jim P

        by Colorado is the Shiznit on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 11:53:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree, opinions are not those things. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CwV, vcmvo2, KayCeSF, sebastianguy99

          Nor are those things opinions when it's Glenn Greenwald engaging in them.

          Barack Obama is not your personal friend, Troubadour.
          Thanks, I'm aware of that.  But someone needs to inform Mr. Greenwald that Barack Obama is not his personal Emmanuel Goldstein.
          He's a fucking politician.
          Who, thus far, has been more honest with us about the job he's doing than Glenn Greenwald.
          We hired him to do a job, and there are plenty of people (both on DailyKos and otherwise) who are unhappy with the job he's doing right now.
          Of course, but what does it say about the validity of Greenwald's particular unhappiness that he has to conjure up fictions to rationalize it?  Real, meaningful criticism is undermined by pretending that hate-based fantasies and tabloid demagoguery are equivalent to it.
          Btw, you can't label something a "self-contradiction", since you don't know Glenn Greenwald personally. You can't read his thoughts and you have no idea what he's feeling.
          It has nothing to do with what he thinks or feels - only what he says.
          Next time you make a drunken promise to me, you are hereby released from your obligation to keep it.
          I'm sure you wish I hadn't written this, but there's no putting Humpty Dumpty back together again, no matter how you personally decide to deal with this information.  It's there, it's more thorough and careful than Greenwald himself typically is, and it shows exactly what kind of writer he is - the kind who should be trolling bulletin boards, not being venerated as a voice of reason.  This work adds something useful to our community, however inconvenient it may be for some people's peace of mind.

          Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

          by Troubadour on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 01:18:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  This Is Very True: (13+ / 0-)
    There will always be a market for lazy, exploitive, tabloid demagoguery
  •  I think you argument is bogus (28+ / 0-)

    As you say in your conclusion:

    Now, it's true that the problematic excerpts are generally a minority of the content in an (sic) articles, and articles containing that content are a (large) minority of the total reviewed, but you can't get a little bit pregnant...
    But were not talking about pregnancy.  Were talking about an opinion of a person and if you seem to think Greenwald is totally against Obama because he objects to some things  Obama has done or not done. I think that's a stretch.

    I would like a new world.
    I love that new world odor.

    by Ex Con on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 05:58:55 PM PST

    •  The things I identified are not opinions. (8+ / 0-)

      They are false claims, unsupported claims, mind-reading, self-contradiction, etc.  These are not things that you can legitimately disagree on - they're simply logically corrupt if not outright wrong.  And these are not regular occurrences in the writings of people who want their commentary to be considered authoritative.

      Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

      by Troubadour on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 06:19:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This may be the MOST lame attempt at... (27+ / 0-)

        ...character assassination of someone on the left that I've ever seen on this site! And, considering the countless attempts at that effort that I've witnessed from some corners of this community, that's a quite pathetic honor!

        CONGRATULATIONS!

        The diarist has just delivered one of the most pathetic, clueless and vacuous diatribes I've ever read here!

        I hope, for their own sake, the diarist is not a lawyer in the real world...because if they are, I hope they maintain at least enough self-awareness to have the common sense to stay OUT of the courtroom.

        Glenn Greenwald writes COMMENTARY and OPINION. By definition, it's subjective and extremely opinionated!

        Furthermore, I strongly encourage the author of this post to revisit the DEFINITIONS of the words: "lie," "liar," "innuendo," "commentary," "opinion" and "fact," etc.

        Amidst their obsessive behavior, writ large for the community to accesss, it's also self-evident that the author is CLEARLY VERY CONFUSED!

        This post is EXTREMELY WEAK...incredibly so...and at an EPIC LEVEL, I might add, too! And, that's just based upon a BASIC understanding of the English language, as it's presented by the author of this post!

        That's my OPINION, and I'm entitled to it...just like GLENN GREENWALD, btw!

        "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

        by bobswern on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 07:28:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Where is BOB JOHNSON when we need him?!? n/t (0+ / 0-)

          "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

          by bobswern on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 07:29:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Say it Bob! (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bobswern, 3rdOption, priceman, aliasalias
        •  When you're done screaming in desperation (6+ / 0-)

          feel free to post any intelligent, substantive objections you have to the specific content of this diary so we can have a discussion about the problematic content I identified.  But going even further than Greenwald does in the argument-by-shrill-assertion department does nothing for your case.

          Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

          by Troubadour on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 08:23:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What part of "you grossly fail in your attempt"... (8+ / 0-)

            ... "to substantiate your rants and claims, based upon the sheer LACK of 'evidence' that is apparent in your post, itself" do you NOT understand? If a person provides an opinion, it's virtually impossible to define it as a lie...but, somehow, you repeat that mistake throughout your post! And, I'm just scratching the surface here. Furthermore, you state--in the comments--that this post is not about Greenwald!  While it's only in the comments, it so aligns with the "style" which you CLEARLY pursue  against Greenwald, directly, that it makes this (the comment) a quite definitive irony, and one that exemplifies this entire evening's exercise.

            There's really nothing more to say. Based upon its merits (or lack thereof), much like your comment that I just referenced, it further underscores the disingenuous and vacuous nature and reality of virtually everything you've written here!

            It's beyond funny...to the point of being quite sad.

            Simply stated, there's no "there" there! And, that's based upon the FACE VALUE of the post, with no further "support" necessary. If you fully understand the English language, my "case" speaks for itself! (Actually, much/most of what you've posted tonight is the one and only piece of evidence needed by ANYONE wishing to criticize/refute it! And, the "examples" of this are so pervasive throughout your "essay," it's self-explanatory, too!)

            "The Final Word On Glenn Greenwald" is that the author's final words tell us they have NO "case" for their claims! Period. And, any reader of this post is reminded of this greater truth, because it's continually in their face throughout a read of the post!

            And, NO, I'm not going to further elaborate upon this except to say that anyone with an IQ higher than the outdoor temperature on a cold Winter day (with a basic understanding of the English language) would be forced to agree with my observation, too...unless they were being dishonest in their own commentary.

            People are ENTITLED to their own opinions...not to their own facts. And, the things that you accuse Greenwald of lying about are more often his opinions than anything else. And, whatever REAL minutiae you label as "lying," is simply NOT that. When Greenwald says Democrats voted for something, SOME Democrats did INDEED vote for it, adding to the majority of votes in the overall totals in the House. (You call that a "lie.")

            So, it gets into semantics...at best. Does Greenwald make some erroneous claims? I'm sure he does...I've yet to witness/read ANY political commentator that bats 1,000 percent. But, again, I've wasted too much time on this drivel, as it is.

            Your post is EXCEPTIONALLY WEAK in terms of supporting its claims. Period.

