• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

Their boy Ron is an empty plastic cup that will never know pudding.

It’s pointless to bring up problems that can only be solved with a time machine.

I really should read my own blog.

Nothing worth doing is easy.

Innocent people do not delay justice.

One lie, alone, tears the fabric of reality.

The media handbook says “controversial” is the most negative description that can be used for a Republican.

America is going up in flames. The NYTimes fawns over MAGA celebrities. No longer a real newspaper.

Weird. Rome has an American Pope and America has a Russian President.

“When somebody takes the time to draw up a playbook, they’re gonna use it.”

You passed on an opportunity to be offended? What are you even doing here?

I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.

He seems like a smart guy, but JFC, what a dick!

The words do not have to be perfect.

Following reporting rules is only for the little people, apparently.

Hey hey, RFK, how many kids did you kill today?

Many life forms that would benefit from greater intelligence, sadly, do not have it.

One of our two political parties is a cult whose leader admires Vladimir Putin.

When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty. ~Thomas Jefferson

Anne Laurie is a fucking hero in so many ways. ~ Betty Cracker

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

That’s my take and I am available for criticism at this time.

The fundamental promise of conservatism all over the world is a return to an idealized past that never existed.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Media / How Could You Forget?

How Could You Forget?

by John Cole|  March 14, 201010:10 pm| 65 Comments

This post is in: Media, Clown Shoes

FacebookTweetEmail

Glenn takes on the #dickwhisperer:

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank dresses up in idiotic costumes, and the overriding attribute of his commentary is adolescent, above-it-all snideness, and he’s thus deemed a wild, unpredictable, creative “contrarian” in Beltway media circles. In reality, he’s one of the most cliché-ridden purveyors of conventional Washington widsom one can find, as he demonstrates yet again in his column today, where he venerates Lindsey Graham and his quest to statutorily implement a system of military commissions and indefinite detention…

All in all, a pretty solid effort from Glenn, but I am going to have to ding him for failing to mention Milbank’s epicly embarrassing Dear John letter when he finally fell out of love with Mean Old Man McCain. That was so ridiculous and syrupy and revealed so much about Milbank that it simply can not be left out of the record.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « My Politico problem — and ours
Next Post: Early Morning Open Thread »

Reader Interactions

65Comments

  1. 1.

    Ash Can

    March 14, 2010 at 10:23 pm

    Can’t you ding him for something bigger than that? It’s such a hoot when he comes over here and gets into a poo-throwing fight with everyone.

  2. 2.

    Jake

    March 14, 2010 at 10:24 pm

    Indefinite dentention. I somehow missed that lesson on the Constitution while educated in a secular government public school….No doubt, the Texas Board of Education is adding the Constutional right to indefinte dentention of all those individuals we believe are guilty, whether in fact they are guilty or not, to the curriculum…

    A true Constitutional principle, or maybe indenfinite dentention was an 11th commandment, one that Moses chose not to publicize…

  3. 3.

    arguingwithsignposts

    March 14, 2010 at 10:25 pm

    Latest smudge. Just because she’s more relevant than the #dickwhisperer at this point.

  4. 4.

    Joseph Nobles

    March 14, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    Holy crapola OT: I believe the reconciliation bill has dropped (2300 pages, lots of stuff), I think.

    But I’m not sure because it looks like the reconciliation bill has a public option.

    PDF file from budget.house.gov of 2010 Reconciliation Bill – warning: large download

    Um – again I say, holy crapola.

    ETA: OK, this is what they have to start with, the text from the three committees as reported out, but mark-ups begin tomorrow. Evidently the public option will be stripped out. I think.

  5. 5.

    Annie

    March 14, 2010 at 10:40 pm

    @arguingwithsignposts:

    Finally…Lady Smudge…I was hoping for a new picture of her…Our little white ball of sanity…

    I will say that “dickwhisperer” is one of John’s more inspired headings…

  6. 6.

    ajr22

    March 14, 2010 at 10:47 pm

    Ot rod blagojevich waiting tables on apprentice saying nice to meet you, innocent of all charges. The man has no shame.

  7. 7.

    valdivia

    March 14, 2010 at 10:50 pm

    @arguingwithsignposts:

    she is so absolutely cute.

  8. 8.

    Keith G

    March 14, 2010 at 10:52 pm

    Speaking of dicks, the corporate dicks who run Stars on Ice have, “…deemed [Johnny] Weir not family friendly.”

