Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

People are complicated. Love is not.

Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don’t ask for more? Great plan.

They’re not red states to be hated; they are voter suppression states to be fixed.

Optimism opens the door to great things.

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

I’d try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

I really should read my own blog.

“What are Republicans afraid of?” Everything.

🎶 Those boots were made for mockin’ 🎵

Reality always lies in wait for … Democrats.

A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires

Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.

A consequence of cucumbers

So it was an October Surprise A Day, like an Advent calendar but for crime.

“Everybody’s entitled to be an idiot.”

No one could have predicted…

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

Republicans: slavery is when you own me. freedom is when I own you.

The arc of history bends toward the same old fuckery.

I was promised a recession.

You are here: Home / Open Threads / The Greenwaldiest Greenwald Headline Ever

Reader Interactions

219Comments

  2. 2.

    Ninedragonspot

    Zowie. Just walked past the Federal Courthouse in lower Manhattan and who should be walking the other direction but Dinesh D’Souza, in the company of his lawyer and some paparazzi. I refrained from punching him in the face and just gave him the biggest smirk I could muster.

  3. 3.

    Lavocat

    Name a single part of Greenwald’s headline that is in error.

    Meet the new boss, worse than the old boss.

  4. 4.

    FlipYrWhig

    Murdered journalists? Whatevs. Not like he has a foundation dedicated to preserving press freedom or something.

  6. 6.

    jl

    What a minute. I am a Presbyterian. I knew Cole held me someplace between pond scum and putrid week old road kill.

    But, not BC. I am hurt. My day is ruined. I will spend the rest of it drinking.

    No, don;t even try to apologize. It is too late.

  7. 7.

    Snarki, child of Loki

    C’mon Obambi! Start cranking up yer inner socialist and START DRONE STRIKING GUN SHOWS!

    And that Bundy character in NV? MOAB the SOB.

  9. 9.

    jl

    @Lavocat:

    ” Meet the new boss, worse than the old boss. ”

    I do think the latter half part of your statement is in error, if you mean the previous ‘old boss’. Or McCain, who might have been even worse than Dub, though maybe at least presenting the appearance of more intelligence.

  10. 10.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Just One More Canuck: I’m looking forward to the “I’m the world’s foremost opponent of killing brown people, and don’t you forget it if you ever start to think that what I’m mostly concerned about is stuff that hypothetically matters to first-world computer users” gambit. Because that’s, like, center square on the bingo card.

  15. 15.

    Bobby B.

    “There is no vital trend in American society more overlooked than the militarization of our domestic police forces.”
    G.G.

  18. 18.

    Amir Khalid

    I was a bit surprised to see a Glenn Greenwald piece that was so short. He’s just an instinctively suspicious person, isn’t he? I don’t think it’s in him to credit a POTUS, any POTUS, with good intentions.

  19. 19.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Bobby B.: Wow, that was brave of him, standing against the use of military equipment by local cops. I think he’s also taken a bold position against kicking people in the head until they bleed. Truly a prophet for our times.

  20. 20.

    Cacti

    Times have been tough for GG, what with ISIS pretty much shoving Snowden out of the spotlight.

    Gotta hop on the new grift train.

  24. 24.

    Mike in NC

    Something needs to be done about the Amish. The NSA can’t read their email or monitor their smart phones; who knows what they might be building in their big barns?

  26. 26.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Amir Khalid: he’s an instinctively smug, supercilious, and accusatory person. He’s chosen to apply his talents to politics. Woo. He has the same personality as Ted Cruz. Better beliefs, same personality. Oily, domineering, and proud of himself.

  28. 28.

    Trollhattan

    Cycling fans will want to give Jensie a final standing O for going out with a giant bang.

    The sport will really miss him. Was lucky enough to photograph him in a time trial several years ago.

    Glenn Greenwald: boring man, or boringest man? Discuss.

  29. 29.

    CONGRATULATIONS!

    Greenwald needs to be turned loose in one of those seven countries. I’m sure he can whitesplain his way out of any trouble.

  31. 31.

    Betty Cracker

    @Amir Khalid: Me too! I kept scrolling down, looking in vain for the missing 10,000 words.

    Someone here (I forget who) described Greenwald as a “reverse ethnocentrist,” meaning he views the US as the source of all evil. That’s how he comes across to me too. It doesn’t mean he’s always wrong — IMO, he’s right more often than he’s wrong. But readers should be mindful of that filter.

  32. 32.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Cacti: Again, if one of his putative concerns is for journalists’ freedom, he had an angle already all in place when a terroristic organization started killing journalists in spectacular fashion. But that’s not his angle, is it? Interesting how that works.

  34. 34.

    scav

    Real Nobel Peace Laureates bomb countries in a strict religiously-based order of rotation, with none of this Oh! Lookit all the allies nonsense being dragged into it. That’s just Bullying! and Mob Rule!

    Has anyone developed the outrage odometer yet?

  35. 35.

    Another Holocene Human

    Presbyterians are a good example–didn’t the Anglicans try to take over their church at one point and the fallout ended in military dictatorship and tears?

    As soon as people try to dictate other people’s religion, that’s when you know it’s not about spirituality and sincerely held beliefs and all about perpetuating and enhancing organization power which is always for the aggrandizement of the elites at the apex of it.

    Look at how fast Western Christianity went from “this weird, cool monastic fad” to “forcing entire populations to follow their monarch’s Catholic faith at swordpoint”.

  36. 36.

    Keith G

    There are good arguments that the bombs should have been dropped much earlier. There are good arguments that the blasting ’em now is the best play. There are good arguments that we should wait a good deal longer (if do this at all).

    I doubt that we will ever know what would be the best choice to support our long-term needs. Such is the fate of presidents.

  41. 41.

    Another Holocene Human

    @FlipYrWhig: Haven’t you heard? He’s the only journalist.

    All those other “journalists” are whatever Dershowitz used to call his critics. Authoritarian statist robots.

  45. 45.

    Botsplainer

    @ranchandsyrup:

    “Free Republic and Glenn Greenwald, together at last”

    Isn’t there an old movie musical song and dance number that would be perfect for that?

  46. 46.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Betty Cracker: I don’t think that’s it. He views the state and its institutions as the source of all, or at least most, evil. He’s somewhere on that libertarian-anarchist continuum. That’s where the Paul-curiosity flickers to life once in a while too.

  48. 48.

    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name)

    @Keith G:

    I doubt that we will ever know what would be the best choice to support our long-term needs.

    This is a situation in which there is no best choice. World leaders are really scrambling to find the least bad option or at least avoid the worst one (whatever it might be).

  56. 56.

