[this is my first diary, but please don’t hold back ;)]
Recently Obama signed off on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). A provision of this act would allow the military to hold American citizens accused of being terrorists indefinitely, which by any honest assessment is unconstitutional. Obama originally threatened to veto it, but backed off after Congress watered it down so that the President could use his authority to bypass military prosecution in favor of a civilian prosecution, which requires due process. President Obama issued a signing statement saying that he would never hold American citizens indefinitely; of course that has no bearing on future presidents. Rachel Maddow – as always – gives a good explanation:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
transcript
Justifiably, Glenn Greenwald criticizes Obama for compromising on this extremely important issue. However, anyone who reads Greenwald’s blog knows that his narrative of the Obama administration is that Obama is not much different from Bush (at least on foreign policy and civil rights) and has very little concern for human suffering. Greenwald may deny this characterization, but after reading his blog it would be hard to come away with a different impression. So on a complicated issue like this one, where Obama’s personal desires are clearly different from the resulting piece of legislation, Greenwald needlessly and carelessly obfuscates Obama’s actions so that this story fits his preconceived narrative of the Obama administration. Here is the offending quote,
Obama’s objections to this bill had nothing to do with civil liberties, due process or the Constitution. It had everything to do with Executive power.
And for those who cite the Carl Levin video - as Greenwald did and never issued a correction - please do your own homework. That video was selectively edited by a Breitbart-like spammer. It is stunning how many people in the media – including Greenwald – rely on the work of charlatans without doing any research of their own. Whatever happened to journalistic integrity, Glenn? Furthermore, the Obama administration actually did just the opposite of what Greenwald and others suggested and actually requested for the NDAA to specifically exclude American citizens from indefinite detention, so Obama actually lobbied Congress on behalf of Americans’ civil rights.
Clearly if Obama was just concerned about executive power then he would have no problem with that provision since Congress maintained executive privilege in the bill. Problem solved. Obama, however, felt the need to issue a signing statement – nonbinding as it may be – saying he would never use that provision to detain Americans indefinitely, and he even lobbied Congress to take it out all together. So it is bizarre to say that the issue of civil liberties was not a concern of Obama at all. There is a lot to criticize Obama about with regards to signing this bill, but to mislead his readers about Obama’s intentions and never set the record straight is incredibly petty and irresponsible of Greenwald.
To be perfectly honest, I actually like reading Glenn Greenwald’s blog, and much of the time I agree with him. However, he often gets his facts wrong and doesn’t do his homework (such as in this case), so I have to cross check him with more reliable sources of information (i.e. Rachel Maddow). It is unfortunate that Greenwald feels the need to mislead his readers so that he may present this distorted preconceived narrative of the Obama administration.
So why does Greenwald willfully mislead his readers about the Obama administration? This question can be best answered by his admiration for Ron Paul while at the same time despising President Obama. This extremely hypocritical sentiment derives from the fact that Ron Paul is anti-establishment and Obama represents the establishment in Greenwald’s eyes. Simple as that. Whatever their policy views are is irrelevant to him. This is much like the Paulbots who have no idea what a gold standard is, but just like the sound of the rhetoric. That is how superficial Greenwald is, despite the fact that the views of Obama rather than the views of Paul more closely match those held by Glenn Greenwald. Thus, Greenwald is quick to defend Ron Paul (here, here, and here), while distorting the actions of Obama.
There are some parts of the previous paragraph, which I’m sure Greenwald would take issue with. Like for example my assertion that Obama’s views rather than Ron Paul’s more closely match the views of Greenwald. It seems Greenwald is willfully ignorant of the fact that Ron Paul is not a libertarian, but an extreme state’s rights conservative. He has even asserted the right of the state to implement sodomy laws, despite being personally against those laws himself. So the idea that Ron Paul is pro-civil liberties is patently false. He has no qualms with the government trampling on civil rights as long as it is the state government doing the trampling. Moreover, he is a pandering politician like anybody else, maybe even more so. He refuses to disavow the support of hateful extremist groups despite saying he opposes their views, and was more than willing to let bigoted smut be written in his newsletters because of the support it drew. He’ll get political support wherever he can get it. That is how cynical and unprincipled he is when it comes to increasing his fan base. I don’t think it would be out of line to call Ron Paul an egotistical asshole.
More significantly, Greenwald’s foreign policy views much more closely match that of Obama than Ron Paul. Obama like most progressives is an internationalist, while Ron Paul is an isolationist. Paul’s progressive bona fides begins and ends with his anti-war views. On every other issue whether it be on the U.N. or international aid (foreign aid, tsunami victims) Paul has held extremely anti-progressive views. To be sure, denying aid to victims of natural disasters or the ravages of diseases like AIDS and malaria would cause astronomically more civilian deaths than predator drones; it’s not ever close. His anti-war views even extend to such ridiculous stances as being against the Civil War (because the North could just buy all the slaves!) or World War II. Wars which the vast majority of Progressives agree with.
So Greenwald’s assertion that Obama has just as many evil positions if not more as Ron Paul is ridiculous and reeks of false equivalency. And even if that was the case – if there was such an equivalency - Greenwald is curiously quick to defend Paul while equally quick to criticize and even distort the actions of Obama. This hypocrisy is in itself proof that Greenwald just hates Obama because he views him as being part of the establishment, as if being an establishment figure makes you inherently evil. That sort of superficial world view is why I can’t take Greenwald seriously much of the time.
And don’t take this from me. Take it from Glenn Greenwald:
For those who are extremely dissatisfied with the status quo in American political life and are seeking ways to change it, supporting one of the two major-party candidates in the 2012 presidential campaign as the principal form of activism offers no solution.
Ignoring the fact that Paul supports state government oppression of civil liberties and an extreme and heartless isolationist foreign policy, Greenwald has crystallized his reason for his bizarre admiration for Paul: challenging the status quo regardless of what that might actually entail under Ron Paul’s leadership. That is in itself not a reason to admire someone. To use a hyperbole, white supremacists (who I’m sure Ron Paul is familiar with) challenge the status quo constantly, but that in itself doesn’t make them admirable. It’s the policies one supports that matters. Not that Greenwald cares about policy. For all the criticism of Obama voters being enamored with his lofty campaign rhetoric, at least our political views are somewhat similar. With Greenwald, as long as you have the right tone in your rhetoric - regardless of the content - then you are golden. As Zbigniew Brzezinski would say, how stunningly superficial.
9:01 AM PT: I made the rec list with my first diary!!!! Woooooooooooot!!!!! Many thanks to everyone in the Kos community.