A Paranoid on Paranoia-Last updated 1:06 CST
Lance on Aug 03 2008 at 10:27 am | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Foreign affairs, Glenn Greenwald's Carnival of Fisking, History, Lance's Page, Media, Notes on the war
After 9/11 itself, the anthrax attacks were probably the most consequential event of the Bush presidency. One could make a persuasive case that they were actually more consequential.
You could?
The 9/11 attacks were obviously traumatic for the country, but in the absence of the anthrax attacks, 9/11 could easily have been perceived as a single, isolated event. It was really the anthrax letters — with the first one sent on September 18, just one week after 9/11 — that severely ratcheted up the fear levels and created the climate that would dominate in this country for the next several years after. It was anthrax — sent directly into the heart of the country’s elite political and media institutions, to then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt), NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw, and other leading media outlets — that created the impression that social order itself was genuinely threatened by Islamic radicalism.
So that is what made everybody concerned? The twisted reasoning that could assert that after 9/11 we in any way could think something like that couldn’t happen again, sans those letters, is pretty breathtaking. Once those letters were delivered however, it suddenly occurred to the American people that it might happen again? What kind of parallel universe is he living in? Oh, and if you couldn’t tell, this is the Sock Puppet talking.
So what could lead to someone having such a bizarre view?
Go ahead and read the rest of the piece. It is paranoid, stringing together innuendo, and a lack of facts, as evidence of some possible conspiracy, with our government behind the anthrax attacks…or something. The fact is though, that sometimes paranoids are correct. I would sure like for ABC News to tell who leaked the story that was used to implicate Iraq. Maybe our government, or parts of it, were behind them. Though of course, the motive for doing so only really fits if the anthrax events were of the great importance the talking sock thinks it is. Still, it would certainly be a huge story, and it would be regardless of its “consequential” nature.
So I don’t begrudge him going after the story, though it is ironic that in his search for the Bush terrorist he is using the same kind of reasoning the administration used in Iraq. Luckily for Bush, I don’t think Greenwald has any actual tanks to rumble across the White House lawn looking for evidence.
So what psychological need does this event fill for our conspiracy theorist? It is an interesting case study.
We should his evidence that it was of critical importance, so much so that:
it is not possible to overstate the importance of anthrax in putting the country into the state of fear that led to the attack on Iraq and so many of the other abuses of the Bush era.
Not possible??? Could that be hyperbole?
No, the threadbare one doesn’t think anything he says is hyperbole. His evidence is a few stories and implied connections. Of course, we could find any number of stories to string together in a column to make them seem more significant than they are. It is a common feature of paranoid conspiracy theorists, from the truthers, John Birchers, the people pushing the stories that CIA started the Crack and AIDS epidemics to attack the black community (taking in many journalists) etc.
But again why?
In his world the state of fear post 9/11 needs to be manufactured. The fear was unreasonable in his mind post 9/11. The only reason the country was filled with fear was because that fear was created by evil forces. More than that, he needs it to be true because the Bush administration has to have made it out of whole cloth for his extreme fantasies to be true.
It is of course ridiculous that the fear needed to be manufactured, that it needed the anthrax scare, something that was a big story, but one of many, and far from the most talked about reasons to fear terrorism. However, as noted above he felt:
9/11 could easily have been perceived as a single, isolated event.
it could have? I certainly seem to remember plenty of fear before the anthrax attacks. Nor was it a one off attack. There were a string of attacks, starting with the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993:
Feb. 26, 1993: A massive bomb explodes in a garage below the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and more than 1,000 injured in the blast. Analysts cite some links to al-Qaida in the attack, though Osama bin Laden disavowed any connection.
June 25, 1996: A powerful truck bomb explodes outside a U.S. military housing complex near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen and wounding several hundred people.
Aug. 7, 1998: Two bombs explode within minutes of each other near the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The blasts kill 264 people.
Oct. 12, 2000: Seventeen American sailors are killed and 39 wounded by a bomb aboard a small boat that targets the the USS Cole, a U.S. Navy destroyer refueling in Aden, Yemen.
Nor was that fear kept alive by mere fear mongering:
Sept. 11, 2001: Hijackers commandeer four commercial jetliners, crashing two of them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and another into the Pentagon outside Washington. The fourth airliner crashes in a field in Pennsylvania. Some 3,000 people die in the attacks.
