Jeffrey Goldberg lies on NPR and issues one of the snottiest and evasive non-apology apologies I’ve ever read.
I never thought that Goldberg having two views on the Osirik attack was that big a deal, but Goldberg’s grade school playground response to being caught in what could be a minor contradiction is a real tell.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
Goldberg has been exposed for the fraud that he is. I love seeing the turd squirm.
GREAT NEWS FOR MCCAIN!
1. General Motors took the first formal steps on Wednesday to once again sell shares publicly, highlighting a remarkable turnaround for the corporate giant a year after its bankruptcy and setting the stage for Washington to withdraw from its majority ownership stake in the automaker.
2. CBO says keeping bush tax cuts will blow up the republican’s precious deficit
3. Obama on a roll: Pulling out of IRaq, GM returns, Gulf well capped, and he did the right thing on the mosque. He still hasn’t walked on water, though. What’s wrong with the man?
Remember when Obama decided to save GM, daily kos actually whined that it would be a waste of money and told obama to let Old Auto die and instead use the cash to fund Future autos in silicon valley. Oh, if obama had only listened to the blogging elite who put him in power we’d all be driving our flying cars to the beach, this weekend.
Oh breathless transports of joy! A pissing contest between two mostly irrelevant pipsqueaks.
I am reminded of the famous joke about academic politics.
Q: Why are academic politics so vicious?
A: Because there’s so little at stake.
Must be a slow news day.
Goldberg has actually found a new low. I did not think it could be done. The lying warmongering fuck is beneath contempt, and shouldn’t have a voice in popular discourse.
Be sure to read the email he sent to Greenwald half-admitting his error.
What kind of sick lunatic signs off with “xxoo”?
This is all just too much insidery baseball for me. Who cares? I mean, who really cares?
i was fucking gobsmacked at that NPR segment. why the fuck would they give Goldberg that much time to sell his new war ?
this, 10x this.
So much for believing anything Jeffrey Goldberg says from now on.
ETA @homerhk: I for one care because there are people out there who actually take Goldberg at his word, at least on some things. They need to know that they can’t do that.
@burnspbesq: Except the fact that one of those irrelevant pipsqueaks has the national media megaphone at his disposal when he’s trying to start another war. Goldberg may have been a bit player in the drive to war with Iraq, but he was a player.
Greenwald: Liar liar pants on fire!
Goldberg: I know you are but what am I?
Greenwald: You’re a doody pants!
Goldberg: I know you are but what am I, no backsies!
Greenwald: You’re a double dog lying doody pants!
Goldberg: Waaaah! I’m telling Daddy first! Waaaah!
This needs a blogospheric navel gazing tag.
Gunrunners and warmongers.
What do you expect from them? Honesty? Integrity? Honor?
@homerhk: False equivalence. Evolution and Intelligent Design are both just theories. Goldberg lying to gin up war and Glenn Greenwald calling out his lies equals inside baseball.
@homerhk: The finer details don’t matter, but the larger issue – that a serial liar is considered to be a serious journalist – is important. If the members of the guild won’t police their own, it’s up to people outside the club to do so.
NPR has gone in standards. I mean Goldberg? Seriously, the kid is a regurgitation pump for his parents cronies.
Stan of the Sawgrass
Yeah, I was surprised to hear JG on NPR, but it was a tough listen. Still, I was continually amazed by his “Hey, I’m just reporting what they told me, I ain’t advocatin’ nuthin'” attitude. I don’t think the host had read the article, or else majored in Softball at journalism school.
Couldn’t stand it anymore after about 15 min, so I missed Goldberg dissing GG.
And curse you, mistermix!! Now I’m going to have to read his damn article AGAIN, just to make sure it’s what I read, and not what JG said it was.
Insidery baseball it all is but what gets me is this. In 2002-2003 when the march to war propaganda was at its height, there were numerous places and sources of news that one could turn to to know that the propaganda was just that – lies and more lies. The collective responsibility of going to war lies with the American people (and the British people to some extent although a majority of Brits didn’t actually want to go to war). the majority of people were hoodwinked – in fact a majority of people in the US thought that Iraq was behind 9/11.
