Skip to main content

View Diary: Glenn Greenwald and His Repulsive Hypocrisy (190 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  it's all about trying to ruin the reputation of (13+ / 0-)

    those that criticize the president.

    That's all.

    "Obamalover20122", go figure.

    Physics is bulls**t. Don't let them fool you. Fire IS magic.

    by Pescadero Bill on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:52:44 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  What would be the flip side to that coin Bill? (6+ / 0-)

      Rhetorical question.

    •  Maybe I missed it but I didn't see that the (13+ / 0-)

      diarist mentioned the President at all. Even though President Obama is one of the legislators who was not naive, or politically innocent enough to support the war.

      In your (and other commenters) comment it seems that you automatically assume this diary is about supporting the President when it is in fact about Mr. Greenwald's credibility.  Especially since he decided to discuss his position and another diarist here posted it.  The only way that this could relate to the President is if it is your premise that Mr. Greenwald only functions as a journalist to complain about the President. If that is what Mr. Greenwald and his supporters actually believe to be his role, then this diary is more, not less on point.

      "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

      by stellaluna on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 09:25:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bill Freud's slip is showing. n/t (3+ / 0-)
      •  I don't think Greenwalds (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lady Libertine

        only functions to criticize the president and neither do you. His credibility in this case is in the eye of the beholder. Hypocrisy is the charge leveled against him here because he insulted progressives who now do the two legs better two step. His function as a writer seems to be to shed light on the systemic damage to our government and legal system's as well as the electoral partisan failures including the media. He isn't a partisan player, and as he's not a kossack and you can't HR him into oblivion or run him off like you do to other truth telling liberals.

        Instead you just lob shots at him like you do Jane Hamsher, Sirota, Michael Moore or anyone who's a critic of whats going down. Lefties, liberal, 'purist' or anyone who stands up to these Third Way Democrat's and their anti-democratic agenda are on your list. A lot of people me included got politically active because of what the Bushies were doing to our country and our system of checks and balances and the rule of law. To level hypocrisy at him for not knowing what a disaster the Bushies were before he was politically active or even writing is absurd. Thank goodness these writers and activists are able to be seen and heard.

        Gitmo is an abomination, so is the Patriot Act, NDAA, droning kill lists and other anti-democratic policies both foriegn and domestic that both parties are implementing. So go ahead have at him. Won't hurt his reputation and this kind of vilification does nothing to help your cause of turning the dark into light.  


        •  it would be interesting to see how (0+ / 0-)

          many of GG's admirers did become politically active during the Bush years. Because many of us have been politically active for decades and aren't impressed with his self appointed role offering only criticism and no practical solutions. But maybe he does that because he is naive enough to think solutions are someone elae's problem.

          "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

          by stellaluna on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 06:11:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree... (6+ / 0-)

      ...GG's writing is predictable and too much of his own ego spills into his writing. I get a strong impression that much of what he chooses to write about serves as branding for his column. He ALWAYS is the sharp critic. He ALWAYS will be the one to say the emperor has no clothes, and if he needs to wait until the Emperor is taking a freakin bath, that's when he'll say it, and frame it as if it's the same thing as walking around naked in public.

      After Bush, he found something to take issue with Obama and that's now his subject. He chooses to feed the Obama is no better meme, which only works if you isolate issues where, sadly, O is no better or even worse. Fine. Hit O about the drones. it is valid. Certainly better than mindlessly giving the president the benefit of the doubt (GG lives and to respect that)

      I would trust his judgement a bit more if he didn't fall into the "only true patriot is the dissident" line of thinking and flog the America is bad horse for a paper based in an historically bloodthirsty former empire, on a continent whose colonial projects and baggage America regrettably took on after WW2. That context is missing from what I've read of his work. And certainly I have not yet seen a column from him recently that did not in some way isolate American foreign policy from the context of other governments in the world and what they contribute, for better or for worse, to what is happening on the planet. Human beings are flawed.
      All of us. That should inform any critic. I get anger, but not much compassion or humor from his writing. Outrage without wit is just difficult to digest for me.

      Maybe I just think his valid points are too important to be allowed to get stale.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site