Home / General / NEO-MCCARTHYISM!!!111!!!!

NEO-MCCARTHYISM!!!111!!!!

Comments
/
/
/
59 Views

main-qimg-277003af4d8a73d0290d5ed804618193-c

Watching Glenn Greenwald desperately fling his hands and talk VERY LOUD to dissemble from his role in electing Donald Trump through funneling everything about Hillary Clinton the Russian propaganda arm known as Wikileaks gave him throughout the election is pathetic. Only Greenwald and Katrina vanden Heuvel know the real truth–that by focusing on Russian interference in American elections, that we are engaging in a NEW COLD WAR that makes any criticism of Glenn NEO-MCCARTHYISM! If you don’t believe this YOU ARE A DESPICABLE LIAR!!!! AND A REDBAITER YOU JOE MCCARTHY YOU!!!*

No one should ever take Glenn Greenwald seriously again. He’s a malevolent force of pure self-righteousness who simply refuses to consider that he is part of a problem instead of the only truth teller of whatever topic he chooses to write about.

*Post written in classic Greenwald all-caps blog commenting style. I hope my imitation is acceptable to you.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • McAllen

    I had some hopes that the Trump administration might push Greenwald back to his Bush-era usefulness, but no such luck apparently.

    • alexceres

      Was his usefulness during the Bush era just a mirage ? Did Greenwald change, or my memories ?

      • kvs

        The mistake was thinking that finding common cause on surveillance and privacy, LGBTQ rights, immigration, and some other law enforcement/executive power issues that there was agreement on any other priorities.

        It’s the same mistake people make when thinking that the Pauls are allies because they like legal weed and oppose war.

        • BiloSagdiyev

          Hell, Paul, Sr. is only against the federal War on Drugs. What Texas does to you is of no concern to him.

      • carolannie

        He morphed.

      • Marlowe

        I thought Greenwald was pretty good when I first discovered him back in the ’00s, since civil liberties is an issue close to my heart. He was never a fun read (he has never displayed one iota of wit, humor, or self-deprecation) and his self-righteousness and ridiculously thin skin was obvious from the first, but he did shine a spotlight on many important civil liberties issues in the Bush era. It was when he began regularly defending Ron Paul that I began to think he had a few screws loose. Though the fault may have been mine: since he was a defender of civil liberties and gay rights, I assumed he was a liberal. Apparently, that was never the case and I have long since stopped following his work.

        • Harkov311

          he has never displayed one iota of wit, humor, or self-deprecation

          I used to wonder where people got the idea that left leaning types were humorless scolds. Then I read Greenwald.

          I know, he’s a libertarian, not really left, but the point remains.

          • NoMoreAltCenter

            “Humorless scolds” is typically an insult used to delegitimize moral critique of one’s actions

            • Harkov311

              True, but Greenwald is proof positive that some people actually are humorless scolds.

              • Brien Jackson

                Well Greenwald is a narcissist in the Trump vein, and those types don’t have a sense of humor.

        • burnspbesq

          Up until about Q3 of 2005, Greenie was required reading, because he was pretty much the only person writing and thinking seriously about detainee and surveillance issues. Once Marty Lederman and Orin Kerr showed up, he should have been designated for assignment and released after he cleared waivers.

          • ColBatGuano

            Regardless of the cap hit.

            • burnspbesq

              He would have come off in 2007, IIRC.

          • jeer9

            While Greenwald certainly appears to have jumped the shark on most matters outside his area of expertise, Orin Kerr is not remotely a reliable substitute on issues related to government surveillance and civil liberties.

    • kped

      I stopped reading him in the Bush era, anything interesting or important could be found elsewhere, in less words. He’s always been a blow hard more interested in selling himself than any actual goal.

      • RonC

        Fewer. Although the admission that you quit reading someone because they use too many words is to put it mildly an unusual one.

        • Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

          The idea that prolixity can be a defect in a writer is not exactly a new one.

          As to whether the admission is unusual, allow me to introduce you to the Internet tradition known as “tl;dr”.

        • ΧΤΠΔ

          Two Four words: Alyssa Rosenbaum Ayn Rand.

        • kped

          Really? It’s odd that someone would prefer to read an argument that gets to the point instead of going around the block a few dozen times? It’s odd that I’d rather read someone who can make their argument in a succinct way instead of rage filled 10000 word screeds that repeat their points over and over until my eyes glaze over?

          He’s a hack writer. I can read the same arguments he dances around in a much clearer manner in dozens of other blogs or newspapers. Including this blog!

  • Davis

    I see he’s comparing himself to I.F. Stone.

    • He’s modest like that.

      • postmodulator

        You know, we have I.F. Stone’s granddaughter right here, and I don’t remember Aimai ever making the comparison herself.

        • kped

          1) I didn’t know that about Aimai, and that’s pretty damn cool.

          2) Aimai isn’t an asshole

          So…yeah!

          • postmodulator

            I know, right? I totally fanboyed her over it.

            • Incontinentia Buttocks

              I had no idea. That’s totally cool!

        • I had no idea. That’s so awesome.

    • Warren Terra

      I see he’s comparing himself to I.F. Stone.

      Let’s see if we can help him out: he’s probably taller, certainly younger, definitively more alive, and in every other way inconceivably Stone’s inferior.

    • liberalrob

      Is that what he was doing? I thought he was just comparing the environment Stone operated in and reported on with that of today. I must’ve missed the parts where he claimed to be the true inheritor of Stone’s mantle. You guys are just so perceptive.

  • DamnYankees

    I don’t understand the cognitive dissonance it takes to on the one hand see it as your job to investigate and reveal wrongdoings, but on the other hand, to deny that your investigations and revelations have any impact on the world.

    If you took it as your job to investigate Hillary before the election to the exclusion of other stuff, then ok. That’s a job. But then, if she loses, it seems you have a suite of reactions available to you:

    1) Yay, she lost and I helped cause it! I’m happy.

    2) Damn, she lost and I helped cause it. I’m sad.

    3) She lost, but my reporting had nothing to do with it. Which means literally everything I did was utterly worthless.

    You either need to be happy, sad or admit your own failures. I don’t understand how – logically – one can claim that their work is important and matters while also denying it had any impact.

    • Steve

      I guess it would have to have had an impact on something other than an electoral outcome. I am not sure what though. The woke-ness of the people?

    • kvs

      It’s the underpants gnome theory of journalism. He’s just collecting the underpants. Something else creates the profit.

  • D.N. Nation

    Fang and Greenwald in back-to-back posts. What a combo meal!

    (My thoughts on the both of them as the calendar hit 2017 was that they would take up the majority of their time in the Trump Era policing the progressive response to Trump and: ayup)

    • ΧΤΠΔ

      Actually Jilani & Greenwald, but.

      • D.N. Nation

        Ah, nuts, mixed up my glib, fauxgressive hero trading cards again

    • TVTray

      I’d send this meal back!

    • kped

      (My thoughts on the both of them as the calendar hit 2017 was that they would take up the majority of their time in the Trump Era policing the progressive response to Trump and: ayup)

      It’s amazing to watch that. Glenn especially. With all that’s going on, his greatest focus is on…calling liberals hypocrites.

      He’s really talking truth to power! That Glenn is really showing all those suckers in the surveillance state. Cower in fear of his great power!

  • humanoid.panda

    Speaking of RED-BAITING, here is Stephen F. Cohen informing us that

    “we must oppose the Kremlin-Baiting against Trump.  The Russia-connected allegations have created an atmosphere of hysteria amounting to McCarthyism.:”

    I’d say his gibberish is ruining his legacy, except the guy built his entire career on
    1. Bukharin was a good guy and would have totally made the Soviet Union utopia.
    2. Russia is misunderstood by everyone by me- and my Russian friends just told me that, and how can they be wrong?

    • Someone posted Stephen Cohen’s piece published in The Nation to a FB group, and it’s taking the beating it richly deserves.

      The charge of “McCarthyism” in this current context is so overheated as to be ridiculous, but coming from Greenwald, it’s particularly rich, because back in the day, pink-baiting went hand-in-hand with red-baiting. And this week we see that the Trump administration wants to push non-cisgendered people back into the closet for future abuse and scapegoating.

      Projection. ALWAYS.

    • Steve

      What I don’t get is the seamless transition from sympathy for the Soviet Union to sympathy for Putin’s Russia, which are basically nothing alike.

      An anti-gay, anti-foreigner, pro-Orthodox Christianity, crony-capitalist state…other than the assassinations and the nukes, where is the continuity?

      • ΧΤΠΔ

        This is useful.

        • humanoid.panda

          What I don’t get is the seamless transition from sympathy for the Soviet Union to sympathy for Putin’s Russia, which are basically nothing alike.

          The key point is the 1990s. Cohen was appaled by what happened to Russia in the 1990s (correctly) and concluded this was all America’s fault (giant leap, to say the least). Add to this the fact he was carefully cultivated by Russian elites for decades, his obsession with alternative histories in which Russia has a happy end, and academic politics, and you get Cohen’s current iteration.

          • Steve

            Well American economists did figure prominently in the “shock therapy” economic liberalization garbage.

