In what I am sure will come as no surprise to most of you, Glenn Greenwald takes John Hinderaker and Charles Johnson to task for their respective sarcastic remarks concerning alleged attacks on journalists in the field. (h/t Who else?). According to Greenwald['s post]*, Hinderaker and Johnson, and those who think like them, have robbed America of its morality and ruined our national character:
Becoming a nation of John Hinderakers and Charles Johnsons — those who are apologists for, even outright advocates of, “tactics” such as the deliberate targeting of journalists based on the content of their reporting — has fundamentally changed the American national character in ways that are as dangerous and counter-productive as they are morally bankrupt.
(emphasis added). Of course, any one who openly apologizes and advocates for targeting journalists in the battle zone are quite deserving of our deepest disapprobation. So what, pray tell, could have elicited such a vitriolic screed from Mr. Greenwald? Well, let’s go to the source.
First, after condemning the kidnapping of the recently released Fox News reporters, Greenwald excoriates Hinderaker:
But here is what John Hinderaker said last night in response to the report that the Israeli Air Force had fired a missile (they claim accidentally) at an armored vehicle in Lebanon (marked “PRESS”) which was carrying journalists working for Reuters — long the second-most hated news agency, after Al-Jazeera, for Bush lovers:
Given Reuters’s coverage of the conflict in Lebanon, it would perhaps be understandable if the Israelis started firing on Reuters vehicles.
So, those who defend or justify the kidnapping of Fox journalists are “scum” who are to be shunned and despised. Those who defend and justify the shooting at, and seriously injuring of, Reuters journalists are what? The next guest on Howard Kurtz’s CNN show.
Now lets go to the actual post by Hinderaker, titled “Reuters Alleges Israeli Airstrike”:
Given Reuters’s coverage of the conflict in Lebanon, it would perhaps be understandable if the Israelis started firing on Reuters vehicles. Which is what Reuters now says they did:
[snip]
I don’t have an opinion at this point about whether the claims being made by Reuters’ Palestinian stringers are true. To my untrained eye, the photos of the vehicle do not appear to depict an armored car that was hit by two missiles. The visible hole looks to me like an old, rusted-out tear or gap in the roof. But my knowledge of military ordnance is close to zero; I leave it to others to comment more knowledgeably on the photos than I can.
I will say this, however: given what we know about staged, phony incidents like the fake attack on a Red Cross ambulance in Lebanon, it is absurd for the world’s news services to simply report the Palestinian claims as fact, as they have done. More investigation will be required to find out what, if anything, happened to the Reuters vehicle, and how the Palestinians came to be injured. In the meantime, count these as unproven allegations by an unreliable source.
Hmmm … there seems to be some discrepancy here between what Greenwald condemns and what Hinderaker proposes. In Greenwald’s defense, Hinderaker did forget to include the oh-so-appreciated “[/sarcasm]” tag, or the equally helpful “[/rimshot]” after his opening sentence, but the title of the post itselfshould maybe have clued the reader in.
But going back to Greenwald’s claim, that Hinderaker “defend[ed] and justif[ied] the shooting at, and seriously injuring of, Reuters journalists,” even if Hinderaker is taken to be completely in earnest, did he really do this? Is “would be perhaps understandable” such an all-powerful and all-encompassing phrase that what ever follows it is both “defended” and “justified”? Quite the debater you are there, Mr. Hinderaker. Moreover, is his statement, taken at its most literal, “advocating” and “apologizing” for a tactic of targeting journalists? I suppose, in some universe, somewhere, it would be perhaps understandable that Hinderaker’s statement was perceived as being all these things. [/tongueincheek] (Note to Hinderaker: the preceding is also a helpful tag to use).
But here in the real world, where sarcasm exists and is in fact quite rampant at times, the first sentence of a post illuminating another potentially false claim of Israeli attacks on non-military targets should maybe not be taken so literally. This is especially the case where the sentence in question alludes to other instances of deceipt by the subject. But maybe that’s just me. I’m a realist.