    And I was so going to the show. Not any more.

    Weird thing is, I bet he would be a huge draw for the very population they are trying to “protect”.

    http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/5401369-stars-on-ice-deny-skater-johnny-weir

  9. 9.

    asiangrrlMN

    March 14, 2010 at 10:52 pm

    @arguingwithsignposts: Sniff, sniff. Our baby is growing up so fast. Lady Smudge is lovely.

    @ajr22: I think he should have been allowed on whatever show wanted to drop him off on an island somewhere…and then barred from reentry.

    @Keith G: Really. They really want to alienate a sizable portion of their audience? Stupid as well as homophobic.

  10. 10.

    Gordon, The Big Express Engine

    March 14, 2010 at 11:02 pm

    Seriously, what’s the prize in the BJ NCAA pool. Some swag? Bragging rights? Should we pony up $10 a head?

  11. 11.

    Annie

    March 14, 2010 at 11:06 pm

    @asiangrrlMN:

    Lady Smudge is growing up so fast. Now, how are Willow and Raven?

    My guy has decided that I am the object of his “paw on baby thing.” Whenever I relax on the bed to read, he is on me doing that grinding paw with the nails…It is both adorable and painful. Fortunately, my girl just looks at us with disdain…

  12. 12.

    asiangrrlMN

    March 14, 2010 at 11:14 pm

    @Annie: I know! My Raven does the same thing. His newest thing, though, is to join me in the tub (and I mean it literally. He climbs onto my body) and drink from the tub that way. He doesn’t mind getting his paws wet, but I still tense up a bit because Raven + water + paws on boob = disaster in waiting.

    The one time Shadow tried to walk on the back of the bathtub, he fell in. I have NEVER seen him move so quickly as he did in leaping out of the tub. Now, he stays on the floor and just imitates a meerkat in order to drink from the tub.

  13. 13.

    burnspbesq

    March 14, 2010 at 11:17 pm

    I’ve taken as many swings at Greenwald as pretty much anyone among the regulars here. And I have no doubt that I will continue to do so when I think it is warranted.

    Howevah … that stance carries with it the requirement that when he is right, I say so. The flip side of “a sanctimonious prig who is right most of the time is still a sanctimonious prig” is “a wise man who is a sanctimonious prig is still a wise man.”

    Ergo …

    Well said, sir. Graham’s proposal is a shit sandwich on a moldy bagel, and Millbank’s inability or unwillingness to say so is completely fucked up.

  14. 14.

    Annie

    March 14, 2010 at 11:19 pm

    @asiangrrlMN:

    LOL…You are awesome…Your description is poetic…

    I wonder if our Lady Smudge has left scars on arguing’s chest…I imagine her really getting into that “I love you and will show you by digging into your chest with my paws” thing…

  15. 15.

    asiangrrlMN

    March 14, 2010 at 11:24 pm

    @asiangrrlMN: DRINKS. Raven DRINKS that way.

    @Annie: I imagine so, especially since she’s an only baby and very demanding of his attention. Thanks for the compliments. I don’t mind waxing poetic over my boys. When I’m typing at the computer, Raven will snuggle on my right arm (his arm) and curl his paw around my right breast (his boob). Very cute.

    Cole, I agree that dickwhisperer was a thing of beauty. I like the way your mind works.

    @arguingwithsignposts: Awwwwww, she wuvs you!

  16. 16.

    arguingwithsignposts

    March 14, 2010 at 11:24 pm

    @Annie:
    She does so late at night right now. When I am able to fall asleep, I will find her digging into my chest (and purring deeply) when I wake up, which is quite a wild scene. My disorientation+lady smudge’s assumed superiority.

  17. 17.

    asiangrrlMN

    March 14, 2010 at 11:28 pm

    @Annie: Of course, once the weather gets warmer, they don’t sit on me nearly as much. I’m just a heating blanket to them!

  18. 18.

    burnspbesq

    March 14, 2010 at 11:30 pm

    In case you missed it, here is pretty much the definitive takedown of Cheney, McCarthy, et al on the ridiculous AQ7 issue.

    http://volokh.com/2010/03/10/lawyers-treason-and-deception-a-response-to-andrew-mccarthy/

    There was also a very good piece in the weekend WSJ print edition, written by the court-appointed lead counsel for Timothy McVeigh.

  19. 19.

