Raw Story apologizes to Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill

[Enrique]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/06/a-few-thoughts-on-glenn-greenwald-ablc-raw-story-and-the-nature-of-political-discourse/

In the years immediately following 9/11, anyone failing to march to the beat of America’s war drums — be it Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA), who was the sole vote against beginning the war in Afghanistan, or the Dixie Chicks, who pronounced themselves “ashamed” that the President who started 2 wars from Texas, or even the French people, who lost their eponymous fries — was called unpatriotic, a helpmeet to (alternately), “the terrorists,” Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and/or the Taliban, or even a traitor to this country (which has long valued the importance of political dissent, loyal and otherwise). Liberals decried the rhetoric, and talked about how it both possible to love this country, and the promise of this country, without providing unquestioning loyalty to its leaders.

So when Greenwald brought it to my attention that a Twitterer and blogger nominally associated with Raw Story (through the hosted blog Angry Black Lady Chronicles) had used that exact rhetoric to criticize Greenwald and The Nation‘s Jeremy Scahill, it was hard to do more than roll my eyes and sigh. But as the executive editor of Raw Story, I am obligated to do more than that.

So, to be clear: Raw Story Media, of which I am an employee, hosts under contract Angry Black Lady Chronicles, one of two opinion blogs hosted by but not directed by the company. Under the terms of the company’s contracts with both blogs, they have their own editorial discretion, their own direction and can bring on (and let go) of their bloggers at their own free will. Imani Gandy, the original ABLC blogger, told me that she has decided to use that discretion to ask two bloggers whose online pronouncements aren’t in keeping with and have interfered with what she sees as her editorial mission — reproductive rights and racial justice — to leave.

(…)

To Greenwald and Scahill, whose reputations were maligned by a person who used the platform of Raw Story in ways it was not intended and with whom I personally take issue, I have privately apologized. This is my public one. It is my belief that reasonable people at every point on the political spectrum can look at the same set of facts and draw different and even sometimes equally valid conclusions about policy issues, politicians and the political system, and that those disagreements need not and should not descend into unsupportable, hyperbolic personal attacks intended to silence those with whom we disagree.



Edit: Here's AngryBlackLady's apology:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/06/the-greenwaldscahill-kerfuffle/
Politics is a blood-sport, and you never learn that more keenly than during an election year. Sometimes it’s easy to forget that we’re all human beings, no matter what we think of one another’s politics.

Sometimes rhetoric gets overheated and politics becomes personal and it’s at those moments, we need to stop and think. So, when it was brought to my attention that one of my co-bloggers, who goes by Extreme Liberal, implied on Twitter that Salon’s Glenn Greenwald and The Nation’s Jeremy Scahill work for the Taliban and al Qaeda because of their opposition to the President’s use of drones, I realized it was time to take a moment. Although I didn’t write that tweet, it wouldn’t be right for me to pretend that it’s not relevant to me, or that it’s okay to let things like that slide if it’s directed at someone I don’t like or agree with politically. That would make me a hypocrite, and I don’t want to let a personal or political differences make me — or this blog — into someone I don’t want to be.

Greenwald and I obviously have our differences and will probably continue to disagree. We are creatures of our experiences which inform our views of the world, and mine have been very different from his. Nonetheless, he deserves exactly what I want from him and everyone else who reads my work, whether they agree or disagree: to be treated like a human being.
So look, that kind of thing is not cool, people. We need to take things down a few notches from eleventy and remember that opposition is not “the enemy.” This doesn’t mean we all have to hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and pretend to be BFFs, but it does mean that we must not let politics rob us of our ethics or human decency. I truly respect the work that Jeremy Scahill has done in his career — his book Blackwater was a true eye-opener — and although Glenn Greenwald and I rarely agree about politics, (although it may surprise you that I actually do share some of his foreign policy concerns and his concerns about imperialism in the Middle East), that doesn’t mean that he’s a traitor or a terrorist. Any suggestion of such is wrong and grossly inappropriate. I don’t wish him harm. I don’t believe that he deserves to be dehumanized. And I don’t want anyone who supports me or enjoys my writing to think that I support or enjoy extreme, outrageous, or dehumanizing attacks on him or anyone because of public disagreements.