April 11, 2002: A truck carrying natural gas explodes outside a Tunisian synagogue, killing 19 people.
Oct. 12, 2002: A bomb explodes in a resort area on the Indonesian island of Bali, setting off fires and explosions that destroyed two nightclubs. More than 200 people are killed, most of them foreign tourists.
Nov. 28, 2002: Terrorists stage coordinated attacks on Israeli tourists in Mombasa, Kenya. Three suicide bombers crash an explosives-laden sport utility vehicle into an Israeli-owned hotel, killing themselves as well as 10 Kenyans and three Israeli tourists, and wounding dozens of others.
May 16, 2003: Thirty-three people are killed and about 100 others injured in five nearly simultaneous suicide bombing attacks in Casablanca. Twelve of the 14 bombers, all of whom were Moroccan, also die in the attacks.
Nov. 15 & 20, 2003: Car bombs explode within minutes of each other at two Jewish synagogues in Istanbul Nov. 15. A second pair of bombings five days later strike the British consulate and the offices of the London-based HSBC bank in Istanbul. The four bombings kill 58 people and wound about 750.
March 11, 2004: Ten bombs explode within minutes of each other on four crowded commuter trains in the center of Madrid, killing 190 people and wounding more than 1,400.
Of course, then there was the attack on London, which happened as I was going to Kings Cross station to begin my honeymoon. Needless to say we had to change our plans. Not so bad for us, we went to Brighton instead. The dead and their families in London I am sure were less sanguine.
Nor is that all, since these are only major attacks. Many, many other attacks occurred around the world, both before and after. Throw in all kinds of evidence of Saddam’s ill intent (even if you feel it was neutered by then.)
So, obviously, without those anthrax scares the public would have just figured, “They got lucky, no real worry. An isolated event.” Right?
Yeah, well it is absurd. Seen in context the idea that the anthrax scares in particular were the key event is patently ridiculous, no matter that you can find a quote from Richard Cohen that makes it sound as if it was for him (though I doubt he really holds that view. If so, then he is a fool.)
Given all that, why the administration, or anyone else, would feel the need to fake this attack for policy reasons is awfully strange. Whether you feel the administrations rhetoric after the war was cynical manipulation, an overreaction or well founded fear doesn’t really change that they hardly needed to manufacture concern, it was palpable and had plenty of things to work with. If they were behind it, then it was certainly overkill and close to irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Governments have done stupider things though, so who knows?
Still, why?
Like listening to John Birchers amass their “evidence” against the trilateral commission, we see the paranoid mind can’t accept the possibility the support the American people gave the administration, and the fear they expressed, had any real basis. That reduces the rationale for all kinds of connected conspiracies, including the administration pursuing its policies out of well grounded fear (if arguably misguided) rather than from what can only be described, in Greenwald’s world, as evil. So we need an event that was totally unconnected with Islamic, or Middle Eastern, terrorism to have been of critical, world altering importance. All the better if it was a manufactured event itself!
Only a special few, according to the paranoid mindset, can see the truth. The rest of us are brainwashed by a manipulative government whose tentacles are highly coordinated (an odd notion to me) and the pieces fit together for the person who can string together the “facts” and suppositions (and there is only one possible reason why people act in the way they do) and tease out the “truth.” Great fun when you are watching the X-Files, and hilarious in Men Who Wear Black. Less compelling for those willing to point out that each “fact” may not be true, is a rumor, a coincidence, is possibly a lie or action for rather pedestrian and shallow reasons or is a simple difference of opinion on what is wise and expresses no deeper meaning. That exclusive hold on the truth however is something the paranoid mind is deeply invested in, and just enough of what they believe or predict proves out to keep them convinced that they do possess the larger truth.
The problem is, that whether the event was manufactured or not, it just didn’t carry that kind of weight. The American people supported the Patriot Act, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for reasons which Greenwald may not feel were sufficient or were manipulated by the administration (though given the circumstances it hardly required a genius, or a need) but because of real terrorism and fear of it. That just isn’t evil or conspiratorial enough for the paranoid mind. So he needs the critical event to have been a sham. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. The real story, when it comes to understanding Greenwald and the paranoid mind, is not the story’s validity, but the paranoid need for it to have been so important.
