First off, let me say that I have more respect for Glenn Greenwald than for any other blogger. He writes what he knows, he knows it well, he writes extensively so as to cover every angle, and he constantly updates his material as the debate develops. This is a standard of work head and shoulders above other bloggers', and he has been an invaluable resource.
And I hope he'll keep doing that, because Glenn Greenwald screwed up, big time.
Now that I have already done my due diligence, in going to Glenn's site and telling him what I'm about to tell you (which is as face-to-face as is possible in the blogsphere), I'm going to lay it out for you.
This isn't a matter of the Constitution or law, this is a matter of what words mean. Glenn Greenwald accused Olbermann of flip-flopping on the FISA issue in order to protect Barack Obama, only to show that Glenn Greenwald wasn't paying attention.
I've already credited Mr. Greenwald with intelligence, so let me just say that I also credit him with honesty. Why? Because he provided the links that let me prove him wrong. By following his links to Olbermann's Special Comment and interview with Jonathan Alter at youtube.com, I was easily able to figure out where Glenn had gone wrong.
First, Glenn is accusing Olbermann of flip-flopping on the FISA bill by comparing two Olbermann quotes that talk about two different parts of the bill: wiretapping authority and telecom immunity. Yes, I know they're parts of the same bill, but you can distinguish between them, I can distinguish between them, Glenn Greenwald has distinguished between them, so Keith Olbermann can distinguish between them. Here's Olbermann's indictment of telecom immunity as prefaced by Glenn Greenwald.
GREENWALD: Olbermann added that telecom amnesty was a "shameless, breathless, literally textbook example of Fascism -- the merged efforts of government and corporations that answer to no government." Noting the numerous telecom lobbyists connected to the Bush administration, Olbermann said:
OLBERMANN: This is no longer just a farce in which protecting telecoms is dressed up as protecting us from terrorists conference cells. Now it begins to look like the bureaucrats of the Third Reich, trying to protect the Krupp family, the industrial giants, re-writing the laws of Germany for their benefit.
Yes, that is "textbook fascism," because it's corporatism, something Olbermann is obliquely referencing by using the word "textbook" and by citing an example of corporate/fascist collaboration.
But that has nothing necessarily to do with the second Olbermann quote, and I invite you to go read it, which was about how Obama's break with the Glenn Greenwalds of the world was going to play politically.
It's not the same thing because it's not the same issue, nor is it the same kind of inquiry or discussion. The greatest crime one could accuse Olbermann of, here, is "process talk."
But the real error on Greenwald's part is this: the second quote is clipped.
GREENWALD: Olbermann closed by scoffing at the idea that telecom amnesty or revisions to FISA were necessary to help National Security:
OLBERMANN: There is not a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or protecting the people from terrorism, Sir. This is a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or pretending to protect the people from terrorists. Sorry, Mr. Bush, the eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counter-terrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat the thwarting of which could hinge on an email or phone call that is going through Room 641 of AT&T in San Francisco.
You're wrong, Glenn. Olbermann is not "scoffing at the idea that telecom amnesty or revisions to FISA were necessary to help National Security," and the word "obviously" in the above paragraph should have been a dead giveaway. Olbermann was being sarcastic. But Greenwald's transcript left off two minutes 87 seconds of Olbermann's rant, which gave an impression of the exact opposite of Olbermann's actual meaning.
The fact that Olbermann prefaced the segment Greenwald quoted with Andy Card's comments about keeping Americans safe should have tipped Greenwald off. But all of us have been guilty at one time or another of firing off online before we knew what we were talking about, and it is to Greenwald's credit that it's taken him this long to fuck up.
Here's the rest of what Olbermann said,* which shows why Greenwald has got it exactly backwards. The video is here.
Before Greenwald's edit: 7:56 - 8:40
OLBERMANN: Indeed, Mr. Bush, the primary job of any president is to protect us. Not just those of us who own Internet and Telephone companies - All of us. And even you, sir, with your intermittent grasp of reality... even with your ego greater than a 100-percent approval rating... even with your messianic petulance - even you could not truly choose to protect the corporations instead of the people.