    Helmut Monotreme

    So who does Greenwald think he’s trolling? Plenty of Democrats agree with the president, and plenty of Republicans don’t think he’s being violent enough. Those honest to god true believing liberals? They had to hold their nose to vote for the centrist compromiser in the first place. They certainly object to it, but they aren’t surprised by his plan. There can’t be more than like ten people who still thought Obama was some kind of progressive chosen one and will be disillusioned this time rather than the first six times he busted out the drones and airstrikes? So either Obama is a progressive that has reluctantly bowed to the realities of running the American empire (over the corpses of it’s enemies) or he’s a centrist true believer who sees nothing wrong with conducting foreign policy with air raids. Either way, this is bloody business as usual for this administration. Or is this another “he’s an evil faux progressive imposter and you should have voted for some other candidate in the primaries” rant?

  59. 59.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Paul in KY: But after Cromwell died they went back to the Stuarts (the descendants of James I) all over again. They finally shook off the Stuarts in 1714, more or less, making way for the Georges, Victoria, and so forth right up to the present day. In general, though, I think I agree. The alternative would probably have been nasty religious warfare throughout the 18th century.

  60. 60.

    Another Holocene Human

    @FlipYrWhig: Old wine in new bottles. Now isolationism, with all it entails, with all its baggage, with all its betismes, is anti-racist. Yuh-huh. A philosophy that holds that there is absolutely nothing those other, lesser, people of the world can offer America because America is the bestest most perfectest shiny country and besides, colonialists will be colonialists, so why should we get involved in diplomacy trying to stop it? They’re better off being conquered, the ingrates. They don’t deserve self rule. That philosophy is SOOOO antiracist it just makes me squirm.

    (GWB’s neo-conservativism also had an aspect of imperialism in new bottle, see violently invading countries and sowing 9 kinds of chaos is actually respecting Iraqis because they really want democracy, if only we bomb and pillage more of their institutions and arm a few more under-prepared local police forces, pretty soon they’ll be enduring our freedom just like Ferguson, MO.)

    Both of these attitudes are a know-nothing reaction to the last several decades of American diplomacy which favored widening trade ties and intertwining economies to try to neutralize the threat of a future war. The neo-cons wanted a Cold War on steroids and the isolationists not-so-secretly want a massive economic deflation because they think they’ll be relatively privileged in the fallout.

  61. 61.

    Trollhattan

    @Paul in KY:
    Thanks. Didn’t even know it was him at the time–shooting cycling is very much a spray-and-pray, they’re so very fast. A TT is more fun than a stage race because you can refine your position and technique as the day goes on, and the best riders begin last. The downside is if the light is going late in the day.

  62. 62.

    Bob In Portland

    I’ll say it again. The President doesn’t control foreign policy. The Permanent Government does. Occasionally a Democratic President gets in the way and it punished for it, but, no, Presidents don’t control foreign policy.

  66. 66.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Helmut Monotreme: it’s a “your hero has feet of clay” taunt. That way us Obots will gnash our teeth and Greenwald can say that our only principle is fealty to Dear Leader, while he has many principles that lead him to be bold and brave, such as the principle by which Stuff Is Bad, Updates 1 to Infinity.

  68. 68.

    max

    Or is this another “he’s an evil faux progressive imposter and you should have voted for some other candidate in the primaries” rant?

    ‘Ralph Nader would have bombed Detroit!’

    max
    [‘With biplanes, not evil drones!’]

  70. 70.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Another Holocene Human: Agreed. Once you’ve decided that all military action is just imperialism, you’ve made your Important Principle very easy to observe. Kind of why it should set off warning bells that it’s not much of an Important Principle, but I don’t think he’ll ever get there, because he’s just that sure of himself.

  71. 71.

    Tone In DC

    @Mike in NC:

    Something needs to be done about the Amish. The NSA can’t read their email or monitor their smart phones; who knows what they might be building in their big barns?

    LULz.

    They have contraband. It’s IKEA furniture. The rest of Lancaster County is scandalized.

    There’s an old joke about an Amish drive-by shooting.

    You hear ‘clip-clop, clip-clop, clip-clop….BOOM…clip-clop, clip-clop’.

    Personally, I think Ezra, Zebediah and Habakkuk are up to something. They may be planning a drive by. Thing is, their horse makes too much noise for them to catch the victim unaware. And, it’ll be tough to punch somebody through the window of that buggy, while it’s moving.

    Yeah, a drive by punch. Ya didn’t think they actually shoot anyone, did you? ;-)

  72. 72.

    Another Holocene Human

    @ranchandsyrup: He takes it personally that a libertarian, anti-Obama troll like Glenn Greenwald is taken Very Seriously by a lot of the ostensible American left.

    But not all politics is about choosing sides (purple! green!), sometimes it’s just single-issue advocates who are happy to find an ally with a different ideological background because it might enhance their chances of getting legislation passed. (Not always. But sometimes it works. And sometimes it’s about being ready for the right moment.)

    Worrying too much about the Wrecks List on GOS (as CJ does) is a mugs game. Been some truly epic bannings recently and also a front pager had a timeout imposed (summertime … and the trollin’ is easy), but if you just went by the numbers (comments, recommends, not to mention sheer volume of meta diaries) you’d think everybody went crazy when it fact you were just looking at flail spasms before the mod-assisted flounce.

  73. 73.

    Bob In Portland

    @jl: I get the feeling that if Gore won in 2000 President Lieberman would have still managed to get us into war.

  74. 74.

    Paul in KY

    @Botsplainer: I think they made him agree to have no legitimate issue (to be able to ascend to the crown). Then they got to pretty much pick who they wanted to take over after he died.

    It was Charles I that Cromwell took over from. Charles II was brought back post-Cromwell. Sorry about any confusion there.

  76. 76.

    Another Holocene Human

    @Bobby B.: Glenn can do research when he feels like it, but what’s the over/under that he used Lexis/Nexus–nah, scratch that–Google search–to substantiate that claim?

    He’s a narcissist, he’s being fed, no need to actually do any work now. Wonder if that Kim Dotcom thing stung at all? Btw, I guess GG is pretty comfortable personally with felons on the lam, and I know information wants to be free and all that, but this is the guy behind Megaupload. Mega. Up. Load. Pure, in your face, I’m going to host completely utterly pirated stuff and serve you ads to porn gateways for profit.

  77. 77.

    kindness

    I give Greenwald a big ‘he isn’t worth raising my hand to up or down him’.

    I appreciate some of what he’s said through the years and now see him more as Ralph Nader.

  78. 78.

    Betty Cracker

    @John N: No. The corollary to “Blame America first” as purveyed by Republicans is “America is blameless.” It’s possible to think the US (and Obama!) have many flaws and make many mistakes without reflexively viewing their every action as evil.

  79. 79.

    catclub

    What to make of the Shia group that took over the capital of South Yemen this morning, Then signed a cease-fire accord brokered by the UN?

  80. 80.

    DaveinMaine

    Is Greenwald under the illusion that Peace Prize winner never sully their hands or do things detrimental to peace? I suggest he take a look at Arafat, Peres, Rabin, de Klerk, Mandela, Begin, Sadat, Kissinger, Tho…and so forth and so on.