    KG

    March 14, 2010 at 11:34 pm

    @Joseph Nobles: here’s what I never got about the public option issue from the Democrats’ side:

    a very little bit of political jujitsu would turn one of the GOP’s arguments against them. The GOP talks about market solutions, the public option/exchange provisions would provide competition in the market, like the post office does for Fed Ex and UPS. So, actually, the GOP, by opposing the public option, is opposing market solutions – they are against the free market.

    Are they really that inept?

  20. 20.

    rob!

    March 14, 2010 at 11:58 pm

    Greenwald recently wrote that the reason there’s no PO in the HCR bill is because Obama is working behind the scenes to keep it out, then going out and lying to the public about it.

    He also said the reason most people can’t face the real truth, and that is Obama is bald-faced lying. A pretty stunning set of accusations:

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/12/democrats/index.html

  21. 21.

    Mike Kay

    March 15, 2010 at 12:01 am

    @arguingwithsignposts:

    Lady Smudge is such a beauty.

  22. 22.

    Joseph Nobles

    March 15, 2010 at 12:01 am

    @KG:

    Ah, man, don’t get me started. Walmart is almost a single payer all by itself. It’s got massive purchasing power, and that’s how it gets “low prices always.” Competition ensures that it does indeed pass those savings onto us, but it is the closest picture we have to a single payer system in the marketplace.

    So if the government had a single payer system, it could really drive down costs due to its purchasing power, and pass the savings onto the owners of government – us. Heck, make it a plain old public option, one among many privately offered plans. Tie the public option’s hands behind its back: make it castastrophic care or essential services so that insurance companies can offer more perks for more cash. But at least the basics would start getting covered.

    Nobody should retire on Social Security alone. And no one should rely solely on the government public option. But at least an market-participating option would be there as a last resort.

  23. 23.

    Mike Kay

    March 15, 2010 at 12:06 am

    @rob!: That’s why I call him a conspiracy theorist. Such tripe is nothing more then being a Birther or a Truther. And let’s face it, there are a ton of lefties and libertarians who think 9/11, in one shape or another, was an inside job.

  24. 24.

    Zuzu's Petals

    March 15, 2010 at 12:06 am

    @burnspbesq:

    After his latest performance over here, and some of his recent posts at Salon, I look twice at anything he has to say. If he’s right he’s right, but he can also be really offbeam. So I look twice – or three or four times – because I just don’t trust him anymore.

  25. 25.

    Mike Kay

    March 15, 2010 at 12:11 am

    @burnspbesq: Shorter: A broken clock is right twice a day (except on days when daylight savings is toggled)

  26. 26.

    burnspbesq

    March 15, 2010 at 12:15 am

    @rob!:

    It was undoubtedly not lost on you that Mr. Greenwald did not offer even one scintilla of evidence in support of his theory.

  27. 27.

    robertdsc

    March 15, 2010 at 12:15 am

    @rob!:
    For all his pomposity, the motherfucker doesn’t know how to count.

    For the record, Glenn, if you decide to drop by again, I find it extremely creepy that you wander into comment threads on other peoples’ blogs. I’ve seen you do it multiple times here and at other places and it really fucking bugs me.

  28. 28.

    Mike Kay

    March 15, 2010 at 12:22 am

    @robertdsc: greenwald’s nutty act betrays a definite control freak, and deep insecure. I mean, look at Kos, he doesn’t run around the internets arguing with people who disagree with him or even worst, bash him. He just lets roll off his back.

  29. 29.

    Mike Kay

    March 15, 2010 at 12:25 am

    @burnspbesq:
    “theory” — HA! Greenwald might as well start writing screenplays conspiracy theories for oliver stone.

  30. 30.

    Uloborus

    March 15, 2010 at 12:47 am

    @KG:
    No, the democrats have pointed that out before. It just gets absolutely no media time whatsoever.

  31. 31.

    tyrese

    March 15, 2010 at 12:56 am

    The post office just lost a whole buncha money. The GOP would probably love it if you compared Obama’s health plan to the post office.

  32. 32.

    Deschanel

    March 15, 2010 at 1:01 am

    Glenn Greenwald is a very fine mind a very good writer. I look at the unbelievably catty and petty ..attitudes about him, and I wonder what side some people are on.

    Seriously, BJ must be right wing tourists’ favorite place to watch progressives eat their own. But I’m sure they prefer lesbian porn, so I’m probably wrong there.

