GLENN GREENWALD IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR
I used to make great sport of Salon’s Glenn Greenwald and his idiotic rantings against Bush, conservatives, Republicans, and individual bloggers he would attack irrationally. There is no one on the internet who exaggerates more, takes what someone writes or says completely and dishonestly out of context more often, or sets up larger strawmen - knocking them down with the kind of feverish frenzy one might see in a 14 year old drama queen.
His over the top, hysterical warnings about the imminent demise of American democracy, his one dimensional take on everything from the war to same sex marriage, and his insufferable, loutish, smugly self righteous attitude figured to be just too tempting a target for many of us who see in him the epitome of netroots hypocrisy and stupidity.
But it got boring after a while to pillory Greenwald because he was so predictable. This is why he largely goes unchallenged these days; people are just too busy with other, more important matters, than going through one of his 3,000 word rants and calling him out for the lies, the exaggerations, the deliberate twisting of intent, and other grevious sins that is this sock puppet’s stock in trade.
Occasionally, however, the urge comes upon me to try to set the record straight. It may seem vainglorious for me to think that anything I write on my little blog matters a whit in the larger scheme of things - even in so insignificant a matter as Glenn Greenwald and his latest smears against those with which he disagrees. But winding up and throwing a haymaker toward Greenwald’s jaw - in a literary sense - is nevertheless a quite satisfying exercise emotionally and I will therefore indulge myself as I desperately need some spiritual uplift following the decline and fall of My Beloved Bears last week.
Greenwald has written perhaps the most dishonest, ignorant, deliberately deceptive piece on the War against Hamas that has yet been penned. And given the tripe that’s been vomiting forth from sites like The Nation and Firedoglake, that is a truly remarkable achievement.
Greenwald is a liar. Either that or he is so oblivious to facts, reason, and logic that he must experience life on the level of a two year old. How else would you describe his opening to this anti-Israeli screed that drips with venomous hatred against his political enemies:
This Rasmussen Reports poll — the first to survey American public opinion specifically regarding the Israeli attack on Gaza — strongly bolsters the severe disconnect I documented the other day between (a) American public opinion on U.S. policy towards Israel and (b) the consensus views expressed by America’s political leadership. Not only does Rasmussen find that Americans generally “are closely divided over whether the Jewish state should be taking military action against militants in the Gaza Strip” (44-41%, with 15% undecided), but Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive — by a 24-point margin (31-55%). By stark constrast, Republicans, as one would expect (in light of their history of supporting virtually any proposed attack on Arabs and Muslims), overwhelmingly support the Israeli bombing campaign (62-27%).
The smear written here - so casually made - that “as one would expect” (as if everyone were as intellectually dishonest as Greenwald), Republicans have a “history” of supporting “any proposed attacks on Arabs or Muslims.” What history might that be? A favorite Greenwaldian subterfuge is to throw as many charges against his enemies just to see if any stick. This one’s a biggie, of course.He is saying that all Republicans are bigots and hate Muslims and Arabs - without one single example or any evidence to support his wild, unsupported lie.
No, very few people “expect” Republicans to act in such a bigoted manner - especially 62% of them - except Greenwald and his ilk whose exaggerated sense of disproportion allows them to posit all kinds of evil without offering a scintilla of proof. Supporting wars against Saddam Hussein and the Taliban for reasons of national security is not the same as hating Muslims so much that Republicans relish the thought of killing them. The fact that I have to point this out would seem silly to most rational people except Greenwald apparently believes it - or is a liar.
It would also be relevant point out that while Democrats and liberals were willing to allow Muslims to be slaughtered in Bosnia and Kosovo, it was Republican support that allowed a Democratic president to go to war against orthodox Christian Serbia and save them. Does that mean that liberals hate Muslims because they didn’t mind seeing them murdered and raped? In Greenwald’s world, yes.
