Political Smears in U.S. Never Change: the NYT’s 1967 Attack on MLK’s Anti-War Speech
John Oliver’s Monday night interview of Edward Snowden — which in 24 hours has been viewed by 3 million people on YouTube alone — renewed all the standard attacks in Democratic circles accusing Snowden of being a traitor in cahoots with the Kremlin. What’s most striking about this — aside from the utter lack of evidence for any of it — is how identical it is to what Nixon officials said to smear the last generation’s greatest whistleblower, Daniel Ellsberg (who is widely regarded by Democrats as a hero because his leak occurred with a Republican in the White House). As The New York Times reported in August 1973:
. . .
As the Freedom of the Press Foundation recently noted: in December 1973, The NYT described the origins of Nixon’s “Plumbers Unit” and detailed how much of it was motivated by the innuendo spread by Henry Kissinger that Ellsberg was a covert Soviet operative:
I defy anyone to listen to any Democratic apparatchik insinuate that Snowden is a Russian agent and identify any differences with how Nixon apparatchiks smeared Ellsberg (or, for that matter, how today’s warnings from Obama officials about the grave harm coming from leaks differ from the warnings issued by Bush and Nixon officials). The script for smearing never changes — it stays constant over five decades and through the establishments of both parties — and it’s one of the reasons Ellsberg so closely identifies with Snowden and has become one of his most vocal defenders.
A reader this morning pointed me to one of the most illustrative examples of this dynamic: an April 1967 New York Times editorial harshly chastising Martin Luther King for his anti-war activism. That editorial was published three days after King’s speech on the Vietnam War at the Riverside Church in New York City, which, as I have written about many times, was one of the most powerful (and radical) indictments of American militarism delivered in the 20th century.
Among other things, King denounced the U.S. government as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today,” as well as the leading exponent of “the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long.” He said “the war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit.” And he argued that no significant American problem can be cured as long as the country remains an aggressive and violent actor in the world: “if America’s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over.”
The attack of the NYT editors on King for that speech is strikingly familiar, because it’s completely identical to how anti-war advocates in the U.S. are maligned today. It begins by lecturing King that his condemnation of U.S. militarism is far too simplistic: “the moral issues in Vietnam are less clear cut than he suggests.” It accuses him of “slandering” the U.S. by comparing it to evil regimes. And it warns him that anti-war activism could destroy the civil rights movement, because he is guilty of overstating American culpability and downplaying those of its enemies:
That has every element of the standard Washington attack on contemporary anti-war advocates: condemnation of U.S. militarism is “overly-simplistic,” ignores complexities and nuances, “slanders” our government leaders and military officials, and downplays or “whitewashes” the crimes of America’s enemies. It’s worth remembering that Washington smear merchants never change their script: they haul the same ones out regardless of the issue or who is doing the dissenting.
Photo of King’s anti-war speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Ga. on April 30, 1967. (AP)
I was appalled by the way John Oliver wasted his opportunity to question Snowden. He revealed his utter lack of political intelligence and he certainly was not funny.
Fuck you, Glenn Greenwald. And your bullshit historical argument. I’d really like to argue with you and your minions. Email me at [email protected] if you are ready to present facts.
Rubbish.
Rubbish and anti-American.
Rubbish, he says! And fuck you, he says
We are going after the journalist in England and will detain him for the instant messaging he sent your pal.
Yes, but a point that Glenn does not fully make is that his example of MLK being targeted for such smear by the NYT media/propaganda-sector of the Empire was MLK’s dangerous combining, for the First Time, of multiple ‘issues’ of; war, racism, inequality, and imperialism in the same “Riverside” speech which came dangerously close to ‘fingering’ the Disguised Global Capitalist Empire as the central, seminal, and singular cancerous cause of all these separate ‘identity issues’ and subordinate, but visible, ‘symptom problems’ which might have united people, energy, and “Popular Resistance” against an Empire that could thus loose its most significant weapon common to all predators, parasites, and cancers — which is the weapon of disguise, camouflage, and stealth.
As Zygmunt Bauman hauntingly puts it, “In the case of an ailing social order, the absence of an adequate diagnosis”is a crucial, perhaps decisive, part of the disease.”13
Berman, Morris (2011-02-07). Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire (p. 22). Norton. Kindle Edition.
Yes, MLK was not targeted by the nascent Disguised Global Capitalist Empire in 1967 because he said particularly nasty things about America, but because the DGCEmpire rightly feared that he would ‘put together’ multiple issues, problems, and all ‘the people’ who were energized by any of the ‘issues’ that the Empire caused, in order to successfully unite, consolidate, and ignite enough people across all issues to Revolt against the Empire —– as was so clearly the case in the First (and only successful) American Revolution against Empire.
I feel terrible. Josh Bornstein did not write the Times of Israel post I published below.
Bornstein is an Australian lawyer and human rights activist who has been targeted for malicious hacking by white supremacists as a “social justice warrior” — Bornstein advocates for Muslim immigrants. He is a Zionist, but does not believe anything like the views these Nazis wrote under his name.
My deepest apologies to Mr. Bornstein. I did check Wikipedia to be sure the man was capable of actually writing what I published, and that, too, had been hacked to reflect the awful views that he does not hold. So, in my defense I did attempt due diligence, but the Nazis were very thorough in their frame-up.
Wiki strikes again.
In the true spirit of Dr. King:
CSM has this which I think is a sign things might change.
Mona
I have listed some excerpts from an article by David Cesarani titled “The Jews and the Left”. The article focuses on left wing antisemitism which – as a civil liberties loving liberal like yourself – certainly will be “unfamiliar” ground for you:
“………Since early 2001, Jewish communal organisations, institutions monitoring anti-Jewish currents, and various commentators have identified a ‘new anti-semitism’…….with the Left. The ‘new anti-semitism’……..commonly alleged that Jews possess enormous financial power that is translated into political power. This is achieved through the funding of political parties, in what amounts to buying influence and then retaining it by the threat of cutting off funds – a form of blackmail. ‘Jewish power’ is held to be irresponsible, unaccountable and exercised behind the scenes: it is the work of a conspiracy or a cabal. The Jewish conspiracy is international and embraces London, Washington, New York and Jerusalem. As a result of hidden influences, US and British foreign policy is driven not by national interests but by Jewish interests, notably the service of Israel. The defence of Israel entails the defence of a regime committing war crimes that are on a par with those committed by the Nazis.…..”
“……..criticism of Israeli government policy (as against denial of Israel’s right to exist) is perfectly legitimate when it is expressed in language that does not intentionally or unintentionally use or echo long-established anti-Jewish discourse, characterising Jews inside Israel or in the Jewish diaspora as singularly wealthy, powerful, conspiratorial, treacherous and malign……”
“………[New Left Review] The Jews had corrected this anomaly, though, by engaging in a process of reverse colonisation and had taken over America so as to provide Israel with a supportive mother country after all. ‘Entrenched in business, government and media, American Zionism has since the sixties acquired a firm grip on the levers of public opinion and offi cial policy toward Israel, that has weakened only on the rarest of occasions. Taxonomically, the colonists have in this sense at length acquired something like the metropolitan state – or state within a state – they initially lacked’ (p. 15)…..” My brackets – an article out of the “New Left Review”
“……..The Nazi–Zionist connection repeatedly surfaced amongst left-wing intellectuals and parties [for example, Greenwald comparing Goebels and Netanyahu]. In April 2002, the poet, academic and self-proclaimed man of the Left Dr Tom Paulin was interviewed by the Egyptian paper AlAhram. He told the paper that Jewish settlers on the West Bank are ‘Nazis, racists’ and said they should be shot. Paulin had earlier compared Israelis to Nazis in a poem referring to Israeli soldiers as the ‘Zionist SS’.74 In the demonstrations against British military action against Iraq in 2003, protesters routinely carried placards juxtaposing the star of David with the swastika. These demonstrations, under the slogan ‘Stop the invasion of Iraq – Free Palestine’, were organised by the Stop the War Coalition……” my brackets
“…….On the contrary, Norman Finkelstein, the American Jewish leftist largely responsible for propagating and popularising this line, maintains that ‘the Holocaust’ is a cultural construct fabricated by Jews to inculcate guilt in Western nations, extract reparations money for Israel, and suppress criticism of Zionism……”
“…….Since the 1990s, the notion that rich Jews comprise a worldwide network of power and influence that is covertly behind world affairs has migrated from the right to the left……..AntiAmerican and anti-globalisation polemicists who depict US policy in Iraq as serving Israel’s interests, or Israeli repression of the Palestinians as sanctioned by a Jewish-dominated Washington, are transforming and rehabilitating the myth of a worldwide Jewish network operating with selfish and malign intentions………”
Thanks Mona
Craig, what have you to say about Mr. Josh Bornstein’s eloquent column? https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/07/political-rhetoric-us-never-changes-nyts-attack-mlks-anti-war-speeches/#comment-122020
As for your quotes above, yes, I have frequently noted the lamentable fact that Zionist behavior tracks some anti-Semitic tropes. And, things like this: “He told the paper that Jewish settlers on the West Bank are ‘Nazis, racists’ and said they should be shot. Paulin had earlier compared Israelis to Nazis in a poem referring to Israeli soldiers as the ‘Zionist SS’ ” make perfect sense in light of the prevalence of views such as those held by Mr. Bornstein, which are especially found among Zionist settlers.
Just imagine the irony, Craig; a major Israeli newspaper keeps finding itself hosting literal calls to genocide. Zionism has wrought such wonderful things, eh?
The guy is clearly a Jewish supremacist, Mona. Shocking as it might be to sensible people, these same kinds of people exist throughout the world. I seem to recall that the KKK was much the same. Indeed, no one can deny that the same supremacist ideals pervade the ISIS (terrorist) organization and Hamas. Personally, I wouldn’t want that kind of deeply-held hatred in my newspaper, but free speech is free speech.
“……which are especially found among Zionist settlers…….”
You will need to cite a scientific poll which shows that – and a similar poll collected on Palestinians. There is a poll which I can cite which says that Muslims in the countries polled have an unfavorable opinion of Jews. Again, racism is a two way street. Palestinians have reasons for their racist attitudes toward ISRAELI Jews, but the Saudis have no more of a reason for their hatred of Jews than Americans, British etc would have for hating Muslims after the creation of the Muslim state, Kosovo.