    I do not get the Greenwald dislike. Yes he can be long-winded and boring about things like TORTURE in our name. I zone it out too, it’s incredibly awful to contemplate.

    But if we’re worth half a damn as a society, we need people like GG to remind of of the real horrors of unlimited detention and the severe miscarriage of justice that comes with eliminating habeas corpus. He’s a fine mind doing good work, and seeing him mocked here makes me wonder about this place.

    No idea why he’s BJ commenters’ sudden enemy. I think it’s dick and unfair and not warranted by anything he’s ever said or written.
    He’s a good guy. On our alleged side, but hey, go slam him and make me wonder if there is a side. Meanwhile, there’s loads of Republicans who totes agree with your sniping about Greenwald.
    Knock yourselves out.

  33. 33.

    Mike Kay

    March 15, 2010 at 1:07 am

    @Deschanel:

    Greenwald is a supporter of libertarian Ron Paul. Greenwald supported the horrid, right-wing, corportacracy supreme court decision in Citizens United Not Timid (CUNT).

    That’s conspiracy theorist Glenn’s side: the Paulettes (Ayn Rand) and John Roberts.

  34. 34.

    FlipYrWhig

    March 15, 2010 at 1:17 am

    Glenn Greenwald knows about civil liberties and the law. Ergo, a piece that involves slamming Lindsey Graham for pettifoggery about civil liberties and the law, and Dana Milbank for following his lead, will be pretty solid.

    All his stuff about the health care bill (including Rahm Emanuel) has just been more and more tenuous extrapolation from his idea that the Obama administration isn’t behaving in good faith on civil liberties… and hence the Obama administration is unlikely to behave in good faith on anything else. It’s sort of a “seamless garment” idea, where once you start distrusting you kind of have to distrust them on every issue — lest you prove yourself a gullible, bootlicking dupe.

    That’s why it feels “conspiratorial.” I think it’s because civil liberties are so primary for him that falling short on civil liberties is so unthinkable, it can only be evidence of rot everywhere.

  35. 35.

    gwangung

    March 15, 2010 at 1:19 am

    Glenn Greenwald is a very fine mind a very good writer. I look at the unbelievably catty and petty ..attitudes about him, and I wonder what side some people are on. Seriously, BJ must be right wing tourists’ favorite place to watch progressives eat their own. But I’m sure they prefer lesbian porn, so I’m probably wrong there

    My observations is the Greenwald can be just as unbelievably catty and petty as any of of his critics here, and he can be less than precise about figuring out who’s being catty and who’s being critical of his reasoning. That’s not helpful on certain issues.

  36. 36.

    FlipYrWhig

    March 15, 2010 at 1:23 am

    @Deschanel:

    He’s a good guy. On our alleged side, but hey, go slam him

    Um, that’s the problem I have with _him_. The first card he plays is saying that if you disagree with him you’re just blindly devoted to Dear Leader. It’s his favorite slam. That’s not cutting any slack for people who are on _his_ alleged side.

    If he didn’t do that so much, I’d have very few issues with him.

  37. 37.

    Mike Kay

    March 15, 2010 at 1:29 am

    @FlipYrWhig: Shorter Greenwald: “You’re either with us or you’re against us.”

  38. 38.

    FlipYrWhig

    March 15, 2010 at 1:30 am

    @gwangung:

    he can be less than precise about figuring out who’s being catty and who’s being critical of his reasoning

    I think that’s a useful distinction. But I’d add to it that he’s absolutely certain that his reasoning is unquestionable, which is why he treats both cattiness and actual criticism with either disregard or contempt.

  39. 39.

    FlipYrWhig

    March 15, 2010 at 1:33 am

    I’m a lousy arguer in person because I get irritated having to explain myself over and over again, and I feel like I’m probably right, so why aren’t you getting this? I think Greenwald is in the same vein.

  40. 40.

    FlipYrWhig

    March 15, 2010 at 1:37 am

    @Deschanel:

    Meanwhile, there’s loads of Republicans who totes agree with your sniping about Greenwald.

    To add to my previous comment, there’s also loads of Republicans who agree with Greenwald that Obama is a deceitful, untrustworthy figure who inspires cult-like devotion among his followers. I don’t think this is a useful way to sort out why it’s fair or unfair to criticize Greenwald because of the associations it builds between “sides.”

  41. 41.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    March 15, 2010 at 1:41 am

    Good luck with that here, John.