Moving on to Greenwald’s second victim target example, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, Glenn takes issue with a post by Johnson from three years ago:
The April, 2003 Baghdad air raid on the Al-Jazeera Baghdad office destroyed that office and resulted in the death of cameraman Tarek Ayoub. At the time, this is what media star Charles Johnson said about the fatal bombing of the Al-Jazeera office:
Was Al Jazeera deliberately targeted? Of course, their answer is “yes.†But remember that before the start of this war, the Pentagon issued a clear, unequivocal warning to journalists that their safety could not be guaranteed if they chose to remain in Baghdad. Al Jazeera not only chose to stay, they have been broadcasting a steady stream of Iraqi propaganda, anti-Americanism, and death pr0n (sic), including that hideous video of American POWs. Pardon me if I don’t weep over this attack.
So they stayed in a war zone despite knowing that it was dangerous and then broadcast biased stories. Therefore, the death of one of their journalists is nothing to “weep over.” That same reasoning could be applied — and sometimes is — to justify attacks on any journalists in a war zone.
First off, let’s go ahead and correct Greenwald’s distortion of Johnson’s (alleged) argument. Johnson did not suggest, as Greenwald purports, that:
So they stayed in a war zone despite knowing that it was dangerous and then broadcast biased stories. Therefore, the death of one of their journalists is nothing to “weep over.”
Instead, Johnson specifically pointed out that:
…Al Jazeera not only chose to stay, they have been broadcasting a steady stream of Iraqi propaganda, anti-Americanism, and death pr0n, including that hideous video of American POWs.
(emphasis added). How Glenn missed this little nugget of information when it was right there in front of him (and took up nearly the whole sentence), is a bit perplexing. Nevertheless, he did not seem to understand the point, and I know why: the sentence that followed, being sarcastic in nature, obscured the entire meaning of not just the highlighted portion above, but the entire post. In scrawling “Pardon me if I don’t weep over this attack,” Johnson somehow made his entire point invisible to those in Greenwald land (sometimes known as “Brasil”).
Again, here in the real world, most of us would perhaps understand [Ed.: my, that is a useful phrase!] that one who declares he is not about to get all verklempt about an attack on those who openly support our enemies is not “advocating” anything, much less “apologising,” “defending” or “justifying.” More importantly, the post itself was calling into question Al Jazeera’s breathless handwaving and whining about “martyrs.” As the first two sentences of the post tell you
Three foreign journalists were killed yesterday in Baghdad. Two of them were in the Palestine Hotel, from which grenades and small arms fire were directed at a US tank
So the point Mr. Johnson was making, and that Greenwald somehow missed entirely, was that just because Al Jazeera reporters were killed in a war zone doesn’t mean that they were targeted, especially when they were in the line of fire. As a sidenote, Johnson remarked that Al Jazeera was instrumental in spreading anti-American, pro-Saddam, and vile Islamist rhetoric and video, so the fact that any of them got hurt was not a grievous moment to him. An understandble, non-emotion to most of us.
The remainder of Greenwald’s post is, as usual, long on vitriol and short on clarity. For the purposes of this post — i.e., pointing out how Greenwald seems incapable of understanding sarcastic comments — there is not much to say about it. I can only imagine what Greenwald will read into this post should he deign to visit. Given his apparent disability, Greenwald may perceive this entire post to be written in the cyrillic alphabet, spelling out “I Hate Greenwald!” over and over again, with lots and lots of evil emoticons. He would be wrong, of course, but it would be perhaps understandable if he viewed it that way.
*[UPDATE: Edited for clarity. "Greenwald, Hinderaker and Johnson" sounded like a law firm.]
Okay,
Early bird gets the worm again. I’ll just move the subject enough that people will not think I am stealing your thunder.
Uh…what I meant to say was, I agree and exactly. I have no petty, competitive, jealous personality flaws. None. I mean it.
This isn’t going to affect my raise is it?
Gentlemen, thanks for the link, and do see my update.
Gee, Mona, I woulda thought your “Update” would actually have something to do with Greenwald’s prior post (of which you thought: “Greenwald (again) nails the gross hypocrisy of the death-clamoring “right”"), and maybe even a correction as to your earlier assessment. Not only did Greenwald not “nail” it, he didn’t even get a foul tip. There is simply nothing in either the Hinderaker or the Johnson piece that is either hypocritcial or untoward.
