Thursday, December 18, 2008

Thank you, Glenn Greenwald

Greenwald throws me some traffic with a response:
For obvious reasons, the most blindly loyal Bush followers of the last eight years are desperate to claim that nobody cares any longer about what happened during the Bush administration, that everyone other than the most fringe, vindictive Bush-haters is eager to put it all behind us, forget about it all and, instead, look to the harmonious, sunny future.
This is amusing. Greenwald is demanding war crimes prosecution of Bush administration officials and yet I am "desperate"? Frankly, I don't even give a damn. If I turned on the TV sometime next year to see Paul Wolfowitz in the dock at the Hague, I'd shrug in mute acceptance, and if I blogged about it, would do so in an insouciant way.

But that's never going to happen, which is why I can merrily mock Greenwald's frothing outrage. Nothing, not even a New York Times editorial, can turn this madness of the fanatical fringe into a "mainstream" project. The Democrats would never allow it, no more than they would allow Obama to withdraw too precipitously from Iraq.

The political winds have blown, and the system has encompassed that wind, directing it toward the recent resurgence of the Democratic Party, and smart Democrats know that the surest way to lose that favorable breeze would be to overplay their hand by pandering to the monstrous appetites of Greenwald and his ilk. Obama, Pelosi and Reid will all answer this idiotic demand in the only way it deserves to be answered: Fuck you, Glenn Greenwald.

UPDATE: Politics is about majorities. Politics is about the future. Greenwald's idiotic crusade aims to incite a passionate few about the past. In my original response to Greenwald, I tried to make this point by comparing his latest anti-Bush jihad to the way some on the Right spent years pushing conspiracy theories about the 1993 death of Vince Foster, long after it became clear to all sensible observers that -- like Oakland -- there was no there there. Judging from the comment field, some of Greenwald's readers are unaware of just how foolish they look now, let alone how foolish they'll look six months or a year from now.

If it makes you self-styled progressives happy to howl at the moon, don't let me stop you. Howl until dawn, sleep all day, then rise to howl again tomorrow night. The American majority has spent its fury at the Bush administration and does not share your passion for endless hindsight recrimination. The leadership of the Democratic Party understands this and -- just as they refused to satisfy your bloodlust against Joe Lieberman -- they will not support you in this mad effort to exhume the corpse of the Bush administration so that you may inflict posthumous injury upon the remains.

Do not, however, think for a moment that I mind being today's proxy scapegoat. Nor should you let my mockery of your madness shake you into sanity. Go, lemmings -- your cliff awaits you. And when you find yourself plunging downward, accelerating at 32 feet per second squared, remember who told you so, you damned fools.

UPDATE II: Jules Crittenden has fun at the expense of the New York Times.

UPDATE III: Just watched the end of "It's A Wonderful Life" with my wife and kids. Remember: Every time you hear a bell ring, a blogger gets an Instalanche!

UPDATE IV: God bless 'em: "If Obama Fails to Prosecute War Crimes, Is He A Criminal Too?" High crimes and misdemeanors! We eagerly await the Left's next bumper sticker: "Impeach Hope."

UPDATE V: Jules Crittenden offers helpful advice on how to deal with Greenwald, if you must. I think the key factor involved is the extreme self-seriousness of the man. And this is a habit he shares with many others on the Left. A lot of lefties don't get the self-deprecating humor of my mock braggodocio ("bon vivant and raconteur") and will make comments suggesting that I am actually being boastful. They simply can't conceive of someone not taking themselves seriously, because they are so very serious about their own selves.

An excessive concern with how one is perceived by others -- trying to conform the perception of others to your own self-perception -- is not "ego," but rather evidence of a damaged ego seeking some sort of validation. And being unable to joke about yourself is a characteristic trait of this brittle type of personality.

UPDATE VI (Sat. 12/20): Greenwald is like the gift that keeps on giving. Today, Instapundit links Crittenden, and I get yet another cascade of traffic.

30 comments:

  1. Mr. McCain, why pretend that Greenwald attacks only Republicans and, specifically, the "gents" of the current administration? You purposefully omit his attacks on Lieberman, his advocacy of a PAC which aims to eliminate Blue Dog Democrats, and his opposition and condemnation of Rockerfeller, Harmon, and Reyes over their complicity with the Bushies and the moderate's own beliefs.