    President Obama won the Prize “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”, not for being the peaciest peacemaker who ever peaced.

  81. 81.

    Paul in KY

    @catclub: Whittling up a pipe so I can smoke some weed
    Have 18 children, so you know I got the need
    Cannot use a lighter, as that’s post-1864
    Singed my beard in the fire as I toked it up some more.

    Genuine Amish rap there…

  83. 83.

    scav

    @Paul in KY: What is it, the Rump made CII agree to have no legitimate issue? I was rather busy with And So To Bed Pepys when I dabbled in that period. Still trying to figure out how they figured to enforce that, what with all the absolute monarch stuff in the family pool and general environment of those sporting crowny headgear.

  88. 88.

    Another Holocene Human

    @Amir Khalid: He’s suspicious of any authority that’s not him.

    Glenn Greenwald wrote an entire book about how everything that’s wrong with the American security state/MIC/politics goes back to Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon.

    Then he staked his whole career on a fugitive who hacked an NSA database and passed secrets on to the Chinese and is currently holed up in Russia providing propaganda on demand for a politically repressive and expansionist oligarchic regime.

    Greenwald is just a classic con. Just accept the fact that thoughtful Glenn from Salon or Slate or whatever the fuck it was was the ‘honeymoon’ phase. Now that he’s getting his supply his true self is showing and it’s nothing pretty.

  91. 91.

    ShadeTail

    @Lavocat:

    Name a single part of Greenwald’s headline that is in error.

    Well, to start with, there’s the clear implication that the “Muslim” part is the reason why the bombs are dropping. That’s laughable bullshit, whether or not you agree with the policy. But then, there are plenty of white folks who like to white-splain the travails of brown people to the President. Perhaps you are one of them?

  93. 93.

    Another Holocene Human

    @Cacti: Sorry, I forgot to clarify “pre 9/11 Dershowitz”. That’s why I said “used to” but I was unclear. Apologies.

  94. 94.

    CONGRATULATIONS!

    Glenn Greenwald wrote an entire book about how everything that’s wrong with the American security state/MIC/politics goes back to Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon.

    @Another Holocene Human: While simplistic, and ignoring 400 years of racism (whoa, hey, Greenie does that too!) this is probably the first thing I’d agree with him on: the pardon was catastrophic to American law and order. And you can trace a good many of today’s problems back to that fateful decision.

  95. 95.

    Roger Moore

    @FlipYrWhig:

    I don’t think that’s it. He views the state and its institutions as the source of all, or at least most, evil.

    I think there’s some from each column. Yes he views the state as the primary source of evil, but he clearly also focuses his ire on the US rather than anyone else. He tends to see the US negatively, but he has in common with hyperpatriots the nationalistic view that the USA is the only country with agency in international affairs and all the other countries are only responding to what we do.

  96. 96.

    Mnemosyne

    @Paul in KY:

    Yeah, no — the problem was that Charles II’s queen was unable to carry a child to term, and he was unwilling to divorce her just to get an heir. Charles II’s brother, James II, insisted on being Catholic and Parliament feared a restoration of Catholicism as the national religion, so they gave James the boot and brought staunch Protestants William and Mary in instead. Continuing fertility and child mortality problems eventually led to the Elector of Hanover being invited to England to become George I. It probably helped that George already had an adult son by the time he was made the heir of childless Queen Anne.

  97. 97.

    Betty Cracker

    @raven: I’m not getting the autoplay ad, but yeah, it’s a double post, and it’s a re-posting of a post from last week, if I’m not mistaken. I have no idea what would cause such a thing to happen nor how to fix it.

  98. 98.

    Felonius Monk

    @Ninedragonspot:

    I refrained from punching him in the face and just gave him the biggest smirk I could muster.

    You could, at least, have let your dog piss on his shoe.

  99. 99.

    Another Holocene Human

    @Trollhattan: Sounds like the kind of place that lets you have supervised outings for religious services and possibly conjugal visits. Too damn easy! He’s going to spend 8 months whining either directly or through proxies about how oppressed he is and he might even get fresh wingnut welfare out of the deal.

    He’s still not as wealthy as Ann Coulter, though. And she’s never been prosecuted (despite some documented law breaking, including voter fraud … oh yeah, baby). He seems like the sort of person to be envious. And the thought of his impotent frustration pleases me.

    Face it, Dinesh. Someone will always be prettier, meaner, richer, and more ruthless than you.

    She also fucked Bill Maher. Who have you fucked? Nobodies, that’s who. You’re like sorry, late career Ahnold. Not that you were anybody to begin with. When the Kampus Konservatives invited you to our campus in the 1990s about 25 people showed up and 10 of them were journalism majors looking to complete an assignment. Now that’s a Nelson Muntz moment.

  103. 103.

    srv

    Well, that’s what happens when you give a Muslim the Nobel Peace Prize, amirite?

    Republicans really need to look at a Log Cabin candidate if they want to bring some serious pounding in 2016.

  105. 105.

    Another Holocene Human

    @CONGRATULATIONS!: It wasn’t a bad book. And Greenwald is not unintelligent. The issue is that he’s egotistical, dishonest, and lazy. The book was written when he was courting an audience. Now he’s more inclined to sit back and party.

    Personally, I think it’s the Reagan admin, not Ford pardoning Nixon, that’s the issue here. There’s another side to the Nixon thing–what would it have done to the American psyche to have their duly elected president in prison? Probably nothing good. Can you imagine the retaliatory politics? I mean, the GOP already runs ops in the South and Southwest trying to get Democratic pols, especially ones that threaten their grip on power, prosecuted and imprisoned.

    OTOH, what Reagan did to American politics and American institutions was just poisonous.

  107. 107.

    rikyrah

    My Illinois People:

    IF you have an Illinois Driver’s License or Illinois State ID

    AND

    will be using the address on the DL or State ID for the residence on your voting registration application….

    YOU can do Paperless Registration

    Here is the link:

    https://ova.elections.il.gov/

    Helpful hint: Enter your information EXACTLY as it appears on your DL or State ID. Within 4 days, you will be registered to vote if all the information checks out.

    Regular Voter Registration closes October 4, 2014

  108. 108.

    Paul in KY

    @scav: I could be completely wrong about this. That was what I remembered from college history (approx. 39 years ago).

    It might have been an under-the-table codicil (not written out).

  110. 110.

    Botsplainer

    @shelley:

    What the heck is a community confinement ctr?

    Dorm-ish, with lots of the inhabitants on work release. Think halfway house.

    He’ll interact with a lot of people on the tail end of sentences, but won’t really have to worry about physical safety, his stuff being taken, constant body cavity searches, random bunk tosses or whether the meals abjectly suck. Not a lot of sexytime there either, unless it is consensual – those guys really don’t want to get bounced back into minimum/medium security.

  111. 111.

    Roger Moore

    @Mnemosyne:

    It probably helped that George already had an adult son by the time he was made the heir of childless Queen Anne.