Michael — and I intend no insult — I simply find your critique so weak, and Greenwald’s post so compelling and correct, that there just isn’t anything for me to respond to regarding yours. All I’d say is Greenwald’s post stands; re-read it.
Further, I had forgotten about the more important events he spotlighted at the Firedoglake Book Salon, and wanted to amend that omission.
Well I’m intrigued, Mona. Could you help me out and point to a weakness?
Michael: Even if one were to grant that Hinderaker was “merely” being “sarcastic,” and I don’t — as with Johnson’s, there is a clear sentiment of satisfaction in his statement — that would not change the merit of Greenwald’s analysis. Or the moral status of the “sarcastic” remark.
Wow, that’s compelling! Is this where I put in the [/sarcasm] tag?
Maybe some day they will have treatment for that, Mona.
So we are supposed to cry for the enemy propagandists now? Did we cry for Gobbels? Things sure change . . .
In what way were either remarks immoral?
Lordy, you guys won’t concede how repugnant Hinderaker and Johnson’s remarks are, and the right-leaning Andrew at ObWi — a deployed soldier — does see that, but goes on to criticize Greenwald on entirely different, but equally wrong (misreading him) grounds:
Mona,
Thanks, so there are two arguments against Greenwald’s argument here now, and both accurate. I have noted that kind of argument from Greenwald before and it never seems to impress his fans that he is exagerrating his claims significance, even when he has a point and even in those few times that point itself wasn’t exaggerated. They don’t care, they just know he is out to slay the enemy. You should go talk to them about it.
That Andrew accepted the characterization in no way means Michael is wrong here. I assume since you are blustering and arguing from authority that you have nothing to say. Address specifically how Michael is wrong or leave off. No “its obvious” or ad hominem’s or Milton Friedman says Greenwald is right or any of that stuff. Show exactly how Hindraker and Johnson’s statements were more fairly characterized by Greenwald.
Other hint, don’t claim Michael is saying things he is not. Pay attention to what he wrote. Oh and another, it is not a defense to say or attempt to show that Republicans are poopyheads. That is irrelevant. I am not sure why you think that is relevant to most discussions, but it most certainly is irrelevant to most discussions.
Address specifically how Michael is wrong or leave off.
Sorry, but this is not a matter for mathematical proofs. His assertion that “sarcasm” somehow exonerates the declarants is a matter of personal perception, and I find his unreasonable, and wrong. Others do not accept that the remarks are acceptable, because they sensibly (in this subjective affair) do not read them that way. Neither does Greenwald, and neither do I.
I recommend the comments section to Andrew’s post at ObWi for insight as to why Andrew (and Michael) are wrong.
I read them already. More importantly, even if I agreed with them, none of them address the point.
Nor is it a matter of mathematical proof, it is a matter of understanding what was meant. Greenwalds attempt to paint almost everybody who disagrees with him as wanting to soak the world in blood and not care what happens to others became old a long time ago. It is ovious that you and Greenwald believe the right is filled with people who want to commit mass murder. This leads to claims such as Walter Williams wanted to nuke the Middle East.
His whole approach is Coulteresque,he uses the same type of rhetorical tricks and tactics as she used in Treason. It is no less vile when used by Greenwald. Mere assertions persuade only those who want to believe something. Many on the right fall for the same tactic. Assert that what someone wants to do is awful, provide a quote that could be construed in such a fashion, usually out of context, and the next thing you know Rush Limbaugh can claim Clinton is a radical who wants to turn us into a Soviet Union lite. Then you insult those with a more nuanced view as being unable to understand the evidence right in front of them with quips and clever asides, but never addressing the actual objection, because the other person doesn’t “get it.”
His whole approach is Coulteresque,
No. He’s bombastic and polemical, but he links to and quotes the people he is spotlighting so anyone can see for themselves. He never declares: “all conservatives are [fill in the blank with pejorative]” — that would be Coulteresque. Indeed, he not infrequently — rather often, actually — invokes right-of-center critics of his Bush-supporting targets.
We are not going to agree on the perniciousness of those whom he is targeting — sometimes I do not either, and I’ve disagreed with his views regarding several of his targets, and loudly said so — but preponderantly I endorse his efforts. There are some prominent voices uttering positions that need to be pulled out those voices’ adoring echo chambers, and held up to the light of critical examination.