If possible, this statement is even more dishonest:
It’s not at all surprising, then, that Republican leaders — from Dick Cheney and John Bolton to virtually all appendages of the right-wing noise machine, from talk radio and Fox News to right-wing blogs and neoconservative journals — are unquestioning supporters of the Israeli attack. After all, they’re expressing the core ideology of the overwhelming majority of their voters and audience.
What “core ideology” is that Mr. Greenwald? The subtext is, we assume, the same as above; that the GOP hates Arabs and Muslims. And where in God’s name did this worthless dreck of a human being come up with the idea that the “overwhelming majority” of Republican voters and audience hates Muslims?
It might be interesting to have Mr. Greenwald link to the poll that shows that the “overwhelming majority” of Republicans buy the “core ideology” of bigotry and hate against Muslims and Arabs. It is this kind of deliberate smear that Greenwald gets away with for the simple reason no one takes the time (or wastes it) in responding.
This calumny is not your run of the mill political mud wrestling where eye gouging and leg twisting is done with relish and opponents end up covering themselves in manure when all is said and done. This is the world according to Glenn Greenwald - a very special place where simply having him say that up is down, black is white, and the “overwhelming majority” of Republicans are bigots makes it so.
Note I have not called Greenwald an “anti-Semite” for opposing Israel’s war of survival against an enemy whose public policy toward their neighbor is total destruction. You can be an idiot without being a hater. But his selective outrage against Israel (and tepid, pro-forma objections to Hamas’s cruel barrage of rockets targeting civilians in Israel) is indicative of someone without moral awareness. Is he deceiving us or himself? A good question that too many on the left - lacking the desire for introspection as they do - fail to ask themselves.
But what really has Greenwald’s panties in a twist is the fact that American political leaders of both parties have, for the most part, taken Israel’s side in the War:
Ultimately, what is most notable about the “debate” in the U.S. over Israel-Gaza is that virtually all of it occurs from the perspective of Israeli interests but almost none of it is conducted from the perspective of American interests. There is endless debate over whether Israel’s security is enhanced or undermined by the attack on Gaza and whether the 40-year-old Israeli occupation, expanding West Bank settlements and recent devastating blockade or Hamas militancy and attacks on Israeli civilians bear more of the blame. American opinion-making elites march forward to opine on the historical rights and wrongs of the endless Israeli-Palestinian territorial conflict with such fervor and fixation that it’s often easy to forget that the U.S. is not actually a direct party to this dispute.
As Israel’s biggest and best ally and virtual guarantor of their existence, of course we have an abiding interest in the conflict. The wonder is that Greenwald evidently feels sticking a knife in the back of your ally while she is fighting for her life by condemning this bomb going off in the wrong place or that bullet not hitting its intended target is just fine. Better yet, take the morally reprehensible position of a “pox on both your houses” and condemn everybody. That way, you can do away with the only democracy in the Middle East as an ally and simply treat them as we might look upon Sierra Leone or Gabon.
When one’s moral compass goes in a circle and taking the “out” that the survival of an ally is none of your business might be satisfying from an ideological standpoint but is hardly practical or even desirable. Taking sides in a war is a necessary evil when it comes right down to it. The US is not Sweden or Switzerland, although Greenwald might prefer that kind of “neutrality” to the sort of practical realization that the survival of Israel is important to the US national interest.
Whew! Remind me not to ask Greenwald to be an ally.
The rank deceitfulness of Greenwald is really getting tiresome. The idea that this ignorant hypocrite - as ignorant and hypocritical as any right winger he wants to name - has been given such a big megaphone at Salon would be incomprehensible except when you realize that his followers among the netroots are equally obtuse and perfidious when it comes to attacking their political and ideological enemies.
With that kind of devoted following, he’ll probably grab a Pulitzer someday.