Update: AC McCloud asks some intelligent questions about the underlying story, and takes a look at Richard Cohen’s place in this:
The right might be on ignore mode, but the left is going apoplectic on this story, insinuating Ivins was killed to cover some Bush inside job. No doubt Waxman will soon be involved as well. Their main smoking gun is a story from liberal Richard Cohen of the WaPo who claims somebody instructed him to use Cipro right after 9/11 and before the letter attacks occurred. Good. grief.
As if there was no previous history with anthrax and toxic agents. Do they not remember Defense Sec William Cohen holding that bag of sugar? Or heck, the reason we bombed al-Shifa? Do they not remember our troops being vaccinated during the Clinton years? Are they oblivious to the top-level “mad scientist” we just killed, associated with al Qaeda’s fledgling bio program? Apparently in their BDS that answer is yes. As a result their smoking gun is more like a novelty cigarette lighter.
I did a technorati search on the puppetmasters post and there are hundreds of posts in left land. The reaction to the story either ignores how nuts the underlying view of the attack is, says it didn’t drive them personally and moves on or, most commonly, just accepts hook line and sinker that this was the pivotal story of the time. Groupthink and paranoia are riding high.
Update II: The Belmont Club takes a look at the story as well. He brings up the parts of the narrative that don’t quite fit the neat little story that the Greenwald wants to set up. The threads are looking a bit bare on his narrative.
Sphere: Related Content15 Responses to “A Paranoid on Paranoia-Last updated 1:06 CST”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
You’ve missed the point entirely.
Interesting Levi. How so?
Don’t worry. If you are polite and civil we are civil in return.
Ahem, if I may: You’re missing the conspiracy for the theorist.
I assume as much, but that would mean he missed the point, and I would like to confirm that.
Lance,
Thanks for the link. And well said on the above–the left’s reaction is flat out crazy but utterly expected…it always goes back to Bushitler. While I have questions, too, they don’t automatically point to a govt conspiracy. And even if, there might be good reasons to keep stuff like this contained, so to speak.
Cheers
“It was anthrax — sent directly into the heart of the country’s elite political and media institutions,..”
Maybe for him this is true. Although I suggest that the fact that New York was attacked already did that.
But think… New York was one incident that struck the elite who felt immune, and so was the anthrax thing. Without the anthrax it really would have been a single isolated event that struck the country’s elite.
But see, most of us aren’t there. For *most* of us New York is only marginally more real than Madrid or Bali. ALL of those things happened to someone else someplace else in MY world and to the extent that I felt the attack on 9-11 as effecting my personal safety it’s not all that big a jump to consider Bali and Madrid. Except for scale of course. 9-11 was devastatingly HUGE by any account.
I can just about guarantee that a super-majority of those people in the great fly-over states were not worried about anthrax at all.
I’m sure the publishers of the National Enquirer were thrilled to hear that no lesser light than Glenn Greenwalds considers them an “elite media institution.”
Won’t let me post?
“Interesting Levi. How so?
Don’t worry. If you are polite and civil we are civil in return.”
Your entire post focuses on a singular, tertiary idea from the Greenwald article and ignores the remainder. To your credit, you do seem to glancingly approve of Greenwald’s ‘going after the story,’ but you devote the rest of your paragraphs to ridiculing Greenwald as a paranoid.
Greenwald’s ‘paranoia’ is not an issue that you or I need to concern ourselves with. The issue here is the relationship between our government and the media, and how that relationship has been corrupted. People in the government were lying to ABC News. That sort of propagandizing is bad in and of itself, but what is arguably worse is that ABC News does not seem to care. Our democracy is beyond broken if the press trades confidentiality to the government for access with not even the slightest concern for the truthfulness of what is being provided.
The abusive relationship that the Bush administration has with national media is a constant topic at Greenwald’s blog. It is an important issue because the press is often depicted, especially in right wing circles, as being liberally biased. That myth should have been dispelled for all Americans at some point during the Bush years, but a story like this should be especially convincing. Here is ABC News granting confidentiality to government sources that undeniably lied to them. How does that jive within the ‘liberal media’ mythology?
This is the point, Lance. Greenwald doesn’t lay out some sprawling conspiracy theory, he’s highlighting yet another instance of the national media, our supposed public watchdog, completely rolling over for the Bush administration. I’d be interested to see if you could respond to that, the real issue, with as much wordage as you devoted to this rant about Greenwald’s character.