    IIRC, it was actually his mom (Electress Sophie of Hanover) who was made Queen Anne’s heir, and he inherited the position when she died. But yes, it did help that the Hanoverians were from the line of the family with proven ability to have plenty of legitimate heirs.

  112. 112.

    Mandalay

    @Lavocat:

    Name a single part of Greenwald’s headline that is in error.

    None that I can see. And there is nothing in error about this inconvenient truth within his article either:

    It was just over a year ago that Obama officials were insisting that bombing and attacking Assad was a moral and strategic imperative.

    Greenwald is good at grabbing the ugly facts and throwing them in your face, particularly when he writes about stuff from an angle that the rest if the media is studiously ignoring. But that’s about all he does. Like talk show hosts (take your pick of any persuasion) he does not provide any alternative solutions. It’s a piece of cake to sit back and wait for something to go wrong with the current operation, and then crow “I told you so!”. Limbaugh and Hannity will do it, and Greenwald probably will as well.

    But none of them will offer solutions. Few of them will put their own cock on the block, and state: “This is what you should be doing instead”, because there is always the possibility that what is being done will succeed. So while Greenwald is head and shoulders above most in marshaling the ugly facts, he really isn’t any better than the rest of them at stating what should be done instead.

    Criticizing is easy which is why everyone in the media does it. Offering alternative solutions is risky and difficult, which is why hardly anybody in the media does it.

  113. 113.

    Cervantes

    @Roger Moore:

    he clearly also focuses his ire on the US rather than anyone else

    Possibly because he’s a citizen of the US, thus partly responsible for its government’s actions?

  115. 115.

    Cervantes

    @Lavocat:

    Name a single part of Greenwald’s headline that is in error.

    Of course there isn’t one. Truth is sometimes inconvenient. No one likes their face rubbed in it. Tant pis!

  116. 116.

    Belafon

    @Lavocat:

    Name a single part of Greenwald’s headline that is in error.

    I’m also reminded of the description of The Wizard of Oz: Girl kills woman, and then plots with three accomplices to kill another one.

  118. 118.

    Mandalay

    @Keith G:

    There are good arguments that the bombs should have been dropped much earlier. There are good arguments that the blasting ‘em now is the best play. There are good arguments that we should wait a good deal longer (if do this at all).

    Right. Not only does nobody have a correct solution, but there is no correct solution, and there are no good options. For international clusterfucks all any president can do is pick the least bad option from a list of really shitty options.

  120. 120.

    Paul in KY

    @Cervantes: He finally convinced Nixon that he had to make good on his campaign promise (from 1968) to end our involvement in the war.

    Best I can do.

  122. 122.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @Cervantes:

    It’s not so much that it’s inconvenient, it’s that it’s irrelevant…and trollish.

    But then again, Greenwald is another neo-feudalist asshole like his buddy Ron Paul.

  123. 123.

    philadelphialawyer

    One wonders how to even respond.

    Muslim countries or not, President Obama has bombed, droned and missiled many countries. Often without a UNSC resolution, often without Congressional authorization, often contrary to Just War theory, and often contrary even to the long term pragmatic interests of the USA. And yet the story is Glen Greenwald? Or some failure on his part in terms of what to emphasize? Why would that be?

    Obama bombs Iraq and Syria!

    Response from allegedly liberal anti war website: Look at that squirrel named Greenwald!

  124. 124.

    Botsplainer

    Kennedy’s undelivered Dallas speech, which I think is appropriate for the Greenwaldians/RWNJs alike:

    “There will always be dissident voices heard in the land, expressing opposition without alternatives, finding fault but never favor, perceiving gloom on every side and seeking influence without responsibility. Those voices are inevitable. But today other voices are heard in the land–voices preaching doctrines wholly unrelated to reality, wholly unsuited to the sixties, doctrines which apparently assume that words will suffice without weapons, that vituperation is as good as victory and that peace is a sign of weakness.

    At a time when the national debt is steadily being reduced in terms of its burden and our economy, they see that debt as the greatest single threat to our security. At a time when we are readily reducing the number of federal employees serving every thousand citizens, they fear those supposed hordes of civil servants far more than the actual hordes of opposing armies.
    We cannot expect that everyone, to use the phrase of a decade ago, will Atalk sense to the American [email protected] But we can hope that fewer people will listen to nonsense. And the notion that this nation is headed for defeat through deficit, or that strength is but a matter of slogans, is just plain nonsense . . . . .

    I realize that this nation often tends to identify turning points in world affairs with major addresses which preceded them. But it was not the Monroe Doctrine that kept all Europe away from this hemisphere–it was the strength of the British Fleet and the width of the Atlantic Ocean. It was not General Marshall=s speech at Harvard which kept communism out of Western Europe–it was the strength and stability made possible by our military and economic assistance.

    In this administration also it has been necessary at times to issue specific warnings that we could not stand by and watch the Communists conquer Laos by force, or intervene in the Congo, or swallow West Berlin, or maintain offensive missiles on Cuba.
    But while our goals were at least temporarily obtained in those and other instances, our successful defense of freedom was due not to words we used but to the strength we stood ready to use on behalf of the principles we stand ready to defend. . . .

    But American military might should not and need not stand alone against the ambitions of international communism. Our security and strength, in the last analysis, directly depend on the security and strength of others–and that is why our military and economic assistance plays such a key role in enabling those who live on the periphery of the Communist world to maintain their independence of choice . . . .

    Finally, it should be clear by now that a nation can be no stronger abroad that she is at home. Only an America which practices what it preaches about equal rights and social justice will be respected by those whose choice affects our future. Only an America which has fully educated its citizens is fully capable of tackling the complex problems and perceiving the hidden dangers of the world in which we live. And only an America which is growing and prospering economically can sustain the worldwide defense of freedom while demonstrating to all concerned the opportunities of our system and society.”

  127. 127.

    Heliopause

    Here’s a thought; maybe you could blog about the biggest story going, maybe the most important story in years, without making it about Greenwald. Just a thought.

  132. 132.

    Mandalay

    @Cervantes:

    Possibly because he’s a citizen of the US, thus partly responsible for its government’s actions?

    It’s not even that complicated. Greenwald has stated many times that he chooses to focus on the actions of the US government.

    Whining that Greenwald doesn’t write enough about some random topic of choice is like whining that Elizabeth Warren doesn’t spend enough attention on our relationship with Indonesia, or that Krugman doesn’t spend enough attention on the Ebola virus.

  133. 133.

    Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)

    @Lavocat:

    Name a single part of Greenwald’s headline that is in error.

    It doesn’t mention that the target is ISIL. It’s as if the shortstop- in this case, Greenwald- scooped the grounder and tossed wide of the bag, pulling the first baseman off the bag. The runner is safe. E-6, throwing.

  136. 136.

    Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)

    @Mandalay:

    It’s not even that complicated. Greenwald has stated many times that he chooses to focus on the actions of the US government.

