Posts
In the case of Greenwald's latest emission at Salon, the elaborate descriptor is applied to the defunct New York Sun, two of whose former staffers have recently contributed to the New Republic. One of them, Jacob Gerhsman, published an article expressing surprise toward Eliot Spitzer's early attempt at political rehabilitation. This article -- "a finger-wagging sermon," per Greenwald -- inspires a counterblast comparing Spitzer's crimes (hiring high-priced call girls) with the crimes alleged against Dick Cheney who, Greenwald says, "literally admitted, brazenly and unapologetically, to committing war crimes; blithely justified the atrocities that were committed as part of our attack on Iraq; and glorified the whole slew of illegal surveillance programs he ordered."
Greenwald's a one-trick pony. Being outraged at Republican "war crimes" is his shtick, and God knows how he'll fill his days when the Bush administration leaves office. The man certainly doesn't get work on the basis of his engaging prose. A single sentence as sample:
The reason the American political establishment tenaciously refuses to acknowledge the devastation and crimes that have been unleashed during the Bush era is obvious: aside from the generalized belief that Americans are inherently good and thus incapable of meriting terms such as "aggressive wars" and "war criminals" no matter what they actually do (those phrases are applicable only to lesser foreigners), most of the establishment supported these crimes and the criminals who unleashed them.Seventy-four words, in case you were counting, and not much real meaning except: "Boy, do I hate Bush!" If you share Greenwald's outrage, perhaps it's satisfying to watch him reiterate it endlessly -- a sort of online Olbermann rant to tide you over until you can go home and watch "Countdown." If you aren't outraged, however, there's no reason to read Greenwald except as a species of grim duty.
Anti-Bush indignation is his stock in trade, and the sell-by date of that particular commodity has probably already passed. No one, however, has told this to Greenwald. He's like one of those guys who got on the "who killed Vince Foster?" bandwagon in 1993 and kept peddling it long after the public had lost interest.
Expect Greenwald to keep chasing his idee fixe. He won't change his tune, he'll just look for new excuses to sing it. Some member of the Obama administration will be caught in a minor scandal, and Greenwald will trot out his obligatory column saying that whatever the administration official did, it can't possibly be compared to "the devastation and crimes that have been unleashed during the Bush era."
By 2010, this method of argumentation will be known as the Greenwald Defense, and will be widely employed throughout society: "Yes, officer, I realize I was doing 83 mph in a 55 mph zone, but is this really worth a traffic citation, when you consider the devastation and crimes that have been unleashed during the Bush era?"
(Cross-posted at AmSpecBlog.)
UPDATE: Linked at Instapundit. Thanks! And with only a week left until Christmas, this would be a great time to remind everyone of the 2008 Holiday Book Sale.
UPDATE II: The New York Daily News has more on the Spitzer career rehabilitation project.
UPDATE III: Greenwald links, and I respond.
It's my belief we'll see "the Bush years" blamed for nearly everything Obama or the Democrat congress does wrong over the next four years. The basic argument will be that Bush made things SO bad that it's nearly impossible to fix them right away.
ReplyDeleteMaking up excuses like that is easy when one has long since abandoned any sense of honestly, and all sense of shame.
I just so glad somebody else reads the tripe so I don't have to. Actually, you don't have to either. Greenwald, Sullivan et al are unworthy of comment.
ReplyDeleteCheney brazenly admitted to war crimes? I must have missed that press conference.
ReplyDeleteGreenwald is a pretty grey, run of the mill liberal in his tendency to criminalize policy differences. It can never be "I don't agree with that", it seems always to be "he should go to jail for that." Which puts him to the left of Nikita Khrushchev. Though in his defense, if you have to be a greater enemy of Liberal Democracy than a Soviet Leader, Khrushchev is about as good as you can do.
You know what's really disturbing? I don't know which is worse, that Greenwald is faking all this hysteria or if he really believes it.
ReplyDeletePer Anonymous, there's a precedent for that.
ReplyDeleteVarious factions have been blaming Clinton for things for the last eight; why can't certain _other_ factions do the same for Bush for the next eight?
