Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Greenwald gets it wrong again (UPDATE)
Posted by: McQ on Monday, February 26, 2007

Glenn Greenwald attempts to take Joe Lieberman to task for dishonesty about Iraq. His example, however, is an example in and of itself. It is an example of shoddy research and misunderstanding the mission of the military in Iraq, which leads to a factually unsupportable allegation, not that it comes as a particular surprise:
Just compare these two statements:

Joe Lieberman, today: "previously there weren't enough soldiers to hold key neighborhoods after they had been cleared of extremists and militias."

Joe Lieberman, 2005: "The administration's recent use of the banner 'clear, hold, and build' accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week."

How can Joe Lieberman claim today that we previously lacked sufficient troop strength to hold neighborhoods after they were cleared, when he insisted a year ago that we were holding neighborhoods — he saw it himself — and that we were therefore on the verge of success?
How can he make those claims, Mr. Greenwald? Well it's really not that difficult. First, 'clear, hold, and build' wasn't our mission in most of Iraq in 2005. In fact, it was only done in one area. That was the town of Tall Afar during the year cited in the Lieberman quote. From the WaPo:
McMaster said the reconstruction of Tall Afar would begin soon after offensive operations were complete and insisted the city would not fall under insurgent control again. Already, $2.4 million in U.S. money has been allocated for infrastructure projects, but because of the violence, the military had been unable to persuade contractors to work here.

"They want this city to fail. They want Iraq to fail," McMaster said of the insurgents. "But the No. 1 priority is being met by this operation, which is to defeat the terrorists so they can no longer prevent reconstruction from happening."
I mean this was in all the papers, Mr. Greenwald.

In fact, McMaster was very explicit about its importance:
"This was the first 'clear and hold,' " McMaster recalled in an interview in his plywood office just southwest of Tall Afar.
Tall Afar was cited as the model for clearing, holding and building. And it was apparently internalized within the new COIN doctrine which Gen. Petraeus was in charge of writing.

And, given the number of trips which Joe Lieberman has made to Iraq, it stands to reason that he probably did see exactly what he said he saw in 2005. Since that is when Tall Afar was a success, it was most likely on the tour for visiting Congressmen.

Lieberman understood, unlike Greenwald, that what he saw in Tall Afar wasn't the norm for the rest of Iraq. So there is no conflict whatsoever in the two statements once you apply the context (what a concept, eh?) in which they were spoken. But you must also be able to combine that with at least a rudimentary understanding of events and missions within Iraq up to this time.

Oh, and the "McMaster" cited in the article is COL H.R. McMaster who is working with Gen. Petraeus in Baghdad to do in that city what he accomplished in Tall Afar.

So it seems Lieberman was right when he said it had been done (Tall Afar)in 2005 and he was also right to say that for the most part there weren't enough soldiers to do the same elsewhere (such as Baghdad), not that I expect you to ever admit it, Mr. Greenwald.

UPDATE: Mona gets a special thanks for beaming in and providing info that proves Greenwald is a bigger fraud than first suspected. As I mentioned, there is no context provided with the two Lieberman quotes in his post. So you are left to conclude that he's talking about US troops in both. That, of course, would be an 'apples to apples' comparison and thus, seemingly, a contradiction.

My mistake was taking Greenwald's inference at face value. In fact Mona provides the cite from which Greenwald takes the 2005 quote. It is a 1,000+ word editorial written by Lieberman in November of 2005 after he'd returned from Iraq. Greenwald chooses a single sentence from the piece to quote and leaves the reader to conclude, given the first quote from "today", that the "we" he's talking about are US troops and the surge. However, in reality, Lieberman is talking about Iraqis in the 2005 quote.

The proper context for the second quote is:
We are now embedding a core of Coalition Forces in every Iraqi fighting unit which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in “clearing” and “holding” is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul, and Talafar and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being “held” secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and Coalition Forces are now jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle.

Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to “lead the fight” themselves with logistical support from the U.S. and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could be able to begin to drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006.
There is nothing factually incorrect about what Lieberman says here. What he doesn't say although Greenwald claims he does, is that "we" were on the "verge of success". Any reasonable person would read what Lieberman said as a report on progress, not a claim of being on the "verge of success".

Secondly - and this is key - at the time the 2005 piece was written, Operation Forward Together hadn't begun in Baghdad. That was the operation in which "clear, hold and build" was to be initiated in Baghdad. As we all know, OFT was deemed a failure for a particular reason. And that reason is "there weren't enough soldiers to hold key neighborhoods after they had been cleared of extremists and militias", just as Lieberman said "today".

Thus the reason for the surge.

Got that? It is that failure alone, not failure in other parts of Iraq to implement "clear, hold and build", that prompted the surge.

In 17 of 18 of Iraq's provinces (excluding al Anbar and Baghdad), the Iraqis were taking the lead and "clear hold and build" was being implemented. Tall Afar, as I note, was the first US example, but, as Lieberman reported, other examples in other areas of Iraq were evident in 2005.

Baghdad, however, continued to defy those efforts prompting the surge in which both the US and Iraq are to send in more troops in order to successfully implement "clear, hold and build" there. Thus there is nothing dishonest, corrupt or disgraceful in any of this except in Greenwald's mischaracterization of the Lieberman quotes in order to smear him.

So again, thanks Mona. Context ... what a concept, eh?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Greenwald has two possible come-backs here:

1. He could go the Emiliy Litella route: "never mind."

2. He could go the Homer Simson route: "d’OH!"


 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Just a question from an inquiring mind; Has Glenn(Sockpuppet) Greenwald EVER been right about anything he has ever blogged about?
Just wondering.
 
Written By: FireFireFire
URL: http://
Greenwald EVER been right about anything he has ever blogged about?
Just wondering.
Who cares? He speaks truth, like, to power, man, you know, for the children and for the 300,000,001 Americans without the type of health care coverage only Fidel Castro can afford.

 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
So McQ just imagines that it must have been Talafar that Joe saw and solely meant when he wrote happy-happy tales about Iraq in 2005, and so Greenwald got it wrong, he did! Oh please, from that same 2005 Lieberman editorial, my emphasis of Joe’s rosy picture where vast swathes of Iraq — not remotely just Talafar — are clearing, holding, building and going so well; you know, kinda like now in 2007 we are are starting something new and all is going to be well real, real soon according to Joe:

The administration’s recent use of the banner “clear, hold, and build” accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.


We are now embedding a core of Coalition Forces in every Iraqi fighting unit which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in “clearing” and “holding” is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul, and Talafar and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being “held” secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and Coalition Forces are now jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle.


Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to “lead the fight” themselves with logistical support from the U.S. and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could be able to begin to drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006.
So it seems that Greenwald got it right, not that I expect you to ever admit it, McQ.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://highclearing.com/
What a surprise, Mona thinks Ellison Greenwald is right, and comes here to defend hims.

Perhaps Mona, you will reread the passage you quoted and recognize that the clear and hold policy Lieberman saw in 2005 is not the clear and hold policy Petraeus is now advocating.
The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul, and Talafar and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being “held” secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and Coalition Forces are now jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi...

But then again probably not...
After all, you’ve the story told to you the way you want to hear it, and you’re sticking to it.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
"the new COIN doctrine"

Actually I don’t think that clear-hold-build is all that new. As I believe you pointed out in a post some months ago, that was basically the doctrine upon which the Green Berets was founded. The Marine Corps Civic Action Program (CAP) was also basically a clear-hold-build program, with training and medical care thrown in. Hopefully our military leadership has also rediscovered the Phoenix program.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
bains, this is what McQ wrote:
First, ’clear, hold, and build’ wasn’t our mission in most of Iraq in 2005. In fact, it was only done in one area. That was the town of Tall Afar during the year cited in the Lieberman quote.
And based on absolutely nothing but his own conjecture, he claimed Greenwald was wrong because in 2005 Joe Lieberman was supposedly speaking about a clear and hold policy in only Talafar, an error on which McQ’s whole post is predicated; the very simple and obvious expedient of reading Liberman’s piece to which Greenwald linked would have disabused McQ of this mistaken notion on which his entire criticism of Greenwald is premised.

