Greenwald Derangement Syndrome

[adric mutelovic]

This is a response to a recent article written by Obama defender Johnathan Chait, entitled, "Greenwald is Ralph Nader."
From the blog The Heart of The Matter, written by Barry Eisler:

I just read an article by Jonathan Chait in New York Magazine that was so silly and self-indulgent I wasn't going to comment on it. What's the point of comparing Greenwald to Ralph Nader (or to anyone else, really)? What's the point of discussing Greenwald at all, compared to the importance of his reporting? Can you really try to castigate Greenwald for arguing that in various ways Obama is worse than Bush, when so many Constitutional law experts are arguing that indeed, Obama is worse than Nixon? Is Chait ignorant of the mountain of evidence behind this argument, or of the other people making it? Why does he refer to but fail to address the actual evidence in the supporting piece he links to, instead treating the argument itself as ipso facto evidence of sanctimony?

snip

And most glaring of all, did Chait really complain that "For Greenwald... the evils of liberals loom far larger than the evils of conservatives," when he's talking about a guy who's written no fewer than three books (and God knows how many blog posts) on the failings of conservatives -- with titles like How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President [Bush] Run Amok; and A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency; and Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics?

Read more here, including how Johnathan Chait's feelings are hurt in part because Greenwald once called him a "McCain worshipper": http://barryeisler.blogspot.com/2013/06/greenwald-derangement-syndrome.html

[DirkGently]

1. The frantic contortions to "destroy" truth tellers like GG speak of the fear he engenders.

Greenwald is a *threat.* Can't be bought. Can't be scared.

That's not to say he's right all the time -- no one is. And yes, his critique is judgmental and motivated. He develops an "agenda."

But that's not where all this is coming from. Insinuations he's a criminal. A pornographer. A traitor.

These are the weapons of the status quo. This is the rage of entrenched power at an actor failing to recognize its preeminence.

Greenwald is "cheating" in their minds. He hasn't paid his dues. Bought his legitimacy by participating in the accepted channels through which power is wielded. He might, at any moment, undermine a carefully developed, highly expensive power structure.

They can't even see how silly they look in their bloodlust to exterminate the Other, the unincorporated, the "disloyal."

Take note of who's carrying torches against this guy. They have chosen power over truth, and they will do it every time.

[villager]

3. The regular "Two Minutes Hate" here on DU is becoming quite startling.

And saddening.

[sibelian]

15. Their tune is changing.

Many of them now have "concerns" regarding the NSA surveillance programme. Concerns that require a "debate". A "healthy, robust debate".

[villager]

16. "A healthy debate" wherein "I will repeat whatever talking points come from the White House...

...or Pentagon"

[sibelian]

31. Yes.

It's deeply disturbing.

[Babel_17]

27. I missed seeing your post before making a similar obversation

Yeah, it strikes me that people are angry about the administration having to take some extra heat and Glenn Greenwald is being put out there as a worthy target.

[Rockyj]

35. Agreed!

The old smear the truth messenger to discredit him!
Sadly, it works even here!

[cherokeeprogressive]

6. The most flak always occurs over the target. n/t

[DirkGently]

8. Well that's a shorter, & thus better, way to put it. n/t

[boilerbabe]

9. yes these people fool NOBODY.

[LWolf]

14. The worst part is

that those same people are all too willing to crucify conservatives for those tactics, but are fine with using them themselves.

Apples don't fall far from trees, I guess.

[zeemike]

21. What you said....n/t

[one_voice]

2. Obama derangement syndrome.

[DirkGently]

5. Has GG even made Obama the focus of his investigation here?

One thing I always find telling about who is arguing honestly about what they think, and who is carrying water, is the lightspeed leap some make from a seemingly non Obama-centric issue to omigod-he's-trying-to-take-down-our-guy!

I'd have to go back and make a list, but there's a seeming endless stream of the same, ferocious-but-substance-free attacks on any kind of critique remotely related to the government -- save the Republic Congress specifically -- since 2008.

These are Republican programs, enacted by the most reviled Republican President since Nixon, supported by Republican judges, championed by Republican members of Congress.

It may turn out that the present administration bears responsibility for not "fixing" it all, but I think even Obama's critics would acknowledge he didn't invent this nasty wheel.