A democracy depends on an informed citizenry. Those who blame the media for keeping the citizenry uninformed and concentrate on individuals like Goldberg or any of the other serious journalists who supported the war is a cop out. Being a citizen means keeping yourself informed. There must be some blame shared by the citizens as well as the crappy politicians and journalists.
Goldberg’s having two views on Osirik completely undermines both his credibility and the main thrust of his argument, but otherwise I agree that it’s not a big deal.
Not so much puerile playground behavior on Goldberg’s part as a real grown up, fully internalized , unresolved, high maintenance, passive aggressive, manipulative, annoying attempt to never be wrong and therefore to maintain his position as the best little boy in the world.
Jeffrey Goldberg is a classic kapo. The guards at Treblinka would be proud of him.
@Linda Featheringill: “Gunrunners and warmongers. What do you expect from them? Honesty? Integrity? Honor? “
Actually, all I really expect from Jeffrey Goldberg is a darn comments section, the kind his Atlantic colleagues seem to handle, however churlishly (McMegan). Hell, he could delete and ban as he wished. But he should have the damn comment function activated.
(Hi, Linda! Good morning!)
jlo i wasn’t false equivalencing anything. I was saying that it was just too much inside baseball for me to really give a shit. If you took a poll of adults in the US, what percentage do you think would have even heard who Goldberg is? Greenwald?
But in any event, here’s something to think about. Goldberg isn’t the only journalist with an agenda. Greenwald has just as much of an agenda as does pretty much every journalist. For example, I have read some GG pieces where he paraphrases articles to which he links where when I have read the underlying article it seemed to me the paraphrasing was inaccurate or pretty well spun. It’s all so tiring that I just can’t bring myself to give a crap about it.
Spin is just spin. What matters to me is what has actually been done by the people who have got the power to get things done. Reporters kissing W’s arse about the Iraq war don’t piss me off half as much as the actual fucking war.
Well, we have two contrary viewpoints here, so we will just have to agree to disagree, okay?
So let’s move on to what’s really important: will “Shock and Awe – Goldberg’s Revenge 3-D” hit the airwaves in time for Fall sweep period.
I’m getting wood just picturing the roundtable on CNN and all the glitzy graphics!!!!!!!1!!
Hugin & Munin
Yes, indeedy. A pox on both their houses! Some say, but others say… Nothing to see here, move along. Nly hippies and firebaggers are concerned about the war against eastasian… blah blah blah.
Say, how’s my portfolio doin’?
@Hugin & Munin:
Goldberg is a hack and Greenwald is a titanic asshole. They both need to be punched in the face. Repeatedly.
@Stan of the Sawgrass: “Hey, I’m just reporting what they told me”
They, being the invisible voices in my head. This guy writes articles where no real person is quoted and we’re supposed to believe him because the same invisible, anonymous sources supposedly fed him a lot of shit last time. Personally, I think he just makes everything up and lies so much that he can’t keep the lies straight anymore.
Thank God some Jewish holiday is approaching, whatever the f*ck that is supposed to connotate, except that Jeffy is extra Jewy.
I never got around to reading Goldberg’s article, but I came across this critique of it. I wasn’t too surprised at this:
but I didn’t expect this:
They want us to go to war and kill a bunch of people because they are worried about brain drain.
Much as Glennzilla grates on my nerves sometimes, in this case I gotta back him up. I read both of the articles he wrote about JG last week and would have been absolutely gobsmacked had I been so stupid as to turn on NPR and hear him claim GG retracted anything he said.
However much Glenn irritates me on some matters, he was absolutely correct about everything he wrote about JG, the useful lying idiot for the Israeli lobby and neocons everywhere. I’ve always known he was a lying piece of shit and he has just proven himself to be just that for all the world to see.
And NPR definitely owes Glenn a retraction/correction.
