A New Submission to the Greenwald Carnival of Fisking
Lance on Apr 27 2007 at 6:10 am | Filed under: Glenn Greenwald's Carnival of Fisking, Lance's Page
Instapundit readers welcome! If you haven’t been here in a while look around. New format, additional authors, feeds to other great sites. Tons of stuff. Poke around and drop us a line.
———————————————————————————————————————
From one of the great practitioners of the art of unraveling Sock Puppets (second only to me) Patterico:
The sky is blue, time is still moving forward one second at a time . . . and Glenn Greenwald is still being dishonest.
Regarding Dave Gaubatz, who claims that Saddam really did have WMD, Greenwald says:
This is the individual to whom Glenn Reynolds, Powerline, Michelle Malkin’s blog and scores of others are pointing as the Iraqi Weapons Expert who knows the Real Truth behind Saddam’s Missing WMDs.
Let’s look at the evidence Greenwald cites to prove the assertion that these individuals are swooning over Gaubatz’s claim.
First, here is Glenn Reynolds:
“I FOUND SADDAM’S WMD BUNKERS:†Er, wouldn’t this be news if it were true? Maybe not, these days. . . .â€
Here is “Michelle Malkin’s blog†(actually Allah at Hot Air):
Melanie Phillips’s new piece in the Spectator is making the rounds so I might as well toss up a link. This story isn’t new — FrontPage was writing about Gaubatz last April and the Times featured him in a story about diehard WMD believers in June. He seems credible, but I must say, stories about the continuing hunt for WMDs at this point seem to me like a right-wing version of Trutherism. Besides, even if Gaubatz is right about the weapons having been moved to Syria, we’ll simply never know unless Assad ups and admits that they’re there. And if he was going to do that, odds are he’d already have offered to do it in exchange for whatever concessions he might want from the Bush administration.
Still an interesting read, though.
Maybe somebody needs to explain to Greenwald what “Trutherism†means. Hint: it ain’t a compliment.
Read the whole thing and then visit “our incomparable archives” for more sock puppet fun.
Sphere: Related Content18 Responses to “A New Submission to the Greenwald Carnival of Fisking”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
I didn’t read Malkin’s post, excerpted above, but my take on Glenn’s comment was that it intentionally leaves the door open for the reader to buy what Gaubatz is selling. Shift the bold tags one sentence down, I guess you could say.
I don’t know. This is par for the course with Glenn, who wants to wallow in the mud without looking like a pig, so he couches everything in this sort of passive aggressive statement. “Golly, I don’t know about THIS, but sure does make you wonder!”
Gee, Pete
Imagine that. Glenn leaves it open for the reader to decide. Would you have been happier if he had said it was true? And what’s this “wallow in the mud” business.
“Golly, from the tone and content of your post, I don’t know if you are complaining because it fits your agenda, but it sure does make you wonder.”
Um, well isn’t that the case with this pete? As allah was saying, it’s probably not true, but it’s possible. The world and peoples thoughts/beliefs are not all black and white, there’s shades of grey. However, slung mud doesn’t stand out on grey as much as it does on white.
Uh, how is that wallowing in the mud or passive aggressive? He sees it, doesn’t totally discount it (nor should he) but doubts it. Seems like the exact way to deal with it. It is passive, but how is it aggressive? It attacks no one, unless you consider it an attack on Gaubatz. If that is an attack on Gaubatz it is a pretty reasonable one, he doesn’t denounce him for being out of consensus, just points it out.
How is wondering about what Saddam did with his weapons wallowing in mud? Whose mud? Aren’t you curious? Did he destroy them as he was supposed to? Are they buried in the desert? Sitting in bunkers in Syria? I would like to know if only out of curiosity.
I am sorry, but in what world is that view ever a problem? When Glenn links to some new technology and says “this would be cool if it works,” is that offensive? Or is it that if you don’t like the view it is wrong to wonder? And why wouldn’t you like the view as opposed to doubting it? Wouldn’t you like for our intelligence services to be right and not the bumblers they seem? Of course we don’t have to like that they may still exist, so in that respect I hope he is wrong.
Also, who doesn’t link to things they don’t agree with 100% or doubt? Everybody does. Yglesias, Drum, Atrios, they all do it. Greenwald does it all the time, and does it in ways that transmit vicious smears, such as someone is a pedophile for one prominent example. That is a bit more problematic than, “I wonder if Saddam did hide them somewhere, but seems unlikely.” It is ridiculous to ask bloggers not to discuss things that they have no position on or doubt, or even mention them. Not only would it restrict the debate and shut out out of consensus views which sometimes are correct, but would also leave those views only to true believers and those who oppose the view merely because they don’t like it. That would protect those views from being honestly evaluated and thus lead them (if they are incorrect) to being spread far and wide amongst the gullible.
