defend the indefensible: glenn fucking greenwald

I fully agree with the 'broken brain' explanation, though as he supported the Iraq War, I doubt there was that much brain to break to begin with. But I still think it's important to figure out how it is his brain has broken. I mean, he mentions neither the Rothschilds nor the Soros, but erase the stuff on the arms (as Cernovich did), and the whole conspiracy idea is a stones throw away from this:

https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/McMasterLeaksOriginalImage.jpg

To recap, Lee Fang is racist, Glenn Greenwald is an anti-Semite.

The Intercept as a right-wing fifth column sounds like the liberal version of how every lefty org has a guy yelling COINTELPRO about every new person or critical take on the party/group.

tbf, most left orgs aren't bankrolled by libertarian billionaires. It's interesting to ask why Omidyar puts the money up but idk how much editorial input he has.

Twitter is a cesspool and all of Fang's tweets are just horribly worded versions of "the problem is systemic" and he's right that you can't just write off abuse and violence in law enforcement and border security as "racist white cops" - the abuses run deeper and confronting those causes goes well beyond diversity in policing. You can say he's arguing with a liberal strawman there but it's not racism on his part.

He's also less wrong than Fred re: the Japanese. The conquest of Burma was not exactly Manchuria Pt. 2 and the Japanese effectively used anti-colonial sentiment and leadership against the British up until the tides of the war turned and the Japanese used up what goodwill they had started out with among the anti-colonial population. It's not exactly what Fang tried to fit into a Tweet but it's less wrong than just waving your hand and saying the Japanese just used "mass murder and rape."

To recap, Lee Fang is racist, Glenn Greenwald is an anti-Semite.

― Wag1 Shree Rajneesh (ShariVari), 6. august 2017 11:01 (twenty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Honestly, that seems as good an explanation of any... It fits quite well with Greenwald's support for Bannonite 'nationalism' against a shadowy conspiracy of 'wall street boys'.

milo, you do know the Japanese invaded other places than Burma, right?

As a guiding principle, intemperate arguments between American POC activists on Twitter about the politics of race and representation probably don't need white guys thousands of miles away weighing in with speculation on who has mental health issues and who The Real Racist is.

Is Glenn Greenwald a POC?

Or did your spellcheck change POS?

Perpetually Obtuse Scandinavian

The Intercept is a left leaning website that is highly critical of the American national security state. They don't want to give up this critical posture in the name of solidarity with hawkish Trump opponents. They fear hysteria about Trump is being used as a pretext to foment conflict with Russia and strengthen the neoconservative, Pan-American worldview. Agree or disagree with these sentiments, they're all completely logical and have nothing to do with a Russian plot.

It also has nothing to do with being "pro-Trump." If they think Bannonite paleocon isolationism would be preferable to liberal interventionism it's not out of love for the former but out of a desire to see state violence curbed.

I'm not even sympathetic to the Intercept and I think they suck for all kinds of reasons but I can't abide seeing Louise Mensch style bullshit on ilx.

Nobody but you has used the term "pro-Trump" in this thread...

Greenwald is quite openly declaring that anything other than putting Bannonites and the Bannonite ideology in charge would be a subversion of the American democracy.

- Fred B

Well, Glenn is also kinda going full on trumpkin.

https://theintercept.com/2017/08/05/whats-worse-trumps-campaign-agenda-or-empowering-generals-and-cia-operatives-to-subvert-it/

(this is not a hard question he is posing)

― Frederik B, Saturday, August 5, 2017 9:51 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah, I'm just laughing at your use of quotes.

But the first example is quite factual. I mean, that's what the article is about, read it again if you have to.

With the other example, I don't think it's a good excuse that he is supporting the anti-Muslim and racist Bannonite agenda because he opposes this made up conspiracy he is worried about. I mean, even bigots always have their reasons, don't they?

I don't like Greenwald, but he does not support the anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant parts of Bannon's agenda. He thinks the tendency of that wing of the White House toward non-intervention would lead to better outcomes for, say, the civilians who get killed in US drone strikes.

Whatever else is true, there is now simply no question that there is open warfare between adherents to the worldview Trump advocated in order to win, and the permanent national security power faction in Washington that – sometimes for good, and sometimes for evil – despises that agenda.

Greenwald is objectionable for a ton of reasons. He does tend toward conspiratorial thinking, his worldview is Manichean, and there is a troubling strategic alliance between his people and the far right vis a vis the question of intervention. But collapsing the distinctions between these groups or impugning his motives -- implying that he thinks as he does bc he himself is "racist" -- just takes us further from reality.

Sorry, you used the word "bigot" not racist

can i killfile a thread?

