Glenn Greenwald: The Facts

[sabrina 1]

I read about the Glenn Greenwald article stating that the WH was about to appoint Larry James to a task force, in a DU thread.

What I 'learned' was that Glenn Greenwald had received an email from Larry James which informed him of this upcoming appointment by the WH.

Greenwald was accused of not checking with the WH rather than blindly believing his source, Larry James.

After reading a few threads where the vitriol against Greenwald made it difficult to learn what the actually facts were I went to Greenwald's blog to read the article myself.

What I learned when I read Greenwald's article was that:

1) Greenwald did not receive an email from Larry James.

2) Larry James sent an email to "colleagues and students of Wright State University, where Dr. James serves as Dean of the School of Professional Psychology.”.

3) Greenwald received the information emailed by Larry James to his students and colleagues from Harvard Law School's Human Rights Program.

After receiving that email, Greenwald wrote the article repeating what Larry James and the Harvard Law School's Human Rights Program claimed, no doubt assuming that the sources were reliable. In the article he included a reminder of exactly who Larry James is and what his record on human rights is. It is well worth reading for anyone who either forgot or never knew of this man's history at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.

He also included the email from Larry James which had been forwarded to him from the HLSHRP in an update:

Top Bush-era GITMO and Abu Ghraib psychologist is WH's newest appointment

UPDATE: Here is the full text of the email sent by Dr. James, as provided to me yesterday by Harvard Law School’s Human Rights Program:

Message from Dean James for the SOPP Community:

Hello Everyone,

It is with great pride and pleasure that I write to the SOPP community and say that I have been appointed by the First Lady to a White House Task Force entitled Enhancing the Psychological Well-Being of The Military Family.

The first meeting will be at the White House next Tuesday (the 29th) and will be hosted by Mrs. Obama and her staff. Indeed, I feel honored and privileged to represent the SOPP, WSU and the APA in this important endeavor.

Next week I will provide a follow-up e-mail to provide more information.

All the best,

Larry C. James, Ph.D., ABPP

Dean & Professor
School of Professional Psychology
Wright State University
3640 Colonel Glenn Hwy
Dayton, Ohio 45435-001
Phone: xxx-xxx-xxxx

After his article was published, Greenwald received an email from the White House denying the claim made by Larry James that he was to be appointed to a task force:

The White House, however, now tells a much different story. In an email to me from the First Lady’s Communications Director, the White House claims:

Several members of the White House staff are convening a meeting with multiple mental health professionals on Tuesday to discuss issues pertaining to the wellness of military families. SAMHSA and the American Psychological Association have both been asked to attend. We understand that Dr. James is involved with these groups and may have been indirectly invited to attend this meeting.

She claims, however, that he now will not be at that meeting, and further states that "Dr. James has not been appointed to serve in any capacity with the White House."

There’s obviously quite a discrepancy between the claims in the James email as provided by HLS' Human Rights Project and the White House’s claims. Calls to Dr. James regarding this matter have not been returned, but if I speak with him, I’ll post his response to the White House's denials.

So, the White House did invite him, however unintentionally.

It seems to me that there's plenty of blame to go around if we are to say that Greenwald should have called the WH before publishing the article. Perhaps he should have.

Since there is an element of truth in Larry James' claims, iow he was invited, perhaps not as an individual, but unintentionally as a member of a group, the White House can also be blamed for not being more diligent in finding out more about the members of the groups they invite to the White House.

The Harvard Law School Human Rights Program also, by the standards we are holding Greenwald to, should also be blamed for not contacting the White House before circulating the email themselves. After all they are not some fly-by-night organization and it was more than likely that something coming from them, especially regarding human rights abuses, would be taken seriously.

Wright University in Ohio where Larry James is a Dean, did not check to see if their faculty member actually was invited to be on a White House Task force and allowed his announcement to go out to their staff and students as if it were a fact that required no verification.

Then there is Dean Larry James himself. If what the WH says is true, it looks like he may have lied in his email, although why we still do not know. Greenwald has contacted him and so far has not had a response.

With what is available regarding the whole incident, it seems that human error from the White House to Wright University, to Harvard Law School's Human Rights Program to Greenwald contributed to the article being published. Or maybe it was more like human trust, everyone being too trusting of sources that are normally reliable.