Thanks.
Craig, Josh Bornstein did not write that post. While this is an example of Poe’s Law and I was diligent about checking this story, I still feel awful that I published this and attributed to Mr. Bornstein. See my post above.
No problem. I’ve had my share of screw-ups just like yours. Catch you at the next article.
Credit given where credit due for that humble, understanding response.
Thank you, Craig.
Imagine Josh Bornstein waking up today in Australia with Twitter and other social media indicting him as a depraved monster. Credit to Daniel Sieradski who at first also bought the hoax, but was alerted that “the Daily Stormer,” an Australian neo-Nazi site, had actually announced plans to do something like this to Mr. Bornstein and to a number of other victims, Jewish, Muslim and gentile. (No link, because fuck them and their traffic.) Daniel is active in leftist Jewish circles and had been contacted by many who said it was inconceivable that the actual Josh Bornstein would write anything like that.
They hate Josh for being Jewish, of course, but their primary beef apparently is his work with Muslims “and other subhumans” to pass hate speech legislation in Australia and thereby shut down their site. I adamantly oppose such laws, but these maggots hopefully can be prosecuted for the malicious hacking.
The NYT at it again, eh Glenn. Working that juju, that they do, all the way back in ’67.
One of CraigSummers fellow Zionists — who also dislikes multiculturalism and leftists — posts his lovely, enlightened views in the Times of Israel blog. My emphasis:
———————————————————————————————————–
[…]
The Talmud makes it very clear that all land belongs to Jews, and that Jews may seize any land that they so desire. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: “All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples.” This is directly from the Talmud. Why, then, should the “Palestinians” be entitled to any land? Why should they even be allowed to exist?
In the words of top Israeli Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel.” Likewise, Rabbi Ya’acov Perin has publicly stated: “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.” Shocking? It shouldn’t be. This is Talmudic law as well. The Talmud makes it very clear that the life of a non-Jew has no value, and that gentiles exist only to serve Jews. Sanhedrin 59a: “Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal.” Abodah Zara 26b: “Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed.” Baba Necia 114, 6: “The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts.” Midrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: “Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night.”
This is directly from the Talmud, and these are just a few of many examples. Jewish divine law makes it very clear: the “Palestinians” not only have no right to any land, but the “Palestinians” are not even human beings and thus have no right to even live at all. The “Palestinians” are worthless subhuman beasts and vermin. Jews are human beings, but gentiles are subhuman beasts whose only purpose is to serve the people of Israel. The only reason that goyim have to exist is to serve Jews. If goyim cannot serve Jews, then they should be exterminated. We allow Americans, Australians, Canadians, and Europeans to exist because they serve Jews and they serve Israel – and, when they get out of line, we attack them, like we did to the Americans when we sunk their USS Liberty. In the words of former Israeli Knesset member Yossi Sarid, “We control US politicians like marionettes.” Countries like the US, Sweden, and Australia play valuable roles not only in protecting Israel, but also in serving as dumping grounds (or garbage cans) where Israel can send Sudanese, Syrians, and other subhuman waste who seek asylum in Israel. Multiculturalism in the West has ultimately been of great benefit to the people of Israel, as it allows Israel to ship off invaders to the West rather than having them infiltrate and invade the Jewish state of Israel, thus threatening Israel’s Jewish character. Multiculturalism is something that exists strictly for gentiles. It is NOT something that should ever be attempted in Israel. Israel is the Jewish state, and allowing ANY non-Jews into Israel would be unthinkable. This is precisely why, when African baboons come to Israel, they are sterilized, shoved into crude containment facilities, and eventually shipped off to gentile nations like Sweden, Canada, and Australia – as they should be. Their inferior monkey genes are not wanted anywhere in Israel, as they spread nothing but crime, destruction, ignorance, and misery.
[…]
The thing to be done about the “Palestinians” is to KILL them, exterminate them, get rid of them. How do we deal with cockroaches? We don’t argue or debate with them. We exterminate them. If we exterminate cockroaches because they destroy the foundations of our houses, why shouldn’t we also exterminte “Palestinians,” who destroy the foundations of the Jewish state of Israel? Shouldn’t “Palestinians” be treated even more harshly than cockroaches, termites, and other smaller parasites? “Palestinians” are, after all, a much more powerful and destructive breed of parasite. Whereas cockroaches and termites merely destroy buildings, the “Palestinian” virus threatens to destroy the entire nation of Israel and the Jewish people along with it. Shouldn’t we treat the “Palestinian” cancer the same way we would treat any other cancer? Shouldn’t the “Palestinian” parasite be swiftly and violently exterminated, the same way we would exterminate cockroaches or termites? The answer is yes, and the Talmud clearly agrees with me. The Talmud says (Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425. 5): “It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to the denying ones of the Torah.” Under Talmudic law, Jews are permitted – and, in fact, encouraged – to kill Christians, Muslims, and anyone else who denies the Torah.
[…]
We need to encourage all Jews in Israel to butcher “Palestinians” without any mercy or pity. In fact, we should even give out rewards for people who kill the most “Palestinians.” We should hold contests to see who can kill the most “Palestinians” in the shortest amount of time, with money rewards for the best and most effective “Palestinian” killers.
https://archive.today/bUarE#selection-1149.0-1157.69
Synchronicity? As I was reading GG’s original MLK speech article yesterday this song came on my i-tunes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ3g-msygwc
‘Is the war across the sea?
Is the war behind the sky?
Have you each and all gone blind:
Is the war inside your mind?’
You are naive. Very naive…
I would make a guess that the reason “they” don’t change the story is that the story almost always works.
rrheard
08 Apr 2015 at 12:12 pm
@ Alpha Brown:
1) So would you agree that Kissinger insinuating MLK Jr. was a) going to turn over documents, documents more important than the Pentagon Papers, to the Soviets, and b) insinuating MLK Jr. was a Soviet “informer” was “smearing”.
YES. You only provided one example. I could provide you ten more examples in which the US government was smearing MLK. However, this article relates to another article in the NYT criticizing MLK on a foreign policy issue. The author questioned his position on the Vietnam war. It does not mean the author were right about the war, but everybody has a right to respectfully question a leader’s positions.
2) Whoever suggested MLK Jr. was immune from criticism?
Glenn Greenwald. He associates the smearing of Snowden with an article in which MLK’s position is properly criticized. There is a basic difference between disagreement and smearing.
3) Who has suggested the “US government bombs countries just because they are predominantly Muslim countries? Glenn never has. What Glenn has stated is that the countries America bombs, overwhelmingly, are Muslim majority nations. And that fact may offer some explanation for why some citizens or groups in the “Muslim world” might hate America or seek to engage in violence against it.
Yes, he did. As a journalist (or at least that is how he presents himself) he must recognize context. He omits crucial information to create that suggestion.
“Empires bomb who they want, when they want, for whatever reason… “That’s all predictable: the U.S. has known for years that what fuels and strengthens anti-American sentiment (and thus anti-American extremism) is exactly what they keep doing: aggression in that region.” Greenwald
As of 2015 the US is engaged in military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan at the request of the elected governments and traditional leadership (loyal Jirga) of these countries. Who are “those” who hate America to the point of killing American civilians? ISIS primary targets are Syrians, Kurds, and Iraqi Shias. The Taliban primary target is other Afghans.
4) Who has stated that journalists who “ask tough questions are propagandists for a government”?
Greenwald. He stated that the BBC coverage of the mass surveillance program was the worst in the world and that the network was simply a mouthpiece for the UK government. Of course he did not provide any evidence of that. The questions the BBC asked him were legitimate and other journalists from other networks asked him similar questions afterwards.
5) Please explain how any group of “terrorists” (more accurately “international criminals” if they perpetrate violence across nation state lines) “who target and kill civilians from different nations constitute a threat to the US” i.e. please explain how a group of murderers, living largely on the other side of the globe, and largely killing their own fellow inhabitants of those regions, constitutes any type of “threat” to the existence of the US.
You answered the question: INTERNATIONAL criminals. Take the example of Hezbollah backed Iran accused of the AMIA attack. Civilians in a country (Argentina) that had nothing to do with a conflict thousand miles away were massacred in THEIR OWN SOIL. That makes the”international criminals” not only a threat to the US, but also to every single country in the world. Take the example of ISIS, a group that is willing to commit genocide to reach its goal. Members of ISIS are from different countries including the US and ISIS leadership has made it clear it intends to attack the US. Review what ISIS has done to those it attacks and ask yourself what would it do in US cities if it has the capability to attack the US. You may disregard the international obligations of the US to do whatever it can to prevent and stop genocide.
Anyone know why this purulent sputum brown thing frequently puts it’s replies at the top of the page rather than using the actual ‘Reply’ click when replying to someone’s comment?
Alpha brown is a troll (i know you know this). He’s a troll of either the sham-inquirer or fake-inquirer variety, probably alternating both:
Thanks for the attention!!
It is important to know yourself, Alpha brown:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914000324
Your answers are too sophisticated….I mean boring. I read the first sentence and I gave up. You were more interesting when you were calling me other names. So, get back to your vulgar vocabulary and find better descriptive words.
You are a troll.
Mona
“…….A genuine inquirer aims to find out the truth of some question, whatever the color of that truth……”
You failed your own test – in the first sentence.
On the contrary. I once was an ardent Zionist, my mind closed to the truth. I could see Jews only as victims who “deserved” Israel.
About ten years ago I began to be willing to entertain anti-Zionist arguments and the evidence they offered.
As a result, I now understand what a vile, ethno-religious supremacist system Zionism is, and that proto-fascism inheres in it. Kicking and screaming, I let myself become a genuine inquirer on the topic of Israel-Palestine, and the consequent enlightenment is pretty obvious.
Answer the question!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWaeAn7LT4s
“I’d be interested to hear just what you consider “a Jewish State” to be, specifically. Bullet points, stating what human rights and determinations are to be allowed the Palestinians, in particular, will work nicely here.” ~ Sillyputty
Sorry Kitt, I do not think I would ever reach your level of intelligence to a point where I understand how to use the actual “reply”.
Alpo Brand, teh lourd Him kurse yew four mannhandle mee inn teh pew. Ann than u call Mable an aks her two joyn uss inn qwire luft don u no
Ghet thee beehind mee Alpo Brand!