    So what about his trip to New Zealand, less than a week before their election, bought and paid for by Kim Dotcom.

    (BTW, this seemed to have failed miserably- the Nationals picked up 16 seats, and can now govern w/out a coalition, whilst Dotcom’s pals in the Internet Party were shut out.)

  138. 138.

    jl

    @Mandalay: Whatever Greenwald writes about, it should not be silly. The title can be fact checked but I think Greenwald’s commentary underneath is silly and few will take it seriously. Maybe he is just pandering to his die hard fan base.

  140. 140.

    Mart

    Greenwald’s headline is the basic reason for endless war in the region. Every time we punch a Muslim extremist, they have a recruitment video. I give credit to Obama for resisting more bombs, but he still is throwing plenty of punches. Do not know how this stops; maybe Obama’s alliances works some magic. It all makes me sad. Also, oil.

  141. 141.

    Big Wayne

    Haha. Greenwald has no idea how self-marginalizing he is with his rhetoric, does he? I swear he sounds like an angsty 17 year old.

  142. 142.

    Mandalay

    @Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):

    It doesn’t mention that the target is ISIL.

    That doesn’t make the headline false. Besides, you can only get so much in a headline, and it’s not just ISIL that was targeted anyway:

    Who Was Targeted?

    — The Islamic State in its Syrian headquarters of Raqqa.

    — The Al-Qaida-affiliated Nusra Front, or Jabhat al-Nusra, in northwest Syria.

    — A shadowy group known as Khorasan that the U.S. says is planning an imminent attack against the United States and Western interests.

  145. 145.

    cleek

    just a guess:

    in the eyes of gg and his followers, the next president, regardless of party, will be just as bad as, if not far worse than, any other president ever, when it comes to drones, bombs and civil liberties.

  147. 147.

    Another Holocene Human

    @Botsplainer:

    Only an America which practices what it preaches about equal rights and social justice will be respected by those whose choice affects our future.

    Kaboom!

    Is that last para really part of the speech? It sounds like the stuff we used to say at political rallies on Boston Common.

  150. 150.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    IANAL, but as a citizen I’m not satisfied with the 2002 AUMF being used here, but if Congress thinks that’s enough, as they collectively seem to have decided– with a few admirable exceptions like Chris Van Hollen and Tim Kaine (both close Obama allies, I think)– then, technically, isn’t it? Constitutional by default? Kind of depressing.

    As Jack Kingston, of all people, explained to us just last week, John Boehner would rather quit drinking than actually put his personal and political fingerprints on the strikes in Syria.
    A lot of people would like to stay on the sideline and say, ‘Just bomb the place and tell us about it later,’ ” said Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia, who supports having an authorization vote. ”It’s an election year. A lot of Democrats don’t know how it would play in their party, and Republicans don’t want to change anything. We like the path we’re on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long.”

  151. 151.

    Cervantes

    @Another Holocene Human: Yes, that was in the prepared text. So was the following:

    [Our] strength will never be used in pursuit of aggressive ambitions — it will always be used in pursuit of peace. It will never be used to promote provocations — it will always be used to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes.

    It was a prepared speech — and that’s all it was.

  152. 152.

    Betty Cracker

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: It’s just appalling that these bastards are shirking their duties like that — refusing to actually govern to maximize their campaign theme flexibility. It’s borderline treasonous, and I wish Obama would call the fuckers out on it.

  153. 153.

    Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)

    @Mandalay:

    The demand wasn’t about falsity, it was about showing an error. The shortstop fielded it cleanly, rushed the throw (takes a half a sec to get some nuance on the ball, ya know). The first baseman caught the ball, but the throw pulled him off the bag by three feet. Error on the shortstop. And you, the first baseman who was pulled so far off the base that it’s laughable, is arguing the call. Lardner would write a book based on you.

  154. 154.

    Roger Moore

    @Mandalay:

    It’s not even that complicated. Greenwald has stated many times that he chooses to focus on the actions of the US government.

    Whining that Greenwald doesn’t write enough about some random topic of choice is like whining that Elizabeth Warren doesn’t spend enough attention on our relationship with Indonesia, or that Krugman doesn’t spend enough attention on the Ebola virus.

    Choosing to write about the US government is one thing. Choosing to focus on the US government when it’s involved in an international situation and the actions of the other parties are essential to understanding what the US government is doing and why is quite another. Describing US attacks on ISIL in Syria as “Obama bombs yet another Muslim country” is concentrating so completely on peripheral issues that the central topic is completely obscured. It’s like the newspaper headlines that describe a terrible disaster in another area primarily in terms of local residents who were involved.

  156. 156.

    Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)

    @Mart:

    Every time we punch a Muslim extremist, they have a recruitment video.

    Seems to me that we’d have to drop a nuke to drop as low in the Middle Eastern polls as ISIL is right now. Those guys will never get the Shi’ia on their side, and they pissed off a ton of Sunnis when they turned their attention from Assad to moderate Sunnis in the civil war.

  160. 160.

    Another Holocene Human

    @Roger Moore: The English air seemed to sort that out pretty quick, though … didn’t Victoria have a million dissipated uncles with various bastards toddling about?

  162. 162.

    Another Holocene Human

    @Botsplainer: Yeah, work release is all about the handjobs from truant teenage girls at the bus station.

    Underage teenage girls, I’d say about 14 is the really key age range. 18 year olds are more discerning.

  163. 163.

    cleek

    @Cervantes:

    .. That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

    ISIS was an al-Q offshoot for many years. they killed many Americans and westerners during the Iraq war, as they continue to do. their recent separation from al-Q wasn’t because of fundamental differences in attitude towards the US, but because of disagreements over tactics and inter-party turf wars. but a change in corporate mission statement and branding shouldn’t be enough to exempt them from being seen as the al-Q-linked group they were until very recently. they still want to kill Americans (and Australians, and anyone else they can get close to).

  165. 165.

    Heliopause

    @Betty Cracker:

    Going back three pages and 41 posts, there are no posts about how the U.S. is engaged in bombing campaigns in two countries at the moment, one of which started within the last 24 hours, though there is one about Glenn Greenwald and one about Bill O’Reilly. Several about a sports entertainment cartel, several about a nutjob who jumped the White House fence, and of course quite a few about dogs, cats, and food. And I’m leaving out the Don Lemon posts from the Twilight Zone.

    Going back another page, Anne Laurie had an “open thread” that was nominally about the foreign wars which the President, Congress, and every mass media outlet are talking about to the exclusion of everything else. I thought that’s the type of thing that general interest, topical, left-leaning blogs liked to discuss, but I guess I was wrong.

    I’ll send an e-mail to Greenwald letting him know how important he is in the larger scheme of things.

  166. 166.

    Another Holocene Human

    @Cervantes:

    It was a prepared speech — and that’s all it was.

    Well he’s dead now so we’ll never know, right? Today in unfalsifiable statements….