Because I absolutely mean that, I’ve asked Extreme Liberal to step down as a blogger at ABLC, and I’m writing this to let everyone know where I stand and to reiterate that my views are my own and not representative of any of the management of Raw Story or of Raw Story itself.

(...)

[sabrina 1]

1. Excellent that kind of garbage doesn't belong on any credible blog.

To Greenwald and Scahill, whose reputations were maligned by a person who used the platform of Raw Story in ways it was not intended and with whom I personally take issue, I have privately apologized. This is my public one. It is my belief that reasonable people at every point on the political spectrum can look at the same set of facts and draw different and even sometimes equally valid conclusions about policy issues, politicians and the political system, and that those disagreements need not and should not descend into unsupportable, hyperbolic personal attacks intended to silence those with whom we disagree.

It really is shameful to see the personal attacks on writers who are doing the job journalists are supposed to do, the childish, baseless attacks.

All it does is demonstrate an inability to prove them wrong and elevates them above the fray.

Good for Raw Story for apologizing.

[MadHound]

2. Ooo, I know somebody who is not going to like this,

Should be along any minute now.

[Autumn]

3. Nice apology k/r

going to be an interesting thread.

[myrna minx]

4. K&R n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

5. The 'let's attack Greenwald' crowd is among the lowest I have seen

The aggression of the thread here on DU which attacked him for being gay, then tried to smear all gay DUers with that same rhetoric was so abjectly dishonest, McCarthyite and wrong that personally, when anyone starts in on Greenwald, I just ignore what they say to avoid hearing anti gay bullshit.
I never read Greenwald, I did not care for his Iraq War support. But man oh man I totally reject the hate soaked methods of those who go after him, I will not say 'critics' for they do not criticize as such they say 'look, he's gay' and 'traitor' and such. They are slander merchants, and that slander mongering defines the organized attacks on him.

[sabrina 1]

8. I don't know if you saw the reports of how he was a target

for his work on the Wikileaks story, and Bank of America who hired two contractors, fearful of what Wikileaks might release about them, to destroy the reputation of Wikileaks (there were also ties to the FBI I believe, which Congress was asked to look into). But when HBGary CEO boasted online about outing members of Anonymous, they struck back, hacking their site, and revealing emails that turned out to be pretty frightening.

Among the names to be targeted for personal destruction, was Glenn Greenwald because of his writing.

It's a complex story and pretty frightening to think that a blogger could be targeted this way simply for stating his opinion. Had Anonymous not uncovered this plot, who knows to what extent they might have gone to destroy him and who would have known who was paying for it?

Here is a link explaining the story and how he found out he was a target:

The leaked campaign to attack WikiLeaks and its supporters

The attacks on him have been vicious, coming from some of the most virulent people on the internet, they use Twitter and blogs and it is pretty relentless, and yes one of the worst was the one we saw here.

What is striking about the attacks on him is that they are always the same talking points:

1) wrongly accusing him of trying to hide his initial support for the Iraq war. He did not he wrote about it in his book for one thing, so this is a particularly egregious twisting of facts.

2) Twisting the facts regarding a case he handled as an attorney, always distorted in the same way.

3) Accusing him of being a Ron Paul supporter

These are repeated and repeated and aimed at Liberals who supposedly will react with disgust. For the Right there were different talking points throughout the Bush years, ironically that he was a traitor for NOT supporting the war etc.

The consistency of the talking points has made many people wonder if these were prepared by HBGary and although the CEO had to resign after the revelations in the email, did that stop BOA from using them anyhow?

When people are attacked with the same set of talking points, it does make you wonder.

I am glad finally to see a Liberal Blog stand up and apologize to Scahill and to him.

[ProSense]

20. Right,

Raw Story apologized. Fortunately, I don't owe Greenwald a damn thing. He's still a hypocrite. He went after Raw Story. It would be like going after Salon for Greenwald.