            • humanoid.panda

              Right. It’s the kernel of truth in the whole story. Problem is that
              1) If you follow the issue closely, you will see they were mostly fig leaf for stuff that the Russians wanted to do anyway.
              2) Much of their more productive advise was not followed.
              3) The worst looting happened in 1996, after they were mostly withdrawn.

              • humanoid.panda

                What really happened in Russia was that the people who ran the country converted their political power to economic power. Americans played a shameful role in legitimizing this theft, and maybe if the US applied more pressure, Yeltsin would have slowed down the looting. Stil, hard to see a scenario where Russia – (Stiglitz+Sanders)= a social democracy.

                • kvs

                  It’s equally likely that if Yeltsin tried to slow down the looting the oligarchs would’ve applied their own pressure.

                • CP

                  What really happened in Russia was that the people who ran the country converted their political power to economic power.

                  A corrupt and authoritarian absolutist state became a corrupt and authoritarian communist state which became a corrupt and authoritarian capitalist state.

              • Hob

                I mean, that’s a problem, but it’s not really the problem with Cohen; that is, even if your #1-3 were not the case, even if you took his narrative of the 1990s completely at face value, his conclusion (that we, as contributors to Russia’s fuckedupedness, must therefore regard Putin as benign) would still be ridiculous.

                In what way is it not analogous to saying this: “After World War I, the Allies went too far in imposing punitive terms in the Treaty of Versailles. The conditions this caused in Germany contributed to the rise of Hitler. Therefore, Europeans who criticized Hitler in World War II were just hypocrites motivated by irrational anti-German bigotry.”

              • Daragh McDowell

                Excellent points, though I think it’s also worth noting that the people who tend to blame ‘shock therapy’ and liberalisation for the 1990s tend to ignore the pernicious economic effects of 70 years of communist economics beforehand, and the half-assed implementation in Russia and most of the other SSRs. In other words – Poland and Ukraine both experienced hyperinflation and severe economic dislocation after the end of Communism, but had very different experiences afterwards. Understanding why that is more or less blows the ‘Neoliberalism Did it!’ argument out of the water.

                • sonamib

                  Neolibelarism did provide a justification for the looting, since it was argued that privatization was good, and let’s not sweat too much the details.

                  And I don’t know about ignoring the 70 years of communist economics, looks like the people who ran Russia in the 1990s did just that. Maybe gung-ho privatization and a brutal, sudden transition to capitalism wasn’t the day to go, maybe a more modest, gradual transition would have been better.

                • Generally speaking, gradual transitions in economies are less destructive than sudden ones, yes. For a less severe example, this is also why minimum wage increases are usually phased in gradually over several years.

            • BiloSagdiyev

              If we’re guilty of anything, it’s of caring (about privatization) too much.

      • NoMoreAltCenter

        The idea, I think, is that Putin (along with China, Iran, NK, and every other state the US demonizes) is one of the last powers on the planet that is willing to resist American hegemony.

        • Harkov311

          Heck, if those countries are what the world would model itself on in the absence of the US, then bring on that American hegemony!

      • Harkov311

        What I don’t get is the seamless transition from sympathy for the Soviet Union to sympathy for Putin’s Russia, which are basically nothing alike.

        I imagine for some, it’s just generic hard-on for anyone who takes up the mantle of “anti-west” at any given moment, ideological consistency be damned.

        • DrDick

          Which explains why American conservatives have such a huge mancrush of Putin?

    • Mart

      Reminder that Cohen is the husband of above mentioned Katrina vanden Heuvel editor and publisher of “The Nation”.

      • Phil Perspective

        What’s your point? He knows more about Russia in his little finger than you’ll ever know. Also, The Daily Beast is garbage. Also, too:

        https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/22/vladimir-putin-killer-genius-kleptocrat-spy-myths

        • humanoid.panda

          Cohen is much more senior scholar than I am, but I probably know more about Russia than his little finger. And I can say that I, and 90% of scholars of Russia, think he is full of shit.

          • humanoid.panda

            Like this is somewhat inside football, but when Cohen and his wife endowed a scholarship for PhD students in Russian studies, the professional association had a grassroots rebellion against naming it after him – which he obviously ascribed to McCartyhism. Only a vacuous ignoramus like Phil would use his authority as stick to beat people with.

            • sigaba

              I’m not sure why a Russia scholar would claim any sort of knowledge or expertise about “McCarthyism,” which is about as indigenously American as pickup trucks and has fuck-all to do with Russia.

          • Daragh McDowell

            I’m not a scholar, but I do Russia stuff for a living, and can confirm this is correct. For example, Cohen’s insistence (along with a tiny cohort of academic allies) that Russia was the wronged party during the Ukraine crisis, and parroting of the most facile and one dimensional characterisations of the Ukrainian state and nation were simply embarrassing. A good scholar of Stalinism (arguably) but utterly, totally wrong on modern Russia.

        • Abbey Bartlet

          He keeps his knowledge in his little finger?

          • D.N. Nation

            Yep. Take a whiff.

          • DrDick

            Lots of room left over in there. It would be a waste to stick it in his head, where it would rattle around like a pea in a fish bowl.

        • Mart

          I agree I know little about Russia compared to a Russian Professor. But I do know when I see and hear an echo chamber on the radio, TV, and in print – all coming from the same folks. Basic premise, we agreed on hands off the old USSR and they agreed to Germany unify. So now NATO is screwing around with extending NATO to the old bloc states, just double daring Russia to go to war because of our evil aggression. Therefor, libs are warmongers. Whatever.

        • rea

          He knows more about Russia in his little finger than you’ll ever know.

          True, but everything he knows is wrong.

    • TVTray

      I wonder where Cohen gets his money from… ;)

      • Abbey Bartlet

        Excuse me?

        • I don’t even know what this one is on about. Most of the other trolls are at least capable of communicating a concept.

    • CP

      2. Russia is misunderstood by everyone by me- and my Russian friends just told me that, and how can they be wrong?

      Fuck is it with the far far left and Russia? The USSR hasn’t existed for a quarter of a century. They don’t even pretend to be the revolutionary vanguard of the workers of the world anymore. These people don’t even have the shitty excuse that the Baader-Meinhoff/Red Brigade types did in the seventies and eighties. Let it go.

      • Abbey Bartlet

        What’s really odd to me is seeing it from my peers and younger. I could barely walk when the Soviet Union fell. People my age have no lingering nostalgia or whatever.

        • tsam

          I was in the US Army when the USSR fell. It was a major relief at the time.

          Our shooting range had popup targets that were silhouettes of Soviet soldiers. Even as a derpy kid I felt weird about that.

      • John Revolta

        I remember personally being a bit slow to catch on that Israel wasn’t the Israel I remembered from when I was growing up in the ’60s. Likewise, there is a bunch of lefties that still think that any criticism of Russia makes you a John Bircher. And sadly, they ain’t all old farts either.

    • djw

      I suppose “Kremlin-baiting” is less ridiculous than”red-baiting.” Baby steps.

  • Fidalgo

    The substance of Greenwald’s article is correct – we should not engage in hysteria or completely poison our relationship with Russia such that we cannot pursue areas of mutual interest.

    None of this excludes thoroughly investigating Russia’s role in influencing the last presidential election or whether Trump and his subordinates are compromised by Russia. We should do that too.

    • politicalfootball

      Is there some level of scrutiny of Russia that Greenwald deems appropriate? The existing level of investigation into Russia/Trump is obviously inadequate, but Greenwald’s position seems to be that it is excessive.

      • Rob in CT

        Maybe Glenn can get his pal Assange to investigate Russia… hahahahahahahahaha, I kill me.

        • postmodulator

          Assange’s official stance on Russia is that they have a robust free press which renders Wikileaks superfluous.

          • Warren Terra

            And you won’t find a reporter in Russia who dares to disagree!

          • Captain C

            How is Assange getting such strong drugs into the Ecuadorian embassy on a regular basis?

            • David Hunt

              For people like him, their own ego is a really powerful intoxicant.

            • Domino

              Can they transport them in an embassy car from the Russian embassy to the Ecuadorian one?

    • humanoid.panda

      The substance of Greenwald’s article is correct – we should not engage in hysteria or completely poison our relationship with Russia such that we cannot pursue areas of mutual interest.

      Also, we should brush our teeth twice a day, and have a diet heavy on fiber and whole grains, and light on processed sugars.

      Seriously, the point Greenwald is making is so anodyne as to be meaningless. Sure, we shouldn’t over-react. But what is the proper level of reaction of Russian interfering in the election in order to put an unstable narcisssit in charge of our nuclear arsenal?

      • Fidalgo

        Compare “anodyne” (obvious and inoffensive) with “No one should ever take Glenn Greenwald seriously again.”

        • humanoid.panda

          His point is anodyne. His style and intellectual dishonesty are why people shouldn’t take him seriously.

          • NoMoreAltCenter

            You think people shouldn’t take him seriously because you disagree with his politics.

      • Phil Perspective

        But what is the proper level of reaction of Russian interfering in the election in order to put an unstable narcissist in charge of our nuclear arsenal?