Whoever handles these events at the White House should definitely be more protective of the First Lady than to let something like this happen.

Out of all the players involved, it seems to me that Greenwald is the least to blame considering the sources he was using. But even reliable sources can make mistakes so it's probably always better to try to get a statement from all those involved in a situation like this. And from his past record, when he has all the facts, I would expect Greenwald to acknowledge that, as he has never hesitated to acknowledge his errors in the past.

As for the White House's part in the misunderstanding, the WH has admitted its error in inviting James and he is now uninvited.

It will be interesting to see what Larry James has to say.

[Ramulux]

1. Nice post

Glad to see someone lay out all the facts. Glenn obviously messed up a little, but all the people calling him names and shit is uncalled for. The white house did inadvertently or intentionally invite this guy to a meeting and if it weren't for Glenn's article none of this would have gotten resolved, so I am glad he chose to at least bring attention to this even if he jumped the gun a bit.

[madfloridian]

3. I am not so sure he messed up at all.

I think both the WH and Dr. James have some splaining to do.

Glenn is one of our best researched and capable progressive writers. He deserves better treatment than he is given here at DU...just because he questions Obama at times.

[bahrbearian]

9. The White House has knee jerk reactions.

Look what happened to Van Jones, Shirley Sherrod, and others. About time they did it to wingnuts.

[sabrina 1]

21. It will be interesting to see if Larry James reveals who

told him he was appointed to a task force. His statement sounds as if he was very certain of his appointment. But the WH's statement is equally certain that he was not offered a position on a task force.

I can think of several possibilities but it will be interesting to hear what he has to say.

[madfloridian]

2. "I have been appointed by the First Lady to a White House Task Force"

I believe there is much more to the story. That was a positive statement by James, he left no doubt he thought he had been appointed to a task force.

Who led him to think that? That's the question.

[sabrina 1]

5. I agree there is more to the story.

I just wanted to correct some of the wild claims about Greenwald that were being made today in various threads. I think I have presented all that is known so far, and none of it warrants the attacks on Greenwald that I saw.

The facts do raise lots of questions but provide few answers so far.

[madfloridian]

7. I agree.

He doesn't deserve such attacks. :hi:

[Catherina]

4. Rec'd. Excellent post.I think there are some things the White House isn't owning up to n/t

[Mojorabbit]

25. So it seems. nt

[Armstead]

6. As an ink-stained wretch, I have to say Greenwald screwed up badly

I am often critical of President Obama, so my own feelings about this are not a matter of throwing Greenwald under the bus for that.

Fact checking and confirming with sources is the first rule of Journalism 101. Untold damage can be done by printing a story with two sides, if only one side is checked with.

What Greenwald did is not the end of the world. But he did screw up, and it did have consequences.

[madfloridian]

8. How did he screw up?

[Shiver]

14. He didn't check on both sides.

In this case, the sides are James and the White House. Now, one could consider the email, gotten second-hand, as checking on the source with James, as it appears to originally have come from him. However, Glenn did not check it with the White House to confirm.

It really is Journalism 101. It wasn't completely fact-checked, and it's a screw-up, albeit not of epic proportions. It's generally the type of thing an editor would catch and shoot back to the writer to get confirmation on.

[Armstead]

28. The answer was in my reply

It is very important that people who take on the role of spreading information also take on the responsibility of making sure it is accurate.

Nobody's perfect and mistakes are inevitable. And sometimes the truth is elusive and open to interpretation. But you have to take the steps.

And in this case the situation was straightforward, and there was a very straightforward way to verify or debunk the original information by asking the White House BEFORE running the item.

A cub reporter on a local newspaper who neglected to do something like that would have either been fired or gotten a very stern lecture from the editor.

[bahrbearian]

10. I quess he should have twittered it.

[sabrina 1]

11. But how? His sources were very credible

I'm not a journalist (actually neither is Greenwald as far as I know) so I may be wrong in assuming that if you have at least three very credible sources for a story, it would be okay to go ahead and publish it.

His sources were:

1)Larry James
2)Harvard Law School's Human Rights program
3)Wright University

He is a blogger and the info was sent to him by people who actually had more of an obligation than he did, to have checked out the story, don't you think?

And now we do have an admission from the WH that what James said was partially true.

