Just wondering, is anyone around here still trying to defend Glenn Fucking Greenwald?

[Blue_Tires]

Last edited Wed Jan 4, 2017, 01:57 PM - Edit history (2)

If so, read these and get back to me (will update as needed)

https://twitter.com/jonathanchait/status/816304417255411712

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/27/glenn-greenwald-breitbart-news-editorial-independence-left-establishment-right-lack/


https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/816703886065074178

[NCTraveler]

1. He has done well making money by trolling simpletons.

Fools went all in with HA Goodman. Greenwald is far more intelligent than Goodman. That always benefits a snake oil salesman.

[Wellstone ruled]

3. That is the whole truth.

[pbmus]

2. POS...doofus

[Cha]

4. I saw that on someone twitter page.. defending breitbart

[brush]

5. Ditto for Snowden. Here's a link debunking claim of whistleblower status. Looks like he's an agent

http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/edward-snowden/469/the-fable-of-edward-snowden/35180/

". . . In his narrative, Mr. Snowden always claims that he was a conscientious “whistleblower” who turned over all the stolen NSA material to journalists in Hong Kong. He has insisted he had no intention of defecting to Russia but was on his way to Latin America when he was trapped in Russia by the U.S. government in an attempt to demonize him.
For example, in October 2014, he told the editor of the Nation, “I’m in exile. My government revoked my passport intentionally to leave me exiled” and “chose to keep me in Russia.” According to Mr. Snowden, the U.S. government accomplished this entrapment by suspending his passport while he was in midair after he departed Hong Kong on June 23, thus forcing him into the hands of President Vladimir Putin’s regime.

None of this is true. The State Department invalidated Mr. Snowden’s passport while he was still in Hong Kong, not after he left for Moscow on June 23. The “Consul General-Hong Kong confirmed that Hong Kong authorities were notified that Mr. Snowden’s passport was revoked June 22,” according to the State Department’s senior watch officer, as reported by ABC news on June 23, 2013.

Mr. Snowden could not have been unaware of the government’s pursuit of him, since the criminal complaint against him, which was filed June 14, had been headline news in Hong Kong. That the U.S. acted against him while he was still in Hong Kong is of great importance to the timeline because it points to the direct involvement of Aeroflot, an airline which the Russian government effectively controls. Aeroflot bypassed its normal procedures to allow Mr. Snowden to board the Moscow flight—even though he had neither a valid passport nor a Russian visa, as his newly assigned lawyer, Anatoly Kucherena, said at a press conference in Russia on July 12, 2013.
By falsely claiming his passport was invalidated after the plane departed Hong Kong—instead of before he left—Mr. Snowden hoped to conceal this extraordinary waiver. The Russian government further revealed its helping hand, judging by a report in Russia’s Izvestia newspaper when, on arrival, Mr. Snowden was taken off the plane by a security team in a “special operation.”
Nor was it any kind of accident. Vladimir Putin personally authorized this assistance after Mr. Snowden met with Russian officials in Hong Kong, as Mr. Putin admitted in a televised press conference on Sept. 2, 2013.

To provide a smokescreen for Mr. Snowden’s escape from Hong Kong, WikiLeaks (an organization that the Obama administration asserted to be a tool of Russian intelligence after the hacking of Democratic Party leaders’ email in 2016) booked a dozen or more diversionary flight reservations to other destinations for Mr. Snowden.
WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange also dispatched Sarah Harrison, his deputy at WikiLeaks, to fly to Hong Kong to pay Mr. Snowden’s expenses and escort him to Moscow. In short, Mr. Snowden’s arrival in Moscow was neither accidental nor the work of the U.S. government.

[betsuni]

7. Thank you for posting this. (nt)

[Stellar]

19. hear, hear! nt.

[betsuni]

6. K&R

[Scurrilous]

8. K & R

[otohara]

9. Slippery Too - He Goes On Democracy Now

to satisfy the left...

Next day chatting with Tucker Carlson on FOX ..to enrage the right.

[Jim Lane]

10. That depends on what the meaning of "defend" is

I sometimes agree with him and sometimes disagree with him. I've never tried to compute the percentage.