Those who have either agreed with, or passively accepted, the proclamations of Greenwald’s targets are, indeed, going to be jolted by these efforts. This is to be expected
From UsingEnglish.com:
Here’s another word you should get used to seeing, Mona:
There is simply no merit to Greenwald’s argument. He came up with an idea for a post (how the Right has undermined America’s moral authority) and picked two people to use as his examples. Nevermind the fact that neither one actually committed the atrocities they’re accused of. For Greenwald, and apparently you, it is sufficient that they are both nominally on the Right, and that some words can be construed by the narrowest of minds as being “immoral.”
Here’s the context, Mona (and anyone else who is sarcasm-impaired):
(1) Two media outfits make claims of victimization at the hands of the U.S. (Al Jazeera claim) and Israeli (Reuters claim) militaries, respectfully. Both outfits openly seek sympathy for their plight, and condemnation of their alleged attackers.
(2) In the first case, Al Jazeera in 2003, Charles Johnson notes that, not only were the reporters in a war zone about which they had been warned, they were also in the line of fire when hit, occupying the same space as those who had just attacked U.S. troops. The fact that they got hit, while lamentable, should have been expected. Instead, Al Jazzera imputed evil intentions to our troops, and claimed that they were targeted, even going so far as to call their slain reporter a “martyr.” Johnson then went on to point out that Al Jazeera was directly responsible for spreading the lies and propaganda of our enemies. His response, therefore, is to reject Al Jazeera’s request for sympathy (i.e. his sarcastic remark “Pardon me if I don’t weep over this attack.”)
(3) In the second case, Reuters makes an unsupportable claim that one of its vehicles was hit by two Israeli rockets, and as with Al Jazeera, begs for sympathy for itself and condemnation for its alleged attacker. John Hinderaker makes a wry (look it up) comment which alludes to the myriad evidence of faked news from Reuters, all of which news has been critical of Israel and supportive of Hezbollah. Hinderaker’s sarcastic comment leads off a piece that calls into question Reuter’s claim by pointing out the fact that the vehicle it claims was hit by two Israeli rockets sports only minor damage in the form of a rusty hole in its roof that is no bigger than a jar of mayonaise. Glass intact, roof (mostly) intact, no other damage to the vehicle. In other words, Reuter’s claim of an attack by Israel is entirely unsupportable at best, and downright Hamas propaganda at worst. Hinderaker points all of this out and sarcastically comments to the effect that, Reuters has tended to act like the enemy as of late, it shouldn’t surprise them if they were indeed mistaken for the enemy.
(4) Neither comment apologizes, defends, advocates or justifies attacks on reporters. Indeed, both comments are meant to be a rejection of pleas for sympathy based upon spurious claims of victimhood.
(5) Greenwald purposely mischaracterizes both bloggers to make his own point. The fact that Greenwald used two innocuous statements to do so, turning them into vile and indefensible comments without cause to do so, completely undermines the point of his post. Ergo, Greenwald’s post has no merit.
Finally, before you start huffing about upon all that moral highground you seem to occupy, Mona, maybe you should tune your moral compass to this little tidbit:
Greenwald equated two sarcastic comments meant to be rejection of illegitimate sympathy pleas with an entire article claiming that the captured Fox News reporters were legitimate targets:
What Greenwald did was not just dishonest and underhanded, it was calumnous.
Mona,
You are spending a lot of time here writing, so obviously you have the time to specifically argue Michael’s point. As usual you resort to smears instead such as:
So we don’t misunderstand Hindraker and Johnson, we are jolted because we accept or agree that targeting journalists is okay. Therefore we are not worth explaining how we are wrong. I have been in several of these little dust ups with you and that is what you always do. See my previous comment where I diagnosed your method. This comment falls easily into the method as I described.
You also ignore a specific example of him doing just what I am claiming here. It is typical, and eventually you have to decide, as the most consistently derided commenter at QandO, here and Inactivist, is it that everybody who keeps making these points unreasonable, or are your tactics and manner the issue?