  167. 167.

    burnspbesq

    Did I miss the part of Greenie’s latest screed where he makes a serious proposal of an alternative way of dealing with ISIL?

  170. 170.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Heliopause: The food here stinks, and the portions are too small, and you oughta know cause you eat here ten times a week!

    Going back three pages and 41 posts,

    I hope you’re leaving yourself enough time to measure the strawberries.

  172. 172.

    Mandalay

    @Roger Moore:

    Describing US attacks on ISIL in Syria as “Obama bombs yet another Muslim country” is concentrating so completely on peripheral issues that the central topic is completely obscured.

    I think you have it completely backwards: the central issue is that Obama has now bombed seven Muslim countries, and the peripheral issue is that this time it happens to be ISIS and other organizations in Syria and Iraq.

    It’s not hard to make the case that the US action is illegal. It’s not hard to make the case that we were goaded into this action only because of the recent beheadings of American citizens. It’s a matter of record that we did almost nothing over Russia’s annexation of a portion of the Ukraine. It’s a matter of record that at this time last year we wanted to attack the Assad regime in Syria, yet now we are defending it. All that suggests that “Obama bombs another Muslim country” IS the central issue.

    How much more American bombing in the Middle East will have to occur before you are persuaded that there is a fundamental problem with that strategy? Another twenty thousand bombs? Another five Muslim countries? Even eradicating ISIS will not make the problem go away. Boots on the ground has not solved anything, and bombs from the air won’t either.

  173. 173.

    My Truth Hurts

    I don’t see a problem with this headline. It’s the truth. The bigger picture is worse than just one party being a problem. It’s the whole system. The truth, as they say, sometimes hurts.

  175. 175.

    philadelphialawyer

    The Administration itself maintains that the 2002 AUMF should be repealed. And its use here would be a little embarrassing, for that reason, and because Obama ran his 2008 campaign on the basis that, if he had been in the US Congress, he “would have” voted against it, unlike Hillary and McCain. And it is awfully stale, no? A 12 year old AUMF authorizing the use of force against a regime that no longer exists, is said to authorize force ostensibly for the new regime? As for the 2001 AUMF, ISIS is not “associated” with AQ, so it does not seem to apply.

    Notice what I said, also:

    “…President Obama has bombed, droned and missiled many countries. Often without a UNSC resolution, often without Congressional authorization, often contrary to Just War theory, and often contrary even to the long term pragmatic interests of the USA….”

    NOT “always without authorization.” There was no AUMF for Libya, by the way.

    The main point, though, which seems to be getting lost again, is that Obama has resorted to warfare many, many times, under dubious circumstances, against international law, against standard moral and ethical theories, and contrary to US interests, and yet the blogger here is more worried about….what? Whether GG overstated or misstated the best way of expressing all that? Why is that the issue du jour, as opposed to raining yet more death and destruction down on Iraq (and now Syria as well) as part of an endless (over twenty years now, starting in 1991), futile effort to make it into something it has no desire to be? And as part of a larger effort to bully the ME Arabs and other Muslims into doing our bidding.

    Sunni Arabs in Iraq, and now Syria, have no desire to be ruled by non Sunnis. When we deposed Saddam, they fought us. They fought us as part of the Iraqi resistance and as AQ in M. And now they are fighting as ISIS. It is simply not our business, nor our right, to force Iraqi Sunnis into bowing down to the Sh’ia government in Baghdad, that we more or less put in power, nor to the Assad regime in Damascus.

    We have had our hands in the pot so long now that folks no longer even recognize the wrong of it, nor the futility. That, and the obvious partisan political nature of the alleged “analysis” that goes on here and elsewhere. Obama has continued the Bush wars, he has continued the Bush drone attacks, the assassinations, the bombings, the missile strikes, the secret prisons (where God only knows what is going on), he has continued the policy of implied American omniscience and omnipotence. ISIS is a concern of the US how? Because AFTER we started bombing them, they started killing American hostages? I have a real easy solution to that problem…Americans should stay the hell out of Iraq and Syria, and then ISIS won’t be able to take them hostage.

    And how about the fear mongering? So much like the post Nine Eleven years Bush administration BS. ISIS poses no threat to the USA that law and border enforcement, and intelligence, can’t prevent. The rest is just another bogeyman story, in a long line of such stories, reaching back beyond Saddam.

    And how about the enemies we are making everyday, with our bombs, missiles, and drones?

    Where is the left/lib/Dem criticism of all this?

    OK, sure, Obama is better than Bush. And than either McCain or Romney would have been. No new ground wars and ending the inherited ones. I get it. But is there no room, along side that acknowledgement, for full throated disapproval of his continuation of the paternalistic, racist, neo colonial policies of “America knows best” and anyone who stands in our way is to blasted to kingdom come? Again, why is that, as opposed to what little Glen-Glen got right or wrong, the focus?

    Don’t tell me that you have discussed this before. Cuz today is the first day after the first bombing in a brand new country. Now is the time to voice our disapproval. Instead, we get one entry on the war, and that has its subject Glen Greenwald.

  176. 176.

    Betty Cracker

    @Mandalay:

    It’s not hard to make the case that the US action is illegal. It’s not hard to make the case that we were goaded into this action only because of the recent beheadings of American citizens.

    Agreed, but implying that possibly illegal and stupid actions were undertaken because the enemy du jour are Muslim is both dishonest and sensational in the worst sense of the word.

    It’s a matter of record that we did almost nothing over Russia’s annexation of a portion of the Ukraine.

    Can you think of any other reasons — aside from the predominant religious identification of the Russians — that would have dissuaded the US from bombing Russia?

    It’s a matter of record that at this time last year we wanted to attack the Assad regime in Syria, yet now we are defending it.

    “Defending it” goes too far — the US is trying very hard to not help Assad while defeating Assad’s enemies. The impossibility of threading that needle is one reason I think the current bombing campaign is bad policy, but there’s a difference between disagreeing with the policy and imputing the worst possible motives to its proponents.

    All that suggests that “Obama bombs another Muslim country” IS the central issue.

    Maybe on Planet Greenwald, but there are other perspectives.

  177. 177.

    Betty Cracker

    @philadelphialawyer: Well, we discussed it here, and we’ve discussed it in many other threads, and we’re talking about issues besides Greenwald right here in this thread, including the legality of AUMF, etc.

    But feel free to ignore the discussions that are occurring around you to complain about whether or not a blog called “Balloon Juice” fulfills your requirements as a media outlet. So many remain silent in the face of moral outrages like this, but you’re brave enough to take a stand on important blog content issues. Bravo! I’m sure you speak for thousands, or at least tens.

  178. 178.

    Roger Moore

    @Another Holocene Human:

    didn’t Victoria have a million dissipated uncles with various bastards toddling about?

    She did, though I would point out that the existence of a bunch of dissipated uncles is proof that at least George III was successful in producing plenty of legitimate offspring. Victoria was fairly impressive in that category, too, and Elizabeth II has done her duty. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge seem ready to carry on the tradition. Meanwhile, the Dukes of York have been following tradition by not producing legitimate male offspring so that the title has been regularly available for the Prince of Wales’s younger brother.