Why isn't that the pro-Obama take, I wonder? "He's trying to sort it out, needs more work, and our support?"

Why is the argument that everything's finejustfine, nothing to see here?

Are the supporters afraid that Obama IS responsible for what's going on, and rush to defend on that assumption?

If so, that's a pretty cynical form of support for the President.

[OregonBlue]

4. I've always thought Greenwald was a self-promoting egomaniac. He's a Libertarian and a creep. Always

has been. This whole NSA story has not changed how I feel about him. I just never liked or trusted him to begin with.

[DirkGently]

7. Do you have a substantive criticism, or just name-calling and "feeling?"

[otohara]

20. I'm With You

Don't like him, don't trust him, never did.
He's extremely rude - like Rand Paul.

[JaneyVee]

10. What about Greenwald's anti-immigration writings or his defense of Matthew Hale?

[BumRushDaShow]

13. Remember that only Obama-bashing as purported "critique"

is permitted on DU.

[sibelian]

17. What about his squinty-looking eyes and his weird hairstyle?

What about his unhealthy obsession with Stevie Wonder?

[nineteen50]

25. and a desire to know and keep secret everything.

[JaneyVee]

32. I don't pass judgements based on people's looks. That's shallow.

[sibelian]

34. Glad to hear it. nt.

[SidDithers]

11. Izzy or izzy not a clown, Jake?...

I'm gonna go with yes, he is a clown.

Sid

[Licentiathe8th]

12. So Johnathan Chait is an Obama defender and a 'McCain worshiper'?

[adric mutelovic]

18. Why do you find that strange?

?

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Chait agrees with power. He was a huge, huge cheerleader for Bush and for the

Iraq War, which Greenwald also supported. I am not crazy about either one of them because they were Iraq War supporters, as was Andrew Sullivan, but also Chuck Hagel and John McCain. They were all on the same cozy side, spitting nails at those who so much as questioned the invasion.
Chait was on Tweety just before to sell Iraq invasion, he claimed it would almost instantly make life better for Iraqis'.
Barf

[spooky3]

29. Greenwald did NOT support the Iraq War. See links about this lie (his word).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023128604

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more#
&quot Lie # 3): I supported the Iraq War and/or George Bush"

"These claim [sic] are absolutely false. They come from a complete distortion of the Preface I wrote to my own 2006 book, How Would a Patriot Act? That book - which was the first book devoted to denouncing the Bush/Cheney executive power theories as radical and lawless - was published a mere six months after I began blogging, so the the purpose of the Preface was to explain where I had come from, why I left my law practice to begin writing about politics, and what my political evolution had been..

The whole point of the Preface was that, before 2004, I had been politically apathetic and indifferent - except for the work I was doing on constitutional law. That's because, while I had no interest in the fights between Democrats and Republicans, I had a basic trust in the American political system and its institutions, such that I devoted my attention and energies to preventing constitutional violations rather than political debates. From the first two paragraphs:..."

[Luminous Animal]

30. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden also supported the invasion. The difference between all of them

and Greenwald, is that they had influence and a national platform to advance the war.

Glenn, on the other hand, hadn't even started writing. He had as much individual power to influence national policy as you or me.

[Iggo]

19. The more they attack the messenger, the harder I look at the message.

[woo me with science]

23. "Courage is contagious." Greenwald is right.

The corporate authoritarians who own this country now are terrified of Snowden, because the people can hear him....hundreds of millions of us.

He must be smeared and destroyed.

[Babel_17]

24. Greenwald = Goldstein to some

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate

Though to be fair, all sides in heated debates see some of this.

It's only noteworthy when its encouraged, or actually engaged in, by major players/advocates on either side.

[Luminous Animal]

28. American Extremists strikes again.

http://vastleft.blogspot.com/

[Nevernose]

33. He's just like Ralph Nader

And at the rate Obama-haters are smearing Obama, he'll never be able to win reelection in 2016.



I haven't been heavily involved n these arguments, but I'm still having trouble understanding how the best answer to "I don't like being spied on" is best answered by "But the reporter used to be a pornographer!"

[madokie]

36. The reason for the discussion of Greenwald

is he clearly has an agenda. If you can't see that then I don't know what to say except that is sad
This is as much about him as it is about the NSA whether you want to admit that or not. Period