I disagree with people all the time. I think I try hard to be fair. Most people seem to feel even when they disagree with me that I am trying to be fair. I may not succeed, but I am trying and they see that. It may be that you have an issue with understanding other viewpoints, that you read into what other people say what fits your argument. Notice, most of our dust ups and those you have with others isn’t over the substance, say whether targeting journalists is a good idea, or if they were targeted (an unsubstantiated claim Greenwald sees fit to throw out there) but on how you characterize what people are saying, both on the original issue and in debate afterward. Take what you will from it, but you persuade no one who doesn’t already agree with you, not even a bit. Think on that before you come in and say what benighted fools we are and that is why we disagree. Think on that before saying (which is a different and contradictory argument) that we do not disagree but actually approve of or accept the deliberate targeting of innocent journalists. Think on that before attacking us on unrelated grounds, or by attacking people who are unrelated to the discussion but show what awful people your opponents are. Think on that before claiming we are arguing something we are not.
Well Michael, your contempt for Greenwald and his “calumnies” is duly noted. I obviously do not agree with your assessment, and believe it is not the one held by most reasonable others in this subjective matter.
But I lack time to address all of your specific dissections, because I’m preoccupied with other things.
All that typing but she is preoccupied and unable to deal with “unreasonable” people. See above, pattern repeated. Lots of time to misrepresent and lots of time to insult and demean, no time to substantively discuss.
But, but… don’t you guys get it? Greenwald is just brilliant and he instantly knows what those right wing bigots are thinking even if they say something else! And Charles and John are just vicious hate-mongers who want to see reporters killed, especially reporters who expose the vicious lies of BushCo.
The fact that Charles has already humiliated two worldwide news organizations is just coincidence, really. He’s just a hate-mongering, Muslim-bashing, lie-spewing… something, uh, conservative I guess, though a bicycling jazz musician is a bit out of the template of the fat-cat businessman GOP influential, but hey, he’s probably doing it just to throw us off!
If you guys would just see the light! Libertarians need to ally with people like Greenwald and Kos to defeat Bush, even though he’s never running again. Oops, I mean we need to ally with them to defeat nasty Republicans who want to send our sons to be slaughtered by a quagmire. And all that stuff about universal mandatory health insurance that’s failed so miserably in Canada? They don’t really mean it. Or at least we can talk them out of it when they’re in control. Really we can. Or if not, it’s worth it if they’ll just impeach Bush so the whole world can see how bad he is!
And Mona is so smart herself that she can instantly see how stupid the arguments of proles like you guys are. How can you possibly have the temerity to resist her superior argumentative style and her towering intellect? Besides, she’s just relaying the wisdom of Glenn Greenwald, who has published in the New York Times! Good day, sir!
This is MY blog, Mona. (OK, fine; it’s our blog). I hold court here, not you. My “contempt” was “duly noted” in my post.
That’s fine that you don’t agree. It sure would be illuminating if you could clearly express what you don’t agree with, but alas, it is not to be.
As to your “belief”, there’s not much I or anyone else can do about that. You may “believe” that you know what is and who are reasonable, but that does not make it so. Your inability to debate the issue with any civility or substance belies your belief, but that’s your cross to bear.
In addition, there is nothing subjective about the matter. Greenwald falsely accused two people of doing something they did not do. That is not an opinon, but a fact.
Generally speaking, mathematical proofs don’t come into play in political debates. And no one was asking you for one, but it would be nice if you presented an argument with merit.
Charles did that with CBS and Reuters.
Looks like MichaelW is doing it with Greenwald.
Of course, the Mapes and Monas will continue on believing their false narrative.
Jealous, much?
Out Damnum spot, out before I Absque with your Injuria!
Did you know that Glenn Greenwald had a New York Times bestseller? And that Russ Feingold quoted him on the Senate floor? Rick Ellensberg agrees with Mona – Greenwald is “compelling.”
Good DAY, sirs.
/ sarc.
Interesting spin on reality, done quite well. As a Republican who posts regularly at Glenn Greenwald’s blog comment section, I must say that your description of Mr Greenwald is a patent lie. But then, so is most of what has been said by others in this thread of scathe. Mona’s the only one who spoke fairly honestly, although her bias in favor of Glenn was made apparent and not hidden like yours is, “Lance.”
Your phallic handle probably wins you lots of prizes at the stud farm, huh?