    Simply put, he is an absolutist in the cause of Civil Liberties. I'm glad he's there, since I mostly agree with him.

    Where he and I part company is in the compromises one must make to retain a governing coalition. Surely, Reid and Pelosi and Obama will answer Glenn in a similar way you do and that's mostly too bad. If, however, they are able to forge a governing coalition sufficient enough to keep people like you from returning to power, then I say bully for them.

    Your philosophy is as bankrupt as the general economy and the reputation of this great country we entrusted to you dolts. If the danger you and your neo-Reaganite followers return to power can be prevented without Paul Wolfowitz or John Yoo being frog-marched into a federal prison, then I am all for no trials.

    Paraphrasing the words of our best president: If I can prevent the return of power of conservatives by trying all the guilty or some of the guilty or none of the guilty, then I will do that.

    Here's to your trek in the wilderness, where no one listens except some nice evangelicals in Alabama.

    ReplyDelete
  2. An "absolutist in the cause of Civil Liberties?" Except for his enthusiasm for trying people on vague and trumped up "war crimes" trials, that is. But you'll be safe, because you "mostly agree with him." Oops -- only "mostly?" Watch out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Have you no idea that Glen Greenwald has been read on the floor of the Senate. The Senate! Have you no shame, sir?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Actually, I would have to disagree with Mr. timburns. I don't live in Alabama, I listen, and I am not nice nor evangelical.

    I wonder how our philosophy can be considered bankrupt with nearly 50 million voting our way. The fact that more voted for Obama is, in my opinion, more of a statement to the low approval rating of Bush than to a vote of confidence to the Democrats. After all, the congress, controlled by Pelosi and Reid, had a lower rating than Bush. Does that mean their views are bankrupt as well?

    The reason Democrats want true Republicans out of office is because a true conservative Republican would begin stripping them of power. He or she would make an effort to get government smaller, and make people accountable for themselves instead of holding their hands and singing kumbaya as the welfare program explodes.

    Reagan was not a true conservative, IMO. he expanded government spending a lot. Though I could argue that it was for the cause of bankrupting Russia as they tried to keep up with our military growth, I don't necessarily agree with it.

    I know what my core principles are. They are not changed by setbacks in the recent elections. They are only reaffirmed as I watch the inept way in which the 'idiots' in congress continue to bankrupt the economy by printing more money to spend, creating a host of government projects that have to be paid for and enact laws to prevent any business from failing because it isn't fair to others that bad business practices have reigned supreme for decades.

    Democrats were in the same boat we are back in the 80's and 90's. I am pretty sure they will be right back here soon enough.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wait, I read the blog Mr. Greenwald linked to, as well as this one, and where is the substance?All I see are blatant and bias attacks on Greenwald?Where is the bankrupt moral justification of Bush's war crimes?Are you condoning Bush's actions, or merely his resistance to prosecution?How about some content other than absurd character attacks.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh Eagle Eye, you Republicans tickle me so.You love to spout about accountability, until someone tries to actually hold you accountable.The irony is almost tangible.

    ReplyDelete
  7. My favorite part is how eagle Eye has never met a conservative who is a "true conservative." It's part of the con; similar to Marxists claiming claiming no one knows whether Communism works, since no true Communist regime has ever been tried. He speaks of conservatism as a religion, something he knows will work as long as he just believes hard enough and has faith.

    Sorry, friend, it doesn't work that way. we tried your route and it failed miserably.

    As for Anonymous, war crimes are crimes committed in war...got that? So, when the Vice President of the United states admits to authorizing torture (and water boarding is torture, according to the Geneva Conventions, the UCMJ, and statute), it's a war crime. When the Senate of the United States releases a bi-partisan report showing authorization for torture and detainee abuse came from the "highest levels" of the administration, that's proof a war crime (unless the folks at Nuremberg and the Hague were/are right and it's only the fellows who commit the crimes who are responsible?).

    Finally, when Mr. Cheney admits to authorizing an illegal program of surveillance on Americans (a program that was so illegal the entire leadership of the Department of Justice was ready to resign if it was re-authorized), then he has committed a crime (not a war crime, though, so bully for him).

    If a desire to prosecute the people responsible for multiple homicides, for torture, and for breaking statue is wrong, then I'm afraid, anon, I don't be on the Right.

