Greenwald on Bond on Iraq

Really, why would anyone ever read anything else but Glenn Greenwald? From his latest piece: Kit Bond and the credibility of war supporters.

At its core, the history of the Iraq War has been authored by an indescribably deceitful and very intellectually limited political and media elite, perfectly symbolized by Kit Bond. These are people who spent four years hailing the Great Progress the Leader was making in Iraq, claiming we were “clearing and holding” neighborhoods of all the Terrorists, that Freedom was on the March, that anyone who questioned any of this was either brainwashed by the war-hating media or a Friend of The Terrorists.

And now, four years later, with the War plainly having been a failure, and their assurances all exposed as false, what are they doing? Hailing the Great Progress the Leader is making in Iraq, claiming we are “clearing and holding” neighborhoods of all the Terrorists, that Freedom is on the March, that anyone who questions any of this is either brainwashed by the war-hating media or a Friend of The Terrorists. Nothing ever changes. It just plods along with the same idiot slogans and the same people spouting them. And they do it with no shame, no acknowledgment of their own past behavior, and no loss of credibility.

7 Responses to “Greenwald on Bond on Iraq”

  1. Steve Says:

    The link you posted is to the main index of Greenwald. Can you fix it to point to the particular article you’re quoting?

  2. jbc Says:

    Oops. Thanks. Done.

  3. enkidu Says:

    I wish Glenn Greenwald had a TV show.
    Or perhaps Cliff Schecter (mb a little too in your face? nah!)

    Did you hear GG asked General Patreus for an interview after Patreus granted Hugh Hewitt an exclusive. I am sure the HH questions were authorized by Karl and the gang “So… President Bush, awesome President or Awesomest President Evar?” “The Surge, success… or Awesomest Success of the Most Successful President Evar!1!!11!!!”

    The usual from rwnj media.

  4. Joshua Godinez Says:

    There is some evidence that Glenn is not completely honest. That’s why people might distrust his take on things.

  5. jbc Says:

    Yeah, I’d looked into this “Greenwald has used sock puppets” allegation a few months ago, and read through the link you posted in the comment above just now. My take on it, and on the impact the issue should have on Greenwald’s honesty, is basically as follows:

    1) As a high-profile Bush hater, Greenwald certainly can expect to get a lot of scrutiny from the rightwing blogosphere. In light of that, it’s probably fairly revealing that the worst they seem to have been able to come up with is a fairly weak case that someone posting from an IP address he also has used, and using language that allegedly (but see below) sounds like Greenwald’s, has posted comments to some weblog items defending him, using a name other than his. (That is, that at least in the eyes of some of his critics, it looks like he’s engaged in “sock puppetry”, posting comments to support himself while pretending to be someone else.) I note that the claims that Greenwald has been “dishonest” don’t seem to include any strong case that the actual commentary from Greenwald, or from the alleged sock puppets, is itself dishonest or inaccurate. It’s just this meta-issue of the question of whether Greenwald is posting (factual, apparently) defenses of himself under a different name.

    2) The case that it’s actually Greenwald who’s posted those comments is circumstantial, and, to my eyes, weak. Taking the critics at face value, the comments were posted by someone using the same IP address at the same Brazilian ISP that Greenwald used for at least some of his own Internet access. There are indications that the commenter knows a great deal of detail about Greenwald. And (here’s the tricky part), the critics allege that the language used by the commenter sounds very much like Greenwald. But in looking at the examples given, I don’t see that there’s anything approaching a slam-dunk case that that means the commenter is Greenwald himself. It seems possible, even likely, that the commenter is actually Greenwald’s partner posting under a pseudonym. That would explain the IP address, the knowledge of Greenwald, and the similar language (on the language point, the examples given are really weak: the commenter said “super-important”, while Greenwald in another posting said “super important”; both have written things that begin with “I love how…”). (People in a long-term relationship with each other can certainly be expected to share that degree of similar language patterns, especially when someone is obsessed enough to Google up everything online ever written by or about them looking for correspondences.)

    3) There’s an implicit (at least) argument being offered by the critics that Greenwald’s own behavior indicates he has something to hide in connection with this. They say he doesn’t post in the same comment threads where the sock puppet has. Why isn’t Greenwald responding to their allegations of sock puppetry, unless he’s guilty? Etc. But again, this is quite adequately explained by the puppet actually being Greenwald’s partner, with Greenwald not wanting to involve himself in those discussions or do anything to compromise the partner’s apparent decision to post things in his defense while maintaining some degree of anonymity.

    4) John at Wuzzadem seems to be a prominent actor in this sock-puppetry alleging. From the (brief) experience I had with him in connection with the Aaron Broussard crying on Meet the Press incident, I think he’s an honest guy as far as he goes. But I also think he employs a very strong right-wing perceptual filter, and isn’t particularly zealous about being objective in policiing his information sources.

    So, put it all together, and I think this whole incident, on balance, actually supports, rather than detracts from, Greenwald’s credibility on the actual substantitive points he makes. If this is the best his enemies have been able to come up with, then the guy’s pretty close to rock-solid in the credibility department. At least, that’s how I see it.

  6. jbc Says:

    Oh. And a little more checking turns up Greenwald strongly implying that the explanation I offer above was, in fact, the case. See:

    Where Greenwald wrote:

    Not frequently, I leave comments at blogs which criticize or respond to something I have written. I always, in every single instance, use my own name when doing so. I have never left a single comment at any other blog using any name other than my own, at least not since I began blogging. IP addresses signify the Internet account one uses, not any one individual. Those in the same household have the same IP address. In response to the personal attacks that have been oozing forth these last couple of weeks, others have left comments responding to them and correcting the factual inaccuracies, as have I. In each case when I did, I have used my own name.

    [jbc again]

    So, there you have it. From where I sit, Greenwald is about a jillion percent more credible than his critics on this issue.

  7. shcb Says:


    I don’t know how much you have read or written on this site, but if you are new, let me offer a bit of advice. These guys think Greenwald walks on water, especially JBC, if you criticize his character, you can expect the immediate rebuttals like the one you received. Don’t give up, we need some new blood here, but you will be better served to criticize his substance than his character. Let’s face it, if he is commenting on his own comments to get or keep his blog going, that is just sad. If all his critics can come up with is this, that is equally sad. I haven’t registered to his site so I haven’t read much of his work, probably should, but what I have read was pretty easy to refute. He seems to do a good job of mixing fact, fiction and opinion together in a way the casual reader has a hard time picking out which is which, kind of like NPR. But he is a talented writer. Molly Ivans, God rest her soul was the same. She was fun to read, but wasn’t very well informed, she pretty much just regurgitated what she was fed, as far as I could see. Although i’m not implying Greenwald is doing this. Hope you come back often.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.