    I know that you don’t have some over-the -top hatred of Glenn Greenwald because he dares to criticize Barack Obama now and then, but about half most of your regular posters seem to.

  42. 42.

    bago

    March 15, 2010 at 1:56 am

    I think Glenn Greenwald is quite sharp. The time he came by the comments section here I think most of the kerfluffle was mostly an issue of parsing the scope of terms used in the writing, but after the third round of back and forth with people talking past each other I gave up. I have no idea how it ended. I hope you fuckers didn’t drive him off forever. Seriously, when “American Values” have been perverted to mean wiretapping for all along with kidnapping, torturing to death, and wars of choice… Well, I just don’t think it’s a good idea to be all catty about some definitional confusion when we are seriously considering gutting the constitution.

  43. 43.

    gwangung

    March 15, 2010 at 1:58 am

    I know that you don’t have some over-the -top hatred of Glenn Greenwald because he dares to criticize Barack Obama now and then, but about half most of your regular posters seem to.

    Possibly because he’s not very careful in aiming his crotch kicks at fools and knaves; even the most sympathetic can get irritated.

  44. 44.

    gwangung

    March 15, 2010 at 2:00 am

    But I’d add to it that he’s absolutely certain that his reasoning is unquestionable, which is why he treats both cattiness and actual criticism with either disregard or contempt.

    Well the combination of the two is what really gets people; I’ve met a lot of people who think their reasoning is absolutely unquestionable but are fairly polite about it…

  45. 45.

    Uloborus

    March 15, 2010 at 2:01 am

    @Bill E Pilgrim:
    It’s not THAT he criticizes him. I’m fairly Obotoid these days, but the guy ain’t perfect. It’s the WAY he criticizes him. He starts with ‘Obama has failed to roll back these violations of civil liberties, which are important.’ and that’s something I’m not just cool with, I think it’s crucial to have somebody say it. Then he… sort of finds the most unbelievably bad thing this could mean, and hammers that point as if it’s obviously, inescapably true. And keeps going into weirdly unrelated points like what he supposes must be happening behind closed doors in Health Care. And shows up here and refuses to be civil about it. Like, at all, at all.

    In fact, why are we even starting this? Come to me, sweet pillow!

  46. 46.

    Mike Kay

    March 15, 2010 at 2:46 am

    @Bill E Pilgrim:

    sniffle. poor glenn is a victim. wallowing in pity and victimization is unattractive. in other words, people of glenn’s ilk can dish it out, but they can’t take it.

  47. 47.

    freelancer

    March 15, 2010 at 3:16 am

    All I hear in the background is the bass beat from the menu of the Seinfeld DVD, and yet all I can say is that parsing sir dana is like the worst thing imaginable, and I hope no one has the torture of suffering Mr. Milbank gladly.

  48. 48.

    El Cid

    March 15, 2010 at 4:47 am

    I guess my weighting is different than most here — I find Greenwald’s relentless pursuit of arguing about quite clear principles without respecting alleged political consequences to be immensely valuable, while his personal opinions on interpretations of Administrative or political party motives when empirical evidence is light to be quite typical of blog writers, and most of the time in the neighborhood of how I’d feel about the situation if I chose to go beyond what’s known.

    To me it seems that the viewpoint for most here is fairly reversed — what’s most significant about Glenn’s writing is his imputation of motives and a tone they find offputting. Particularly when there’s the suggestion that the administration or other Democratic officials are actually doing wrong things for ill motives, whether based on wild extrapolation or fairly moderate interpretations.

    Those characteristics have been hallmarks of many of my favorite writers and regular chronicler critics of the world’s machinations (say, I. F. Stone, whose writings on many occasions were other than staid and avoiding of guessing), and there have always been academics to write with the most cautious empiricism.

  49. 49.

    Mike Kay

    March 15, 2010 at 5:11 am

    @El Cid:

    what’s most significant about Glenn’s writing is his imputation of motives and a tone they find offputting… whether based on wild extrapolation or fairly moderate interpretations.

    This should be distasteful to you as well. It’s no different than Liz Cheney’s “imputation of motives” of defense attorneys who represented accused terrorists “based on wild extrapolation”. Since when did smears from the left become acceptable?

  50. 50.