    Oh, you can see the DOD autopsies of the deaths of detainees in American custody at http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/

    I mean unless the DOD is part of the liberal conspiracy?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well Mr.McCain,you & your ilk(a dying breed in the U.S.A.)have been spectacularly ignorant & plain wrong on all issues up to this point.This has been made worse by your inability to admit to your large failings.It leads me to believe that you have also got your punditry wrong in relation to the fate of Bush,Cheney et al.They are going to fall & when they do they will fall hard.You on the other hand will remain irrelevant as per usual.Btw telling GG to fuck off is very unprofessional but then again you're no pro.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've known Glenn since the old Town Hall days on Compuserve. While he might be an excellent lawyer, in my humble opinion, Glenn has a lot more in common intellectually with Lenin, Castro or Chavez than with Obama, Reid or Pelosi.

    With Glenn in charge I can imagine F-16's taking out churches all across the fruited Plain.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I just looooove the complaints about ad hominem attacks made by illiterate goons who pretty much do nothing but make ad hominem attacks on the host of this blog and its readers. It's actually kind of amusing in its own special way.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't recall saying that I never met a true conservative. I said that I don't think Reagan was a true conservative in the fact that he increased government spending quite a lot.

    I don't see a con. I believe that we have not 'tried it our way' at all. Had we tried it our way, we wouldn't have the rampant spending we do. Government programs like that BS drug prescription thing would never have been enacted. There would be no talk of amnesty for illegals. There would be no tax dollars for abortion clinics, etc etc etc. What we have tried is to combine a liberal way (spending) with a conservative way (less spending) and it has cost us.

    We also tried it 'your' way by preventing any regulation of the housing market being re-enacted when it was shown to be in trouble. But, because Bush ws president, the buck stopped at him without ever passing through those truly at fault.

    I have no issue with an investigaion of anyone who allegedly did something wrong. Accountability runs both ways. Why are not Frank, Paulsen, Cox and others being held accountable for the crap they hav pulled in covering their asses?

    I would add that when we were headed for recession in 2000, and the tax cuts were enacted the economy surged back. For over 6 years it blossomed, but when it was shown that the housing market was in trouble and the bubble was going to burst. No one wanted to take the steps necessary to fix it because it would be politically bad to have happened on their watch.

    Then it began to tank. We tried a bailout and it failed miserably. Now we want to try the same thing with $1 trillion dollars? Why? All that will happen is more failure. Inflation will skyrocket and the dollar will crash. And, of course, it will be Bush's fault because it all started with him. No matter that congress and the new democratic leadership are repeating the history of the 1930's and 1970's.

    I don't look at Conservativism as a religion at all. It is a view of various aspects of life. I don't want a government handout. I don't want abortion paid for by my taxes. I think welfare should have severe restrictions to prevent missuse, one of which is finding a job- any job- within a set time limie so that people show effort to get off the program.

    That isn't a religion and I don't speak of it like that. If you want to talk about our differences, fine. But trying to flame me with stupid comments about who you think I am will get no where.

    It's a shame, too. I enjoy a good debate and have been proven wrong on many things. But you cannot say I am wrong for believing what I do. Feel free to try, but it's a moot point.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The lunacy of Greenwald and his ilk can be summed up in one example: they believe the Bush administration committed war crimes, but not Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, the Taliban, or al-Qaeda.

    Second example: they accuse the Bush administration of corruption, but defend and support the practice of the UN bureaucracy and leftist European government officials taking billions of dollars in bribes from Saddam.

    What one figures out very quickly is that their sense of moral outrage is based solely on political affiliation and has very little to do with one's actions.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Greenwald, like Obermann, is trying to be the John Brown of the 21st C. Absolutist on all moral issues and ready to kill for it, too.

    Perhaps, like Brown, he believes that progress cannot be made without blood running on the ground. Perhaps, though, he is more like Stalin (or Ayrer), ready to kill millions to achieve his idea of nirvana.

    And who knows? He could be right. I'd caution, though, to remember that John Brown was hung by the neck and his cause was delayed through his tedious overreaction. And then, it did take fields full of blood to achieve that of which he only saw a glimmer.

    ReplyDelete
  14. None of you have figured it out yet, have you?

    The only reason Greenwald is upset is because his people aren't the ones pushing the buttons.

