Glenn Greenwald’s Unclaimed Territory is a widely-read blog. According to the truth laid bear, it has recently received more than 6,000 hits per day, making it the 132nd most-visited blog.
Yesterday, Greenwald opined that
Anything other than the most reverent and restrained criticism of George Bush is strongly condemned by the establishment media, and yet the most extreme types of accusations (treason, working with Osama, etc.) are endorsed and therefore prevalent against the President’s opponents.
- UPDATE. Greenwald repeats this assertion in a new post on l’affaire Chris Matthews at Crooks and Liars:
The anger over Chris Matthews’ comment that Osama bin Laden in his new video sounds like Michael Moore, and the resulting campaign demanding that Matthews apologize, arises from much more than a single comment, and has little to do with Moore himself. The Matthews smear illustrates the fact that it has become routine in our national political dialogue, and among our nation’s journalists, to equate opposition to George Bush with subversiveness, treason, and support for Al Qaeda.
The national media has truly adopted this dissent-quashing dichotomy created by the Bush White House: one is either a follower of George Bush who praises his war and terrorism policies, or one is an enemy of the United States who is on the side of Al Qaeda. That is not hyperbole. This is the manipulative and decidedly un-American view that is re-enforced again and again.
- END UPDATE.
I can’t figure out where Mr. Greenwald is coming from. While the reputation of the New York Times has been slipping, few would deny that it remains at or near the apex of the establishment media. The criticisms of Bush in three of its recent editorials (see below) are anything but “reverent and restrained,” at least in my book. What I can’t find in the Times are any endorsements of “the most extreme types of accusations” against Bush’s opponents.
Mr. Greenwald and I don’t share the same political philosophy. However, with regard to the issue at hand, that shouldn’t matter. I presume that he reads the New York Times. If he does, the only way I can comprehend his accusation is to make the assumption that his definition of “reverent and restrained” differs from mine. And, if that is the case, it would seem that anything less than invectives wouldn’t satisfy him.
Here are excerpts from three recent editorials by the Times. To me, they are sharply critical of Bush. To Mr. Greenwald, they evidently are not. You be the judge.
December 18, 2005:
- Mr. Bush secretly decided that he was going to allow the agency to spy on American citizens without obtaining a warrant – just as he had earlier decided to scrap the Geneva Conventions, American law and Army regulations when it came to handling prisoners in the war on terror . . . we have learned the hard way that Mr. Bush’s team cannot be trusted to find the boundaries of the law, much less respect them.
January 4, 2006
- When the government does not want the public to know what it is doing, it often cites national security as the reason for secrecy. The nation’s safety is obviously a most serious issue, but that very fact has caused this administration and many others to use it as a catchall for any matter it wants to keep secret, even if the underlying reason for the secrecy is to prevent embarrassment to the White House. The White House has yet to show that national security was harmed by the report on electronic spying, which did not reveal the existence of such surveillance – only how it was being done in a way that seems outside the law . . . Illegal spying and torture need to be investigated, not whistle-blowers and newspapers.
January 18, 2006
- In times of extreme fear, American leaders have sometimes scrapped civil liberties in the name of civil protection. It’s only later that the country can see that the choice was a false one and that citizens’ rights were sacrificed to carry out extreme measures that were at best useless and at worst counterproductive . . . it’s hard to think of a more graphic example than President Bush’s secret program of spying on Americans. The White House has offered steadily weaker arguments to defend the decision to eavesdrop on Americans’ telephone calls and e-mail without getting warrants.
Perhaps in this day and age, a MSM mouthpiece is critical of the President only if it drops into something tabloidesque, such as accusations of incest or sexual harrassment. (I was going to write “murder,” but considering that Bush is frequently charged with something akin to genocide and being a war mongering and being a murderer of children, it struck me that those clearly aren’t accusations that would meet Mr. Greenwald’s high standards.)
Glenn Greenwald represents that coterie among the Bush-haters, whether on the Left or otherwise, who are educated and intelligent and capable of attracting a certain crowd, yet who are heavily invested in far more rhetoric than in a balanced, well proportioned and more substantial approach. One almost needs to be something of a masochist to read many of his posts, though I do since some facts and substance can be gleaned from the psychology which manifests itself – much as some valuable copper, steel and other valuable metals can be gleaned from the aftermath of incoming shells from an artillery unit.