This is a reasonable point. This is how Greenwald implies that King was “smeared” :
So, it’s a question of semantics. Does the “standard Washington attack” as described satisfy the definition of a “smear”? To show that Ellsberg was smeared, Greenwald includes the fact that he was accused (like Snowden) of being a Russian agent. That was clearly a “smear” by anyone’s definition. But there is nothing comparable in the NYT editorial. So, the question is whether the “standard Washington attack” alone constitutes a “smear”. Imo, even if one believes that it does not, the column still makes a valid point, but then the reference to the accusation of treason in the case of Ellsberg (and Snowden) should have been omitted.
@ Alpha Brown:
1) okay we agree that MLK Jr. was smeared–Glenn cited two examples a) accusing MLK Jr. of being an “informer” or a “threat” to turn over documents to an enemy, and b) pulling you and Craig’s favorite tricks–X was “reckless” to criticize America’s policy’s in plain language, “whatabouttery” and finally “oh it’s all too ‘complex’ for lowly X to comprehend the machinations and interests of empire and war i.e. same thing being done to Snowden.
2) No you misunderstand the basis of Glenn’s comparison because you appear to struggle with reading comprehension–Glenn is comparing the types, methods and consistent memes of criticism utilized by state actors (purportedly left and right) who want to delegitimize the critique of an outsider or the scope and scale of a government malfeasance or immoral motivations.
3) I recognize context just fine. You, apparently, like Craig, have a very bad habit of inferring things Glenn isn’t arguing or grasping at some thread in a sentence to misattribute or change an argument Glenn is actually making.
4) Okay well the “BBC’s coverage of surveillance” has nothing to do with this article, its arguments and/or factual support for those arguments as articulated by Glenn in this piece. So you’re attempting to conflate some other issue/argument to undermine his argument in this piece without drawing a strong connection other than apparently “eeeeeeyaaaaahhhhh Glenn you are an activist propagandist” which seems to be your standard mantra with which I and most others disagree.
5) You obviously don’t understand, at least not “rationally” or “statistically” what a meaningful or significant “threat” to you and/or your nation, is. A) civilians killed in Argentina who are not Americans are not Americans problem nor a “threat to America” regardless of the nationality or origin of the perpetrators of the violence or their motivations. B) Members of ISIS committing genocide, for the sake of argument, is arguably a human and/or global humanitarian crisis. It should be dealt with by the international community as such consistent with any international treaty obligations. In no event is such a crisis any sort of “existential” or any other type of “threat to America” that I can conceive of. C) Anybody from any nation could prospectively and hypothetically attack Americans on American soil. That’s just a fact, and one that will never change so long as human beings identify themselves by nationality. A nation can take reasonable measures to prevent external “terrorism/criminality” by non-state actors, by having good immigration and border screening, and particularized investigation or surveillance pursuant to warrants based on probable cause to prevent, to the degree men can, some man/woman/group from doing harm to other men/women. That’s as good as it gets in life with sacrificing everything for a “sense” of “security”. I guess I’m just not the fearful coward that a significant minority of Americans are that they believe a “threat” (of “terrorism”) that is consistent with the “threat” of harm of say bee stings, hitting a deer with your car, falling in the bathtub, being a crab fisherman or roofer, or being an American civilian killed at the hands of the US police is something to spend trillions of dollars on spend one second of my life worrying about. Your opinion may differ, and you are entitled to it, but as a statistical or rational matter, your fear is unsupported by the data or likelihood of harm to you or anyone as a function of “terrorism/criminality” on American soil.
According to the column, it was Ellsberg who was smeared in this way, not MLK.
1) Barncat answered that point below. The other part about X, Y….has already been answered. People in America has the right to support or to reject their leaders’ positions respectfully without smearing them. I do not believe I would be smearing Bush II by stating he did not understand how complicated Iraq society’ was when he invaded it. I do to believe I am smearing Greenwald by stating he simplifies America’s involvement in the Syrian conflict.
2) Well guide me with your impeccable reading comprehension of English and explain me how the author of the NYT piece was smearing MLK. Or at least how is it not a legitimate critic of a leader’s position but an attack or a smearing similar to those against Snowden.
3) Sentence one: The US is bombing Muslim countries. Sentence two: The US is bombing ISIS positions in Iraq and Syria at the request of the government of Iraq and the Kurdish authorities. Greenwald picked the first sentence. If you can’t see the difference between the first sentence and the second, then I do not believe you understand context.
Another example: sentence one. King Abdullah was a tyrant, but Chavez was an elected president who used his countries’ resources to help the poor. Sentence two: King Abdullah was a tyrant, Chavez government was accused of multiple human rights violations, but both leaders used their country resources to provide humanitarian and economic aids to many countries. Greenwald picked the first sentence. Again, if you cannot see the difference, then you really need to review what omission and context mean in journalism.
4) I was answering your question. Again, accusing an individual of being a spy without any evidence is not only smearing, but can be libeling in certain circumstances. So, accusing an organization whose mission is to provide objective information of bias without any evidence does constitute smearing.
5) You stated that I do not understand what a significant threat is to a nation, and then you stated that a nation can take reasonable measures such as border control to protect itself against threats. So, would it be reasonable for the US government to pass immigration laws and border control measures against individuals from a well organized group that has a history of going to many countries and kill civilians? Would it be reasonable for the US to assume that since this group went to a country very close to its territory (Argentina) that has nothing to do with its conflict and killed so many civilians, members of this group might also come to the US and commit criminal acts.? So If that view is reasonable, then that group does constitute a threat to the US. So it does not mean that the US need to start a war with this group, but they should do everything they can to prevent this group from operating within their borders.
ISIS: A genocidal group that has already committed serious crimes, has already invaded and destroyed cities of other states, is training US citizens that have free access to the US to commit serious criminal acts within US borders. Yet, you do not consider that group a threat. At what point does a group constitute a threat? When it actually crosses the border?
The American militarism reaches incredible depths among the populace, and many times it is by making some attack on them disappear from the conversation, beginning in schools. It has been my experience teaching Freshmen in college that thought they all know and admire the “I have a dream” speech, none of them (this is 25 years of teaching) ever, has said they read the ‘beyond Vietnam’ speech. Some kids can even repeat the former imitating MLK voice inflections, but none of them knows that MLK considered the US the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. I give the speech to them, and some read it and some don’t. Those who don’t dare or care to read read it will eventually become Republicans. Those who like beyond will become progressive radicals and those who are indifferent will become democrats. However none seem to realize that the US is a terrorist state, and has been for a long long time.
At 8 ET, Chris Hayes will have an extended interview with the incredibly brave soul who shot the video of the officer killing Walter Scott, and then apparently planting the taser by the body. On MSNBC.
I’m surprised SC charged the cop. After watching this video of Pasco, WA cops gunning down an unarmed man and no charges being filed, it seemed like open season for the cops and no bag limit.
And it’s too early to celebrate. There was also a video in the Eric “I can’t breathe” Garner murder by cop.
This WaPo article from December surprised me. Three white South Carolina officers face charges in the deaths of black men. One case took 4 years but there seems to be a shift in attitude towards police accountability is use of force situations. Ironic this latest case is SC too.
I’m surprised SC charged the cop.
I was too. It seems a dramatic step in the direction of accountability. I would only note that it is a much longer journey from charging to conviction. :-s
Freddie deBoer, quoted by Charles Cooke in The National Review:
Funny how this brilliant young (self-identifying) leftist he can be quoted so effectively (and fairly) by a conservative writer. Does that raise questions about deBoer or the American left?
Freddie deBoer: Way too many writers who were in college 10-15 years ago dismissing these issues out of hand without understanding the current atmosphere.
: The chilling effect is very real and I hear that from my very large network of academic friends across the country. It’s real and powerful.
: Here’s a piece by a friend of mine who’s a passionate leftist and is terrified of his liberal students. whitehotharlots.tumblr.com/post/114067452180/a-personal-account-of-how-call-out-culture-has
An actual, literal LOL. ~ Glenn Greenwald
craigsummers/Alpha brown: Haters ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7z_ztMxBgk
L.
O.
L.
Nice. craigsummers/Alpha brown = bangers and mash around these parts. *burp*
PETER SELLERS & SOPHIA LOREN – ‘Bangers And Mash’ – 45rpm 1961
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGFpVN2xwXU
“Tu ne peux pas la boucler pour une fois?” – Sophia Loren
;)
Cool!! Do you have more? Post more, please.
The Gorilla Cut Parmesan Show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVvNfgF17fE
Lol…send more whenever you wish. Do not stop!
Thank you Gleen for everything you done and continue to do . Thank you once more .
That really is America’s elite’s ace in the hole on just about every subject of importance i.e. the American people’s apathy and ignorance, provincialism and nationalism. Makes it very easy for the elites to propagandize employing fear and/or a divide and conquer strategy to keep everybody asking the wrong questions and blaming the wrong groups of their fellow citizens for what ails America.
Hitler may have been a psychopathic mass murderer but he understood some fundamental truths about the human condition:
excellent post
It keeps working, so why change it up?
Great keynote last night at the University of Utah.
http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/626026b32e234288bebf715381c8a6e0/UT–Glenn-Greenwald/
Is there a video available anywhere?
It is interesting that Snowden went on Oliver’s show. If I had been an adviser I would have told him not to go on, for John Oliver will try to make a fool of him or undermine any credibilty that Snowden has, which is what happened. So, I don’t know if Snowden was prepped: did he watch Oliver’s 2014 interview of NSA cheif Keith Alexander? Was Snowden comedically prepared to engage with Oliver. It didn’t seem so. Snowden appeared naively earnest and wasn’t ready to give snark back or play comedic jujitsu. Greenwald, who has a pugnacious personality and can argue, wouldn’t have allowed Oliver to get away with some of the assertions he made.
Agreed, it would have been better for Greenwald to have attended in his stead. CeBIT 2015 was my first time to see Mr Greenwald in full action, one brilliant quick minded individual.
It’s almost always a mistake — and painful to watch — for the straight man/woman to try to be comedic when engaging with the professional comedic host or hostess of a program such a Stewart, Colbert or Oliver or whomever. Snowden played it straight, as he should have, laughing or smiling in a natural, unforced manner only at moments that he was moved to do so.