[Armstead]

26. He should have checked with the White House first

That was the other side, not those who told him.

One of my pet peeves is bloggers who take on the job of spreading information (which is what this was) without also taking on the very basic responsibilities of journalism.

[JDPriestly]

37. And the NY Times and Washington Post should have checked

with folks in Iraq before reporting that Saddam had WMDs and was cavorting with Al Qaeda. They didn't. No one however considers them to be unreliable. They report the news they are given.

Greenwald did not manufacture this story out of thin air. He had source materials on which it was based.

[SidDithers]

40. Greenwald is not unreliable...

but, like the NYT or the Post that didn't do a better job of checking Iraq, Greenwald got it wrong.

Sid

[SidDithers]

15. +1...nt

Sid

[JDPriestly]

36. Armstead, this has been blown way out of proportion.

Remember, some elements in the ruling class have a vendetta against Greenwald because of his stance on Wikileaks and Bradley Manning. I think this whole "scandal" is more an attempt to embarrass Greenwald than anything else.

Assange is reported to have had relationships with a lot of women and to be a discourteous houseguest.

That has nothing to do with Assange or Greenwald.

This has to do with psyops.

Any mistake Greenwald make is minor. Let it go. The NY Times' reporting pre-Iraq War was utterly scandalous and far below the standards of acceptable journalism.

Greenwald was misled. From the facts that Sabrina1 has introduced, you cannot know whether someone was trying to throw the media off or whether there was just confusion.

[Armstead]

65. I let it go -- But what it represents is still a craw under my saddle

You're right this alone is not such a big deal. But I guess I went off about it because it hit a nerve/pet peeve about bloggers in general.
I am talking about the evolution from journalistic reporting to bloggers. Maybe because I know how hard journalism is, that certain aspects of the Blogosphere bug me.

I'm not referring to places like these message boards. Different function. Like everyone else I come to DU to argue and express my opinions. This is more like the Letters to the Editor or Op-Ed Page.

But bloggers who set themselves up as news sources should follow a different standard. They are putting themselves in the position of being journalists -- and they damn well ought to do the legwork and exercise the restraint that requires.

Rowlllll!!!

[TorchTheWitch]

49. Have to agree

Checking out facts is the bare bones of journalism. Information should be verified or at least attempted to be verified and noted in any article if it couldn't be verified. Blind trust of a source isn't journalism. At the very least Greenwald should have attempted to verify the alleged appointment with the WH, and if the WH didn't comment it should have been noted in the article so one would know that the alleged appointment is unconfirmed speculation.

Greenwald crapped on his own reputation with this. Now people will wonder how many other times he didn't do the bare bones of fact checking a story, and everything he's ever written comes into question and anything he writes in the future will as well.

One thing I don't agree with is that it was a mistake. Greenwald is far too experienced and knowledgeable to have made such a whopper of a mistake. Therefore, why he didn't bother to even attempt to verify the information was deliberate, and one has to question why that is.

[SidDithers]

12. Greenwald should have confirmed the story with the White House..

before posting it in Salon.

Even he acknowledges that.

If someone wants to argue that I should have contacted the WH for comment before writing this, that's a reasonable criticism. I'll concede that it would have been better to do so (though obviously, the WH's denial is hardly dispositive, and there was obviously SOMETHING going on here with James and this Tuesday meeting - not even the WH says it was a wholesale fabrication - and it's certainly possible that the distancing was in response to the uproar).

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2011/03/25/james/permalink/2cd9d30808e24ef94cf33b8c9ed81e06.html

Sid

[sabrina 1]

16. But you let the Harvard Law School's Human Rights program

off the hook. Should THEY not have verified the story before sending it to Greenwald?

And should the White House be let off the hook for inviting him, even if it was unintentional? What kind of security do they have if someone with his reputation could slip by them as they claim?

And what about his own University who made no effort, that we know of, to verify his claim which was sent out to the students and staff and simply allowed to pass as fact?

Before it even got to Greenwald, it seems to me there were several others who failed to check the veracity of his claims.

[SidDithers]

19. Sure, lots of people could have confirmed it...

but Greenwald was the one that published the story in Salon. He has a journalistic responsibility to make sure it's right before he posts it. This time, he failed in that responsibility.