Told ya.
No levi. You missed the point. As Lee suggested, you think that this post is about Greenwalds conspiracy, when it isn’t at all. It is about the context within which Greenwald views the world.
I gave the example of the John Birchers above for a reason. The defense you gave is exactly how they behave. The Birchers would come out with some story, it would be all laid out, and when people pointed out the paranoid way that they viewed the world, they would say “But look at the facts!”
The post only “glancingly” addresses what you want me to address because it isn’t very important to me, if you want that story addressed he has done so already, and so have a lot of others. Why is it not important to me?
1. As the post makes clear, the anthrax attacks were not important. They were not critical. A big story, but then so was the kidnapping of that girl in Aruba.
2. “Our democracy is beyond broken if the press trades confidentiality to the government for access with not even the slightest concern for the truthfulness of what is being provided.” Then our democracy has always been “beyond broken.” Our press is less likely to do this than it has in the past. Part of Greenwalds psychosis is that he actually believes this is something “new” and “different” that is a unique insight he and his readers share.
3. “Here is ABC News granting confidentiality to government sources that undeniably lied to them.” Actually, we don’t know that. Thtat is an example of Greenwald’s “truths” which are actually assumptions. I fnd it unexceptional compared to larger issues with Greenwald, but just for the record there are all kinds of possible reasons for their behavior including that they lied. There may not have been a source, or just one source (Ivins) or lots of explanantions. Remember the CBS memo’s? CBS acted just like this and the explanation was quite prosaic. They didn’t really have any story, or evidence, they just wanted to believe. Like the Birchers, the truth in his mind is clear, and fits his paranoia, when it is actually unclear, and may be far more pedestrian. The CBS memos were important in understanding Dan Rather and CBS. In this case, it may be important in understanding ABC. Cool, but it has no larger significance. Kevin Drum, to his credit, though he won’t do anything about it, recognizes this as what it is. He concentrates on the story, and ignores Greenwalds larger argument. He points out, it is the norm for journalists to protect sources, even if they lied to them. He asks a good question, should it be that way? The answer in my mind is no, but it is no sign of anything larger. Once again, in the CBS memo’s case, and the case of Judith Miller and other journalists going to prison for refusing to reveal their sources, the press routinely protects bad actors who were sources.
4. Like with the Birchers, parts of the narrative are always true, it doesn’t make anything else true, or important, or with larger significance. Nor, even if the entire, most extreme, case he implies is correct, that does not mean the anthrax cases carry the weight he assigns it. It just means our government lies and manipulates us. To quote my son, “No duh.” It isn’t why the events of the last 7 years occurred.
5. Greenwald disagrees with you, though he might not admit it if it becomes clear this is just ABC behaving badly. This case is important not for the reasons you claim, but because it was the critical event in the sock puppets mind. If it wasn’t it is just a media scandal. Those come a dime a dozen, and he knows it. No, he makes clear Levi, this event was arguably more significant than 9/11 itself, the first world trade center bombing, or all the other events. This is the key! That you want to blow by that and turn it into a mere media government scandal tells me you realize it is nuts as well. Of course, people have always given the nutjobs who attack their enemies a good bit of room. Look at many conservatives and Ann Coulter. Enemy of my enemy and all that. Eventually though, the thinkers and people who care about their movements realize you have to chuck them overboard, even when they make good points, or are right.
5. “Greenwald doesn’t lay out some sprawling conspiracy theory”
You are kidding, right?. Greenwald clearly states that there is a sprawling conpiracy. His entire body of work is devoted to it. This is a subset, and it is pretty sprawling in and of itself. He is claiming that the government knew about the letters before they were even sent. That is what the whole Cipro thing is pointing out. Geez, the people writing about it and going bonkers about his story on the left see that as the key to this story, it was a government plot. That is why the journalists were warned to take Cipro beforehand. Now, as is his penchant, if the truth ever comes out and is more pedestrianhe can claim he was just noting the odd coincidence, not saying that was what the story was. We have seen him play that game over and over.
6. “I’d be interested to see if you could respond to that, the real issue, with as much wordage as you devoted to this rant about Greenwald’s character.”