Raw Story’s liberal rhetoric
Sliming critics of the President's policies as Terrorist-lovers was once an exclusively right-wing tactic: no more

By Glenn Greenwald

Raw Story is a moderately well-read political outlet that touts itself as “a progressive news site that focuses on stories often ignored in the mainstream media.” It recently began publishing a blog devoted exclusively to venerating the President and sliming his critics: because that’s so edgy, brave and rare; after all, the meek “MSM” would never dare glorify the nation’s most powerful political official and the party in power, so we really need a brave, dissident anti-MSM site like Raw Story to provide that.

I give credit to Raw Story for the apology. Greenwald is still a hypocrite, especially when it comes to vitriol



Greenwald apologized for that.

I affirm my distaste for photographic leader-glorification, but I'll rescind my invocation of Leni Riefenstahl as too inflammatory & extreme

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/05/925827/-Glenn-Greenwald-Apologizes,-and--

There is also a history between ABL and Greenwald.

Glenn Greenwald Jokes about President Obama Raping a Nun
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002102119

Nothing innocent about it.

[Vattel]

57. Someone said that a certain Obama supporter would

defend Obama even if he raped a nun, and Greenwald agreed. OMG! The HORROR!!! Greenwald is EVIL!!!!!

[xocet]

82. Someone corrected you earlier. Here is a blue link to it - possibly for your edification...

but more likely for your ignorance. Now that is a joke.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002102119#post156

[KoKo]

27. Yes...thanks for the repost. It's well worth the read. n/t

[EFerrari]

16. I do read Greenwald frequently.

I noticed that he tends to be interested in the same stories that interest me, and he tends to pick them up before anyone else does.

[snot]

32. Agreed.

[2banon]

58. Yes... for me it's Jeremy, Matt & Glenn

The stories they write and get published or report on, are always deeply informative, and always information I haven't heard reported on previously by other news sources.

I'm often taken by surprise by the hate filled rhetoric from reactionaries to their pieces. It's almost like I have to check myself in relation to the community I presumed to be engaged with.

There's an uncanny likeness to the reacionaries to those that critisized Bush/chaney policies.

weird.

[Marr]

59. *edit*

Because I wasn't actually contributing anything of worth there.

[Luminous Animal]

6. Kick.

[Comrade Grumpy]

7. Good on Raw Story.

[me b zola]

9. K&R

[Capt. Obvious]

10. ABL is a good blog - usually

Her rants on Twitter are usually of this vain though - shocked she doesn't endorse the sentiment.

[sabrina 1]

11. It would be hard for anyone to endorse the kind of vitriol

that has been aimed at Scahill and Greenwald. She's finding out that people are way past tired of the lowering of the political discourse and that they can find other blogs who deal with the issues she deals with.

[KoKo]

28. More high quality blogs both political and financial these days

plus higher quality comments from the readers.

Who wants to read "Yahoo type" one liners or vitriolic memorized robo talking points from political or other paid "ops" when there are so many educated people who now are posting reasoned and informative replies on blogs such as Greenwald at Salon and others blogs and sites out there today.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

30. What? Referring to GG as "High Lord Douchenozzle" isn't the sort of...

reasoned and informative reply you came to expect on DU?

Ms. ABL and her followers are regular Dorothy Parkers.

[KoKo]

31. well....exactly....!

[SixString]

34. Or "asshat"...

... whatever that means.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

48. It's from the same Brain Trust that brought us...

"PUMA Jane Hamster Face." Hmm, or was it "Hamster Jane PUMA Face"? You gotta wonder who they're trying to convince...

[sabrina 1]

43. I don't think this is the kind of 'fame' anyone wants. When you act like a deranged person online

simply because you don't agree with someone, word gets around. It's not like her to be so meek so I'm guessing the nastiness kind of back-fired. The problem is you get a reputation and it's hard to get rid of it. Greenwald is tough, that's people don't get about him. He fights back. The roving gangs that run around the blogosphere acting like morons attacking people like rabid mobs, don't expect any backlash. Unfortunately DU was put into the same category a few months re Greenwald, which he let us know by linking to DU, and that is done by him to show people what goes on on certain blogs.