Politics is often perception and visa-versa, so there’s unquestionably a couple of levels at which knowledgeable, yet excessively rhetorically leveraged commentators like Greenwald need to be taken seriously, but far too often it’s in the exact same manner as an artillery unit needs to be taken seriously.
And yes, that’s a general statement, one not aimed at a specific post, but as a general statement it’s probative of his gifted, rhetorical stylistics nonetheless.
It’s easy to explain, Marc. Unless you’re a goodthinker, it’s ++ungood. Chris Matthews, a decent center-left analyst, dared to blurt out an obvious truth: OBL was using the diction of a certain segment of American politics, presumably in an attempt to sway public opinion. ++ungood! Call for Matthews crucifixion!
I did not mean to imply – and don’t think I did – that there is never any criticism of George Bush anywhere to be found in the establishment media. You’re correct that The New York Times Editorial page frequently voices that sort of criticism, and there are a few other places here and there where such criticism can be found as well.
But those are isolated islands in a sea of a media double standard which endorses the most raucous and extreme criticisms of Bush opponents, while viewing similar criticism when directed against Bush as being inappropriate and wrong.
The perfect example illustrating the double standard is the way in which it is perfectly acceptable to compare Bush opponents (not just Michael Moore, but John Kerry, Howard Dean, etc.) to Osama bin Laden and even to go beyond merely comparing them by suggesting that they are on the “same side.”
But when Robert Byrd compared Republican parliamentary procedures to similar parliamentary maneuvers used by the Nazi Party, or when two out of 500 ads submitted as part of the Moveon.org contest included comparisons of Bush and Hitler, the media establishment acted as though a great crime had been committed and Democrats everywhere were forced to distance themselves from this rhetoric. I personally don’t make to these comparisons, but if it’s permissible to compare Bush opponents to bin Laden, certainly those comparisons can’t be treated as being beyond the pale.
Bush himself has decreed that only “responsible” and respectful criticisms of him and his policies should be permitted, because any other type constitutes aiding the enemy (i.e., treason). Simultaneously, his opponents are accused of being subversive, treasonous and in support of the terrorists.
Any reasonable person would have to acknowledge this state of affairs as a double standard, and the establishment media, as much as any other entity, enforces it.
Will ask a single question only, since more than a single question would augment the likelihood of a diffuse response.
Where has the President “decreed” that only “respectful” criticisms are to be “permitted”?
The President, January 10, 2006:
“Yet we must remember there is a difference between responsible and irresponsible debate—and it’s even more important to conduct this debate responsibly when American troops are risking their lives overseas. . . .
When our soldiers hear politicians in Washington question the mission they are risking their lives to accomplish, it hurts their morale. In a time of war, we have a responsibility to show that whatever our political differences at home, our nation is united and determined to prevail. . . .
So I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account, and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy—not comfort to our adversaries.”
Can’t we at least find some common ground and agree that Chris Matthews is loud and obnoxious? This can be our first step toward reconciliation. Baby steps, people, baby steps.
It’s a real stretch to characterize Bush’s words of January 10 as a “decree.” That word has a very specific meaning, viz., if a decree isn’t obeyed, punishment is the result.
Freedom of speech hasn’t been repealed. Just ask the protestors at the 2004 DNC who claimed that they couldn’t do what they were—at that very moment—doing. They used freedom of speech to assert that they didn’t have freedom of speech.
It s simply incorrect to say that main stream media only criticizes Bush in a restrained manner. The criticism is contained in the selection of stories published and the quotations used in the stories.
Much of the rabid criticism of Bush is contained in sound bites on radio and television news. Most of the time this is ephemeral, an electronic drive by, especially when it is on a local news station.
That’s very much the one I thought you had in mind, in fact, other than a similar statement by McClellan, it’s the only one I could recall.
Firstly, it’s not even remotely a “decree”. To the contrary, it’s a form of entirely responsible and fully warranted suasion.