        Will we investigate Fox News, CNN, MSNBC(remember they, too, aired the empty podiums waiting for Trump’s “rallies”) and our own oligarchs as well? They had just as much to do with Trump winning.

        • Rob in CT

          In a sense, yes (or rather, we can if we stick with it). This involves working the refs the way Conservatives have.

        • humanoid.panda

          God, you are a a moron.

          [Not Rob, Phil.]

          I mean seriously :MSNBC and FOX and CNN giving air time to Trump is disgraceful, but solidly covered by the Fist Amendment. The hacks and whatever coordination there was between Trump campaign and the FSB aren’t.

          And our oligarchs is basically a classical whatabouttism.

          • BiloSagdiyev

            I mean seriously :MSNBC and FOX and CNN giving air time to Trump is disgraceful, but solidly covered by the Fist Amendment.

            No, no, no, that’s the Nazis who get the Fist Amendment.

            • tsam

              I ain’t even gonna TELL you where FIST Amendment took my mind…You’re welcome.

              • BiloSagdiyev

                I’m glad you got a grip on…

                Er, I’ll just stop right now.

        • Steve

          I seem to recall an enormous amount of criticism heaped on the media for their coverage of Clinton and Trump. Here and elsewhere.

          • humanoid.panda

            Right. When I think about it, to say that LGM is not engaged with criticism of the media and FBI is kinda insane..

            • tsam

              Wrong kinda criticism. Only counts if it follows the following guidelines:

              1) VINDICATES WHATEVER DUMB SHIT I HAVE TO SAY.

              2) That’s all. Carry on.

    • tsam

      we should not engage in hysteria

      Calling for an investigation and punishment for those who broke the law is SO FUCKING HYSTERICAL

      poison our relationship with Russia such that we cannot pursue areas of mutual interest

      If we were trying to do that, we’d sabotage on of their elections, if they were ever to have one.

      This is another example of GG attacking a strawman. There are liberals who are stupid and say stupid things, but most people are under-reacting to this rather than the opposite.

      • BiloSagdiyev

        Hmm… we should not engage in hysteria. Why, that’s great advice.

        Except nobody ever sits down and cogitates and then says, “Well, that’s it. I guess today the tactic to use is hysteria.”

        And nobody who is hysterical stops because somebody, say, a retired linguist, walked by and gave a calm, reasoned argument against hysteria.

        • tsam

          Facts thus far:
          Manafort was neck deep in money laundering for a pro-Putin dictator and one his oligarch lackeys.
          Flynn undermined a sitting US president’s sanctions that were a response to Russian interference in an election.

          REMAIN CALM. NOTHING TO SEE HERE. WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL, DUDE?

        • gmack
  • Rob in CT

    That picture make me chuckle (darkly), thanks.

    • BiloSagdiyev

      I was going to say “needs more weasel”, but as I searched for that image, what the hey, needs more everything.

  • Harkov311

    I wonder if ol’ Glenny will stop by to assure is that Russia literally annexing territory from its neighbor like a 19th century empire is nothing to be concerned about, but America reading a few foreign emails is the worst calumny in the history of humanity.

    • liberal
      • ΧΤΠΔ

        You know, people would take you a lot more seriously if you made an actual argument as opposed to merely posting to the effect of “but Mearsheimer” every time this comes up. And, you know, actually listening to criticism.

      • Harkov311

        Ah, I see. So it’s OK to annex parts of your neighbors as long as they had a coup and you don’t approve of the new government. Good to know.

        • solidcitizen

          I think you are overlooking the NATO part.

          If NATO expands too close to your border, it is perfectly acceptable to seize part of a country so that you have a natural buffer zone between you and your enemy. (Although, per Greenwald, it is high time we stop being enemies wth Russia!)

          • Steve

            I always thought international realism was a (somewhat) useful way to predict how countries behave as opposed to a moral justification for that behavior.

            • solidcitizen

              I think it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that Russia would not like it. I think it is reasonable to suppose that there may be consequences.

              As you say below, I don’t think Russia is justified in taking the actions they did. The “look what you made me do” defense is seldom credible.

          • brewmn

            If NATO expands too close to your border, it is perfectly acceptable to seize part of a country so that you have a natural buffer zone between you and your enemy.

            Um, what? The “West” didn’t militarily annex Ukraine.

        • sigaba

          To be fair we’ve spent the last 200 years doing exactly this, and have done it to Mexico in particular no less than twice (maybe four times if we count invasions that don’t include annexations, or annexations by filibusters as opposed to acts of state).

          • Brien Jackson

            This is an odd defense. I doubt that you’ll find very many liberals of the sort Glenn loves to attack at every opportunity who think that the Mexican-American war was a positive endeavor.

            • ΧΤΠΔ

              Especially since it gave us both Texas and Arizona.

          • liberalpragmatist

            Yes, but ALL countries did this basically until the World Wars. (Including Russia – how exactly did they get all that land?)

            Since the postwar settlement – on the basis that most wars are started over territory – the whole postwar security structure and international law has been premised on the idea that you can’t change your borders by war.

            Since the postwar era, virtually no country that has tried has won international recognition for seizing territory by force. Not Israel (still no international recognition of their annexation of Jerusalem or the Golan), not Morocco, not Turkish Cyprus (slightly different situation but similar).

            Few exceptions I can think of are China/Tibet, but it’s complicated because Tibet was never an internationally-recognized independent state (it was always under Chinese suzerainty) and India/Goa. (And of course it’s not like Western powers or publics have completely acquiesced to Chinese control of Tibet either.)

            To assert equivalence with the contemporary US here or charges of hypocrisy, you have to believe that if there were civil unrest or a revolution in Mexico, the US would invade and annex Baja. And nobody in the US would complain or have a problem with it (including on the left).

      • Steve

        It’s possible to simultaneously believe that NATO expansion was a strategic mistake and that Russia’s response was immoral/unacceptable. Manichean thought seems to reign in foreign affairs discourse.

        • Rob in CT

          +1.

        • TVTray

          And it reigns with an iron fist.

        • ΧΤΠΔ

          Given his previous comments, it’s clear that he falls on the Manichaean side of things.

          And seriously, this is getting to the point that I think the mods should be deleting these (not his in general) comments until he actually starts coming up with arguments. I’m obviously not unsympathetic to the idea that the US bears some blame for Ukraine, but merely posting “but REALISM” over and over again — especially when he never actually responds to criticism — smacks of both laziness and transparent bad faith.

      • mds

        I’m all for Western exceptionalism in certain circumstances, but after a while I grow tired of brutal reactionary leaders never being granted any agency. “You made me invade Ukraine” sounds like something that should have been in that Seinfeld episode with Kramer and Newman playing Risk. Oh, that Putin, such a nice, well-meaning fellow who only developed vicious authoritarian tendencies at home and abroad as he helplessly watched his once-great nation get encircled by a rival military alliance that also once called his momma fat.

        • Colin Day

          Well, the Risk version of Ukraine does include a fair bit of Russia. Of course Putin is annoyed.

  • McCarthyism? Charlie McCarthyism maybe.

  • Steve

    Post written in classic Greenwald all-caps blog commenting style. I hope my imitation is acceptable to you.

    Good effort but it is not 35 pages long. 7/10.

    • Rob in CT

      Lack of UPDATES, as well. Sad.

      • Lost Left Coaster

        Also, Erik isn’t here in the comments arguing with all of us.

    • Lit3Bolt

      Also, no monthly check from Alfa Bank.

    • TVTray

      This.

    • postmodulator

      When I initially quit reading Greenwald, it was because he was a bad writer and to me it was like hearing fingernails on a chalkboard. I’m a language snob in various complicated ways, and at the time, I felt I was doing Greenwald a disservice to ignore his constitutional expertise merely because he wrote like a clod.

      In retrospect, I feel pretty smart.

  • Abbey Bartlet

    Great, now we’re going to get guest appearances from FdB *and* Glenn today.

    • ΧΤΠΔ

      They definitely will if you don’t shut up.

      • Abbey Bartlet

        I can’t help it, it’s like a scab you just can’t stop picking.

    • Steve

      Whataboutism incoming! ::duck::

    • D.N. Nation

      My b in advance.

    • kped

      Did we get Fdb? I didn’t notice.

    • sigaba

      Is the Glenn commenter really Glenn or just some guy?

      • kped

        He has commented here to yell at front pagers for besmirching his reputation, and that was really him.

        • sigaba

          I’ve seen those comments, but did the Glenn Greenwald at the Guardian or Salon actually validate the comments as his? How do we really know?

          GG would be hard to distinguish from performance art in a comment thread, since all he ever did was get outrageously contentious and troll people.

          • kped

            I believe that he confirmed it privately to Scott or Erik, but I could be wrong. I think Atrios has also commented here, as has Kos.

            • Brien Jackson

              He’s acknowledged it on Twitter.

            • Domino

              When has Kos posted here? It seems Atrios comments once a month.

  • Bitter Scribe

    Greenwald is turning out to be the thinking man’s Milo Yiannopoulos.

    • semiotix

      That characterization unfairly denigrates Yiannopolous’s degree of self-awareness.