Whatever it is, it definitely isn’t anything close to the sock puppets ” pointing as the Iraqi Weapons Expert who knows the Real Truth behind Saddam’s Missing WMDs.” That was just an out and out lie and par for the course for the man.
You missed one Chris. I misspelled Greenwald’s name in THE TITLE! In thinking about it, I could probably earn more from the typo’s you miss than you do from the ones you spot. Not that you have spotted any lately ;^)
The Left is criticizing the Right for buying into wild conspiracy theories?
Pot meet kettle…
Thanks for reminding me Lance.
Wow, numbers? It’s like you’re progressively trying to outdo yourself each time.
It was my little present to you.
[...] UPDATE: Hmm. Actually, what’s the difference? Facts, shmacts! [...]
Glenn leaves it open for the reader to decide.
The key point is “Glenn decides to publicize it.” Either he thinks it has some credibility, or he knows it has zero credibility but thinks it furthers a political agenda he supports and so publicizes it in spite of it having zero credibility.
Even if that were something I agreed with, it doesn’t in any way justify lying about it.
As for the merits, nonsense. Glenn publicizes all kinds of things he has doubts about, including posts from Kevin Drum and Matthew Yglesias. Is that a passive aggressive attack on the right?
Also, who says that rule exists? Glenn obviously thinks it is perfectly acceptable to publish things he has doubts about and so do all bloggers that I am aware of, including Greenwald.
Finally, the argyle foot wear is still lying.
Glenn’s decision to publicize it is exactly the point. At least Michelle had the intellectual honesty to point out a couple obvious flaws, while Glenn chose to frame his post around a (passive aggressive) swipe at the media that’s predicated on the belief that a) there were weapons there to begin with and b) the media is covering that up.
That’s not a “conspiracy theory,” it’s damn close to a plain text reading. It’s worth noting that most of the comments here bear that reading out and, while we’re at it, let’s ponder the fact that it’s the right, not the left, that’s implicitly alleging a conspiracy in this instance.
No, some right wingers are alleging a conspiracy.
Nowhere does Glenn say that. That is you just making up what you think Glenn means. Of course we have a simple test, Glenn says that isn’t what he means. Case closed. You can make up anything by exercising your interpretive skills and ignoring what the writer confirms himself. He did take a swipe at the media, on that you are right. It does not imply they exist, it implies he doesn’t trust the media. It also doesn’t change that the sock puppet lies about him, even if your interpretation were true.
As for comments being indicative, they are not. The people most likely to comment are those who wish to argue the post. That is almost always true on traffic generated by a link. I can promise you from knowing Glenn’s readership. At least 80% of them don’t support your interpretation, probably far higher than that.
All these Glenn’s are getting confusing. Can we just use Greenwald and Reynolds, or Puppet and ‘Pundit?
A bit of a self-selection bias when looking at those that choose to comment, true, though that doesn’t change the fact that what they say supports my assertion about their beliefs. Whatever. Set them aside and we’ll focus on the topic of Glenn’s post (weapons in Iraq) and the swipe at the media, which you agree on.
If we accept that Glenn is taking a swipe at the media, what is he saying that they’re in the habit of hiding from us? Weapons? Good news from Iraq? Context would imply that he’s talking about weapons. Glenn certainly doesn’t say that he disagrees with the premise of the original piece. He simply says that if it were true, it would be news. But then, and this is the point of the discussion, he goes back and throws doubt on that interpretation, doubt that’s predicated on the reader understanding that the media hides the truth about… what?
I’d like to see the data you’ve amassed about Glenn’s readership that allows you to make statements about what any percentage of them thinks about anything.
Who can know what Glenns readers are thinking, or even who they are. I know I am one, and that’s about all I know.
The good news more than the weapons. And it’s not hiding, it’s selection bias. Most individuals in the media have established to themselves as fact that Iraq has been a mistake since 2003. Thus they find newsworth that which confirms that bias. Combine this with the “if it bleeds, it leads” philosophy, and you can see why good news is rarely reported.
We can again see confirmation bias in your/Greenwald’s interpretation of Reynolds. All was written were two simple short sentences. The meaning of which is obvious to anyone with an open mind. Namely, here’s a guy who says he found wmd’s, but if this were true it would probably be big news. Though the media hasn’t always been receptive to stories that counter their established fact.
You see? He’s simply looking at both sides of the issue, unsure of which side is right, though leaning to it not being true. Greenwald refuses to interpret people without his dishonest confirmation bias, and paints all he opposes in a black and white world, with no allowance of gray or nuance. Frankly, it’s the mark of a demagogue.
I should clarify to remove any doubt. I don’t find this to be a conspiracy, but human nature. We’re all biased to some extent. We all suffer this, but some try be more honest with themselves than others.
More importantly, Reynolds agrees that he wasn’t giving the story much credibility. So if you feel he was unclear, he has now made it so.
And once again, whether he was clear or not, Greenwald’s characterization was a falsehood.