Your vapid special pleading and goal-post shifting (Patraeus means a new and improved clear and hold... alrighty, then) doesn’t change the fact that Greenwald was not wrong, and certainly was not for any reason McQ claimed.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://highclearing.com/
Mona has made an appearance. The usual fine work. We can start with the charge of dishonesty. Lieberman could have been wrong or overly optimistic without being dishonest, but as usual the sock can’t stick to that charge.

The mission and its execution are different as well as bains points out.

I also can’t understand your impatience with McQ for supposedly being unwilling to admit he is wrong. You seem to be able to forgive Greenwald’s errors over and over again, and as you have told me, he never admits he is wrong.

Come to think of it, you never do either.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
So McQ just imagines that it must have been Talafar that Joe saw and solely meant when he wrote happy-happy tales about Iraq in 2005, and so Greenwald got it wrong, he did!
Ah, the sycophant appears, right on cue.

Imagine? Not really ... again, given number of trips Lieberman’s made coupled with the success of Tall Afar, I’d be willing to bet on it. However, I’m not sure why you give Greenwald a pass on imagining he didn’t.
So it seems that Greenwald got it right, not that I expect you to ever admit it, McQ.
Uh, no Mona ... despite your best effort (and as bains so ably points out) Lieberman’s recent point was about the US capability to clear, hold and build, not the Iraqis.

Unless Greenwald meant something else when he said "...we previously lacked sufficient troop strength to hold neighborhoods...". Who’s ’we’, Mona?

Isn’t that what the discussion now underway is all about? We. Us. You know, the "surge" of US troops necessary to ’clear, hold and build’? You have kept up with that haven’t you?

The entire effort previous to the surge was to teach the Iraqis to clear hold and build (thus the core embedded coalition units. They were the ’teachers’ but had no capability of "clearing, holding or building" themselves).

The strategy was based on ISF units doing it, not US units.

And the reason US units weren’t doing it is because "previously there weren’t enough [US]soldiers to hold key neighborhoods after they had been cleared of extremists and militias", just as Lieberman said.

Not that I expect you or what’s his name to admit it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
And based on absolutely nothing but his own conjecture, he claimed Greenwald was wrong because in 2005 Joe Lieberman was supposedly speaking about a clear and hold policy in only Talafar, an error on which McQ’s whole post is predicated; the very simple and obvious expedient of reading Liberman’s piece to which Greenwald linked would have disabused McQ of this mistaken notion on which his entire criticism of Greenwald is premised.
Totally incorrect Mona. What Greenwald said was this:
How can Joe Lieberman claim today that we previously lacked sufficient troop strength to hold neighborhoods after they were cleared, when he insisted a year ago that we were holding neighborhoods — he saw it himself — and that we were therefore on the verge of success?
That statement completely lacks context. Again, who is ’we’? Lieberman is talking about US forces right now since that’s what the debate in Congress is about at the moment.

So if Lieberman wasn’t talking about the ISF, but instead of US forces, which seems most reasonable, then you tell me, how is the statement ""previously there weren’t enough soldiers to hold key neighborhoods after they had been cleared of extremists and militias" false? Who’s soldiers is he talking about?

And how is it contradicted by the 2005 statement if then he was talking about the ISF?

Oh, and remember that the ISF has taken the lead in all but al Anbar province and in Baghdad. So how has what he said in 2005 been contradicted? It’s Greenwald’s claim that we were on the ’verge of success’, not Liebermans.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Lance: I have repeatedly admitted it when I am wrong — including at this very site when I unfairly characterized something Dale said, and retracted it and said I was wrong, point blank. Further, Greenwald has done so as well of late when he erred about something he posted.