What's interesting about all of this is that Greenwald has many Democratic friends in Congress. He has been quoted by them on the floor of Congress also. I am certain he has sent the garbage that is aimed at him to his friends in Congress asking them 'is this your party'? What an embarrassment the so-called 'left' is becoming.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

52. It did backfire, yet in "I'm back, bitchez"...

she posts this:

"The fact of the matter is, I was homesick, and, to paraphrase Seinfeld, I like being the master of my own domain. It’s as simple as that."

Sure it is, ABL.

I still can't believe Raw Story carried (carries?) her blog. I read some of her, uh, "writing" on DU and quickly tuned her out.

Yeah, that call-out was unfortunate in that it made DU look like a fluff site comprised of imbecilic name-callers, but it was a good ass-chapping, I gotta give him that!

[sabrina 1]

54. They probably wanted to give some attention to minority blogs. But the minority blogosphere is huge

and filled with some brilliant bloggers so I don't know why they chose her when there are so many others whose standards are so much higher. I understand their intentions as back around 2004 when the leadershop of the Dem Party began slapping down 'single issue' voters, and mainstream blogs were not in any way representative of minorities, women, gays and it became a big issue. Many simply said they could not relate to the major blogs as their issues were not of interest to them once they transformed into Party blogs.

To try to address that, fearful of losing the minority vote and women and gays, AFTER the slap down which was truly shameful, the minority blogosphere grew and to this day there is a very small minority of women and other minorities on eg, Daily Kos, the main cause of the uproar. It was when the DLC decided to take over the Dem Party and thought they were so smart. The announcement airc, was delivered in such a condescending way. Bullying actually. But it backfired. Women walked off in droves, as did other minorities which were a small enough group to begin with on those blogs. The announcement being that the Dem Party would no longer focus on the 'womens' studies set' or on other 'single issue voters', basically an order to STFU about Gay Rights, about Women's issues and other minorities, such as AA and Hispanics. They were all supposed to 'get on board' and 'quit whining' about their silly single issues. Needless to say, the bullying produced a huge backlash.

I love the diversity of the blogosphere now. I remember in an effort to try win back those they drove away, Netroots Nation, criticized for being so 'white upper middle class' offered a 'scholarship to one of the best of the minority bloggers imo. He was gracious about it, but wary. I will have to look for his posts on what happened, his impressions of Netroot Nation (to me it was always a DLC attempt to reign in the energy on the internet and control it) were very thoughtfully written after he returned. The blog wars over this issue scanned months, even years, and many, many blogs. It was sad to watch. The blindness of some of those who claimed to be 'leaders' was revealing. And it was the beginning of an awakening for many people.

Anyhow, it's a very long and interesting story, I hope someone writes it one day. But my point was I think Raw Story was trying to bring both blogospheres together. Eg, see how many minority blogs are listed on DK's blogroll. Considering how vast the minority blogosphere is, they still have not shown much interest in it.

[nashville_brook]

36. +1

[EFerrari]

14. Bad writing, worse thinking and reactive as hell.

I followed them for about five minutes and that was more than enough for me.

[sabrina 1]

15. Yes, that was my reaction to her blog. There are way too many other places

people can go to and find superior writing on the issues.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

29. She's a lightweight trying to play with the big boys and girls.

Seriously, THIS is taking on Greenwald and Scahill? I'm not big on smilies, but .

"Taking a stand against tiny vagina governments"

"I'm back, bitchez"

"And before Al Gore invented the internet, I was simply known as Imani Gandy"

"I write about everything from Bowls of Stupid, Assortments of Asshattery, and Goblets of WTF"

"slow and steady Ooze of Awesome"

"The rage comes from my pituitary tumor, which I have cleverly nicknamed Tumer Willis."

http://angryblackladychronicles.com/who-i-am/

She sounds like the black Diablo Cody, and I fucking HATED "Juno."