            "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

            by bobswern on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 08:54:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  There's not a single word in that inchoat scream (8+ / 0-)

              that is a direct response to any point made in the diary, or anything I quoted from Glenn Greenwald.  Sorry, loudness and mania are not substitutes for argument, and vague remarks broadly dismissing everything in total are the tactic of someone who either hasn't read the diary or refuses to even fractionally reciprocate the level of work put into it.  

              Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

              by Troubadour on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:12:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  An opinion cannot (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sviscusi, bobswern

              be defined as a lie, but if he's making assumptions or statements based on faulty facts, his opinion isn't worth much.

              “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

              by skohayes on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 04:59:51 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Gotta agree (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dallasdoc, BradyB

          Not a Greenwald fan, but the pseudo-objectivity and pseudo-statistical character of Troubadour's critique does not accomplish his stated aim of impeaching Greenwald's credibility.  Pundits on the right and left engage in similar rhetorical disingenuousness and if getting key facts wrong cost you your puns it's license, there would be no one left to provide vacuous misinformed commentary in the media.

          Troubadour, this comes off like an old style USENET diatribe, and as cranky and a bit unhinged.  As someone who also doesn't like Greenwald's sense of political exigency, I suggest you respond substantively to individual and recent Greenwald posts.  Mining the archive for faux-scientific "proof" that he is a mendacious, disingenuous hack only makes your criticism easier to dismiss as a personalized feud with Greenwald's fans on dKos.  They aren't going to start hating on Greenwald now that you've revealed the shocking true crime story of the Greenwald Conspiracy.  

          He's an opinion blogger.  Deal with it.  They are mostly bullshitters who troll for reaction and invent facts. Plenty of them are heroes around here and no better or worse than Greenwald.

          •  There was no "mining" involved. (0+ / 0-)

            There was no cherry-picking.  I reviewed 30 articles whose contents I had NO advance knowledge of and found 26 problems in 10 of those articles, two of which were thoroughly corrupt and indefensible.

            Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

            by Troubadour on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 04:11:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That you don't (0+ / 0-)

              recognize the biased and pseudo-objective nature of your assertions is either disingenuous or deceptive.

              There is nothing random, neutral, objective, or for that matter verifiable about your criticisms.  Most of them are differences of opinion you exaggerate into claims of differences of fact.

              You protest too much.  It's obviously personal.  The very length of your diatribe (and yes I read it all, I'm.  Social scientist by the way) makes it clear you are on a rampage, not a mission for truth.

              Chill out. Write substantive rebuttals of recent Greenwald pieces and I'm with you.  I could do just what you've done here using all of your dKos diaries.  I'm guessing the actual error rate w/r/t facts would be similar to Greenwald's.

              The louder you shout, the less convincing you become dude.

    •  all that Obama had not done (4+ / 0-)

      in the first week of his presidency?

      nope - "a little bit pregnant" is a pretty good analogy if you ask me

      "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

      by Sybil Liberty on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 06:26:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  You've got an axe to grind with Greenwald (24+ / 0-)

    I get that just by the word count (5494) of this diary.

    That took some work.

    "Mitt who? That's an odd name. Like an oven mitt, you mean? Oh, yeah, I've got one of those. Used it at the Atlas Society BBQ last summer when I was flipping ribs."

    by Richard Cranium on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 06:01:54 PM PST

  •  Because you are the epitome of (18+ / 0-)

    intellectual honesty.

    One of the major differences between Democrats and Republicans is that the former have the moral imagination to see the moral dimension of financial affairs, while the latter do not. Pragmatists are the exception.

    by Words In Action on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 06:03:25 PM PST

  •  except what you call a lie might not be (27+ / 0-)

    let's take it from the top.

     

      [...]and these excerpts from that discussion are ones which not only every establishment media figure, but also many anti-investigation Obama supporters, should read[...]

     The implication was that being an Obama supporter implied being opposed to opening criminal investigations into Bush regime figures.

    This is your interpretation of what he said. I don't read it that way at all. I read it as some of Obama's supporters are anti-investigation, not that any supporter must be. Are/were some anti-investigation? That would negate your claim of an innuendo.
       It is virtually impossible to imagine that particular group of individuals placing political allegiance to Barack Obama over the principles they have so forcefully advocated over the last several years.

     The implication being that "political allegiance" to President Obama would involve taking actions that violate those principles, which suggests they are principles not shared by the President.  This is still Obama's first day in office, and already his morals are suspect from Greenwald's perspective.

    This questions the advisors, not the President. You choose to read it as an attack on the President, as an attack on his morals. That might come later but this is not it.

     

      [...]tribunals that were created when [Obama's] own political party, in the weeks before the 2006 mid-term elections, helped to enact the Military Commissions Act.

     Senate Democrats voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006 by 32 to 12, and House Democrats voted against it 162 to 32.  (Source).  Apparently the Democratic Party was strongly opposed, and most likely the opposition was even stronger among rank-in-file members (the people who actually comprise a political party) than Washington insiders.

    This is not a lie, it's a bit of an exaggeration. Greenwald thinks the Democrats should have been 100% opposed, instead of 3/4 opposed in the Senate and 80%+ opposed in the House. It would have passed the Senate without any Democratic votes. I'm not sure about the House, though. If all 32 had voted against it, and if the 12 abstaining votes were "no" then it would have been 218-218.

    I stopped there because there's an awful lot to look at, and since I felt it was 3 for 3 against your interpretations I wasn't likely to agree with you.

    Since you dislike Greenwald it's easy for you to find something you don't like in each of his columns. For all I know, I'm the one with blinders and you're right, but I just don't see it.

    •  I could see accepting a flexible definition (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shahryar, KayCeSF, MrAnon, Eyesbright, skohayes

      of facts in dealing with one or a few comments in isolation, but when you're dealing with a pattern like this it just starts to sound like quibbling with the meaning of "is."