Greenwald is stuck on the Democratic tactic of choice from 1932 to about 1960: running against Herbert Hoover. It had some resonance.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans who wish to defang the tantrums of Greenwald and his followers had better do enough homework to show concisely where Greenwald's spewings are wrong or misleading or simply hysteria. And simple facts will do this job better than vast tomes investigating every detail.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"It's my belief we'll see "the Bush years" blamed for nearly everything Obama or the Democrat congress does wrong over the next four years."
Why think so small? The left in the UK still blames stuff (like the suckness of the NHS) on Thatcher.... beat that dead horse's pile of bleached white bones!
Greenwald's a one-trick pony. Being outraged at Republican "war crimes" is his shtick, and God knows how he'll fill his days when the Bush administration leaves office.
ReplyDeleteEasy. Greenwald will start yammering about Sarah Palin and how she is a know-nothing inbred hillbilly evil super-genius hell-bent upon establishing a Christianist theocracy that will cut our taxes while going to war for oil in Alaska.
(No - that statement does not make sense. Greenwald is not supposed to make sense. The chatter from his army of sockpuppets had made him insane.)
You obviously don't read Glenn Greenwald much. His point is very clear and was never refuted by you, and that is George W. Bush and his cronies are in fact war criminals.
ReplyDeleteInstead, you play the role of future victim, assuming that Democrats will justify future misdeeds by the fact that Bush was given a pass on his.
Greenwald is as angry against Democrats as he is Republicans, because they put politics above the rule of law. Even principled conservatives like Howard Baker and Barry Goldwater would be aghast at the lack of congressional action against an illegal executive.
"and that is George W. Bush and his cronies are in fact war criminals...
ReplyDeleteThis method of argument may have worked on the playground at lunch today, but it doesn't work in the adult world.
Just because you believe something strongly, doesn't make it fact.
Run along now, the adults are talking here.
George W. Bush and his cronies are in fact war criminals.
ReplyDeleteWow. Where was I during the trial? Who prosecuted? Who defended? What was the sentence?
"Just because you believe something strongly, doesn't make it fact."
ReplyDeleteHey! Now were getting somewhere with you Cons!
Let's see...we can start with Jesus. Then we can move along to so called Conservative principles.Oh!
How about "we're going to be greeted as liberators"!
Or " The insurgency is in its death throes". How about
everything else the Bush administration asserted during the last 8 awful years.
You see, in your eternal lack of wisdom and basic intellect, you've sunk your own pro-Bush argument with the kind of silly slogans your side has come to love so much.
Some of the adults here are retarded.Dark Jethro is in dire need of some night schooling.
Typical right wing slack jaw blog where the author attacks the messenger and ignores the message.
ReplyDeleteThat "criminalizing policy differences" sure is a nifty phrase; I really think it should be used more often. Bill Clinton made a policy of getting hummers in the Oval Office, Rod Blagojevich made a policy of selling Senate seats, and the Bush administration made a policy of committing war crimes. Anybody who objects to any of these things is just criminalizing policy differences, and should shut up.
ReplyDeleteGlen Greenwald has responded to this piece. www.salon.com/opinion/greenwaldala
ReplyDeleteI like how R.S. McCain doesn't even address Greenwald's arguments. He just calls him a "Bush hater" and leaves it at that.
ReplyDeleteAd homs: without them the right would have nothing.
Greenwald has meticulously detailed the laws broken by the current administration and the legal grounds for war crimes prosecution, leading him to the conclusion quoted in this post. This is of course ignored by McCain and his supporters, who offer not one argument to counter how Bush, Cheney, and their subordinates did NOT break the law. Instead we get name-calling and insults. How can you take this seriously? Adults are playing indeed.
ReplyDeleteFive hundred and fifteen words, in case you were counting, and not much real meaning except: "Boy, do I hate Greenwald!"
ReplyDeleteI love how the wingnut's forget they said " Clinton did it " for the last eight years or it was "Clinton's fault" for the last eight years.
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to tear someone down when you set them up as a straw man. Greenwald's point wasn't simply Spitzer banged prostitutes and Bush/Cheney committed war crimes. Sure, he harps on that point all the time.
ReplyDeleteThe post was actually about Spitzer and the New York Sun article that said he doesn't deserve to be back in the spotlight and should go work in a soup kitchen. His point was that it's unfair to vilify a man who committed a consensual victimless crime and banish him from civilized society, despite his otherwise commendable record of public service, while ABC accords presidential treatment to Cheney while he was in the process of admitting to criminal acts.