A frequent weapon for Democrats in the 2016 election is to publicly malign those they regard as critics and adversaries as Russia sympathizers, Putin stooges, or outright agents of the Kremlin. To put it mildly, this is not a new tactic in U.S. political discourse, and it’s worth placing it in historical context. That’s particularly true given how many people have now been targeted with this attack.
Strongly insinuating that the GOP nominee, Donald Trump, has nefarious, possibly treasonous allegiances to Moscow has migrated from Clinton-loyal pundits into the principal theme of the Clinton campaign itself. “The depth of Trump’s relationship with the Kremlin is revealing itself by the day,” her website announced yesterday, and vital “questions” must be answered “about Trump’s cozy relationship with Russia.” The Clinton campaign this weekend released a 1-minute video that, over and over, insinuates Trump’s disloyalty in the form of “questions” – complete with menacing pictures of Red Square. Democrats cheered wildly, and really have not stopped cheering, ever since the ex-Acting CIA Director (who, undisclosed by the NYT, now works for a Clinton operative) went to The New York Times to claim “that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”
But this smear tactic extends far beyond Trump. It is now used to vilify anyone perceived to be an impediment to Clinton’s victory. When WikiLeaks published thousands of DNC emails shortly before the Democratic Convention, which ultimately forced the resignation of four top officials, it was instantly asserted that it was The Russians who gave them those emails (even though The Washington Post cited an intelligence official as saying that “the intelligence community . . . has not reached a conclusion about who passed the emails to WikiLeaks” and “We have not drawn any evidentiary connection to any Russian intelligence service and WikiLeaks — none”). Democrats not only treated this evidence-free conspiracy theory as Truth, but – following the Clinton campaign – proceeded to smear WikiLeaks as a Kremlin operation:
Tomorrow on #AMJoy we'll explore the unprecedented affinity between an American presidential candidate – Trump – Russia and Wilileaks.
— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) July 24, 2016
After converting Trump and WikiLeaks into arms of the Kremlin, Democrats turned their smear campaign to media outlets and journalists who simply reported on the contents of the leaked DNC emails: beginning with The Intercept, the first to report on it. That The Intercept and its journalists and editors proved themselves to be witting or unwitting Kremlin weapons and guilty of being Russia apologists and sympathizers was pronounced by MSNBC’s most enthusiastic neo-McCarthyite host, a Clinton-revering Boston Globe columnist, the Communications Director of California Democratic Congressman John Garamendi (including the outright lie below), and one of the growing legion of Hillary’s neocon supporters.
When Bernie Sanders looked earlier this year to be the one who was standing in Clinton’s way, slimy suggestions began emerging of his dark connections to Russia. In January, Clinton’s Senate ally Claire McCaskill went to The New York Times to warn of ads “with a hammer and sickle” if Democrats nominate Sanders (smearing opponents by pretending to be concerned about how they’ll be attacked by the GOP is a Clinton speciality: it’s how her 2008 campaign justified inflaming the Obama-is-a-Muslim falsehood by being the first to circulate the now-infamous picture of Obama in Muslim garb while in Indonesia).
McCaskill WIELDS A KNIFE: GOP is nice to Bernie because "they can’t wait to run an ad with a hammer and sickle"https://t.co/0TAOcmTnyX
— Jonathan Martin (@jmartNYT) January 20, 2016
Meanwhile, Clinton operative David Brock said “Sanders is a socialist” and “has got a 30 year history of affiliation with a lot of whackadoodle ideas and parties,” and pro-Clinton pundits linked Sanders to Communists through his 1980s praise of Castro and the Sandinistas. All of that culminated in Republicans like Lindsey Graham and National Review citing Sanders’ honeymoon in the Soviet Union as proof of his suspicious loyalties:
.@LindseyGrahamSC on socialist @BernieSanders https://t.co/zICUyabfyQ https://t.co/lktZwBTuoN #CNBCGOPDebate #GOPDebate
— The Weekly Standard (@weeklystandard) October 29, 2015
Bloomberg‘s Leonid Bershidsky noted that “Sanders’s long-ago ‘honeymoon’ in the Soviet Union is held up by his opponents as evidence of dubious judgment, and even Communist sympathies or anti-American tendencies.” During a CNN debate, Anderson Cooper began a question to him this way: “You honeymooned in the Soviet Union.”
On Saturday, it was Jill Stein’s turn in the Kremlin seat. As the Green Party candidate rises in the polls, it was only a matter of time before Democrats turned their Russia-smearing eyes toward her. One of the most widely-shared tweets of the weekend was this one from Andrew Weiss of the Carnegie Endowment: a total fabrication that was nonetheless heralded by dozens of Clinton-support journalists because it did the job of smearing a Hillary dissenter as a Russian tool:
Creepy @DrJillStein video from Moscow gushing over Russian support for human rights, dinner w Putin, RT anniv party https://t.co/GQ4zihWC6A
— Andrew S. Weiss (@andrewsweiss) August 6, 2016
This tweet is, to state it plainly, a lie. Stein simply did not “gush over Russian support for human rights.” To the contrary, in this very video, she criticized Russia for diverting scarce resources into military spending while its people suffered, and merely praised her fellow participants from around the world who attended an RT-sponsored conference. But no matter: Democratic operatives and journalists widely hailed it as proof that she, too, is some sort of Russia dupe or worse.
One Clinton-supporting blog – while also lying by claiming that “she only criticized the US” – attacked Stein for criticizing the U.S. while standing on dirty foreign soil (“with Red Square as her backdrop”), a long-standing trope used by the Far Right to attack liberals and Democrats for being unpatriotic by virtue of criticizing the U.S. while outside its borders. Commenting on that post, numerous Clinton supporters predictably denounced Stein as a traitor, saying “I don’t think it goes too far to suggest these are acts of sedition and possibly treason,” while the blogger himself dismissed objections over his “red-baiting” by saying “Putin is former KGB!” Journalists from major media outlets used all this to announce that Putin now has not one but (at least) two presidential candidates he controls:
So just like that, literally overnight, Clinton-supporting journalists and Democratic operatives converted Jill Stein into an agent of the Kremlin – all because she went to Russia and attended an event where Putin spoke.
So that’s the Democratic Party’s approach to the 2016 election. Those who question, criticize or are perceived to impede Hillary Clinton’s smooth, entitled path to the White House are vilified as stooges, sympathizers and/or agents of Russia: Trump, WikiLeaks, Sanders, The Intercept, Jill Stein. Other than loyal Clinton supporters, is there anyone left who is not covertly controlled by or in service to The Ruskies?
There are so many levels of irony to the Democrats’ reliance on this ugly tactic. To begin with, one presidential candidate who actually has significant, questionable ties to Russia is named . . . Hillary Clinton.
As The New York Times detailed in 2015, Hillary and her husband Bill were at the center of a deal that “gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.” Those responsible for engineering that deal gave millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, which “were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.” Hillary herself approved the deal as Secretary of State, while Bill personally “received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”
Those are ties far more substantial than either Sanders or Stein have ever been shown to have to Russia. It’s hardly a surprise, then, that The Washington Post recently reported that at least some Moscow factions may prefer Clinton to Trump.
Then there’s the policy basis for insinuating that people like Stein and Trump have misplaced allegiances to Russia rather than the United States of America. Both have been vilified for advocating ways to reduce US/Russian tensions. Trump in particular has been attacked by Democrats for his opposition to arming Ukraine in order to deter Russian aggression, his desire to cooperate with Putin in Syria, and his questioning of the ongoing financial and security value of NATO. All this, we’re told, would benefit Putin, making anyone who advocates it in “alignment” with the Russians deliberately or otherwise.
But there’s another politicians who advocates many of these exact same policies. His name is . . . Barack Obama. Last year, even as bipartisan demands mounted for him to arm anti-Russian elements in Ukraine, Obama adamantly refused, “fearing that it would only escalate the bloodshed.” One of Obama’s key arguments, as he expressed to The Atlantic earlier this year: “Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.”
Obama’s views on Syria are similar: he wants to work in cooperation with, not in opposition to, Russia, and has proposed a partnership to achieve that. And, of course, Obama famously mocked Mitt Romney in their 2012 debate when the GOP nominee pronounced Russia as the “biggest geopolitical threat” facing the U.S.; said the President: “the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.”
In sum, Obama has continually downplayed the threat posed by Russia, and has repeatedly advocated and implemented policies that are in accord with Russia’s interests, with the goal of avoiding conflict with them rather than seeking it.
Because of all this, Obama has repeatedly been attacked by the militaristic Right for being “soft on Russia” and an “enabler of Putin.” For Democrats to now adopt this warped template, and try to equate efforts to reduce tensions with Russia with some sort of disloyalty, is nothing short of mad. As my colleague Lee Fang pointed out, Obama’s refusal to capitulate to anti-Russia hysteria and seek conflict with Moscow – something Democrats are now depicting as servitude to Putin – is one of his most important accomplishments:
After forging peace with Iran, Obama's second & far less recognized foreign policy accomplishment was refusing to turn Ukraine into Syria
— Lee Fang (@lhfang) August 7, 2016
Obama steadfastly refused to provide lethal aid to Ukraine, knowing it would lead to endless escalation and bloodshed.
— Lee Fang (@lhfang) August 7, 2016
If all this Russia fear mongering leads to a proxy war during the Clinton presidency, plz send the pundits to fight on the front lines.
— Lee Fang (@lhfang) August 7, 2016
This Democratic campaign theme not only stigmatizes any efforts to reduce tensions with Russia as wrong-headed – just observe how Stein’s pro-peace message was converted into subversive Kremlin propaganda – but explicitly equates such efforts with evidence of disloyalty and love for Putin. Given Obama’s own record, that tactic is as self-destructive as it is stupid, manipulative and dangerous.
But by far the greatest irony in all of this is that Democrats have now explicitly adopted the exact smears that were used by the Far Right for decades to demonize liberals and the left as disloyal Kremlin stooges. For the entire second half of the 20th century, any Americans who opposed U.S. proxy wars with Russia, or advocated arms control deals with them, or generally desired less conflict, were branded as Useful Idiots of the Kremlin, loyal to Moscow, controlled by Russian leaders. Democrats have taken this script – one of the most shameful and destructive in American history – and have made it the centerpiece of their 2016 presidential campaign.
The examples are too numerous to cite, but let’s start with the most ironic one. When Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992 against the Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush, one of the primary attacks on him was that he harbored sympathy for Russia or even disloyalty to the U.S. as evidenced by, among other things, his anti-war activism regarding Vietnam and his “unexplained” trip to Moscow as a college student. An October 9, 1992 Guardian article referred to how “the strange case of Mr Clinton’s trip to Moscow” to explain that “the Republicans are scratching away at those doubts about Mr Clinton ‘s character.” The Christian Science Monitor on October 15 of that year described “the Bush camp’s new effort to turn Bill Clinton’s bit part in the anti-war movement that swept the country 25 years ago, plus a student trip to Moscow, into something akin to treason.”
President Bush himself invoked these smears to bolster dark insinuations about Clinton’s loyalty to the Kremlin:
Mr Clinton should “level with the American people on the draft, on whether he went to Moscow, how many demonstrations he led against his own country from foreign soil,” Mr Bush declared on the Larry King television show.
“I don’t have the facts, but to go to Moscow one year after Russia crushed Czechoslovakia, and not remember who you saw – I think the answer is, level with the American people,” Mr Bush repeated.
The prospect of disloyalty became a systematic theme against Bill. As the Los Angeles Times reported on October 9, 1992, “some Republican defenders of Bush suggested that the Clinton trip was, indeed, unusual and deserved close scrutiny. Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), who was secretary of the Navy at the time of the trip, said Thursday: ‘As far as I know, travel to Moscow in those days was primarily official business.'” That Clinton harbored KGB and Kremlin connections became a staple of far-right attacks on him for years.
That Ted Kennedy harbored secret Russian connections and loyalties was also a favorite right-wing smear for decades. In 2006, a new book led the right-wing press to claim that Kennedy had been secretly collaborating with Kremlin leaders to undermine U.S. policy on Russia. They also accused the Massachusetts Democrat of inducing the Russians to interfere in the 1984 election in order to help Democrats defeat Ronald Reagan.
Claims that the Russians were trying to interfere in U.S. elections to help the Democratic candidate beat the Republican was a constant theme of the Far Right for as long as one can remember:
Even Ronald Reagan – who declared the Soviets to be an “Evil Empire” – was not immune from this smear. When Reagan sought to finalize an arms control treaty with the Russians in the 1980s, Howard Phillips, head of the Conservative Caucus, denounced him as Russia’s “Useful Idiot” – now a favorite Democratic Party slur – while another key right-wing activist, Richard Viguerie, declared: “He has quit the fight and left the field of battle.”
This slur – “Useful Idiot” – is now a favorite Democratic insult. If you’re a Hillary critic, or someone who advocates a reduction of tension with Russia, you will literally be called it every day. What’s so amazing about that is that this was the favorite right-wing insult for years, aimed at liberals, Democrats, the left – anyone who opposed U.S. militarism or advocated peace treaties. As The New York Times‘ William Safire wrote in a 1987 column about “useful idiots,” the term “is being used by anti-Communists against the ideological grandchildren of those liberals, or against anybody insufficiently anti-Communist in the view of the phrase’s user.” Indeed:
National Review has published far too many articles to count accusing Democrats of being the Kremlin’s “Useful Idiots,” while right-wing columnist Mona Charen wrote a 2004 book with that title, arguing: “Meet the ‘Useful Idiots’ Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson, Madeleine Albright, Katie Couric, Jane Fonda, Martin Sheen, and all the other liberals who were — and are — always willing to blame America first and defend its enemies as simply ‘misunderstood.'”
A 2010 book by right-wing historian Paul Kengor was called “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.” It argues that “from the Bolshevik Revolution through the Cold War and right up to the present, many progressives have unwittingly aided some of America’s most dangerous opponents.” Specifically:
And then, of course, there’s the great pioneer of all of this himself: Senator Joseph McCarthy, who rose to fame, and then infamy, by running around accusing all sorts of domestic adversaries of being secretly loyal to, if not controlled by, their masters in Moscow. My favorite image of the Wisconsin Senator is from this YouTube clip, where he voices an accusation that one literally sees from Democrats on a daily basis:
This – at times verbatim – is the ugly, disgraceful, destructive far-right-wing script which Democrats have now fully and enthusiastically adopted in 2016 to smear their adversaries and critics. Notwithstanding the fall of Communism, it works because of the decades of training Americans have received to regard Russians as Evil Enemies, the fact that Putin himself was a former KGB official, that Americans always want and need a Super-Villain Enemy, and the massive benefits received by all sorts of influential factions from maintaining US/Russian tensions as high as possible.
But whatever else is true, there is no doubt that the methods, rhetoric, and tactics Democrats are now using are identical to the ones used by America’s Right for decades to smear liberals and the left. As The Los Angeles Times recently put it, “for decades, Republicans were the fiercest of Cold Warriors . . . winning elections by painting Democrats as the party of the frail and feckless. . . But in one of the most startling turnabouts in a campaign filled with role reversals, it is now the Democrats brandishing fear of Moscow as a club.” Some of them seem quite proud of this role reversal, notwithstanding the fact that they are mimicking and echoing many of the most shameful people and tactics of the 20th century.
If Jill Stein is a Communist because she attended a speech by Putin, what does it make Hillary when she is *paid* to give speeches to Wall Street?
Many thanks to the Author. There is still hope for open and brave journalism in the nation.
What the Democratic leader ships knows, is that, the average person in the United States does not read. It is my hope that through posting this on social media, they will be encouraged to read this! All I have to say is thanks!
Do you seriously believe this Glenn:
Because of all this, Obama has repeatedly been attacked by the militaristic Right for being “soft on Russia” and an “enabler of Putin.” For Democrats to now adopt this warped template, and try to equate efforts to reduce tensions with Russia with some sort of disloyalty, is nothing short of mad. As my colleague Lee Fang pointed out, Obama’s refusal to capitulate to anti-Russia hysteria and seek conflict with Moscow – something Democrats are now depicting as servitude to Putin – is one of his most important accomplishments:
The Ukraine coup and massacre of civilians trying to protest and vote was the biggest real time event that showed how we the USA planned , implemented and used the most disgusting people to take over a country for our benefit . Obama was for it and supported it just like the Republicans with our money and military training and our military equipment . look at the bills congress passed.
Russia did an excellent job of exposing all of this in real time ( mostly in the comment sections of the guardian)
I remember what you wrote when this going on. You were not interested in Ukraine and probably would not write about it. I could not believe you were not interested. I read you for years because you exposed/explained this stuff years later after an event. It was real time you could have exposed the lies we were telling. and now you state Obama was not for this. WTF
Ukraine exposed how we the US do coups and then lie about it and and use double speak and call unarmed civilians rebels/terrorist and the Nazis shooting at them good guys.
You believe that Obama was not for this. One of the reason Ukraine has cooled down for now is the USA lost the propaganda war. But don’t worry we will fire it up again when we need to, we have our Nazis in government which was the goal.
Glenn–I appreciate all of the source material (in the form of screen captures) that you obtained to support your position.
The fact that the Democrats under Hillary so effortlessly can mimic far-right tactics may signal just how far-right Ill-ary and her followers have morphed.
Thanks for raising awareness of this seeming;-perverse and archaic Republican tactic. But politicians will use any means to get what they want. Nothing new there. As is said, slimy politicians will always be with ye!
I fail to see how people such as yourself can lark on about America’s military aggression throughout the world whilst skimming over Russia’s in Crimea etc. Yes, tensions must be decreased, but one cannot pretend that Russia aren’t a major problem. This seems to be another factor of the ‘Regressive-Left’ sort of thinking, where one ignores problems that the Kremlin hold because they are against the US on such a huge level.
Need we forget such publications/media outlets as RT (who are, of course, state owned). On any given day, one may visit the website and see – on the whole – a great deal of anti-US propaganda and the such spewed out by the publication, whilst they ignore most issues and current events revolving around Russia. It’s quite clear what Russia is trying to do by doing this – to undermine the US and other NATO-related countries.
Again, I do agree that tensions must be stabilised. But pretending that Russia isn’t a threat is just ridiculous.
Bertolt Bresht , German novelist/play writer , in one of his books called ” round headed and angled sharp headed” divided the world in to two type of people , those with head in round shape and those with sharp at the end. This societies were closed minded and corresponded based. Bresht philosophy and attempt was to show when free circulation of information , when truth telling is marked as Either You are not one us or you look like us but you don’t correspond with us the way we approve of it , or simply because you have criticized us , you look like us but you are agent of the other.
Clintononians have always accused the other side of being Russian agents.
If being in Russia or listening to Putin speech makes one agent how about kissing face and shaking hands?.
Ebn khaldoon , historian from Tunisia said centuries ago this” if what being told is against the understanding of the nature and doesn’t conform you must reject it. He then writes about this story that another historian wrote : there was a square in Rome with a sculpture of a bird at the center of it . once a year birds brought olives to this stone bird and people would use the gift to supply olive oil for their use year round. Any one believed it ? Yes some did and the one with wisdom and rational laughed at it. Based on all the facts it was both scientifically and rationally impossible. We just laughed at these demogoggers who want us to take any insult to our intelligence.
Time to call a stooge a stooge. When it comes to Trump, Manafort, & Page it’s not a smear if it’s true.
Excellent! Thank you! It’s getting harder and harder to find any sane journalism. I am so thankful for The Intercept, for Patrick Lawrence’s nearly lone voice on Salon and for TomDispatch. Almost everyone else it seems has surrendered to hysterical fear mongering.
Don’t forget east-west accord and consortioum news. Also common dreams.
So far I have not heard/seen Gary Johnson described as a Tool of the Kremlin, but maybe it’s out there without my knowledge. He has been peeling away a chunk of the Bernie vote that the Clinton Cabal claims as their property. But new on the scene is another Independent candidate, Evan McMullin, from the neocon wing of the #NeverTrump crowd. Since he’s already missed over half of the state filing deadlines, he will only be able to secure ballot access in a few states. He puts up enough fluff to appeal to social conservatives, yet his main talking points follow the Clinton campaign’s “Trump is a Putin Puppet ” theme. The NYT describes his strategy as just blocking Trump in a few states (but left unstated — to pave the path for Killery).
I find this dishonest and corrupt from the get go. If he and the neocons want Hillary to win, then they should campaign their @$$e$ off for her directly and not hide behind some faux “alternative” that has little ballot access — a complication that is ironically of the major parties’ own making.
Gary Johnson was on NPR’s On Point yesterday and handled himself reasonably well as all the host and the callers wanted to ask about was “what about Trump???” He elegantly lost his temper, and although he could have made a tighter argument (attention Jill Stein: develop tight comebacks to the onslaught of bullshit from normal media hacks), Johnson at least defended the increasingly attacked yet absolutely correct idea that voters should vote for candidates they like.
Back during the coup in Ukraine, American geopolitical analysts were describing Russia’s response as being defensive against US/EU/NATO aggression. There was no question that pushing NATO up along Russia’s borders and trying to turn Russia’s only defensive buffer zones — along a historical invasion route — into hostile territory was Western aggression — not Russian. Unquestionably the USA would never tolerate such a scenario should the tables be turned. In fact we already know what the USA would do if Russia were to, say, try to install missiles in Cuba….
That Hillary has been poking sticks at the bear for years — even stating that she wanted to shoot down Russian planes in Syria — planes that were invited to be there by a sovereign nation — indicates to me that she in no way intends to suffer Bubba’s lamented fate — of not being considered a great president since he didn’t preside over a great war. I doubt that Hillary’s pathological narcissism will ever allow peace to get in the way of attaining such a legacy.