The fact is that he posted an opinion piece based on information from a single source. He didn't contact the White House or James before posting the story. He only made mention of contacting James (and not yet receiving a reply) in his update to his original story.

This time, he got it wrong.

Sid

[noise]

23. Greenwald's report doesn't even make sense

considering the commendable White House track record in supporting torture investigations.

:sarcasm:

[JDPriestly]

39. Actually, the Harvard human rights group published the story.

Greenwald just reprinted it.

[SidDithers]

43. Where did they publish it?...nt

Sid

[JDPriestly]

45. In the document that Glenn Greenwald had. I assume it was some sort of press

release or e-mail announcement.

[noise]

48. Here is the link to the IHRC post

Former Guantanamo Psychologist Claims to be Named to White House Task Force on “Enhancing the Psychological Well-Being of The Military Family”

[sabrina 1]

50. Thank you for that link. It is a very good timeline

of how events unfolded including the natural reactions of people to the announcement by James.

If anything, it was Greenwald's article that elicited a statement from the WH. Had he not written it, I wonder how things might have evolved?

I don't know anything about this man other than his record on human rights which is horrendous. But is the kind of person who would like this? It would be interesting to hear from people who do know him.

Anyhow, great link, thank you for posting it.

[SidDithers]

54. Note that Greenwald's post was referenced in the IHRC article...

not in their update, but in their original post, showing that Greenwald's Salon article hit the tubes first.

And note the change in Greenwald's heading. IHRC posts that James "claims" to be named. Greenwald posts that James "is the WH's newest appointment." (emphasis added)

Sid

[sabrina 1]

62. You didn't read it thoroughly.

IHRC states that they CHANGED their headline AFTER reading Greenwald's publication of the WH's response.

Today, Greenwald received an interesting response from the White House in which it disputes some – but not all – of Dr. James’s statements. As a result of this response, we changed the language in the headline from “Named to White House Task Force” to “Claims to Be Named to White House Task Force,” and, in the text, changed the wording of the first paragraph from “reportedly appointed” to “claims he was appointed.”

Greenwald states that he received James' email from IHRC:

UPDATE: Here is the full text of the email sent by Dr. James, as provided to me yesterday by Harvard Law School’s Human Rights Program:

[JDPriestly]

64. Greenwald can't be blamed for the error. James is just doing his

usual psyops thingee.
Maybe James thought that if he just announced he had been invited he would be. You know, kind of a little kid pretend and it might come true sort of thing.

Of course, I have no inside information. I'm just guessing and having fun.

[sabrina 1]

53. You are correct. They did publish it first and after Greenwald's

publishing of the WH response, they changed their headline to include the word 'claimed' referring to the Larry James email.

The link was posted above by DUer, Noise ~ http://harvardhumanrights.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/former-guantanamo-psychologist-named-to-white-house-task-force-on-enhancing-the-psychological-well-being-of-the-military-family/#comments

[sabrina 1]

46. It wasn't a single source, there at least two sources

The Harvard Law School's Human Rights Program and Larry James himself.

And since Wright University did not question their faculty member's claims, you could add them to the sources.

[SidDithers]

88. Greenwald didn't try contacting James until after posting the original story...

the only source was the Harvard human rights organization. They were the only ones that provided information to Greenwald. James or the White House would have been the second source.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

89. There was Wright University also.

The email was circulated to staff and students at James' own university and apparently was not questioned by anyone there either.

[Armstead]

31. They didn't publish it iun a widely read blog

Anyone can jump to conclusions and/or make erroneous assumptions. That's the way people are.

But there is an added level of responsibility when you put yourself in the position of presenting information to the public.

[sabrina 1]

41. Yes, there is an added responsibility, and I believe that

Greenwald has not denied that. However, facts about this story were completely distorted in many threads on DU today which is why I posted the OP.

Eg, I thought from the threads I read that Greenwald had received the email directly from Larry James and that he had some kind of personal relationship with him. I was also not aware that the WH while denying they had offered him a position on a task force, did admit that he was invited to the WH meeting, even if unintentionally.

Just trying to present the facts ~

[Armstead]

44. Just make sure you present them responsibly --- ...Kidding

[sabrina 1]

51. Well, I tried. But I don't know all the facts, just those that

are available :-)

[dsc]

57. You mistakenly left this out

But the claim that James' email wasn't sufficiently confirmed is nonsense. The source that gave it to me -- Harvard Law School's Human Rights Program -- is not only extremely credible and reliable in general, but is specifically so when it comes to Dr. James. They've been working on him for years, know more about him than anyone, and have all kinds of connections to him, his school and his colleagues.