Why? There are hundreds of sites out there running with that angle. Somebody needs to point out that the man is nuts, that this event is at most a scandal. That the entire context he gives this isn’t true. He says himself that the reason this story is important is this story was the most important story of this decade. I think that means it is the most important point we should discuss. I show quite cleary that the context he gives it is false. It is you who are avoiding what the Sock Puppet himself says makes this so important. It is not tertiary as you claim. Once again, it is Greenwald who says this story is important because it was the critical factor in understanding all that came afterward.
You are also avoiding the implication of what it means about Greenwalds worldview, which is what I think is most interesting. That you want to assign it as a tertiary point implies you know it is nuts. Good for you. Take the next step. Realize that whatever “truth” he comes up with, it isn’t worth it to the progressive movement to have this man as a leader. Not only is he crazy, he is a liar of the first order.
You want to expose the lies of the media and the government, which is definitely a full time task and always has been, but you have ceded leadership to a media member who is a first rank liar and manipulative propagandist himself. One of the most dishonest and vicious partisans on the internet. I have a pretty low opinion of Bush, but he is a fount of rectitude and a rhetorical lamb compared to Greenwald. A man who just doesn’t disagree with his enemies, doesn’t just find them shallow, or unfeeling. No, they actually are mass murderers, men who desire blood because it gets them off. If you haven’t seen that, let me know, I’ll bring up just a few of the more choice moments when he has lied, misled or made charges similar to what I described above. The lies and twists of reality are down the memory hole for many. He just moves on, keeping his readers focused on the issues of today, so the things he has claimed in the past that turned out completely unfounded or worse, are never examined again.
Finally, there is the whole sock puppet thing. A little weird don’t you think?
The guy is just too demanding Lance. I’m just impressed that you and I have managed to write three lengthy posts about political paranoia and haven’t once mentioned Richard Hofstadter. Anyone familiar with the literature will recognize this as skilled forbearance of cliché. Like writing three posts on Prague without mentioning Kafka. Think about it for a moment, as it’s not so easy.
1. As the post makes clear, the anthrax attacks were not important. They were not critical. A big story, but then so was the kidnapping of that girl in Aruba.
I don’t disagree. Bush would have gone into Iraq regardless. If this opportunity to lie did not present itself, they would have lied about something else.
Then our democracy has always been “beyond broken.” Our press is less likely to do this than it has in the past. Part of Greenwalds psychosis is that he actually believes this is something “new” and “different” that is a unique insight he and his readers share.
Now they’re less likely? That’s ridiculous. This is a new media age. The internet, cable TV, talk radio, I mean hello? More Americans than ever are connected to the national media, and politicians have more to gain than ever by manipulating that apparatus. Greenwald cites Oliver North lying to Congress as an example of how things used to be, which just doesn’t happen today. Now of course this sort of thing has always been a problem, but it is exponentially worse in the Bush era. It is more systematic, and the stakes have never been higher. The Bush administration is starting wars under false pretenses and circumventing the Constitution to spy upon and torture people, and they use the ‘liberal media’ to get away with it.
Actually, we don’t know that. Thtat is an example of Greenwald’s “truths” which are actually assumptions. I fnd it unexceptional compared to larger issues with Greenwald, but just for the record there are all kinds of possible reasons for their behavior including that they lied. There may not have been a source, or just one source (Ivins) or lots of explanantions.
Certainly, ABC could have just made it all up. But the Bush track record for honesty and accuracy could in no way be considered sterling, could it? Virtually everything the administration said in the run-up to the war turned out to be at best, completely wrong, and at worst, a deliberate, conscious lie. If you still want to give them the benefit of the doubt here, especially when John McCain himself, as Greenwald pointed out, went on Letterman to make the anthrax-Saddam connection, well that’s your problem.
Remember the CBS memo’s? CBS acted just like this and the explanation was quite prosaic. They didn’t really have any story, or evidence, they just wanted to believe. Like the Birchers, the truth in his mind is clear, and fits his paranoia, when it is actually unclear, and may be far more pedestrian. The CBS memos were important in understanding Dan Rather and CBS. In this case, it may be important in understanding ABC. Cool, but it has no larger significance. Kevin Drum, to his credit, though he won’t do anything about it, recognizes this as what it is. He concentrates on the story, and ignores Greenwalds larger argument. He points out, it is the norm for journalists to protect sources, even if they lied to them. He asks a good question, should it be that way? The answer in my mind is no, but it is no sign of anything larger. Once again, in the CBS memo’s case, and the case of Judith Miller and other journalists going to prison for refusing to reveal their sources, the press routinely protects bad actors who were sources.