[nashville_brook]

37. spot on with the diablo cody reference.

been following her for a long time. she's all about getting the follower count up, and her strategy has been to start twitter wars with increasingly high-profile progressives by engaging in nothing more than straight-up poo flinging...which is entertaining to observe on Twitter, just b/c it's interesting to watch these kinds of train wrecks. we're not following ABL b/c we're laughing *with* her. it's not even to laugh *at* her. more like morbid curiosity with wondering how low she'll go next.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

53. Ah, gotcha.

Just from the little bit I've read, she comes across as a Jerry Springer-like loudmouth with a blog. No depth, no substance, yet she's cheered by many on DU. Baffling. Then again, I was baffled at the popularity of Nance Gregg's rants, so WTF do I know? I'll stick with the much more thoughtful Pam's House Blend, but that means... the dreaded FDL!

[Capt. Obvious]

71. Her spat with Joan Walsh was kind of entertaining

Didn't ABL come up with the term "Firebagger"?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

75. She took on Walsh?

LOL My goodness, what an inflated sense of self this woman has. What are her credentials, exactly? Former attorney and #1 Obama Fan?

I don't know who coined the term "Firebagger," but based on how childish and unimaginative it is, it wouldn't surprise me if it was ABL. Her loyal followers then spread it around DU -- same MO as Limpballs' dittoheads.

[JackHughes]

12. Glenn Greenwald

If only ours was the type of country where Glenn Greenwald could be nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court.

There would be no better defender of the Constitution or more principled arbiter for justice.

[quinnox]

13. welcome to DU

I totally agree with you.

[ProSense]

21. Just what the

"If only ours was the type of country where Glenn Greenwald could be nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court. "

...needs a libertarian defender of Citizens United and who knows what else. He has shown extremely poor judgment before.

[sudopod]

65. Across the vast gulf of time and space

the jimmies rustle softly.

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/11/isabel_fay_hating_the_haters/singleton/#comments

[nashville_brook]

38. just to have a justice who reveres the Constitution would be a good start.

i'd take Turley too.

i don't love all of GG's positions on everything, but that's the nature of the law. it's not supposed to be political. it's supposed to be principled. GG pisses many off b/c he's not in lock-step with their political aspirations. this is one of the amazing and wonderful things about the Constitution...it's intended to provide a basis for fairness rather than a basis for a hegemonic group to get everything they want. you want freedom of speech, you have to deal with "offensive" speech. you want freedom of religion...then you have to deal with my want for freedom FROM religion. etc and so on.

[sabrina 1]

45. Excellent post, thank you!

[Luminous Animal]

49. It is an excellent post...

One point that Greenwald's critics (in regards to Citizens United) neglect to mention is the Greenwald is FOR fundamental electoral reform. He leans more towards public funding but would accept a constitutionally sound amendment. He recognizes our totally corporate dominated and corrupt electoral system but doesn't believe that undermining the First Amendment is the right direction to reform it.

[nashville_brook]

78. an excellent summation of his position.

it's lost on many, and understandably so. CU is dangerous and we want it to stop already. GG is right about the first amendment angle, tho...once again proving that simple solutions can sometimes make things worse.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

55. Turley came to mind as I read your subject line...

and there he is.

Thoughtful post; unfortunately, it will be lost on many.

[Ikonoklast]

51. Yeah, Greenwald's thinly veiled racism would fit right in with this court.

Another thing Greenwals pretends never happened, as it 'was when no one was reading my blog'.

[Luminous Animal]

62. Actually, he flat out said it did happen...

Last edited Tue Jun 12, 2012, 02:09 AM - Edit history (1)

I hope I still keep learning and growing, even now at age 54 and hopefully, up until the day I die. I've gone through many learning experiences and processes. From a small Catholic farming town where I learned from the nuns that "publics are bad" and we have to "save pagan babies." To the stifling racist homophobic suburbs of Ohio and Delaware. In each place I was fortunate to have a critical influence that expanded my thinking. That enabled me to move beyond the prejudices of my community. But I was lucky and I had supportive liberal parents that encouraged, not only my intellectual expansion beyond my community but championed my bravery to standing up against conventional thought.