They assured me 100% -- in response to my asking -- that they had confirmation that the email was valid and legitimate. Nothing provides 100% certainty, but I'm more than comfortable with the basis I had for everything I wrote. I certainly didn't expect - and still don't believe - that someone like him just decided to publicly send around an email to a large audience making all sorts of claims about his new appointment that were just completely invented.

[SidDithers]

58. No, I left that out because it has nothing to do with Greenwald not contacting the White House...nt

Sid

[sabrina 1]

63. Thank you. A lot gets left out

it seems.

[noise]

13. What White House error?

The posted reply from the Communications Director simply states that Dr. James was not appointed. Maybe they found another GITMO psychologist for their task force.

[sabrina 1]

17. They admit, that as he claimed in his email, he was invited

to the meeting. So at least part of what he said was true even if it was a mistake, as the WH claims.

[sabrina 1]

18. Several unrecs for facts?

And no explanations as to why? Or what is incorrect in the OP?

[SidDithers]

20. You have plenty of your speculation in the OP too...nt

Sid

[sabrina 1]

22. Such as?

[SidDithers]

24. Really?...

"It seems to me that there's plenty of blame to go around if ..."

"Out of all the players involved, it seems to me that Greenwald is the least to blame..."

These are not facts. Those are statements of opinion. Your opinion. Which people may disagree with.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

27. Does the White House not have more responsibility

to know who is invited to a meeting with the First Lady than a blogger does to check out a story that is pretty well sourced to begin with?

I guess it IS a matter of opinion as to who has the most responsibility in such a case.

I would be very worried that if such a mistake could be made by the WH staff, who knows who could get that close to the First Lady or even the President?

So, yes it is just my opinion. Maybe you think a blogger not checking a story is more important than placing the Fist Lady in possible danger, in this case she was at least placed in an awkward position, but I think most reasonable people, and I am sure the SS with whom I have had experience through my job, would definitely disagree with you.

[SidDithers]

29. Strawman...

"Maybe you think a blogger not checking a story is more important than placing the Fist Lady in possible danger," :rofl:

There are really only 2 absolute facts in this entire episode:

1. Greenwald reported that James was the White House's newest appointment
2. James was not appointed to anything by the White House.

Plain and simple, Greenwald got it wrong this time.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

33. Strawman? Did the WH not admit it invited James

to the meeting? That it was a mistake doesn't make James' claim that he was invited to that meeting, incorrect, does it? So it is very relevant to the story.

He made more than one claim in his email. He has been contradicted only on the claim that he was going to be appointed to a task force position.

He has not been contradicted by the WH that he was invited to the meeting. They admit that he was.

[SidDithers]

34. The strawman is you changing the topic to me

allegedly not caring about the safety of the First Lady. :rofl:

Sid

[sabrina 1]

38. Well, that wasn't my intention. I am genuinely confused

at your priorities regarding this story. For me, maybe because I have through my job, had the responsibility of knowing who is coming to an event at which the First Lady and/or the VP will be in attendance, I can only imagine how I would feel if I had made a mistake like this and would fully expect to be fired if I did. And because at these events there is always a SS presence, I know that they are always informed about who is going to be there. So, I am amazed that in this case, no one knew the names of the individuals and only felt they needed to know who the groups were. That is a security breach and yes, a definite firing offense from my experience.

Sorry if my priorities are different than yours, but it was not intended to change the subject to you. I just see it as far more important than what Glenn Greenwald's error was, now that we know about it.

[noise]

30. Greenwald should have checked with the White House

Degree of responsibility shouldn't be a factor. He either checked or he didn't.

I would think the attendees were vetted already if the meeting is on Tuesday. Which means that the "indirect" invitation is CYA spin from the White House.

[sabrina 1]

35. I think Greenwald has acknowledged that he could be

legitimately criticized for not checking with the WH. He has never to my knowledge not been willing to admit to errors he has made. I only wish our MSM would be as forth-coming when they make mistakes.

