General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Proud Member Of "The Glenn Greenwald Left" Here. [View all]DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Several right here in this thread.
- The intro from his book attacking Bush, admitting he once supported the war in Iraq attack.
If I've seen this one once, it's been 20 times. So tired. So disingenuous. So easily slapped to the floor with the simplest examination. It's a species of ideological purity test, which ironically is another claim of the dishonest GG smearing faction. Plenty of Dems went along with Iraq. Be fascinating to see how many Hillary supporters would like us all to DQ Greenwald over Iraq, but keep her safely out from under the bus on the exact same grounds.
- The "He spoke at Cato twice / therefore Libertarian / therefore Rand & Ron Paul / therefore racist" attack.
Speaking again of purity tests, eh? Tainted by the Libertarian odor? That's an argument, now? Please fire the marketeer who wrote this one as well.
No idea what ideology GG self-identifies with, although as I recall the administration's consistent view has been he is of the "professional left." But you know what? Libertarians are occasionally right about a couple of things. Anti-war, anti-drug war, for a start. Sorry about that, but it is the case.
Ron & Rand are another kettle of fish. Show us where GG has embraced the Paul family's loopy white supremacist leanings or stop thinking you're fooling anyone, please.
- "Alex Jones?"
Really? Another total canard. The difference between a conspiracy theorist and someone speaking the truth is ... the truth. No one being remotely serious contends GG is actively lying about the NSA scandal or anything else. The reporting IS being taken seriously. No one is laughing GG off the air as a crank. Cranky, maybe, but no cigar.
Is GG an abrasive anti-establishment type? Sure. Not the same as a screaming looney whose every claim is a fairy tale.
- "Ratfucking."
Gack. What is THIS one supposed to be about? By all means, anyone who can, please demonstrate the parallel between the release of genuine information regarding NSA surveillance or anything else from Greenwald, and lies and dirty tricks employed by the Nixon administration. Breaking into a psychiatrist's office. Planning firebombings and kidnappings.
The really goofy thing about this one is it IS an Alex-Jones flavored insinuation at its core. By all means, articulate the Nixonian dirty trickstering you mean, or admit you're just throwing ugly words around in hopes someone will think it sounds informed.
I would agree with anyone that Greenwald DOES have an "agenda" of sorts -- it's just not the dishonest kind. The guy is self-righteous and abrasive and relentless and utterly undiplomatic. It was apparently his lawyering style, and it's now his style of journalism and critique. He comes with a point of view -- but an intellectually honest one -- and anyone on the other side is getting a full-bore attack. But we need that in this time and this place.
We are beset by co-opted sources and anonymous propagandists, large and small. A strident, grating voice is sometimes all that's heard above the din. Greenwald and Alan Grayson are cut from the same cloth in that regard, pilloried by some as being too harsh or too brash, but mainly by those who really just resent the unabashed challenged to established power structures. They're not respecting the Chain of Command. They are not "entitled" to embarrass or criticize those who have worked so hard to not answer to the likes of journalists or Congressmen, or for that matter, Americans.
That's just too damn bad.
I'll take the harsh and the brash, and the "agenda" of being genuinely pissed off over the comfortable and the partisan any day. But nothing is so transparent or so lame as this same handful of irrelevant, specious attacks, tossed at the wall over and again, like stale Fail Spaghetti. No one's buying it, so it raises the question: Why bother? Why not try an honest argument, for a change?
"We see you."