In Catholic school we were handed out a small coloring book that described that lazy smelly habits of Mexicans. Yes, we had to color in pictures of in a racist xenophobic book which pictured drunk, dirty, lazy Mexicans. The images represented stuck with me. They disturbed my thoughts and dreams that were amplified as a result of anti-undocumented worker rhetoric from both Democrats and Republicans. And finally, when I moved to Southern California, and worked with immigration justice orgs and activists and visited Mexico many times, my disturbing thoughts and dreams were, thankfully, dispelled by the reality of human beings.

That is, I was able to address and overcome ignorance by being confronted with reality. And that is what Greenwald means when he says that "no one was reading" his blog. He wasn't challenged for his conventional thinking that permeates both political parties when it comes to Mexico, Mexicans, and our approach to undocumented workers. Both parties pander to prejudices and prejudice is more common than otherwise. Any provocative engaged blogger, like Greenwald, interacts with their audience, it was (and is for some) a distinguishing characteristic of blogging... learning and growing with your intelligent readers. When Greenwald states, "no one was reading my blog", he means there was no one there to challenge his conventional thinking.

A final point I'd like to make. Undocumented workers are regularly characterized on this board (and throughout the U.S.) as "illegals." I've been protesting, on DU and elsewhere, this designation of human beings as "illegal" for many years to little avail. Greenwald has learned and grown and publicly owned up to his ignorance. DU, as a community, in my opinion, continues to perpetuate ignorance by allowing human beings to be labeled "illegal."

[nxylas]

70. A Catholic school attacking Mexicans seems quite bizarre

Given that Mexicans are overwhelmingly Catholic, and that the stereotype of the lazy Mexican has its origin in anti-Catholicism, with those of Northern European stock touting the superiority of the Protestant work ethic.

[2banon]

60. Responding to Jack Hughes : Completely agree! and Welcome!

[edited subject line for clarity as to whom i was responding]

[KG]

17. Raw DURec

[patrice]

18. RAWrrrrrrrr+++

[WilliamPitt]

19. Good.

[DFab420]

22. Glenn Greenwald reminds me of Rush Limbaugh...

He can say whatever he wants about whom ever he chooses. However the moment you speak ill of him all hell breaks loose about what is ,and what is not, proper...

If Glenn wants to wade in the waters of politics and public opinion he needs to realize that people are going to take issue with him and call him names, just as he does to others.

[EFerrari]

24. Your comparison is apt, except for the part where Rush

is an illiterate lying sack of sold out right wing shit and Greenwald is an educated, fact based critic not in bed with any faction.

[2banon]

63. exactly.

Greenwald may not be bringing the message some may want to hear, but it is factual.

Interesting how the facts are never dealt with. only the messenger.

[nashville_brook]

39. ...aaaaaand...folks heaping on Greenwald need to know that he's going to push back. as is his right.

it's a dialogue out there in Memeland. one thing that should count in GG's favor is that he engages critics. he doesn't put himself above it all by ignoring them. if he disagrees he'll make his case, tenaciously. that affirms the importance of critical dialogue which is a down to earth quality that's been lacking historically. love him or hate him, he's no ivory tower untouchable. DM him and he'll likely respond.

[sabrina 1]

47. And what makes you think he doesn't? He's pretty tough and I laugh when I see people try to take him

on, because he fights back and generally makes them look pretty stupid. Frankly I think he enjoys it. I know I used to enjoy it when right wingers went after me during the Bush years, at first it bothers people, but then you realize how stupid they are so some of us decided to play with them, instead of trying to talk to them. Whenever I was bored it was fun to do.

Greenwald generally makes people like this look so small and petty and once they try to go after him, I think he enjoys exposing the stupidity. It's a break from being too serious all the time. They do look stupid and petty. They look exactly like the rightwingers they themselves used to criticize. I hope we are not all painted with the same brush. It's embarrassing to be part of the same Party.