Don’t care…
5. Greenwald disagrees with you, though he might not admit it if it becomes clear this is just ABC behaving badly. This case is important not for the reasons you claim, but because it was the critical event in the sock puppets mind. If it wasn’t it is just a media scandal. Those come a dime a dozen, and he knows it. No, he makes clear Levi, this event was arguably more significant than 9/11 itself, the first world trade center bombing, or all the other events. This is the key! That you want to blow by that and turn it into a mere media government scandal tells me you realize it is nuts as well. Of course, people have always given the nutjobs who attack their enemies a good bit of room. Look at many conservatives and Ann Coulter. Enemy of my enemy and all that. Eventually though, the thinkers and people who care about their movements realize you have to chuck them overboard, even when they make good points, or are right.
I don’t agree with Greenwald that this was a bigger deal than 9-11.
5. You are kidding, right?. Greenwald clearly states that there is a sprawling conpiracy. His entire body of work is devoted to it. This is a subset, and it is pretty sprawling in and of itself. He is claiming that the government knew about the letters before they were even sent. That is what the whole Cipro thing is pointing out. Geez, the people writing about it and going bonkers about his story on the left see that as the key to this story, it was a government plot. That is why the journalists were warned to take Cipro beforehand. Now, as is his penchant, if the truth ever comes out and is more pedestrianhe can claim he was just noting the odd coincidence, not saying that was what the story was. We have seen him play that game over and over.
That our media are pathetic, useless, and are enablers of the Bush administration’s lawlessness is not a conspiracy theory. It’s demonstratable reality. It’s also a new development, which you seem incapable of recognizing, and it is one of the most serious crises that our country faces. Greenwald does a better job of anyone I’ve seen of documenting this problem.
6. Why? There are hundreds of sites out there running with that angle. Somebody needs to point out that the man is nuts, that this event is at most a scandal. That the entire context he gives this isn’t true. He says himself that the reason this story is important is this story was the most important story of this decade. I think that means it is the most important point we should discuss. I show quite cleary that the context he gives it is false. It is you who are avoiding what the Sock Puppet himself says makes this so important. It is not tertiary as you claim. Once again, it is Greenwald who says this story is important because it was the critical factor in understanding all that came afterward.
You are also avoiding the implication of what it means about Greenwalds worldview, which is what I think is most interesting. That you want to assign it as a tertiary point implies you know it is nuts. Good for you. Take the next step. Realize that whatever “truth” he comes up with, it isn’t worth it to the progressive movement to have this man as a leader. Not only is he crazy, he is a liar of the first order.
You want to expose the lies of the media and the government, which is definitely a full time task and always has been, but you have ceded leadership to a media member who is a first rank liar and manipulative propagandist himself. One of the most dishonest and vicious partisans on the internet. I have a pretty low opinion of Bush, but he is a fount of rectitude and a rhetorical lamb compared to Greenwald. A man who just doesn’t disagree with his enemies, doesn’t just find them shallow, or unfeeling. No, they actually are mass murderers, men who desire blood because it gets them off. If you haven’t seen that, let me know, I’ll bring up just a few of the more choice moments when he has lied, misled or made charges similar to what I described above. The lies and twists of reality are down the memory hole for many. He just moves on, keeping his readers focused on the issues of today, so the things he has claimed in the past that turned out completely unfounded or worse, are never examined again.
Where are these ‘other sites’ out there offering retorts to Greenwald’s argument? The only thing I’ve seen offered up by the conservatives on this story is more bashing of Greenwald that is truly indistinguishable from what you’ve done here. The Republican reflex is to shoot the messenger and to ignore the message, which I will reiterate, is about how ethically and functionaly corrupt our media is. This might be something that you don’t think you should care about, this might be something that you believe has always been a problem in this country, but it simply is neither of those things. Your unwillingness to talk about it honestly is not a surprise, seeing as how the myth of the ‘liberal media’ is of paramount importance to the conservative movment. Recognizing that they are inept, recognizing that they are often willing tools for the Bush administration, would basically shatter your worldview, wouldn’t it?
Finally, there is the whole sock puppet thing. A little weird don’t you think?
Don’t care.