If your position is that he possesses reverse infallibility, then, yes, I'll defend him against that charge. Is that your position?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. It seems we are being gaslighted by the far left and the far right on the Russian hacking.

It does not follow that because the intelligence on WMDs was flawed or biased we should ignore all intelligence. It does follow that we should look at all intelligence critically.

We should apply the same standard to evaluating intelligence that we apply to evaluating evidence in a court of law. I saw a Trump/Putin GOP apologist on tv say that standard should be beyond "a shadow of a doubt". I wonder if that slip was intentional. The standard in a court of law is , of course, "beyond a reasonable doubt".

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

11. K&R

[Dawson Leery]

12. Greenwald wants to undermine the liberal west.

That is clear.

[dionysus]

16. He's always been a libertarian, so this is no surprise to me... i have no idea how

so many people bought into him as some kind of lefty... i know on DU a lot of it had to do with the Obama Wars; Douchewald was a hero to the Obama bashing contingent of DU...

Fuck Douchewald...

[Hekate]

13. KnR just to see who bites

[DemocraticWing]

14. Greenwald is one of the best journalists out there.

Is he perfect? No.

But much of his reporting is very informative; he afflicts the comfortable and comforts the afflicted. He reports based on values and those values transcend simply partisan politics.

The hatred that he gets from all sides is entirely because he doesn't pull any punches and is willing to expose abuses honestly. He does so from a generally left-wing perspective. Smears aside, there is no legitimate proof he is anything resembling a right-winger. The lies that suggest that he is somehow a "Russian agent," a "Trump supporter," or something like that is patently false. Your attempts to use Jonathan Chait (a bigoted hack of the worst kind) and his nonsense to attack Greenwald says a lot.

[dionysus]

17. He is the worst kind of journalist. First, he doesn't even try to fake being impartial. He has an

agenda.

Also, he is about creating news, rather than reporting it. He gives journalism a bad name.

[dionysus]

18. His past support of the wars was pretty wingerish... nt

[MineralMan]

21. No. He. Is. Not.

He is a propagandist, not a journalist. He is pushing an agenda, not reporting on anything.

It's time to wake up and smell the manure he has been spreading on the political lawn.

[brush]

22. You are misinformed. Read post #5

[snooper2]

23. your on a roll LOL

I look forward to more of your posts

[leftynyc]

25. LOL - a journalist???

Just where has he ever "reported" on anything that wasn't part of his agenda? Transcends politics? Are you fucking kidding me? That's ALL he does - push his own agenda. Your entire post is laughable.

[Cha]

30. Bulloney! And, he can take his sucking up to breitbart "news" and tucker ... yeah

Jonathan Chait
✔ ‎@jonathanchait
Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald unite to dismiss Russian hacking story http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/glenn-greenwald-tucker-carlson-unite-to-dismiss-russian-hacking-allegations.html …
12:15 PM - 29 Dec 2016
162 162 Retweets 181 181 likes

greenwald is a dangerous tool.

[KG]

15. I lulz'd

again.

[LWolf]

20. Sure.

Not really; I neither love nor hate him, nor the sources you've linked to. But since you asked, I'll defend him:

It's called free speech, and I'll defend that whether I like what someone has to say or not.

[LanternWaste]

24. You're conflating an attack on free speech with mere criticism of that same speech.

You're simply conflating an attack on free speech with mere criticism of that same speech. Defending free speech is not the same thing as defending the contents of that free speech.

[LWolf]

34. What content do you object to?

Do you object because it's not factual, or because it doesn't agree with your view on the situation?

Do tell.

[leftynyc]

26. Oh please,

nobody is saying he can't or isn't entitled to say whatever idiocy he likes. Just like we get to comment on it. He's a libertarian breitbart, nothing more.

[LWolf]

33. Your opinion, of course,

which is just as valid as anyone else's, including GG.

I simply disagree. He's not the enemy. There are plenty of "journalists" who are.

Unfortunately, too many here mirror the right, only "approving" of journalists who say what they want to hear politically, and attacking the rest.

The most entertaining part is when DU loves a journalist one day, hates that journalist the next.

[leftynyc]

35. Well since I've ALWAYS called

greenwald a complete asshole, I'm saved from the hypocrite label. I've ALWAYS thought he was a slimy worm who is only looking out for himself and to make a buck. So feel free to aim your hypocrite label to someone who actually deserves it.

