Proof Glenn Greenwald hates Obama

[caseymoz]

107. But with Greenwald . . .

. . . again you're arguing After This Therefore Because of This. You haven't demonstrated a connection between Cheney's opinion and Greenwald's.

Now, despite the fact that your evidence is fallacious, that doesn't mean Greenwald's not an opportunist, that simply means you haven't found evidence that points that way. That's the fun of logic in the real world. Like reading tea leaves and still being right, a false argument doesn't necessarily mean you guessed wrong. It does mean your argument didn't help you guess right.

It doesn't seem to me with the crapstorm Greenwald has taken that he's swayed by which way popular opinion is leaning. It also doesn't seem to me that his books are well supported by Conservatives, who might hate President Obama to the bone, but they love the Intelligence apparatus. They love the notion of a strongman as President, just not this particular guy. If President Obama has abused his power, it's not in the way Conservatives want to believe he is. Such as, Obama's support of the Intelligence Industrial Complex doesn't advance their image that Obama's a socialist who's equalizing the wealth, nor does it suggest he's a closet Muslim.

You notice that aside from outliers like Rand Paul, Repubs haven't been jumping on the NSA scandal. That's because the Intelligence apparatus is their child, whether Obama has parental rights or not. No, the scandals they want to advance are the IRS scrutinizing Conservative 401c's, or Benghazi.

Now, Greenwald has written single articles about both, but he didn't harp on them. With Benghazi, he had a single article saying that the Obama Administration's initial account about it was, like the bin Laden attack, false. He also said the IRS scandal, along with the secret AP warrants damaged President Obama's credibility with the press as a champion of civil liberties. Both are true, and he ended it there. He hasn't harped on them, and if he's appealing to popular sentiment, you'd think that would be the direction he'd go.

Plus, he hasn't just criticized President Obama. Here are titles of some of his articles since March 2013 having nothing to do with the President Obama:

Reader-funded journalism

Was the London killing of a British soldier 'terrorism'?

Barbara Lee and Dick Durbin's 'nobody-could-have-known' defense

Israeli bombing of Syria and moral relativism

The racism that fuels the 'war on terror'

Report: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's repeated requests for a lawyer were ignored

Barbara Boxer, AIPAC seek to codify Israel's right to discriminate against Americans

Margaret Thatcher and misapplied death etiquette

Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus

How Noam Chomsky is discussed

David Frum, the Iraq war and oil

Charles Krauthammer's false statement about the US Constitution


So, explain this, if he's an opportunist apparently appealing to Conservatives, how do you explain these other articles having nothing to do with the president, most on topics of concern to progressives, and most that would make Greenwald controversial, if not downright unpopular?