[Ichingcarpenter]

81. +1

[whatchamacallit]

23. No politician is worth abandoning principle. It's been fucking embarrassing to witness.

[Uncle Joe]

25. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Enrique.

[KoKo]

26. Thanks for this post Enrique and applause to Raw Story for their action. n/t

[WillyT]

33. Kicked And Recommended !!!

[Starry Messenger]

35. Extreme Liberal has always been rather overheated and overhyped.

His various harangues of gay and progressive communities always sound freepish. I'm not a huge Greenwald fan but he doesn't write like he has ants in his jockstrap like EL.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. There is a large cross over between the freeperish anti gay types and the anti Greenwald activists

I often think they use his name as a replacement as they can't just say 'fuck those gays' anymore so they need dog whistle words.

[nashville_brook]

41. that's a very good point -- it's an extension of debates that began

around the 2008 Prop 8 campaign, and also before the inauguration.

[Starry Messenger]

42. I totally agree.

I went over to EL to refresh my memory, and there are several harangues of John Aravosis as well. I'm glad RawStory took steps. The paternalistic rantings of a straight guy to a minority group he is not a member of should never have gone beyond amateur hour anyway.

[Luminous Animal]

46. The anti-gay types sometimes refer to Greenwald as "Gigi".

I know some DUers use GG as shorthand (and it does make sense) but it makes me wince every time I see it.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

56. Huh, I wasn't aware of that.

I used it above in the shorthand sense; won't likely do that again.

[Luminous Animal]

67. Thank you! (n/m)

[DirkGently]

44. ABL's Twitter comments are among the most irrational & nasty I've ever seen.

It's a poor strategy to gain notoriety. Glad to see it backfiring.

[Dawson Leery]

50. A far left version of Glenn Beck does exist.

[Marr]

61. So many critics of Glenn Greenwald, but so few critics of his writing.

That says a lot.

[2banon]

64. Exactly.

[Luminous Animal]

66. I'm considering writing a guide for smearing Greenwald

1) Douchebag or douchenozzle ensures LOLs and copious spitting on computer screens.
2) He's not an U.S. citizen because he lives in Brazil.
3) He's gay and has a bone to pick (an OP that was allowed to stand which resulted in my receiving 3-4 hidden posts in one night because the top of my head was ready to blow off.)
4) He's a big L libertarian, even though he supported Obama in 2008 and has said over and over and over again that supporting a Libertarian's views in regards to imperial warring adventures does not equal supporting a big L candidate.
5) Slamming him for supporting the Bush's justifications for the Iraq war even though the vast majority our Democratic representatives did the same.
6) Say, "Fuck Glenn Greenwald, then roll on the floor laughing
7) At all costs, don't address the issue at hand but divert divert divert with personal attacks.

[Blue_In_AK]

68. You nailed it!

I'm a big fan of Greenwald myself. I don't understand the vitriol.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

73. Yeah, many others have criticized Obama's policies...

what is it about Greenwald that makes the Blue Link Brigade so rabid?

[sabrina 1]

69. # 7 is the most important point of all.

I've asked what he was wrong about, and I haven't read most of what started the latest round of Greenwald Derangement syndrome, so I'm assuming whatever it was he was right, because with all the hysteria and frantic typing, no one has said what he was wrong about.

Good list. Don't forget he made a bad joke once. Oh, and he represented a criminal once too. I know, he's a lawyer, but it was apparently a major crime for him to represent a criminal! Lawyers don't do that you know?

That has to be the funniest attempt at a smear job ever! I hope no one is paying them!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

72. "Tool," you forgot "tool"!

Braying, whining, hmm, what else...?

And there needs to be some sort of honorable mention of Greenwald's DU critics who don't understand the difference between Christopher Hitchens, Chris Hayes, and Chris Hedges. They're some of my all-time favorites.