Carol, I also think back to October 1962 (the Cuban Missile Crisis) when I think about NATO expansion right up to Russia’s borders. Too often we see this duplicity happening where we put Nazi’s or Africans on trial before the Hague but Bush and Blair get off scott-free. I mean it is O.K. for us to break international law or “torture some folks” but how dare anyone else do it (this applies to the western world in general). The hypocrisy and the immorality of it all is just unbelievable.
As for poking the bear, I think if this continues that something big is going to happen. I abhor Trump but I am most scared of Hillary Clinton becoming the President and then trying to set-up a no fly zone in Syria OR start talking about invading Iran OR North Korea OR some other nation. I also fear for the soft-power moves such as the coup that she seemingly supported in Honduras in 2009. Trump scares me but Hillary Clinton terrifies me!
Putin and his oligarchs have loaned and invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Trump projects. Pull the plug, even at a loss and Trump is ruined. Add to that the likelihood that Putin has also hacked Trump’s accounts and blackmail of POTUS is not a theoretical possibility. It’s a sad fact that is already paying dividends for Putin.
Thank you for this piece. I truly needed it today! One would think the Russian’s have their military positioned all across the Mexican and Canadian borders. May be the American public still thinks they are a communist country???
People trying to keep the US out of World War II were Nazis and anti-Semites, too. Any tar that’ll come off the brush …
Extraordinarily outstanding article and history!!! Thank you for this perspective and insight!
This is probably one of the finest pieces of journalism I have seen from you. I’ve said it many a time before, but you’re the closest thing we have to a modern-day Edward R. Murrow. Thanks.
Edward R. Murrow may have been one of the most honorable main stream media news casters we’ve had, but Glenn is much more powerful as an outright dissident against our over-powerful leaders’ actions. He even left his homeland for Brazil when our Defense of Marriage Act barred recognition of his same-sex marriage.
It is excellent to read of neoliberalcon Hillary’s neo-McCarthyist fear tactics in such a complete format. Just one of her minions’ names was not included this otherwise clear exposition. PATRICK TUCKER was the author at The Global Business Brief’s ‘Defense One’ blog. I like to see the names of these untrustworthy wordsmiths so I can fairly judge their future libels. The first names I was shocked to list were RACHEL MADDOW, AMANDA MARCOTTE, and PAUL KRUGMAN. I no longer find myself shocked, just disgusted that supposed small-d democrats would warp their words for neoliberalcon partisanship. Do they think they are saving the world? Or, is it all for their paychecks and power, with fear of the Clintons keeping them in line?
Thanks Glenn!
Rachel Maddow has long since slithered into the Clintonite abyss of moral vacuity and rapid partisanship. She so fits the MSNBC profile of a “useful idiot” regardless of any “intellectual” pretensions (of which she had a few). Amanda Marcotte is the most pitiful of the three, couching high school level tropes in middle brow prose that becomes difficult to read after only a few sentences. Her most recent “columns” are bedlams of noise and blubbering.
Krugman? In the end, everyone has their price, and the Clinton machine has found his. What did they promise you, Paul? Secretary of the Treasury? The greater fool you, then, because the Clintons are notorious for forgetting favors once they get whatever they want (usually money). Feel the big kick to the curb coming? Well, just bend over and take it gracefully. You were once a columnist of some heft and respectability, but you’ll soon be just another piece of wreckage left in Hilly’s wake. Faux tear…
@GilG
Your distinction is irrelevant because it doesn’t address what Glenn wrote or the tweet he wrote it of. Andrew Weiss tweeted about a “video from Moscow.” Not Stein’s statements in front of Red Square. The whole video is from Moscow, including the text added reporting on her address to the RT panel.
Thus, you were inaccurate when you claimed: “First off [Stein] said nothing about Russian military spending in the video portion in Red Square.” The video from Moscow is more than her remarks in Red Square, not some “portion” in front of RS.
Oh, that’s your confusion. You think progressives like Stein advocate for less obscene amounts of military spending in order to, say, put the funds toward summer homes in the Hamptons (and the Russian equivalent), pleasure cruises & etc for all U.S. federal elected officials and those in the Kremlin. Allow me to be the first to inform you we think the money could go to a social safety net, education and other purposes that diminish — wait for it !– suffering.
Huh? “the video from Moscow is more than her remarks in Red Square, not some “portion” in front of RS.”
I didn’t say otherwise did I?
“Oh, that’s your confusion” No it’s yours and Glenn’s. Glenn put words in Ms. Stein’s mouth that she never uttered. You can speculate all you want about what she thinks but in no way did she refer to Russians suffering as Glenn claimed.
He didn’t “claim” any such thing. He didn’t directly quote her, which is why there are no quotation marks around his sentence which includes the word “suffering.” Her objection to obscene levels of military spending is — and this is well understood, including I suspect by you — that people in the U.S. and Russia suffer because of that outrageous level of military spending.
Your point was predicated on that being so, on your being very confused (and wrong) on that point.
Look, you are deeply interested in finding fault — any fault — with the writers here, and with certain commenters. This all began when you arrived upset that this site is highly critical of Israel and writes approvingly of BDS. In your desperation and frustration you are intellectually embarrassing yourself, as you have in your criticism of Greenwlad’s point about Andrew Weiss vis-a-vis the Stein video.
People may indeed suffer in Russia but the criticism of Stein is that she didn’t say they were? Glenn attempted to defend her by say she implied they were suffering. She didn’t, Glenn made it up. Whether Russians are actually suffering isn’t the point. I don’t see how you can miss that.
How was my point “predicated” on any such thing?
I’m interested in finding fault! Your big complaint about my post is that I said the video had two parts. too funny.
Listen Mona if anyone should be embarrassed it’s you. You spend your entire waking hours defending a man who doesn’t even acknowledge you because he is clearly embarrassed by you.
If you as the self appointed moderator of this site don’t want dissenting opinions just say so. Considering the vast majority of the posters here are outright racists and conspiracy theorists, I would think you would welcome an opinion based on logically made points. Then again maybe that is what you find so threatening.
Your dishonesty is breathtaking: That is not what you said. You criticized Glenn as if he was making a claim about something in the video that was not there — as if it had been appended and only Stein’s comments in front of Red Square were in the video. This was not true.
Amusingly, you are “making up” that Glenn made anything up. For reasons already stated what you claim is false.
I am no such thing. Rather, as with a number of commenters, I request moderation activity when I believe it is warranted. Because Glenn and I are in near complete agreement regarding proper moderation standards he often — but not invariably — agrees. Further, I’m not alone in reporting certain accounts for moderation. (Some fragile snowflakes have asked to have me modded as well because I am “mean,” e.g., I call racists racists.)
Your “opposing viewpoint” is more than welcome. Viewpoint-based moderation doesn’t happen here, save for the most extreme, Stormfront-level antisemitism/racism or Islamophobia. Typically, the only people who get banned engage in crapflooding, i.e., posting vast quantities of repetitive, inane, disruptive garbage. Even one or two of Glenn’s supporters have gotten the boot for that.
However, you can expect many here, including me, to continue to call out dishonesty and inanity. You’ve provided some of that for us to criticize. If you feel that constitutes moderation-level activity, well, I guess you are just unreasonable in yet another area.
As for your notions about my relationship with Glenn, I’ll get worried when I hear them from him. We are in frequent private contact — as of a few days ago I have no reason to be concerned.
“You criticized Glenn as if he was making a claim about something in the video that was not there ”
That is exactly what he did. He said Jill Stein said people in Russia were suffering. If you believe Stein said anything that inferred that make your case. So far all you have been able to provide as evidence is that she said money Russia spends on the military could be better spent else ware. That in no way makes you case in support of Glenn.
I haven’t said one thing that isn’t true I never said anything about the video being appended I said it had two parts which is true.
Face it if anyone is being dishonest it is you and Glenn.
Gawd, you are a duplicitous hack. You stated: “and the add on text.” As if it were some stuff that was “added” after her commentary in Moscow. It was not.
Moreover, Glenn characterizes Jill Stein’s position without using quotation marks — thus clearly not saying she literally stated what he’s describing — and you have a fit accusing him of lying about what’s in the video because she didn’t actually articulate the word “suffering.”
And now you tap dance some more and claim you only stated about the other issue of where she said what vis-a-vis the video: ” I said it had two parts.” Um, no. Readers can see for themselves about all of this. You never said “two parts.” You pretended that all she said in Moscow were the remarks in front of Red Square, when in fact she reported also on her remarks there made to the RT panel.
Be happy this site not only does not ban for viewpoint; it also does’t prohibit dishonest hackery. So, you can continue to contrive inane/wrong/dishonest criticisms of Greenwald, other writers here — and commenters with whom you disagree. You’ll be entirely allowed to do that. I’m bookmarking this whole thing to show people how you operate when next you appear.
How is saying the text was added to the video in front of the RT a lie. Clearly this had to be done in two steps. I wasn’t saying anything untrue and you are still ignoring the fact that Glenn claimed Stein said the Russian people were suffering and yet she said nothing that could even be interpreted that way.
I really don’t care what you bookmark, you MO is always to discredit the poster when you can’t refute the substance of their argument.
I stand by my comments.
I have not made any false accusations, you on the other hand have been caught multiple times doing just that and then when you couldn’t worm your way out of it blamed on your drug use, maybe we should bookmark that.
You have, for all to see.
That is a lie. On one specific day last May I had claimed you omitted a salient point in a quote, when in point of fact you totally did not. It was right there in your comment. When I went back and read it –and saw it — I completely capitulated on that point.
Moreover, on Twitter, and here in comments before my encounter with you, I was whining about being in awful pain from an infected tooth. I was eventually put on hard narcotics, and when I realized you had absolutely written what I had said you had not, I apologized, explained that I was high as a kite. Upon realizing that hydrocodon was gonna make me lotsa wrong, I took a sabbatical.
I *always admit it when I’m wrong, but also take care that I am not wrong very often. I do this by: 1. Not expressing strong opinions on matters about which I am insufficiently knowledgeable, and 2. Checking my facts before posting if I have any doubt. Because of that — and because I *always admit it when I’m wrong — I have a reputation among reasonable people for intellectual honesty.
You do not admit it when you are wrong.
Let’s keep this simple what false accusation did I make?
Answered. You and all interested can read this sub-thread and the one below to which I linked.
face it you can’t provide it. Like I said your MO is always to discredit the poster when you can’t refute the argument. In the sub thread your big complaint is that I said text was added on to the live part in Red Square , which it clearly was and actually is inconsequential in any case. In the thread below they will also see you trying to claim that Jill Stein said anything that could be interpreted as Russian suffering as Glenn claimed which she didn’t and was the whole point. Face it Mona Glenn made it up to try and prove his point. It’s there for all to see.
I’m quite content that reasonable people reading this sub-thread, and the one below, will see that your accusations against Glenn as well as myself are baseless, and that you are not to be trusted.
Me, on Twitter, just a day or two before I made what is a most uncharacteristic mistake.
You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time- but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Only one question: Can Hilary Clinton lie her way through the next 95 days without being totally caught out? The DNC lies about Stein & Trump will certainly help deflect attention away from the evil queen, but it’s a long time. Better get the Democrat insiders working on rigging the voting machines. I think they’re going to need them.
I think I saw today that Wikileaks, Julian Assange, is saying that the next round of leaks will even be more damning towards Hillary Clinton, I think there was a suggestion that there would be enough information to indict her. We will have to see…
Great piece. IMHO these tacticts have one main purpose: Distraction. I have heard people bash Assange recently for “meddeling with our politics” (parroting Bill Shill Maher), while completely ignoring the content, sources and nature of those emails as originating by a supposed neutral, albiet corrupt body. Once you start talking content, collusion with Media, corruption, etc. they realize they are being misled. Truth is hard to refute.
Mr. Greenwald… I do find all of the Russia bashing in the media quite amazing and appalling. As I have read in an article of yours, you also point out that there was a coup in Ukraine – which I wholeheartedly believe the US instigated and clearly supported. I find that if I put nationalism aside and simply think of the foreign policy of Russia and the United States – then I truly believe that the United States (along with the western world, in general) that are doing much worse things. Currently, as I believe Jeremy Scahill once pointed out, the United States is bombing in 7 countries, covert operations in 75 countries, something around 1,000 military bases worldwide (which surround Russia/China/Iran etc.), have “tortured some folks”, routinely international law invading Iraq/Syria etc. (Article 2(4) of the UN Charter), are judge/jury/executioner with kill lists along with drone strikes weekly (I believe), and have people detained in Guantanamo Bay along with Abu Ghraib where many have been charged with nothing. Oh, and let us not forget the US hand in the creation of the very terrorists that the world is dealing with today by arming, training, and funding the Mujahideen in 1979, six months before the Afghan/Soviet War began, with $500 Million where they would go onto become Al Qaeda and the Taliban (ISIS being an off-shoot of Al Qaeda from within Iraq, I believe, after Hussein was overthrown).
Then we have Russia which annexed Crimea, which actually was Russia 61 years ago and has had a Russian military base for something like 300 years, where the Crimeans actually did want to rejoin Russia (this is supported by Pew Research Center, Gallup, and GFK polls). As for Eastern Ukraine, I am not sure exactly what they are doing there as there are conflicting reports from both sides but Moscow never overran Kiev, which it clearly could have done (if it was so intent on rebuilding the Soviet Empire). Then we have Russia in Syria, where they have a military base, and were asked by the Syrian Government itself for aid.
So I wonder to myself, with all that we the west (I am Canadian) are doing in the world, why should I hate Putin or Russia? I also don’t hate the Iranians, North Koreans, or anyone else that my government, and media, clearly want me to hate. Personally, I would like to see some accountability on our end such as Blair going before the Hague after the Chilcot Report. Of course, though, as George Galloway puts it, “Tony Blair will never go before the ICC because he is not black or African enough”.
…routinely break international law
and ,by the way,Glenn, absolutely in awe of your energy and pursuit of true journalism.Much gratitude!
In fact,many Americans may have missed the fact that the USSR no longer exists, and that Russia is no longer a communist country. Why waste all those years of propaganda when a gullible, permanently threatened, undereducated
American society is still ripe for exploitation. Just as the earth’s magnetic poles rotate, so do the positions of the major political parties. The democrats are now the new republicans
Well,that describes the Trump movement, as the former American mushrooms of both parties have decided enough is enough.and tells all the highly educated but principle free intelligentsia,to f*ck off.
Well, no. Trump and many of his followers are anti-intellectual as opposed to anti-elitist. So they tend to swallow bullshit.
Moreover, Glenn Greenwald gets it right when he describes trump as follows:
And to note for certain progressives who argue that Trump isn’t an “isolationist,” first, that is not coterminous with “pacifist,” and second, many of his supporters act as if he is. He’s sent out enough double-speak to allow them to think it.
Oh,yeah,a pacifist is going to be elected POTUS,in a time of world terror.
And Father Coughlin was a prophet,as he fingered our enemy many years ago,Zionism and its inherent racist agenda,of divide and conquer,of whom you are a willing participant.
Our only affection for Trump is that he is a proud American patriot who will put America First instead of Israel.
Trump has been in the public eye for decades;Could you list all his racist actions and statements? How about the obvious racist HRC,and her assault on poor black Americans,Libyans,Iraqis and Syrians,Hondurans,etc.etc.etc?
You diminish yourself with your claptrap.
Well there we have it folks: One of the most notorious antisemites at this site — and an avid Trump supporter — on the “prophet,” Charles Coughlin.
Mona obviously doesn’t believe that the Zionists control our government,in the most transparent and shameless absconding of a foreign government of another in modern history,and that they have US all over the world murdering their self made enemies.
Incredible the absolute phony ignorance.
As I’ve mentioned before,you never see Mona defending Russia,never defending the former Libyan leader mercilessly murdered by our thugs,or the the peoples of Syria or Iraq or Iran,as her feminazi leanings preclude human empathy for those who aren’t infected with her BS.
As far as Father Coughlin,he’s way before my time,but even then he knew what was happening to America,the divide and conquer of dual citizen traitors,and Mona is a prime example.
What was his crime Mona,free speech?How many did he kill Mona?Oh,yeah,he abused altar boys right?
When the monas’ get in charge(hell bitch)are we in for deep shite.Castration and citizenchips.
Please — oh, please! — don’t ever stop with such material. It’s superb for demonstration purposes regarding the sorts of individuals who are the most ardent Trump supporters and are otherwise racist/antisemitic.
Nazis never did go in for humor.
Have a nice day.:)
It seems that Elite America has a message for the rest of us: If you dupes and idiots stay out of our way, we can rule the world.
All of this Pu-steria reminds me of a cartoon published after the dissolution of the USSR. There were no (noticeable) wars going on, no terrorist attacks. Two mournful Republican senators are pictured standing on the Capital steps. Says one, “Damn, I miss the Commies!”
They’re back!!
When a candidate openly praises a dictator such as Putin, calls for his help in abrogating 4th Amendment Rights and even mimics that dictator in calling for the assassination of a political opponent or as Gary Kasparov just tweeted: Putin’s followers often “joke” about opposition leaders being killed. Posters with crosshairs, etc. Then they are murdered and it’s no joke,” then any article that paints the Clinton’s as red baiters by the mere fact they point this out is utterly delusional as are the writers followers. -Your friend, Jimmy.
When a candidate openly praises a dictator…
Clinton’s mentor, Henry ‘new world order’ Kissinger was in the news today …
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/09/henry-kissinger-mass-killings-argentina-declassified-files
*evidently, the ‘terrorism’ thing has been going a lot longer than I thought!
I am always kind of dumbfounded when people call Putin a dictator because if he is a dictator then he surely is a popular one with Gallup polls saying that Putin enjoys somewhere around 82% support in Russia. That’s quite the dictator. I remember how many US media corporations called Hugo Chavez a dictator as well, even though he was democratically elected something like 8 times, with even the Carter Association saying the Venezuela’s electoral system was one of the best in the world.
Surely Russia has problems, no doubt, but when we point fingers at Russia for corruption meanwhile not one single banker has gone to jail for nearly taking down the entire world’s economy in 2007/2008 – I find it deeply hypocritical. Also, from what I have gleaned from our media here in Canada much of the reports about Putin killing this person or that person have been speculation by using words like “might” or “maybe” connected to Putin etc.
Other than Bernie Madoff(with the money),the Wall Street fall guy.
Also, Jimmy, if we are to speak about “dictators” then surely you realize that the United States itself has trained 11 Latin American Dictators at the School of the America’s (now WHINSEC) located in Fort Benning, Georgia. This was revealed in a Guardian article entitled “The school of Latin America’s dictators” and it was also a graduate of this school that helped pull off the coup in Honduras in 2009 under Clinton’s tutelage. Those Latin American dictators largely replaced democracies all across Latin America. The US/Britain even supported Suharto in Indonesia and Pol Pot in Cambodia while they were committing genocide, I believe. So the west has a long history of supporting dictators, actual dictators, if we are on the subject (photo of Rumsfeld and Hussein shaking hands) … Saudi Arabia anyone.
One thing nationalists seem to forget is the US is not a democracy. It’s a business autocracy which, like the Communist party in China, has two general factions, one slightly less nationalistic and religious than the other but both way out to the right wing extreme. Check the biggest academic studies. US public opinion has approx zero influence on policy. Policy is determined by the business autocracy.
Then, by definition, I believe that is a “plutocracy”.
plu•toc•ra•cy (plo?o-t?k?r?-s?): A government or state in which the wealthy rule.
Ah,but the Chinese work for China,not Israel,as our govt does.
How about HRC,her total support by the foreign Zionist media,and her quid pro quo support of those monsters,who have brought America to her knees,internationally and domestically,as they divide and conquer morons like you.
I have never seen such a one sided narrative as the one the Zionists and their fellow travelers foist on America every day.
It will backfire,as America has finally awoken to the Zionist menace.
I think hoisting everything on Israel’s shoulders is wrong. Realize that since 1776, the United States has been at war something like 93% of its’ history and that was long before an Israel existed. Definitely AIPAC is a problem but the US Government has a long history of imperialism (as does many western countries with colonialism). Personally, I would like the western world to stop supporting Israel which I believe is the major crux of why there is not a real peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.
I agree with you. Commentators here seem to often blame someone else for the disastrous foreign policy and wars of the US. I have in the last few weeks seen Israel get blamed a lot, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen being blamed and now the Russians getting blamed.
Israel as it exists today is also a result of US imperialism.
But the core cause of US imperialism is not Zionism as some people here are prone to argue.
I don’t.
I blame all the western leaders who have been corrupted by Zionist money and power,and who have eschewed the moral lessens of WW2 in a Zionist protection agency of ironclad media and government collusion in keeping millions in captivity and an endless state of war on Israels neighbors.
Any rational human can’t blame the Zioinists for taking advantage of American,British and European traitors,and in fact counter to the phony idiots claims,I have absolutely nothing against the idea of a friendly and neighborly Israel in peace and security with its neighbors.
But we will never ever get there,until all in the region are afforded the same level of security,which currently is not at all current policy.
‘But whatever else is true, there is no doubt that the methods, rhetoric, and tactics Democrats are now using are identical to the ones used by America’s Right for decades to smear liberals and the left.’
Even worst – I -(as a proud female BernieBro) always smear the ‘Orange Orang Utan’ as a ‘Insane Racist Birther’ – or the ‘Insane Racist Birther’ as a ‘Orange Orang Utan’ – and i even don’t feel bad about it…
Stop messing around on the AHRC computers.
Today, August 9, Putin and Erdogan met in St Petersburg for extensive discussions on Russian/Turkish relations, and it is already reported that everything between them has now reverted to the amicable and cooperative status that obtained between the two of them a year ago — much to the fear and chagrin, it is also reported (cf., e.g., BBC World News), of the USA and the EU, seeing as such a rapprochement could soon enough pose something of an ominous challenge to the very future of NATO.