My problem was with the distortion of the facts today in many threads. Eg, from reading through those threads I thought Larry James had directly contacted Greenwald. And I was not aware that the WH statement while denying James' claims of getting an appointment to a task force, also acknowledged that he had been invited.

I had such a distorted impression of what actually happened just from scanning a few threads that I assumed others may have also. Just wanted to lay out the facts as far as we know them so far.

[JDPriestly]

42. Greenwald might have gotten an answer from the White House had he asked

but there is no guarantee that he would have.

I have e-mailed my congressman twice to ask about a story about a favor (well established that he did it) he did for one of his donors. I know my congressman and among other things know that he is very close to constituents and communicates readily with constituents.

I have not received an answer or even an acknowledgement about my question on this embarrassing issue. There is no guarantee that the White House would have responded to a blogger. In fact, if they had an embarrassing fact to hide, they probably wouldn't have. The White House would not have been obliged to say anything.

[sabrina 1]

47. He probably would have received the same response they

gave after he published the article. I think they would have responded if only because he would have published the story anyhow, but would have added that the had received no response from the WH.

Still, there seems to be more to learn about this whole story. Larry James appeared to be certain that he had the position. Why would he say that if someone had not given him that impression? Otoh, the WH is equally adamant that he was not given the position. He may tell us who spoke to him about this. But, then, he may not. So far he has not responded to Greenwald's question.

[whistler162]

56. The facts that Greenwald played hollywood gossip and

was called on it! Well worth a unrec especially for Greenwald.

[sabrina 1]

61. And by your logic, the Harvard Law School's Human Rights

Program was gossiping when it published the FACT that a Wright University professor had announced that he had been appointed to a task force position.

http://harvardhumanrights.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/former-guantanamo-psychologist-named-to-white-house-task-force-on-enhancing-the-psychological-well-being-of-the-military-family/#comments

[pacalo]

32. Thank you, sabrina!

:yourock:

[ReggieVeggie]

52. kick and rec

[whistler162]

55. Or put simply Greenwald screwqed up even more

than he is being vilified for! He heard from someone that heard from someone that the second someone was somehow invited to participate in a maybe task force that the White House might form.

But, what the heck we needed a weekend whine about something that the Obama administration "did" but didn't really do when the facts are learned.

[sabrina 1]

59. Actually no. Quite the opposite of what you say

Seems you didn't read at all. It seems that the WH did actually invite James which they have admitted.

I would hardly call it whining to object to someone from the Bush administration with his torture record, being even invited to the WH during the administration of a Democratic President.

But then, maybe we've slipped into the 'torture is okay if our guy does it' mode, or some of us I should say. It will never be okay with me.

[Oilwellian]

80. That's been my issue since the story broke

The White House admitted Dr. James was invited to have lunch with Michelle Obama. My question has been, why isn't this fucker rotting away in a prison somewhere? Secondly, the Harvard Law School's Human Rights Program filed a complaint against Dr. James.

Writing in 2009, Law Professor Bill Quigley and Deborah Popowski, a Fellow at the Harvard Law School Human Rights Program, described James' role in this particularly notorious incident:

The Louisiana board that licenses psychologists is facing a growing legal fight over torture and medical care at the infamous Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prisons. In 2003, Louisiana psychologist and retired Col. Larry James watched behind a one-way mirror in a US prison camp while an interrogator and three prison guards wrestled a screaming, near-naked man on the floor.

The prisoner had been forced into pink women's panties, lipstick and a wig; the men then pinned the prisoner to the floor in an effort "to outfit him with the matching pink nightgown." As he recounts in his memoir, "Fixing Hell," Dr. James initially chose not to respond. He "opened thermos, poured a cup of coffee, and watched the episode play out, hoping it would take a better turn and not wanting to interfere without good reason ..."

Although he claims to eventually find "good reason" to intervene, the Army colonel never reported the incident or even so much as reprimanded men who had engaged in activities that constituted war crimes.

Sadly, the story of Dr. James's complicity in prisoner abuse does not end there. The New Orleans native and former LSU psychology professor admits to overseeing the detention, interrogation and health care of three boys, ages twelve to fourteen, who were disappeared to Guantanamo and held without charge or access to counsel or their families. In "Fixing Hell" and elsewhere, Dr. James proudly proclaims that he was in a position of authority at Guantanamo.

http://www.truth-out.org/1029091

Those who want to focus on Glenn Greenwald for obvious political reasons are missing the real story here. Every time I see an attack on Greenwald, I will post the above paragraphs in response. And AGAIN, my question will be, WHY isn't this fucker rotting away in prison for war crimes, and instead is having tea with Michelle Obama? Something stinks to high heaven here, and it sure isn't Glenn Greenwald.