Read that dreck earlier then left this little message:
You write:
“It’s not at all surprising, then, that Republican leaders — from Dick Cheney and John Bolton to virtually all appendages of the right-wing noise machine, from talk radio and Fox News to right-wing blogs and neoconservative journals — are unquestioning supporters of the Israeli attack. After all, they’re expressing the core ideology of the overwhelming majority of their voters and audience. ”
- you must be a Buchanan-style isolationist
Next you write:
“Much more notable is the fact that Democratic Party leaders — including Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi — are just as lockstep in their blind, uncritical support for the Israeli attack, in their absolute refusal to utter a word of criticism of, or even reservations about, Israeli actions. ”
- Unlikely as your super-ego would admit, perhaps, just maybe, they see something that you miss?
Finally, you write:
“While some Democratic politicians who are marginalized by the party’s leadership are willing to express the views which Democratic voters overwhelmingly embrace, the suffocating, fully bipartisan orthodoxy which typically predominates in America when it comes to Israel — thou shalt not speak ill of Israel, thou shalt support all actions it takes — is in full force with this latest conflict.”
- by this comment, one may conclude, you speak of Cynthia McKinney (and, indirectly her father), Code Pink and ANSWER. By simultaneously contending Democrat Party leadership knows less than the ‘Man on the Street’ and that you (and they) possess superior knowledge and discernment, you condemn yourself to mediocrity.
A larger man, which clearly you are not, would seek to understand all side of an issue then make reasoned observations based upon clear, critical thinking. For example, I find it interesting to note, following some simple Internet based research, that HAMAS prevents the Egyptian aid services from providing medical assistance to injured Trans-Jordanian (the original home of ‘Palestinians’) people. However, since your mind is a closed book, unwilling to seek evidence to the contrary, you are and will remain a non-entity. Your specious claims make Keith Olberman sound intelligent while adding nothing to the intellectual content of the topic at hand.
Comment by SeniorD — 1/2/2009 @ 3:11 pm
Although there isn’t much to add to the Host’s thumping of Greenwald, there is one point worth mentioning:
Israel is a progressive liberal democratic nation. One whose population, if moved to the U.S. would most likely vote Democrat by a 70/30 ratio. The fact that the Israelis are in a constant existential battle where they have exactly zero friends in the “hood” doesn’t seem to phase Mr. Greenwald, who types in safety while being protected by individuals much more rugged than himself.
From the Israeli perspective, with friends of a feather like Greenwald, or most progressives, who needs enemies.
Comment by cdor — 1/2/2009 @ 4:03 pm
Indeed. It’s interesting how much Right Wing Christians actually have in common with Muslims. Aside from the whole Jesus/Muhammad false prophet/God thing, their core belief systems are very similar.
It takes a massive set of balls to ever NOT side with Israel on anything. Not that I’m not siding with Israel here. I would never do that.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 1/2/2009 @ 4:08 pm
I just read the Greenwald piece linked in your Blog, and it left a question in my mind I can’t answer. I know someone hear will clarify this for me.
Greenwald said many things. The thing that I thought was the most important, thought provoking and (to me) confusing was why does the American political class from both parties NEVER see American interests as different from Israeli interests?
I remember when Defense Secretary McNamara said, “What’s good for General Motors IS good for America.” Someone could argue that to be true. I do not believe it to be so true that a person does not have to lay out their evidence. Just insisting that it is self evident won’t cut it.
The same should be true for “What’s good for Israel IS good for America.” It may sometimes be true, but is it Always true? As we discuss Israel’s retaliation to Hamas, in addition to asking, “Is this good for Israel?” shouldn’t we be asking,”How is this good for America and American interests?
America should always be self serving in its foreign policy. Henry Kissinger said, ” America doesn’t have friends, it only has interests.” I agree.
Rick said, “As Israel’s biggest and best ally and virtual guarantor of their existence, of course we have an abiding interest in the conflict.” I might agree with this, but how do America’s interests suffer if Israel does not exist? How do American interests get furthered if Israel does exists? I do not immediately see that we have a dog in this fight.
