Flashback: Glenn Greenwald writing about Bush in 2006

[Jim Lane]

34. Classic ad hominem argument

Premise one: Greenwald said some favorable things about Ron Paul. (Calling him an "acolyte" goes too far but I think that my more careful phrasing would be accurate.)

Premise two: We don't like Ron Paul. (Most DUers would agree with a few of Ron Paul's votes in Congress, but would oppose many more than they would support, so this is accurate.)

Conclusion: Greenwald's criticisms of Obama need not be considered on their merits. Instead, everything he says may be ignored.

The argument is logically invalid in that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

If you augment the premises by pointing out that Greenwald once wrote some things about immigration that now, several years later, he considers to have been mistaken, then... it's still an ad hominem argument and it's still logically invalid.