Talking about which, it is important to appreciate something that Erdogan and Putin share in common — viz., that Erdogan has no need to convince Putin of the dangers posed by the international Gulenist movement Hizmet, which he identifies as the spiritus rector of the recent abortive coup in Turkey, seeing as, during the past ten or fifteen years, that same movement would seem to have done its best to infiltrate and subvert so many municipal authorities and the like in those regions of southern Russia where the Islamic faith predominates. Thus, what would seem to be perceived by all the untutored in the west as Erdogan’s paranoia on this count would be seen by Putin as a very real problem, shared by Russia (and certain former Soviet nations in Central Asian like Uzbekistan) with Turkey, albeit not on quite so epidemic a scale.
But now to the punchline — Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation are (like many other US politicians) major beneficiaries of the international Gulenist movement (read: cult) in the US, as a quick google search using the key-words: Gulen / Hizmet / Clinton / Turkish Cultural Center / dollars will attest. Certainly Erdogan is himself well aware of this huge $ largesse — after all, until his schism with the Hodja Gulen in 2013, he and his AKP Party collaborated with the Gulenist movement in attaining and consolidating political power in Turkey. And hence, in part, his firm conviction that certain powers-that-be within the CIA and the Pentagon, if not also in the State Department and the White House, were the actual authors of the attempted coup.
Right now Erdogan is proclaiming to the Turkish people that the coup is by no means yet over. Thus, one can absolutely rest assured that, in the event of a Clinton presidency come November, Erdogan will steer Turkey on a course headed well away from the US and towards a much closer affiliation with Russia — which will likely eventuate in a collapse of NATO, at least at its south-easternmost frontier. Were Jill Stein, however, to ascend to the US presidency, I am quite certain Erdogan would embrace her with open arms and unconditional magnanimity, having been assured by Putin that she’s truly a Mensch — in fact, one of the very few sane Americans in politics. And that, after all, would surely augur a much safer world than one presided over either by the sociopath DT or the psychopath HRC.
The whole situation , since the time of Bill Clinton who tossed aside the opportunity to have world peace once the USSR was gone and instead needled Russia by expanding the no-longer-needed NATO to Russian borders, is absurd. Why is Russia considered an enemy? Just because President Putin is not a puppet of the USA, and acts like an adult in negotiations and statements, he is vilified on all sides.
The RT interview with Julian Assange yesterday made it clear that
1. The emails are genuine and released by wikileaks, not Russia
2. DNC and RNC have been hacked easily and often-this is on record
3; Trump has had no success in investing in Russia and has no known links there; nor has he met Putin.
4. Hillary Clinton has EXTENSIVE links in Russia and received funds from Russian businesses for the Clinton Foundation
4.
Just to be clear: ANYONE who opposes Hillary Clinton is simultaneously a Kremlin Agent AND a Nazi-Sympathizer. Nevermind those Clinton Foundation & Russian Uranium deals when she was SoS, and nevermind regime-change in the Ukraine (with Clinton appointed stooge Nuland) which installed factions of Neo-Nazi Svoboda and the Right Sector into key positions of Defense, Law Enforcement, Education and Economic Affairs. Nevermind her support for ‘moderate’ Islamofascist rebels to oust Assad…… just remember, you’re either With Her, or you’re against US. #ImWithHer
Who is paying for those ads in the NYTs and Wapo(and others)of I’m with Her infamy?
Are they gratis from the zionists?Or Soros?(same thing of course)
They must cost a lot of dough.
I have to say that I am so tired of the hate. Why didn’t we leave this childish way of viewing the world, friends and enemies, back in the 20th century where it belongs. Recently, I had a friend send me an e-mail with a Photoshopped photo of Putin and Trump shirtless on a horse. I pointed out to him that I believed it to be propaganda in favour of Hillary Clinton and I then went on to point out all of the blood on Clinton’s hands over Libya and Honduras – personally, I believe that Trump is a bigot and Clinton is just pure evil. I also pointed out to my friend, who is Chinese, that if I let my government (and media) decide for me whom I am to hate then I also would hate the Chinese. My overall point is that I refuse to let my media, or government, influence whom I am to hate. I am my own person and I think for myself and that is also why I look for media outside of the mainstream but also from countries that we deem as “enemies” so that hopefully I will be much more informed unlike what I knew about Iraq before the Iraq War.
Trumps bigotry is America First,a most hateful statement to the Israeli Firsters.
And I guarantee his innate bigotry is no more than yours,or your Chinese friend.
Holier than thou and hypocrites disagree of course.
How proven bigots like the zionists are able to call others bigots,and have any credibility, is a conundrum of our time.
As many regular commenters know you are an antisemtite — the real thing, not the faux charge Israel apologists have leveled for mere criticism of Israel and it’s lobby. So of course you don’t credit or even recognize the racism and bigotry of Trump and a huge swathe of his movement.
The whole world has shown itself as antisemitic,at least to the ziomonsters.
Ergo,I’m a hero.
Antisemitism rests with its creators ,the zionists themselves,who made up the slur,ignoring their own sordid history of anti human policies,against all the worlds peoples,as their lies affect every world citizen,even Inuit,with their support of energy extraction in the Arctic.
The worlds bane.
Keep defending them you phony.
Methinks you fear my truth,or else why do you stalk me so much?
Go away lickspittle.
For the record, I don’t like Trump or Clinton – if I was able to vote, I would not vote for either. As for Trump and I being equal on a bigotry scale, I don’t think so. I don’t advocate building walls against anyone and I believe that with western imperialism and colonialism (from the US, Britain, France etc.) throughout the world for so long that some of that is coming back to bite us. Also, if we believe that we can go into other countries, largely ignoring international law, and destroy them then we need to take responsibility for the aftermath – such as taking in refugees. For once, we need to take responsibility. Our leaders, such as Bush and Blair, should be before the Hague for the raw aggression against Iraq. Now I know I am not perfect but I don’t believe that I am on the same scale as Trump when it comes to hate. Also, I don’t believe Clinton is any better and her hands are drenched in the blood of Libyans and Hondurans – “We came, we saw, he died – ha, ha, ha”.
Oh,I didn’t know you were of Jesus Mary and Joe fame,my bad.
Just funnin’.:)
Are we are all made of the same clay,or not?
I have found myself in the same situation and understand exactly how you feel. It is hard to deal with people that firmly believe in the MSM. They get fed fear of Trump at every opportunity.
I just don’t know why we want to start the 21st century much the same as we treated the 20th century by being divisive and hateful. I feel like I am back in the 80’s but I don’t feel like people have the same fear of nuclear war that we did back then and it just seems like we are running head first toward an unnecessary confrontation. I mean the world is becoming much more integrated, the world’s population is growing exponentially, and we have real “world” problems that we should be working towards together. We need to somehow turn off the propaganda from our governments, and media, telling us who we have to hate. Do we really want never-ending war – Cold or Hot because that is exactly what we are doing? Is that really the world that we want to leave for our children? We have to change for the better in the 21st Century instead of regressing back to McCarthyism and the hatred of the 20th Century.
middle schoolers are fond of name-calling. when adults resort to juvenile politics, questions of maturity must be considered.
in fact, the whole spy vs spy, trivial intrigues, petty grievances, tit for tat – even war – are, in fact, the actions of immature, psychologically & emotionally stunted human beings.
some kids never grow up
it’s a shame our planet is in the hands of children.
Russian translations https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeix8jbmQnS6FprsJIsjVyQ/videos
Glenn, your doing a good job.
The problem is you are trying to tell a large group of people a complicated message that they do NOT want to spend much time thinking about …………….and on top of that you are mildly insulting them by providing proof of the facts and the truths in your observations.
In politics, facts are a nasty detail, people like a simple easily digestible message, so they don’t have to think………that is why propaganda was created.
Unfortunately, propaganda is far easier for the average consumer to accept without having to remember what happened or was said yesterday……………and your attempts to state the past facts only confuses them.
Propaganda is so very insidious!
I myself thou try to remember what happened and what was said in the past & therefore I like the facts, so keep up the good work!
Politicians – watch their actions and try not to listen to their words!
> the ugly, disgraceful, destructive far-right-wing script … it works because …
it works because people want to believe it. why do 2/3 of trump supporters believe obama is a muslim? it’s not because they’ve carefully weighed the evidence. they dislike obama for whatever “reasons” they initially have (e.g., he’s a democrat), so they’re receptive to any additional “reasons” for disliking him. we like to have our opinions confirmed. we want arguments to use against our opponents
we are only willing to agree on truth when we are (at the deepest level) cooperating. when we’re competing, truth exists only within each side
And I,definitely not in that 2/3(which of course is Zionist propaganda),know he hates them,as his actions speak so much louder than ziowords of confusion.
And Fox ,the educator of (alleged) said ignorance,is now promoting the Hell Bitch.
How do you like those apples?
Indeed, Clinton and the Democrats are using scurrilous, slanderous tactics to get themselves elected, as we would expect them to do. Of equal concern, Putin-bashing is a pretext for the further expansion of NATO and a more aggressive NATO policy, against Russia and in the Middle East/North Africa. I think it is a long-term goal of the US ruling class to re-subordinate the land, labor and resources of Russia and the former Soviet states to profit-making interests in the US and Europe. Certainly Clinton is effectively projecting herself as the leader of the war party, an essential step for anyone who wants to become President; specifically, she must demonstrate that she will be able to advance and lead the anti-Russia campaign.
It’s only essential to traitors like Clinton,as Trump will win in November by defying that essential step of warmongering.
This article has some good points on how Jill Stein is being pilloried and how politicians cudgel opponents who hold pro-Russian views. However Glenn, in the process of making this point you seem to completely gloss over the fact that Trump’s Russian advocacy and affection for Putin is indeed highly unusual and questionable. You rightly reject the most far-fetched insinuation that Trump has “treasonous allegiances to Moscow” and his being a willful pawn, due to lack of evidence, but in the process give a pass to Trump’s financial ties to Russia, which are absolutely fair game.
Nothing means more in the world to Donald Trump than his personal wealth and branding. It’s no secret, he tells us all the time how rich and successful he is. As several outlets have now shown, Trump has long sought increased business in Russia: Trump SoHo New York; his desire for a Trump Tower in Russia; Trump Jr. saying “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia”; Trump’s advisors having ties to Russia (Manafort, Page); ties to Russian billionaires; etc. This is an astoundingly large conflict of interest.
You say that Trump is being “vilified for advocating ways to reduce US/Russian tensions” as if it is a foregone conclusion that Trump’s prime motive is the interests of the U.S. People are right to see it as disingenuous. When has Trump showed a piece of morality or principled stance on anything!? This is the guy who said he’d intentionally kill the family of ISIL members. He is morally bankrupt. Trump’s motive deserves heaps of scrutiny, as he sees the world as a series of “deals” to be negotiated and won. So what drives Trump’s pro-Russia views: enriching himself and maintaining the viability of his brand, or an idealistic yearning for better relations with Russia? I’m going with the former.
Why do you hate Russia,and Russians?
With the capitulation of American pols to Yahoo and Zionism,your concern over ties with Putin is pathetic and of course propaganda from Zion.
Of course! Just to clarify my own source of propaganda: are we talking the Zion National Park, Jerusalem, Ethiopia, or the fictional city from the Matrix films?
You might even say that Trump is just saying those things to get elected. Oh, wait.
Since the broad U.S. electorate is sympathetic to Russia. Oh wait.
I have a feeling that the electorate is sympathetic to Russia,despite your pals mis and disinfo for years.
They aint commies(who cares,aint my concern) no more,so what’s the beef?
Their cultural conservatism?The mormons and moonie loonies are worse.
As a rational human,screwing with the russkies has negative repercussions,and if you think our playstation warriors would have a chance against them,after getting their butts kicked fighting pajama men,fuggetaboutit.
Yankee come home,please?
This a perfect example of the propaganda techniques used to vilify Russia and thus lay groundwork for conflict with Russia.
” ..but in the process give a pass to Trump’s financial ties to Russia, which are absolutely fair game.’
This comment is an absolute guilt by association attack as there is no evidence of some direct line from Putin to Trump. This is the stuff of kangaroo courts. Many companies and people have financial interests and “ties” to Russia.
You claim I don’t have the evidence to bolster my point, but then strongly suggest – without any evidence at all! – that I am resorting to use of “propaganda techniques.” D’oh!
There doesn’t have to be “evidence of some direct line from Putin to Trump.” What did I say before? “This is an astoundingly large conflict of interest.”
To clarify, I should have said “potential” conflict of interest. But Erelis, perhaps you could use a a trip down Wikipedia lane:
Does the old Dick Cheney-Halliburton potential conflict of interest ring a bell?
Are these people also running for President!? If so, they’d deserve the same scrutiny; especially if they are kissing the ass of the leader whose country they have a financial interests. Conflicts of interests for the president and VP may be exempt from the associated conflict of interest laws, but that does not mean they get a free pass on being scrutinized. That goes for Trump and for Hillary.
like it or loathe it, its a globalised economy. Many, many Americans made fortunes off the catastrophic pillage of Russia after the USSR unravelled.Many American and European businesses still do. After sanctions were put on Russia, it was to the detriment of Eoropean business, but US trade INCREASED significantly Starbucks and Mcdonalds are in Russia.Is this sinister?
It’s not so surprising if one remembers that Hillary was (and really is) a Republican.
NPR went on for days about possible Russian involvement in the DNC email scandal without presenting any proof whatsoever, just opinions of FBI “experts” repeated endlessly.
I didn’t hear NPR even once go into the content of the emails, preferring to blame the messenger–whoever it was–rather than bring attention to the shenanigans and cheap shots of Debbie Wasserman-Schulze and her version of the DNC.
This was just another example of what the Democratic Party has become.
It’s become the rethug party in this cycle,in a weird rejection of every democratic principle of the last 50 years,bolstered by a completely corrupt MSM,whose main purpose in America is the BS US like Nate does,in divide and conquer,all for Zion,which by the way is Tel Aviv,as saying Jerusalem justifies their theft.
And Nate,give Trump a chance,maybe he can overcome the hatred and propaganda that both parties in the conflict have for each other,and the threat of possible US sanctions or withholding the tribute payments might have the effect of ameliorating that hatred into peace.
The only thing HRC could possibly bring,with the Zionists obviously in complete control of her,is a continuation of the evil of today,a subject populace at the mercy of rabid crazed hubristic knuckleheads who lost their humanity in the propaganda mists of post ww2,how else to explain their actions?
Its funny how much weight you give to random tweets and blog posts that no one outside of your elite media circles would care about.
One of the questions people are asking, really is, why does America need hackers to tell them that their quasi public-private election machinery, the DNC and RNC, is fiddling the elections?
One reason is that one of the organizations that pretend to be in the news business…is too busy looking for “anti-Semites”.
This is why Trump is popular with Americans,as he rejects the Zionist world view of enemies everywhere,bringing back our jobs,and rebuilding america,instead of destroying the world.
And his latest economic policy statement was awesome,as he will reduce taxes on the poor,and help bring back manufacturing by lower taxes on their operations if domestic.
Unlike Obomba and the Hell bitch,he has real world economic experience,not siphoning off tax dollars and living high on our hog.
I’m happy to see some reality returning to the Intercept,after the propaganda blitz by mackneyed and biased other writers here.
Actual rational humans know there is absolutely no rationality and humanity from the Hell bitch camp.
Of course, the smear doesn’t ‘start with implying a connection/alliance with Moscow/Putin, the smear starts with smearing the designated bad guy often enough that he becomes the boogeyman that Americans are so scared off that they’ll willingly endure bad public services, a deteriorating infrastructure , and the sacrifice of military (and civilian) lives in what would otherwise be questionable (to say the least) wars and alliances, so that they can ‘feel safe’ (though, of course, that feeling of safety is fleeting at best, as the response to the deaths and destruction rained on foreign civilians becomes the new threat, associated with, you guessed, the boogeyman) and shoulder the burden to pay the staggering costs (those massive profits and all the ‘legal’ corruption have to be paid for by the general public) of the military industrial oligarchs.
It is only then that the hint of connection/collaboration/cooperation with said boogeyman becomes a political tool for both faces of the Party Of War in their election theatrics (theatrics that put pro wrassling to shame)
You may dismiss it as a ‘conspiracy theory’, but there is evidence to suggest that Russia has an agenda of exposing the actions of American politicians to the US public. This of course, could have a devastating affect on America’s reputation and standing in the world.
Then consider Wikileaks; their agenda is to provide information to the US public. Likewise, The Intercept, although it at least claims to undertake a ‘gatekeeper’ function, so that the US public won’t be exposed to information which might corrupt them. Next is Trump; he claims that politicians have not been serving the interests of the American public, which is totally consistent with the information provided by Wikileaks and The Intercept. Many people have actually accepted this hypothesis at face value, simply because it is supported by the data.
It could be coincidence that Russia, Wikileaks, The Intercept and Donald Trump (and other anti-establishment populists) all have the same agenda. Maybe they have different motivations, but maybe they are part of a vast conspiracy to undermine the American establishment. You can claim the Democrats have become paranoid, but sometimes everyone is out to get you.
Well, there were the reports about Putin planning to expose 9/11 as an inside job and expose ISIS as a CIA creation.
In fact Putin has called ISIS a CIA creation.
Is this why the US establishment people are hostile to Putin?
And then there was this Russian official who claimed a Russian intent to investigate the alleged moon landings which have never been repeated in nearly 50 years.
Well I would say that Putin kicking out all the zionist oligarchs enabled by Yeltsin to ruin the Russian economy in a rummage sale is the first affront,and the second historical enmity for Trotsky and antisemitism expressed by the Russian people.
The Zionists have memories like elephants,but it is all a corruption of what actually took place.
And also Putin just bull-dozed his way into Syria and bombed the hell out of ISIS, which the US was struggling not to bomb. And this has forced Israeli security studies Professors to publish articles about why it is better not to destroy ISIS. (I linked to such an article on another post on this site).
Love it. and loved the movie. mel gibson at his best.
I used to hear that guys name a lot,when he was making Zollywood a whole shite load of money,but lately he’s been muzzled,as the MSM has no truck with truth tellers.Same with Charlie Sheen.
Glenn,
Great work. On Point. However, liberals have always resorted to red-baiting, just not as frequently. But it gets worse. The deep state assassinated John Kennedy because he was a ‘soviet’ dupe. Both liberals and conservatives just whistle past the graveyard about that too.
My partner is from Hungary and she is always stunned by the level of Russia-hate and socialist-hate here. There will be more bombs over Syria – perhaps even directed at Russian facilities – and then ‘advisors’ in Ukraine, followed by weapon-sales and NATO membership. U.S. imperialism wants to conquer the whole world, by the $ or by the gun, and Russia/China still stand in their way.
This tactic is called swift-boating.
Swift boating only works on the weak,as Kerry obviously is and was.
His windboarding sure didn’t help either,as the opposition made hay out of that indecisiveness of tacking.
Some propaganda works well,.
Glenn thank you for the historical overview.
I think Senator McCaskill was one of the first to call Sanders a socialist on MSNBC’s Morning Joe early fall of 2015.
Have been taken back by all of the efforts in the mainstream to roll with this “Trump is an agent for Russia” conspiracy.
Can you imagine if this kind of attention were really given to the influence that Israel has had in U.S. foreign policy or foreign aid. Although that speech Netanyahu gave directly to congress (standing ovation and all) to try to take down the Iran deal did receive more public scrutiny than ever before in regard to Israel’s influence through Aipac etc.
Would be an interesting article by you (your research is so comprehensive) as to which foreign countries actually do have enormous influence on U.S. elections etc.
While I am a Sanders supporter and will for the first time in my 45 years of voting (64) for a third party…Jill Stein essentially throwing my vote away, I continue to watch this election with complete fascination and deep disappointment that these are the two candidates we ended up with.
A proven and predictable war hawk with enormous ties to Wall Street. She has made horrific and deadly decisions vs a candidate who says dangerous things..who is totally unpredictable. So deeply disturbing
Neither of the Cartels care anything about the American people anymore than Pablo Escobar cared about drug addicts.
They only care about power and money.
Voting will never solve this problem.
The only chance our country has is for the sheep to kill the wolves.
Not much chance of that.
Democracy no longer exists in the USA.
The only way to save our country is to teach your children how to build and operate the Guillotine.
The greatest threat we face is not Russia or China.
It’s our own political system.
Our politicians MUST fear us or we are lost.
with all due respect you express an understanding of violence as a useful moral tool and i believe that is pervasive in our culture.
this is why, to me, both candidates are fundamentally evil: because they see violence and aggressive posturing as a primary means of affecting positive outcomes in the world.
all the politicians you hate were raised in one country — our country. we all share a culture that has inherited this strangely dark worldview.
the romanticism of “the politicians fearing us” is a bunch of patriotic hooey, rooted in nationalist mythologies.
trump and clinton and internet tough-talkers are all part of the problem and products of the problem, which is the violence-worship inherent in our culture.
and so i think we have to make an intellectual choice as a culture to move on from this sort of thinking. until we do our politics will continue to be opposing iterations of the same violent and fundamentally immoral ideology.
have a wonderful day.
Please document Trumps evil statements?
Screening our illegal and legal immigrants in a time of terror is not evil at all to Americans,but illegal Muslims and Latinos might disagree,which is not surprising.
The Hell Bitch has myriad evil statements,and actions to back them up.
“Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” As the great David Hume said, and Greenwald is a perfect lab case of such as was Nixon and G. Gordon Liddy. The gymnastics and hypocrisy necessary to bend reason around his passionate hatred for Hillary is just extraordinary. Let’s take the little fact that nobody is really pretending that the Russians weren’t behind the hack of DNC and nobody, even Mr. Assange, is actually pretending that the timing of the release of illegally seized evidence (no, not a leak, there is a big difference), is anything but a smear campaign against Hillary with the hope of changing the results of the election, no different than the Watergate break in, no different than the NSA’s tactics. But somehow Glenn has managed to skirt that little inconvenience of such a clear violation of the right to privacy, let alone free speech.