      This is your interpretation of what he said. I don't read it that way at all. I read it as some of Obama's supporters are anti-investigation, not that any supporter must be. Are/were some anti-investigation? That would negate your claim of an innuendo.
      But why does he associate "anti-investigation" with "Obama supporters" at all?  Why not just refer to people who are opposed to investigation?  It's completely inexplicable except to insinuate that the two categories are related.
      This questions the advisors, not the President. You choose to read it as an attack on the President, as an attack on his morals. That might come later but this is not it.
      I think it pretty clearly says the opposite: Greenwald states that it's unimaginable that these advisors would compromise their values out of "allegiance" to Barack Obama, thus praising them while back-handing him as a potential or even likely corruptor of virtue.  And if you read the rest of that article, you find Greenwald really struggles with some cognitive dissonance dealing with the fact that the President appointed the very people he's praising.  He seems sincerely confused about how to deal with that at some points.
      This is not a lie, it's a bit of an exaggeration. Greenwald thinks the Democrats should have been 100% opposed, instead of 3/4 opposed in the Senate and 80%+ opposed in the House. It would have passed the Senate without any Democratic votes. I'm not sure about the House, though. If all 32 had voted against it, and if the 12 abstaining votes were "no" then it would have been 218-218.
      To make a categorical statement about the behavior of a political party when the overwhelming majority of it did the opposite is a lie.  Maybe a lie of omission in failing to qualify, but the consequence is to portray a fact as being 180 degrees away from its reality.  The Democratic Party helped to defeat the bill, but were unsuccessful - the exact opposite of his claim.
      I stopped there because there's an awful lot to look at, and since I felt it was 3 for 3 against your interpretations I wasn't likely to agree with you.
      I appreciate the effort, but as far as I can see all three continue to hold up from all angles.  And that's not me being obstinate - I don't see how your interpretations can hold up relative to the given ones.
      Since you dislike Greenwald it's easy for you to find something you don't like in each of his columns.
      Can we at least agree that he engages in personal smears against Barack Obama and everyone he deems insufficiently critical of the President?

      Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

      by Troubadour on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 06:53:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let me try (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BradyB

        You say you don't see how his/her interpretations can hold up.  I do not mean this personally at all, so please don't take it that way. The problem is not your understanding; it's your English.  Or, rather, Greenwald's very complex,  lawyerly, and almost excruciatingly formal use of English.  Most of us don't write or speak the way he does.

         [...]and these excerpts from that discussion are ones which not only every establishment media figure, but also many anti-investigation Obama supporters, should read[...]

         The implication was that being an Obama supporter implied being opposed to opening criminal investigations into Bush regime figures.

        In Greenwald's sentence, the word anti-investigation is modifying the phrase "Obama supporters."   In English, if it were to say what you believe it says, the sentence would be written as "...but also many (anti-investigation) Obama supporters" or simply "...but also Obama supporters."  

        There is no implication buried in the words Greenwald used that applies to all Obama supporters.  There simply is not, not by any rules of English usage and grammar.  

        I'm offering this comment only because you seem sincerely confused why more people do not agree with your analysis.

  •  Absolutely true... (7+ / 0-)

    ...that you don't like this guy.

    Boehner Just Wants Wife To Listen, Not Come Up With Alternative Debt-Reduction Ideas

    by dov12348 on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 06:22:47 PM PST

    •  Any substantive comment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eyesbright

      or can we interpret it as just being "I don't care if what you're saying is true"?

      Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

      by Troubadour on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 06:57:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No I don't have anything else. (0+ / 0-)

        I didn't read your diary.  Let me ask you this - how did you go about selecting the 30?

        Boehner Just Wants Wife To Listen, Not Come Up With Alternative Debt-Reduction Ideas

        by dov12348 on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 07:40:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Unless/until you read it (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OIL GUY, CwV

          you don't have much business commenting on it.

          But to answer your question, I began with the intention of parsing the entire archive chronologically from page 103 to page 1 (lower numbers are later), because I wasn't yet clear on how time-consuming each page would be.  The starting point was Inauguration Day 2009.

          The rate of progress proved slow, and the number of offending instances piled up quickly, requiring careful discussions for each - which meant that a single article could take up an hour or more dissecting it if it had multiple problems.  By the time I got to 30, I figured 26 identifiable problems was overwhelming enough.

          If you're getting at the fact that it wasn't a thoroughly randomized sample, you're correct.  So I did a random scan (using a random number generator to give me page numbers) of the remaining material to see if I would keep running into the same kind of material in roughly similar proportions, and I did - but continuing to dissect that material in detail would have served no purpose.  Most of the problems I ran across were similar if not identical in substance to the sort of things identified above.  And let's face it: No one who simply dismisses this level of research would be persuaded by being more thorough.  People who piss on facts aren't persuaded by offering them more facts.

          Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

          by Troubadour on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 08:40:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I am so very sorry that such a (6+ / 0-)

            well researched and factually supported diary is so viciously attacked by people so warped by their anger that they can't even be bothered to read your brilliant diary.

            I am even more disheartened that there are almost no voices to rise to your defense. The daily kos has completely gone to hell and I struggle to understand why I come back here day after day. It must be some form of masochism. I think that I, like so many before me, have almost reached my limit.

            If the Democratic Party fails to win the 2014 elections for Senate and Congress, it will be an exact replay of 2010 - a failure of so many progressives to unite behind a party and a leader.

            Obama has accomplished more progressive legislation, in the face of total Republican nihilism, than I would ever have thought possible. But that's not good enough for some, nothing would be. Winning teams unite. Losers tear themselves apart. That's what I see happening here.

            Thanks for this diary and for your courage to post it in what has become such a hostile environment.

            Here's my take on it - the revolution will not be blogged, it has to be slogged. - Deoliver47

            by OIL GUY on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 12:07:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  For my comment I didn't need to read it. (0+ / 0-)

            But perhaps I was a little condescending; for that I apologize.

            Boehner Just Wants Wife To Listen, Not Come Up With Alternative Debt-Reduction Ideas

            by dov12348 on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 03:18:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  I'm Not A Greenwald Fan Either..... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, KayCeSF, Troubadour, OIL GUY

    It's easy to snipe from the sidelines.  I suggest Mr. Greenwald run for office to show the world especially the President of the United States how it's done.  Get 'er done, Mr. Greenwald.

    Paul Krugman?  Ditto.  When Mr. Krugman had his shot @ the "debate" w/ Joe Scarborough on the economy, it was hardly the debacle I expected from his reputation which precedes him everywhere he goes.....especially here.  

  •  well, i don't think you have done what (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    No Exit, Laconic Lib, snoopydawg, priceman

    you think you have done.
    So vague but not so vast,
    And not too vital at the last.
    But I'm glad if you feel satisfied and confident and accomplished.
    Whether GG likes or criticicizes us or the President or Democrats as individuals or as a Party makes little difference to me.
    He's done plenty of excellent work and taught us a lot. But I don't think it has much effect on things here in America. Do you?
    We are a dangerously blind ignorant stupid uninformed mess in this country. GG went after some of that but the tide never turned. And our President did not reverse the outrageous overreaches of the fiends he replaced.
    Maybe there was thought to be too much trouble to start correcting. But, not to try just killed us and you can't say it didn't.
    The Establishment always hides ugliness they're too fearful of for us to see. Not because we can't take it, tho that's the pretense. And it's not even really the embarassments which full revelations would cause.
    It's the keys to the skeleton closet demystifying the powers privacy. Their addiction to the mirage of superiority. The dread that reasonable justice and consequences take hold and reduce their strangle on every act and fact and tack and covered track of policy and purpose and prevention of majority benefit.
    That's what they do why they do when they how now and who.
    Glenn notices some of that. I'm sure you do too. Maybe the electeds can't control the power structure anymore, even if they wished to. Maybe the President can't either. The game might be over or postponed for awhile.
    But I don't blame that on Glenn.
    He tried.