You’re not wrong. I really do agree. But the Atlantic has been perceived as a credible source of information, and for someone to have read Goldberg back then in an attempt to gather information to form an opinion about the impending clusterfuck should not be an occasion to denigrate them for poor citizenry.
“Being a citizen means keeping yourself informed.” Absofuckinglutely. Rush Limbaugh is clearly not one-stop shopping for information-gathering. But expecting people to have seen through
ideologuessupposedly reputable journalists like Goldberg begins to sound to me like assigning responsibility to someone who’s just been diagnosed with something hideous to find the best health care facilities, personnel, experts, and treatment options, all at the best possible price, and if you don’t, you’re letting yourself become a victim. To which I say, “Bullroar”. We consult experts because they have expertise. We can’t all go to medical school, we can’t all have access to pertinent diplomatic or political information and individuals allegedly in possession of such information, and most of us civilians can’t pop in to Baghdad or Niger or the UK and interview people ourselves.
So yeah, we are failing at being an informed citizenry. We totally should share in the blame for this. But I don’t think having considered Goldberg credible is real solid evidence of culpability. Not being able to locate the Middle East on a world map? That’s the kind of thing that makes the founders puke.
Hugin & Munin
Celticdragonchick: On the one hand, but on the other…besides which, it’s only wogs!
Well I take your point. I guess my response to that would be anyone who reads the Atlantic and knows about Jeff Goldberg surely knows about other sources of information and shouldn’t be suckered by Goldberg alone. I would estimate that no more than 10 people in the US were in the position of “well I don’t think the Iraq war is a good idea but if Goldberg says it is, well I believe him”. To be honest, I’m more concerned with those that can’t place Iraq (or England, France, Canada, Mexico) on a map.
As I say I think all reporters/journalists are spinners – just choosing what one decides to report on is a form of spin.
I am gratified to see that the BJ commentariat has finally identified a blogger they dislike more than Glenn Greenwald.
Why not just bomb Israel and take away their nuclear weapons or dismantle them?, since they already, you know, have them. They started the destabilization of middle east, why not just return it to an era where none of the parties had the bomb? I am sure Iran will give up their pursuit of nuclear armaments once that happens.
@Hugin & Munin: Bing!
@homerhk: anyone who reads the Atlantic and knows about Jeff Goldberg surely knows about other sources of information and shouldn’t be suckered by Goldberg alone.
I think you’re missing something. People don’t subscribe to the Atlantic because they’re smart and well informed. People subscribe to the Atlantic because they’re part of the tribe where subscribing to the Atlantic is just what you do. And within that tribe, some people will be smart and well informed, and others will happily digest whatever crap Goldberg feeds them without guessing that he might be a pathological liar and warmonger.
But Fallows thinks he’s a very serious journalist.
Goldberg is a total asshat, but it would be nice if GG could make that case in less than 1000 words, especially when the issue is so clear cut.
The most alarming thing about the Atlantic is the way “reasonable” writers like Fallows and TNC are now providing cover to this bigoted fraud. For me, seeing their willingness to cover up for a racist warmonger like Goldberg was the final straw. I won’t give the Atlantic page views, and I certainly won’t buy the dead-tree version.
That would be true if both views were held at the same time. However, you seem to be implicitly denying that it’s possible for someone’s views to evolve with the passage of time and the accretion of information and experience, and suggesting that those whose views evolve are somehow less credible than if they had foolishly stuck to their original view. Hope that’s not what you meant – on this blog of all blogs, that would be a peculiar view to espouse.
Two men enter the ring, only one returns…
GG is a titanic asshole, but he is most certainly right this time. And it seems like now is the best time to push back on the “bomb Iran” contingent. Call it pre-emptive punditry war.
Such a ridiculous comment. Greenwald went above and beyond to keep his article on a professional level, whereas Goldberg most certainly did not.
GG even apologized to his readers for having to get back in the sewer with Goldberg.
Did you even read Greenwald? Or were to busy playing with your little finger puppets?