Refresher: we learned of the illegal breaking and entering back in mid-June when Crowdstrike was brought in. Not just Crowdstrike but two cybersecurity firms, Fidelis Cybersecurity and Mandiant, independently corroborated Crowdstrike’s assessment that Russian hackers infiltrated DNC networks, having found that the two groups that hacked into the DNC used malware and methods identical to those used in other attacks attributed to the same Russian hacking groups. Then Thomas Rid, a professor at King’s College in London, who discovered an identical command-and-control address hardcoded into the DNC malware that was also found on malware used to hack the German Parliament in 2015. According to German security officials, the malware originated from Russian military intelligence. An identical SSL certificate was also found in both breaches. Then traces of metadata in the document dump showed various indications that they were translated into Cyrillic. Anyone who believes that Gucifer 2.0 is just a lone hacker must surely be a hold out from the J. Edgar Hoover, Tricky Dick era.
For anyone even remotely pretending to discuss the great debate of our time, the right to privacy, let alone a Constitutional law student, one has to wonder, how it is possible for a rational being to stare at a clear, unadulterated, politically motivated violation of the right to privacy, no different that the cops breaking down Mapp’s door without a warrant because of suspected wrongdoing. No, you can’t break into somebody’s house and steal evidence simply because it serves your political cause or because of a hunch that you have that there is wrongdoing. Shame, shame, shame… to see such a fine mind embarrass himself with the above tripe from what could only be some sort of emotional issues with a candidate..
Of course nothing you wrote has anything to do with this:
I guess this is the part that was just incidental to Mr. Greenwald’s points that you must have skipped over: “When WikiLeaks published thousands of DNC emails shortly before the Democratic Convention, which ultimately forced the resignation of four top officials, it was instantly asserted that it was The Russians … Democrats not only treated this evidence-free conspiracy theory as Truth…”
Perhaps they knew something that justified the word “instantly”. I certainly had my doubts at first.
Nor with the fact that all of the firms are staffed in large quantity by high, medium, and low-level ex-FBI, ex-GCHQ, ex-NSA, ex-SS, ex-military and so forth (I know I left some out). Not exactly expecting them to be unbiased when every ‘cyberthreat’ they announce seems to come from a few places (all, conveniently, geopolitical and/or economic rivals or enemies). I guess I am saying I consider it uncouth to not be circumspect. Or take advantage of what they want to see, if you know they want to see it.
An imbecile doubles down on his inanity:
No different, eh? In the Mapp case, and as you’ve been told, the issue was a citizen as against the government. Policing agents of the state are restricted in how they may search and seize people and their things to charge them with crimes.
By contrast, journalists publish documents from powerful factions — government and corporate — to serve the public interest. There is no question that the journalists who published the DNC emails performed a supremely important service: they demonstrated that the DNC was, in fact, working to sabotage the candidacy of Bernie Sanders.
You just don’t like it because you are a Hillary hack.
Okay, Mona, you’ve been discredited once when you wrote that Muslims supported Bernie over Hillary… But here is a little lesson about why illegally obtained evidence is not admissible in court nor should it be used to smear others. This is taken from a forum, I don’t have time to go through it with you so these are not my words. But I will ask you to do what I ask all of my students to do. Turn off your smartphone, put your hands on the table and listen. This is about the rule of law. It doesn’t only apply to cops in Cleveland. Put your Hillary hate aside for a moment, and try to extrapolate from one situation to the current one. Let’s even pretend the preposterous, that Gucifer really is just some Romanian crank who hacked the DNC and not Mr. Putin with his deep admiration and love for Mr. Trump. This even applies to that fantasy or yours and Glenn, Gucifer.
The rights of the defendant are more important than a conviction under historical American & British jurisprudence. The concept that evidence is “tainted” by the methods use to obtain it is referred to as the “fruit of the poisonous tree”, referring to the danger of allowing such evidence to be admitted.
Ultimately, it boils down to an economics decision – undoubtedly the cost to a policeman of violating someone’s rights is going to be less than the punishment that person is going to get for murder. So, if we allowed the evidence to be used to convict the murderer, there is no real disincentive for the police to not violate that person’s rights.
However, since we operate under the “rule of law” and believe that all people within our jurisdiction are bound by those laws, we hold that the evidence that is illegally obtained cannot be used, as to do so would incent the police to violate others’ rights.
The power of the government (and its potential abuse) means that the symmetry that you say must exist must not exist. The government has to be held to the highest level of accountability. Others do not.
“Vigilantism is the act of taking the law into one’s own hands and attempting to enact justice according to one’s own understanding of right and wrong; action taken by a voluntary association of persons who organize themselves for the purpose of protecting a common interest, such as liberty, property, or personal.”
Lynchings are vigilantism. Mr. Assange publishing stolen emails are a form of vigilantism. Drop the hatred and reason will follow. Mr. Greenwald is rendered a complete hypocrite as he attempts mental gymnastics to justify Assange’s vigilantism.
That’s a really cute study-note of Crim Law 101. And has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. Illegally obtained documents are used all the time by the press — see, e.g., Ellsperg, Damniel, and the FBI Burglars who exposed COINTELPRO.
FFS, that’s what comes of posting while exhausted. Make that: Ellsberg, Daniel.
Go take a rest,say like 20 years.
Nope. The U.S. city with the largest Muslim population is Dearborn, Michigan. In our primary Dearborn went 2/3 for Bernie. During the primaries, all kinds of prominent Muslim-Americans were for Sanders and worked as well as volunteered for his campaign. As is true across racial and ethnic demographics, the support from Muslims was much greater for those under 35.
Hillaryous;The father of Omar Mateen certainly likes the Hell Bitch!
A public relations disaster for the HB and her minions from Hades!
I might call you a pathetic idiot,but I won’t,as it is rude,so I’ll leave it at pathetic moron.
“For Democrats to now adopt this warped template, and try to equate efforts to reduce tensions with Russia with some sort of disloyalty, is nothing short of mad.”
How is it mad if the technique works?
Also your use of the word “now” is a little confusing given that this technique has been in and out of use for more than 100 years. McCarthy was a democrat just like HRC.
“McCarthy was a democrat just like HRC.”
oops. Not.
What a sad, sorry nation. One day you will control all the oil and we can all join hands and sing the Star Spangled Banner together as citizens of the freest and fairest nation on Earth. Or you can just carry on being a bunch of cunts whilst Europe’s politicians and militaries lick your arses to get more expenditure and Russia continues to be just a nervous and heavily-armed neighbourly scapegoat for all our ills and insanities.
– Bill Clinton’s “unexplained” trip to Moscow as a college student
What I still find amazing is that something like the mention of a decades old student trip abroad is a powerful election attack in America. The reason for this, and I don’t mean to sound condescending, but there really are huge numbers of American adults who you really can’t interview on TV, you can’t include them in the democratic debate, because, they unfortunately can’t string a sentence together.
Americans really are hamstrung, more-so than many other western nations, by the electorate’s poor education. Student travel is so far outside the norm, that it is not only rare, but suspicious to enough to ordinary people to make such an attack effective. That is an indictment of the American education system.
There really is another America that isn’t invited on TV. It’s an uneducated, illiterate, bereft of history, strapped for cash and time to do anything but get by America.
So I can understand why anyone in America, interested in gaining power, is going to want the “stupid” votes, and for that “stupid America”, McCarthyism works like a charm.
I always go to HuffPost for unbiased and fair analysis and reporting about Republicans, Conservatives and every other group that does not fit into their politically-correct worldview…
Uneducated and uninvited on TV
They are invited on TV. But it’s only to be made fun of or mocked or humiliated.
Honey boo boo, Cops and other reality or daytime talk shows are their sort..
Americans have very little empathy for others and are a selfish lot. We are too concerned with our own well-being and not enough with our neighbor’s.
You’re spot on regarding education and travel!
Great Post!
Excellent article. The Democratic party full embrace of essentially McCarthyism is the height of a propaganda campaign that has gone on for the last several years. Basically the demonization of Putin and the Russian people began several years ago and it nearly resembles the propaganda campaign used to get upwards of 70% of the American people to accept the invasion of Iraq. Invent a cartoon villain and squash all dissent. The propaganda has basically equated Putin with the Russian people so in a way, Russians are spoken about in the same ways Trump talks about Muslims. War is soon the only option, and the American people will accept it. (Or massive increases in the defense budget which is now beginning to happen.)
As I read the virulent accusations against Putin/Russia/peace advocates/dissenters, there was a strange echo. It hit me to replace references to Putin with “Jews’ or “Jew Bolsheviks” or similar variations. I found similar quotes from Nazis that match the invective toward the Russians with the substitutions. World War II and Cold War have not ended–just beginning a new phase.
The propaganda campaign against Russia is perpetuated by the NeoCon and Zionist majority within the Democratic Party.
And purged or self purging zionists from the rethug party.
Go Trump,and a middle finger for all the elitist tourists who roam the world as would be gods smirking at the downtrodden as chumps and unintelligent enough to see the terrible present given US by Zion,and ending it.
Watch.
ECUADOR PRESSURED to Censor Julian Assange After DNC Leaks and Criticism of Hillary Clinton
Jim Hoft Aug 8th, 2016 12:31 pm
Global Elites want Assange and Wikileaks Silenced…
Wikileaks threw the DNC Convention into turmoil last month after the release of hacked DNC emails that revealed the Democrat Party rigged their primary in favor of Hillary Clinton.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/ecuador-govt-serious-pressure-censor-assange-dnc-leaks-criticism-hillary/
There aren’t 2 major parties in the US anymore, there is only 1 major party: the Right Wing party, a.k.a. the Extreme Right Wing party. That party is capable of sweeping every other party under the carpet, if not downright destroy anything else. The Republican & Democratic party now play good cop – bad cop alternately, which is why nothing improves. If only those dissenters would vote for Jill Stein en masse.
“If only those dissenters would vote for Jill Stein en masse.”
Which will ensure that Queen Rag Hillary will become your President, because there are not enough ‘en masse’ voters to elect Stein, as Bernie’s short-circuited campaign proved…
I agree with you. In the final analysis Bernie Sanders’ endorsement of Clinton, instead of calling on his supporters to switch to JS, can be regarded as betrayal. In any case, that is the way I see it.
Well … as someone who was supportive of Bernie Sanders, I had hoped he would continue his ‘revolution’ with Jill and the Greens after his defeat at the DNC.
I had thought the combination of Bernie and Jill a legitimate, viable option (to LOTE) for many, perhaps a majority of, American voters.
Alas, Bernie capitulated without a struggle … I suppose in a continued bid to ‘save the souls’ of those in the DNC/Clinton campaign who undermined his election?
Likewise, if Jill is now seeking to ‘woo’ Sander supporters, i.e about HALF the democratic Party (!) … I’m not sure her VP pick, Ajamu Baraka (who has called Bernie a ‘white supremacist’ and his supporters ‘naive shills’), was the best choice to accomplish that?
I agree with you. In the final analysis Bernie Sanders’ endorsement of Clinton, instead of calling on his supporters to switch to JS, can be regarded as betrayal. In any case, that is the way I see it.
And as for Baraka calling Bernie a white supremacist, he should be fired for that because that is playing the racist card when there is no reason for it. And it will probably work against the Greens, as you rightly fear.
I’ve noticed this on LinkedIn. I assumed that these folks were working for a Clinton Super-PAC — they appear on LI w/ legal backgrounds, augmented by some intel or natl sec positions or whatever. I suppose that may give weight to their vitriol. These legal and natl sec types on LI will search out threads and start attacking their opponent (a non-clinton supporter) by claiming the other is being paid by Russia or some such communist bullshit. LI has, in recent months, seemed to flush this shit out of their system.
Apparently this is the pot calling the kettle if HRC is involved in dealing uranium to Russia.
On that: the pic of HRC and Comrade shaking hands, right below the text about uranium deal.. HRC is making a very weird facial expression. People have remarked about this. Does she in fact have a tick or an illness? Or is she just weird looking?
Looks like Miss Piggy in that photo with Putin. Don’t you agree?
And they both look sincere.She looks less so,though,which is her default face:)
She looks younger today.I wonder how that’s possible,has the HB a time machine?Ponce Water?
Its nice to see the new faces on all the old people.Bob Hope(sic)
Entire leftist media working desperately to make Hillary Clinton appear to be coherent and energetic
Every Natural News reader knows by now that the entire mainstream media is nothing but FAKE media pretending to be real. Part of the massive election theater they are carrying out involves desperate efforts to hide Hillary Clinton’s bizarre disorders and behaviors from the public.
In fact, the entire media is hiding everything about the Clintons, deliberately refusing to ask any real questions about Bill Clinton’s rapes and sexual abuse of women, the criminal racketeering operations of the Clinton Family Foundation, nor the ever-increasing number of now-dead people who used to work for the Clintons or the DNC. None of these stories earn a single minute of news coverage from the news networks, all of which are 100% in the pocket of the Clinton criminal cartel.
At the same time these news organizations are deliberately hiding the truth about Hillary Clinton’s disastrous health collapse, criminal racketeering behavior and sexual predator husband Bill, they are pushing history’s most fallacious smear campaign against Donald Trump. Every word he utters is twisted, quoted out of context, lied about or condemned by hypersensitive “faux victims” who hate everything America stands for (and can’t the thought of making America great again).
That’s why we’re only finding out about Hillary Clinton’s health implosion through the independent, alternative media. The entire mainstream media won’t dare show Hillary Clinton falling up the stairs, having seizures in public or even attempting to debate another candidate in a live forum.
Unhinged… shrill… short-circuited… this is the person Obama says is “fit” to be President?
Behind the scenes, Hillary Clinton repeatedly displays irrational hostility and anger escalation, yet the entire rigged DNC and leftist media says that Hillary is intelligent, level-headed, compassionate, honest and ethical.
The problem is that nobody believes the media anymore. As more and more truth keeps coming out about Hillary’s State Department scandals (looting millions from Haiti disaster victims, selling out the U.S. uranium supply to the Russians, and so on), any real support for Hillary has all but evaporated.
It’s so bad now that CNN has to stage fake crowds in support of Hillary because no real crowds can ever be found. (All the real people on the left are Bernie supporters, and all the real people on the right are Trump supporters, it seems.)
Even the polls are systematically faked as Reuters recently admitted. They’re mathematically tweaked to make sure Hillary always has a 10 – 15 point boost, even when the real-world popular support for Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders is overwhelming. (In truth, Donald Trump currently enjoys landslide support across America. If the election were held today, he would win by a huge margin.)
After she loses the election, you can find her working at Helga’s House of Horrors
It’s sad but true: Hillary Clinton is an unlikable, scary and repulsive human being that nobody on the planet enjoys being near. No one likes her. Most of her political support actually comes from people who are terrified of being “suicided” by the Clintons. See this recent death of an attorney and this case of a Sanders supporter found dead after he tried to expose DNC fraud against Bernie Sanders.
Setting aside the fringe theories of Hillary Clinton being demonically possessed or a mind controlled biological robot, she dresses like a cult leader and speaks like a medieval dungeon torture maiden. Her most fitting place is not in the White House but rather Helga’s House of Horrors where curious, naive tourists might pay five dollars to witness the bizarre neurological freak show that Hillary Clinton has become.
And even if Hillary isn’t losing her mind, her intact brain is even more frightening due to its criminal, despotic tendencies. If Monsanto’s crackpot scientists somehow manage to keep Hillary Clinton’s brain alive in a jar full of genetically modified brain cell jelly, her continues cognitive existence would pose such a threat to humanity that we’d have to lock the jar away in a remote cave somewhere just to be sure no future civilization ever discovered it and powered it back on, accidentally unleashing the demons of Hellery.
Hillary Clinton is the single greatest argument against immortality technology. Can you imagine the horrific fate of humanity if this anti-human monster were able to live forever? The only real reprieve we all have for the future of the human race is knowing that one day Hillary Clinton’s life will pass away just like everybody else’s. For even if a powerful political person spends a lifetime lying, murdering, deceiving and destroying, the global elite still haven’t figured out how to NOT DIE from old age.
And in that realization, we may take comfort and a measure of certainty in knowing that our world will one day be free from the curse of Hillary Clinton and all the pain, suffering, death and destruction she has deliberately carried out against humanity. Until that day comes, we must keep this demented psycho-witch out of the White House and make sure she can’t bring harm to anyone else.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/054918_Hillary_Clinton_declining_health_neurological_seizures.html#ixzz4GpqBtUaF
The MSM are not leftist at all,As true leftists are in the vein of Jesus Christ,and peace love and understanding.
These people are Zionists,once Trotskyite commies (totalitarian dictators uninterested in Jesus Christ other than a target of their abuse.)who,once expelled from the USSR,saw America as their golden opportunity for Zions protection and enablement agent,as they care not one iota for our Constitution and the equal protection of citizens under the law.
What is so secret and damaging in Bill Clinton’s meeting schedules that they have to be redacted?
New Clinton email fight: Bill Clinton’s schedules http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/new-clinton-email-fight-bill-clintons-schedules-226798
From reading this article, one would think that such accusations of Kremlin involvement by Donald Trump, is made up of whole cloth by Democrats. That is ingenious at best. Trump’s own campaign manager used to live in the Ukraine and is pro-Putin. Trump has removed, or severely watered down, the plank in the Republican platform that would provide weapons for anti-Putin rebels in the Ukraine. He has also proclaimed over and over his admiration for the “strength” of Putin as opposed to the “weakness” of President Obama.
Trump has yet to turn over his tax returns so no one can know whether or not he has financial dealings with Russia. So, this time, these accusations are not just a tactic. They are cause for real concern.
“ingenuous” at best. Sorry!
Hillary, I can see you.
Is that all you can do now is hide out, keep your speech transcripts hide, pray wikileaks doesn’t get you and snipe at EVERYONE from behind the computer screen?
We can STILL see you…have an open news conference so we can shred your extensive batch of obvious lies!
Ah yes, the old “have you stopped beating your wife” thing. What a jerk your are!
And Clinton destroyed over 30000 emails so no one can know whether or not she and Bill have financial dealings with Russia, or sold State Department favors to foreign Governments and to US or foreign corporations.
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
“The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.
But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.”
“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”
source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
English translation? “But…but…but…DONALD TRUMP!”
With Saudi and Russian ties, Clinton machine’s tentacles are far reaching, according to Panama Papers
“A key gear in the Clinton machine that has sucked in hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying on behalf of the Saudi absolute monarchy has also worked for Russia’s biggest bank.
The Podesta Group is one of the most influential Democratic Party-linked lobbyists in the U.S. And it is headed by a top Hillary Clinton fundraiser who has been referred to as the “Hillary moneyman.”
Sberbank, the largest financial institution in Eastern Europe, hired the Podesta Group to help powder up its public image, The Observer reports.
This is just one of the many findings in the so-called Panama Papers, a trove of 11.5 million documents that expose how political and economic elites from around the planet are stashing their money in secretive tax havens.
In March, the Podesta Group registered with the U.S. government as a lobbyist for Sberbank.”
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/08/with_saudi_and_russian_ties_clinton_machines_tentacles_are_far_reaching_according_to_panama_papers/
The irony of your post eludes you.
Why do you think the US should be arming rebels in a foreign country? I thought interfering in the politics of another country (like Russia is allegedly doing) is bad bad bad. I would assume it’s really really bad if it involves supporting violent rebels. Imagine the outrage if Russia were funding a death squad in US territory.
The accusations really are tactical. Would it truly matter if it were true that Trump has business in Russia, admires Putin, etc.? These would be some of Trump’s least alarming characteristics.
Good move by Trump,and another example of why he is necessary as POTUS,as he is the boss,not 50 zionists in the SD,not 50 cruds in the CIA,and not a bunch of foreign Yahoos.
The Ukraine has been an amorphous entity in the region for centuries,and because of its location,a crossroads of strife.
Sad,and i have nothing against Ukraine,but they should work with Russia instead of the fickle American government of zionist instigators who care not one bit for the Ukrainian people.
The naked hypocrisy of some to fail to condemn the obvious evil that the USZionists do is either the result of brainwashing,or self interest.
When women defend that pos HRC I shake my head in amazement at the idiotic gender related capitulation of reason and humanity.
I guess that makes The Intercept controlled by Russia and any positiv comment is paid by them.
What,you didn’t see the big red arrow with “I’m with him”pointing at Putin on the sidebar?
Think of the enormous amount of dough that that costs to put on all those publications that ad for the Hell Bitch?
Who is paying that,the DNC?Impossible,given the cost?Soros?
Or is it Israeli quid pro quo?
I bet the phony one thinks the full throated roar of BS propaganda re Trump is astute accurate reportage.sheesh.
And let us not forget that Hillary Clinton was very mean to Mr Putin. She said in a press conference that Putin had no soul.
Now how unchristian is that? Don’t all humans have souls which can be redeemed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k
Something to add to your article. Scare tactics by a Democrat, accusing his opponent of not seeing threats.
I appreciate wikileaks work in the past. With the recent DNC leaks and Assange’s open dislike for Clinton, and with this article in NYT few hours ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/can-we-trust-julian-assange-and-wikileaks.html
i am starting to have some doubts if wikileaks could be trusted.
Remember, when panama papers source said that wikileaks did not come forward when he /she approached them for help, and we have seen that the initial stories of panama papers have been more about Putin and his friends. Why didn’t wikileaks help the source at the time?
There is this article in NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/can-we-trust-julian-assange-and-wikileaks.html?_r=0.
I have a question here. We know that Assange never liked Clinton. We have seen DNC leaks. The question is:
Remember , when panama leaks source said wikileaks did not come forward when he/she approached them for help. And we have seen that the initial stories of Panama papers have been about Putin and his friends. So, it is really puzzling if wikileaks is a genuine force. I appreciate its work in the past though but certain things like the one above are not clear. Any thoughts from readers?