    Monsanto is poison, they gotta be stopped.

    by renzo capetti on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 06:35:54 PM PST

    •  It comes down to this. (9+ / 0-)

      Elect more and better Democrats to all offices, on all levels of American government, and the more we succeed at doing so, the more we change the country for the better.  Neither a President nor any subordinates thereof can get away with anything that Congress and the Courts don't let them, and none of the above can get away with anything that we don't let them.  Anyone who thought our work would end in 2009, or ever, wasn't serious to begin with.

      Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

      by Troubadour on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 07:19:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  You have deep problems. nt (3+ / 6-)
    •  Your HR-able comment is only one problem. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eyesbright, OIL GUY

      Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

      by Troubadour on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 07:20:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have to say... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Little, 3rdOption, snoopydawg

        Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

        I largely agree with Glenn and appreciate his perspective and think you don't.

        And I read some of this diatribe and most of your last one.

        You definitely have yourself some greenwald derangement syndrome.

        Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. - Gandalf the Grey

        by No Exit on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 08:04:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The fact that you call it a "diatribe" (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CwV, vcmvo2, KayCeSF

          makes it pretty obvious you haven't read a single word of it.  It's a lot fairer and more thorough than Greenwald is accustomed to being toward subjects he criticizes.  I deliberately set that as a standard, just to see how many people who defend his unsupported smears would then characterize point-by-point fact-based arguments debunking them of being somehow baseless and crazy.  Congratulations, you've hit the doublethink/hypocrisy trip-wire.

          Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

          by Troubadour on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 08:46:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Is it just coincidence, Beetwasher, that you HRd (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bobswern

      me in this diary shortly after we engaged in a go-round in yours?

      No. It's not.

    •  HR'd for Fristian "teevee" psychoanalysis, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nada Lemming, Christin, KayCeSF

      simply because you disagree with the diarist. Not acceptable.

      There, I have never had an exchange with you, here nor anywhere else, and will take pains to avoid any in the future, if your performance in this thread is any indication of your usual level of "discourse".

      „Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.“ - Bertolt Brecht

      by translatorpro on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 05:24:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If I said he was "nuts!" it wouldn't be (0+ / 0-)

        an actual attempt to diagnose him. Same with saying he has "deep problems." It was merely a comment about his obsession with discrediting Greenwald. And not just for himself - he wants me, you, and everyone on DKos to hate Greenwald as much as he does. And that, my friend, is NUTS!

        P.S. My usual discourse includes calling gigantic piles of shit "gigantic piles of shit." If this ofends you, I invite you to stay away from me.

    •  how your ad homs and constant attacks (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KayCeSF, Troubadour

      And personal insults are constantly updated by abusers, and tolerated here, both you and them, is a mystery.

      We consume the carcasses of creatures of like appetites, passions and organs with our own, and fill the slaughterhouses daily with screams of pain and fear. Robert Louis Stevenson

      by Christin on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 07:11:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Today I have been struggling w/ President Obama's (7+ / 0-)

    relationship to the DoJ as pertains to federal law enforcement, in light of Holder's recent remarks about the DoJs inability to hold Banks accountable through prosecution, even as I am damn well angry with the DoJ concerning same.  Somehow, you mostly cleared my head by your remarks here:

    Thus we find him accusing Barack Obama of "authoritarianism" for not politicizing the Justice Department and not imposing his arbitrary will on federal law enforcement.
     
    and
    He never once mentions Eric Holder in an article about the Justice Department.  Instead, he repeats "Obama DOJ" over, and over, and over...and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over.  The high official directly, institutionally responsible for the decision being criticized is never mentioned at all, while the one with indirect authority via appointments gets an 11x helping of personal association with the offending institution. One would think if Greenwald actually cared about holding public officials accountable, he might mention the people who actually did what he's criticizing, at least once or twice.  But as we will see with sickening regularity, accountability is never the highest priority - Greenwald's inexplicable personal war against Barack Obama is.
     
    and I completely agree with you about this:
    As we will see increasingly often, Greenwald has developed at this point what we might call "Obama Tourette's," repetitively dropping the President's name into every negative context possible, whenever possible, no matter how tenuous the justification.  A single disappointment with a single federal institution in the first three weeks of the Obama Presidency drove him off the Deep End, and he's been there ever since. 
    You really did some serious work here, and a lot of deep thought put into your remarks.  I appreciate your diaries! Thanks!

     

    I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

    by KayCeSF on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 06:53:55 PM PST

    •  Well, I meant to post this (7+ / 0-)

      because it was the leading paragraph that woke me up:

      Greenwald has spent quite a lot of breath implying that we can and should rely on the magnanimity and inherent goodness of a President to dictate who the DOJ investigates, who they prosecute, and what legal arguments are advanced in specific civil cases rather than on the professional judgments of US Attorneys - in other words, that we should look to Richard Nixon and George W. Bush for advice on how the White House should relate to the Justice Department.  In fact, his entire line of attack on Barack Obama vis-a-vis the DOJ boils down to the President's "failure" to do so.  
      [emphasis added]

      The same people who propose that Obama isn't leading by controlling the DoJ were the very people who screamed everytime GWB controlled Ashcroft and Gonzales.  So here we are, Dems full of their own hypocrisy.  Many of them follow Glenn.

      I realize I'm reposting your diary.  My apologies.  I think we all needed a reminder about why we supported Barack Obama.  

      I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

      by KayCeSF on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 07:02:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  our President unexplicably retained (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laconic Lib, Shahryar, Panama Pete

        Ad a department full of the previous perpetrators appointments and disappointments. Just as Harry Reid let Senate Rs keep their staff on at majority strength.
        Not punishing, pruning, prosecuting, pushing, punching and prevailing over the Bush-Chaney criminalities and disgrace, nor flattening the Wall St and Swap tops cost us the House in 2010. And the filibuster rubber chicken gag betrayed us intentionally. Oh, business, business. We should own half of them. Fracking is poison. Banking is poison. Loopholes are poison. Tax breaks for wealth is poison.
        BP should be prosecuted for negligent homicide. The whole Gulf was a crime scene. Should have impounded all they had in equipment and assets. Monsanto is poison. We need food and farms and land safe from b

        Monsanto is poison, they gotta be stopped.

        by renzo capetti on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 07:23:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm glad someone got out of this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OIL GUY, Christin

      exactly what I put into it.  It happens so damn rarely.

      Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

      by Troubadour on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:26:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wow. (13+ / 0-)

    That's more research than Greenwald put in any of his articles.

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 07:02:57 PM PST

  •  The Bastard. When his re-election comes up (14+ / 0-)

    I hope nobody votes for him. He wields entirely too much power, and nobody would have any basis whatsoever to criticize the President if it weren't for GG's constant LIES.

    The reality most citizens in the US see is: Life is getting better, and happier too!

    Well that's what they'd see if not for Greenwald and his gloom and doom.

    Thank you for this invaluable contribution to the Waste Your Time Movement!


    We live in a nation where doctors destroy health; lawyers, justice; universities, knowledge; governments, freedom; the press, information; religion, morals; and our banks destroy the economy. -- Chris Hedges

    by Jim P on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 07:08:56 PM PST

    •  Don't waste your own credibility (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Beetwasher, Eyesbright, OIL GUY, KayCeSF

      defending that deceitful hypocrite.  He is not a progressive writer courageously exposing Washington.  I've shown that conclusively.  Just deal with it and focus on the writers and reporters who actually care whether the things they say are true and honest.  For fuck's sake.

      Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

      by Troubadour on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 08:10:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You'd know about wasting credibility. (9+ / 0-)

        This Dkos Sub-genre: "Discredit the Public Critics" is a waste of talent, time, and emotion.

        Now if your object is to hone your propaganda skills, well then there'd be that value for you. Certainly you've put a lot of effort into something that flirts with ad hominem, and arguably is such.

        (Your own subjective interpretation of passages subject to the same kinds of criticisms you levy; and many of them trivial even if valid.)

        For such a text to come into being, I gather there's an assumption at root. That would likely be the idea that dissatisfaction with current affairs arises, and/or reaches its intensity, because people like Greenwald write about it, and idiots slap their forehead and say to themselves "oh, so that's the truth!"

        It's the reverse. The GGs, the FDLs, the Krugmans of this world get lionized because people say: yes, I've seen this kind of thing. Yes, this follows upon that.

        This "kind of thing" usually boils down to: the safety and immunity of the financial criminal class;

        internalizing Republican/Banker lies about safety-net "troubles" and grant that taking $x a month from some poor person (and its a day or three of food to them) is a fix for the non-existent troubles;

        confirming the Bush/neo-Con Eternal War around the world, making us ever more enemies as we drone-kill weddings, funerals, and first responders to first attacks;

        confirming and expanding Bush's Stalker State, while punishing people who point out criminal and corrupt actions;

        while letting the Republicans set the agenda around fiscal matters, instead of insisting that Jobs be the priority (when the public/voters overwhelmingly see Jobs/Economy as Issue One);

        while picking as his advisers people long embedded and committed to the corrupt financial and business class from which so many current and past ills emanate;

        while the numbers in poverty and in homeless and in poorly fed grow and grow year after year, especially children.

        For starters. Sure, victories on some social issues, some legislation.

        But there seems to be this "compromise" mania with this Administration, and our Party in general. If the Republicans demanded that every 3rd person named "Smith" be hung, we'd get them down to every 7th and then apologia will be written demanding all hail the victory.  

        In short, your problem as an Administration Defender isn't robots mindlessly parroting their heroes' words. It's that people are sinking, and most of the people they know are sinking, while the nation as a whole, and the Rights which made it great, are sinking.

        How you gonna make what people see with their own eyes, not read somewhere, become invisible? Not by words.

        Not by words.


        We live in a nation where doctors destroy health; lawyers, justice; universities, knowledge; governments, freedom; the press, information; religion, morals; and our banks destroy the economy. -- Chris Hedges

        by Jim P on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 11:04:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Three years ago, I shredded one of his spin jobs (12+ / 0-)

    I got lots of hate mail and a few donuts. I expected that.

    Don't be discouraged, though. Eventually, more and more people will catch on and the sensational crap will fade away. Back then, hundreds of people here and thousands more absolutely knew with certainty that Obama sent Bradley Manning to be tortured in a secret dungeon to get him to reveal evidence so that the government could send the CIA out to kill Julian Assange.

    This seems so ridiculous now. But most people really wanted to believe this shit back then.

    Yes, the one and only person who ever told the World that Bradley Manning was being tortured was Julian Assange who was certain that the black helicopters were on their way to kill him.

    That's just about as credible as the shit that Wayne LaPierre makes up in his pointly little paranoid mind.

    The Glenn Greenwald Obama-as-antichrist government-run secret torture dungeon tabloid bullshit article was near the top of the OMG! list of those who are compelled to believe anything they perceive as sensational.

    And that's why you'll never convince the rabid believers whose truth is measured by emotional intensity. Faux Noise depends on this. Hate radio depends on this. Most of the Republican Party campaign strategy depends on this. Yes, there's a fraction of Democratic Party supporter who fall into this trap. Too many, imo.

    So I clicked on one of the source links in Greenwald's OMG! Gubmint Torture! article. I wasn't surprised that he would have spun this, but this one showed that this was a blatent lie. The attorney's blog (the source) told an entirely different story.

    The fact-checking went downhill from there.

    So I wrote this diary which details many of the blatent lies from Glenn Greenwald. Here I unravel the spun yarn of the torture of Bradley Manning.

    I've read and fact-checked dozens of his articles. Every single one of them is peppered with lies, gross spin, implied ad hominem attacks, faulty sources, debunked connections, etc.

    His articles should be bound into a book of case studies to teach students about the various types of logical fallacies. His stuff is a fountain of irrational and illogical nonsense.

    But he does use big words. And nice fonts.

    Just another random sample to add to the 30 that you unravel here.

    "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

    by GrumpyOldGeek on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 07:32:34 PM PST

    •  Thanks. (6+ / 0-)

      The hysterical, vicious response to any questioning - let alone outright debunking - of Glenn Greenwald is an important reminder that people who care about truth can never be complacent or assume that superficial political labels are equivalent to moral values.  

      Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

      by Troubadour on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 08:56:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Haha, yeah (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2, GrumpyOldGeek, Troubadour

      And apparently the CIA was soooo into what was going on with Assange that they... did absolutely nothing as he violated house arrest and jumped bail after losing his last appeal and walked straight into the embassy of a country whose anti-western leader was an avowed Assange supporter.