Don (replying to “Lance”)…
But if “Lance” had merit to his argument, he wouldn’t have to resort to lies and scathe then, would he?
I bow to the obviously superior wit and intellect of “Lance.” Now if we could just introduce “Lance” to “Boyle” we might have a pus-fest on our hands over here in Lie-Land.
Scathe isn’t a noun, is it?
“Brazil”? ROTFLMAO
Well, Kos himself gives an example of hateful eliminationist rhetoric from June, 2006.
Jules Siegel, diarist at dKos posed a question to Markos regarding the banning of a frontpager at dKos. Siegel emails Markos asking a question -
Markos sends back a reply:
Strong stuff. Conditions worse than Guantanamo and Supreme Court Justices, not enemy combatants. And from the most prominent blogger on the Left, including Greenwald.
The rest of the quote shows that Markos is being sarcastic
Words. Context. Some assembly required.
Maybe Greenwald just doesn’t know that Kos wants to be the kind of unitary executive that Greenwald is so afraid of.
But, in the meantime, we on the right have a lovely direct quote from Kos should the topic of conversation turn to hate speech:
Source of Quote
And go figure, Scooter has nothing but an ad hominem attack. Hmmm…
Wait … Scooter was being serious? I thought that was a parody.
Y’know, I guess those tags ([/sarcasm], [/rimshot], etc.) really do come in handy.
Hmmmm…..,
Well, Mcrooter, I don’t know what rock you crawled out from under, but my name is Lance. No handle. I am not sure what lies I have told, but if you are going to accuse me of them I would at least like them labeled clearly and defended. Otherwise this is not a place for extended flame wars and I’ll ban you period. I have never had to even warn anyone before, and I hope to not have to in the future.
By the way, if you are going to engage in such juvenile discourse in the future I suggest at least being funny.
Greenwald, is that you?
“Michael — and I intend no insult — I simply find your critique so weak, and Greenwald’s post so compelling and correct, that there just isn’t anything for me to respond to regarding yours. All I’d say is Greenwald’s post stands; re-read it.”
Ok let’s pretend for a moment that Greenwald knows what the flying fock he’s talking about.
The two Fox News journalists were not pushing enemy propoganda when they were kidnapped, and have not known to be in the past. The journalists for Al-Jazeera, etc who were mentioned here were in fact pushing enemy propoganda.
There’s no moral equivalance between the 2 groups, one was shilling for the enemy, the other was not. If guys like Centanni are captured or killed, I feel bad for them, the other one’s, who cares, I don’t. There are two sides in this, one is right, the other wrong. We are in the right, they and their propogandists are in fact, WRONG. If they get bombed or taken prisoner while in the service of the enemy, willing or unwilling, they had it coming.
@Lance,
“By the way, if you are going to engage in such juvenile – intercourse – in the future I suggest at least being funny.”
Fixed that for ya! Now it’s funny…(Grammatically correct too!)
In reviewing the thread, what comes out clearly is the weak argument of the Greenwald sycophants. Mona can’t put forth an argument, but she is sure someone else’s argument will do, and Scooter never gets past crude ad hominem attack (this is assuming I’m not missing sarcasm on Scooter’s part).
What I’m having trouble with is why anyone would waste effort defending Greenwald. As a contrast, Charles Johnson delivered the goods several times; not so much by clever debate but by visuals that can even destroy the claims of CBS. What has Greenwald done? Who cares what he writes or what he thinks?
Greenwald’s incessant bull and Mona’s incessant regurgitation are the left’s unwitting aping of “Dumb and Dumber” — meanwhile, they accuse conservatives of being the real idiots. Shocking, I tell you. *rolls eyes*. The greater context here is the typical liberal feint, duck, and weave tactic of smearing the enemy over a sentence or two misconstrued, while letting the plot get away from them. Why fixate on dragging others down? Can’t they provide any solutions or insight for these troubled times? Of course not. All they can do is maim, tear, and destroy, and they’re all salivating for another chance to rebuild their utopian fantasies in ’08. It’s so predictable.
Scooter Mcrooter:
Allow me to (very far) distance myself from your gross commentary here, and to also note that modeling yourself on the behavior of the LGF thugs invading this blog, is not the best way to defend either me or Greenwald — if that is what you are actually intending to do.