Is this the same NYT that went on endlessly about how Saddam Hussein had WMDs?
Oh, how long will the Americans hate the Russians? Forever?
Actually American hostility for Russia is good for the rest of the world. Both Russia and China together can provide some balance to the world and counter America’s exceptional imperial strategies.
Is a cold war between the US and Russia possible in the post-internet world? Seriously wondering.
In the old days at least they were “Godless Commies”,today they are not,but still demonized.
All from Zion,with assistance from traitors within.
“But there’s another politician[s] who advocates”
First sentence of the fifth paragraph under ‘THERE ARE SO MANY LEVELS OF IRONY’
It appears to be the same pattern exhibited by past empires and fascist states: they get away with starting an illegal war, such as against Iraq and later Libya, then they keep going and think they can continue to get away with it. They have forgotten what we remembered during the cold war, that Mutual Assured Destruction meant destruction. I’m afraid that if they can win this election, that is our fate.
What more proof do we need that Hillary is and always has been, a Goldwater girl?
Democrats’ Tactic of Accusing Critics of Kremlin Allegiance Has Long, Ugly History in U.S.
A classic case of guilt by association. In the modern, age the phrase “has links to” is deeply suspect. Since everyone has “links” to pretty much everyone else. (Security Tip:Your browser bookmarks can be used against you in a court of law.)
But of course, it is also a means of deflection. I’ve noticed that some Hillary supporters (possibly organized) at places like WaPo have taken some rudimentary classes in argumentation. They merely fling phrases about like, racist, bigot, deflection, low information voter, white privilege, etc. The idea seems to be to forestall any substantive discussion of the issues.
On a somewhat related issue of media malfeasance:
An interesting thing happened to me at WaPo (The Washington Post). I was doing my usual agitprop and I wrote a comment about the Fox New Roger Ailes flap. And it just disappeared, poof! I figured it was a glitch so I wrote another one and poof!. It also disappeared. Very odd. I realized that we had entered the real campaign season and thing were about to get weird.
It was an article about the whole Fox News sexual harassment kerfuffle. I’ll post the offending comments below. Maybe people could keep their eyes open and be on the watch for this sort of thing.
Not just the major media, I have had my account for commondreams.org suspended until 2153 (which made every comment I had ever written there dissapear) for criticizing them for overt support for Hillary and continual disparagement or ignoring Jill Stein. Their header is “news and views for the progressive community.” But apparently condemning support for a neocon is off-limits there.
As they regularly reprint Greenwald’s columns (at least those nonoffensive to Hitlery’s drones, as well as Mackey’s drivel), and such blatant acts of censorship fit the McCarthyite climate he is pointing out, perhaps this trend would be fodder for a follow up article (prior to my suspension without stated reason, I had seen at least 5 other Jill Stein supporters similarly dissappeared).
I agree. Manipulating social media, a term which ought to include comment sections in major online venues, will probably become a dominant theme this election.
But the case of WaPo is especially egregious. Their comment sections is dynamic, controlled by javascript so comments jump around on the screen. Comments are added in real time giving the appearance of an actual conversation.
My offending comment was displayed and other people were commenting on it and I was looking directly at it when it literally disappeared. Just think about that for a second. Someone reached out onto my computer and removed information I was directly looking at and reading. And it wasn’t just my computer. They did it to everybody else who was reading the article and it’s comments.
I’ve also notice Disqus is acting up as well. It can go into lock-down mode for some reason.
Reuters was recently caught fudging polling data.
Expect more craziness as we approach the election. After the election, maybe things will get back to normal or maybe this is the new normal.
The flinging of phrases;Looks very familiar.I guess we definitely know now whom the phony one is voting for.
Excellent article. I only have to take minor issue with this:
“And then, of course, there’s the great pioneer of all of this himself: Senator Joseph McCarthy, who rose to fame, and then infamy, by running around accusing all sorts of domestic adversaries of being secretly loyal to, if not controlled by, their masters in Moscow.”
Establishment liberals were in fact enthusiastic Red-baiters from the start. As Rothbard put it:
“Furthermore, Red-baiting and anti-communist witch hunting were originally launched by liberals, and even after McCarthy the liberals were the most effective at this game. It was, after all, the liberal Roosevelt Administration which passed the Smith Act, first used against Trotskyites and isolationists during World War II and then against communists after the war; it was the liberal Truman Administration that instituted loyalty checks; it was the eminently liberal Hubert Humphrey who was a sponsor of the clause in the McCarran Act of 1950 threatening concentration camps for “subversives.””
FDR wasn’t a red-baiter. He signed the Smith Act with German nationals in mind. At the time, the federal government feared espionage not from Communists, but from resident Nazis. As for Truman, he was extremely contemptuous of Joe McCarthy and had no use for witch hunts. However, it eventually became undeniable that there actually had been some Soviet spies in the U.S. government (none identified by McCarthy), and so Truman decided federal employees did need background loyalty checks.
More interesting is Robert Kennedy, who had his daddy beg Joe to let him sit on his witchhunt committee, which Republican Joe agreed to do.
The people that were first prosecuted under the Smith Act were radical labour leaders such as Harry Bridges (1940) and members of the Socialist Workers Party (1941). The motivation for this was their agitation for the US to stay out of the war. (Lets leave aside for now the fact that all these lefties turned on a dime, and became fervently pro-war once the Soviet-Nazi pact fell apart.) It was only later that some alleged fascists sympathizers were indicted under this law.
That is true, about Bridges & the others being the first prosecuted. But FDR didn’t want him prosecuted because Bridges was a communist; he wanted him gone because he was impeding military build-up in Hawaii and the California coast by leading the International Longshore and Warehouse Union in a strike. Nevertheless, the support for the Smith Act by FDR and many liberals was primarily driven by worry over fascists in the U.S.
FDR tended to pooh-pooh all notions that Soviet spies had infiltrated his cabinet agencies. He was told in 1938 that Whittaker Chambers had cited many such spies, and did absolutely nothing. He was simply far more concerned about fascist espionage.
For that matter, anyone familiar with many of the sources Rothbard based his ideas on, and how horribly Rothbard distored the meanings of those sources through deceptive partial quoting, would hardly consider him a reliable source.
What sources are you referring to? The quote I posted was from a newsletter article. Rothbard was writing in a non-formal way as a contemporary observer.
You don’t have to search very much to find sources that corroborate what Rothbard observed at the time. In fact, Wikipedia just a quick glance at a couple of Wikipedia articles is enough:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran_Internal_Security_Act
Here’s the greatest irony. It’s not exactly related to the topic at hand, but bears mentioning. The mouth-breathing, right-wing Christians in the US are enamored of Putin’s anti-gay policies. They seem to have forgotten that Putin granted Edward Snowden asylum (or did they even pay attention to that?), and that he’s one of Iran’s closest allies.
The “anti-gay” policies in Russia are horribly overblown. For instance, in Russia, it is illegal to discriminate in employment or housing on basis of orientation or gender identity. Gay rights organizations in Russia report only about 1/1000th as many issues as are reported by similar organizations in the US (when measured per capita)
An American gay rights activist and professional sensitivity trainer started investigating this, and produced probably the best resource for those interested in truth rather than propaganda. To the best of my knowledge, it is the only source that has translated the much hyped law into English. It can be found here:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/203356052
Expect anything that is put out dealing with Russia in US media to be propaganda.
The reporting of issues is not a very good standard, if making one of those 1 in 1000 reports gets you beaten half to death, as has happened to all too many gay rights activists in Russia. It’s like comparing the rape rate in Sweden (something like 60 per 100000) to the rape rate in Egypt, I think (something like 0.1 per 100000).
The text of the law is also not particularly meaningful in Putin’s Russia; it’s a question of enforcement. Roosevelt’s order rounding up the Japanese Americans didn’t look like much of anything either.
The Russian people are predominately Russian Orthodox which is inherently anti Gay,as they follow religious texts more than corrupt America does,where we only give lip service to Jesus and God.
You are allowed to be gay there,and what does the internal attitude of foreigners to LGBT have to do with you in the first place?
Your sexual proclivities affect your politics?Jesus,is that banal or what?You must hate the whole world,as most other nations (outside of the Zionist dominated West)are anti Gay as well,and much more vociferous and hostile.
I apologize, but was the reference to Snowden meant to insult Putin? In my opinion, that is one of the good things that he has done.
I can never tell here. There are many opinions on the matter, and I can never tell what people think of an issue without them explicitly saying so.
McCarthyism and red baiting in the 50’s were evil, but so was supporting the murderous Stalin regime which a faction of the hard core left continued to do even as truth about the millions dying came to light these fellow travelers in the US continued to defend him. Putin is a murderous thug plain and simple. Those who try and paint him as benevolent ruler remind me of the Stalinist of old, putting politics over humanity.
One more thing. McCarthyism was shameful as was red baiting, but so were the Stalinist’s dups who supported his murderous reign of terror and continued to deny what was going on while millions were dying. Putin is a murderous thug, and all Stein had to say about him was he said he agreed with her on many issues. You can’t make this stuff up.
Thanks Glenn for revealing yet another evil aspect of Shillary. RRHeard is eloquent below on your essay.
“Russia for diverting scarce resources into military spending while its people suffered, ”
Wow talk about a misrepresentation of what Stein said about Russia’s military spending. First off she said nothing about Russian military spending in the video portion in Red Square. In the add on text she mentions US military spending and then says “to a lesser extent Russia” as being wasteful. Later the text has her again stating that the US is spending money on military spending that could be used to fight homelessness , hunger and economic security, and that “in Russia also money runs short for critical needs” because of the burden of military spending. There is nothing about Russian people suffering, and she clearly makes Russia out to be less culpable in this regard than the US. Talk about fraudulent journalism. What’s up with that Glenn?
I’m not sure that even qualifies as a nit you picked there.
GilG’s nit isn’t even accurate. In the video Andrew Weiss tweeted and lied about, Jill Stein’s video includes a summary of her remarks before the RT panel. So, her remarks are, in fact, in the video and were stated in Russia.
and where in those remarks does she mention Russian “suffering” and how exactly is my comment not accurate.
How am I not accurate? I clearly made the distinction between the video portion in Red Square and the text that follows. Please tell me where Stein mentions Russian “suffering”?
how is it not accurate ? I clearly made the distinction between the remakes made in Red Square and the text added on after words. I did not misquote her at all where as Glenn used the term Russian “suffering” which he made up out of whole cloth.
How is my comment not accurate ? I clearly make a distinction between the part film in front of Red Square and the add on text. One ting we know is that she in no way did she use the term “suffering” when referring to the Russians .
This was made up out of whole cloth.
That’s nice. And irrelevant. Weiss didn’t say anything about remarks in front of Red Square; he lied about her “video from Moscow.” In her “video from Moscow” she included reports of he remarks at the RT panel. Glenn Greenwald criticized Weiss’s tweet, the tweet that did not specify remarks in “Red Square,” but rather, criticized her “video form Moscow.”
if it’s irrelevant than how was my comment not accurate. And where was “Russian suffering” in Stein’s remarks?
what did I say that was not accurate? Glenn use the term Russian “suffering” the word appears no where and is not even implied.
the point is that Glenn misrepresented what Ms. Stein said. At no time in the video did she use the term Russian suffering or even imply it.
Huh, it seems like the bulk of Glenn’s complaint about the tweet linking to the Stein video is that the tweeter made no mention of how she also remarked on Russian “suffering” . Doesn’t seem like a nit to me, but maybe I did miss the point. What do you think Glenn’s problem with the tweet was?
How is it a “nit” isn’t Glenn’s complaint about the tweet that it didn’t acknowledge what Stein said about Russian suffering?
The absence doesn’t imply Stein was condoning anything.
Your failure to acknowledge the tiger poaching in Siberia is shameful btw.
How dare you?
Have you no decency?
You thoughtless, uncaring animal hater.
(get the point?)
For the record, not qualifying as a nit doesn’t make it a nit.
And, why are you repeating yourself again and again and again and again?
Your toadies tried and failed to deflect. Why the falsehood Glenn?
The Hillary campaign and her shills in the corporate media attacking Stein the way they attacked Bernie is the more interesting part of this red-baiting to me.
I fully agree that the ethically ugly embrace of this disgusting tactic by Democrats deserves condemnation, even when used against the Trumpon, but Dems attacking Repubs and vice versa in any and every way is standard.
Dems and their corporate media shills needing to attack a third party candidate is new though.
The Hillary campaign squad has used lies about Stein as an anti-vaxxer this week in two hit pieces on HuffingtonPost, at least one in the NYT, one in the LA times, and even one in The Hill (?)… and those are just the ones I’ve stumbled across… I haven’t done a search.
Her paid commenters and establishment lackeys have harped on the same lies in every comment thread on any story I’ve seen that mentions Stein too… even here.
The red-baiting lies are part of a pattern which, to me, suggests that the Hillary campaign’s internal polling shows Stein is a growing threat. Hillary’s ongoing embrace of militarism, neoliberal economics, her selection of corporatist, white, male Kaine as VP, and her courting of Republicans, neocons and the war criminal Kissenger is hurting her badly with the left, so neutralizing or diminishing the support for Stein has become an urgent matter.
Hillary couldn’t convince the once again Independent though still boot licking Bernie to stay in the Dem Party, and her actions may well make more former Bernie supporters reconsider too. I am saddened that it took Glenn Greenwald to call out Hillary’s disgusting red-baiting… you would think some in the party or among her supporters (like maybe some in the unions that were themselves targeted that way) would know the history and speak out too.
Anyway, when recent polls mention third party options, and many still don’t or they do only as a secondary question, the numbers come out around 42 for Clinton, 36 for the Trumpon… which means 22 percent of voters already support neither… and there’s still 3 months to go.
Ross Perot only got 19 percent of the vote in 92 by comparison.
If Wikileaks does have more damaging stuff on Hillary and the DNC, we may well see our next president elected with a plurality of less than 40% of the vote.
And if Trump can’t learn to shut up, Stein or Johnson, or the supposed new anti-Trump Republican some are supposedly floating may well end up in second place or even become a serious contender.
Lots of “ifs” there, but these reprehensible tactics of character assassination by Team Hillary seem pretty desperate for someone who shouldn’t normally have a hard time winning against a clown like Trump.
Obviously, the argument FOR Hillary is pathetic, and at best a hard sell, but the negative crap against everybody else is itself revealing.
Interesting times.
BTW, I too would like to point out that Obama wasn’t as great on Ukraine as GG suggests.
Not only did Obama’s gang encourage the coup and offer US financial assistance, he was also a supporter of the US dominated IMF massive bailout for the illegal new government, and some weapons deliveries did indeed take place as well as supposedly non-lethal supplies.
Sorry for rambling.
This is what the NY Times article said about Jill Stein and vaccines:
“For some, the most disturbing peculiarity of Ms. Stein’s campaign came when she questioned the process by which vaccines were approved in remarks on Reddit’s “Ask Me Anything” and to The Washington Post. Her language echoed some of the arguments of the anti-vaccination movement, but Ms. Stein also called vaccines “invaluable” and did not oppose their use.
How is that a hit piece painting her as an “anti-vaxxer” ? No wonder you defended GG misrepresenting Stein’s remarks about Russian suffering, you are his equal at making stuff up that isn’t there.
She may have confused The New York Times with New York Magazine, which was roundly booed for concluding that Stein’s statements about vaccines “make[] her unfit to be president.” That’s hardly a big deal as small errors in comments go.
Perhaps, I don’t know how anyone who actually reads the Times could confuse the two, but it put a whole in her conspiracy theory. It seems to me “small” errors in the comments are in the eyes of the beholder.
perhaps but I don’t see how anyone who actually reads the Times could mistake it with NY Mag. Small errors in comments are in the eyes of the beholder. But if she can give me the quote from the NY Mag article that will suffice
I don’t know how anyone who reads the NY Times could confuse it with NY Mag. but let’s she if she can quote the what the Mag said about the Vaxxer stuff and I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt. Small errors appear to be in the eyes of the beholder especially around this place.
No one who actually reads the Times would confuse it with NY Mag. Let her post a link to an article in the Mag.
No one who reads the Times would confuse it with NY Mag. Let her prove it by providing the lik.
Hi Mona
Nope.
See my response to this very odd person who thinks six replies to every comment are necessary.
And it’s he, btw.
It’s a hit piece because questioning the FDA drug approval process is not “disturbing”, and claiming it “echoes the arguments of anti-vaxxers” is bullshit guilt by association.
Everyone should be questioning the FDA drug approval process, because it has been coopted by corporate interests just like every regulator in DC.
First they ignored her. Then they ridiculed her. Now they are attacking her. It only took about a week to switch from phase 2 to phase 3. Anyone familiar with the quote mistakenly attributed to Gandhi or Schopenhauer (though it is an accurate summary of what both of them said) knows step 4.
August 17 on CNN, she has a town hall meeting scheduled.
I am actually very encouraged by this redbaiting.
I hear ya, but it still deserves to be condemned and corrected… while pointing out Hillary’s desperation.
I have no doubt that Assange has ties to the Russian FSB and that it was the FSB and or GRU that fed him the leaks. It’s been evident that Assange has FSB ties for some time and the forensic analysis of the email hack is evidence of Russian government hackers.
Trump’s pro-Russian stance is at odds with US policy and at odds with our relationship with European allies. This is just a fact.
It is ridiculous to think that and RT sponsored propaganda event would be a legitimate platform to do anything but to appear to be a useful idiot in the larger propaganda aims of the Kremlin. Are people really that naive?
Putin has an articulated hostility to the aims and values of the Western democracies and anyone who is unable to see how that conflicts with the interests of Western democracies is not really trying.
The Kremlin in its current form is little more than a state sponsored Mafia regime that values authoritarian oppression and corruption as virtues.
Russia is in the process of trying to subvert the nations of eastern and western Europe for its own ends.
Slamming the stupid exaggerations of partisan politics is fine but there are some truths about the nature of Russia’s current regime and those who seem to never get around to describing it accurately or deliberately obscure its true nature that need to be noticed by everyone.
Russia is not our friend. End of.
Your claims about Assange are unsubstantiated crap… just like Hillary’s crap.
Trump’s an ass, but the anti-Russia crap they’re shoveling isn’t why.
The warmongers need an enemy, so they revived one.
Everything you claim about Russia can accurately be said about the US too.
Putin refusing to allow Wall Street vultures to loot his country doesn’t make Russia an enemy though.
If we were smart, or still had rule of law for our “elites”, we’d be locking up the Wall Street vultures too.
The Glenn Greenwald version of Americans’ right to privacy is just as despicable, though a bit more hypocritical than the Republican version. Mr. Greenwald has zero regard for the 4th Amendment Rights: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” All you need do to violate another of their right to privacy is hack into their email accounts and instead of calling it an a warrantless search or a Watergate break in for the purpose of a smear, call it a “leak” and glorify it, as if that puts you in league with Daniel Ellsberg. Of course, if the NSA is involved in this disgusting act, it’s a no, no, for Mr. Greenwald, as well it should be. But no matter to Glenn in this particular case. He hates Hillary and any form of abuse passes the muster in his hermetic billionaire funded world, even abusive, law breaking tactics that the likes of J. Edgar Hoover would salivate over. Glenn should spend a little time and reread Mapp V. Ohio. Sorry, Glenn, but no matter how convinced you are that somebody is evil, you need to respect their rights and that includes those who work at the DNC.
You sir, are one very, very, VERY tall glass of water!!!
Hillary trolls trotting out Watergate in comparison to Wikileaks is ugly in many ways… not the least of which is the fact that Hillary’s ethical violations during the Watergate proceedings are public knowledge.
Hillary trolls talking about billionaire funded anybody is likewise hypocrisy beyond belief.
He’s a Hillary troll, and no doubt very displeased that all the Bernie Sanders supporters ended up with solid evidence that, contrary to all the condescension and ridicule from Hillary shills, the DNC actually was trying to tank Bernie’s campaign.
Too bad, so sad!
Hey, Jimmy! Didn’t they tell you, in school, that the Bill of Rights is intended to protect the people against government overreach, interference and abuse?
If you had spent enough time reading Mapp, to understand the “main idea” (as the teachers say to the elementary school kids) you would know that it extended the protection against unreasonable search and seizure to the states as well as the federal courts.
Nothing in there about whistle-blowers or journalists (or even Russian spies!!!!!), my friend.
Oh, really, Doug, the 4th has no bearing on the right to privacy debate. Grade for the semester: F.
You are an imbecile. In your trollery, you wrote this:
That criminal law case which established the exclusionary rule has zero to do with anything in this discussion. Neither Glenn nor Wikileaks are Cleveland cops, or any other fashion of state actors.
“All you need do to violate another of their right to privacy is hack into their email accounts”
I think you are suffering from some sort of reverse polarity syndrome.
When the this is done against persons who are hiding evidence of wrong-doing, it’s called investigation.
When it’s done by the State or State sponsors against the citizenry without cause or warrant, it’s called spying.
Perhaps if you uncrossed your eyes or took off your blinders, you might see it more clearly.
LOL. To translate,
“Let him who is without sin have the first private email account”
Ummm yea, you’re wrong.
My comment speaks to motive and purpose.
You’re comment is a straw man at best.
Someone send this article to @GreatDismal (William Gibson).
So, a post by Greenwald on his Twitter feed, followed by responses, tells us what we need to know about certain segments of the “Left” in America:
Bernie Sanders said that the US should demand fair elections. Here is what some brave responders replied with:
“Sanders won’t demand that the DNC address the election fraud in the primaries – sigh”
“Let’s be honest.Sanders words fall flat after Clinton endorsement.”