    • TVTray

      I hear Milo is looking for new work! ;)

      • BiloSagdiyev

        Work would be new to him.

  • MedicineMan

    One could waste a lot of time trying to pin down Greenwald’s motivations, if one were so inclined. I get the sense that outside of privacy/surveillance issues and non-interventionist foreign policy, GG doesn’t have much care for/use for the left-wing.

    It will be interesting to see what Glenn does when/if the Trump administration really starts to shed blood overseas.

    • ΧΤΠΔ

      IF?!??!!!#[email protected]#??!?!#[email protected]#%??!????

    • liberal

      I’m pretty sure he’s more or less a libertarian. He voted for G. W. Bush in 2000 or 2004, I think. I’ve never seen any evidence whatsoever that he’s “liberal”.

    • Captain C

      It depends on whose blood is shed; the reaction could be anything from shouty ALL-CAPS fauxtrage to fapping himself silly.

    • Harry Hardrada

      Well he was all for the Iraq war until he was against it, so I’d hardly be surprised if he starts carrying water for whatever foreign policy dumbassery the Trump admin comes up with.

    • Brien Jackson

      Outside of LGBTQ issues and the security state, Glenn clearly doesn’t have any real concern for issues, and his guiding belief is that the American state is the world’s primary bad actor and should be opposed all the time with any means necessary. Hence, he’s basically fine with Russia so long as he sees Putin challenging the U.S. globally.

      • Abbey Bartlet

        Outside of LGBTQ issues and the security state, Glenn clearly doesn’t have any real concern for issues

        FTFY.

        (As far as I know. Would be happy to be wrong.)

  • semiotix

    Greenwald needs to make up his mind if we’re all neo-McCarthyite stooges and advance scouts for fascism because we just naturally swing evil’s way, or if we’re merely poor pitiable dupes because he’s the only person with the titanic brainpower and searing intellectual honesty to see the world for how it is.

    Dupe or stooge, Glenn. Please clarify. I cannot be both, and it’s really hurting my efficiency as an agent of all that is wrong with the world to try to do both jobs.

  • Lit3Bolt

    The Intercept has written only 30 articles about Putin, and not one that dares to criticize him for bombing Muslim children in the Middle East.

    I’m beginning to think that GG’s HIGHLY PRINCIPLED STANCES were not about the lives of Muslim children at all…

    • TVTray

      I think it’s because he’s in the KGB’s pocket. (They’re giving him money to not criticize Putin)

      • postmodulator

        This is the argument I’ve been making to the bothsiders who are screeching about Obama’s policy towards Syria. (With which they also like to tar HRC, glossing over the fact that she had left State by the time it was really underway.) If Obama’s policy towards Syria was the worst thing ever, why did Putin take the gloves off three days after Trump won?

        • humanoid.panda

          The thing is: a lot of these people support what Putin is doing. They are not abstract humanitarians, but opponents of the American empire – so keeping Assad in power is an objectively good thing as far as they are concerned.

          • mds

            They are not abstract humanitarians

          • tsam

            I object to imperialism too. I guess I need to support an imperialist who murders dissenters and journalists to keep up my street cred then?

            • humanoid.panda

              I said it before, but Hart and Negri are among the most despicable public intellectuals of this miserable century.

              • NoMoreAltCenter

                But what do you think of Hardt and Negri?

            • sigaba

              Totalitarianism is just imperialism practiced against your own people. GG has never had a problem with this. He doesn’t care what awful shit happens to people as long as it’s authentic and locally-sourced.

        • TVTray

          Putin took the gloves off so he could more easily slip delicious rubles into Glenn’s pocket :)

          • NoMoreAltCenter

            I would much sooner believe Alex Jones was being paid by the Russkies than Greenwald.

  • humanoid.panda

    Also, what the fuck is this?

    “We’re saddened that two Garmin associates were involved in last night’s incident, and we express our condolences to the family and friends of our co-workers involved,” she said in a statement.

    TWO OF YOUR EMPLOYEES WERE MURDERED BY A RACIAL TERRORIST AND YOU MAKE IT SOUND THOUGH THEY WERE INVOLVED IN A BAR FIGHT!

  • NoMoreAltCenter

    To be very clear, fuck anyone who engages in US patriotic nationalism and Anti-Russian posturing out of butthurt over this lost election.

    • DrDick

      WTF?! Are you seriously deranged or just completely lacking reading comprehension?

      • kped

        He’s just trying to get an argument going, let him masturbate in peace.

        • NoMoreAltCenter

          Or, you know, stating my opinion.

          • DrDick

            What kped said.

          • fatvalkilmer

            Is there a position that someone can assume which expresses concern about Russia & the Whitehouse & the election that you’d acknowledge as anything other than patriotic nationalism and anti-Russian posturing because of a terminal case of butthurt?

            • NoMoreAltCenter

              In the context of a thread of people jerking each other off over who can hate The Intercept harder? Probably not.

              • kped

                “lullz, guyz, i’m on this neoliberal blog, I call myself “nomoreAltCenter” get it? Watch me argue with them. It’s kek!”

                Troll, go back to your natural habitat, 4chan is not far away.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  You seem to have confused Far Right 4chan style trolling with whatever it is you think I am doing

                • kped

                  you seem to be under the impression that you are doing anything remotely different.

    • Matty

      Buddy, there was not a whit of doubt where you’d land on this, don’t you worry.

      • NoMoreAltCenter

        Da.

  • efgoldman

    No one should ever take Glenn Greenwald seriously again.

    No one should have in the first place

    • petesh

      We were very young. I myself was barely 55 when I did, and not much more when I stopped, as best I can recall.

    • CrunchyFrog

      His writings in the early 2000s had a lot of merit. He was focused on one topic in which he was a true expert and he had the data and the references to back him up. Even if you lived through 2001-2005 it’s hard to remember now just how extreme the Bush/Cheney administration’s actions were with regard to individual civil rights. He got a lot of respect not just from the left but from people at various points on the political spectrum who were concerned about the Bush/Cheney actions.

      Times change and so do people. After Katrina the press stopped being 100% lap dogs for Bush/Cheney and after the 2006 mid-terms they stopped even trying the same shit they’d been doing in the first term. We went back to a run-of-the-mill ordinary kind of military rights violations that had gone on before Bush under Clinton, Bush, Reagan, (even) Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc etc. Obama took over and he kept up a lot of the same kind of stuff – to the disappointment of a lot of us on the left – but not all of it (he stopped, we think, torture). Greenwald’s tone of extreme outrage was now out of place, but that had become his money-making schtick. He’d gone from his own little blog to Salon to Guardian and later Intercept. He needed to keep generating bigger audiences to keep the income growing – but his original raison d’etre was gone so he had to keep finding new things to be outraged about – and those had to be things that generated a big audience of clicks. Of course he ventured far outside his original area of expertise

      And he also let his political viewpoints bleed into the writing. When he started his little blog he explained that prior to Bush he was GOP-leaning but didn’t really think about politics much. No one really cared in the early years because his writing was focused on the topic at hand.

      He’s not the first political writer to start well and go off the rails. Michael Kinsley’s stuff in the early 1980s on the Reagan administration was the best researched and analyzed critiques of the time – he was Krugman (minus the economics) two decades before Krugman. But of course, as the song goes, he crossed the line to find the money’s on other side. Richard Dawkins arrived on the scene at a time with “faith” was in ascendance and atheism was something even atheists were loathe to admit, with the most famous atheist being Madalyn Murray O’Hair. His early writings did a great job shaking up the established thinking – but like Greenwald, he was spot on when he stayed on his original topic but he strayed, using the same confrontational style, and demonstrated that he wasn’t a sage oracle, just a well-spoken ranter who was right about one thing.

      • ΧΤΠΔ

        Brad Delong pointed out that only Michael Kingsley could do the reflexive contrarian shtick proper justice, in a tweetstorm ripping apart a particularly awful Jack Shafer column. Which reminds me: Exactly how and why did Lord Shafer go from being a generally meritorious writer (even if a horrible, horrible editor) to “douchier Chris Cillizza?”

      • Brien Jackson

        “Times change and so do people. After Katrina the press stopped being 100% lap dogs for Bush/Cheney and after the 2006 mid-terms they stopped even trying the same shit they’d been doing in the first term. We went back to a run-of-the-mill ordinary kind of military rights violations that had gone on before Bush under Clinton, Bush, Reagan, (even) Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc etc. Obama took over and he kept up a lot of the same kind of stuff – to the disappointment of a lot of us on the left – but not all of it (he stopped, we think, torture). Greenwald’s tone of extreme outrage was now out of place”

        I don’t think this is quite right. Rather, as Democrats started winning, Glenn started branching out from the civil liberties toic and writing, with the same style, on a bunch of issues he didn’t know as much, or much of anything at all, about. Since Glenn was mixing ignorance with his signature brand of righteous anger and narcissism, he inevitably got pushback from liberals in the blogosphere, and of course narcissists can’t handle that.

        • CrunchyFrog

          I think if you continue beyond the part you quoted I cover those points.