    Suppose Obama finds out that the only thing standing between the Jihadist International and an American Beslan is a captured terrorist who has information that could be extracted by waterboarding. Does he risk the deaths of hundreds of American schoolchildren or does he sign off on the waterboarding of the jihadist scumbag.

    He's a smart politician, our Barack. He waterboards the perp.

    And after the conspirators were rounded up, people like Greenwald and Sullivan would be rationalizing Obama's conduct. Period.

    Where you stand depends on who you voted for.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Funny one, Mr. McCain. My view - I wouldn't mind Greenwald's nonsense ... just another opinion... but he's such a lousy writer.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Kevin R.C. O'BrienFri Dec 19, 01:46:00 AM

    Who's Glenn Greenwald?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Forget, for at least a moment, whether any crimes were committed or not. Let's just concentrate on the politics of this.

    President Obama will be, in fact, President. And any prosecution of the Bush Administration will constitute a de facto attack upon executive authority. You know, the same executive authority that President Obama will be relying on throughout his Administration. And it would represent an abandonment of Executive power and commensurate increase in legislative and judicial power. In short, it would be a Constitutional disaster for ANY President to pursue such a vindictive course of action.

    Even if President Obama and every single person in his administration is convinced that there is good reason to believe war crimes prosecutions are warranted, they'd be foolish to actually pursue them.

    Then, on top of that, consider for a moment the disaster that would befall the Democratic party if, in the midst of economic turmoil, it decided to expend its political capital going after Bush Administration officials. The electorate would be rightly appalled merely at the instigation of such prosecutions. But imagine how politically apocalyptic it would be if they FAILED to get any convictions out of it?

    Glenn Greenwald and his cohorts simply can't get their minds around the fact that there's little political upside to pursue this. And massive political risk.

    So... It. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

    ReplyDelete
  18. What North Dallas Thirty said. Also: I'll think about taking Greenwald and his ilk seriously as earnest (never mind absolutist) civil libertarians when they can muster a hundredth as much indignation about Democrats' eighty-year-long project to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution as they have over the nefarious machinations of the Bush administration.

    ReplyDelete
  19. timburns wrote: "So, when the Vice President of the United states admits to authorizing torture (and water boarding is torture, according to the Geneva Conventions, the UCMJ, and statute), it's a war crime."

    Hahahaha! I'm not from Missouri, but Show Me.

    Actually, according to the Geneva Conventions, combatants not in uniform may be summarily shot. They have no rights.

    Fantasy Football is hugely popular, I had no clue that Fantasy International Law had attracted such a following.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The lunacy of Greenwald and his ilk can be summed up in one example: they believe the Bush administration committed war crimes, but not Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, the Taliban, or al-Qaeda.

    What one figures out very quickly is that their sense of moral outrage is based solely on political affiliation and has very little to do with one's actions.


    So, silly....where to start. How about here? It would be ironic to accuse someone of being drunk, while one is drunk. Yet, ND30 feels it's a great idea to defend his country's transgressions by pointing to others who have committed war crimes. And, he attacks those people for "partisanship," because they attack conservatives, while he, in his non-partisan way, attacks liberals!

    Frankly, ND30, I doubt you follow the Rwanda war crimes trials as much as I do. What I do imagine is that outside of Pajamas Media superstar Roger Simon (nice hat by the way) and Mr. McCain's excerpts, you would have never read anything Greenwald wrote.

    Not to speak too much for Glenn, but he has consistently opposed Democrats who supported the violation of Civil Liberties; he was instrumental in forcing John Brennen to remove his name for consideration to be DNI; and he has raised money to beat Democrats who supported the administration's stupid policies on torture, et. al.

    Maybe, ND30, rather than watching the cartoon hippies you see protesting in your head, you could go to Salon and read a bit yourself? I know mr. McCain's retort to Mr. Greenwald seemed witty to you, but you don't need his filter. Run on over and take a gander. Try to learn there are some people crazy enough to not care what letter is after a politician's name.