Secondly, it doesn’t ask for “respectful criticisms of [the President]”, what it asks for and strongly suggests is in fact a debate, for the debate to continue, but along “responsible” lines which at some level is mindful of troop morale.
Thirdly, the President therein doesn’t submit his suasion in terms of what should be “permitted” (this echos the note about a “decree” and it would be striking if he did use terms such as “permitted” since he’s the chief executive), but instead is in fact invoking, again, a form of suasion, precisely what he should be doing.
If the President or others were to take this type of rhetoric seriously, the only response which would be allowed would be no response, to remain mute, before accusatory invocations of “decrees” and what is “permitted”.
Not a bad attempt – but it doesn’t sell. Good evening.
What I find the most interesting about Mr. Greenwald’s posts (And by the way, Michael B., I was very impressed with your characterization of GG, as it strikes me as being quite accurate) is that though he is quite willing to attack the media, or to attack the Bush administration when they over a very mellow, reasoned response to liberal hysterics, he has absolutely not answers as to why Osama bin Laden does monitor and continues to use Democratic talking points.
This isn’t a slur, but fact. Moore did seem to brag that Osama had seen his movie and used his commentary in a his late October 2004 recording, just as Osama’s most recent audiotape closely mirrors the anti-war commentary of John Murtha (not Moore, as Matthews wrongly said).
“Methinks the lady doth protest to much.”
The question shouldn’t be, “why are Republicans/the media/Mom and Dad viewing us as traitors?”
The question should be, “why do terrorists think of us as useful idiot allies?”
To shift the focus from the President for a moment, I’d ask Glen, and others: Where do you think OBL takes his talking-points from? Matthews mentioned Michael Moore; I’ve seen suggesdtions of DNC, NYT, and more. But given that al-J carries his stuff, and the close realtionship of the two media companies, I’d nominate the BBC. BBC staff instructs the Palestinians in propaganda; why not OBL?
[...] Mr. Greenwald begins his latest post with these words: There are a few Bush-loving sites which are vehemently denying that GOP commentators compared Bush opponents with bin Laden by “pointing out” that bin Laden’s latest message “sounds like” Democrats. I am currently have a mini-debate with a couple of those blogs and their readers in the Comments sections to those posts . . . , where the Bush lovers are earnestly protesting that all they were doing was making an innocent factual observation that bin Laden’s speech had a lot of points that are often made by Democrats. [...]
Is the term “Bush-lover” really such heinous invective that it actually shuts off debate? I hardly think so. From what I have seen of your blog, you do tend to be an admirer of the Bush Administration. That’s not to say that you’re a blind admirer or that you never deviate from its agenda, just that you love George Bush. I hardly think that term is fairly described as being so extreme that it amounts to some sort of substance-less name-calling.
This is especially the case given that many Republicans—which is what prompted this discussion in the first place—are currently running around comparing Democrats to Osama bin Laden and claiming that Al Qaeda’s talking points are similar to those used by Bush opponents. All sorts of Democrats—from John Kerry to Jimmy Carter to Howard Dean—have been accused of being on the “other side” – meaning supporters of Al Qaeda.
Given the type of invective which we’re talking about – and which you seem, at least implicitly, to be defending – I really don’t think that the term “Bush-lover” ought to be viewed as some sort of out-of-bounds venom. That’s particularly the case given (a) the quite personal remarks made in this comment section (which I don’t see you condemning or characterizing as being debate-foreclosing) and (b) the Administration’s ongoing use of the language of treason to describe its political opponents (“helping the enemy”, etc.).
If you’re going to crusade around for standards of civility in political debates, you can’t only apply those standards to one side (the other side) if you hope to do anything other than – to use your words – preach to the choir.
I’m sorry, but I’m new to the bin Laden is a Democrat meme. I thought bin Laden’s tape was significant because it proved that he was still alive and that he was still in a position of power four years after our President had promised to kill him. Since when did we care about the particulars of this madman’s screeds?
I then read that conservatives are associating Osama’s rants with the liberal positions. Huh? So I go back to read the transcript to see what they are talking about, and I now see that the Confederate Yankees are, as usual, right:
Osama starts out with a call for a complete submission to Allah. Just like Michael Moore, Howard Dean and John Murtha.