Care to expound? And care to link to the times he has most certainly not been right?
I doubt any of you GG bashers ever visit his site. Or if you do, perhaps you are incapable of comprehending what he writes.
Do some of you people have ADD? I’ve seen this criticism more than once around here. Such a silly argument to be making.
You almost got it right. It’s “Two men enter, one man leaves!”
I visit his site regularly. His work on torture issues and executive power over reach is very, very good. He is still a sanctimonious and insufferable prick.
@srv: Well, if one is working with the presupposition that journalist=idiot then there is a case to be made . . .
GG justifies his views, lays out evidence, and fights the good fight. That’s more than many people do, including those reflexively peddling right-wing memes about how “insufferable” he is. We need more people like GG holding the Blue Dogs’ feet to the fire.
@homerhk: There must be some blame shared by the citizens as well as the crappy politicians and journalists.
Citizens are liable, and I haven’t seen anyone here suggest that they are not. But the reality is democracy, at least in America, has always had a large number of people who are “free riders” on the efforts of activists trying improve the country. Having a media that constantly misrepresents reality makes it much harder for activists to accomplish anything. As long as that is the case, activists will have to call out bad (and good) journalists and organizations as part of their efforts.
@celticdragonchick: Does he lecture you, just like that insufferable law professor in the White House?
I really have no clue why Goldberg fills his writing with juvenile attempts to put his opponents on the defensive… lumping them together with Holocaust deniers (Robin Wright), saying they’re coddling dictatorships (Leveretts), calling Greenwald a libelist, etc. It scores him temporary victories, but seems like creating an ever-expanding enemies list isn’t really worth it.
@cleek: @Silver Owl:
NPR has been in the Republican’s pocket for nearly a decade now. The fact that the ignore the worst elements of the party is indicative of the intellectual heft of the people who now control the network – they know that they can’t sell the same bullshit to the NPR audience that they do to the mouth breathers at FOX. That make them MORE dangerous as they make fascism seem acceptable.
There is always a lot of vague grumbling about GG here and I never understood what it is about. Yeah the guy has strong opinions & is willing to explain in detail why he holds them. Even when I don’t agree with him I enjoy the challenge of defending why I think he is wrong.
I remember listening to that cr ap. I was afraid I’d broken my radio, I punched the off button so hard.
Have you been here when he comes and calls everyone who disagrees with him cultists of Dear Leader? That’s sooo grown up.
If anyone has the right to complain Glenn Greenwald being an asshole, it is me, having been on the receiving end of a 1000 word plus screed in my very own blog post.
But that does nothing to change the fact that he is completely right here. “Glenn Greenwald is an asshole” is the new “Al Gore is fat”.
When has he been wrong?
Criticizing Greenwald for being too snotty and irritating is like criticizing Gore for sighing when Bush was lying about everything in the debates. There’s actual substance here, and I honestly can’t recall Greenwald getting much of anything wrong.
Fact-checking Goldberg is an important project.
Mclaren, look behind you. No, further back. Waaay back. Now look down. That’s the line.
Seriously, I’ve got no more use for dishonest war-cheerleading than you do, but we can make our points without using six million murder victims as rhetorical shock-n-awe props. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I am not denying that. The fact that I agree with much of the content of another person’s argument does not obviate whether or not I find that person unbearable to be around.
Glenzilla (in print, at least) is the sort of person I would want to slap. I have no idea what he is like in person, and it is true that online social mores and IRL social mores are very different. Glen may be entirely charming and agreeable in the context of a cocktail party.
This really comes down to unquantifiable personal likes and dislikes that are irrational by nature. I just really do not like Glen, even if I still agree that much of what he writes is a valuable addition to progressive causes.
I beg your pardon?
You go to war with the army you have. I, for one, am very grateful to GG for his constant pushback against the Total Surveillance War State. Might I do it differently sometimes if I were doing it? Most likely — but I’m NOT doing it. He is. Bless him.