    That's more Greenwald than me, of course, because, as I mentioned, I'm seriously into seeing that you never hold power again (a solid minority party during America's Golden Age 1940-1980 seems to be the most we can afford of conservatism). By the way, look for the new Hispanic citizens of Texas to make Texas blue in 2012. Have a nice partisan day and remember to ignore the autopsies of the detainees who died when your President unleashed illegality. The link is here on the page. Why don't you fix the plank in your eye before you criticize the speck in another's?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I am reminded of when Bush took over in 2000, many Republicans and far right nuts wanted Clinton prosecuted for various things, but Bush said "No Fing way", there wouldn't even be an investigation.

    Obama is not stupid. He sees all the investigations started by Pelosi and her ilk, and the approval rating of the current Democratic Congress - not only the lowest ever but lower even than Bush.

    Pelosi, however, she has never learned, she will continue to rail against Republicans and want to investigate them all, even if several hundred grad disappeared from her campaign war chest.

    Of course the lefty answer to this is "because those crimes were only in the minds of nutjob rightwingers like you! Not REAL CRMIES like the Bush administration committed! ZOMG!!11one!!"

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dem's wont go after Bush.

    They'd have to go after themselves as well.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Is Greenwald out of the closet? At least Sullivan admits that he is a vicious little queen.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Man, Greenwald's been busy commenting on this site. Seriously, who do you think is coming here to sing his praises and defend him?

    I wonder if Glenn gets confused by all the different aliases he has to make up on different sites. Do you think he keeps a spreadsheet up to keep track of this handles?

    ReplyDelete
  25. @timburns:

    You democrat sockpuppets are just as intellectually and morally bankrupt as the ones you elected. Torture? You kill me. You want us to play nice with rabid muslims who can't find Geneva on a map. I don't give a fuck what it takes to extract information from a terrorist thug who earned his way into GITMO. If a 12 volt battery will help save American lives I've got two things to say: The RED is positive the Black is negative. I just love how you liberal effetes wag your fingers in outrage toward a Republican administration that had the guts to pick up the gauntlet thrown by Islamofascists and shove it up their ass in the region of the world where they live and breed. Didn't 9/11 hit close eneough to your own back yard?
    War crimes...like the Islamic beheadings, bombings, and indiscriminate targeting of their own people?

    You want to see pictures of bodies? Check out all the websites dedicated to the 'peaceful religion of Islam', where they brag about their body count and show videos to boot. Or you could go on YouTube and view the carnage recorded on 9/11. Fuck you and the ACLU.

    And as for your pissing over "illegal program of surveillance on Americans", FISA is used to monitor and catch terrorists in this country, and has been quite successful in thwarting them. Not to worry, the government has better things to do than to eavesdrop on your phone sex.

    Tell you what, sweetpea, GW was way too fucking restrained. Terrorists are funded, trained, supported, and indoctrinated across the Middle East. Had I the power, 3/4ths of it would have been leveled on 12 September 2001. But, I'm a former Soldier, not a diplomat.

    Pelosi, Reid, et al, are some of the biggest asshats on the planet. Bin Laden couldn't have asked for better friends...until you elected B. Hussein Obama. Obama and his merry band of nihilists will eviscerate national security and cause the economy to completely collapse.
    Congratulations.

    SFC Cheryl McElroy
    US ARMY (RET)
    Iraq War vet

    ReplyDelete
  26. BWAAAAAAAA. Cheryl, you understand less about being an American than any one person I ever heard of, except John Yoo. You entire argument is based upon using the same methods our enemies do. personally, Cheryl, I thought we were supposed to better than they were.

    I am damn certain, however, that we have laws for a reason and, if you think killing a bunch of Afghans at Bagram Air Force base during their interrogation is a strategy to is win a war, then I'm certainly glad you're in the wilderness with Mr. McCain and the rest of the tool brigade.

    Oh, and don't think that using Obama's middle name is that scary. Just wait, Cheryl, until the Inaugural Address is done in Arabic. Then, you can get your Muslim hate/racism really on. Maybe, go out to the closest Mosque and firebomb it before they get you first, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Greenwald's idiotic crusade aims to incite a passionate few about the past."

    About the past? Last time I checked the criminals in question are still in office and still in control of our country.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Frankly, ND30, I doubt you follow the Rwanda war crimes trials as much as I do.

    Gosh, you are serious about human rights. Clearly, your opinions are very important.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Of course, you're right there will be no prosecutions of the Neocon gang. That could've only happened in healthy republic that still respected its own laws.

    And I don't see any of those around here.

    ReplyDelete