      • Incontinentia Buttocks

        Thanks for this, CF. Greenwald, for all his limitations, was really important during W’s first term. He was focused on very serious problems that few others were taking seriously. And though his slide into uselessness (and worse) revealed limitations of his that always existed, they don’t retroactively make him any less essential during the early 2000s. Sometimes particular sorts of assholes can play vital political roles.

  • ΧΤΠΔ

    I would just like to say that the sheer fucktaderpitude synergy conveyed by both the headline and the post image ensures that this will never not be fucking hilarious.

    • jim, some guy in iowa

      it needs the John Ashcroft soundtrack

      also, I am vaguely disturbed at the apparent fact Putin is missing his right foot and also shouldn’t a guy who flies eagles without a shirt have a better tan?

  • Neo-McCarthyism? Of course! Consider these brilliant arguments:

    1) The original McCarthyism was about Russian influence. Therefore any modern concerns about Russian influence are new forms of McCarthyism

    2) During the election one or two Democrats, probably out of habit, said “Soviet” instead of “Russian”, therefore this is the new Red Scare

    3) Any critic of U.S. foreign policy must support the foreign policy of other countries when they conflict with that of the U.S.

    Any questions?

    • brewmn

      I wasn’t around during the McCarthy era, but it’s my impression that what made the smearing and the scapegoating of people with suspected ties to Russia so troubling was that it done by the people in political power. Kind of seems like the opposite here.

      And would Glenn still insist we have no right to investigate hacking of our elections if it had likely been done by a country other than Russia?I guess I’m not following Glenn’s logic here.

      • liberalrob

        And I’m not following your question. Nowhere does Glenn insist that we have no right to investigate hacking of our elections. His column is about our public discourse making Putin the mastermind behind every failure of Democratic politics and the scapegoat for every bad policy outcome at home and abroad:

        Putin — like al Qaeda terrorists and Soviet Communists before him — is everywhere. Russia is lurking behind all evils, most importantly — of course — Hillary Clinton’s defeat. And whoever questions any of that is revealing themselves to be a traitor, likely on Putin’s payroll.

        It tracks perfectly with McCarthyism, wherein Communists were said to be everywhere and behind everything you disagreed with or didn’t like. But since it’s the hated Greenwald saying it, it’s therefore malevolent self-righteousness and unworthy of being taken seriously. This obsession Loomis has with denigrating Greenwald is unworthy of him. It’s ugly.

        • brewmn

          His column is about our public discourse making Putin the mastermind behind every failure of Democratic politics and the scapegoat for every bad policy outcome at home and abroad:

          If the “public discourse” was doing any such thing, Glenn might have a point. But, they aren’t, so he, and by extension you, don’t.

        • Brien Jackson

          This makes a lot more sense if you remember that Glenn relentlessly and angrily denied that Russia was behind the DNC hacking Wikileaks and has consistently and angrily implied that every leak from the IC abour Russian connections to Trump and involvement in the election is a total fabrication.

          Which is to say you might have a point if Glenn was in any way doing that, rather than just flinging shit at the wall at every turn.

        • If this is an accurate representation of Greenwald’s argument, he is into strawmanning.

          The context here is that the Republicans are in power, allegedly partly due to Russian interference in the election. Republicans -the ones with the power- seem somewhat reluctant to investigate. In such a context, those without power need to raise hell to ensure that the matter is investigated. And in this context, claims that such calls for an investigation are “hysterical” or paranoid blaming of the Russians for every single problem in American politics and society is gaslighting of the first order.

          • Wow, I seem to have lifted that last sentence from someone downthread, but it’s a good conclusion.

  • shah8

    Man, I do think that liberals tend to just a tad too enthusiastic about things that they should doubt more. My personal analysis is that NATO at Russia’s borders is at the heart of the tensions, and we can’t really do anything to change the dynamics unless we fully consider impacts and options. Putin doesn’t have to worry about his back because the entire state basically agrees with him on this topic, and the urgency with having a large military alliance on your borders means that any dissenters are easily shown as unpatriotic.

    But we’re not having this discussion or anything like this, since the Left is currently full of fools and narcs.

    • Brien Jackson

      This doesn’t make an ounce of sense. No one seriously thinks NATO is going to wage an offensive war against Russia or anything. Hell, existing tension with Russia HURT Ukraine’s bid to get into NATO specifically because lots of people weren’t comfortable with that level of antagonism. Russia’s complaints about NATO are entirely related to sphere of influence concepts, and a claim that Russia has a right to dominate its neighboring states seems odd coming from a so-called leftist perspective.

  • Solo Law

    I’m really curious about something.

    Why do Loomis and Lemieux (or any number of the purported academics who hide behind anonymity here in the comments section) sit back at this pathetic little low readership blog and take potshots at Greenwald, instead of challenging him directly on the substantive merits of anything he’s written–at The Intercept?

    Bring your evidence against his arguments and ask him to debate you on a podcast at The Intercept. I guarantee you, given I know him personally, he is intellectually curious, always open to contrary evidence, and isn’t afraid to go toe to toe with anybody.

    I mean maybe you’re afraid to go against an NYU trained lawyer, Pulitzer Prize winner, I.F. Stone winner, 3 time NY Times Best Seller author, Polk award winner, . . . .

    I mean I get that you guys toil away at colleges hardly anyone has ever heard of, and that Greenwald has done more to advance the issues you purport to care about (as liberals/progressives) through his work as a lawyer and journalist than you’ll ever be accused of doing whatever it is you do in this blog or via your academic endeavors, but, seriously, your petty sniping at Greenwald is embarrassing. Particularly if you’re not willing to openly put your academic reputations on the line and debate him formally, in writing or live, on the substantive merits of what he writes rather than this little straw man whataboutery fixation you have with him where you attribute all power in the US to swing elections with his writing, you know like Susan Sarandon the all powerful actor does.

    Pathetic. I’m just thankful I never paid a cent in tuition to take a course from either Lemieux, Campos or Loomis as an undergrad or law student. You guys should seriously be ashamed at your petty little ankle biting critiques of someone who is clearly more accomplished and influential, on the merits, than all of you combined.

    • sibusisodan

      Interestingly, when Mr Greenwald has chanced by this blog to rebut the substantive counter arguments which often get presented – he doesn’t come off well. It’s all whataboutery, insult and bluster.

      Also: ‘open to contrary evidence’? It is to laugh. Mr Greenwald is excellent at being a passionate advocate for his arguments. He is not strong at being able to admit of evidence which goes against a position he’s already staked out in public.

    • IM

      s pathetic little low readership blog

      fine Trump imitation

    • How dare these nonentities question the word of that great authority, Greenwald?

    • Cheerfull

      Since you are here on this blog and GG isn’t, why don’t you take a stab? I know you think of yourself as a mere worm in comparison to the great and powerful GG but surely having followed his writings you must have picked up something.

      GG’s general critique is that caring about and criticizing Russian influence on the 2016 election and on Trump generally is similar to, and as bad, as McCarthyism, as decried by I.F. Stone and others. Given the numerous differences between the two situations, other than the same countries are involved in both (more or less, as Russia today is very few respects the same country as the Soviet Union then) why do you and GG think this is an useful comparison?

      • liberalrob

        GG’s general critique is that caring about and criticizing Russian influence on the 2016 election and on Trump generally is similar to, and as bad, as McCarthyism, as decried by I.F. Stone and others.

        Incorrect.

        GG’s general critique is that caring about and criticizing Russian influence on the 2016 election and on Trump generally the demonization of Putin in our public discourse is similar to, and as bad, as McCarthyism, as decried by I.F. Stone and others.

        Learn to read.

        • Lost Left Coaster

          I don’t think your interpretation is doing Greenwald many favors.

          During the McCarthy era, many, many people lost their livelihoods through the black list. That was, you know, kinda the defining feature of the era.

          Who has lost their livelihoods during this current reign of McCarthyism that you and Greenwald decry?

          • Brien Jackson

            Right that’s exactly what I was going to say: Taken on its own merits this is literally NOTHING similar to McCarthyism.

            • Lost Left Coaster

              Yeah. I mean, Greenwald’s central, and highly dubious, contention that he has been flogging for months is that the Democrats are using the Russia issue to avoid doing any soul-searching over why they lost the election. Even if that were true, that has absolutely nothing to do with McCarthyism.

              • humanoid.panda

                I sure hope that liberalrob is misreading Glenn, because his formulation is insane. The key point about McArtyhyism was that, Soviet espionage having been eliminated before he opened his trap, it was based on a lie. There was no Communist conspiracy. To the best of our knowledge, and no one seems to deny it anymore, the Russian hacks happened. You could argue about their signicance, and some of the more florid “Trump is a Russian puppet” language verges on conspiracy theory, but Putin did intervene in the election, and did so to either hurt HRC or aid Trump.

                This is gaslighting of the first order.

              • liberalrob

                Is it not conceivably true? I find it far from “highly dubious.” The media is practically wall-to-wall Putin this Putin that. Hillary didn’t lose because she ran a bad campaign (true), she didn’t lose because our electoral system is broken (false), she lost because Putin meddled in the election! Not our fault at all! Please don’t fire us! It’s also Putin’s fault that your milk went bad, and that the locusts came, and yadda yadda.