“Meh. I appreciate little slave boy Bernie’s sentiment, but it should not be up to the US to demand shit about Brazil.” — [this one is extra bullshit considering that this poster would probably turn around and immediately blame any developments on Brazil on, guess who — the USA]
So. Here is a little snapshot of the Left in the USA, who sometimes wonder why nobody loves them and why they don’t run things. Petulant bullshit top to bottom. Bernie Sanders says something absolutely correct about Brazil , but guess what the responders want to talk about: themselves.
And still, nobody has said a word about the treatment of regular people of Turkey by wikileaks, because it is all about the US.
YOU are the imperialists. Admit it; you’ll be slightly more attractive after you either admit it or change.
Um, you do realize US involvement in Brazil is well documented, right?
Not to mention interference in elections all over the world?
Anyway, the anecdotal broad brush to target “the Left” says nothing.
Kneejerk reactions know no party or ideological bounds.
I would also point to my own comment and at least one prior about the Turkey Wikileaks bit in the Mackey article (haven’t read the comments since though)… so “nobody” isn’t accurate either. It’s also true that Mackey gave that angle short shrift in his piece, so there wasn’t much info to comment about.
Hey altohone, if you think Bernie Sanders should have just said that the coup in Brazil is okay with him, you should just admit you think that. I doubt you would do that, so why are you running interference?
I only know Sanders said it because Greenwald reposted it in his Twitter feed. Again, if you have some reason for maintaining that Sanders should not have commented on the situation in Brazil, then say so.
There was plenty enough to comment on about wikileaks and Turkey in the Mackey article, so you are hiding there, too.
The avoidance of talking about it in the comments was simply because it made Assange look bad. Period.
Hey Vic, you seem fixated on the Turkey/ Wikleaks issue..let me just say that it is ridiculous to judge a bunch of posters based on things they HAVEN’T discussed…
You do know that every time you make a purchase with your credit card, or click on Google or Facebook or the like, that much of your private information is hoovered up by both the Government and by “businesses”, and then used however they see fit..And when I say “you”, I mean everyone..
But maybe you’re OK with that. Then again, maybe you’re not. Having not discussed it with you, I would only be guessing at your beliefs regarding this issue.
But you seem to think you KNOW how others feel, based on non-existent information…Are you a mind-reader Vic?
I didn’t realize that Vic Perry is the arbiter of what people should or should not post..
Personally, I’m more worried about the implications of the DNC leaks, I.e., our political process is a sham, and they can get away with it with impunity..I’m also concerned that our “leadership” has killed, and continues to kill, civilians around the globe in endless wars for profit, and in so doing turning many countries into unliveable hell-holes. Not to mention the negative impact(austerity) that these untold trillions of dollars spent on bogus wars, and lining the weapons makers pockets has on the “regular”citizens of the US.
So please, get of your high-horse..
So while a portion of the Turkish population has had some of their private information exposed through no fault of their own, and that’s not right, there are some bigger issues going on right now..like innocent people being killed and countries being ruined by our government..
Is it alright with you, Vic, if I focus on those issues?
What a hilariously whiney put-upon response!
After more than 500 comments on the Mackey article, almost none of which mentioned the part about Turkey in his article (because it’s inconvenient to their complaints) — I do two or three posts pointing this curious omission out, and suddenly:
it’s just SO oppressive, oh my goodness, the oppression! I just won’t shut up about Turkey!! and I’m “making” the other people talk about what I want to talk about!! (…..uh Where?
…..You? Oh okay.)
by the way — did you notice the American woman on the Facebook page of the activist from Turkey telling her that her Turkish problems were not important enough to complain about — not compared to the big problem of, you guessed it, the American election? Now there’s some good old ugly American exceptionalism for you right there. I am sorry, as a Bernie supporter, to say that this American woman sported a Bernie hashtag, too.
I think you misunderstood my comment.
Probably my fault.
The people on “the Left” using an untimely opportunity to ridicule Sanders for endorsing Clinton despite her cheating doesn’t mean they support the coup in Brazil.
And, I did condemn the Wikileaks on Turkey, so your “nobody” claim was wrong and I am not “hiding”, but Mackey did not go into detail about the Turkey leaks like the potential consequences for those whose info was released or even who they may face consequences from.
The info I thought relevant wasn’t there.
I’ve spent a lot of time in Turkey, and care a lot about the innocent suffering even more than they have from Erdogan and going back to military rule.
They deserve better government than what they’ve got and what they’ve had.
But, the lack of discussion also doesn’t mean support for Assange.
Thanks. I’m sorry I missed your comment, and if I said “nobody” I was wrong (I hope I said “almost nobody” but if I was being hyperbolic, then it was still wrong).
This is an “untimely opportunity” indeed to denounce Sanders. A parade of people want to take this untimely opportunity, which is kind of pathetic of them actually.
(first there’s the number of people who never supported him who will now and forever claim to have been disappointed by him…don’t get me started….but as for those who did support him, were they not actually paying attention to what he said about his relationship to the nomination process, that he would support the nominee? It does them no credit that he could flat out tell how far he would go, and where he wouldn’t, and they didn’t want to believe it. To them I would say: move your own selves….bitterness becomes brooding adolescents, not people who are allegedly tough independent thinkers)
I’m not so convinced about Obama’s “refusal to capitulate to anti-Russia hysteria and seek conflict with Moscow.” Maybe you’re correct – and I hope you are – but if this is ” one of his most important accomplishments” then how do you explain sticking Ed Snowden in Sheremetyevo without travel docs? Wasn’t that an obvious attempt by Eric Holder and Obama to link Snowden with Putin? I am saying this only because I wish I had a dime for every well read, educated person who has patiently explained to me that Snowden is definitely a Russian spy. Even the NY Times has often referred to Snowden as having “run to Russia.” I thought Obama’s removal of Snowden’s travel docs would become the most laughable failure at the new wave of red baiting but I was so wrong – it seems that it is still useful – even to the Democrats who were so often the earlier victims.
I’m glad Mr. Greenwald has clearly spoken up for the rule of law and democracy against the real fascist threat. Who are you going to believe: Mr. Greenwald with his documented record on behalf of the rule of law or establishment lackeys like Mr. Mackie, the exponent of the yankee imperium whom the Intercept also seems to like publishing? There are not enough Greenwalds and too many apologists for a power structure which has gone rogue and which is threatening our survival as a species.
@ Glenn
And as an aside, who in the fuck is Joy-Ann Reid?
I’ll tell you who–a Harvard trained film major (not a political scientist, not a journalist, not a lawyer, not a politician) whose shitty show on MSNBC was canceled after one year because it had such shitty ratings, who has about 245K Twitter followers to your nearly 1 million, and who was some second rate hack of some shitty South Florida morning talk radio program.
Why anybody listens to her about anything is beyond me. If I was you I wouldn’t even engage her on Twitter because it is beneath you. She’s not even in the same intellectual ballpark as you nor has she achieved anything in life that, at least as near as I can tell, gives her any meaningful insight on any topic other than film reviews and bullshit propaganda.
Yes of course the person with the most twitter followers is always right. That’s why it’s Kim Kardashian we should be listening to. She has 47.2 M followers. Who the fuck is Glenn Greenwald. LOL.
I know who I’m not going to be listening to.
I actually did cringe a bit to see rr invoke relative numbers of Twitter followers. But he’s otherwise spot on — and Reid isn’t remotely, not even kinda, in Glenn’s intellectual ballpark.
zing, that’s gotta hurt.
@GilG
Fair enough. But not really my point in pointing out Twitter followers. The point being Joy-Ann Reid is a relatively “unpopular” [by one metric] “pundit” with zero educational background in politics, law, journalism or any other relevant field to be pontificating (and/or red-baiting someone like Glenn Greenwald) whereas Glenn Greenwald has written something on the order of 5 best sellers in the general topical arena, snagged some of the biggest journalism prizes in the world and has the educational, legal and political background to pontificate meaningfully (but of course never without being subject to critique and scrutiny as all are) on the topics at hand.
So again, I’ll concede that absolute number of Twitter followers has nothing to do with Joy-Ann Reid’s insinuations of Russia ties on the merits of that insinuation, but how’s this–let’s see Joy-Ann Reid bring her “evidence” that Glenn or anyone else is somehow sympathetic to Russia over America before she starts running her mouth like that. For the very simple reason that insinuation has a long ugly history in America of destroying lives and to do it without very strong evidence is morally repellent. Um kay?
fair enough. I’m always willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, RR.
And I agree that GG is much more respected and knowledgeable and has background to make the calls better. Cheers.
@ Ouch
That response wasn’t so much aimed at you as GilG, but for what it is worth I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt about the point I was trying to make–however badly I may have actually made it.
I’m well aware that argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy although not always depending on what you are trying to prove i.e. it is not a fallacy when trying to establish that a belief/proposition is popular rather than true. The former use isn’t a logical fallacy but the latter is. I’ll concede the way I set it up made it one, when the rest of my comment was trying to point out why I believe Joy-Ann Reid has less credibility than Glenn on the merits (although pointing to Glenn’s achievements and education depending on how used could be a different logical fallacy — argumentum ad verecundiam or argument from authority) of the specific issue of whether there was a basis (ever IMHO) for red-baiting anyone and who has credibility on the topic generally as a probabilistic matter.
RR, if you were on twitter you would know these things! Here is one of her infamous tweets: https://unbearabledissonance.wordpress.com/2016/07/31/tweets-by-adversarial-journalists-1/
By the way, some of us might get together to post blogs at Unbearable Dissonance. We. Want. You.
RSVP
@ Glenn Greenwald
Another home run brother. The Democratic Party’s (purported “liberals” and/or “progressives”) embrace of neo-McCarthyite red-baiting signifies one thing and one thing only to me–they are scared shitless that enough people are defecting from their little “coalition” (either to Jill Stein, Gary Johnson or just going to leave it blank or write in Bernie Sanders) that they are pulling out any and all means to demonize and delegitimize certain individuals and any opposition to Mrs. MegaThatcher.
It has and always will be morally repellent to me. It is precisely why I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton for POTUS and why I will be changing my voter registration to independent or NAV after a lifetime of nearly straight Dem ticket voting.
I am done with the national Democratic Party–it is a fucking disgrace and a charade to what liberalism and progressivism should be about.
Here’s always been my issue with “red-baiting” . . . if “capitalism” and “our way of life” are so superior to “communism” or “socialism”, why not just argue the benefits of both on the merits? Shouldn’t it be self-evident to everyone how superior America’s “way of life” is in tangible terms encompassing the vast majority of its people? And if it isn’t, shouldn’t we maybe look at those critiques on the merits?
Why is/are America, and so many Americans, wedded to this facile idea that the only “ideas” of merit can come from the USA, a nation whose history is so steeped in blood, theft and immorality (from slavery, to near genocide of indigenous peoples, to Viet Nam to Iraq to use of nuclear weapons and torture . . . .) that to sit around trying to take the political ideological “high ground” relative to the rest of the world is fucking embarrassing to any American with two functioning brain cells and a decent grasp of our history.
My country does some good things domestically and abroad. It also does/has done some horrific indefensible things. Why is it so fucking difficult for Americans to be honest with themselves about that reality? How does a nation ever improve and evolve if it isn’t willing to look itself honestly in the mirror? To be strong enough to admit when it is wrong and try and change course or make amends with those it has harmed? It is baffling to me at a moral and intellectual level. That “reality” is quite likely every nation in the history of mankind’s reality. So why do we dig in our heels and try and never admit we could be better or do better by everyone.
Instead of spending even one second of any day in anyone’s life red-baiting people, why is it we are so frightened intellectually, morally and ideologically to tackle any critique of our way of life and its ideological underpinnings, or the merits of our actions in pursuit of it, on the merits?
I’ll tell you why, because deep down America and Americans know that we’ve got some very very serious shortcomings and sins to atone for in the world as a nation. We are some of the most insecure human beings on an otherwise “secure” continent. We intuitively understand we are the least egalitarian “first world” nation on the planet, and quite possibly the “least civilized” of the supposed “civilized” people on the planet (from income inequality, to poor education, to poor health care, to torture as government policy, to the death penalty . . . .)
As I’ve been saying for years, America’s leaders better start wising up to the fact, particularly with the Internet, that they (and many of their “institutions”) are losing legitimacy and very quickly. And that’s when some either really good changes can come about, or some very very bad violent shit happens. You’d think all those Ivy League educated functionaries, bureaucrats and nominal “leaders” in business and the military would have a much better grasp on world history and be looking for ways to facilitate the former and head off the latter before they end up on the very short end of the little people’s sticks.
Like I said, highly disturbing and incredibly baffling that nominal liberals and progressives would engage in a tactic that is morally repellent and one historically aimed at them for decades. Tells you an awful lot about what the Clinton’s and their advisors actually stand for, and that’s why I won’t waste my vote on her.
Excellent. This should go as a separate article rather than a mere comment.
The red baiting is just more evidence that we’ve evolved to a one party system consisting of two extremely right-wing factions.
Progressives need to wake up and get off the plantation.
“Why is/are America, and so many Americans, wedded to this facile idea that the only “ideas” of merit can come from the USA”….”I’ll tell you why, because deep down America and Americans know that we’ve got some very very serious shortcomings and sins to atone for in the world as a nation.”
I think the answer to the question is actually the exact opposite. You give Americans too much credit for self-examination or introspection. It’s because our society values individuality and not community and that they are unaware of alternatives and not willing to explore them with others.
I have travelled to many countries in Asia, Europe and India and I literally get asked that question everywhere I go. Their question is usually followed up with the answer I just gave you. They say to me, don’t American know there are other countries in the world and we too have good ideas to solve problems?
American are oblivious to others. Our ability to bring Endless War is a perfect example. We only are concerned with feeding our military industrial complex and those who are employed with them instead of being concerned for the death and devastation we inflict globally.
Until we participate more in community and teach kids to solve problems with others instead of by themselves, we will perpetuate our individualism and give less value to community.
Well said!!
“.. American know there are other countries in the world and we too have good ideas to solve problems?”
I thought American’s did know this. I seem to recall in grade school that comparing USSR education vs US education one found that soviet txt would modify the (whatever it was, say) scientific contribution to a problem by claiming it as russian.. whilst the US, if it was an Italian, Russian, Arabic, who gives a fuck, if they solved the problem, more power to em, and they get the credit.
…but on that, and since this is Olympic week, for people to claim Ginny Thrasher’s individual achievement as “American” or “Virginian” or “West Virginia – because she happens to attend WVU” is dishonest. I don’t feel any sense of national pride because so and so hailed from somewhere; it’s an accident anyway. It does not speak to the greatness of a location on the planet or a particular culture.
Good job at manipulating my comment and proving how untrustworthy your are.
My statement was in the voice of others, and you conveniently left of the beginning.
Go back to grade school and learn how to play with others.
You just proved my point about Americans. So, thanks for helping out. I now no know why you picked your name as well.
No manipulation intended. Perhaps a name change *is* in order: ContinuousConfusion.
You studied the SUs educational system in grade school???
My grade school let me draw a map of Mexico,but we never talked anything about its politics or educational system.
Only pinatas.
@ Galactus
I’d agree Americans aren’t very good at self-examination or introspection as a nation. The question is why? But I think I tried to address that as well, although maybe not very well, with the rest of the comment.
The reason why is what I stated in my comment to you. Americans are too individualistic and not enough community oriented. There’s a balance there and it’s tilted to much in favor of individualism over community.
They are a selfish lot, only thinking of themselves and on general, this is how the rest of the world perceives us. ContinousDeception said:
“who gives a fuck, if they solved the problem, more power to em, and they get the credit.”
Just look at ContinuousDeception’s response above. It’s a perfect example of what I was commenting about.
It’s an example of “We’re The Best, Fuck The Rest!” It’s a mixture of We Know Best and We Don’t Care About You or Your Ideas.
Galactus
Yes I generally agree with your comment. But I also thing it is a bit of an overgeneralization to attribute it all to “Americans are too individualistic and not enough community oriented”. Come visit any small town in America and you’d be hard pressed to say Americans aren’t “community oriented”. The question becomes what does that “community” stand for and why?
It might be fair to say Americans, and I’d argue all humans, are very “tribal” (and tribes can be big or small and diverse or not depending on where in America you are).
Great points!
But also to the point of small towns….again, these sorts of people are family oriented and to an extent, yes, community oriented. But they are also folks that that generally don’t travel beyond their own backyard. I grew up in a small town in Minnesota and traveled to many smaller towns as a part of a job when I was a teenager. They are creatures of habit as we all are to an extent. ;)
Many of the people I grew up with are still there. No outside experiences or interactions with folks even from other states. It’s somewhat isolating in its effects I guess is what I’m trying to say.
But good points and good conversation. Very Enjoyable. Thanks!
@rrheard-I believe the Declaration of Independence is as progressive as it gets but your/our disgust is a well fed by more than one spring. The filth is real but which spring is it coming from if not all of them or it could be as simple as someone keeps pissing in it?
What happened to Sanders is what happens to people who follow the rules/laws. That alone put him at a disadvantage that was too great to be victorious. The origins of the restrictions is irrelevant because the outcome is the same, losing.
Those who aren’t burdened with restrictions/rules/laws/authorities, like Hillary and the DNC, have an unfair advantage that almost garantees victory. A disgusting, filthy-unAmerican reality.
Electing people like Sanders, Hillary, Stein and the rest is pissing in the well. They all will put more restrictive authority on the books. They will not remove restrictive authority in the books. Again, those who are not burdened by restrictions have the advantage.
I voted for Obama because he mislead me to think he would remove restrictive authorities from the books.
Clean the well with people who will remove the filthy piss water restrictions…
At least now you’ve got me seeing this insanity all with a bit of amusement, Glenn.
The Democratic red-baiting for Hillary now smacks of Dana Carvey’s SNL Church Lady.
“Who’s causing all this election evil, anyway? Could it be — PUTIN???”
This tack could end up back-firing on Mrs. Clinton and her team.
I would prefer to have a President who would make “deals” with Russia rather than choose to waste our precious resources and lives “fighting” them.
Especially sitting here in Los Angeles at “ground zero”.
So many (including almost all Republicans and even Mr. Trump) bad mouth the “horrible” nuclear deal the Obama administration made with Iran and the P5 plus one.
Yet in all the time that deal was being negotiated there wasn’t word one of Israel’s nuclear arsenal which would be Iran’s prime motivation for developing a deterrence. Nor any discussions of the history the United States has had with Iran going back to the overthrow of their democratically elected leader Mosaddeq by the CIA, the brutal Shah (installed by the CIA) and his deadly SAVAK death squads (organized with the help of the CIA).
Hillary Clinton has promised to “obliterate” Iran at the first sign that they are reneging on the agreement. Victoria Nuland admitted that the United States spent $5 billion toward instigating the coup in Ukraine. There has been evidence in some of Clinton’s emails that while she was Secretary of State leading up to her firm decision to strike Libya with NATO to oust Gaddafi that Libyan weapons were sent to the Syrian rebels (our version of the “Contras”) in an attempt to force yet another “regime change” (and probably create another vacuum for ISIS).
I find Mrs. Clinton (and her Neocon backers) to be a far more dangerous President related to Russia and “world peace” than Donald Trump would be, especially considering that Iran and Syria are allies of Russia.
Some say that WW III has already started and that it is closer to “midnight” on the nuclear clock than at any time in history.
Come November many voting Americans should be seriously considering all this when they vote, especially when it comes to “national defense” and the “safety” of the American people.
Nuclear war is not “winnable” nor a desirable outcome for ANY living thing.
absolutely
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqD8lIdIMRo
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it yet again. Four years of Trump, Trumps eight years of the warmonger Hillary.
Correction – DNC.
Nothing one can add, to your report, Glen.
Thorough, as always; I’m sure you’re aware of the Gibney report in todays’ NY Times, wherein a thinly veiled specious attack was launched against Mr. Assange, castigating him, for the expose of the corruption in the highest levels of the DNA.
At this stage, I’ve concluded the Times has given up all pretense of being Hillarys’ representative, and is doing all it can to sow disinformation, and manage perception, to get her firmly ensconced in the White House, for the next 8 years.
There appears to be no sense of decency left, and even the Clinton voters among the electorate, seem to be despicable, crass, and weirdly angry when the latest exposure of her bad acts breaks.
At this point, I believe the only possible salvation, is if the DNC pulls the plug on Hillary, and nominates either Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein.
It could occur, especially if the next Assange release, unequivocally shows real widespread rigging of the primaries, or other equally egregious act by Boss (Tweed) Hillary, and her corporate / military / industrial alliance handlers.
Assange says he thinks Hillary Clinton will be president – so either he can’t be very convinced his upcoming information is particularly compelling or he knows the establishment will do whatever it has to in order to ensure Clinton’s victory, including loudly distracting from or burying the release.
This whole ‘Russia is behind it’ thing is the tack the establishment are already laying the ground for, and as it has traction with both the mainstream media and all of Clinton’s Stepford voters they will doubtless continue with this diversionary sleight of hand to avoid discussing the unflattering content of the releases.
Personally I believe Trump is in on this, and will always make himself the fall guy when necessary (I realize this is conspiratorial theorizing in itself, and also annoying to some readers to read, but it seems so damn obvious to me that he times his stupidest nonsense for whenever he is being perceived as a legitimate challenge to Clinton).
Interestingly, Glenn Greenwald says the same thing – he fully expects Hillary to be president, that resistance to her will not ever suffice to stop her.
The establishment has already won, it seems.
But I still say Jill Stein 2016!
Mark your calendar for August 17th when CNN is doing a Town Hall with Jill Stein.
I doubt they are doing this to “promote” her candidacy since all she can do is hurt Clinton. I have a sneaking suspicion that their researchers are very busy right now digging up all the dirt they can find on her to sandbag her at the event.
