Greenwald Continues To Mislead

The Right shouldn't allow Greenwald to get away with his latest obfuscations in his response to various claims.

As regards any potential sock puppetry, he was complicit, at best. And it's interesting there's no close quote in what was posted as a Greenwald email by the sock puppet. But Greenwald has all but acknowledged the IP is from his house, so this email nonsense is still a ruse:

I e-mailed Greenwald yesterday about this, pasted BumperStickerist's accusations, and asked Greenwald if it was true. This is what I just received in response:

"Thanks for sending that.

I worked at Wachtell, Lipton as a Summer Associate after my second year at NYU, as a pre-Bar Associate during my entire third year at NYU and once I graduated, and then as a practicing Litigation Associate once I was admitted to the New York Bar.

(snip)

Posted by: Ryan | Tuesday, July 18, 2006 at 10:24 AM

Yes, a whole few months or so after having passed the bar he apparently left the firm. Obviously he never came up to speed, or accomplished very much. It's not enough time to undertake one genuinely serious case.

But the bigger point is that Greenwald is simply trying to change the subject and make himself a victim for being attacked due to his employment history and sexual preference. Nonsense, who cares? Not me. And I doubt many bloggers really care about his blogging, either - except that he's become such a screeching, unhinged attacker of those on the right, making allegations that aren't true and casting numerous aspersions he has never backed up.

The fact is, Greenwald is a liar. He misrepresented his background with a top law firm - he's now gone from claiming several years as an associate, to not much more than some months, except as basically an intern. He left the same year he joined the bar, it can't be the years as "Associate" he has claimed without parsing his language until it has no meaning left at all.

And he lied about his political bent, casting himself as an apolitical centrist to sell a left wing message, and history proves he's been political and liberal for years. Consequently, Greenwald's a liar and a public relations fraud - and if not, I suppose he can sue me. He knows where I am.

What's important is that one more Liberal elitist would attempt to lecture Americans on how to act - along with his constantly attacking conservatives; yet, he doesn't even feel compelled to vote. That's a true neo-Liberal demagogue if ever there was one.

"Maybe I voted in some local elections," Greenwald said from Brazil, where he spends much of the year with his partner, David, who is Brazilian.

So far, all he has done is attempt to change the subject to his advantage - a typical Liberal tactic of playing the victim until the end. And Greenwald's really not much more than the latest lap dancer in the Kos, Armstrong and, now, Greenwald traveling show. What's important for conservatism is that we point out the unseen actors paying the bills and pulling the strings behind the scenes in this fiasco. They're the real players. In the end. Ultimately, Greenwald's just another clueless liberal wanderer they hired to sell a message.

But, hey, if you're going to spring for a lap dance, nothing wrong with bringing the entertainment in from Rio!

Comments

[jjk]

"What's important for conservatism is that we point out the unseen actors paying the bills and pulling the strings behind the scenes in this fiasco."

What's obviously not important for conservatism is to offer a viable philosophy of government. Record budget deficits, special interest payoffs, lack of emergency preparedness, failing states in Afghanistan and Iraq, increasing WMD capabilities for Iran and North Korea, and escalating violence in the Middle East all attest to that.

[Rick]

IOW, the Clinton Golden Age continues.

What to do? Maybe help Israel smash ME nazism once & for all? Sounds good & Conservative to me.

But How Would An Expatriate Act?

Cordially...

[Rick]

What's important for conservatism is that we point out the unseen actors paying the bills and pulling the strings behind the scenes in this fiasco."

What's obviously not important for conservatism is to offer a viable philosophy of government. Record budget deficits, special interest payoffs, lack of emergency preparedness, failing states in Afghanistan and Iraq, increasing WMD capabilities for Iran and North Korea, and escalating violence in the Middle East all attest to that.

Posted by: jjk

Help me out. It appears you meant to slam conservatives but every freakin' thing you mentioned happened a Waaaaaay over five years ago. Gee, maybe Korea's nukes wouldn't be near as far along had Clinton not sold them technology. His deficit did drop though....after stealing money from SS and government retirement accounts. Who rented out the Lincoln bedroom? Yeah, tell us survivors of Hurricane Floyd how quickly FEMA came to help...hell the blacks Clinton promised to make whole are STILL trying to get their houses back. Afghanistan was a great example though...Carter watched Russian tanks roll in and Clinton watched the Taliban take over......AND DID NOTHING!!!!!!!!
If you're going to throw your hate talking points about, at least find something not quite so laughable.

the ORIGINAL Rick

[jjk]

"Hate talking points"? What exactly was hateful about what I said? I would like very specific examples of the words in my original comments that were hateful.

First, President Clinton was the one who negotiated the agreement with North Korea that called for them to discontinue plutonium enrichment. The North Koreans continued to abide by this policy until after President Bush came to power. Mr. Bush chose the path of empty rhetoric (vis a vis "Axis of Evil") rather than continuing active diplomatic engagement. On his watch, not only has North Korea gone back to enriching plutonium, but they're enriching uranium as well. That's all on President Bush.

The deficit didn't just "drop" under President Clinton; it become nonexistent. We were running surpluses. And a responsible tax policy and healthy economic growth will lead to increased government revenue via taxes on investment dividends. If the Bush administration was as fiscally competent as the Clinton team was, we wouldn't be running record deficits every single year. Running such deficits is in no way a sustainable fiscal policy.

And you want to compare Hurricane Floyd to the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina? That leap of faith requires a blinding ignorance of every documented fact on the record. FEMA was run by qualified professionals until the Bush administration came to power, and then cronyism reared its ugly head and appointments were awarded as political favors. You have political "yes men" heading governmental organizations, and you are going to get a failed and corrupt response.