                Which brings up the question of just what is the similarity to McCarthyism Greenwald is seeing. And that comes to his quoting and commenting on the vanden Heuvel piece:

                As The Nation’s Katrina vanden Heuvel put it on Tuesday in the Washington Post: “In the targeting of Trump, too many liberals have joined in fanning a neo-McCarthyite furor, working to discredit those who seek to deescalate U.S.-Russian tensions, and dismissing anyone expressing doubts about the charges of hacking or collusion as a Putin apologist. … What we don’t need is a replay of Cold War hysteria that cuts off debate, slanders skeptics and undermines any effort to explore areas of agreement with Russia in our own national interest.” That precisely echoes what Stone observed 62 years ago: Claims of Russian infiltration and ubiquity are “the thesis no American dare any longer challenge without himself becoming suspect”

                That has everything to do with McCarthyism, I think. Or maybe it’s better stated as the environment of fear and paranoia McCarthyism created and sustained, what caused that period in American history to be called “The McCarthy Era.” I never claimed Greenwald was the world’s best wordsmith :)

                • humanoid.panda

                  Is it not conceivably true? I find it far from “highly dubious.” The media is practically wall-to-wall Putin this Putin that. Hillary didn’t lose because she ran a bad campaign (true), she didn’t lose because our electoral system is broken (false), she lost because Putin meddled in the election! Not our fault at all! Please don’t fire us! It’s also Putin’s fault that your milk went bad, and that the locusts came, and yadda yadda.

                  You ,sir, are delusional.

                • liberalrob

                  Search “Putin Russia meddling” and see how many hits you get. I get 8460 for the past week alone.

                  I wish I was delusional, that would mean this could all be a bad dream.

                • Brien Jackson

                  Again, this is just rank bullshit. The central conceit of “McCarthyism” is that it was wrong. “Communist symathizers” in government, Hollywood, etc. weren’t Russian agents/spies, but they had their careers/lives destroyed anyway.

                  Now that’s the biggest problem, no one is being drummed out of their career or livelihood over this supposed neo-McCarthyism. The second is, ya know, it’s true! The Russian government did hack the DNC and pass the info along to Wikileaks, despite Greenwald’s postmodern objections* to the contrary. Russian agents were in contact with Flynn, and many Trump campaign staffers, particularly Manafort, are deeply tied to Russian government interests as an undisputed matter of fact. There have also been many supositions going back years that the Trump organization has extensive business ties with Russian interests, and at the very least we do know as a matter of fact that because of Trump’s many bankrupcties and refusal to pay debts he has had to seek non-traditional financing because traditional banks won’t lend to him.

                  *And note that this doesn’t end with Russia; Glenn was clearly implying that the AP’s DHS memo story was fraudulent as well before they released the raw document and he just stopped Tweeting about it.

            • djw

              Yeah, they’re not structurally similar. It’s just words next to each other.

          • liberalrob

            I suspect that not a few Latin immigrants, and brown immigrants in general, are not feeling especially secure in their positions today.

            But again, that’s not the aspect of McCarthyism that Greenwald’s column discussed. McCarthyism also featured Senate and Congressional committees dedicated to exposing and rooting out the notional Communist infiltrations into the fabric of American society; those don’t exist either (yet!). And of course you had McCarthy himself, for whom Trump is (as usual) a poor substitute. (But he’s working hard at it!)

            The point Glenn is trying to make (IMHO) is this, stated in reference to the Gessen article he quotes:

            It’s hardly unique for American media and political commentators to speak of foreign adversaries with a mix of ignorance and paranoia. But the role Putin serves above all else, [Gessen] says, is to cast America’s problems not as its own doing but rather the fault of foreigners, and more importantly, to relieve the Democratic Party of the need to examine its own fundamental flaws and errors…But while petty self-exoneration may be the prime motive, the far greater danger is how much this obsession distracts from, and distorts, the pervasive corruption of America’s ruling class.

            I find it hard to disagree with that analysis. But then again I am unable to read the subtext underlying all this, where it’s all just Greenwald (illegitimately) claiming the mantle of I.F. Stone out of narcissistic self-righteousness. That’s why Loomis and Lemieux are paid the big bucks, to see and point out that kind of thing.

            • Scott Lemieux

              OK. So the new definition of “McCarthyism” is “discussing anything about the 2016 campaign other than ‘Hillary Clinton sucks.'” Just like the 50s — nobody lost their jobs in the red scare, it was just that people didn’t spend enough time discussing why Adlai Stevenson was a shitty candidate. You learn something new every day.

              • humanoid.panda

                The wonderful thing about this argument is how circular it is. If you debate, say, voter supression, that means you are suppressing talk of Hillary’s flawed campaign strategy. And if you discuss campaign strategy, you suppress talk of voter supression, and so goes the circle.

                • humanoid.panda

                  Also, its amazing to me how both Gessen sibling embody diametrically opposed, yet equally misguided, approaches to Putin: “he is a mere distraction” [Keith] and “he is is a dark master manipulating us all” [Masha]..

              • liberalrob

                So the new definition of “McCarthyism” is

                No, it’s not. And that’s not what he said.

                …it was just that people didn’t spend enough time discussing why Adlai Stevenson was a shitty candidate

                Willfully missing the point again.

                As Adam Johnson detailed in the Los Angeles Times last week, the constant effort to attribute Trump to foreign dynamics is devoted to avoiding the reality that U.S. policy and culture is what gave rise to him. Nothing achieves that goal better than continually attributing Trump — and every other negative outcome — to the secret work of Kremlin leaders.

                The game that establishment Democrats and their allies are playing is not just tawdry but dangerous. The U.S. political, media, military, and intelligence classes are still full of people seeking confrontation with Russia; included among them are military officials whom Trump has appointed to key positions.

                • LGM’s own discussions of the election are a counter -example to Greenwald’s claim that those who are concerned about Russian meddling in the election do so in order to avoid attributing any domestic causes to Trump’s victory. Xenophobia, other bigotry, the FBI, economic dislocation, media coverage – this blog has covered a myriad of domestic factors. Nor is this blog an outlier in that respect. So much for Greenwald’s strawmen.

                • LGM’s own discussions of the election are a counter -example to Greenwald’s claim that those who are concerned about Russian meddling in the election do so in order to avoid attributing any domestic causes to Trump’s victory. Xenophobia, other forms of bigotry, the FBI, economic dislocation, media coverage – this blog has covered a myriad of domestic factors. Nor is this blog an outlier in that respect. So much for Greenwald’s strawmen.

                • sibusisodan

                  How is that bolded para remotely convincing?

                  The questions ‘How did Trump get the candidacy and 40-something percent of the vote?’ and ‘How did Trump squeak the electoral college?’ are different, and have different answers.

                  You can’t answer the second one without talking about Russia – at least thoroughly investigating the situation.

                  And to claim that the second question should be ignored because it’s somehow tawdry or dangerous is lunacy.

                • Scott Lemieux

                  Willfully missing the point again.

                  No I’m not. “People won’t spend enough time talking about how Hillary Clinton sucks” is literally the harm Greenwald is arguing that the new McCartyism is causing. I know that this is so silly it seems like it must be a strawman, but that’s his actual argument. You gave us the quote yourself!

                • liberalrob

                  LGM’s own discussions of the election are

                  Profoundly irrelevant to the question of

                  Greenwald’s claim that those who are concerned about Russian meddling in the election do so in order to avoid attributing any domestic causes to Trump’s victory.

                  Which is an overbroad reading of his claim (he doesn’t say that anyone expressing such a concern is doing so in order to divert attention, only that he agrees with vanden Heuvel that some have) but whatever. LGM is not representative of the national political discourse. Would that it were, we’d be a lot better off!

                • liberalrob

                  “People won’t spend enough time talking about how Hillary Clinton sucks” is literally the harm Greenwald is arguing that the new McCartyism is causing.

                  Well, obviously I disagree that that’s his argument.

                  You gave us the quote yourself!

                  You mean the Adam Johnson ref? I don’t see how “avoiding the reality that U.S. policy and culture is what gave rise to [Trump]” is the same as saying “people won’t spend enough time saying Hillary sucks.” Is Hillary responsible for U.S. policy and culture? Maybe a little on the policy side…definitely not for the culture.

                • The statement you quote, which Greenwald endorses, claims that there is a constant, broad-based effort by “establishment Democrats and their allies” to continually atteribute “Trump — and every other negative outcome — to the secret work of Kremlin leaders”. I see no evidence of any such effort, much less that it can be properly called “neo-McCarthite” in any sense. And, as I noted, LGM is “not an outlier” in discussing a myriad of domestic factors behind Trump’s victory.

                • liberalrob

                  I see no evidence of any such effort,

                  Well, nevermind then.

                  much less that it can be properly called “neo-McCarthite” in any sense.

                  If it doesn’t exist, it’d be weird to call it anything at all.

                  And, as I noted, LGM is “not an outlier” in discussing a myriad of domestic factors behind Trump’s victory.