That our media are pathetic, useless, and are enablers of the Bush administration’s lawlessness is not a conspiracy theory. It’s demonstratable reality.
Is this your conclusion or your premise? From here, it looks like the answer is “both.”
It’s also a new development, which you seem incapable of recognizing, and it is one of the most serious crises that our country faces. Greenwald does a better job of anyone I’ve seen of documenting this problem.
What makes it a serious crisis? If the government is merely plodding along doing the people’s work, in the people’s interest to the best of it’s ability, would it be a serious crisis? Would it be a crisis of any sort? Would it even be meaningful? I don’t think so. Only in the CONTEXT, as Lance has stated numerous times, of malicious government conspiracy against the people does this have the meaning you claim.
Greenwalds is many things, but professionally he is a partisan propagandist. His propaganda strategy is to support his side by making his political opponents out to be not merely of a different mind but instead criminal sociopaths at best, and darkly evil malefactors of the first order at worst. Don’t look now, but it appears he’s successfully propagandized you.
yours/
peter.
I don’t disagree. Bush would have gone into Iraq regardless. If this opportunity to lie did not present itself, they would have lied about something else.
Except we didn’t go into Iraq on this “lie” either. Though the administration didn’t lie here anyway. They never claimed, nor does he provide any evidence otherwise, that it was connected with Iraq. Even so, you make my point, Greenwald is claiming something that isn’t true about the importance of the attacks. If it was the Bush Administration doing that, you would call it a lie. Ask yourself why he does this, then re-read my post. It is dead on as to why he needs this to be true to justify his contention that the climate of concern was not just an overreaction, but manufactured. Whether he is screwed up enough to believe it, or knows it is a crock I can’t be sure. Either way, or in my estimation some of both, the post works.
More Americans than ever are connected to the national media, and politicians have more to gain than ever by manipulating that apparatus.
I don’t agree, but even if I did, that doesn’t mean they do manipulate the media more. In no way can you compare what Bush has done to Roosevelt to use one example. It isn’t even close. I would argue the media is far harder to manipulate since we are so connected. Far more other sources of information, though Greenwald shows that while less able to be manipulated by the government, there are far more manipulators as well.
The Bush administration is starting wars under false pretenses and circumventing the Constitution to spy upon and torture people,
I ask this in all sincerity, do you know anything about the history of our past wars? Has any of them not involved things which were under some false pretenses? Some wholly? Nor are all false pretenses due to dishonesty. I won’t argue the point with you, but you leave out the possibility the administration was just wrong. Negligent maybe, but wrong. The lie case makes no sense, they had nothing to gain. The evidence otherwise is typical Bircher style (or Clinton Chronicles style) “connecting of dots.” Ann Coulter does the same thing in claiming all Democrats have been traitors. You can always connect the dots to prove your case if you ignore all counter evidence or other possible rationales, or in Coulter and Greenwald’s case, misrepresent a good bit of the evidence as well. Another case, Roosevelt and Pearl harbor. Same type of evidence, just as weak (though occasionally such weak cases are nevertheless true.)
Spying on citizens? Have you ever heard of J Edgar Hoover? What about the CIA? It has been going on for a long time. Hoover was investigating people sex lives.
As for torture, or more importantly human rights in general, that is a joke. History may have set a low bar here, but this administration has jumped over it. That doesn’t excuse their behavior, let us not pretend that it is new however. We have certainly treated prisoners, our enemies and non combatants better by orders of magnitude than we did in WWII.
But the Bush track record for honesty and accuracy could in no way be considered sterling, could it?
That is a compelling argument. Clinton lied more than any president in my memory, it didn’t justify the Clinton Chronicles. To prove a lie you don’t get to just say, “well he is a liar.” The rest of that paragraph is what in logic is called a non sequiter. None of that makes Greenwalds contention, and need for it to justify his position, correct.
Don’t care…
You should, because it points out that ABC’s behavior and all the other evidence doesn’t prove any of the things Greenwald claims. Of course, that is a side issue, because regardless of what is the explanation of ABC’s behavior, including a conspiracy with the administration, it doesn’t change my point at all!
I don’t agree with Greenwald that this was a bigger deal than 9-11.