What exactly makes MLK immune from criticism? What part of the article (in which MLK is described as one of the most respected leaders in his country) constitutes “smearing”? Insinuating that Snowden is a Russian agent without any evidence is definitely smearing. I just wonder whether insinuating without evidence that the US government bombs countries just because they are predominantly Muslims constitutes smearing. I also wonder whether stating without evidence that journalists who ask tough questions are propagandists for a government constitutes smearing. And I also wonder whether stating that terrorist organizations that specifically target and kill civilians from different nations do not constitute a threat to the US constitutes propaganda for those groups.
You are a sham-inquiring troll.
He brings up some good points – not one of which you disputed (or could dispute). Propaganda is a two way street, Mona.
The ‘2 way street’ CS walks is littered with his own refuse.
littered with his own refuse.
Now that I’m a dog owner, I call it ‘droppings’.
Well, in the company of strangers anyway.
Don’t ignore me, and answer Sillytputty’s question…. Specifics/bullet points!
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/02/gchq-argentina-falklands/#comment-121344
He [Sillyputty] brings up a good question!
“I’d be interested to hear just what you consider “a Jewish State” to be, specifically. Bullet points, stating what human rights and determinations are to be allowed the Palestinians, in particular, will work nicely here.” ~ Sillyputty
“……..Economic sanctions will eventually force Israel to deal rightly with the Palestinians……”
“………As I have stated numerous times in the past, you cannot promote your own self-determination while denying the Palestinians their rights as well…..” ~ craigsummers
Yes, I’d also like to see Craig finally engage this question, first posed by Sillyputty:
“I’d be interested to hear just what you consider “a Jewish State” to be, specifically. Bullet points, stating what human rights and determinations are to be allowed the Palestinians, in particular, will work nicely here.” ~ Sillyputty
In the past, Craig has said Israel “isn’t perfect.” So I asked him to list half a dozen ways in which Israel manifested imperfection, and silence ensued from our Craig.
I have zero problems answering sillyputty’s question. I’ve answered it already probably 50-100 times on different threads. However, I’m not going to help sillyputty out even in the least. I suspect he believes that there should be no Jewish state. Jews should not have a state of their own. Of course, like all fringe leftists, this applies to only one state in the world – Israel. Pakistan, Kosovo, Armenia, South Ossetia, Abkhazia are just fine with him – just not the Jewish state. Forget that Armenia after the second most studied genocide in the twentieth century lost one-half of their country to Turkey in a war, that is irrelevant to the far left.
sillyputty can answer his own fucking question – and when he does the discussion can begin. However, the discussion is irrelevant since the Jewish state exist – and will exist – until the Jews of Israel vote otherwise. I think that a single state is a possibility, but not from a boycott and not anytime soon. There is absolutely no way with the current state of affairs in the Middle East i.e., the rise of the Islamists, that Israelis will vote for a single state solution – and Mona is dreaming if she believes that Europe and/or America will pressure Israel into a single state solution. Remember……Jews run US foreign policy, Mona.
Thanks. Just so that you know that you are in good company (Jerusalem Post):
“……..A far-left Greek group has claimed responsibility for a shooting attack on the Israeli Embassy in Athens in December, Greek police said on Wednesday, according to a New York Times report.
Greek police received a phone call early Sunday morning by a newspaper staffer who received an anonymous tip informing him about the location of a portable digital device hidden in a trash can, which contained a 19 page statement by the far-left Group of Popular Rebels.
Unidentified assailants opened fire on the Israeli embassy in Athens with a Kalashnikov assault rifle in the early hours of Dec. 12. No injuries were reported.
Four people on two motorcycles fired shots at the embassy building in a northern suburb of Athens, according to a police official . Bullets were lodged in the walls and 54 spent bullet cases were found about 40 meters (yards) from the building, police said.
According to the report, the bullet casings found outside the Israeli Embassy matched the two assault rifles used in a similar attack in December 2013 on the German ambassador’s home – also in the suburbs of Athens – for which the Group of Popular Rebels claimed responsibility.
In December, the UN Security Council and the Greek government condemned the attack on the Israel Embassy, which the latter believed in December was an attack by a far-left group, the AFP reported…..”
Craig lies like a Zionist:
No, you have not. You have not answered this question in sum or substance:
“I’d be interested to hear just what you consider “a Jewish State” to be, specifically. Bullet points, stating what human rights and determinations are to be allowed the Palestinians, in particular, will work nicely here.” ~ Sillyputty
And you haven’t for the same reason you refuse to explain what you approve of about the 4th Amendment, to wit: you cannot answer these questions without undermining your racist, authoritarian arguments.
“I have zero problems answering sillyputty’s question” – CraigSummers
Besides answering it, that is.
I did notice that despite your claim of 30+ (300+?) pages on this subject to Mona et al, it seems that isn’t true, either:
“You [CraigSummers] have not answered this question in sum or substance” – Mona
So I’ll politely ask again:
“I’d be interested to hear just what you consider “a Jewish State” to be, specifically. Bullet points, stating what human rights and determinations are to be allowed the Palestinians, in particular, will work nicely here.”
One realizes that this whole experience must seem like an intervention, CraigSummers (it is) but just step out of that pigeonhole for a moment, empty your pockets of labels, reliquesh your retorts of ad hominems…and answer. Please.
It really is the only path forward.
“I never give in to the temptation to be difficult just for the sake of being difficult. That would be too ridiculous.” – Jacques Derrida
Hi Craig, I must admit I’m a little confused how every one of Glenn Greenwald article’s comments somehow become focussed on the Israel/America relationship. ~ AmericanGestapo14
I’ll see what I can do ~ craigsummers
Hi Craig.
Fringe sniffing…
Scarecrow Hop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLB34223D55B56A4D7&v=5MEbThXI1ZY
H/T My nephew SP
Aunt Sally X
“Fringe sniffing…”
at teh Minkoff Hous uv Playjur we cawl taht pantee sniffink.
hunne sumtiemz yew jus haev too wayd on throo tehm don u no.
Oh Craig, go mewl ‘n pule on behalf of someone else. I used to answer Alpha substantively, and then realized there is literally no evidence that can persuade him his accusations are baseless. Literally NONE.
Because, Craig, Alpha brown is a troll.
@ Alpha Brown:
1) So would you agree that Kissinger insinuating MLK Jr. was a) going to turn over documents, documents more important than the Pentagon Papers, to the Soviets, and b) insinuating MLK Jr. was a Soviet “informer” was “smearing”.
2) Whoever suggested MLK Jr. was immune from criticism?
3) Who has suggested the “US government bombs countries just because they are predominantly Muslim countries? Glenn never has. What Glenn has stated is that the countries America bombs, overwhelmingly, are Muslim majority nations. And that fact may offer some explanation for why some citizens or groups in the “Muslim world” might hate America or seek to engage in violence against it.
4) Who has stated that journalists who “ask tough questions are propagandists for a government”?
5) Please explain how any group of “terrorists” (more accurately “international criminals” if they perpetrate violence across nation state lines) “who target and kill civilians from different nations constitute a threat to the US” i.e. please explain how a group of murderers, living largely on the other side of the globe, and largely killing their own fellow inhabitants of those regions, constitutes any type of “threat” to the existence of the US.
It’s good to see you back Ron. :-)
I haven’t read any claims to the effect that MLK should be immune from criticism. In case you missed it, the point of the article is that the attacks haven’t changed at all in 50 years — and in retrospect, the statements about Vietnam (“no easy answers”) are completely ridiculous.
Glenn Greenwald carefully associates the criticism of MLK’s position on a foreign policy matter with smearing. Whoever wrote that article on the NYT did not accuse MLK of committing any crimes. How is it an attack similar to those against Snowden?
The United States used to be known for innovation, so I agree it is somewhat disconcerting to see the same smears being used as 50 years ago. It also leaves open the rebuttal, as in this article, that if they were wrong 50 years ago, maybe they’re wrong today. This may not be logical, but political debate never is.
I’m not so naive as to suggest the critics should put forward their strongest argument. You craft your argument for your actual audience, not some ideal audience who understands the issues. And some amount of repetition is necessary. I believe a study once demonstrated that an argument must be made at least 10 times, before the audience will remember it (I’ll come back to this point in at least 9 future comments). But repeating the same argument for 50 years, risks becoming too monotonous, and people will just start tuning out.
Of course, inducing people to tune out may be the goal.
Exactly!!
Hours after this article posted Chris Matthews entertained songwriter Carole King, Jonathan Capehart, and Susan Milligan to display EXACTLY the “Democratic” Establishment slander of Snowden.
Describing Oliver’s interview of Snowden as an unusual piece offering more journalism than comedy, (accompanied by all caps block text on the bottom of the screen: “JOHN OLIVER MAKES EDWARD SNOWDEN SQUIRM”), Matthews shows the portion of the interview where Oliver says Snowden must take responsibility for something or other in Mosul. (Far from squirming, Snowden acknowledged that these things will happen with a free press.)
Matthews turns to Carole King and asks “hero” or “traitor” or “villain”. She looks down and says she comes down on the side, “not a hero” (adding “careless”) and discusses how harm came from his actions. Capehart exclaims that he agrees with King and (from nowhere … or from the script) immediately claims that the comparison of Snowden with Daniel Ellsberg isn’t valid. Ellsberg stayed in the country, that Ellsberg was a man of “conscience” and :principle” while Snowden has an attitude of “smug entitlement” delivered with an obvious sneer of distaste.
Matthews interrupts to say that Ellsberg released a RAND report that was written to be released whereupon Susan Milligan immediately jumps in to praise Ellsberg for staying in the country and accepting the consequences (of his noble act). Snowden, she says with the same distasteful sneer as Capeheart, says after a “wholesale document dump” and leaves the country “like a coward.” She concludes that Snowden doesn’t want to be Daniel Ellsberg but rather Julian Assange.
Meanwhile, during this two minutes hate, the block letters remain onscreen: JOHN OLIVER MAKES EDWARD SNOWDEN SQUIRM.
Matthews concludes with a Sartre quote about “responsibility.”
Then the pièce de résistance. The real smear begins:
Without transition or logical connection (except to insinuate this is exactly the harm — or sort of harm — that Snowden’s carelessness caused) Matthews introduces the killings in Kenya by Al-Shibab featuring a surviving victim talking about the bloodthirstyness of the killers.