                  I disagree. I think LGM is absolutely an outlier, in all kinds of ways. Mostly good! But LGM is one blog among thousands; and for whatever misbegotten reason I’d rate Twitter as more influential on the national discourse than blogs, today.

                • If it doesn’t exist, it’d be weird to call it anything at all.

                  You are being obtuse again. If “what” doesn’t exist? The practice of people saying that Russia interfered in the election does exist. But is it extensively used to prevent discussion of other issues? No. Is it so extensively used to prevent discussion of other issues as to constitute a form of McCarthyite shutdown of alternative viewpoints as foreign-inspired subversion? Absolutely not.

                  I think LGM is absolutely an outlier, in all kinds of ways.

                  All fine and good, but irrelevant. It is not an outlier in the way that would actually be relevant to this discussion. Plenty of blogs and stories in media outlets have been devoted to attempting to explain the election result, and most of those have not attributed it wholly or even mostly to Russia.

            • humanoid.panda

              This is disingenous BS. The fact that Russia intervened in the election is important, and the possibility it did so in coordination with the Trump campaign is more than important, and the fact that the mechanism that enabled this interference to work is the well-organized propaganda mechanism that spent decades slandering Demorats is crucial. The idea that once we acknowledge this we can’t discuss other important problems is pure nonsense.

              • liberalrob

                The idea that once we acknowledge this we can’t discuss other important problems is pure nonsense.

                Well, I look forward to the coverage of that discussion. Let’s hope it does occur.

                • Rob in CT

                  If the “we” here is the LGM commentariat… we’ve had a running discussion since the election! What the hell?

                  How do we get swing voters in the midwest back (and can we, or should we instead concentrate on other voters) how do we turn back the tide at the state level… what substantive things should change (trade policy, medicare for all, etc) vs. style stuff…

                  This comes up all the damned time here!

                • Of course the fact that discussion hasn’t been on the terms he would prefer proves that there is a McCarthyite chill in the air preventing it from getting there.

                • humanoid.panda

                  And even in the wider media world “Democrats alienated rust belt whites” is a tad more popular explanation for Trump victory than Putin.

                • DrDick

                  You obviously have not been paying attention, because it has been front and center of a lot of discussions on this blog since the election. I happen to be someone that thinks Clinton had a lot of problems as a candidate, but I am also very concerned about Russian meddling and coordination with the Trump campaign, along with the Comey issue and the grossly imbalanced press coverage.

                • Brien Jackson

                  I mean, I’m *not* particularly concerned about Russian meddling per se. It’s perfectly rational for nation states to be attempting to meddle in other countries’ politics when their interests are at stake, and if we keep that to trying to influence peaceful elections rather than pushing coups and such so much the better!

                  But the involvement of the media and Intercept progressives in buying into that bullshit and potential Trump campaign involvement with the Russian scheme is clearly another matter.

              • DrDick

                Exactly and we have had many debates on the other issues.

            • humanoid.panda

              I suspect that not a few Latin immigrants, and brown immigrants in general, are not feeling especially secure in their positions today.

              Speaking of gaslighting, this is amazing. So, immigrants and brown people are unsafe because… liberals are anti-Russian McCarthyists?

              • Rob in CT

                I literally sat here trying to come up with a response to that and just couldn’t.

                I was questioning whether I had gotten confused about what the topic of discussion even was.

                • Brien Jackson

                  Right? Fuck this guy.

                • liberalrob

                  Back atcha, bub.

              • Scott Lemieux

                That’s indeed the most amazing part. Their argument is that we should ignore actual McCarthyism to focus on fake McCarthyism, because “the Democratic Party sucks” is the only thing we’re ever allowed to discuss again.

              • liberalrob

                Man, you guys are champions at leaping to conclusions based on misreading something. The “McCarthyism” isn’t just a phenomenon of liberals alone (or even in any significant way).

                As The Nation’s Katrina vanden Heuvel put it on Tuesday in the Washington Post: “In the targeting of Trump, too many liberals have joined

                Let me stop right there. In order to “join” something, the thing being joined generally has to exist apart from the thing joining it, right?

                Greenwald is not claiming that liberals and Democrats have unilaterally engaged in this “neo-McCarthyism”. Instead his critique, and vanden Heuvel’s, is that at least some of them have seized on this Putin hysteria as a way to deflect attention from other causes of the situation in which we find ourselves.

                Immigrants and brown people are unsafe because of the general environment of McCarthyist sentiment Trumpism is creating. To the extent that some liberals and Democrats embrace this McCarthyist environment as a way to explain away their own failures, then yes, they are contributing to that danger.

                • lizzie

                  Immigrants and brown people are unsafe because of the general environment of McCarthyist sentiment Trumpism is creating. To the extent that some liberals and Democrats embrace this McCarthyist environment as a way to explain away their own failures, then yes, they are contributing to that danger.

                  What in the actual fuck

                • Brien Jackson

                  The problem (well, among many) is that you haven’t bothered to established there’s anything hysterical about it. It’s just naked assertions from Greenwald that we can’t believe anything ever because it doesn’t meet Greenwald’s arbitrary standards of proof.

                • sibusisodan

                  Given that the ‘McCarthyist environments’ created by liberals are different from those being created by the Republicans – since the liberal ones have no effect on government policy or anyone’s livelihood –

                  Doesn’t it follow that treating those two kinds of environment as if they were identical is wonderfully daft?

                • To the extent that some liberals and Democrats embrace this McCarthyist environment as a way to explain away their own failures, then yes, they are contributing to that danger.

                  To the extent that liberals are contributing to xenophobic hysteria about “Muslim terrorists”, “Mexican criminals”, and “paid protesters in the employ of George Soros” propagated by a reactionary regime by demanding a proper investigation of alleged Russian interference in the election that brought these xenophobic reactionaries to power….

                  Stop right there – this makes no sense. Liberalrob’s straw manning has tipped over the edge into the ravine of utter incoherence.

                • liberalrob

                  The problem (well, among many) is that you haven’t bothered to established there’s anything hysterical about it.

                  Read the Gessen piece. Yes, it’s long. I can’t help that.

                  Compared to the 40-year cycle of US deindustrialisation, during which only the rich gained in wealth; the 25-year rightwing war on the Clintons; the eight-year-old Tea Party assault on facts, immigration and taxes; a tepid, centrist campaign; and a supposed late-breaking revelation from the director of the FBI about the dubious investigation of Clinton’s use of a private email server – well, compared to all those factors, the leaked DNC emails must rank low on the list of reasons for Trump’s victory. And yet, according to a recent report, Hillary Clinton and her campaign still blame the Russians – and, by extension, Barack Obama, who did not make a big issue of the hacks before November – for her electoral debacle. In this instance, thinking about Putin helps not to think about everything else that went wrong, and what needs to be done to fix it.

                  I don’t know what that “recent report” is. Sometimes you have to trust that the writer did their homework.

                • Lost Left Coaster

                  This comment only makes sense if you think that pointing toward Russian interference in US politics is the same thing as stoking hate against Muslims and immigrants and using the tools of the state against them.

                  Since they’re not the same thing, your comment makes no sense.

                • liberalrob

                  those two kinds of environment

                  There are not two kinds of environment. Just the one. Republicans/Trumpists created it (“scary foreigners are the cause of our problems!”). Some liberals and Democrats are trying to take advantage of that (“Hillary didn’t lose because of anything wrong with us or our electoral system, she lost because of scary foreigner Putin!”). I don’t know how much simpler I can make it.

                • liberalrob

                  Liberalrob’s straw manning

                  End of discussion, eh? Fine.

                • sibusisodan

                  There are not two kinds of environment.

                  ‘Powerless Mexican immigrants are at fault!’ is a different kind of environment from ‘national security apparatus of a foreign nation state played a role!’

                  The only way you can make an equivalence of them is by ignoring the power differential between them.

                • And yet, according to a recent report, Hillary Clinton and her campaign still blame the Russians – and, by extension, Barack Obama, who did not make a big issue of the hacks before November – for her electoral debacle. In this instance, thinking about Putin helps not to think about everything else that went wrong, and what needs to be done to fix it.

                  This is amazingly obtuse. If I’m running for election, and a number of things go wrong, leading to an election loss, I may well be pissed about all of them. But for some reason we keep having this demand that this one thing – alleged Russian influence- be completely discounted, and we are getting this repeated assertion that things like Clinton’s alleged annoyance at Obama for not acting on the issue is evidence of some form of “McCarthyism”. At this point we should ask ourselves “why”? What’s the motivation for saying “you people pipe down about this, you’re being hysterical”?

                • I don’t know how much simpler I can make it.

                  Can’t be done. It makes no sense. Your claim is completely, utterly false. It is, in fact, nonsensical.

              • Lost Left Coaster

                Yeah I am at a loss for words for that one.

    • Bring your evidence against his arguments and ask him to debate you on a podcast at The Intercept. I guarantee you, given I know him personally, he is intellectually curious, always open to contrary evidence, and isn’t afraid to go toe to toe with anybody.

      mean maybe you’re afraid to go against an NYU trained lawyer, Pulitzer Prize winner, I.F. Stone winner, 3 time NY Times Best Seller author, Polk award winner, . . . .