So, my post didn’t miss the point, and its point is understanding why he needs to feel that way. My analysis brings that reason to the surface. I didn’t miss the point, you did. Because once you understand the kind of deep psychological need that makes one believe something as nuts as that, and that so few people who read him, see what he is doing, then you realize how he is manipulating everything he says, no matter that some points or some issues he raises are correct. Everyone is correct about some things, the problem is all the ways that he fools people into thinking things that are not correct, or just flat made up, are true. That is what Coulter, the Birchers, the Clinton Chroniclers, the Roosevelt planned Pearl Harbor conspiracists, etc., do. The underlying premises are where the action is, not the facts or particular unprovable assertions he makes.
It’s also a new development,
It isn’t. Period. Name any other period in history, especially leading up to or during a war and I can fill pages of evidence at the drop of a hat that it isn’t new. I pick Roosevelt as the obvious example. Wilson being the absolute most awful example.
Greenwald does a better job of anyone I’ve seen of documenting this problem.
No he doesn’t, in fact a great amount of the time what he is doing falls into the realm of lying.
Where are these ‘other sites’ out there offering retorts to Greenwald’s argument?
One of the problems with Greenwalds readers is they don’t read what he is saying carefully, nor critically examine what he is saying. I see that issue here. I am not talking about people retorting his argument, I mean the ones supporting his argument. Let me show you what I wrote again:
There are hundreds of sites out there running with that angle.
See, I was talking about other supporters of Greenwald. I said nothing about sites refuting his arguments.
Your unwillingness to talk about it honestly is not a surprise
You should find a dishonest statement before you make such a remark. I have found many many from the sock puppet. In fact, the argument I take on in this post is either dishonest or crazy. You can pick which one, I go with nuts, but I can show you some that are just flat out dishonest. You can’t do the same with anything I have written, even if you disagree with me.
seeing as how the myth of the ‘liberal media’ is of paramount importance to the conservative movment.
Maybe it is, if I was a conservative it might even be germane.
would basically shatter your worldview, wouldn’t it?
How? It has no bearing on my worldview at all. They carry water for all kinds of people, they also claim things which are not true about all kinds of people- see CBS once again for an example. They are inept all the time. My post has nothing to do with defending Bush. It has to do with Greenwald, just like when I take on Coulter it has to do with Coulter, not a defense of Clinton or Ted Kennedy. Let me clue you in, I have had four chances to vote for Bush, have a perfect record of not voting for him.
If I was a raging leftist I would feel exactly the same about Greenwald, just as I can think Ron Paul is a crazy racist and and Ann Coulter a dishonest propagandist and Cynthia McKinnon a cray leftist loon. That is two libertarians, a conservative and a lefty. I am ecumenical in my disdain for dishonest propagandists, liars and conspiracy theorist whack jobs. That is if Greenwald really is a libertarian. He seems to hide it very well, but his close friends have behind the scenes insisted that he just does that because his hobby horses are the “issues of the day” and he needs his allies. I find that incredibly cynical, or psychologically disturbing. You can make of that bit of dishonesty, or bizarre need for affirmation and worship, what you will. Which it is doesn’t matter to me. I vote for both.
See, unlike Greenwald I don’t need to have the world be any particular way, it is what it is. Nor do I have any problem shooting the messenger if the messenger needs to be shot. Coulter defenders use the same argument, and accuse me of being a liberal, being unwilling to look at the evidence in “Treason,” etc.
I am willing to look. The evidence is weak, often dishonest, selectively quoted and taken out of context, and she is an expert at poisoning the well and thus obscuring the fact that her evidence doesn’t support her argument. Greenwald uses the exact same techniques. They are common to all conspiracy theorists. Though Coulter has the virtue of being occasionally funny. The talking sock is far too earnest for that, and never ever admits to being wrong (which his close friends say is his biggest weakness. I certainly agree it is a large one.)
Still, if you want some examples of flat out falsehoods written by Greenwald, let me know, I’ll provide them, though they are not as dangerous as his other techniques.
So finally, after all your arguments you have accepted my essential premise that he is misrepresenting the importance of the anthrax attacks, you just refuse to explain why something so ridiculous needs to form the crux of his case. I have provided an explanation that fits his behavior over time.
“Finally, there is the whole sock puppet thing. A little weird don’t you think?”
Don’t care.
Heh, I don’t either, but his behavior in that area was quite amusing, the only time he has ever actually been funny. Though it does show what a liar and megalomaniac he is. Still, I like to kid. Got to keep things light hearted somehow.