@celticdragonchick: I don’t dispute that Greenwald can be over the top. I was just illustrating that the stereotype of the insufferable, sanctimonious liberal who shouldn’t be listened to even when he’s right is a common trope among conservatives.
He can be right, which he is about Goldberg, and still be a sanctimonious thin skinned prick who dials it to 11 in every. single. post. and like Goldberg, ALWAYS wants the last word. As much as I usually agree with him, after reading him a bunch I just want to yell just STFU about it already, and stop imputing motive. Is what he does important? Undoubtedly. He sure thinks he’s important.
I don’t know whether or not GG is an asshole, but I know he performs very valuable service for all of us. And this is one of them.
Greenwald is one of the few people I see who can actually get retractions for falsehoods. Maybe it takes an asshole.
Oh poo, you had to go and spoil it for me.
I don’t ask for much – all I wanted was a brown totebag. I’m not into the whole flags and armbands, and leather straps and wearing-a-Browning-pistol-on-my-hip thing, I just wanted a nice brownshirt-style totebag, to take with me when I go to the mall to shop for Dr. Laura books and yet more digital home security appliances.
And you just had to go and ruin it, didn’t you?
I don’t think he’s merely ‘imputing’ motive when it comes to Jeff Goldberg, Israeli citizen and noted foreign policy hawk who has lied repeatedly during the runup to ONE bad US military action, when he starts lying again to frame the runup to ANOTHER bad US military action, and I prefer that someone start asking loudly what their game is when the usual suspects start banging the war drum.
Maybe my sarcasm detector is broken. But seriously? Goldberg has successfully lied us into one war and he’s using the same tactics to try to get us into another one. An even worse one. He’s the type of shit-head who we all need to keep an eye on.
thank you. what you said.
well, he was one of many voices.
Colin Powell and Tony Blair probably had a lot more influence on the general public than one of a chorus of pants-pissing reporters.
It’s the “imputing motive” part that drives me nuts. He usually has all of his facts in a row, but he often goes off the rails when he tries to divine what people’s motives are. He was a big proponent of the “theory” that Obama never wanted a public option at all and lied every time he said he did. Because, of course, there was no possible way that Obama could have looked at the Senate, realized that they were never going to pass a public option, and dropped the idea. Nope, the only possible explanation was that Obama lied about it from the beginning of his campaign.
Greenwald decides on what he thinks is the only possible explanation a lot, and boy howdy does he hate it when you point out that there are other alternative explanations.
I agree, but Glenn has a bad habit of imputing motive for just about everyone he focuses on, and IMHO it undermines his arguments which are usually pretty solid and based on the record and his subject’s own words. He’s probably right about Goldberg’s motives, but that’s more from a sense of my own understanding of Goldberg’s own writings, and not because of Glenn.
@El Tiburon: you got time for a question?
@Cat Lady: oh, leave glenn lone. he’s cute, kinda like a young Dustin Hoffman, and that’s all that matters.
@Mike Kay: Whether or not Glenn is cute matters about as much as whether or not Glenn is an asshole. If he gets the job done, he gets the job done. And if a cute asshole gets the job done, then so be it.
The Grand Panjandrum
This morning was that morning here in northern New England when the air changes just ever so slightly. It reminds one that all the firewood should be split and stacked by now (or very soon) and that its time to start thinking about getting the jackets and sweaters out. Oh my, and J. Goldberg hawking a new war? Say it ain’t so! Fabricating things? No! Not possible … but the seasons march on and Goldberg is still a war criminal sympathizing hack. THAT is possible.
This is, regrettably, a reasonable view.
People who think that citizens have to work too hard to find accurate accounting of current events have no idea what it was like during, say, the early phases of the Vietnam conflict.
Buh buh but…sometimes he’s mean to Obama!!1!
Any criticism he makes of Obama is ipso facto wrong.
As opposed to people who argue that we need to stay in Afghanistan to protect the women?