I am not talking about ethics here. I am talking about blame.
Even if it's you throwing out the baby with the bathwater, Mr. Bush, it still means we can safely conclude... there is no baby!
This is not a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution, or protecting the people from terrorists, sir.
It is a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution, or pretending to protect the people from terrorists.
After Greenwald's edit: 8:59 - 9:42
OLBERMANN: Because if there were, Mr. Bush, and you were to, by your own hand, veto an extension of this eavesdropping, and some terrorist attack were to follow, you would not merely be guilty of siding with the terrorists, you would not merely be guilty of prioritizing the telecoms over the people, you would not merely be guilty of stupidity, you would not merely be guilty of treason... but you would be personally, and eternally, responsible.
And if there is one thing we know about you, Mr. Bush, one thing that you have proved time and time again under any and all circumstances, it is that you are never responsible.
Good night and good luck.
So, Olbermann is not "scoffing at the idea that telecom amnesty or revisions to FISA were necessary to help National Security," not by any stretch of the imagination. Olbermann was saying, over and over and over, that Bush is only pretending that there is a threat so that he can give the corporations what they want.
And that's gotta be the "no shit" statement of this young century and millennium.
As Glenn Greenwald has already pointed out in his own defense, he himself provided the link to Olbermann's Special Comment, so Greenwald cannot be accused of dishonesty here, only error. I remember Olbermann's rhetorical twist because I disagreed with Olbermann. Unlike Olbermann, I consider Bush capable of deliberately leaving Americans to die if it were to his advantage.
But back to Greenwald's quotes, mischaracterizing half of his two quotes on different parts of the same bill is too shaky a foundation for Greenwald to reach the following conclusion:
GREENWALD: What's much more notable is Olbermann's full-scale reversal on how he talks about these measures now that Obama -- rather than George Bush -- supports them. On an almost nightly basis, Olbermann mocks Congressional Democrats as being weak and complicit for failing to stand up to Bush lawbreaking; now that Obama does it, it's proof that Obama won't "cower." Grave warning on Olbermann's show that telecom amnesty and FISA revisions were hallmarks of Bush Fascism instantaneously transformed into a celebration that Obama, by supporting the same things, was leading a courageous, centrist crusade in defense of our Constitution.
Is that really what anyone wants -- transferring blind devotion from George Bush to Barack Obama? Are we hoping for a Fox News for Obama, that glorifies everything he says and whitewashes everything he does?
No, we don't. And, if you'd considered the whole thing, you wouldn't worry so much about what isn't happening.
::
And now let me address a problem that I am not laying at Glenn Greenwald's door, because although he's caught up in the issue, it's not a sin he's committed.
Lately, conversations in the left blogsphere have gone like this:
Some Asshole: OMG!!! Obama disagreed with SCOTUS on the child-rape ruling! OBAMA IS MOVING TO THE CENTER I TOLD YOU HE WAS ONLY A POLITICIAN!!! I WAS NEVER A MEMBER OF HIS CULT BUT I AM SO DISAPPOINTED YOU'D THINK I WAS!!! I'M GONNA SLIT MY WRISTS!!!
Me: Uh, actually, that's been Obama's position on this issue since 2006, so not only is that not "the center," necessarily, it also cannot be a "move" of any kind.
SA: OMG!!! YOU'RE A MEMBER OF HIS CULT!!! ONLY A MEMBER OF OBAMA'S CULT WOULD REFUSE TO BUY INTO ANY BULLSHIT CRITICISM THAT I CAN'T SUBSTANTIATE, WHICH IS SOMEHOW YOUR PROBLEM! CULTIST!! CULTIST!! CULTIST!! CULTIST!! CULTIST!!
And this is the shit being lobbed at anyone who didn't make Glenn Greenwald's mistake about what Keith Olbermann said. If you're not willing to make that mistake, you're a fan boy ... or something. And there are still other assholes accusing Glenn of having his own fanboys just because he's criticizing Olbermann.
