After making the fantastical claim (but as yet not giving any actual evidence) that the NSA's surveillance programs are easily and commonly abused -- that "any analyst" could spy on any American, anytime, without a warrant, without authorization, and without consequence -- Glenn Greenwald has continued making further wild accusations about the NSA programs, including tweeting out amped-up rhetoric backing the now-discredited fairy tale of NSA spying told by a New York woman. As noted yesterday, his wild exaggerations have now spread to the subject of the government's alleged treatment of whistleblowers, as he falsely and ludicrously claims that it is the government's policy to "disappear" whistleblowers "for decades" -- a baseless, dishonest claim, to be sure, but one in keeping with Greenwald's anti-government, anti-Obama narrative.
Well, just when you thought Greenwald's anti-Obama exaggerations and hysteria couldn't possibly get any worse, he somehow manages to set a new low rather easily. Apparently not content with "truthy" reporting -- taking a kernel of truth about the capabilities of the NSA programs, but then confusing, conflating, and/or wildly exaggerating that kernel into claims of widespread, sinister, nefarious, and illegal activity -- Greenwald has now apparently decided to go the full Glenn Beck/Alex Jones conspiracy theory route.
Beck and Jones, as you may know, have been spinning wild conspiracy theories about how the alert status initiated for our overseas embassies and consulates is a "false flag" operation. Beck claims the alert is a scam designed to improve Obama's polling numbers; Jones, meanwhile, claims the alert is is designed to deflect attention from the Benghazi "scandal."
Poll numbers? Bengahzi? Really? Well, before you laugh too hard, just be aware that Greenwald, the hero of "principled leftists," has decided to double-down on the crazy, claiming that the embassy alert is because of . . . him:
“[H]ere we are in the midst of, you know, one of the most intense debates and sustained debates that we’ve had in a very long time in this country over the dangers of excess surveillance, and suddenly an administration that has spent two years claiming that it has decimated al-Qaeda decides that there is this massive threat that involves the closing of embassies and consulates throughout the world.”http://www.democracynow.org/...
Um, what??? Greenwald is joining wholeheartedly with . . . Glenn Beck and Alex Jones???
First, the ego of this guy is breath-taking. At least the crazy spouted by Beck and Jones are based on external matters, even if imaginary. But Greenwald's claim goes way beyond that -- his brand of conspiracy theory is all about him. Think about it -- Glenn Greenwald is trying to claim that his reporting has moved the entire national security apparatus to issue a fake alert for our worldwide embassies and consulates. The hubris . . . it burns.
Note also the typical Greenwaldian strawman and conflation: "an administration that has spent two years claiming that it has decimated al-Qaeda . . ." Does anyone here recall Obama or anyone else ever saying that any successes against al-Qaeda meant that the threat of terrorism is over? Me neither. But of course, that reality wouldn't move Greenwald's narrative, would it?
So, apparently completely unchastened by his recent support and hyping of the fake story of non-existent NSA spying in New York, Greenwald has now moved into full-blown conspiracy theories. The existence of an unhinged, anti-Obama agenda is beyond doubt now. As usual, what we are seeing is Greenwaldian projection -- whatever bad behavior Bush ever did, Greenwald applies it to his anti-Obama narrative. Bush abused surveillance systems? Let's smear Obama! Bush failed to provide any oversight? Let's smear Obama! Bush played politics with national security issues? Let's smear Obama! The pattern, sadly, is all too familiar. Let's face it: If an attack occurs, with or without an alert, Greenwald will use that to smear Obama, too.
The moral? Greenwald continues to suffer from massive credibility issues. His reporting and claims are filled with wild exaggerations and material omissions. He is far more concerned with pushing a narrative than accuracy, even if it means going completely off the rails. And now what's left of his credibility has fallen into spouting conspiracy theories. How long before he starts talking about 9/11?