      Because that's part of the plan, dontchaknow  ;)  I mean, there's no way that the CIA could care so little about him that they wouldn't even put a tail on him!  Greenwald and his fans told me that Obama stays awake at night dreaming of ways to kill him and can only get back to sleep by inventing new ways to torture Bradley Manning.  ;)

  •  Salon.com is a blog, Greenwald writes for (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pale cold, Little, priceman, aliasalias

    The Guardian now. Analyze his articles in the Guardian.

    And don't forget his tweets.

    No, I didn't read your analysis because it is your opinion and your interpretation and somehow I don't expect it to be objective.

    •  If you didn't read it, you have no ethical right (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OIL GUY, CwV, vcmvo2, KayCeSF

      to comment on it.  And I have no intention of listening to you further until you show me the same respect.

      Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

      by Troubadour on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 08:57:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It does seem rather silly (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2, KayCeSF, Troubadour

      to tell the diarist to write a different diary that matches up to your expectations when you can't even be bothered to read the diary sitting right in front of your face.
      As for your last sentence:

      I didn't read your analysis because it is your opinion and your interpretation and somehow I don't expect it to be objective
      So now that you've acknowledged that interpretation based on opinion is subjective, you won't object to some of us not reading Greenwald for the same exact reasons?

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 05:34:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wow, he's really gotten under your skin. (4+ / 0-)

    I'd suggest finding something more positive to do with your time.

    "To recognize error, to cut losses, to alter course, is the most repugnant option in government." Historian Barbara Tuchman

    by Publius2008 on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 08:07:49 PM PST

    •  It might not be the most productive use of time (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OIL GUY, Christin, KayCeSF, BleacherBum153

      but shining a spotlight in dark places is, I think, a worthy thing to do from time to time.  And I said I would do it.

      As I've said to other commenters who've made this exact kind of statement to me, it's not Greenwald who gets under my skin - it's the fact-free cult of Greenwald.  The people who've responded in this very diary by proudly declaring they didn't read it, but they're sure it's bullshit.  I wanted there to be know doubt who and what those people are, and they've obliged me.

      Substantive criticisms could be offered about the diary - Sharyar made one, and I appreciated it.  But most of the negative response has been completely batshit.

      Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

      by Troubadour on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:01:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Greenwald's not worth it. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, OIL GUY, sviscusi, Christin

    Let it go. But updated for HR abuse.

  •  you read an awful lot of him (0+ / 0-)

    considering that you don't like what he has to say. Why?
    What's the fixation?

    •  Re-read my introductory paragraphs. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OIL GUY

      Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

      by Troubadour on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:31:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Many pixels are spilt here (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Troubadour

      over rush limbaugh. Some people think it's a worthy project to listen to him and to come here and to tell us what he's up to. But he's irrelevant to me, except insofar as he's helping to elect democrats by his extremism that has largely been rejected by the mainstream.

      IMO Greenwald is far more dangerous than Limbaugh. What stands out for me is his gem of "villain rotation" that dripped from his keyboard during the health care debate. Many here still repeat that crap as if it was gospel, as if democrats really are acting as part of a giant conspiracy to get nothing done.

      Thanks for this analysis.

  •  Greenwald, to me, is the ... (5+ / 0-)

    ... ultimate test of the old saw about the ends justifying the means. In journalism, it is hard to think of a scenario in which surrendering reality, truth and logic can have anything more than a short-term benefit. (By "short-term," I mean in the context of history; obviously, lying and hyperbolizing have created a lifetime of riches for Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity).

    Great diary, excellent work and much appreciated!  

    I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

    by Tortmaster on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 08:55:23 PM PST

    •  It's one of those eerie laws of moral gravity (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GrumpyOldGeek, OIL GUY, CwV

      that people who begin to believe the ends justify the means end up using both despicably.  I don't know if at some point Greenwald convinced himself that the way to affect change in Washington was to accuse everyone trying to create it (Democrats) of being two-faced monsters, but at some point they - meaning, we and the people we elect - simply became The Enemy, against whom any and all rhetoric was justified as an end in itself.

      Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

      by Troubadour on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:40:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh, look! It's a blogger who has discovered that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Little, RocketJSquirrel

    the lint in his navel is another blogger, who is better known and more widely quoted than he. Here, he's enumerating each individual piece of fluff. It sounds like a personal problem to me.

    Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

    by davidincleveland on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:34:42 PM PST

  •  You'll no doubt be glad to know that I am... (15+ / 0-)

    ...not going to write 5,000 words in response to your 5,000. I'm not here to make some full-throated defense of Glenn Greenwald's points of view, with which I have had my own disagreements over the years.

    But when you call somebody a liar, you ought to be really, really sure of yourself.

    And in regard to Lie 2, which you say is this:

    I’m glad that the stimulus package yesterday — which Democrats watered down and compr[om]ised on as much as possible to please Republicans — did not attract even a single Republican vote in the House:  not one.
    You respond with this:
    At the time Greenwald wrote this, only the House version of the stimulus bill had been voted on, and there was no numerical necessity to compromise with Republicans in the House - which is why that never happened. There may or may not have been compromises with centrist or Blue Dog Democrats in the House, but the extent of such a need would be doubtful given the 52-vote margin at passage.  In other words, Greenwald just didn't think the bill as introduced was sufficient, and from that conjured out of thin air the idea that Democrats had somehow deliberately capitulated to Republicans even in the absence of a political rationale for doing so.
    You're absolutely right about the House vote. Democrats did not need Republicans to pass the stimulus bill. And President Obama himself acknowledged this beforehand.

    Nonetheless, he did compromise in hopes of getting some House Republican votes.

    Among those compromises were two business tax cuts Republicans wanted and many liberal economists (Dean Baker, Robert McIntyre among them) said were not a good idea and would not have the desired stimulative effect: accelerated depreciation and letting them use extend the net operating loss carryback provision to allow tax losses back for five years instead of two. Together, these deals gave companies billions of dollars, much of it for bankers and builders.

    Wrote E.J. Dionne at the Washington Post:

    But about $100 billion of the package is expected to go to a variety of business tax cuts, some likely to be at best marginally stimulative. Why is Obama doing this? One Capitol Hill Democrat familiar with the president-elect's recent meeting with congressional leaders said that Obama told Republicans that while he could probably get his program through with mostly Democratic votes, he preferred to win GOP support so that his program could pass quickly and be sustainable over time.
    The foundation of your Lie 2 claim is  "there was no numerical necessity to compromise with Republicans in the House - which is why that never happened." And you claim Greenwald "conjured" his claim of capitulation "out of thin air."

    Very strong words. Very wrong words.