In other words, if Palistine ceased to exist, I do not see how that would hurt American interests. Likewise if Israel ceased to exist I am do not see how that would hurt American interests.
I think American journalists and bloggers should be talking about how supporting Israel furthers American interests, NOT how supporting Israel advances Israeli interests. If we can not come up with a good argument as to how supporting Israel furthers American interests then maybe it is time to question the policy of being Israel’s “biggest and best ally.”
Comment by bs jones — 1/2/2009 @ 4:13 pm
Glenn Greenwald has more knowledge, intellect, wisdom, and historical perspective than all the right side aded together. His words have always been proven correct, his logic always spot on. He does this by way of techniques quite foreign to those on the right: HE THINKS. He Thinks…He hasn’t the supersticious ghosts and gods to color his juddegment. He doesn’t have a childish need to bomb and kill innocent humans. He doesn’t tune to Fox news for his talking points for the day. Glenn is the truth, you are the liars.
In short: Glenn Greenwald is brilliant. It does make sense why you don’t like him: he requires reading comprehension and the ability to think for oneself - those are things the right side is quite scared of. For you dismals, it is much better to tune into rush or o’reilley to figure out what you believe.
He Thinks…He hasn’t the supersticious (??? sp) ghosts and gods to color his juddegment. (???pass 3rd grade did you?) He doesn’t have a childish need to bomb and kill innocent humans. He doesn’t tune to Fox news for his talking points for the day. Glenn is the truth, you are the liars.
Jesus, kid. Get your face out of Glenn’s rear end, willya? You’re embarrassing yourself.
See my response above re: Greenwald’s abilities.. And I can see you’ve learned the lessons in hyperbole he has taught well. Believing that anyone has “a childish need to bomb and kill innocent humans” is so far beyond the pale of rational discourse as to make you - and the guy whose picture is on your nightstand that you shortstroke your way to bliss every night - irrelevant. No one believes you when you say crap like that, get it?
I cannot believe anyone with half a brain would refer to a guy who thinks conservatives are fascists as brilliant. No one - I mean no one - can be that stupid, can they?
ed.
Comment by Jimbo — 1/2/2009 @ 5:04 pm
Funny how a “liar” like Greenwald has been right, and proven right, far more than Rove, Instapundit, Bill Kristol, and seemingly endless stream of rightwing figures constantly and completely wrong about everything. And the sockpuppet farce, really? That’s what you got?
It would also be relevant point out that while Democrats and liberals were willing to allow Muslims to be slaughtered in Bosnia and Kosovo, it was Republican support that allowed a Democratic president to go to war against orthodox Christian Serbia and save them. Does that mean that liberals hate Muslims because they didn’t mind seeing them murdered and raped?
In reality it was Republicans casting Bosnia to be another Vietnam and an illegal war.
Greenwald has predicted the end of constitutional government for as long as he’s been blogging. He’s been right about that?
He’s been hammering Bush for his Iran policy, promoting the Sy Hersh conspiracy theory about us getting ready to attack Iran. He’s been right about that?
Glenn Greenwald is right when he says the “overwhelming majority” of Republicans hate Muslims and Arabs? Please.
Glenn Greenwald is a simple minded, hysterical bloviator. Anyone who admires him is a fool.
And the resolution authorizing our involvement would not have passed without strong Republican support. Dems would rather sit back and watch Muslims get raped and murdered because they hate them.
ed.
Comment by Frederick — 1/2/2009 @ 5:17 pm
Greenwald is a horse’s patoot on his best days and you are a brilliant, mostly reasonable writer with far more visible integrity and ethics.
On the other hand - pound that s.o.b. Rick!
Sorry about the Bears. I’m a Browns fan. How happy am I?
My only hope is Monday night in the Fiesta Bowl.
Comment by Gayle Miller — 1/2/2009 @ 5:27 pm
Hey bs, how about this reason:
If Israel goes down it makes one less ally, one less country for the islamist to take over before they get here. Or perhaps you don’t care. I know it’s kinda bothersome, maybe you oughta just go crack open another beer.