  180. 180.

    Mandalay

    @Betty Cracker:

    stupid actions were undertaken because the enemy du jour are Muslim is both dishonest and sensational in the worst sense of the word

    OK – so when do we ever take military action (stupid or not) against non-Muslim countries? Under Obama we have overtly militarily intervened in seven countries, and they are all Muslim countries. Obviously there may also be covert US intervention that we don’t know about elsewhere, but it’s hardly being dishonest or sensational to point that out. In fact you have to be willfully blind ignore it, and massively stupid to to put it down to coincidence.

    How many more Muslim countries must we attack before even the dimmest of the dim can work out that the results of that approach are disastrous, and against our national interests?

  181. 181.

    Mnemosyne

    @philadelphialawyer:

    Sunni Arabs in Iraq, and now Syria, have no desire to be ruled by non Sunnis. When we deposed Saddam, they fought us. They fought us as part of the Iraqi resistance and as AQ in M. And now they are fighting as ISIS.

    Yeah, no. ISIL is a group that was based in Syria. They are now overrunning Iraqi Sunnis and other Iraqis, who did not consent to being ruled by ISIL, and the armies of Iraq and Syria are too fucked up to prevent them from killing people.

    Frankly, what you posted is coming across as, Eh, Muslims are gonna kill each other, what’cha gonna do?

  182. 182.

    Betty Cracker

    @Mandalay: If your argument is that it’s against our national interests to be perceived as anti-Muslim and that is one of many good reasons to keep our snouts out of places like Syria and Libya, I’d agree. If you’re implying that Obama has intervened militarily in seven Muslim countries because the peace-hating sumbitch just stone-cold wants to kill some Muslims, I’d disagree, and I’d point out you’re down the ISIS rabbit hole with that logic.

  183. 183.

    Mnemosyne

    @Mandalay:

    The US currently has troops in 13 African countries, most notably in Congo and Chad, neither of which are Muslim (or even majority Muslim) countries. The largest number of US troops are in Uganda, which is also not Muslim, or even majority Muslim — it is majority Christian (mostly Roman Catholic). This is not covert action — all of these actions have been announced. This does not include the current action in Liberia, which is crisis intervention rather than military action.

  184. 184.

    A Humble Lurker

    Does anybody else notice that when the subject is Greenwald, posters who have never posted before and never will again show up to defend Greenwald? Funny that.

  185. 185.

    burnt

    @srv: Sadly, it’s all true. I hadn’t really thought about it that way before. I apologize Hank. How can I think so badly of you with all the good you did when you were manipulating the levers of power? It’s like when I point out Henry’s buddy, Tricky Dick, gave us the Clean Water Act and the EPA. And he would have signed into law a version of health care reform that would have (arguably) been better than the Affordable Care Act but Teddy didn’t trust him.

    These days can you imagine a Republican president signing any legislation coming out of a Senate and House controlled by Democrats? Can you imagine a Republican Secretary of State doing anything to reduce the risk of nuclear war or war in general? Ahh, the good ol’ days when Henry and Richard ruled. We’ll need to re-animate Nixon but Kissinger is still around and I’m sure he’s still willing to serve. I welcome our zombie and nonagenarian overlords. All is forgiven Trick Dick, I didn’t understand how crazy your followers would become.

  186. 186.

    Hal

    @Mandalay:

    It’s a matter of record that we did almost nothing over Russia’s annexation of a portion of the Ukraine.

    Has the US engaged militarily with a single country that could ultimately be a threat to the US directly since WWII? I’m not even disagreeing with you, but the possible roll out of WWIII could be the primary reason we are not engaging militarily with Russia.

    The military might of an opposing country is always going to be taken into consideration first. Not how much “good” would come from an intervention. The US did not get involved in WWII until Pearl Harbor and US intelligence knew what was going on in Germany at the time.

  187. 187.

    Irony Abounds

    @burnspbesq: It’s not there and don’t hold your breath waiting to see one from GG, or anyone else for that matter because the sad truth is there are no good answers. My preference is to get completely out of the Middle East and let them all fight it out amongst themselves, but there are plenty of potential downsides in that. And while it is true that bombs are raining down on Muslims, perhaps one reason for that is you have a sizable segment of Muslims (not a majority, or predominant portion, but unquestionably a non-neglible portion) who are so fucked up in the head with their malignant religious ideology that they pose a threat to the region and the world at large. Any suggestion that the bombings are merely because the bombees are Muslim, rather than murderous thugs for instance, is idiotic.

  188. 188.

    burnspbesq

    @philadelphialawyer:

    Now is the time to voice our disapproval.

    OUR disapproval?

    Who the FUCK are you to presume to speak for anyone but yourself?

    Everyone here is fully capable of thinking and speaking for his or herself.

    Trust me, douchebag, when I want you speaking for me, you’ll have a signed POA.

    Now go fuck yourself.

  189. 189.

    burnspbesq

    @Cervantes:

    Whether ISIS is or is not an offshoot of al-Qaeda for purposes of the 2001 AUMF is al question of fact, not of law, and the answer is far less clear than you so smugly pretend it to be.

  190. 190.

    Bill Arnold

    GG:

    (indeed, recall that Obama bombed Libya even after Congress explicitly voted against authorization to use force, and very few people seemed to mind that abject act of lawlessness; constitutional constraints are not for warriors and emperors)

    (Bold mine) Is this (from the GG article) true? Did the US bomb Libya after June 24, 2011? My recollection (“wiki-confirmed” by the timeline on wikipedia) is that the US did some airstrikes to set up a UN-security-council-authorized no-fly zone then subsequently restricted itself to aerial refueling, reconnaissance and similar non-strike missions. Were there allegations of strike missions even after this vote?

  191. 191.

    Carolinus

    @Cervantes:

    Possibly because he’s a citizen of the US, thus partly responsible for its government’s actions?

    I think you’re vastly over-estimating how connected he feels to the US anymore. He bugged out to Brazil a decade ago:

    http://www.advocate.com/politics/2013/06/11/glenn-greenwald-can%E2%80%99t-live-us

    “Brazil recognizes our relationship for immigration purposes, while the government of my supposedly ‘free,’ liberty-loving country enacted a law explicitly barring such recognition,” says Greenwald

    …

    “When you grow up with any kind of real challenge that forces you to evaluate your relationship to these conventions and the things that you’re taught … you start to question what that system is.” Greenwald told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. “Is it really valid in the way that it’s rejecting me or is it the system itself that is corrupted? I think that lends itself to a much more critical eye that you end up casting upon things that you’re taught are indisputably true.”

  192. 192.

    Cervantes

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    It’s not so much that it’s inconvenient, it’s that it’s irrelevant…and trollish.

    That you find it irrelevant does not surprise me. Can you think of others who might disagree? I’ll give you 1.5 billion guesses.