    There was indeed no need to compromise. Obama himself said so. But the compromises DID happen. Unless you'd like to call Dionne a liar, too.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:47:16 PM PST

    •  Go back to what Greenwald said: (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GrumpyOldGeek, OIL GUY, CwV, vcmvo2
      I’m glad that the stimulus package yesterday — which Democrats watered down and comprised on as much as possible to please Republicans — did not attract even a single Republican vote in the House:  not one.
      What exactly is he claiming it was "watered down and compromised" from?  There was no bill at the time of Dionne's article to water down, and as far as I can find, no concessions were extracted by or deals struck with Republicans in the House.  In other words, he's saying it was "watered down and compromised" from something that never existed - something he simply imagined.  

      Now, maybe this justifies the accusation that Obama was "negotiating with himself," but Greenwald's claim is simply fiction, and the hyperbolic "as much as possible to please Republicans" kind of seals the deal on that.

      Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

      by Troubadour on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 10:15:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Concessions are very often ... (8+ / 0-)

        ..."extracted" before anybody sits down to writing the actual bill.

        For the past nearly five weeks, two Senate Republicans and two Democrats have sought to agree on language regarding a bill on universal background checks for firearm purchases.

        MANY compromises have been made to get the two Republicans, Mark Kirk and Tom Coburn, to support the proposal. But no bill has been produced because Coburn is resisting one aspect regarding recordkeeping, the compromises have not brought him around.

        You don't need to have an actual bill together before compromises are made. The administration had a list of items it wanted in the stimulus package. And there is simply no doubt whatsoever that compromises were made in hopes that at least a few House votes would come from Republicans who had said such matters should be added. They were added, and then they behaved like Republicans so often behave these days: They voted against it anyway.

        Whatever complaints can be made about Greenwald's work, and I have my own, he did not make this up. And he is not the only one who said what he said about this at the time.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 11:00:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The claim Greenwald made sets a very high bar (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KayCeSF

          of evidence.  Firstly...

          1.  Even if there is no bill, there has to be something upon which a process of "compromise" can act and that can be "watered down."  Some preliminary proposal.  Mere hopes or expectations on the part of people not involved in the process are not a foundation upon which a different outcome can be castigated as a compromise.  Otherwise, everything and nothing is a compromise simply by existing.

          And secondly...

          2.  That process of compromise, upon that specific preliminary proposal, has to have been extraordinary enough to justify the claim about how far the original architects of the bill went to secure Republican support.

          The extraordinary hurdles that would have to be overcome for his statement to not be a lie aren't something I'm inventing to call this a lie - they're simply what would be necessary for the claim to even enter the realm of plausible opinion.  As far as I can see, even in the context of what you're telling me, there's no stronger basis for what he claimed than the fact that the President wanted Republican support and that the bill as introduced was not 100% of what progressive Democrats wanted.  That's miles and miles away from what Greenwald said.

          For instance, suppose I'm a leader in the House considering writing legislation.  All sorts of proposals are floating around the media and academia, leading to a perceived consensus about what I should propose.  I want my bill to pass, and people familiar with the process say that I'll probably include some measures that wouldn't otherwise be there in order to secure that passage.  The bill I eventually introduce is short of the academic consensus, and one member of the media who had been tangentially involved in forming that consensus - without my direct input, and despite my never having agreed to promote his expectations in the first place - accuses me of capitulating to retrograde forces.  Is he justified, or is he just framing a narrative based on nothing more than the fact that my bill is not his bill?

          Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

          by Troubadour on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 11:51:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Calling what Greenwald said... (7+ / 0-)

            ...an exaggeration I could understand, even if I disagreed, and I would not have responded here. But you called it a lie, which is an intentional attempt to mislead, and the evidence simply does not meet the requirements for labeling it such.

            Based on what I saw at the time reported in the broadcast media, and what I read from economists Dean Baker at Center for Economic Policy Research and Robert McIntyre at Citizens for Tax Justice, from liberal print pundits such as E.J. Dionne at Washington Post and reporters like Peter Drucker at The Wall Street Journal, the administration asked selected Republicans in the House what would make the stimulus bill more palatable and acted on their replies by including, among a few other things, tens of billions in tax breaks for corporations that they did not have to offer, and they did it because Obama wanted to show his willingness to be bipartisan and wanted House Republican votes for the final bill.

            One can argue that this was a smart move on his part, good politics if, for nothing else, it would demonstrate Republican intransigence, something we progressives know to be true but other Americans do not.

            But Greenwald said nothing more than what these other observers I named were saying. If he was lying, they were lying.

            There is a high bar involved here. Anytime someone calls someone else a liar, s/he should base the charge on very strong evidence, to back it up firmly because it is an extraordinary claim to make. You originally said that Greenwald "conjured" his own claim out of thin air and that there was no compromise made in an attempt to gain their votes. In fact, there were specific items added to the legislation for this purpose and Greenwald was hardly alone in noting this or in decrying it.

            Whatever the worthiness of your other claims about Greenwald's commentaries, on this one you are ignoring evidence contrary to your premise to make a very strong accusation. I think the accusation does not come close to meeting the requirements of the high bar it needs.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 12:34:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your concerns are reasonable enough that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Meteor Blades

              I'll add an update including them.  I still can't wrap my head around how something that doesn't exist can be "watered down" and "compromised" though.

              Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

              by Troubadour on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 12:49:53 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Let's not forget Lie #1 (5+ / 0-)

      Wherein Troubadour complains that Greenwald said Democrats helped pass the Military Commissions Act and then "disproves" this claim by showing that... a significant number of Democrats voted for the Military Commissions Act.

      This is the most pathetic attempt I have ever seen at a take down diary.

      •  He didn't say "Democrats" or "some Democrats." (0+ / 0-)

        He said the Democratic Party.  And, naturally, articulated that as Obama's Party, because you can't have a negative statement without dropping Obama's name into it if it can possibly be done.  But I suppose if a single Democrat votes for anything, you would claim such false-equivalency partisan propaganda against us is warranted.

        Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

        by Troubadour on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 01:04:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Four words: (5+ / 0-)

    Too.

    Much.

    Free.

    Time.

  •  Is this the best "Gotcha" Greenwald you can come (8+ / 0-)

    up with?  If you spent all that time combing through his diaries to find "lies" and "innuendos" and this is all you've come up with, you've just proven the opposite of what you wished to.

    I'm still a Glenn Greenwald fan.  I will use him as a source if I please.

    If there's one thing I can't stand, it's gatekeeping and censorship of ideas:

    there is no justification for ever using him as a direct or sufficient source
    Glenn Greenwald is such a breath of fresh air as compared to the warmonger MSM lap dogs.  What upsets many in the anti-Greenwald camp is that he's debunking the propaganda they want us to believe to get their wars started, and he's telling us the truth about what they're up to.

    That is why they are trying to shoot this messenger.

    Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

    by CIndyCasella on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 10:02:56 PM PST

    •  Uh, no. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OIL GUY, skohayes, KayCeSF
      If you spent all that time combing through his diaries to find "lies" and "innuendos" and this is all you've come up with, you've just proven the opposite of what you wished to.
      I found 26 examples in 30 articles reviewed.  That's not the "opposite" - that's an indication that his entire oeuvre is a cesspool, and that you'd have to actively try to avoid such things to not run into them when reading his work at random.
      I'm still a Glenn Greenwald fan.  I will use him as a source if I please.
      Use a dog food commercial as a source if you please.  It's your credibility.  I've simply removed any fig leaf of willful ignorance that might have remained as to Greenwald's suitability as a credible primary source.
      Glenn Greenwald is such a breath of fresh air as compared to the warmonger MSM lap dogs.
      So there's no one on the entire internet who's not a "warmonger MSM lap dog" and who bothers to tell the truth and reflect seriously about what they write?  You're telling me you can't have both?
      What upsets many in the anti-Greenwald camp is that he's debunking the propaganda they want us to believe to get their wars started, and he's telling us the truth about what they're up to.
      Did you actually read this diary?  

      Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

      by Troubadour on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 10:33:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's your credibility you besmirch here, not GG's. (3+ / 0-)

        I read the diary, and it was unconvincing.  It convinced me that you did your best to grasp at anything GG wrote to twist into what you wish you could call a "lie" or "innuendo."  But, there was nothing there.

        It was a hatchet job that missed Glenn Greenwald, but cut you to pieces.

        Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

        by CIndyCasella on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 07:22:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Wow, thanks (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Troubadour

      for telling me why I don't like Greenwald. Who knew it was because he's "debunking the propaganda they want us to believe to get their wars started." All this time it's cause I thought he was firmly entrenched in the Nader sector of (American? Brazilian?) politics.

  •  RIF (0+ / 0-)

    Seriously.  I made it through your first three points.  Either you just don't comprehend what you read, or you are being deliberately dishonest..  

    If you don't like Greenwald, don't read him.

    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Goethe

    by jlynne on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 12:25:17 AM PST

  •  I think this is good work. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, skohayes, KayCeSF

    I read the diary. Maybe my approach to Greenwald isn't anywhere near as definitive. I think I read all of Greenwalds' editorials at Salon. Eventually I realized his conclusions always end up at the same place. His only redeeming quality is he makes you think, but he's channeled his intelligence into some sort of crusade. Greenwald is predictable.

  •  What was the goal of your diary? (8+ / 0-)

    To "prove Glenn Greenwald is unworthy to be cited as a source on DK" and banish him to the cornfield forever to preclude anyone from ever citing him or writing a diary about one of his pieces again?

    That appeared to be the motivation to me. And as another commenter pointed out, it is part of the constant drive for censorship and thought policing on the part of some posters who simply cannot bear to read harsh criticism of the President or the Democratic Party when they do in fact deserve harsh criticism, I wish I could say occasionally, but it is far more than occasionally.

    I do not think you definitively debunked him as you daydreamed about doing or came even within a galaxy of doing so. You did debunk yourself quite a bit by not understanding that powerful people talk, have confabs, meet in dark smoke filled rooms and horse trade long before bills are actually written.

    Glenn Greenwald is consistent. He doesn't care whose ox he is goring, whether it is a Republican or a Democrat. I find him passionate and articulate.I don't always agree with him - I 100% disagree with him about Citizens United, but I am grateful for his voice and I don't need to be protected from him by you, but thanks anyway.

    “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

    by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 02:24:42 AM PST

  •  The problem I have with Greenwald, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BleacherBum153, Troubadour

    aside from the blatant hatred of all things Obama, is that he has a following on the Left, not just the far Left, but among the Shallows, people who don't delve too deeply into the issues but take their cues from LeftPundits of which Greenwald is considered one. (He's actually Libertarian posing as a liberal, but that's for another diary)
    The chorus of these pundits during Obama's first two years led a lot of Shallows, who had voted for Obama and consider themselves Progressive or Liberal, to be "disappointed" because they were led to believe that zero of Obama's campaign promises had been honored, that he'd accomplished zero progress, that everything he had done was in some way worse than no action at all. I literally heard these people argue that Obama was "worse than Bush". And handing them a list of Obama's accomplishments went nowhere because "Well, Greenwald says..."
    2010 election rolls around, these discouraged voters are urged to sit out the election to "teach the Democrats a lesson" and they did.
    So we got Boner as Speaker and obstruction as the mode du jour ever since.
    Greenwald's lies (and he was not alone in this) contributed mightily to the mess we're in and his fans are completely in denial on the subject, just like the Nadirites that deny handing the 2000 election to BushCheney.
    And the Democrats DID learn a lesson: The Left cannot be trusted for support. They won't turn out when they could make a difference. And sometimes they'll actively work against the Dems on progressive issues (Jane Hamsher teaming up with Grover Norquist to scuttle Public Option is the most glaring example, but there are many others).

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 06:11:36 AM PST

    •  I also love the obsession with "betrayal" ideology (0+ / 0-)

      since betraying everyone actually pursuing progressive goals is all that that sector of the commentariat ever does.

      Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

      by Troubadour on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 03:41:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Greenwald lost a lot of credibility with me when.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Christin, Troubadour

    When Greenwald backed the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United, he revealed himself to be yet another ideologue for whom adherence to the letter is more important than the effect of the ideology.

    Let me try to explain.  Let's take the US Constitution as an expression of a grand quest for the government necessary for liberty, equality and the pursuit of happiness.  No matter how great it is, it is a human creation, and the goals - liberty, equality and the pursuit of happiness - remain more important than the document itself.  If the document comes in the way of these goals, it needs to be amended (and has been amended many times).  The person who insists on the letter of the Constitution to me is an ideologue, and the person who insists on the goals of a government that institutes liberty, equality and the pursuit of happiness, and the Constitution as perhaps the most important means of attaining those goals, so to be treated with great respect, but never as so sacred as to be beyond criticism and modification, is beyond ideology.

    In this sense, Greenwald is an ideologue.  He is analogous to a text-fundamentalist.  If the spirit diverges from the text, he will stick with the text, spirit be damned.

    I understand that one potentially enters a quagmire when one follows the spirit even when it separates ways with the text; one can so easily fall into error.  But this is what it is to be human, to fully accept one's fallibility and moral responsibility, to truly be a thinker, to truly to be a leader.  Otherwise one is an algorithm-driven robot.  Which is how Greenwald struck me after his commentary on Citizens United.

    Greenwald does not advocate violence, of course, unlike the Taliban; but both he and the Taliban are of fundamentalist persuasion; strict adherence to a text is the epitome of virtue for them.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site