Absolutely. She needs to be prepared for all kinds of smears: That she’s anti-vax, anti-science, peddler of alternative medicine, a secret agent of Putin, a rape apologist (because of Assange), a Bernie hater, a race-baiter, anti-American, and so on and so forth.
The DNC is surely working hard on that opposition research, which they’ll be sending to their “journalists” at CNN.
“all she can do is hurt Clinton”
Say WHAT??!!? That almost sounds like voting for Stein helps — gasp — Trump! Which I’ve been called ten kinds of idiot for suggesting here. Go figure. (Next you’ll be saying Nader hurt Gore in 2000….)
Except for the fact you’ve never conceded or recognized, at least not that I’ve noticed, that registered Democrats in Florida hurt Gore more (at over a 3 to 1 clip) by voting for Bush in Florida.
But hey don’t let the facts concerning the proportionality of harm that yellow-dog Democrats (like you apparently by your own admission) in your state did to Gore, and just go with the illogical hagiography that it was Nader who hurt Gore. One was a tantamount to an irrelevant electoral pinprick while the other was a straight razor across the jugular. But keep blaming Nader voters because it’s about the level of your mathematical and political understanding of reality.
We’ve been over this before RR, but I’ll try again. The Democrats who voted for Bush instead of Gore in Florida fucked up mightily and caused Gore to lose the election. The people who voted for Nader instead of Gore in Florida ALSO fucked up mightily and caused Gore to lose the election. EITHER group could have changed the outcome by voting for Gore instead of the dildo they voted for. BOTH are to blame. (The difference is that the Democrats who voted for Bush now mostly admit they fucked up, whereas the Nader voters mostly insist with palpable desperation that the predictable consequences of their actions cannot ever, ever be considered their responsibility in any way.)
Actually, the Supreme Court’s insatiable desire for over-riding the constitution and not allowing the counting to continue caused the most damage not only to Gore, but the constitution.
The question of ‘who shall be president’ is a political question for the republic to answer…i.e. the States. In the event no one gets a majority of the electoral college, the House chooses the president and the Senate chooses the VP. (I think) In 2000, Dems controlled the House and Senate (I think). Thus, Gore would have most likely been president as he also had the most in popular vote.
The Courts overstepped their authority in order to avoid a non-smooth transition.
Chris Cuomo admitted on air that CNN had been doing all it possible could to help Hillary Clinton:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc5p5mD08D4
Jeez,for a moment I thought you said someone here had castrated Assange,but looking again,nevermind.:)
accusing someone of being a stooge for a foreign government is only okay when the person making the accusations is glenn and the foreign government is israel
Zionist stooges are always corporatist, militarist and imperialist. There is a pattern to the compromised.
One of Greenwald’s points here is that supposed ‘Russian stooges’ run the gamut from overblown and comical braggarts to peace-oriented progressives and whistleblowers, which makes the accusations obviously absurd and agenda-laden. The only commonality to the supposed Russian stooges is that they oppose the miserable choice of Hillary Clinton.
I’d say it’s OK when the connection is not based on conspiracist fantasies. In the case of Wikileaks, no one knows who their source is. It could be a DNC employee. The hacking of the DNC is tangential. The connection is even more tenuous in all the other cases.
The difference being the vast amount of evidence that the U.S. Israel Lobby does, in fact, own a huge number of elected “stooges.” Indeed, one can find many American Zionists admonishing Jews they have an obligation to vote Israel first and foremost. In fact, you can find a great many powerful and wealthy Zionists proudly admitting (explicitly as well as in sum and substance) that they are “single issue” on American politics, and that that issue is: Israel.
The key difference being the accusations of pols being dupes of Russia is a lie while our Congress, media, government, and much more is in fact
filled with people working for Israel and against America (and decency).
Whipping up fear of the Russians in order to justify bloated military budgets is what Clinton is up to this election season; that’s why the neocon think tanks (financed by kickbacks from defense contractors, largely) are joining forces with her campaign. The Democrats are now the new-Cold-War bloated-military-budget party – didn’t you hear all the “USA! USA! USA!” chants at the Democratic National Convention? It’s all about protecting the cash handouts in the military budget, an agenda that Obama and Congress are entirely loyal to. What are the numbers?
“$548 billion in defense spending for 2016 and $551 billion for 2017, and something like $60 billion a year in “contingency funding”. No $60 billion-a-year infrastructure fund for states to use to rebuild infrastructure, though.
With a military budget this large, of course you can’t pay for domestic infrastructure repair, let alone improvements; forget about public education, forget about public health. Roads, bridges, public transit, schools, hospitals; all are sacrificed on the altar of “the world’s most powerful military” theme that Clinton and Obama – and Trump – enthusiastically support. This of course means that everything Trump and Clinton are saying about their domestic agendas – regardless of whether you love or hate their claims – are lies.
Overall, this is an idiot’s game; recall that previously, “the most powerful army in the world” was the massive Soviet army, and trying to keep that up bankrupted the Soviet Union and played a central role in its collapse. The world’s most advanced countries, on the other hand, with the highest standards of living – such as Japan and Germany – have much smaller military budgets.
“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.” ( Martin Luther King, Jr.)
We already spend more on entitlements than “military spending”. Social Security and healthcare spending alone take up around half the budget.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/
I wish people would just look at the actual budget. We didn’t have extra money sitting around that was used for wars rather than education. We spend and print money first and add questions later.
We could have spent some of that printed fiat currency for better “entitlements,” since the social security program and the “giveaway to Big Insurance and Big Pharma” Obamacare are woefully inadequate (and in the second case, corporatist). Not counting the Iraq and Afghanistan expenditures, the military spending has increased from $200 billion to over $540 billion in just over a decade.
That’s over 300 billion dollars not spent on social uplift.
Just as (like Jill Stein proposed) we could qualitatively ease all student loan debt away, instead of bailing out the Big Banks like last time,we could use the fiat currency for something decent rather than offensive.
“Quantitatively” ease, I mean to say!
Lol lol You actually believe they think about facts here?
Social Security is not an entitlement. People and their employers pay in to the fund so that they will have an income in retirement. Medicare is supposed to be a self-insurance program, where people pay in while young and healthy and receive benefits when they become ill. Entitlements are programs such as the subsidies corporate farms and energy companies receive.
You are correct in the sense that the military budget is small in comparison with Social Security and Medicare. But you are apparently a bit myopic, because in advanced countries that spend far less on their militaries, there is more money that they can and do spend on social programs, education and infrastructure.
Military spending is the biggest corporate entitlement program. Hardly “free market capitalism”, either, given that the government is often the only client for Lockheed, Northrup, Boeing, SAIC, etc.
A 50% reduction is entirely warranted – and a $250 billion defense budget (which is what a 50% reduction would result in) is still much larger than China and Russia combined.
very scary. All it takes is that last straw. Keiser might call it the snap shut of the financial alligator jaws of death.
Wallstreet counterfeits money by counterfeiting value, to enrich themselves and special clients who buy elections.
“Keiser Report” Episode 949
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7y3xQnWI_k
Sad to see Obama getting praised for anything, although in comparison to Hillary Clinton he was and remains the lesser evil. His Iran Deal is but a mask for further Full Spectrum Dominance for the US and allies, and its ameliorative quality is offset by the fact that he supports Clinton who is far more bellicose, and the fact that the US has no business saying which nations can or can not have the type of bombs that only the US have actually used; Obama’s authority over the CIA which has more been more than provocative in Ukraine also belies his supposedly sensible approach there, also. It is to be hoped that Assange is wrong about Snowden angling for a pardon from Obama (it won’t happen, Ed – Obama wants you alone in a room with James Clapper as much as Clapper himself does), and in this regard I hope Greenwald isn’t just embellishing Obama’s modest evil as a positive just to assist in a futile appeal.
Still, it’s good to know that The Mackey Family Digest will still let Greenwald write here.
The Iran saga is kind of amusing, but only because it points to the atrocious nature of American corporate media coverage of all foreign issues.
The U.S. really had no choice but to lift sanctions against Iran, or it would have seen the EU abandon the sanctions unilaterally and cut independent trade deals with Iran. This is similar to the case with Iraq before the U.S. invasion – there was global pressure to end the sanctions regime at that time, too. The point is, the story told about this episode by the U.S. corporate media is utter BS – one might as well believe that Sputnik, the Russian government site, is doing real investigative work on the Putin government as believe the drivel printed about the Iranian deal in U.S. corporate media.
When Trump bloviates about the U.S. “not getting a good deal” basically he is saying that in exchange for dropping sanctions, U.S. companies should have been given priority access to Iranian deals – but Iran had already entered into business arrangements with other parties, from the EU to India and China and Russia, so it was really too late for that. (The U.S. is still trying to hold this up by maintaining banking sanctions on Iran.)
Clinton, on the other hand, seems comitted to the neocon/Israeli/Saudi war agenda, in which Iran is the eternal bogeyman and the apartheid state of Israel and the theocratic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia form the nucleus of the U.S. control system for the Middle East, which is locked into a struggle with the Iran-Syria-Russia sector, a theme widely promoted in the corporate press, from the Guardian to the NYTimes. In fact, that “liberal” wing of the corporate press has been the most ardent advocate and cheerleader of this militaristic agenda over the course of the Obama presidency. This is why they won’t print a word about the Saudi and Israeli role in aiding the rise of ISIS (not even after the Israeli defense minister said he’d rather see ISIS overrun Syria than have Assad remain in power!).
A far better approach would be to treat Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia the same, pull the U.S. military bases out of the Middle East entirely, force Israel to accept IAEA inspections of its nuclear weapons program, and push for democratic reforms in all three countries. As the oil runs out and renewable energy gets cheaper and cheaper, this will clearly be the endgame for the American empire in the Middle East.
Bye, bye empire, empire bye bye. .
Exactly.
It is highly highly highly unlikely that Russians, if they did break into the DNC system/s or host, would be doing so from a russian ip. It is highly unlikely that someone sitting at a keyboard typed in stuff to break into the DNC. It is more likely that this was a very specially exploited flaw with the email server. I would venture to say the email server the DNC used was a microsoft system because if it wasnt, i would venture to say that microsoft would announce “cant be one of ours”. But i have not heard that. Like so many other breakins in the US.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-attack-can-steal-your-username-password-and-other-logins/
It appears the Sony hack was an “inside job”:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2893509/Security-officials-say-crippling-Sony-hack-inside-job-work-disgruntled-former-employee-named-Lena-laid-off.html
Isn’t it also possible the DNC hack was an “inside job”?:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/25/julian-assange-any-dnc-staffer-could-have-been-the-leaker/
It actually makes sense that an insider, especially someone who knew that the DNC was fully in for Clinton and out to get Sanders might have done the hack and it had NOTHING to do with Russia.
Nor is it inconceivable that it was the Republicans trying to shore up an embarassment of a candidate. Or some faction of the IC or LE, or for that matter a corp or PAC that might benefit from whatever. Or maybe it was someone with a grudge. Or the pope. Or a flying unicorn named Harvey that tapdances every Tuesday to old 8-tracks and has a thing for marzipan and a liking of Orson Welles’ lesser known works. The point?
The Chimes at Midnight.
Er sorry, that wasn’t supposed to come out sounding like I disagreed. I dont dismiss it being the possible work of an insider; more I am suggesting that it doesnt have to be the obvious one(s).
This is the perils of democracy. Every four years we force a bunch of people to lie and lie and lie.
Ask Lyin’ Ted whether or not he is relieved, now that his ordeal is over.
Alex Gibney, who recently directed “Zero Days” which, aside from generally being pretty informative, took a lot of already-debunked talking points from US and Israeli officials on the Iranian program and “threat.” He wrote this op-ed in the NYT recently asking, then answering (in a predictable way), “Can We Trust Julian Assange and WikiLeaks?” This neo-McCarthyist trend in US political discourse is infecting everybody.
[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/can-we-trust-julian-assange-and-wikileaks.html]
Watching the presidential campaigns unfold day by day this past year from an aloof standpoint and safe distance overseas, it is by now impossible not to recognize that the USA has gone stark raving schizo and, culturally speaking, is fast choking to death on its own regurgitated excrement.
Donald Trump is simply non compos mentis; while Hillary Clinton is manifestly (of course for all but her Greek Choir of useless idiots) a consummate fake. But, more dangerously still for all the world, both candidates are incorrigible liars — Trump more in the manner of the sociopath; Clinton more in the manner of the psychopath.
And yet staring the US in the face for all to behold is the perfect POTUS candidate, Jill Stein, a physician, a woman, and a jew of superlative IQ who speaks always from — and with — her heart & mind, without ever missing so much as a beat. In interview after interview and speech after speech, she is always so cool, calm, composed, collected, clear, canny, coherent, consistent, cogent, conscientious — to cut to the chase, then, utterly credible and eminently convincing.
To see Stein in any kind of vis-a-vis with Trump would be like watching a pile-up on the freeway — the testosterstoned reprobate simply lacks the elementary skills of thought, speech, and communication that would permit and enable any kind of real meeting of minds. But Clinton, too, would not fare much better in that her glibness, sophistry, and insufferably faux & cliched manner would simply not stand comparison with the sentient, considered, rigorous, disciplined, judicious thought-style & rhetoric of the good doctor.
Yes, Stein is astute, she thinks straight, and she argues clear; and yet all the while — unlike Trump, and unlike Clinton — she is manifestly a person of great conscience. Indeed, as the true beneficiary and loving curator of Bernie’s legacy, she’s the best kinda person the US has to offer. —- Need I really say more? In my part of the world it’s already bedtime, and when it comes to #JillNotHill I’m an unashamed dreamer.
Damn logical that is – and I like it.
Great cover photo. It really pulled me in, because I’ve seen those semi-smiles before – on two dogs ready to fight. Their heads are side-by-side, but facing each other; their lips are slightly curled, but their teeth are closed; Putin may be whispering something, or he may be voicing a low growl. Either way, Hillary is ready to bite.
I just hope that whoever took that picture didn’t get too close to those two pit bulls.
Given the tenuous nature of evidence disclosed thus far, smearing the messengers as Russian dupes is quite reminiscent of the McCarthy days, as Mr. Greenwald has rightly pointed out.
For decades the USA broadcast propaganda into the Soviet Bloc to advance its own interests. If the Russians did leak DNC/Clinton email, there is a delicious and ironical symmetry in the situation.
sidd
It’s not just the McCarthy Republicans who’ve relied on this strategy for political advantage – it’s very strange how so many liberal historians have tried to revise the history of the JFK presidency. He ran on a bogus “missile gap with the Soviets” platform in 1960, a successful fear-mongering strategy. As soon as he entered office, he jacked up military budgets across the board, from nuclear weapons to chemical and biological warfare, and implemented aggressive programs to destablize Cuba and overthrow its government; ultimately this led to a nuclear showdown with the Soviets that the world barely escaped from intact.
This has some lessons for the present: a nuclear-armed Hillary can be just as dangerous and unstable as a nuclear-armed Donald, for example.
Alas, the program to destabilize Cuba was hatched during the last years of the Eisenhower administration, and the CIA neglected to even inform Kennedy of it. So the entire Bay of Pigs invasion was not Kennedy’s fault. Furthermore, the nuclear showdown with the Soviets, aka the Cuban Missile Crisis, resulted from the Soviets attempting to deploy nuclear tipped ballistic missiles in Cuba. Given the very short flight times having those missiles there would have given the Soviet Union an unacceptable strategic advantage over us, so Kennedy was forced to confront them. Surely nobody can blame him for that ! (Except you, possibly.) Kennedy and Khrushchev worked out a deal under which Russian missiles were removed from Cuba, and we removed nuclear weapons from Turkey.
But then again, there was Vietnam.
Excellent piece, and a fine antidote to Mackey’s recent bullshit on Wikileaks. In comments to that article some seemed to think Glenn Greenwald should interfere in Mackey’s writing. I vehemently disagreed and said that he would not and should not do that.
The above is what he should do, and he did it very, very well.
Come here! Come here! Come here! Good Boy Good Boy. Here’s your bone.
Lol
Oh my, this article is funny (in a sad kinda way) relating the many times politicians have smeared each other with Red-baiting. While reading all the examples, I starting giggling. Not because it isn’t accurate, it’s just so common it gets funny.
I’m all in favor of staying in contact with nations whose goals may differ with out own, since sometimes they may coincide, making them useful.
However, I have no doubt that on occasion, American politicians et al have been mislead by the Russians–they’re very good at it. People who are constantly crying “bear” negate the impact of those occasions when it’s true.
After all, security experts have been pointing to Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear as being behind the leaks, even though it hasn’t yet been proven.
BTW, Glenn, using terms like “MSNBC’s most enthusiastic neo-McCarthyite” and “Clinton-revering Boston Globe columnist” doesn’t help your cause.
It’s important to keep in mind that the Soviet Union =/= Russia* and that the Russian Communist Party is not part of Putin’s government. When people were yucking up Sanders honeymoon I don’t think any but the most feebleminded thought he is a friend of Putin, likewise I don’t think anyone thinks Trump is a Manchurian Candidate in the sense that he secretly worships Marx and Lenin. It is odd that in today’s era where we have better relations than ever with Communist run Cuba and Vietnam we still have Kremlin hangups. I would say DC’s paranoia is more Putin specific than hatred of all things Russian but whatever.
*it is fair to say that the Soviet Union was Russian dominated but that’s neither here nor there.
**And just my two cents, I do believe the FSB was one of many hackers into the DNC but I would guess someone else gave the files to Wikileaks (or someone affiliated with Wikileaks did the work themselves).
I would question the notion that the cold war had mostly to do with disagreements in economic ideology. More than that, it was 2 empires competing with one another. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia was not a major adversary of the US. But as Russia gains strength again, the rivalry will be revitalized, regardless of their economic system or form of government.
There is nothing inevitable about a US-Russia rivalry, we’ve never even fought a war with them while we’ve become fast friends with former rivals that have killed tens of thousands of Americans (Japan, Britain, Germany). Fear of the Soviets trying to spread Communism was at the core of the Cold War but now? I think its mostly a fear of Putin. Relations were much better in the 90s because Yeltsin was in charge, and people also forget that the “reset” that Hillary and Obama pushed with Russia several years ago came while Dmitry Medvedev was officially the head of state.
Actually the U.S. invaded Russia from the Pacific during the civil war after the Revolution to help the Whites.
That is true, yet much worse (and more recent) violence has been forgiven between nations. American tourists freely travel Vietnam without fear of being murdered by someone who lost loved ones to napalm. No survivors of the Bataan Death March have ever detonated bombs in Tokyo to achieve vengeance.
Forgiveness and peace is possible if we choose it.
Yes, from much worse. Russia is not harboring antipathy towards the U.S., but the U.S. Neo-cons are doing so against Russia. I worry if Clinton gets in the White House.
Japan, Britain and Germany are under the US sphere of control. They are not a threat in any way to US imperial ambitions. An independent power could be. Ideological differences and supposed differences in values are nothing more than a useful pretext.
Putin=KGB, H.W.Bush=CIA…Just a reminder…OH! That’s right, I keep forgetting, we’re the good guys.
@jgreen7801-Ha! You made me laugh out loud………
I don’t know which is worse – Hillary Clinton’s use and exploitation of neo-McCarthyism or all of the authoritarian, partisan media hacks and sheeple parroting it. A few quick points:
• On some of the comments below, Robert Mackey misses the point of WikiLeaks. He basically takes issue with Julian Assange having political motivations. OMG, how dare Mr. Assange.
• I don’t consider Mr. Obama avoiding a calamitous blunder (sending weapons to Ukraine) to be an accomplishment. That’s like saying I accomplished much as a criminal justice reformer by not locking up innocent people.
• Thanks for having the guts to call out Joy Reid. I’m glad someone finally did. She’s a smart, passionate, and at times insightful member of the political media, but her ideological blindness renders her unserious.
Lastly and most importantly, it would be great to see The Intercept devote more resources to covering the “War Party,” as Professor Emeritus Stephen F. Cohen (a great source) labels the militarists who, if they have their way, are going to get a lot of people killed in proxy or outright war with Russia.
Good point about Reid. She played a prominent role as part of the MSNBC gang who regularly vilified Mr Snowden when his story came to light. I want to add my thanks to Glenn for this great piece of writing.
Might be a bit early in the thread for this, but our own Presumtuous Insect has come up with the perfect illustration for this article:
https://twitter.com/PresumptuousBug/status/762732134226329600
It was a total shameless rip-off of this article! By the way, would love you to blog now and then–already got a site. Remember when I posted that piece you wrote at FDL? It was very popular.
Aimee Mann once recorded a song lamenting how a friend of hers had gleefully become everything he once despised (“It Takes All Kinds”). That’s how I feel about the Democrats today. Free of principles and ethics, they seem a lot happier.
thank you. there isn’t much to add but i did have a few thoughts:
1. “interfering in elections”? ukraine. syria. honduras. venezuela. the list of countries where we preferred OUR kind of democracy goes on. and we all remember how smoothly yeltsin gave up power, eh?
2. sanders should love batista and the contras instead? not enough support for rape, murder and drug running by OUR guys? i could also add that according to many recent polls socialism is more popular than congress. or that sanders called chavez a “dead communist dictator” so he’s obviously going by the Monroe Neocon Doctrine script to some degree.
3. better to talk about imaginary commie schemes than the actual content of clinton’s non-missing emails. hell, if you bring up her blatant support for war on syria because it would “help israel” you won’t just be a commie stooge; you’ll be an anti-semite (especially if you also support jill stein and bernie sanders)!
4. speaking of which, funny how they smear jill stein since “commie” used to be a thinly veiled substitute for “fucking JEW!” her parents, by the way…russian jews. just like a lot of israelis. totes confusing.