    But then again, Greenwald is another neo-feudalist asshole like his buddy Ron Paul.

    Right, I’m sure you’ve captured his essential nature precisely.

  193. 193.

    Cervantes

    @Carolinus:

    I think you’re vastly over-estimating how connected he feels to the US anymore. He bugged out to Brazil a decade ago:

    I offered no estimate.

  194. 194.

    Cervantes

    @burnspbesq:

    Whether ISIS is or is not an offshoot of al-Qaeda for purposes of the 2001 AUMF is al question of fact, not of law, and the answer is far less clear than you so smugly pretend it to be.

    Of course, it is a question of fact. Did I say otherwise?

    (As for the rest: I don’t see that a response is necessary.)

  197. 197.

    Ripley

    Did I miss the part of Greenie’s latest screed where he makes a serious proposal of an alternative way of dealing with ISIL?

    That flushing sound. You missed that.

  198. 198.

    Cervantes

    @Another Holocene Human:

    It was a prepared speech — and that’s all it was.

    Well he’s dead now so we’ll never know, right? Today in unfalsifiable statements….

    No, we do know. The fact is, it was a prepared speech, and it never became anything else, not even an actual speech. Could it have been more? Sure, that we’ll never know; though we may each have our guesses.

  199. 199.

    different-church-lady

    @Another Holocene Human: Kos has a whole dynamic set up that he either can’t see or gets perverse pleasure from: set up a reward system for nutty ranting (the rec list) and then when the ranting gets too nutty, bans and timeouts. After a calm period the cycle starts anew. He either can’t see the cause-and-effect relationship or he somehow likes it that way.

    Either way, he just can’t seem to understand that it drags the entire site down.

  200. 200.

    different-church-lady

    We’re all missing the big news here: the Intercept actually published something this month.

  202. 202.

    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name)

    @Cervantes: I know I have had my days where some aspect of an argument simply sets me off rather than responding to it in my usual reasoned, erudite, and civilized manner.

    Edited slightly.

  203. 203.

    Cervantes

    @Bill Arnold:

    (Bold mine) Is this (from the GG article) true? Did the US bomb Libya after June 24, 2011? My recollection (“wiki-confirmed” by the timeline on wikipedia) is that the US did some airstrikes to set up a UN-security-council-authorized no-fly zone then subsequently restricted itself to aerial refueling, reconnaissance and similar non-strike missions. Were there allegations of strike missions even after this vote?

    “Allegations”? We don’t need “allegations.”

    defenceWeb
    Monday, July 4, 2011

    US still flying strike missions in Libya

    US Air Force and Navy aircraft are still flying hundreds of strike missions over Libya even though the US government claims it is only playing a support role in the NATO-led operation.

    […]

    The Obama administration earlier said that it was mostly providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and tanker support to NATO forces operating over Libya.

    “US aircraft continue to fly support missions, as well as strike sorties under NATO tasking,” Africom spokeswoman Nicole Dalrymple said in an emailed statement.

    Let me know if your question remains unanswered.

    Do bear in mind that: (0) the President did not seek Congressional authorization; (1) the House on June 24 voted not to authorize operations in Libya; and (2) the House on June 24 also voted not to cut off funding for operations in Libya.

  205. 205.

    Cervantes

    @Hal:

    Has the US engaged militarily with a single country that could ultimately be a threat to the US directly since WWII?

    Guess it depends on what you want to call a threat. About 35,000 of us were killed in Korea and another 50,000 of us in Vietnam.

  209. 209.

    Cervantes

    @Paul in KY:

    You are talking about the 2002 AUMF. It authorizes use of force in and against Iraq.

    Here is its formal title:

    Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

    Its first words are:

    Joint Resolution

    To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq

    You can find it here.

    How does it apply to the current situation?

  210. 210.

    Bill Arnold

    Let me know if your question remains unanswered.

    The defenseWEB piece is sufficient, thanks. (Google fail on my part). The US acknowledged (June 15) that it was continuing with “suppression of enemy air defence” (plus predator strikes), so that’s a lower bound on actual activities, and the suppression probably expanded to include attacking anything/anyone that could threaten aircraft. Also (my bold)

    The Obama administration earlier said that it was mostly providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and tanker support to NATO forces operating over Libya.

    I don’t recall obsessing about (or maybe didn’t notice) the ambiguity at the time.

    Do bear in mind that: (0) the President did not seek Congressional authorization; (1) the House on June 24 voted not to authorize operations in Libya; and (2) the House on June 24 also voted not to cut off funding for operations in Libya.

    The McCain/Kaine S.1939 – War Powers Consultation Act of 2014 looks interesting. Guess it’s time to write my congresspeople asking them to support such legislation. (Whatever press this bill got, I missed.)

  212. 212.

    LAC

    @jl:

    “@Mandalay: Whatever Greenwald writes about, it should not be silly. The title can be fact checked but I think Greenwald’s commentary underneath is silly and few will take it seriously. Maybe he is just pandering to his die hard fan base.”

    Who all come a runnin’ with hands waved wildly in the air to defend the great Chinless wonder. Trust me, if greenwald came out against global warming being real ( as ridiculous as his click bait title above) you would see the usual suspects twist themselves into pretzels to validate what he says. It is like a cult, minus the laughs.

  214. 214.

    Cervantes

    @Bill Arnold: Sure.

    But just to emphasize:

    US Air Force and Navy aircraft are still flying hundreds of strike missions over Libya even though the US government claims it is only playing a support role in the NATO-led operation.

    So whatever they were “mostly” doing after June 24., it included hundreds of strike missions.

  215. 215.

    Cervantes

    @LAC: Be careful with that. You wouldn’t want a bird-brain more informed than its owner. Things could get tricky.

  216. 216.

    LAC

    @Cervantes: well if he is a parrot, what would be the difference between him and a greenwaldian?aside from ability to fly? Squawk!! Glen is right!! United States evil! United States evil! Sqawk!!!

  217. 217.

    Cervantes

    @LAC:

    what would be the difference between [a parrot] and a greenwaldian

    I think it’s a perfectly wonderful question, but if you want to discuss it there are rules.

  218. 218.

    LAC

    @Cervantes: if only there was no such person as a “greenwaldian”. But I agree that this sort of person is himself an artificial construct of sanctimonious outrage coupled with a smug sheltered outlook on life wrapped in a thin skinned layer of superiority. We could start there. Not imaginative, but definitely artificial.

  219. 219.

    Cervantes

    @LAC:

    if only there was no such person as a “greenwaldian”. But I agree that this sort of person is himself an artificial construct of sanctimonious outrage coupled with a smug sheltered outlook on life wrapped in a thin skinned layer of superiority. We could start there. Not imaginative, but definitely artificial.

    As I said, there are rules, and you’re illustrating one of them, viz. that “an object may have any properties whatsoever, independently of whether the object exists or not.”

Comments are closed.