[Capt. Obvious]

74. You need to update the list now

8) Say Glenn Greenwald supports Nazis
9) insinuate that Glenn Greenwald was disbarred
10) Link his support of Nazis to murder and disbarment

[KoKo]

79. Good synopsis of the problem at hand.......

Particularly:

7) At all costs, don't address the issue at hand but divert divert divert with personal attacks.

Yep...that's what it's about.....and has been about.

[stupidicus]

76. As they should have

key to it is this

But most of the insults I get related to politics come because I don’t support individual candidates with either my reporting or my opinion writing, and because I feel really quite free to criticize even the ones who come the closest to my own personal politics as our democratic process allows. In that, Glenn Greenwald and I have something in common.

Goodness — and Greenwald — knows I’m hardly in agreement with every position he’s taken, but I will absolutely defend his right to take those positions without being subject to the kind of stupid, reductionist criticism we on the left all decried during the Bush years.

in other words, many lefties act like the Bushbots they use to criticise if not condemn for that kinda behavior. ANd it's not just the dehumanizing, etc rhetoric across the political/ideological divide that's at issue here, it's the intra-ideological stuff, because GG is a lefty as far as I can tell. They wanna give him the same treatment the rightwingnuts have their dissenters like Frum, Bartlett, and now, likely Jeb Bush as well. "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" for me, but not for thee, is the manure they are spreading.

It's what underlies all the "be quiet, you're endangering BHO"s reelection chances!" BS, like the many criticisms of him of this kind aren't common knowledge, and to criticize him is gonna unduly influence the ignorant or something.

It isn't the criticisms or the criticizers that that are responsible for the divisions of the election-threatening kind they whine about, but rather the things criticized and the treatment the criticizers get from the Obamabots for choosing to air the grievances as opposed to pretending he isn't occasionally naked. They make it "either support everything he does or else" thing, or expect the treatment the likes of GG and other vociferous critics have recieved.

So protest votes (meaning not voting, as opposed to going with the MUtt) can and likely will arise not just due to the lack of support for everything BHO has done or because some of them are unacceptable, but also because the "enemy-like" status on a personal level, the Obamabots attempt to make one feel like.

They are imo, short-sighted knuckleheads, just like the Bushbots that came before them. That's why I have no use for them, not because we have disagreements about BHO's policy pursuits, etc. They'd better hope that the anger they inject into others with this kinda garbage isn't taken out on BHO in Nov, because that would be their participating in realizing a "self-fulfilling prophecy".

[uberblonde]

77. Um, this?

I will absolutely defend his right to take those positions without being subject to the kind of stupid, reductionist criticism we on the left all decried during the Bush years.

Hah. She has been a major purveyor of such criticism on Twitter. She apparently thinks vicious personal attacks are the appropriate response to even the smallest criticism of administration policy.

[stupidicus]

80. I'm not that familiar with her

or her various efforts, but if indeed she's guilty of the sin of hypocrisy born of such efforts, that in no way invalidates the truth in her words.

I've been battling lefties and righties alike much like GG for the last ten years and more. The only thing I can say, is that I've only maintained friends/allies on the left despite the disagreements, not any on the right in recent years.

That's the problem I have with the lefty "purists" as another DUer described them in another post -- our disagreements can and should result in the betterment of our choices and the party we'd like to purge the rightwing attributes, policy preferences, etc, out of, not divisions that threaten unity. One can talk about and pursue pragamtism all they want, but the bottom line is principles, and there comes a point where pragmatism threatens them. If someone like GG. or you or I for that matter, can't even criticize based on principles we hold dear and apply without regard for anything else without fear of such reprisals, then there is no alliance, just an adversarial relationship that can, and likely will be, as intractable as any one can enjoy with a rightwinger, because BS like that personalizes it.

The worst part about it is imo, is like with say, the "kill list". This gives the righties ammo, since it's impossible to defend against the "if Bush had done that" charge, given it's an escalation in pres power that most of the left woulda screamed about had he grabbed it instead. Condemning those creeps is easiest and the most fun, when we're not Pharisees in large numbers...