Oh yes, he was one of a few voices. But his role as a “serious journalist” gave, and still gives him an air of totally undeserved independence and credibility. Politicians like Blair and Powell need willing propagandists like Goldberg to get the pro-war message bubbling in the public. They can point to Goldberg and say, “see, he’s a serious journalist!” Then NBC and FOX report on what Goldberg says; he gets on NPR; Boener, McConnell, McCain, Graham, and Lieberman start repeat the talking points.
And hey, bam, look we have to bomb Iran now.
Presumably the people making the argument are unfamiliar with a technique called “skimming,” which is useful when dealing with pieces that some judge too verbose.
Yeah, I guess the 50K soldiers still there don’t count.
Oh noes! Obama did exactly what he said he would — pulled out the 100K combat troops and left 50K there until the end of 2011. How dare he do exactly what he’s been saying he would do for a year and a half! The nerve!
By the way, this is why people mock you for wanting a pony: the president does exactly what he said he would do and you pout because it’s not enough for you.
@liberal: They’re not SOLDIERS, they’re ADVISERS. It’s not like they’ll actually be going on patrol and killing Iraqi insurgents or making searches or anything like that. To impugn the celebration of our victorious withdrawal like that cheapens America.
Except for the fact that JG’s older claim was closer to the truth, and his more recent claim is less accurate(*).
But thanks for playing.
(*) As quoted by GG, the older claim is “Saddam Hussein never gave up his hope of turning Iraq into a nuclear power. After the Osirak attack, he rebuilt, redoubled his efforts, and dispersed his facilities.”.
Nice strawman attack. I merely am pointing out that not all the combat troops have been withdrawn, contrary to MK’s assertion.
Re 2011, it’d be nice if we’re out of there completely then, but I doubt we will be.
Yeah, I know. Just like the tens of thousands of “advisers” we had in Indochina, pre-LBJ.
You’re not the first person I’ve seen claiming that it’s totally meaningless that 100,000 Americans have left Iraq as long as the other 50,000 are still there even though that’s been the plan all along. Were you not paying attention so now you’re shocked and surprised to find out that there’s still one phase to go?
Why? We’ve hit all of the other deadlines in the schedule. Why do you automatically assume that the final deadline will be missed?
And I’ve seen this comparison, too. How does this make any sense at all, historically? It seems to me to be more similar to Vietnam circa 1973 than 1953. It’s not like everyone in Vietnam returned home immediately upon Nixon’s announcement.
Please name another conflict where a country announced a withdrawal, brought 2/3rds of their troops home, and then re-escalated. Indochina doesn’t count because it was the French who withdrew, not the US, and they didn’t return.
(Corrected my Vietnam year.)
You didn’t get the memo? Contrary to initial claims, Obama is not Jesus. He’s a moooslim, and mooslims don’t walk on water. (That was the tell for the 20 percent).
Evolution and Intelligent Design are both just theories.
Sorry, but that’s bubkes. Intelligent Design is nowhere near a theory. It’s at most a hypothesis, and as long as the ID people can’t come up with ways to put some meat on that hypothesis its a dead one at that.
what’s the scientific term for “fairy tale” ?
@Mnemosyne: That’s easy.
Iraq. Never a peace treaty. Nearly all of our troops went home. We came back with more later.
ETA – as to how it’s similar? They’re fully combat capable, regardless of what you call them – they’re built to be combat capable. They’ll be able to undertake offensive action and that’s built into their orders. They’re going to be patrolling, shooting, searching, and doing all the same things those other 100k did. So call them whatever you want – they’re still “combat troops”, they’ll still be in “combat”, and to claim otherwise both demeans their service (because they’ll still be getting shot at/blown to pieces/etc. just like those “combat troops”) and lies to the American public.
Neither of those things are worth the “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” banner folks are putting up.
licensed to kill time
Goldberg and Greenwald sittin’ in a tree
first comes ‘berg
then comes ‘zilla
then comes outrage in the blog-o-sphera
So when the 50K come home and, 12 years from now, another idiot Republican decides to try and conquer Iraq, that’s going to be Obama’s fault?