Comment by cdor — 1/2/2009 @ 5:53 pm
thank you for this piece. i’ve been posting in detail on the war, and following it almost full-time. it is truly remarkable what some clowns write - and get paid for.
it would be depressing if i actually cared about idiots like greenwald.
you write - What “core ideology” is that Mr. Greenwald? i suggest that core ideology is Christianity. my support for Israel is grounded in my faith.
Comment by clyde — 1/2/2009 @ 5:56 pm
Hey bs, whats another 6 million Jews?…been there,done that already
Comment by cdor — 1/2/2009 @ 6:00 pm
Another one bs:
Israelis, with an infinitesmally tiny percentage of the worlds population, in a country that has only existed since 1947 (Nobel prize started about 1901) have won 5 Nobel Laureate prizes, ranking 16th amongst all countries. Jews, by the way, have won 22% of all Nobel Prizes since its inception. Do you think, perhaps, that any of those Nobel Laureates have done mankind any good? Jeez bs, I hate to ask a tough question. Sorry.
Comment by cdor — 1/2/2009 @ 6:21 pm
cdor,
For me, your first argument makes the most sense, but, I don’t really agree that Israel’s demise would bring Islamofacism one step closer to America.
America has been attacked by its enemies in the past and will be attacked in the future by its enemies. I see that as a given. Yet,I don’t see the threat from the Islamofacists in the context of a “domino theory”. So I don’t agree that Israel’s defeat will bring Islamofacism one country closer to our door step.
My argument of how supporting Israel is in America’s interest would be more like this:
It is in America’s interests to ensure an uninterrupted supply of oil to America.
One way to achieve the flow of oil is to have a large military presence in the middle east.
The more countries in the middle east that America has a military presence in the safer the supply of oil will be.
Therefore, having a large ‘proxy’ military in Israel advances the American interest of keeping the supply of oil flowing to America.
The counter argument seems to be that the larger the American military presence in the middle east is, the larger the “blowback”. The military presence in Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iraq, and Kuwait is actually slowing the oil supply rather than securing it.
Experience seems to indicate the counter argument to be false. So if we agree with Kissinger that America “only has interests”, it may still be in our interests to support Israel.
All I am trying to say is that I can imagine a time where further support of Israel might not be in America’s interests.
How would we know this? Our support of Israel would endanger the flow of oil.
Comment by bs jones — 1/2/2009 @ 7:23 pm
cdor,
I think it is great that Israel has produced so many Nobel prize winners. I am sure that Israeli Nobel prize winners have improved the knowledge and well being of mankind. I am not sure that it follows that it’s in America’s interests (as Kissinger defines it) to support Israel in order to ensure the ‘flow’ of Nobel prize winners.
It may be in America’s interest to use Israel to launch attacks on nations that oppose America’s aims. However, many people feel using Israel directly in this way would produce enough ‘blowback’ to make the costs of such a stratagy to high. If I were to make a prediction, I would say President-elect Obama will be less vocal in his support/use than the current administration, but that remains to be seen.
Comment by bs jones — 1/2/2009 @ 8:14 pm
Those who advocate for ‘american’ interest in fulfilling Bernard Lewis’ warning that we are harmless to enemies and fatal to our friends, would do VERY well to consider that until recently Israel enjoyed a successful strategic relationship with Communist China (as an example of the law of unintended consequences). Just take a look at the J-10. Only american pressure stopped Israel from placing its Phalcon AEW system on Chinese IL-76’s. Were we to abandon Israel, american and allied pilots, seamen and tankers might, over beside and under the strait of Taiwan find themselves facing Israeli technology inside Chinese AEW, fighters, submarines and tanks, and Israeli anti missile technology attempting to defeat our smart weapons, as Israel makes other arrangements in their fight to survive, despite another nation’s abandonment of the jews. Not to mention their 2-600 nukes.