Led by Matthews, the panel concludes that Al-Shibab hates modernity and Western values.
Carole King tells everyone about Obama’s anti-terror strategy.
All panel members pledge their undying support for Hillary Clinton. Matthews whispers that he thinks Clinton will declare soon, probably on equal pay day next Tuesday.
This is how Establishment Democrats smear those who don’t hew the party line — those who, like Snowden, aren’t blinkered by political allegiances and who value truth and accuracy over these very common corporate minstrel shows.
Precisely: the exact tactics used by Nixon, Cheney and all the others they hate. They’re just opposite sides of the same exact coin, and often, the same side of the same coin.
Whoa! Slow down.
In no way are Chris Matthews and Carole King (etc.) the moral equivalent of Richard Nixon and Dick Cheney. Yet many might think that because they’re in the same sentence as equivalents, the subtext homogenizes them so that because they use the same deceptive tactics, they’re no better one than the other.
Nixon and Cheney used the power of their office to wage war against virtually defenseless countries, killing untold (untolled?) human beings to perpetuate their very unAmerican ideology that might makes right. In doing so, they empower the very institutions that Snowden and others rightly excoriate.
Let’s leave Carole King out of it. She’s a celebrity endorser functionally equivalent to Ted Nugent or Kid Rock. Idiots who cash in on their celebrity status to advance a political agenda. No big deal.
But Matthews is another story. If you want an equivalent on the right, Sean Hannity or Bill O’Rielly would be far better comparisons than Nixon and Cheney. They use their position in media to advance their political agendas. (In Matthews’ defense, he periodically announces this. Not so the Foxites. Never.)
But the point of my post wasn’t to claim the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans anymore than the Peaky Blinders equal the US military/security establishment.
It seems to me that if specific propaganda techniques can be identified, they lose their power.
Thus, in the Hardball episode I discussed, three things stand out.
1. Making a person (Snowden) a symbol and target of a political witchhunt — especially using deceptive wording like “squirm” — in order to advance the political interests of this or that candidate (or to diffuse potential attacks.)
Snowden didn’t once “squirm”; he answered Oliver’s questions forthrightly and intelligently, even at one point gently chiding Oliver by explaining that if you change your civil obligation because of State influence, you lose something very important.
2. Using a celebrity endorsement to reinforce the above message.
3. The worst technique, by far, intentionally sequencing a discussion of Snowden immediately prior to an interview with a survivor of a terror attack. This allows (guarantees?) conflation of person (political symbol) with heinous event. It’s a sophisticated form of guilt by association wherein the link isn’t explicit, but powerfully established just the same.
This Hardball segment highlighs exactly the sort of State (institutional) attack discussed in this article. I suspect Matthews once received regular “consideration” (compensation) from the CIA. He should be called out for it.
But these techniques don’t belong to war criminals like Nixon and Cheney (themselves political symbols); these techniques belong to media propagandists trying to advance an institutional political agenda.
Despise Matthews for being a manipulative agent. He is. His attack upon Snowden is indefensible and despicable.
But that doesn’t mean he belongs as a defendant in ICC proceedings.
“Matthews concludes with a Sartre quote”
I laughed so hard I cried. (aka LOL)
That’s one hell of an example, wiltmellow, of what Glenn referenced in the article.There is no bottom to the disappointment, I must admit. Mathews and Capehart have long been infamous for making their buck on what you basically transcribed from that program. But, my God, I’d lost track of what Carol “You’ve Got a Friend” King had been up to and about of late. I had no idea she had gone that sour, that bad, that disconnected from the truth. “Undying support for Hillary Clinton.” Wow. About the only brightness I can take out of all of that is how ever so glad that I’m not suffering the same sickness. To not be cheering for Hillary Clinton (and so many others in her league of “friends of the family”) makes living a lot less painful and free of delusion.
Thanks for that summary, Wiltmellow as I don’t watch Chris Matthews.
And Kitt, I am also soooo disappointed that Carole King would be so anti-Snowden.
What is really astounding is that they still repeat the same tired stuff that Snowden didn’t do what Ellsberg did. Well, wake up, folks – it’s a different situation now than Ellsberg faced. And as Glenn pointed out, they ignore that Ellsberg fully supports Snowden.
BTW, I think The Guardian also had a headline about the segment something like Oliver pushes Snowden or something like that.
Full Stop. Can we say that it is and always will be? I am not going to pull out the pretentious, that is to say intellectual arguments of which I am not qualified to offer. I am just a simple woman who has an inkling of what is going on here. I don’t teach any college courses, I have only a passing knowledge of history (ahem, just knew that Chamberlin was an appeaser but not much else -JLocke ugh), I could never aspire to Glenn’s intellect and understanding or many of those who post here and either are or pretend to be some fount of knowledge and understanding. Simple though I am, I think I understand one thing: this shit has been going on since humans walked upright. It is up to us, now enlightened as we profess to be, to stop bitching and make a change. In my limited purview, my change has been to stop looking for rulers, stop voting, stop believing what the media say (and certainly no TV)…basically stop believing that anything will change. My one-woman campaign is to stop thinking things will change and move on with a life in complete opposition. Only then, will there be any hope for change.
I’ve posted this excerpt previously but it’s relevant and deserves sharing again.
From Dr. King’s speech of February 25, 1967 (a few months before his more well known Beyond Vietnam address):
the whole speech is worthwhile and can be read here: http://www.aavw.org/special_features/speeches_speech_king02.html
NYT was the first to publish the video of a white police officer shooting a black human trying desperately to escape the arms of law. Now that white police officer is in trouble big time. So sometimes I have noticed that NYT does do good things, though I suppose it happens very rarely.
Mr. Greenwald
Martin Luther King was a great man, but really knew very little about politics – or foreign policy. In his speech at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in 1967, Mr. King said:
“…….They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China — for whom the Vietnamese have no great love — but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives…….”
During Ho Chi Minh’s rein of power, it’s estimated that several hundred thousand people died or were killed (Wikipedia):
“…… Lam Thanh Liem, a major authority on land issues in Vietnam, conducted multiple interviews in which communist cadres gave estimates for land reform executions ranging from 120,000 to 200,000. Such figures match the “nearly 150,000 houses and huts which were allocated to new occupants”.[66] ……..Official records from the time suggest that 172,008 “landlords” were executed during the “land reform”, of whom 123,266 (71.66%) were later found to be wrongly classified.[71] Victims were reportedly shot, beheaded, and beaten to death; “some were tied up, thrown into open graves and covered with stones until they were crushed to death”.[72] The full death toll was even greater because victims’ families starved to death under the “policy of isolation.”[73] As communist defector Le Xuan Giao explained: “There was nothing worse than the starvation of the children in a family whose parents were under the control of a land reform team. They isolated the house, and the people who lived there would starve. The children were all innocent.……..Hoàng V?n Chí wrote that as many as 500,000 North Vietnamese may have died during the 1950s and 1960s as a result of the policies of Ho’s government.[75]In 1956, about 6,000 peasants in Ngh? An Province were allegedly massacred by PAVN government troops in response to a revolt against unbearable taxes………”
King peacefully advanced equality and civil rights. He is rightfully one of the most famous people of our time, but he was certainly no foreign policy expert. Ironically Mr. Greenwald, you mention in your previous article (“WHY JOHN OLIVER CAN’T FIND AMERICANS WHO KNOW EDWARD SNOWDEN’S NAME (IT’S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN”))::
“………One reason is that they serve as a rather stinging indictment on the political system which media and political insiders love to glorify: a huge chunk of the population, probably the majority, have simply turned away entirely from politics, presumably out of a belief that it makes no difference in their lives. It’s difficult to maintain mythologies about the glories of American democracy…..”
A real journalist may want to cite a source rather than arrogantly asserting a conclusion based on your belief (“presumably”). At least Americans have a choice of voting, Mr. Greenwald. That is just one of the many freedoms we enjoy. So many in the world do not including the people under the rule of the “fascist” fighting Putin government. The Vietnamese have no such rights nearly a half a century after the end of the Vietnamese war. I realize, of course, that is irrelevant to your political agenda.
So, Dr. King was overly simplistic and too quick to overlook the crimes of America’s enemies?
Is there an echo in here?
Yes, the strange and unpleasant reverberation of Craig’s empty establishmentarian arguments.
I wonder if he’s aware that Russian citizens are permitted to vote. If he is aware they do then I’m confused about who he’s talking about when he states “So many in the world do not [have a choice of voting] including the people under the rule of the ‘fascist’ fighting Putin government.” Who are these “so many” peoples of the world that are being ruled by Putin yet did not have the opportunity to vote for or against Putin?
Rrheard
Saddam Hussein received every vote in his re-election in 2002 – a 100% turnout and 100% of the votes. Russians vote but have no say in who becomes President – at least under Putin. You are kidding yourself if you think Russians are voting. He kills critics and political opponents regularly. A short list is below. Freedom House ranks the internet partly free, but the press not free. Journalists have been silenced (murdered and beaten) in Russia and they rank 148th out of 180 countries in the world in press freedom. It’s more like Putin has used terror tactics and intimidation to continue his “leadership” in Russia. Of course, you will never read at the Intercept about the Chechen wars where tens of thousands of people were killed by the Russian army. Many critics of the wars were murdered. Here is some information about Putin, (according to Wikipedia):
“………Putin won the subsequent 2000 presidential election, despite widespread accusations of vote-rigging,[3] and was reelected in 2004. Because of constitutionally mandated term limits, Putin was ineligible to run for a third consecutive presidential term in 2008. Dmitry Medvedev won the 2008 presidential election and appointed Putin as Prime Minister,…….In September 2011, following a change in the law extending the presidential term from four years to six,[5] Putin announced that he would seek a third, non-consecutive term as President in the 2012 presidential election, an announcement which led to large-scale protests in many Russian cities. In March 2012 he won the election, which was criticized for procedural irregularities, and is serving a six-year term.[6][7]………Many of Putin’s actions are regarded by the domestic opposition and foreign observers as undemocratic.[8] The 2011 Democracy Index stated that Russia was in “a long process of regression [that] culminated in a move from a hybrid to an authoritarian regime” in view of Putin’s candidacy and flawed parliamentary elections……”
A CNN report indicates how Putin deals with political opponents:
“…….(CNN)Slain Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov isn’t the first critic of President Vladimir Putin to turn up dead…….some cases of outspoken critics of Putin’s government who’ve ended up in exile, under house arrest, behind bars or dead.