[sabrina 1]

86. Thank you, if the rule of law had been restored, he and his

ilk would not be teaching in colleges or part of any groups that on the White House guest list.

But the reason for attacking Greenwald is to distract from the real story.

It truly is shameful, how low this country has sunk and how many people there are who will defend or cover up for torturers and their enablers.

[xchrom]

60. recommend

[Wilms]

66. Thanks. n/t

[dionysus]

67. FACT: Greenwald is a douchebag.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

73. huh?

:shrug:

[Wilms]

74. Let's start with torture, wiretaps, Miranda. Just a start. n/t

[sabrina 1]

69. Well, to the right he was always a douchebag, but that is generally

a compliment to those of us who care about this country. To the Left he was a hero, until it became apparent that he was not about to shift his positions on moral issues just because a Democrat was in the WH.

In a way, the changing attitude towards people who were heroes when Bush was their target by some on the 'left' has been an education for me.

I remember vehemently defending the 'left' to rightwingers, as the people with integrity, unlike them who would condone even torture just because it was their guy doing it. And they mocked me for being 'naive' and told me that the 'left' would turn a blind eye to anything their party did and that if I did not know that, I should get interested in something other than politics.

I never believed it, but I do now and I guess I owe them an apology. At least they were right about something.

[Oilwellian]

81. Yes, isn't it sad to see torture defended by fellow Democrats?

A real eye-opener, indeed.

[sabrina 1]

85. Very sad. I guess some things are more important

than war crimes. It has been an eye-opener.

[fascisthunter]

71. nah... I Think the Problem Lies with the Status Quo

and those that unquestioningly support it. Maybe if you held the President to as high a standard as you do Greenwald, we as a party and country would be better off.

[inna]

78. vile, offensive and stupid comment

[blackspade]

92. That may be your opinion...

But that does not change the message, even if all you are doing is attacking the messenger.

[JoePhilly]

70. You NEGLECT to mention how his article used this info to wrongly BASH

the President and his administration.

And that is the key point. Greenwald wrote a HIT PIECE on the Obama administration with ZERO confirmation from them.

If the man wants to be taken seriously as a journalist, he needs to get some direct response.

He did not. Now he looks like a dope, and he earned it.

[sabrina 1]

72. No, he wrote a report on an announcement made by a

Professor to the staff and students of a reputable University. Do you know why this Larry James seemed so confident that he had the job?

Greenwald was not the initiator of this story. Even if he had never written about it, it would have been a big story seeing as how the Harvard Law School of Human Rights Program had the story on their blog.

Shouldn't they have checked it out or was it within reason to take the announcement by James at face value? Why would he lie about something like this?

Greenwald is one of the most highly respected writers in this country and will remain so. He got a response from the White House, did you read it? Can you explain how the WH made a mistake like this?

Reporting news like this is NOT bashing anyone, and by reporting it he gave the WH the opportunity to respond. Which they have and which he published.

If this had been Bush, would Greenwald still be a 'dope bashing the president'? I know, he would not be.

What people should be concerned about is what exactly is the truth about this story?

[JoePhilly]

93. Greenwald claimed that this important appointment proved that

Obama supported Bush's torture programs.

Maybe Greenwald will retract that assertion.

Has he?

[sabrina 1]

94. The answer to your question is in the OP

But what has been clarified by the WH is that James was invited to the Tuesday meeting at the WH. How that came about, no one knows yet. Someone, the WH is basically saying, made a mistake. He has now been dis-invited.

Greenwald was responding the Harvard Law School's Human Rights Program but as soon as the WH contacted him, he corrected that information and contacted James for an explanation of why he would tell such a blatant lie. So far, there has been no comment from James.

[JoePhilly]

95. So no.

GG does not yet say ...oppps, sorry for claiming that this is an example of Obama supporting torture. Which is what he says originally.