He refers to us as crusaders, just like that lefty George Bush. He then complains about our occupying Iraq, more a fact than a talking point, but here’s the proof that Osama thinks just like the liberals: he attacks Israel. An Islamic fundamentalist would never stoop to attacking Jews if John Murtha hadn’t been constantly blaming Israel for the War. (Yeah, sure Cindy Sheehan may have possibly written a letter to Nightline that contained a sentence sort of implicating Israel for supporting the Iraq war, so all leftists and bin Laden are clearly spouting the same hateful rhetoric.) I will go on record here to denounce Michael Moore, John Murtha, John Kerry AND Howard Dean for opposing the establishment of Greater Israel. We must stop feeding bin Laden these talking points.
He calls the war “unjustâ€, like so many liberals. Of course it is “justâ€! We have had at least twenty divergent explanations for its justiness. Damn those liberal hysterics for siding with our enemies.
Just like Howard Dean, Osama calls for his followers to oppose all non-Islamic regimes.
His words read like they were printed by the Democratic Underground:â€Avoid the seven grave sins; polytheism, sorcery, killing, unless permitted by God, usury, taking the money of orphans, fleeing from combat, and slandering innocent faithful women.”
Like Murtha, Osama calls American soldiers cowards.
I would have to describe bin Laden’s detailed description of the battle at Tora Bora (which makes up about half the tape) as not so much a liberal talking point as a plain old gloat. If we didn’t want to hear about it four years later, we should have killed him in 2001. Osama proved his point by being alive; he didn’t need any imaginary NYT editorial to spout this crap.
Bin Laden’s cracks about crusaders, the war’s length and personal-grudge justifications for it were really more Bush talking point gone bad rather than liberal hysteria. It was GWB, after all, that put these gems on the public record for Osama’s amusement: “After all this is the guy who tried to kill my dadâ€, “this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile.”, “Can we win it? I don’t think you can win itâ€.
Osama apologizes for the victims of American torture. Matthews is spot-on there. Only liberal hysterics refuse to unconditionally support the torture of US prisoners.
Still, I really didn’t see how bin Laden’s rants approximated anything I had heard on the Left, so I went to unbiased sources to check what the fuss was about. Joe Scarbourough and Tucker Carlson are objectively all over the story. Scarbourough asserts that bin Laden accuses the US of terrorizing woman and children in Iraq, just like John Kerry. Now everyone knows the Kerry remark was taken out of context, and bin Laden doesn’t mention terrorizing anyone, so this isn’t such a great example. Joe then says that Osama and Howard Dean agree that we can’t win this war, but so does George Bush, so how is this a liberal position? Kennedy and Osama believe the war was launched for political reasons, as do George Bush and Karl Rove, another draw. Tucker pipes in with “Halliburton is responsible for this warâ€, admittedly a reach by any standard. An honest person would have to concede that the war has been very, very good to Halliburton. Its stock value has tripled since 9/11, while the Dow went up 10% over the same period.
This comes down to the inability of the apologists for of the faith-based policies of this Government to mount a rational defense. It would have been lovely if we had been greeted by liberators in Iraq and Chalibi’s only desire was to set up a pro-western, self-funded, free-enterprise democratic utopia. It was reality, not Michael Moore, that spoiled the childish fantasy, and millions of Americans knew that this was a doomed adventure three years ago. It is a sad day when conservatives use a monster like bin Laden to prop up their failed positions.
Ouch Jim.
Got sorta quiet all the sudden.
Davebo, the conversation has both moved to other threads and forums and additionally has dissipated. In fact it wasn’t initiated by the centrist/conservatives so much as by Chris Matthews’s comment and Matthews (hardly a neo-con or much of anything that is very lucid) never did receive much press, at least as judged by google-news, which even now only brings up a total of three sources, none of them very prominent. As for responding to Jim, it wouldn’t be at all difficult to do, even at some length, but the fruitfulness of these discussions has not been – to put it in understated terms – apparent.
To the contrary. Very much to the contrary indeed.