Mikhail Khodorkovsky:
The business magnate backed an opposition party and accused Putin of corruption……He spent more than 10 years behind bars on charges of tax evasion and fraud.
Anna Politkovskaya:
She was a vocal critic of Russia’s war in Chechnya. Her home was a safe place, until it became the scene of her murder………shot four times at the entrance of her Moscow apartment in October 2006.
Alexander Litvinenko:
The former Russian agent was poisoned by a lethal dose of radioactive polonium, his tea spiked in a London hotel during a meeting with two former Russian security servicemen……….After leaving the Russian Federal Security Service, he blamed the agency for orchestrating a series of apartment bombings in Russia in 1999 that left hundreds dead and led to Russia’s invasion of Chechnya later that year.
Anastasia Baburova and Stanislav Markelov:
In January 2009, a masked man shot and killed Markelov, a Russian human rights lawyer known for his work on abuses by the Russian military in Chechnya……..The gunman also shot Baburova, a journalist from Russia’s Novaya Gazeta newspaper, when she tried to intervene…..Russian authorities said members of a neo-Nazi group were behind the killings, and two neo-Nazis were convicted for the deaths.
Natalya Estemirova:
The Chechnya-based human rights activist was kidnapped outside her home there in July 2009 and found dead in the neighboring Russian republic of Ingushetia later the same day. Her body was riddled with bullets, Russian prosecutors said — several shots to the abdomen, and one to the head……Estemirova had spent years investigating human rights abuses in Chechnya.
Boris Berezovsky:
The powerful Russian businessman’s falling-out with his government left him self-exiled in England………Berezovsky accused the Kremlin of killing Litvinenko…..In 2013, he was found dead inside his house with a noose around his neck.
Alexey Navalny:
A corruption-fighting lawyer, Navalny famously branded Putin’s United Russia party “the party of crooks and thieves.”…….He has been a prominent organizer of mass street protests and has attacked corruption in Russian government, using his blog and social media…..The Kremlin critic was arrested in December just after hours after he was found guilty of fraud in a politically charged trial.
Boris Nemtsov (Saakashvili: Nemtsov ‘one of many’ that have died) :
Nemtsov, 55, was a top official with the Republican Party of Russia/Party of People’s Freedom, a liberal opposition group…..He had been arrested several times for speaking against Putin’s government. Most recently, he had been critical of the Kremlin’s handling of the Ukraine crisis…..The former deputy prime minister accused Putin of using “Goebbels-style propaganda” — a reference to Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Germany’s propaganda minister — to brainwash his countrymen………Nemtsov was scheduled to lead an opposition rally in Moscow last Sunday. But two days before the event, he was shot dead as he walked home from dinner with his Ukrainian model girlfriend. The killing took place just meters away from the Kremlin……”
Gee, another comparison to Goebbels. Who does that at the Intercept?
CraigSummers: ” At least Americans have a choice of voting, Mr. Greenwald.”
Craig, you might want to re-examine that belief. It is technically true, of course, but as a practical and effective matter, it is false. Congress has a current approval rating (as of January, at least) of 16% and a disapproval rating of 76%. Yet 95% of the House members and 82% of the Senate members up for re-election were returned to office. Even accounting for voter apathy and ignorance, those numbers don’t make sense in a nation of choice.
But it’s worse than that. Of 535 Congressional seats, 2 are vacant, 2 are filled by Independents and 531 (or 99.25%) are filled by either Democrats or Republicans. Given the control that the parties have over the process of candidate selection, campaign finance and the other tools of power, well, you can begin to see how little choice you really have. It reminds me of that scene from the Blues Brothers: “What kind of music do you have here?” “Oh, we got both kinds, Country AND Western.”
So my question is, how much choice do you feel like you have if I tell you “Leave, or get out. Your choice.” Because that is a fair analogy of your range of “choices” when it comes to politics in the United States, at least at a national level.
I want to amend my last comment. It’s a fair analogy on a national level when it comes to foreign policy. You have a little more variety when it comes to social issues that don’t too much disrupt the financial establishment of this country.
“……I want to amend my last comment. It’s a fair analogy on a national level when it comes to foreign policy…..”
I think most Americans believe that the US should continue to play a leading role in international affairs although most would probably be happier if we are not invading places like Iraq and Afghanistan (at least for the moment). What Afghanistan and Iraq had in common was our fight against fascist dictators and police states – and according to Greenwald, when you fight the fascists, you are fighting the good fight – even as you annex part of someone else’s country.
Thanks.
From the Baltimore Sun
Something seems to be stuck to the bottom of your shoe Craig.
What is that smell?
More than forty years have passed since my father and I would sit and debate(heated at times) the “police action” in Viet Nam. Back then the draft was in full force making Canadian citizens out of would be draftees, and causing otherwise potential factory workers to suddenly seek a college degree. Whenever it seemed he was losing the argument he would say, “it’s your duty to serve and you go where they send you”. Being a WWII veteran, where the reasons for the war were much more clearly defined, it was impossible for him to admit his country could possibly be on the wrong side of history, and my questioning the validity of the conflict was tantamount to being a commie sympathizer. I’m sure there are plenty of soldiers and their superior officers who feel they are doing their duty defending the US in combat abroad, and faulting those who sincerely believe they are doing the right thing is not where our energies should be spent. By the same token, those who are assiduously demonstrating opposition to our war mongering leaders (from both parties) are also doing their civic duty. Having done the math, if we were to take the bank bailouts and the money spent on just the Iraq war, we could have installed solar systems on every home in the US with plenty left over. Either we have the dumbest leaders possible(jury’s still out) or they have been lying to us about nearly everything. The war in Iraq was not about oil. Riiight. Oh! With a little hegemony tossed in for good measure. Very little has changed between then and now with just some minor tweaks at the periphery and nothing will ’til sanity replaces the insanity under which the entire world is forced to endure. History teaches those willing to learn that all empires fall. It’s not if but when.
Keep at it jgreen7801.
A bit of nostalgia for you and a possible way forward for “sanity” in the future of mankind.
“Bob Dylan and Joan Baez 1963 March on Washington”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLwHnNybADo&feature=related
Excellent post… Love this:
“Having done the math, if we were to take the bank bailouts and the money spent on just the Iraq war…” your idea is good – or we could provide free college tuition – or otherwise support our struggling school systems – or provide subsidies for high-cost prescriptions…. there are sooo many possibilities much more positive than guns and bombs. and if we changed the tax structure a bit, the top fraction of a percent probably wouldn’t notice that much difference in lifestyle, but it could make a difference to so many 99%ers.
Oh and don’t forget all the tax dollars spent on NSA spying and TSA stupidity. What positive things could be done with THAT tax money?
Another perennial favourite is “appeaser” or “Chamberlain”. Let’s stroll down memory lane:
“When Chris Matthews Realized His Right-Wing Guest Had No Idea Who Neville Chamberlain Actually Was”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/02/chris_matthews_neville_chamberlain_appeasement_and_kevin_james_not_knowing.html?wpsrc=fol_fb
MATTHEWS: You don‘t know what you‘re talking about.
JAMES: … know what I‘m talking about.
MATTHEWS: Tell me what Chamberlain did wrong.
JAMES: Neville Chamberlain was an appeaser, Chris. Neville Chamberlain…
MATTHEWS: What did he do?
JAMES: Neville Chamberlain was an appeaser, all right?
MATTHEWS: What did he do?
Well, he may have not known why, but he did get it right!
“…….Chamberlain is best known for his appeasement foreign policy, and in particular for his signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938, conceding the German speaking Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Germany……”
I suppose similar is some aspects to Greenwald conceding Ukraine to the Russians – of courser, in the name of fighting the fascists.
An actual, literal LOL.
An actual, literal LOL.
Me too. And, for some reason, an image of a hugely overinflated red balloon whizzing about, bouncing off the walls of a very tiny room making obscene farting noises as it deflates, accompanied that laughter. ;-}
Cut to John Cleese/Peter Cook clip of Neville proudly showing the piece of paper to a cheering crowd … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFb_Ik_4jz0
Once again, the firmness in the voice was beautiful.
And, boy howdy, was that ever a painfully copacetic representation of what happens almost each and every time Mr. Summers appears in these threads.
(omg my cheeks are hurting….)
If only the War on Terror, wasn’t a war of terror.
And COINTELPRO lives. Only the name has changed… and some of the tactics, related to technological advancements.
COINTELPRO and domestic repression is yet another topic not addressed by the pro-establishment faux progressive Bill Moyers.
The lessons of COINTELPRO
http://www.isreview.org/issues/49/cointelpro.shtml
How We Found Out About COINTELPRO
monthlyreview.org/2014/09/01/how-we-found-out-about-cointelpro/
Great links, Vivek Jain. Thank you for sharing.
From the second link:
“Hoover had files on ‘an endless roll call of the best novelists, nonfiction writers, poets, essayists and playwrights, including Nobel laureates,’ apparently because he fundamentally distrusted intellectuals. But the FBI’s priority by the 1960s seemed to be massive spying on black Americans, especially black student groups, usually with the full cooperation of campus security personnel.”
I would not be at all surprised to find out that COINTELPRO activities are continuing on college campuses across the country. When you consider the sheer number of people who show up to colleges and universities on any given weekday, in combination with the fact that many of those people participate in political activism, it actually makes perfect sense for campuses to be under heavy surveillance. This would greatly increase the government’s efficiency in finding and keeping tabs on those individuals (see: intellectuals and activists) who need to be “neutralized”.
Yes, thanks for the excellent links (all of them) that you’ve posted to this and other articles. They’re much appreciated.
Indeed, yet no one touches. Surely the evidence is in the Snowden documents? My days are numbered if the truth does not emerge soon.
Hang tough… (It’s a process that’s killed a lot of people and continues to do so. It must be exposed and stopped. Good people will be outraged…)
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” -Martin Luther King Jr. (and others)
Well, this is interesting:
U.S. secretly tracked billions of calls for decades
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/04/07/dea-bulk-telephone-surveillance-operation/70808616/
Next up: Queuing up the witchhunt for those current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials…..