[Oilwellian]

82. Uh, no

Greenwald exposed the fact that Michelle was about to have tea with a torturer. I take that quite seriously.

[JoePhilly]

96. He also falsely claimed that the Obama admin had appointed

this guy to an important position.

And then went on to use that false assertion to conclude that this was an example of Obama dismissing Bush era torture.

The tiny part he got right, does not excuse the HUGE accusation that he got wrong.

[bvar22]

75. There you go again!

Ruining a perfectly good Lynching.
....torches all lit and everything...

You're just an old Party Pooper.

[sabrina 1]

83. Sorry!

:-(

[Better Believe It]

76. If the Greenwald article had not appeared the White House invitation to Larry James would stand.

That's my opinion.

[chill_wind]

77. Sounds like damage control to me, too. But I'd still like to hear from Dr James

how it was that he came to believe he was appointed to the Task Force by the First Lady, which were allegedly his own words, according to the accounts of his email, or see him refute them.

[JoePhilly]

97. And the appointment GG claims?

GG does not just claim that the guy would be atthe meeting, he claims the guy received a significant appointment.

And then he uses that "appointment" to bash Obama.

Without that, his article has no legs.

[sabrina 1]

98. HE did not make that claim. He reported the claim made by

Larry James himself and then he commented on it, if it was true. This is the extent of his comments:

But the White House's conduct in selecting him is nonetheless baffling, at best. Of all the psychologists to choose from, why would they possibly choose to honor and elevate the former chief psychologist of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib at the height of the Bush abuses? More disturbing still, among those most damaged by detainee abuse are the service members forced to participate in it; why would the White House possibly want to put on a task force about the health of military families someone, such as Dr. James, who at the very least is directly associated with policies that so profoundly harmed numerous members of the military and their families?

This isn't exactly a powerful Task Force, but what this appointment does is have the White House -- yet again -- signal that it does not really take very seriously the Bush torture regime. On appearance grounds alone, the Obama administration should not be embracing and legitimizing the Bush-era Chief Psychologist of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Is there really nobody in the White House who was able to come to that realization on their own, or is this part of some twisted "reaching out" effort to show that they view bygones as bygones when it comes to the war crimes our leaders committed and whom the Obama administration continues to protect? Whatever the explanation, the symbolism here is as ugly as the mindset underlying it.

As soon as he received word from the White House in response to that comment he published an update with the WH response.

The White House, however, now tells a much different story. In an email to me from the First Lady’s Communications Director, the White House claims:

Several members of the White House staff are convening a meeting with multiple mental health professionals on Tuesday to discuss issues pertaining to the wellness of military families. SAMHSA and the American Psychological Association have both been asked to attend. We understand that Dr. James is involved with these groups and may have been indirectly invited to attend this meeting.

She claims, however, that he now will not be at that meeting, and further states that "Dr. James has not been appointed to serve in any capacity with the White House."

There’s obviously quite a discrepancy between the claims in the James email as provided by HLS' Human Rights Project and the White House’s claims. Calls to Dr. James regarding this matter have not been returned, but if I speak with him, I’ll post his response to the White House's denials.

So, he provided all sides of the story in a matter of hours. I don't get the vitriol at all.

[ProSense]

79. The defense of Greenwald.

He made a mistake.

He's not infallible. He also seems to issues

<...>

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

[Forkboy]

90. "He's not infallible." Other than Obama, who is?

[pmorlan1]

84. Methinks they doth protest too much

Thanks for the post Sabrina1.

I think a lot of the people who are dogging Greenwald over this minor incident are pretty transparent.

Greenwald's update to this story also shows me that even for something minor like this Greenwald is quick to update his readers, which doesn't happen very often with our MSM.

[sabrina 1]

91. Yes, if anything it is a minor issue and one that he corrected

immediately, unlike the MSM who have never corrected any of their reporting on the War in Iraq, eg, or on ACORN a story which they still reference as if O'Keefe et al had never been exposed for the # the crimes they committed by illegally recording people in two states, and the investigation in CA which included getting the unedited tapes proving their lies.

Greenwald like anyone who writes about important issues, has made mistakes but has always corrected them and updated with new information as he gets it.

The attacks on him make me wonder sometimes. HBGary's plan to undermine him continues even after they were exposed.

[rpannier]

87. Kick but no rec. I was too late to the party

It is a good post