Glenn Greenwald: Invincibly Clueless
Until this afternoon, my only acquaintance with Glenn Greenwald was from maybe a year or so ago when he was exposed as a fraud who sockpuppeted positive responses to his own posts and reactions to his own posts around the blogosphere. But with his Salon blog post from last Wednesday, Greenwald makes a tour de force of absolute liberal/Leftist cluelessness. I recommend that it be read and studied. Of the disgusting MoveOn.org ad against General Petraeus that was had on the cheap from the fucking com-symps at the New York Times, Greenwald writes:
For those who think — for some indiscernible reason — that it is important enough to spend the energy developing an opinion on the MoveOn ad, there are, I suppose, reasonable arguments that can be made on both sides as to whether the “betray us” rhyme was rhetorically excessive, counter-productive, etc. But the shrill hand-wringing it has triggered is just bizarre in light of the fact that accusing Americans, including military veterans, of being unpatriotic, anti-American and betraying the country has, for decades, been a mainstream staple of the political rhetoric from our country’s pro-war Right — invoked most aggressively by those, such as [Joe] Klein, now claiming such profound offense over the MoveOn ad.
Greenwald sounds like Principal Skinner telling the kids to stop asking questions about the bizarre cover-up of Groundskeeper Willie’s death. The MoveOn.org ad was purchased with an eye towards attention and controversy, so why should Greenwald dismiss the consequences? Is speaking truth to power too scary a proposition to long remain associated with it? Must it be clumsily covered over by such sacks of apologist shit as Greenwald for fear it might be called what it is?
Indeed, just a few months ago, Gen. Petraeus himself toyed with exactly such rhetoric at the prompting of the incomparably odious Joe Lieberman, whose entire political career is now devoted (ironically) to impugning the patriotism of any Americans who oppose Lieberman’s desire to wage one war after the next against Israel’s enemies. As The Washington Post’s Thomas Ricks reported regarding a Senate hearing in May:
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) asked Army Lt. Gen. David H . Petraeus during his confirmation hearing yesterday if Senate resolutions condemning White House Iraq policy “would give the enemy some comfort.”
Petraeus agreed they would, saying, “That’s correct, sir.”
Here, Greenwald knowingly uses Ricks’ inaccurate quote from Lieberman because it better suits his narrative that pro-American politicians sometimes suggest that Democrats and the ant-war crowd do give “comfort to the enemy.” He then immediately sets about to acknowledge that Lieberman didn’t use the word “comfort,” but does so by saying (emphasis mine):
Though subsequent reports suggested that Lieberman used the phrase “give the enemy some encouragement” (rather than the treasonous term of art “comfort”), the point was the same: those who condemned the President’s war policy were, pursuant to Petraeus’ toxic accusations, helping America’s Terrorist Enemies.
“The point was the same”? What are you talking about, liar? Is that this season’s ”fake but accurate”? You got Ricks wrong getting Lieberman wrong. It’s as simple as that.
Read Greenwald’s whole post, as well as the updates. He does not understand the qualitative difference between the rhetoric of the American Right and the anti-American Left because he does not recognize the degeneracy of his own position, which is incoherent in the face of our military and strategic obligations. You know he understands that the MoveOn.org ad was a huge blunder for the Democrats because he takes such pains to dismiss its importance. But these politicians cannot shake their associations with the moobat fringe. And hacks like Greenwald —just as apparently— cannot find a clue as to why they should be called traitors and sympathizers.
(Hat tip to Dan Collins of Protein Wisdom and his commenters.)