    Nancy Irving

    March 15, 2010 at 5:27 am

    “Lindsey Graham and his quest to statutorily implement a system of military commissions and indefinite detention…”

    And the Tea-Party folks say OBAMA is the one who’s gonna set up concentration camps, LOL.

  51. 51.

    the farmer

    March 15, 2010 at 6:07 am

    #48 El Cid – Those characteristics have been hallmarks of many of my favorite writers…

    Hallmark journalists don’t draw their gains from PACs (Political Action Commitees) that they operate for their own benefit. Especially PACs that cut checks to the Ron Paul fanboy revolution. Jane Mayer and Seymour Hirsch and Helen Thomas and Eric Alterman…and, and, and…. don’t operate PACs to help fund their personal political discotechs. It’s one of those principle things. Lobbyists and propagandists, on the other hand…

    *

  52. 52.

    El Cid

    March 15, 2010 at 7:43 am

    @Mike Kay: I read this blog and I also read stuff like CounterPunch.

    I read foreign writers who don’t give a shit about American political norms and use terms like “imperialism” and spend not one moment suggesting that the U.S. political establishment has the faintest good will toward their people.

    Secondly, I think that there’s quite a bit more historical evidence on which to justify hasty assumptions that American political officials truly are working for cynical motives and serving power rather brutely than insane right wing charges that lawyers serving in defense of controversial defendants are likely sympathetic towards Al Qa’ida.

    So, no, it shouldn’t offend me when someone feels (or in print alleges) that Obama was working behind the scenes against the public option, primarily because insurance corporations opposed them — a not unrealistic assumption to make, though I think the more important factor was the rest of the political establishment’s opposition to it — versus when a shitty proven liar accuses without evidence attorneys of treason. The first might be wrong and unproven, but it’s neither absurd nor unprecedented. The latter is simply absurd and without precedent.

    And anyone who believes it’s the same sort of thing will just do better not to spend time interacting with me.

    @the farmer: First, Greenwald is not a journalist, and has not claimed to be. As for the PAC stuff, I have not the foggiest idea what this refers to.

    Let me stress that I care not one whit whether or not people who read this blog like or hate Greenwald — good lord knows I’ve seen this place filled up with ridiculous nonsense.

    I’m going to read both, and I’m going to read and take what I like from the truly intemperate left or foreign blogging sites, i.e., the ones which, if Hamsher makes people here retch, would cause internal organs would leap from out of their bodies.

  53. 53.

    rob!

    March 15, 2010 at 8:08 am

    Woo! I left that comment about Greenwald’s piece and then went to bed. Had no idea it would kick off a whole “Greenwald is ________” thing.

    I have no idea whether Greenwald is right, or not. I certainly hope he’s not. But the main thought I had when I finished his piece was, once you’ve decided Obama is a bald-faced liar, you really have to consign him to the “He’s as bad as all the rest” pile, don’t you?

    I don’t know if Greenwald ever “endorses” Presidential candidates one way or the other, but I’d think after saying the current occupant is a total liar, you have to then root for someone else in the White House in 2012. Which means a Republican.

  54. 54.

    sparky

    March 15, 2010 at 8:42 am

    @El Cid: agreed.

    and i think much of the vitriol here could be explained by your observation about non-US writers not respecting the convention of always arguing that the fault was a specific politician’s rather than the country’s. after all, america can only be failed, not fail.

    @rob!: no it doesn’t. that’s a false dichotomy. that’s akin to the “you are with us or you are against us” notion. it was bullshit in 2002 and it’s bullshit now.

  55. 55.

    rob!

    March 15, 2010 at 8:56 am

    @sparky: Jesus, calm down! I was just asking a question.

    If I thought a particular politician–congressman, senator, or president–was a complete and total liar, I’d have a hard time supporting them next time around.

    But that seemed to be what Greenwald is saying about Obama, so I wonder how one can reconcile that the next time around.

  56. 56.

    FlipYrWhig

    March 15, 2010 at 9:31 am

    @El Cid:

    I also read stuff like CounterPunch.

    Alexander Cockburn is the douchiest douche that ever douched. Compared to him, Glenn Greenwald is a purring kitten.

    @El Cid:

    what’s most significant about Glenn’s writing is his imputation of motives and a tone they find offputting.

    Well, his discussion of motives sucks. I think Cockburn is the same way, actually: when things that are bad happen, it’s because somebody powerful not only hasn’t stopped them, or can’t stop them, but actually wants them to happen.