5. there seems to be a significant and orchestrated shift from “war on terror” to “war on russia (2.0)”. makes sense when you see overt support for al-qaeda/nusra and other wonderful “moderates” in syria. that includes support from our “allies” saudi arabia and israel. i guess “useful idiots” are fine when they’re “moderately” beheading 12 year old kids on the back of a truck.
this plays both into clinton’s frothing, wild-eyed urge to launch a full military attack on syria and the “pivots” to china and russia that – she hopes – will lead to more pentagon welfare and possibly some unknown manifestation of WWIII.
4. funny to hear talk about putin’s “jedi mind tricks” based on his time as a kgb spook coming from…an ex-cia spook. i guess morell learned to use his powers for good. that time with yoda paid off.
5. if you only watched cable news and read MSM papers (do people still read those?) then you’d think putin was the only person in russia and the kremlin its only standing structure. an odd mixing of stupidity with projection of their own authoritarian mindsets.
6. just wanted to add that obama’s offer of “partnership” is bullshit just like kerry’s “ceasefire” (also known as the “look over there while we re-arm our decapitators treaty”). obama just wants to prevent the russians from carpet bombing OUR useful takfiri idiots (and their western advisors on the ground).
7. “plz send the pundits to fight on the front lines” sums it up for me as well. it gets a bit tiresome seeing yuppie hipster douche after yuppie hipster douche (trust me, folks – that describes 90% of the white millenials in DC) flap their pieholes about a war they and their spoiled children will have nothing to do with. boot up or shut up, mates. maybe you can pick up some pre-worn distressed camo at urban outfitters in georgetown.
8. clinton started as a “goldwater girl” and seems to have come full circle in as much as she ever stopped being a barely concealed, casually racist product of 1950s and 60s conservative suburbia. her convention had democrats cheering reagan along with other living right wingers they supposedly despised a week ago simply because “they hate trump too”. the righteous indignation in defense of mccain is a good example. i guess dog whistlers and swiftboaters and civilian killers need to stick together?
funny to hear talk about putin’s “jedi mind tricks”…
“Eleventy-dimensional chess” was already taken.
Very good points. On number 4. The military arm of the Maiden coupe were and remain neo-Nazis.
Is the current anti-Russian hysteria riding an under current of Nazism or antisemitism in Europe?
It’s not ironic at all, Glenn. “D” is the new “R”, haven’t you heard?
Truth doesn’t have an R or D at the end. Truth isn’t balanced. Read articicles throughout this paper and you’ll find them critical of people and nations across the aisle. Scenario 1: You have read them and you just don’t care because you’re a troll or you have an alternative agenda. Scenario 2: You’re ignorant. Either scenario brings new meaning to the word Useful Idiot.
Democratic Party = useless idiots.
Thanks for this piece, Glenn!
I heard some say that the democrats had morphed into Eisenhower republicans. While in some ways that seems to be true, the more accurate depiction would be that they have morphed into Eisenhower-era republicans; namely of the party faction represented by Joseph McCarthy.
The Hillary Clinton campaign is forced to use lies and innuendo because of a lack of substance and accomplishment. What her supporters hold up as her qualifications – her stints in the Senate and as Secretary of State – reveal under closer scrutiny a trail of what could be most generously termed faulty decisions and flawed advocacy. Secretive and acting with disregard for the law, she more than even Donald Trump represents the failings of our political system – for the simple reason that unlike Trump she is a product of that system, an insider playing by the corrupt rules of that system. The only thing we can count on from her is that her utterances are bound to be healthily laced with lies.
Absolutely amazing and insightful article Glenn….it’s amazing at the amount of truth this paper continues to uncover. Scathing articles of Trump, Clinton, Democrats, Republicans, the United States, Russia, China, Israel….wherever the truth lies, whomever against it lies, you guys have a great track record of following it. The only people who seem to have a problem are the trolls: Trump trolls, clinton trolls, “you-name-it” trolls because for them, a truth against their “leader” or whatever is that they support are biased and propaganda unless followed by an equivalent, or larger amount of truths against whatever or whomever they dislike. Truth is not convenient, nor is it balanced….and neither is it absolute.
Linking politicians and journalists to Russia-Shameful
Linking politicians and journalists to Israel- Exposing corruption
I’m just saying.
Also Oliver Stone really does melt like a teenage girl at a One Direction show in front of virtually any foreign strong man.
The Clinton campaign has been running ads here in the SF bay area now for weeks. They’ve kicked off the smear campaign early.
That’s always the first line of attack in the political process, paint your opponent’s in an unsavory light. They use the same tactics for whistleblowers too, right? Not too far off with Snowden being stranded in Moscow.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ex-spies-say-snowden-is-working-with-russia-2014-5
New Clinton campaign slogan:
“Strangulation by Triangulation”
Superbly structured and written, Glenn. As good as you get, which is very good, indeed. Thanks.
For “Tailgunner Hil” and her neo-McCarthyites, a quote from Joseph Welch, chief counsel to the US Army at the Army-McCarthy hearings (June 9, 1954):
“You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
I daresay the people mimicking shameful tactics are those repeating the Watergate break-in. Though this time, the “Plumbers” are viewed as unimpeachable heroes and all the public wants to know is what Schultz said in one out of 20,000 emails!
Or the people mimicking the *real* heart of McCarthyism, which is to say, the House Un-American Activities Committee that Nixon made his name with and Reagan made his way into the Republican Party by serving. Today the successors of that Committee goes over, without end in sight, without any real possibility of exoneration, only continuation and repetition, questions like whether Clinton should have been able to foresee the deaths of four diplomats by terrorists or whether claiming a right to a private email account was a felony offense.
The Republicans are still the Party of McCarthy, the Party of Nixon, the party of the Casey-Poindexter-North Total Information Awareness via Peter Thiel’s Palantir, the new owner of the heart and soul of the Silicon Valley. They continue fighting for what they believe in – absolute power for the rich and powerful, absolute abject subjection for all others.
And as for the Russians? They do what they’ve always done. They play every side, plant their hooks wherever they can, make off with the crown jewels and the nuclear secrets wherever they find them, and laugh at the stupid Americans who make every effort at stopping them into a partisan opportunity to serve the cause of corruption. Were they not even more crooked themselves they’d have taken over the world by now. Their influence is real, but who is going to stop it? Not intelligence agencies concerned only with keeping information away from the voting public, and never mind if it’s available to 500,000 untrustworthy agents in the meanwhile. Not activists concerned only with helping them bash the U.S. whether it’s right or wrong. And certainly not the hired hands of the wealthy, who ought to be made to wear silly uniforms like fast food fry cooks to remind the world that they are not really “congressmen”, but just interchangeable functionaries.
so, somebody is convinced by this evidence-free all-you-can-eat buffet of bullshittery
Today the successors of that Committee goes over, without end in sight, without any real possibility of exoneration, only continuation and repetition, questions like […] whether claiming a right to a private email account was a felony offense.
That is not correct. Clinton, like any other civil servant is entitled to maintain a private email account for private, personal purposes. What she is NOT entitled to do as a high level public employee is do government business on that account. Especially when handling clearly classified information using it and after being told it violated all rules and regulations extant for such things.
As someone who was a much lower level public employee responsible for performing government-funded scientific research, even I knew better than to conduct university business from my gmail account. She’s a liar and she should be prosecuted.
But…but…Trump will be president if everyone does not simply forget about all that and look forward, not backward.
My impression of scientific research has at times been rather less formal on such points. I mean, once upon a time a pleasant and productive way to spend a few days in the service of science might have included patching GeneWorks and MacVector to work without the silly dongles so more labs could take advantage of them. Yeah, yeah, I know, recently there has been a push to put science firmly under the heel of the overweening state, no matter whether we’re talking about Erdogan wiping out Gulenism, Harper stopping global warming talk, or university bureaucrats in America teaching people their new acceptable use policies. But the proper focus of researchers should be on the joy of discovery or its application to the protection of public health, and any unfortunate deviation from that is no precedent I would want to use for evaluating public officials. It’s just fucking email.
The bit with the “classification” is similarly exaggerated, though it’s a different issue. Overclassification has been well known and recognized for years prior to this, and fishing out a couple of reposted news stories and saying that this and that from them was classified at the time is not convincing. Bear in mind I’m all for the release of the sort of material Manning distributed, because I don’t think that there’s such a thing as a “secret” known by half a million people. (The weird part is some of the anti-Clinton people are too!) Widely disseminated “classified” data is not a secret – not from Russia or China or even Kyrgyzstan – and so I don’t think they should be “protecting” it from being known by the average Joe. Now of course what I think doesn’t matter to the person being prosecuted, but Hillary beat the rap, and so I see no need to revisit that. Was it fair that she didn’t get busted for something that somebody with lousy lawyers and low ranking would have been sent to jail for? No. But I’m not going to take one step to fix this on her end.
Great article as usual, Glenn.
Now, maybe you could instruct your Trump-hating colleague Robert Mackey to also stop insinuating that Wikileaks is working hand-in-hand with Russia in order to trash Clinton and award Trump the presidency.
This kind of comment puzzles me and it seems to appear with some frequency BTL:
Now, maybe you could instruct your Trump-hating colleague Robert Mackey to also stop insinuating that Wikileaks is working hand-in-hand with Russia in order to trash Clinton and award Trump the presidency.
Do people go to the NYT to tell Paul Krugman to take David Brooks to task for his errant ways? Greenwald is a contractor to TI. He is not the managing editor. He is less responsible for Robert Mackey’s faux pas than Mackey is responsible for Greenwald’s magnum opus. :-s
p.s. I was in that thread sharing my own objections to Mackey’s reasoning (such as it was), so I empathize with the critique. I just don’t understand why it always seems to get lain at Greenwald’s doorstep. I understand that he was instrumental in getting TI off the ground, but those relationships and roles have long since changed, if he ever had that power to begin with.
On this site GG is described as a co-founding editor of TI. To say he is a mere contractor who lacks power to shape the content of the publication seems like a joke. The editors have obviously chosen to steer the publication in a new direction, and this is sad because we desperately need critical independent voices in the media. Having Greenwald injecting his contrarian pieces into the mix just isn’t enough.
To say he is a mere contractor who lacks power to shape the content of the publication seems like a joke.
Yes, he is a co-founding editor, but he is still not the managing editor, the editor-in-chief. That is Betsy Reed. And I didn’t use the word “mere” to describe his actual business arrangement with TI, you did.
Someone in a comment thread here a while back – or maybe it was something I saw on twitter – linked to tax documents from TI that clearly laid out his obligations here….he is paid as a contractor, which is actually very much like the arrangements he had at Salon and the Guardian as well. It’s actually a good thing because it ensures his independence.
Having Greenwald injecting his contrarian pieces into the mix just isn’t enough.
Well, I certainly can’t speak to that any better than Greenwald himself did further down the thread:
It appears that I overestimated GG’s influence at TI. However I’m not mistaken in observing a distinct change in the flavor and quality of articles in the magazine. Evolution towards more mainstream journalism was probably inevitable, but I enjoyed the ride while it lasted.
Evolution towards more mainstream journalism was probably inevitable, but I enjoyed the ride while it lasted.
Don’t disagree with that at all Sam. But, realistically, there were bound to be some writers that fell short of expectations, and there have been some that have turned out to be really good. Either way, I’m glad that GG found a place to right as he pleases and that there are others here who take the task of “afflicting the comfortable” as seriously as he does. :-)
The Intercept is not beyond redemption. Mr. Mackey recently issued a scathing denunciation of Mr. Assange. If the Intercept can follow with articles denouncing Trump, Sanders and Stein, liberal Democrats (formerly referred to as Neocons) may be willing to place it on probation. At least I hope so, as I would miss The Intercept.
What The Leader said.
These denouncements would not be enough.
To hope for redemption, The Intercept must also publish an article denouncing itself. If the proper remorse is shown, along with recognition of their past poor judgement and an earnest affirmation of their desire to improve, only then would redemption be possible.
I know Benito is satire except I think he means it when he calls Mackey’s piece a “scathing denunciation of Mr. Assange.”
Somebody quote the “scathing” bits, please.
The tizzy fit that article inspired (about 50 comments along the lines of ‘the Intercept was now plainly in the hands of the Clinton campaign’ etc. level stupidity…) was just ridiculous.
Is everything “back on track” now that this article has been published? Or did some of you overreact….
People always claim to be in favor of journalistic freedom and editorial independence – until a writer at a publication they read writes something they disagree with.
The Intercept now publishes dozens of writers. Obviously, no one person is going to agree with everything that everyone here writes, and that includes me. And that’s how it should be.
I didn’t agree with several parts of that article, but I would hope nobody thinks that a requirement for getting published at the Intercept should be that I approve and agree with all the things they think and say.
There have been many articles at the Intercept that I’ve disagreed with basically from its start, but that’s obviously going to happen more as we have more writers and more articles.
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense, and your attitude is consistent with what I would figure from reading you over the years.
This is how much of a little dick-sucking moron you are: you include a comment to today’s Glenn Greenwald article as if most of us don’t already know.
Getting attacked on two different threads simultaneously by you is like being denounced simultaneously by Morning Joe and Time Magazine.
You friggin’ tool. Respect yourself, you know? Ever heard that song?
Try harder in the future.
People always claim to be in favor of journalistic freedom and editorial independence – until a writer at a publication they read writes something they disagree with.
Welp, probably should have read through the comments before adding my two pennies above.
Having lived through your evolution as a Bush/Obama/Kerry/Pauliac RepublicoLiberteriDemocrapicSocialismo, I have learned that if there’s one thing we can always count on happening, it’s that your politics and allegiances will change approximately as often as the hours of the day and have as many facets as there are grains of sand on your personal Brazilian beach at the foot of your tropical mountainside palace. :-s
Dear Trolls/Commentors/Real Human Beings,
A journalists allegiance lies only to the truth. Questioning those in power and being critical of those vying for power in the power structures that hold this world together is a moral and arguable philosophical imperative. It’s healthy in a true democracy….it is a democratic value. It’s the journalist way. If I can find an article as critical against Trump and Wikileaks in the same paper critizing Clinton, I think they’re doing a great job upholing this value. The moment Glenn, as a journalist (not as a private citizen) starts to hold allegiance to any power structure or entity/person vying for a position in that structure within his writing, I will stop reading his articles. The moment this paper becomes one-sided, I’ll stop supporting it. There is no good and evil side. Pick up a bible, Torah, or the Qur’an if you’re looking for those sort of stories and stop reading the Intercept,by all means.
What I have seen from Glenn, and the Intercept, is a vast array of articles with facts against all parties and nation-states. Would you prefer a monopoly on truth, Ped? Would that be yours?
“The moment this paper becomes one-sided, I’ll stop supporting it.”
I cannot stop laughing every time I scroll through the comment sections.
1) Has this paper provided ONE supporter of Israel to present her view in the conflict between that state and Palestine?
2) Has this paper provided ONE supporter of the US military presence in Afghanistan or Iraq the opportunity to present her case? It would be the least that paper could do as it claims it supports democracy. Elected political leaders in those countries requested military intervention.
3) Has this paper published ONE article questioning Bernie Sanders proposed policies ?
4) Why this paper has NEVER questioned the policies of the ruling party in Venezuela? It did praise his former leader before.
The most popular writer at the Intercept has made clear several times that he is not impartial. He even claimed (maybe through his ability to read people’s mind) that journalists cannot be impartial.
So, we (including me) read the Intercept because it is one sided. The writers tell the readers what they want to hear regardless whether it is distorted or it is the whole truth. A writer (Mackey) who forgets that philosophy will be severely punished by the commenters. That is why The Intercept is so entertaining!
Not ashamed to admit when I have written poorly, when I haven’t clearly written out my thoughts…I guess there’s a few things to say about one-sidedness. I posted elsewhere in the comments: that truth is not balanced…in other words, distortion is part of truth…that’s because truth doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Consider the reality. There are definitely areas in MSM where the current coverage is so biased and one-sided, where everyone is pretty much in consensus (or there is the illusion of consensus OR the US military and government is so clearly on one side with it’s vast arsenal at disposal for which there is no resistance), on the side of aggressors, oppressors, or murderers…where the populace has been entirely misled to believe one side of the story and discounting it is paramount to insanity, conspiracy, treason or terrorist-sympathizing and where the opposition to that side has been firmly discredited and branded (i.e this organization or that organization terrorist, etc.) that (disagreement welcome, in fact I await to hear your thoughts) an amount of coverage of the other side: those oppressed, branded, and murdered, proportional in influence to the opposite side welcomes justice. Obviously, I’m sure this reasoning isn’t perfectly applied here…nor do I argue that point (the paper doesn’t have a rule book as such)…only that most of the points you have mentioned certainly do invite this response.
Uh,the views of Zionists regarding Israel are all over the MSM and net,and they are legion.And we have you and Gator to inform US of their wonderful blossoming garden of Eden,so relax.
As far as Afghanistan,there are actually real humans who back the war there outside of the Zionists and toads?My God.
And Bernie Sanders is d-e-d dead,as in history,and Venezuela?WTF do you care about Venezuelans?
If you were an honest person,you’d know the fix is in there also,as we back the opposition to the democratically elected govt.,which of course is an American default position.
Would you prefer a monopoly on truth, Ped? Would that be yours?
You couldn’t have more completely misread me if you’d tried. Your snark detector is broken and/or needs recalibrating.
I have been reading Greenwald since his blog days back in 2005. In that time he has been described by one person or another as a “supporter” of all of those people and/or a devotee of all of those various political persuasions. All because he does treat the establishment all the same in their hypocrisies, no matter who they are nor what their flavor.
I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Apologies….I’ll have to get in line behind the SS and put in an order for this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/06/03/the-secret-service-wants-software-that-detects-social-media-sarcasm-yeah-sure-it-will-work/
yes…we all know how many “palaces” have 20 stray dogs running around.
this is reminding me of scarborough’s recent quote:
“Anybody that thinks that this race is anything but a tossup right now is such an ideologue, they should be kept away from typewriters, computers, laptops and microphones for the next 10 days, because they’re jokes.”
i’m more on the side of absolute free speech, personally. hard to kill a cockroach when it’s hiding under the fridge. mackey lets me unleash my inner troll with unfettered and reckless abandon. god bless his posh graun heart.
That great response is exactly the kind of response I expected from you, Glenn, typifying your commitment to free speech. Thank you. It’s one of the reasons I so respect you and admire you.
You have a history of defending free speech and freedom from government coercion, even when that speech is speech that attacks you. How do we get most people to think like you? Well, it’s not by denying others their free speech, is it? It’s by countering it with our own free speech.
If you choose to frame criticism in terms of disagreement you are ignoring real questions about the quality of writing in TI. Mackey’s piece was very poor journalism.
“very poor journalism” — well, very-poorness abounds.
The avoidance of discussion on the part of the Mackey article on the Turkey wikileaks dump was very poor commentary — now 500+ allegedly caring, more-conscientious-than-the-average-American commenters.
Sorry, the abundance of poor quality in other quarters doesn’t make me feel any better about seeing it in TI.
If you feel that commenters need education on Wikileaks and Turkey I suggest you write a piece and submit it for publication.
Yes Sam, I am unsatisfied with the POOR QUALITY OF RESPONSE OF INTERCEPT COMMENTERS. I have written comments on both these articles. You can read them.
If you would like to post some kind of meaningful objection to the point I made about wikileaks and Turkey — don’t worry, you won’t have to work hard, it only involves a tiny bit of scrolling — then do so.
To me, the indifference of Assange to the safety of regular people in non-1st-World countries looks extremely bad from any kind of “justice” standpoint, so maybe you have some kind of explosive revelations that will make it all okey-dokey? You go do that. I dare you. I think you won’t be able to, so it is not much of a dare.
Otherwise, I can safely regard you as just one more example of the kind of hero-worshipper I referred to in my latest post on the Assange article to which you referred.
I gather that your first language isn’t English and that your logic isn’t your strong suit.
But then again, maybe English is your first language which make it all much scarier . . .
other things you gather include shiny objects
Gig-mon-amor; as founding editor, big deal, could you possibly ask someone to add a timezone to the Intercept article time stamps, so readers, supporters and fans who are closely following various news-beats (and possibly other ‘beats’) can figure out exactly when these articles are published and gain their full journalistic and altruistic value henceforth-? You is best.
Not having examined the code behind the page, I can be fairly certain that the timestamp you see is the time in the zone that your computer/browser is set for (because that’s just how any semidecent web developer would have set it up, and it’s not like The Intercept would have ben on a shoestring budget when the system was set up.)
Wow, I am pretty sure Mackey himself would have been able to write a less predictable response, Glenn.
What do you take “journalistic freedom” and “editorial independence” to mean? Does it mean that whoever Pierre Omidyar likes will be the editor-in-chief, and then whoever she likes will be on the team, because that’s how the free market works? Does it mean that you and Jeremy can scream as loudly as you want from your podium, as long as TI has 10 other people to drown you out while using the legitimacy of your platform? How does that make TI different from MSM? Your freedom and independence are empty words, when what they really mean is whoever has more money is more free.
And please don’t call people’s objection to Mackey mere “disagreement.” His piece was a dishonest smear, some of the lowest journalism could sink to. People here are not children, we can all accept different opinions as long as we engage each other with good intentions, yet Mackey tries to mislead despite being a supposed journalist. Furthermore, the trash he writes is the epitome of MS opinions, while TI bills itself as “fearless, adversarial journalism,” using you as its mascot, is it any wonder people feel betrayed?
Finally, do you not feel any urge to state your disagreement, at least, when someone from your own website writes something you are at the very same moment arguing against? Do you never visit the front page, or is Mackey somehow exempt from criticism now that he’s your colleague? And when people ask you to speak out, why do you imply that they don’t support journalistic freedom, and that they can’t tolerate disagreement, instead of simply explaining that you don’t agree? You can’t even bring yourself to criticize the article.
“People here are not children, we can all accept different opinions as long as we engage each other with good intentions” —-
LOL stop, you’re killing me, person with new name