And then there’s this little backhanded admission of illegality:
Thank you for your daily persistent resistance to the Totalitarianism machine.
What about Phil Agee?
https://consortiumnews.com/2013/06/27/the-painful-truths-told-by-phil-agee/
Former CIA analyst (1963-1990) Ray McGovern told Amy Goodman back in 2003 that both David Macmichael and he (Ray McGovern) did not “condone what Phillip Agee did.”
http://www.democracynow.org/2003/9/17/the_crazies_are_back_bush_sr
The faux-progressive Bill Moyers demonstrates yet another tactic of smearing and misrepresenting Dr. King. Moyers’ deliberate OMISSION of King’s anti-war critique reveals Moyers’ continued allegiance to the ruling class. Moyers would prefer that his viewers never understand how activists in the mid-20th century were connecting racism, exploitation, injustice and violence here at home, with US foreign policy abroad. Moyers prefers to bury King’s triple evils (King connected racism, militarism, and poverty), and to sanitize and neutralize the radical King. Moyers, a former CFR director, for similar reasons won’t celebrate Malcolm X or Stokely Carmichael, or admit the need for Black Power, and he won’t dare acknowledge leaders such as Lumumba, who was assassinated on the order of the WH. He won’t mention how groups such as SNCC (and even the now-neutralized former firebrand John Lewis) denounced the imperialist, racist, genocidal, unjust war on Vietnam. He leaves out how a working class rebellion within the military, combined of course with the courageous resistance of our Sisters and Brothers in Indochina, led to the defeat of the aggressor imperial power and the ending of the draft.
Vivek Jain –
Oh my… well, I kind of like Bill Moyers. I watched him when I could catch the show (PBS around her would too often run it at really strange times, and not always on some set schedule). I thought he had some very good guests – ones who did question TPTB. Maybe he didn’t go far enough? maybe not, but I think you’re a bit over the top in the way you’ve – well attacked him. He may not have been a real ‘revolutionary’, but I do think he did some good in what he did with his program.
Doug Valentine’s taken smears and innuendo to a different level. The author of the acclaimed book on the Phoenix Program has raised allegations and made wild charges about Greenwald and Scahill, and also Ellsberg. When confronted to back up his claims, Valentine retreats into ad hominem and guilt-by-association and other cowardly tactics. Why Counterpunch publishes his stuff is puzzling. And it’s no surprise that James Corbett has provided Valentine with a platform from which to confuse the masses.
See for yourself:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/03/glenn-greenwald-and-the-myth-of-income-inequality/
counterpunch.org/2015/03/02/citizen-four-the-making-of-an-american-myth/
counterpunch.org/2003/03/08/will-the-real-daniel-ellsberg-please-stand-up/
corbettreport.com/interview-709-douglas-valentine-on-ellsberg-and-the-cia/
corbettreport.com/interview-681-douglas-valentine-on-scahills-dirty-wars/
counterpunch.org/2013/06/07/dirty-wars-and-the-cinema-of-self-indulgence/
Mr. Greenwald:
You might find this difficult to believe but I see where this story line could go….this is in the only truly viable direction of the American People at this time.
It brings the endless “War on Terror” into the focus of another generation…one that believed in peaceful mass anti-war protest and succeeded in asserting their demands into the political and social fiber of American society.
It worked once and it can work again but only if “We the People” do not succumb to false dividing points such as skin color, religious preferences, political party affiliation, or economic status. If we could collectively agree to stick to a singular mission —- that being the demand for the end of the “War on Terror”——humanity as a whole can win not only nationally but internationally as well.
This is the elective mandate of the highest purpose and one that must be pursued at all costs.
Peace.
Another critical element to the promotion of freedom and rights for the people of the United States of America, and indeed humanity at large, is to resume control of our own economic well-being.
See this: “How America Became an Oligarchy”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41471.htm
Snip: [ “Taking Back Our Power
If governments are recalling their sovereign powers, they might start with the power to create money, which was usurped by private interests while the people were asleep at the wheel. State and local governments are not allowed to print their own currencies; but they can own banks, and all depository banks create money when they make loans, as the Bank of England recently acknowledged.
The federal government could take back the power to create the national money supply by issuing its own Treasury notes as Abraham Lincoln did. Alternatively, it could issue some very large denomination coins as authorized in the Constitution; or it could nationalize the central bank and use quantitative easing to fund infrastructure, education, job creation, and social services, responding to the needs of the people rather than the banks.
The freedom to vote carries little weight without economic freedom – the freedom to work and to have food, shelter, education, medical care and a decent retirement. President Franklin Roosevelt maintained that we need an Economic Bill of Rights. If our elected representatives were not beholden to the moneylenders, they might be able both to pass such a bill and to come up with the money to fund it.”]
Lol lol lol
Keep laughing but it’s not funny.
“Jimi Hendrix – The Star Spangled Banner [ American Anthem ] ( Live at Woodstock 1969 )”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjzZh6-h9fM
I am conflicted about Oliver; appreciate him spending as much time and resources on Snowden and the unPatriotic Act’s imminent renewal… and extremely disappointed at the jejune imbecility while deliberately avoiding (ignoring) the undemocratic tectonic shifts in power enabled by this repellant act.
Oliver wasn’t presenting the “dick pic” argument just for the sake of being juvenile/funny. The underlying point was that Americans will be more likely to relate, and therefore care about domestic or foreign intelligence if the issue is framed in a manner that they can see affects them. The technical details are indeed daunting and the NSA has an overwhelming amount of idiotically-named methods. Oliver’s framing the NSA’s surveillance tools and capabilities by how they could capture dick pics was brilliant.
Furthermore, John Oliver has been the only interviewer I can think of that really asked Snowden some tough questions, so he deserves recognition for that. After all, don’t you Greenwald fans love “adversarial journalism”!?
“Oliver’s framing the NSA’s surveillance tools and capabilities by how they could capture dick pics was brilliant.”
iz tru taht fyu thinz ar moer impoortunt to mos menz tahn tehm pekurz.
an wimminz iz protectif uv tehr dikz two. tehy marreed tehm didn tehy?!
“John Oliver has been the only interviewer I can think of that really asked Snowden some tough questions”
yew don remumbur Brain Will-i-ams-a-liar innerview wiht him? he aksed him mennee uv teh saem thinz.
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview
i kant beeleev a lowlee wurkin gurl liek mee moer bettur informd tahn teh awlmitey Gnat.
iz scareful, Mabel, i jez mite flaw an lub wit u…
hunnee awl teh rihgt menz luv tehm sum Minkoffs don u no.
i thin it mus bee teh tassulz on owr boosteeyayz.
I think I mentioned in another thread that Mabel’s commentary, although always enlightening, inevitably leads to a case of vertigo. This exchange was definitely worth the trip to the medicine cabinet. :)
“”i kant beeleev a lowlee wurkin gurl liek mee moer bettur informd tahn teh awlmitey Gnat.””
note to self..file under..
Great Moments in MabelMinkoff.
Glenn,
NYT will probably tell you “We do not see a factual error that needs to be corrected.” Your efforts in trying to expose the facade of MSM journalism is much appreciated, but like Karl Rove said, by the time we catch up with one reality, they create another one and move on!
Anyone who deviates from the script of those in power—whether of those in government or in the press—receives the petulant wrath found in their vacuous arguments.
For a different reason, I referred to this ’67 editorial in a comment online to the NYT at the beginning of this year. The paper’s noxious editorial “The Palestinians’ Desperation Move” drew the following comparison from me:(http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/01/opinion/the-palestinians-desperation-move.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=1)
“One can hardly overlook the Orwellian lineage of New York Times editorials. When today the Times argues that violating international law—Israeli settlements in the West Bank and (only intimated) the slaughter of civilians in Gaza—makes negotiations “hard,” but seeking justice and redress in a court for those violations makes negotiations “worse,” one recalls the same tortuous arguments the Times made on 7 April 1967. Back then the Times scolded Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for comparing the immorality of the Vietnam War to that of the treatment of African Americans in the United States. Intellectually dulled by their own arrogance and paternalism, the editors could not even acknowledge the nature of the war nor the brilliance of Dr. King’s arguments: “The moral issues in Vietnam are less clear-cut than he [King] suggests; the political strategy of uniting the peace movement and the civil rights movement could very well be disastrous for both causes.”
Over the decades the editors have learned little. In light of theirs and the continuous paternalism practiced by the elites in the United States and Israel, it is no wonder that African Americans and Palestinians often see themselves as natural allies.”
Corning, NY
This article is a jumbled, poorly organized mess.
Glenn, what “democratic circles” do you refer to? Who specifically is renewing these attacks? Provide some links to substantiate this.
Again, who are these “Democratic apparatchiks [insinuating] that Snowden is a Russian agent”!? Unless you actually name some of them and their positions, your argument just sounds like an unsupported strawman.
Glenn appears to be tryint to contrast past smears against Ellsberg and MLK to claims against Snowden but utterly fails to show how Snowden has been subject to “the standard Washington attack” and “how identical it is” to Ellsberg and MLK. The Nixon Administration made a concerted effort to undermine Ellsberg and his lawyer. If you are saying the Obama Administration or unnamed democrats are doing the same, then how about actually supporting your argument with some particularity? Because aside from Mike Rogers (who last time I checked was not a “democratic,”) I have no clue who you are saying is committing these “standard Washington attacks” that Snowden is a Russian spy.
Halfway through the article and Glenn still doesn’t say who is doing the smearing. The straw-man argument continues.
Was Martin Luther King above criticism? The NYT article indicates that he compared American military methods “to those of the Nazis testing ‘new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe.'” Such a claim is not beyond criticism and for you to call this article an “attack” is just disingenuous.
And what does Snowden have to do with this alleged attack by the NYT? Like I said, this is a jumbled mess of an article. In his typical lawyeristic fashion, Glenn cherry picks a bunch of individual anecdotes and tries to turn them into vast generalizations.
I believe GG is assuming that you remember the words of Kerry, Feinstein, Schumer, etc. and those of the WH spokespeople, pundits and establishment hacks.
Since you do not remember, type one of those names and Snowden into Google and you will have your answer.
You will also quickly discover that the “vast generalizations” about the establishment and their media enablers are accurate.
Your response is an exercise in pure laziness.