Lance co-blogs with me at Inactivist, and we have exchanged email in which his name shows up in my mailbox as…Lance. He’s not happy with me on a variety of issues, but he sincerely believes in his positions, however difficult it may be for me (or you) to understand that. Your juvenile sexual observations about his name and invocations of pustule imagery & etc., are truly foul; I cannot emphasize strongly enough that, in contrast to what will regularly be found at LGF, there is very, very little of that at Greenwald’s. Discussion there tends overwhelmingly to be cerebral (and yes, you can find exceptions if someone wants to go hunt a passel of them down).
Please, don’t “defend” me any further. Should you continue like that, I’d have as much to say to you as I do to these LGF creatures, which is to say, nothing at all.
He doesn’t get the use of “pr0n” either. What can you say? Some people live to be offended.
Mona,
Not necessary, though I know your heart was in the right place. I promise you, nobody who is a regular reader here considers you anything like Scooter. Wrongheaded maybe, but unlikely to discuss my handle.
“I’d have as much to say to you as I do to these LGF creatures, which is to say, nothing at all.”
Nothing to say, huh? Why do you keep posting, then?
LGF has a the scalps of a number of disgraced “journalists” safely notched under its belt. Greenwald has dirty socks strewn all over the internet. And Rick Ellensberg.
Jealous much?
Mona, none of us “LGF thugs” were a model for Scooter, unless I’ve overlooked someone’s post. Perhaps you can point such a post out?
S’okay, Russ. We’re listening. Hit us with your best ideas.
-Gil
Wow, how stiff. You need to relax. Drink some Jack Daniels or such.
Incidently, LGF has linked to this blog:
Good going, MichaelW.
OK, I’ll try again:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22316_When_Sock_Puppets_Attack#comments
Greenwald and Mona are right. Michael W and his defenders are both wrong and offensive to me. Both John Hinderaker’s and Charles Johnson’s statements are absolutely morally repugant and absolutely qualify as justifying and defending the use of deadly force against journalists who disagree with you. I’m disgusted with this blog for putting it forward.
Hinderaker:
Given Reuters’s coverage of the conflict in Lebanon, it would perhaps be understandable if the Israelis started firing on Reuters vehicles.
I don’t see this as sarcastic at all. I see is as justifying the killing of journalists from western news agencies who don’t follow your political line.
Let’s try a simple test of reversal:
Given all the not nice things MichaelW says about liberals, it would be understandable if liberals took potshots at MichaelW, if they saw him on the street.
Gee. Seems a lot like justifying it now, don’t it? It’s a textbook fit for justification. There’s nothing in the following staetments, no deliberate parody or exaggeration, to indicate that he doesn’t really believe this. All there is a faith-based, ad hoc dismissal of the story as a pack of lies. That’s the first thing every nasty Middle Eastern government says when they get caught commiting an atrocity: pack of Zionist lies.
Charles Johnson’s post is less of a blatant justification, but still expresses and indifference tinged with contempt at the deaths of non-combatants at the hands of the US army. I find that to be a morally repugnant, as well as strategically dangerous, attitude.
You’re more concerned with the alledged allegations and gray-area percieved innaccuracies of one liberal blogger than you are with the undeserved deaths of journalists trying to do their job.
Outside of the military, when you kill innocents without deliberate intent, it’s called “manslaughter.”
So we are supposed to cry for the enemy propagandists now?
So Reuters = Joseph Goebbels, Don? How bout, the next time you see your local journalist at a school fair or something, why don’t you just unzip his guts with a big old hunting knife? I mean, his newspaper might have used a Reuters wire story or something at some point. It’s practically your duty to kill enemy propagandists where you can find them. Right? Or only in war zones?
Yawn.
Er, I mean, HOW DARE YOU!
Glenn Greenwald has become a highly succsessful blogger in a mere 10 months, having his blog quoted on the Senate floor and having broken front page stories in major newspapers! He also has a NYT bestselling book, and his integrity and brilliance are unimpeachable!
Good DAY, sir!
Psst, Mona! Ease up a little, or they’re going to catch on! Get it right and I’ll let you rub my feet.