How such a situation would advance our interests or make life better for us, is beyond me.
And for what? A stable price for dead dinosaurs this week?
Comment by epaminondas — 1/2/2009 @ 8:46 pm
Rick,
Thanks for pouring your heart out on this Glenn gasbag Greenwald - he is the preachiest SOB that i have seen in the blogosphere - his moral blindspots are so embarrassing that it really takes a lot to respond to Mr.Preachy.
He is a joker. And he thinks he is the moral authority of the left wing blogosphere.
Gasbag Greenwald needs to be avoided at all costs - he STINKS !
Comment by Nagarajan Sivakumar — 1/2/2009 @ 9:26 pm
“I remember when Defense Secretary McNamara said, “What’s good for General Motors IS good for America.” ”
Then you’ve got serious mental problems. McNamara said many stupid things, but that wasn’t one of them. For one thing, McNamara worked for Ford.
Comment by Jim Howard — 1/2/2009 @ 10:55 pm
bsjones asks a reasonable question (#4, above), namely:
“…why does the American political class from both parties NEVER see American interests as different from Israeli interests?”
I see three answers:
1) As long-term guarantors of Israel’s existence, to suddenly, now, throw up our hands and simply let the chips fall where they may would wreck our ability to make treaties for two generations, as abandoning Vietnam did, only worse. Nobody would take word of our alliance seriously, nor should they. This would also encourage enemies to attack us and persist longer; note that terrorists around the world still refer to Vietnam when they encourage each other to persist in attacking America.
2) Muslim intent is to dominate the world; that’s a goal supported by theology. They hate Israel because Israel proves they can’t dominate even their own region. They hate the US because the US proves they can’t dominate economics or world politics. Whether we want it or not, we and Israel are co-belligerents in the same war, and if they fall, we’re next.
3) Americans have an innate sense of fairness. We recognize Israel’s right to exist, and until the press and American public schools started lying about the Palestinians, we generally recognized that their real intent is the annihilation of Israel. Politicians may not agree, but they like their jobs, and won’t buck the people’s sense of fair play.
Comment by Plumb Bob — 1/3/2009 @ 4:35 am
Rick — while I sympathize with your frustration and feel it often myself, and while it’s important to persist in rebutting the repetitive lies, it’s not just Greenwald who assumes the things he’s writing, it’s the entire Democratic party. They truly do believe that Republicans are bigots, and that we speak to each other in code. It’s the only way they can protect their shallow world-view and their snobbery.
Buck up, man. It’s a life-long battle.
Comment by Plumb Bob — 1/3/2009 @ 4:41 am
[...] commenter on an Israel-Palestinian thread at Right Wing Nuthouse asked a very relevant question, and I want to answer it [...]
Pingback by Plumb Bob Blog » Where American and Israeli Interests Meet — 1/3/2009 @ 5:11 am
I agree that U.S. interests would not be harmed by the disappearance of “Palestine.” In fact, they would probably be strengthened with the demise of the fanatical death cult that the “Palestinians” have become. How U.S. interests would be furthered by having a liberal and multi-ethnic democracy swallowed whole by this death cult and its supporters is a mystery to me, much like Chuck’s belief that Christians and Muslims are the same.
Comment by Chris — 1/3/2009 @ 7:13 am
Shorter Moran:
Greenwald uses mistruths to point out uncomfortable truths.
Comment by shaun — 1/3/2009 @ 7:14 am
The actual source of the citation is one time GM CEO and Eisenhaur’s Defense Secretary, “Engine Charlie” Wilson, who declared, “What’s good for America is good for General Motors, and what’s good for General Motors is good for America.”
Comment by SShiell — 1/3/2009 @ 9:38 am
Rick, your absolute over the top reaction to Glenn’s post is exactly what he’s writing about. For you it’s a no brainer to unequivocally support Israel, Glenn is, once again doing what he does so immaculately, bringing to light the glaring split between the public’s expressed interest and the leaders in BOTH political parties views towards Israel.