Glenn’s very article links to an AP piece (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/28/us-usa-security-snowden-feinstein-idUSBREA0R20G20140128) that says this:
It appears that you are the one failing to remember. Also, please tell me when John Kerry made such a claim? As for the “WH spokespeople, pundits and establishment hacks” how about some actual specificity? Looks like Glenn’s unsubstantiated claims issue is contagious. Jane Mayer said in early 2014 that “a senior F.B.I. official said on Sunday that it was still the bureau’s conclusion that Mr. Snowden acted alone.” That’s gotta be worth something!
Also, perhaps you can support how Schumer allegedly made such spy claims while you’re at it!?
And after you Google your way into some actual responses, maybe then you can address my question about “who is RENEWING these attacks.”
So…let’s hear those of the Obama administration say that Snowden should be allowed back into the USA without charges and a judicial review of the NSA situation occur. Let’s see some of the same fine folks argue for the release of Chelsea Manning and for the proper treatment of Julian Assange.
crickets.
Sheesh… you getting the response you deserved eliciting insults makes me sad I wrote even those few lines.
Your own example makes the point.
Raising the possibility while saying she hasn’t seen any evidence doesn’t strike you as odd?
For comparison try- I haven’t seen any evidence that aliens helped Snowden.
And you can’t seriously be pretending that was the only time she commented on the matter right?
Now, look up the definition of traitor, and then see who applied the term to Snowden.
I hope you find what you’re looking for this time.
I find it interesting that you’ve basically ignored all my questions. That seems to happen a lot around here. Spout bullshit and don’t back it up.
OK Nate, I’ll just say ‘Agent Orange’ and let you do the Google …
Here’s DiFi
Another either ignorant or bad faith attempt to argue this matter.
First, wouldn’t you agree that her comment of “we don’t know at this stage” is a critical distinction?
Second, are you aware of her subsequent conclusions (as included in Glenn’s very article):
Yeah. Facts are ignorant. Fox News wants you, Nate.
Yes it is the distinct example of the smear “we don’t know but he may well have” been a spy.
How goes the search on the effects of experimenting with Agent Orange use upon civilians?
Your argument is an absolute joke. Let’s frame this with another example: When Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown, if the media asked a state representative or advocacy group: “was the shooting racially motivated?” and the representative responded “we don’t know, but it may well have,” would that also be a smear?
Of course it would not. When you don’t yet know all full facts, you should not dismiss any possibilities. What’s expected is that you evaluate the evidence, or lack thereof, and make your determination. That is what Feinstein did. She followed up about a week later saying “I have no information to that effect, I have never seen anything to that effect,” (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/feinstein-no-proof-snowden-russian-spy) but since that part of the discussion conflicts with your narrative, you ignore it. Grow a pair and admit you were wrong.
” The NYT article indicates that he compared American military methods “to those of the Nazis testing ‘new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe.’” ”
Gnat hunnee yew nefer herd uv teh Tuskergee syfilis experimunts run bi teh YewEss govumnint?
an ther wer YewEss psycolumgists runnink teh torchur experimunts at guanotanamo two don u no.
Wikipedia also has a good rundown on Buck v. Bell, and, generally, the U.S. experiment in eugenics, which pioneered some techniques that the Nazis would adapt. Buck v. Bell is no longer good case law, and is a blot on Justice Holmes’ reputation, but did get quoted by the defense at the Nuremberg trials.
More on eugenics in the US generally —
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States?qsrc=3044
Including this —
So, Dr. King’s Nazi comparison wasn’t farfetched hyperbole at all — and on point here.
thenk yew corman nobbeez hunnee.
i luv yew lon tiem don u no. butt pleez don tel bahmihummerbung!
MLK referred to Nazi testing of medicine, of which eugenics is just one subcategory. Therefore eugenics alone may not render MLK’s claim as hyperbole, but is when compared to the broader Nazi program of “medicine” and human experimentation.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich describes a lot of these experimentations in detail. It is stomach churning sadistic stuff.
Descriptions of the “decompression chamber” test makes me queasy:
As for the “dry freezing experiment”
Spare me.
Either you are a fucking sockpuppet for those collectivist who would kick in every door in America to confiscate every weapon they can.. or you are simply a slimeball shill who hasn’t been gifted with a child.
LOL!!
“Gnat hunnee yew nefer herd uv teh Tuskergee syfilis experimunts run bi teh YewEss govumnint?
an ther wer YewEss psycolumgists runnink teh torchur experimunts at guanotanamo two don u no.”
Hohohohohohohohahahahahahahahah…bwahahahahhahahahahaha….hahahahaha…..hahahahaha!
Nate.. you’re like an iceberg floating on top of an underwater volcano.
Nate, you’re funny.
You ask, fabricating a straw man, “Was Martin Luther King above criticism?”
Please take the time to learn about King, his intellectual biography, political philosophy, and the larger movements he was a part of, and the lives and struggles of other activists. (You seem poorly informed and your wild darts in the dark miss badly. ). Have you read Charles Payne’s I’ve Got The Light Of Freedom? Very worthwhile.
Although calling me “funny” is the type of thought-terminating cliche I’m accustomed to encountering within the TI chamber of echoes, how about you humor me with an actual rebuttal? Perhaps start by elaborating on how my comments were “wild darts in the dark”
On an unrelated note, thanks for the reading suggestion. That Charles Payne book does indeed look interesting (aside from the absurd $24 ebook price)
your local independent bookstore should have a used copy for less than $10
I abandoned physical books.
The NYT has not changed that much. On back to back days this weekend, columns by Thomas Friedman and Roger Cohen addressed the historical antipathy between The US and Iran. Both referenced 1979, the year of the hostage crisis in Tehran, as the beginning of bad relations, completely ignoring the CIA coup that ousted Iran’s democratically elected, secular Prime Minister in 1953 for the crime of ending British colonial control of Iranian oil resources. Not to mention the installation of The Shah as an American puppet and the CIA training of the brutal and notorious SAVAK, who helped the Shah repress all dissidents by imprisoning, torturing and murdering them. These accounts imply that US-Iranian relations went awry because of a crazy, inexplicable assault on the US embassy. The NYT is very well aware that this intentional lack of context will be swallowed hole by most of their readers. They refuse to even address the issue of American imperialism and non-stop violence that King bravely and wisely spoke of in 1967.
Friedman was describing Obama Administration’s efforts in Iran. Just because he made passing reference to the 1979 revolution, does not mean he is required to document the in-depth history of the CIA coup and its consequences. You are complaining about supposed omissions that aren’t even pertinent to the focus of the article. Furthermore, Friedman’s contribution is an opinion piece.
Also, if the NYT is so bent on providing “an intentional lack of context,” how do you explain the fact that one of its veteran journalists – Stephen Kinzer – wrote “All the Shah’s Men” which documents all the stuff you’re complaining about and rips the CIA and characterizes it as “arrogant, thuggish and immoral”?
“You are complaining about supposed omissions that aren’t even pertinent to the focus of the article.”
ef teh SeeEyeAy coo an its consumkwenses ar knot purtinent too Obummurz effarts tehn neethur iz teh 1979 revolushum.
yew liek too akyewz Grenwald uv cheerypikkin butt yew deefendin Freidmink doin saem thin.
yew kant haev it bof wayz Gnat.
“yew kant haev it bof wayz Gnat.”
priceless.
I would neither praise nor criticize the NYT for the books its employees write and publish on their own. I would not criticize the NYT if it discussed the deal with Iran without referencing the historical relationships between the two countries, but Friedman specifically dates the problems to 1979 and you know he knows better. The NYT knows well that virtually every American who reads their newspaper knows about 1979 and virtually none know about 1953 and what followed. Try getting a comment published on a NYT thread if you use the ’empire’ or ‘imperialism’ in relation to the United States. All must all my comments get published but NONE of those that use either of those words do, so I don’t use them any more.
MLK’s April 4, 1967 speech is arguably the best-known on Vietnam, rightly so, but it was a theme he would return to throughout that period. Here is an index of his sermons and speeches, and his April 30 speech is worth examination as well.
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Sermons_and_speeches_of_Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.?qsrc=3044
There’s something else, Glenn, something at the bottom of that NYT editorial, April 1967, that you hyperlinked, where it took umbrage at linking racial inequality and Vietnam as simplistic — apparently, the whole op-ed took umbrage at Dr. King finding a wider and darker meaning. I suggest you look at the casualty rates for African-American and Hispanic soldiers and Marines in that period — and especially look up “Project 100,000.”
If the hyperlink doesn’t work, try blocking everything on that line, including the 3044, and then paste it on your url thing at the top of the browser. The index is out there.
There you go….
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Sermons_and_speeches_of_Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.
More on Dr. King and Vietnam.
http://www.thekingcenter.org/archive/theme/5296
Finally, this McClatchy 2009 obit on McNamara and Project 100,000. It isn’t kind.
Since I do not subscribe to any specific religious text I do not think that it is necessary to exclude from justice those that engineer wars for the economic profit of the few economically elite members of that total population on Earth.
Indeed, and it simply made their point.
“Bob Dylan- Masters of War”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exm7FN-t3PY
If only Western education systems were not designed (or simply designed so badly) as to throw so much of this down the memory hole!
Once you’ve seen through the propaganda once, you aren’t likely to fall for it again and the powers that be must wait until a new generation rises that hasn’t learned the scam yet. If education was properly done then it would never work again.
Very true. But Western education is not the only regional education that is inadequate. All over the world, people have short memories and limited attention spans. And in some countries, the reminders of the past are strrrrrictly prohibited. At least here people are not (yet) thrown in jail for pulling out old newspaper clippings.
Any ideas on how to fix education? If we even accomplished it in our own country and nowhere else, that would be an enormous step forward.
“Any ideas on how to fix education?”
I favor Franciso Ferrer’s idea of the Modern School myself, but it’s hard to do that on a large scale without some serious changes to society in general.
Thanks for another great insight.
We only have to look at Sec of State John Kerry’s odious statements about Snowden. Took a page right out of the Sec of State Kissenger’s playbook.
“There are no easy or simple answers” Yeah, wow what a vicious smear. As opposed to say the Intercept where any opponent of Putin is called a Nazi.
Which journalist at The Intercept has called anyone a Nazi? Or are you suggesting that comments should be censored to conform to “the truth” as revealed to us by somebody in charge who can’t tell us how s/he knows because national security would be endangered?