Jesus Finkelstein Christ on a stale crouton, these people are a waste of skin.
Just because I'm not willing to blame Obama for recent sunspot activity or your thinning hair DOESN'T mean I'm a cultist, it means I'm not a fucking moron.
Now you know.
::
I have no problem with most of the rest of Glenn Greenwald's post from yesterday, though I do find his pretense at reading Alter's mind a little tedious and unnecessary:
GREENWALD: Leave aside the fact that Jonathan Alter, desperate to defend Obama, doesn't have the slightest idea of what he's talking about. How can a bill which increases the President's authority to eavesdrop with no warrants over the current FISA law possibly be described as a restoration of the Fourth Amendment?
That's not what Alter said. What Alter said was:
ALTER: So, there was tremendous urgency to get the FISA court back into the game. And does this bill do it imperfectly? Yes. But it does do it and it restores the Constitution, which is a point that's not getting made very much.
How do I know that's what Alter said? Because Greenwald quoted it. He even bolded the exact same text as I have done here.
When I watched the tape, I thought that Alter was talking about restoring the relationship between Congress, enacting laws, and the Executive, enforcing laws, because we've been in no-man's-land for so long (and it is only at this point that Alter refers to the fourth amendment). I happen to think that Alter is wrong about this, but not for the same reason Greenwald does.
::
What we're arguing about here is not what the law of the land is going to be and it's not how the Constitution is going to be interpreted. Bush was spying on you yesterday and he's going to be spying on you tomorrow, no matter what Obama or anyone else does between now and Obama's inauguration. We already know the administration has engaged in data-mining.
Instead, we are quibbling about the wording of a law
- that is going to be ignored
- by a regime that has one foot out the door
Opposing this bill won't protect the Constitution. As you read this, the Constitution is a dead letter. That's the state of affairs that the entire Democratic caucus left us with when they decided to take impeachment off the table. Until they run out the clock, no one is going to stop what the Bush administration is doing.
For this simple reason, I think this has got to be the dumbest reason for Democrats to start tearing each other apart since ... since the last time we did it.
::
Olbermann and Greenwald are largely talking past each other. Greenwald is talking about policy, Olbermann is talking about politics. To Greenwald, it's heretical and counterproductive for Olbermann to say what he said about "not cowering to the left" because it plays into stereotypes of Democrats and national security. But I gather that Greenwald is one or two years older than I am, so surely I don't have to explain to him what a Sister Souljah moment is, nor defend a journalist from speculating about it. Olbermann, for his part, wonders why he's being taken to task for something he didn't say, and in talking with John Dean about where we go from here Olbermann says:
OLBERMANN: John [Dean] said his reading of the revised FISA statute suggested it was so poorly constructed (or maybe so sublimely constructed) that it clearly did not preclude future criminal prosecution of the telecoms - it only stopped civil suits.
I have repeated his observation each night since. Maybe I didn't sell my conviction of its conclusiveness. I think John Dean is worth 25 Glenn Greenwalds (maybe 26 Keith Olbermanns).
Thus, as I phrased it on the air tonight, obviously Obama kicked the left in the teeth by supporting the bill. But anybody who got as hot about this as I did would prefer to see a President Obama prosecuting the telecoms criminally, instead of seeing a Senator Obama engender more "soft on terror" crap by casting a token vote in favor of civil litigation that isn't going to pass since so many other Democrats caved anyway.
But the sad part is that Greenwald clipped that part above, the part in parenthesis, the part where Olbermann is saying, by way of clumsy mathematical metaphor, that he holds himself as less worthy than Greenwald.
OLBERMANN: John Dean is worth 25 Glenn Greenwalds (maybe 26 Keith Olbermanns)
Glenn, that was the olive branch. Not only did you not take it, you edited it out.
Did you think we wouldn't notice?
Posting with trembling fingers is a fool's game. I know, Glenn, because I am quite regularly a bigger fool than you.
Olbermann needs to have Greenwald on his show, and Greenwald needs a time out.
* I had told Greenwald I would transcribe it myself, but I found that truthout had already done it for me.
.