ETA for your ETA:
That still doesn’t explain how this is more similar to Indochina 1953 than it is to Vietnam 1973. We still had quite a bit of military capacity in country at that point, too, or we wouldn’t have been able to evacuate Saigon two years later.
I guess the matter of fact term would be ‘unsupported claim’.
In private communications it might less be gentlepersonly be called a ‘brain fart’ or BS, depending on whether the idiot who came up with it seems to seriously believe it or not.
When I’m interested in hearing from you, I’ll ask.
All the time in the world.
I hate the Greenwald hate. I think he’s fabulous.
This is a moment in history when we actually know who was right and who was wrong about the major issues of the day. We really should use that information more. Greenwald is one of the people who has been right (and so has Krugman).
Plus the guy is very consistent and intellectually honest. He’s passionate. I don’t see the “titanic asshole” stuff at all. He just doesn’t suffer fools or lies well. We need more of that, not less.
I’m going to change my screenname to “Greenwald fanboi”…
For fuck’s sake, let’s see where GG has been wrong. I see a bunch of commenters here pussy-footing around these accusations that GG has some kind of history of being wrong, yet I’ve rarely (if ever) seen him taken on.
And as DougJ found out, you better come with something in your boxers than your hand on your johnson, otherwise you’ll be shitting out of the new a-hole put there by Greenwald.
So, please, someone, anyone, lay it on me, because other than the Goldbergs of the world, I’ve yet to see Greenwald proved wrong on any of the substance of his arguments.
This is complete and utter BS.
I have no doubt that Greenwald has probably tossed out the ‘cultist’ accusation to those who believe Obama can do no wrong, just like the 30% of Americans who still think W. was the Greatest Evah!
And what he may have said here on his one or two adventures here has absolutely nothing to do with his posts regarding Jeffrey Goldberg.
Stay on topic and show me where Greenwald was anything other than ‘grown-up’ on HIS blog at anytime. (Quick help: you can’t, but have at it.)
You are conflating someone else’s statements with mine when you say:
My whole point is that the label of the mission as ‘noncombat operations’ is a falsehood. They will be doing combat. They will be doing the same things with 50k troops that they did last year with 150k troops. To claim that the ‘combat mission’ is ended and MISSION ACCOMPLISHED is nothing more than PR of a sort that we’d have raked Clinton or Bush over the coals for. If you want to prove to me that Obottism isn’t as bad as Bush love, you can start by pointing this fact out when idiots start proclaiming that a great milestone has been passed here. It’s a step, not a milestone.
I have a feeling you don’t know what a milestone is. It’s not an end marker. It’s something you pass on the way to the end.
Now that you understand the correct definition of milestone, please explain again how having two-thirds of the US troops who were there return home is not a marker on the road towards the end of the war.
Can I Friend you on Facebook??!??1?
Also, great first post. Not so verbose like you know who.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
> Goldberg is a hack and Greenwald is a titanic asshole.
> They both need to be punched in the face. Repeatedly.
Haw haw haw. Balloonbaggers like celticdragonchick and Cat Lady are almost as tough as the 101st Fighting Keyboarders. Almost.
Another fan of Big Bad Glenn here. It always amazes me that people get into arguments with him when actual facts are involved. It’s like getting involved in a land war in Asia. You’re going to end up limping away in defeat.
Hey, Greenwald Fanboi: you have inspired me!
My new screen name here: Greenwaldian
Update: THIS is my new screen name.
The Cat Lady and the Celtic Whatever’s hatred for Glenn’s perceived “sanctimony” and assholiness,” etc. has always struck me as much more about them than him.
I mean, who gets themselves so twisted up about someone’s “tone” when it’s someone you generally agree with, and it’s someone on the internet you’ve never met in reality? What’s that about?
@SRW1: The point I was making is that it’s a “False Equivalency”. Comparing Greenwald to Goldberg is the “equivalent” to putting evolution and intelligent design on the same level (much like NPR likes to do).
@Glenndacious Greenwaldian: I think Cat Lady is really Maureen Dowd.