I just said that even bigots claim other reasons for their bigotry. Y'know, they just really like states rights. But the ipso facto way you state that saying this white guy is racist would take us 'further from reality' is really quite fucking weird. Especially when I'm not doing so. And even with the obvious parallels to anti-semitism, if you asked I would say I don't think he believes in these conspiracies because he is an anti-semite. I just note that his conspiratorial thinking has moved to this dark and crazy place, which is worth taking note of.

milo, you do know the Japanese invaded other places than Burma, right?

Fred, does Denmark lack the concept of "an example"?

LOL

simon H otm

greenwald has areas of expertise (mostly constitutional law) on which he is/was legitimately an authority and very readable. when he veers into punditry is when he loses the plot.

lee fang just seems like a troll

How can a guy who has gone on fox news and interviewed tucker carlson say shit like this with a straight face?

Bill Kristol, David Frum & other blood-stained neocons know Trump Era has gifted them with renewed credibility thanks to embrace of Dems: https://t.co/CYJco7DswQ

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) August 10, 2017

I don't know. How can the opinions of Frederik B. who has posted on ilxor.com, a message board rife with racists and pedophiles, be trusted?

how dare u i'm not a racist

I think the amount of shit GG can say with a straight face is limitless. He probably tried to tell a joke once.

And once again: It's extra ironic that he himself supported the Iraq War... It's like the one thing he can't forgive, and he himself did it. He's like a born-again who hates on all his old friends for not having seen the light yet. But being racist, oh well, shit happens.

Have you recanted any of your former positions, Fred? Maybe your love of so many horrible films?

No, I have a remarkable talent for getting things right immediately.

(also, the point isn't that he got the Iraq War wrong, the point is that he seems obsessed with the people who started the Iraq War, to the extent that he will overlook the crimes of everyone else if they say something negative about neo-conservatism. it seems more personal than anything at this point)

yeah he should take a page from Hillary's book and just pretend it never happened maybe take a photo op with a gold star family

I just find his casting aspersions on McMaster, the author of "Dereliction of Duty," as a neoliberal warmonger hilarious.

I used to be annoyed by how much attention he got from the LGM coalition but lately it's been funny. Chait ripped him a new one recently too.

Greenwald started blogging in 2005. Do we know about his support of the 2003 invasion because of some Livejournal posts or something?

Chait needs to be fired into space with the rest of the War Democrats

Sure, but when you're so bent by your libertarian paymaster that you can get fried by the likes of Chait, you have officially passed into punchline territory

the libertarian stuff on The Intercept must be behind some firewall

Greenwald started blogging in 2005. Do we know about his support of the 2003 invasion because of some Livejournal posts or something?

― President Keyes, 10. august 2017 18:21 (seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It's in his book 'How Would a Patriot Act'

I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president's performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.

this is adorable, the wrongest ilxor shaming someone for reflecting on a time they were wrong and the factors that led to it

No, I have a remarkable talent for getting things right immediately.

― Frederik B, 10. august 2017 18:02 (fifty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

(also, the point isn't that he got the Iraq War wrong, the point is that he seems obsessed with the people who started the Iraq War, to the extent that he will overlook the crimes of everyone else if they say something negative about neo-conservatism. it seems more personal than anything at this point)

― Frederik B, 10. august 2017 18:04 (fifty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

oh I don't care

lol

(also, the point isn't that he got the Iraq War wrong, the point is that he seems obsessed with the people who started the Iraq War, to the extent that he will overlook the crimes of everyone else if they say something negative about neo-conservatism. it seems more personal than anything at this point)

― Frederik B, Thursday, August 10, 2017 9:04 AM (two hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

hate it when people don't give the criminals who started the iraq war a fair shake

That's not his point but U take it you don't actually care either

bush got half a million people killed for nothing. trump hasn't hit that mark, and until he does, i'm comfortable saying neoconservatism is worse

GG was not a public figure in 2003 and never wrote a single word advocating for the war. the paragraph fred was quoting (from a book i assume he hasn't read) is part of a mea culpa, the point of which is basically "i was a moron to assume that the president knew what he was doing." i've been disappointed by GG's work lately and haven't found him useful at all since the election but calling him an "iraq war supporter," full stop, is a distortion.

I never liked the "but Trump doesn't have blood on his hands yet" argument when he campaigned on promises of war crimes, it was clear that he was capable of worse and especially now that he is cavalier about nuclear war during a potential crisis.

I used to be annoyed by how much attention he got from the LGM coalition but lately it's been funny. Chait ripped him a new one recently too.

― El Tomboto, Thursday, August 10, 2017 12:16 PM (four hours ago)

well when you've lost chait...