      Tell you what, since you know Greenwald personally. How about I write an article for the Intercept on this topic, at the usual rate of pay for such articles, so that its vast readership can get both sides of the issue? I will present the logical and factual problems with Greenwald’s framing of the issue. If he will agree to that, then we can talk about the rules of engagement for a podcast debate following up on this article. I am sorry that I am a mere nonentity compared to the Great Greenwald but I assure you that the quality of the piece I will write will speak for itself. I can pitch an outline for such an article anytime.

      • liberalrob

        If he will agree to that

        Which you know he won’t, a priori, so nicely played.

    • tsam

      Pathetic. I’m just thankful I never paid a cent in tuition to take a course from either Lemieux, Campos or Loomis as an undergrad or law student.

      GUD 1 BRO

      • Lost Left Coaster

        So many new Internet traditions in that comment. Here’s another favorite:

        I mean I get that you guys toil away at colleges hardly anyone has ever heard of

        I want to append that to the start of every single comment I write here.

    • Abbey Bartlet

      always open to contrary evidence, and isn’t afraid to go toe to toe with anybody

      https://twitter.com/search?q=blocked%20by%20greenwald&src=typd

      • liberalrob

        Anybody credible. Random Twitter twits aren’t credible.

        • Abbey Bartlet

          I think you’ll find he blocks quite liberally, including journalists. But k.

    • Scott Lemieux

      instead of challenging him directly on the substantive merits of anything he’s written–at The Intercept?

      Here you go!

      • tsam

        Ok, but like, aside from THAT???

      • liberalrob

        I think what was meant was to go to the comments section at The Intercept and do your challenging there. But yeah, it’s not correct to accuse you of never challenging him on the merits of what he’s written. (Loomis, on the other hand…) And personally I prefer it when principals do their arguing with each other on their front pages and leave the comment sections on those to us hoi polloi.

  • RonC

    Well first it is Comey who cost Clinton the election, now it’s Greenwald Assange and the Russians based on statements made by anonymous but very important people who have evidence they can’t show the reporters who can’t give their names and can’t show us the evidence because they can’t see it either, but still we’ve got to take their word for it. And therefore Greenwald is just being silly, as he’s always been except when he was attacking Bush, early on. Have I got that right?

    • Well first it is Comey who cost Clinton the election, now it’s Greenwald Assange and the Russians

      Because only ONE thing can ever cause anything. Multiple causes? Never heard of the concept!

      based on statements made by anonymous but very important people

      Is it now the position of Greenwald and his supporters that anonymous whistle-blowers should never be believed?

      who have evidence they can’t show the reporters who can’t give their names and can’t show us the evidence because they can’t see it either,

      Examples, please

      but still we’ve got to take their word for it.

      No, we’ve got to investigate these claims. However, there are many powerful people who’d apparently prefer that these claims be swept under the rug instead. Do you support those efforts?

      And therefore Greenwald is just being silly, as he’s always been except when he was attacking Bush, early on. Have I got that right?

      The point here being, apparently, that if anybody is ever right about anything, it is sheer hypocrisy to disagree with them about anything else. Have I got that right?

    • Brien Jackson

      I like how the narrative that we can’t know that this isn’t just sheer bullshit has survived even as even the White House has acknowledged the Flynn-Russia story is legit and Flynn resigned in disgrace. Fake news!!!!!

  • You guys should occasionally look at your archives from like 10 years ago. I think you’d be shocked at how different the tenor of your engagement with people to your left was back then. I believe that there was a time when you weren’t just endlessly left-punching rabid Democrat partisans, but at some point, you became that. Look at yourselves!

    • endlessly left-punching

      In what universe is Glenn Greenwald to the left of the LGM front-pagers?

      Oh Freddie, don’t you ever change!

      • Brien Jackson

        Or Freddie, for that matter?

      • geniecoefficient

        Um, this one? The same universe in which his views are his views, irrespective of your counterfactual fantasies about them.

        • Very well then. In what sense are Greenwald’s views actually to the left of those of the LGM front-pagers?

        • For example, how do Greenwald’s views on labor, the environment, racial justice, economic justice, health care, education, etc. compare to those of LGM front-pagers on a left-right axis? Are labor rights a priority for Greenwald as they are for Loomis, to take but one example?

        • DrDick

          Actually, Freddie’s views are not at all consistent with any coherent political philosophy, other than perhaps contrarianism.

          • liberalrob

            I disagree!

            :)

    • sibusisodan

      In order for this to rise above a defensive pile of squid ink, you’d have to add a couple of things:

      – evidence from blog posts. Start with a couple of citations so it gets past the filter. If you can’t be bothered to back up your statement, we can take a guess at how strongly you believe it.

      – a justification for the idea that ones standard of treatment should arbitrarily be that of a decade ago, irrespective of politics since that time. Politics is not what is was a decade ago. Why should standards of engagement be unaltered?

    • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

      To your credit, Freddie, I was just reviewing some of your old interactions with people online, and you haven’t changed a bit!

      http://tigerbeatdown.com/2010/04/11/boners-for-fun-and-profit-the-extent-to-which-you-dont-care-about-boners-revealed/

      • Rob in CT

        People say “never change, Freddie” and he means not to.

    • Scott Lemieux

      people to your left

      See, there’s your mistake.

      • liberalrob

        Yeah, Greenwald criticized Obama on something Lemieux agreed with Obama on, therefore Greenwald can’t be to the left of Lemieux. And Lemieux is the very definition of the moderate center-left, so that makes Greenwald practically a movement conservative. QED.

        It’s somehow comforting, in a way, to realize that tenured college professors can be just as petty and vindictive as the humblest day laborer you run into drunk at the corner bar.

        • Brien Jackson

          “Yeah, Greenwald criticized Obama on something Lemieux agreed with Obama on, ”

          So did Newt Gingrich at various points. The fuck does this prove anything. And it doesn’t take long to notice that you didn’t provide any instances of Glenn being to the left of any front-pagers here.

          • liberalrob

            Look, I’m not going to post footnotes and a bibliography every time I say something. Can we not stipulate that Lemieux and Loomis have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated a profound distaste for Glenn Greenwald? (To put it charitably.) I don’t remember the exact circumstances that caused them to adopt this attitude. I thought it was related to Greenwald criticizing Obama over something years ago and them taking exception.

            • Irrelevant. Footnotes or not, the mere fact that at some point Greenwald criticized Obama on something and Lemieux criticized Greenwald for that has absolutely nothing to do with who can be to the left of whom. Nor does the supposed antipathy between these people say much if anything about their relative ideological positions.

            • Brien Jackson

              So in other words you can’t actually articulate any way in which Greenwald is “to their left,” and you want to end the whole line of argument by getting everyone to concede that they don’t like Glenn, which is supposed to be some sort of infraction?

        • Scott Lemieux

          Greenwald criticized Obama on something Lemieux agreed with Obama on,

          ?

          therefore Greenwald can’t be to the left of Lemieux.

          It is logically possible for Greenwald to be to the left of Lemieux; there’s just no actual evidence that it’s the case.

          And Lemieux is the very definition of the moderate center-left,

          People have a conception of the American political system that is really bizarre.

          tenured college professors

          LOL I wish.

          • liberalrob

            Sorry, I thought you were tenured. I’m rooting for you, though. You clearly deserve it.

    • DrDick

      Sorry, but you are neither “left” or “right”, just completely orthogonal to reality.

    • D.N. Nation

      You are in no shape or form a leftist, you dork.

    • Abbey Bartlet

      Dammit, Freddie, I had money on you showing up in the *other* thread!

  • geniecoefficient

    [Deleted because misplaced]

  • Pingback: There Is A New McCarthyism in the United States. It Has Nothing To Do With Vladimir Putin. - Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money()

  • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

    On a related note, I love the art above, but think vacuumslayer could do it ~500,000% moar awsome.

    • ΧΤΠΔ

      MAXIMUM DERPITUDE!!!!!!11!!!11!!!!1!!111!!!!

  • Greenwald’s defenders end up defending his talk of “neo-McCarthysism” by using some pretty obtuse parsing of language. The lengths some will go to defend the indefensible…

    For example, Greenwald says that Democrats are using Russia as an excuse for “not taking responsibility for losing the election” and in so-doing are creating a “McCarthyite” climate of fear and suspicion about Russian influence.

    Yet when pressed, his defenders deny that he is saying that Democrats should not be talking about Russian interference. Right. So, he’s saying it’s a diversionary tactic and a McCarthyite bout of xenophobic hysteria but he’s not actually denouncing it. Gotcha.

    Some try to square the circle by implying that he’s saying only some people talking about Russian interference are contributing to this climate of suspicion, that for example Hillary Clinton “blamed her loss on Russia” even though there were other factors and that this is somehow beyond the pale. Of course they do not clarify what they consider to be an acceptable way to talk about Russian interference in the current context. As far as I can tell, Greenwald acknowledges none at all.

    A word to the wise – if you have to engage in such minute parsing to confuse the issue of what the man you are defending actually said, you may as well concede that you can’t actually defend what he said.

It is main inner container footer text