Afghanistan was to be the area that President Bush raised himself above his predecessors. After September 11, he had an unprecendented amount of goodwill the world over. He led a popular invasion of a place that was a known state sponsor of terror. And what happened next? We diverted our focus to a non-threat in Iraq and have subsequently allowed Afghanistan to drift into a worse chaos than it was originally, with the Taliban capturing more control of the country by the day. Not exactly a foreign policy success.

[Patrick Meighan]

What's awesome is how this all addresses the substance of Glenn Greenwald's central arguments (on such vital issues as exective power and congressional oversight and press freedom and governmental surveilance and the tactics of eliminationist rhetoric and press intimidation) and does so without ever resorting to ad hominem attacks on the person making said arguments. To do such a thing, of course, would've been a clear logical fallacy, and an acknowledgement of the inability to counter the logic of the arguments that have been made by Mr. Greenwald. But, thank heavens, there's no need to worry about that. 'Cause, again, if there's one thing I'm not seeing here, it's ad hominems.

Kudos for that... for keeping it away from the personal, and centered on the arguments and issues.

Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA

[DaveP.]

Thanks, Patrick, from trying to steer the conversation away from wether or not Glenn Greenwald has an "honesty deficit".
May I assume now that you will apply the same logic to anyone you meet who uses the phrases, "lied into war" or "Bush Lied!"; i.e. tell them that such comments are not constructive, are ad hominem, and don't address the fundamentals of what President Bush has said?

[BumperStickerist]

What's awesome is how this all addresses the substance of Glenn Greenwald's central arguments (on such vital issues as exective power and congressional oversight and press freedom and governmental surveilance and the tactics of eliminationist rhetoric and press intimidation) and does so without ever resorting to ad hominem attacks on the person making said arguments
The 'guy who eats paste' does so the first time out of the chute on each of those topics. Only to be called a paste eater.

And, given Greenwald's inability to see an attack on his argument as anything other than an attack on his person, e.g. a manifestation of Bush Kultism which belies the commenters desire to crush dissent and preference for eliminationist rhetoric, et cetera, it becomes a bit tough to meet your criteria.

Or Glenn could always just have his 'scholarship' published in a peer-reviewed legal journal. That would take his arguments right out of the realm of the pundits.

[RW]

I'm not so sure that his best-case scenario of having his boyfriend play the role of Marie Barone (taking up for poor dear Raymond) while faking honest commentary while in various blog comments sections is exactly "letting him off the hook". Doesn't it make him look like a weak-minded pansy boy who needs his boyfriend's help in order to argue, and a boyfriend that pretends to be someone else at that?

Not the most endearing image to portray if one wants to be taken seriously, which he now will have trouble doing outside of the moonbat echo-chamber.

[dylan]

Wow. Somebody left a job at a law firm in the mid-90's. Let's string him up!
One can't help but notice this riehl world "hit" has all the authoritative signatures:
- invasion into personal lives of opponents
- a professional attempted assasination (a PR fraud? You wouldn't happen to be in the PR biz? Certainly you have retained employment for the "proper" amount of times and tenures? However unrelated and idiotic they are.)
- and last, but never forgotten by the cellar dwellers, election records.
"..but, but,.. you didn't vote.." Boring.

Oh yeah. One more thing. Cops call people who summarize complex or unknown situations to others starting with: basically.. yada yada,
Liars.
You know like, basically I thought she was 18 or
basically he was an intern or
basically I couldn't even see the stop sign.
You should get the drift....

[Erstaz/Unoriginal/Sock-puppet Rick]

President Clinton was the one who negotiated the agreement with North Korea that called for them to discontinue plutonium enrichment. The North Koreans continued to abide by this policy until after President Bush came to power.

LOL! Clinton, led by Saint Jimmy Carter, gave away the store. But as Yassir Arafat knew, Clinton was easy to fool.

I believe the record deficit in recent times, in percent of fed spending/GDP, was Poppy Bush's, after his "responsible" tax hike in 1990-91. Clinton foresaw deficits "as far as the eye could see," and resisted balancing the budget. When revenues poured in during the last years of the 1991-2001 expansion, a surplus finally developed for a couple of tax years. So he advocated spending it. Just grand--anything to keep it away from the peeps who earned it.

Katrina was epically worse than Floyd, and did necessitated a enormously vaster humanitarian response than Floyd. Mississippi was smashed up as much as Louisiana, but FEMA's fine response there was smoothed by competent local officials. That is, it was to poor Louisianans' luck that their first responders were so not up to the challenge. FEMA overcame them and devastation. Just in time to Stop The Cannibalism!

You think much of the Talibans' chances in Afghanistan, do you? We remain on the strategic offensive against the Caliphatemongers, and the more they show themselves, the quicker things will smell like victory.

Cordially...

[Dan]

hey dylan, glad to see you blowing in the wind. Maybe it's the company ya keep?

[kevin]

"and have subsequently allowed Afghanistan to drift into a worse chaos than it was originally,"

Wow, Afghanistan is worse now than before we invaded? See folks, it's nonsense like this that makes it a complete waste of time to debate with liberals.

"FEMA was run by qualified professionals until the Bush administration came to power"

Yeah, and these "qualified professionals" took 20+ days to get their act together and provided any relief to the people in NC after Floyd. You can fool those who weren't there, but those of us who were there know better. Hell, it wouldn't even matter if you were there, your head is too far up Clinton's ass to see the truth. Did you save your stained dress too, lol?