    And this kind of criticism is entirely self-inflicted. There’s no reason why he has to discuss anyone’s apparent motives by reverse-engineering them from public statements mixed with random rumors. He can just talk about how Lindsey Graham is lying or about what a travesty it is for Obama to continue practices like extraordinary rendition, and what drives them to do it is completely immaterial.

  57. 57.

    jl

    March 15, 2010 at 10:05 am

    Lame costumes, not idiotic. Greenwald is losing his analytical abilities.

  58. 58.

    gwangung

    March 15, 2010 at 10:15 am

    Well, his discussion of motives sucks. I think Cockburn is the same way, actually: when things that are bad happen, it’s because somebody powerful not only hasn’t stopped them, or can’t stop them, but actually wants them to happen.

    And this kind of criticism is entirely self-inflicted. There’s no reason why he has to discuss anyone’s apparent motives by reverse-engineering them from public statements mixed with random rumors.

    Well the really stupid thing is that this evidence nearly always supports multiple explanations or multiple sets of motivations. Trying to pin it down to one motive is almost always unjustified. That the evidence may more strongly support a particular explanation does not mean that this is the true explanation if there’s alternative explanations (particularly since there are certainly other information that we don’t know about or cannot know about).

  59. 59.

    burnspbesq

    March 15, 2010 at 10:35 am

    The frustration, at least for me, is that Greenwald is an ex-litigator. With that background, he presumably understands the necessity for backing claims with evidence. And no, I’m not suggesting that he needs to establish every element of everything he says by a preponderance of evidence that would be admissible in a U.S. court. But something more than “not one scintilla” would be nice once in a while.

    And “he’s not a journalist” is a lame-assed excuse. Neither is Scott Horton, but he got soldiers to go on the record about what happened at Gitmo that night. And he did some serious reporting on the Seligmann fiasco down in Alabama a couple of years ago.

  60. 60.

    Mike Kay

    March 15, 2010 at 10:55 am

    @burnspbesq: Well, maybe he admires Ann Coulter, an ex-litigator who never bothers to establish a foundation.

  61. 61.

    burnspbesq

    March 15, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    @Mike Kay:

    “Well, maybe he admires Ann Coulter, an ex-litigator who never bothers to establish a foundation.”

    One would hope not. I’d like to think that Greenwald would blame his lack of factiness on the pressure of having to constantly feed the beast and a lack of support troops. That’s a lame excuse, but at least it’s comprehensible. “I am above such petty things as facts” as an explanation would be very troublesome.

  62. 62.

    apnea

    March 15, 2010 at 9:32 pm

    Wow, massive concern trolling alert !

    GG needs to check his sources ! That’s, like, totally unacceptable to interpret and extrapolate and stuff, y’know?

    Like, bloggers are really pompous, and they’re always convinced they’re right, right?

    Somebody stop them !

  63. 63.

    Mike Kay

    March 15, 2010 at 10:23 pm

    @apnea: Shorter apnea: IOKIYARALOL (it’s okay if you are a leftist or libertarian).

  64. 64.

    the farmer

    March 16, 2010 at 4:16 am

    #52 El Cid. @the farmer: First, Greenwald is not a journalist, and has not claimed to be.

    Hes not an actual journalist, he just plays one on Salon dot com. Got it.

    As for the PAC stuff, I have not the foggiest idea what this refers to.

    Yeah. That figures.

    *

  65. 65.

    the farmer

    March 16, 2010 at 4:30 am

    #52 El Cid – @the farmer: First, Greenwald is not a journalist, and has not claimed to be.

    Sure. And any moron who can consistently wake up at 6am can be a school teacher. As long as they don’t claim to be a school teacher.

    *

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

If This Doesn't Make You Feel Better, Then Nothing Will
Image by WG’s niece (6/16/25)

Recent Comments

  • Rusty on Qualified Good News Open Thread: A Court Win for NIH Grant Funding (Jun 17, 2025 @ 4:09am)
  • David_C on Qualified Good News Open Thread: A Court Win for NIH Grant Funding (Jun 17, 2025 @ 4:02am)
  • Jay on Monday Evening Open Sportsball Thread (Jun 17, 2025 @ 3:59am)
  • Viva BrisVegas on Monday Evening Open Sportsball Thread (Jun 17, 2025 @ 3:50am)
  • Jay on Monday Evening Open Sportsball Thread (Jun 17, 2025 @ 3:40am)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!