[still_one]

28. Mr. Greenwald is incorporating his personal bias into his reporting, and that is not an indication

of a good reporter.

No wonder he gives so many interviews on fox. They hold similar standards in reporting

[stonecutter357]

29. libertarians make me sick.

[Starry Messenger]

31. He's a one-man fake news generator now

[alarimer]

32. Journalists don't exist to tell you what you want to hear.

I think Greenwald, etc., are a counterbalance to the stenographers in the Washington press pool, who care more about access than about the truth. So what if the truth is often uncomfortable? And of course, despite their claims of objectivity, all journalists have a viewpoint, some of which we agree with, some we don't. You can't just throw people under the bus because they've stabbed your sacred cow. Pretty soon there will be no one left. I'm uncomfortable with the concept of "you're either with us or against us", no matter who does it. And the idea that we only read the things that seem to support our world view is as bad on the left as it is on the right.

I've been skeptical of the whole "Russians rigged the election" for some time. I know there is evidence for hacking, but I don't think it made as much difference as people think, certainly not to the exclusion of other factors. I am, however, alarmed at the clear ties between the incoming administration and Russia. I do not think Russia is a good actor on the world stage (which is where I part company with Greenwald, et al.), nor to its own people. I also disagree with the generally leftist stance that we can't criticize anyone because our country has also done bad things, which surfaces from time to time in Greenwald's (and others) writing.

[onyxw]

36. On the Russia stuff, happily.

I'll happily defend him vs Chait on the Russia parts.

"Nobody should deny that Russia might have done this. Of course Russia might have done this. This is the kind of thing all states do, and certainly Russia." ---Glenn Greenwald in the very same interview Chait references.

https://twitter.com/RepPress/status/816318143538794500

Greenwald's been pretty consistent in being skeptical until evidence is presented in efforts to not go down the Iraq war WMD path. He's not saying Russia didn't hack us, he's saying nobody is providing proof/evidence. More journalists should be doing what he's doing, and saying the government saying "Trust Us" is not sufficient evidence. Instead he's being smeared by a number of outlets as a Putin lackey.

I don't read Breitbart so don't have much to chime in with. At face, seems like Glenn's picked a weird hill to charge up to plant a flag and defend (and I think that's a valid criticism in a broader context, that from time to time he looks like he's tilting at windmills, but sometimes he's the only one chasing down something and covers something everybody else ignores). I think he's probably defending a very narrow point about Breitbart and that's getting conflated as "I love all things Breitbart". Instance of where he's perhaps technically right at a very granular level, but it's basically him polishing a piece of poo. So not sure why he picked that battle, and I don't have knowledge of editorial decision making at Breitbart vs other outlets to be able to tell if he's right, nor do I care to put energy into defending Breitbart, so I'll leave this one to someone else to defend.

I don't think he's right all the time, but I think journalism is collectively better when it's closer to the Intercept style of poking/prodding everybody to see what shakes loose even when it's uncomfortable for 'our side' vs being overly concerned with access that a number of the other news outlets have. Especially with Trump and an unchecked Republican Congress, we're going to want more investigative journalists challenging "trust us because we say so". And if that style's essential for when Republicans are in power, it ought to be essential when Democrats are in power too.

[Blue_Tires]

37. So... Like I was sayin' -- Whose side is he on again? It isn't the side of truth.

https://pulsemedia.org/2016/10/28/sympathy-for-the-devil-exorcising-greenwald-and-assad/


https://twitter.com/im_PULSE/status/818269381264375812

[QC]

38. He's a big old meaniebutt!!!

[Blue_Tires]

39. Glenn reminds us that the Dems and the CIA are the true villains of the Russian hacking scandal:

https://twitter.com/theintercept/status/821172541863718912

Glenn gets a twofer: Throwing more shade on NATO and defending a nutbar like Corbyn:
https://twitter.com/theintercept/status/821041710801289217

[Blue_Tires]

40. Yep, Glenn just went there

:large

The world's foremost apologist for Snowden and Assange has the unmitigated gall to say the Trump/Russia leaks are motivated by something ulterior...