As far as I’m concerned we treat Israel like John McCain did with Sarah Palin during their joint interview, pedantically and with arrogant paternalism. We need to let the Israelis do what is in their best national interest and let THEM accept the consequences, not us buffering all the criticism for them. Good luck with taking on Glenn.
Comment by the Fly-Man — 1/3/2009 @ 9:54 am
Let me see, I am trying to understand how this works. The U.S. stands by and watches as 100 million arabs with trillions in oil wealth finally overcome and exterminate Israel and, of course, all the Jews within (for it’s not the land, I hope you realize, it’s the Jews these arabs want) then we in the U.S. get all the oil we want. Therefore it’s in America’s interest to allow that to happen. Am I getting it right?
Well now I understand…makes perfect sense. For just 6 million dead Jews, we get oil. Hell, that was easy.
What’s that called, a Realist foreign policy?
How about this for realism: We, as Americans, stand up for those in the world that share our civilization, our arts and sciences, our values and human instincts, our freedom. We do this because we are absolutely confidant that our civilization is superior to the 6th century medevilism (the term incorporates evil for a reason) that is Islam.
And then we go out and DRILL FOR OUR OWN DAMN OIL.
Comment by cdor — 1/3/2009 @ 10:19 am
People like Greenwald are fine examples of leftists offering opinions, that they relish as facts.
Neither has any practical experience in the area of diplomatic or military operations. Neither lives with the threat of a Qassam rocket landing in your front yard while their children play. Or live in a constant state of paranoia, wondering if the young Arab man sitting next to them is strapped with 20 lbs. of C-4.
It is so easy to pass judgment while sipping your latte and your biggest worry is saving the spotted owl. I wonder how much their opinions would change if they were under the threat of utter destruction, everyday. I would wager they would be the first calling for the destruction of whomever was interrupting their oh so important lives.
Comment by Mike — 1/3/2009 @ 11:09 am
You may not say it, but I will- Greenwald is an anti-semite. Its sad that Salon would dishonor their site to such a degree by employing a jew-hater. Also, I’m not so sure he’s a liar as much as a hater. Haters are illogical, so believe their propagandist hate. If you believe it, even if its not true, are you a liar?
I don’t think Greenwald or too many lefties are anti-Semites. Anti-Israeli for sure - perhaps even resentful of the moral call American Jews have on our sympathies. But they are not haters of Jews as a race or religion.
ed.
Comment by lionheart — 1/3/2009 @ 12:06 pm
Jim Howard,
You are right and I am wrong about the attribution of the General Motors quote. After doing about a minute of online research, I found this:
It was once famously said by General Motors’ president Charles E. Wilson, “What’s good for General Motors is good for America” — one of the most repeated of modern quotations.
Thanks for the correction.
Comment by Bs jones — 1/3/2009 @ 2:08 pm
cdor,
Let me be clear. I think the Holocaust of 6 million European Jews is horrific. I do not want to see that Holocaust repeated in Israel. I do not believe “6 million dead Jews means we get oil.”
I do believe this:
America’s strategic interests will not always be perfectly aligned with all of its allies all of the time.
When America’s interests diverge from one of its allies, America should put its own interests ahead of its ally.
America’s overwhelming strategic interest in the middle east is to ensure secure access to the oil there.
There may be a time when what’s good for Israel is not what’s good for America.
If that time comes, America should do what’s good for America first, considering what’s good for Israel second.
I do not think this “America first” position is radical or anti-semitic.
Comment by Bs jones — 1/3/2009 @ 2:43 pm
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 1/4/2009, at The Unreligious Right
Comment by UNRR — 1/4/2009 @ 9:33 am
[...] Right Wing Nuthouse blogged GLENN GREENWALD IS PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. [...]
Pingback by Gaza Update #6.5 « Random Thoughts- Do They Have Meaning? — 1/5/2009 @ 12:54 am