But let’s say Greenwald had been wrong about everything else he has ever written, and also had never admitted it. That does not change the fact that nothing in McQ’s post is correct as to why Greenwald is supposedly wrong now. Nothing Bains has added, or that McQ has added here in comments, makes Greenwald wrong, and is not the basis on which McQ originally claimed he purportedly was wrong. Lieberman was sure the clearing, holding and building he saw all over Iraq (and not just Talfar) in 2005 was probably going to lead to U.S. troop reductions in 2006. What rosy-eyed drivel — but we should believe his prognostications now? Why?

And with that, I bid you all adieu. Rank factual inaccuracies are a pet peeve of mine; I’ve made the correction needed for McQ’s post, and my work here therefore is done.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://highclearing.com/
I’m not sure why you give Greenwald a pass on imagining he didn’t.
That is the kicker isn’t it. I mean your conjecture (and I appreciate the plug Mona, the world needs to use that word more often;^)actually fits with what was happening then and now and all, but somehow on mere conjecture Greenwald gets to imagine whatever the hell he wants. Nevermind that if Lieberman were here he would suggest the same thought pattern as you, somehow Greenwald’s conjecture is a-okay, no matter how mean spirited and tendentious it is.

Classic comedy. I am no fan of Lieberman’s but I never thought of the old liberal scold as dishonest. Stubborn maybe, but not dishonest compared to most. Of course few things are as fun as watching him get the left and their fellow travelers panties in a wad.
It’s Greenwald’s claim that we were on the ’verge of success’, not Liebermans.
What? Are you claiming Greenwald and Mona are putting words in his mouth? Heaven forbid. There is always only one way to interpret anything, and it is whatever those two say it is. They got that from Hayek I believe. I never did read The Fatal Conceit all the way through, it must be in there somewhere and the title is meant to be ironic.

I guess she’ll throw you in with ole’ DA Ridgeley as someone who unreasonably can see a different interpretation than she and the cloth marionette. Too funny.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
And with that, I bid you all adieu. Rank factual inaccuracies are a pet peeve of mine; I’ve made the correction needed for McQ’s post, and my work here therefore is done.
Mighty high opinion of yourself, and no, you showed none of that stuff you claimed was false. I do love your announcements upon leaving though. Such high drama as if you were in a ball room and want to make sure everybody takes note of you stomping out the door. What was it Michael said when you last stomped out on all we abandoned suitors? I think it was something that started with Ding, Dong, the...... Some obscure Judy Garland movie reference I think.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Rank factual inaccuracies are a pet peeve of mine; I’ve made the correction needed for McQ’s post, and my work here therefore is done.
Mona, of course, never bothers with the contextual problem which was pointed out. For instance, why didn’t Greenwald use the extended quote Mona trotted out?

Why this snippet instead of the quote in some sort of context?
"The administration’s recent use of the banner ’clear, hold, and build’ accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week."
It should be obvious. Because there’s a different inference to be taken from the shortened quote than the longer version.

Given just that contextless quote by Greenwald, my response in the post was perfectly reasonable. And that was precisely the context Greenwald was attempting to give the quote in question. A false inference from an out of context quote.

So no Mona, if anything you’ve pointed out how Greenwald is even more disingenuous than I had contended. He attempted to present this in a way that was markedly different than the context of those two quotes. And your appearance helped sink him completely.

Thanks.

Btw, nice avoidance of all the other dishonesty I’ve pointed out. Still no answer to the ’we’ question?

For one who is so self-righteous about "rank dishonesty" it seems you’re not above ignoring it if it doesn’t serve your purpose of the moment, or in fact, committing a bit yourself.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Mona,

It’s not as if things in a counter-insurgency don’t seesaw back and forth a bit.

The enemy gets a vote.

I recall we had "cleared" Haifa St., but now it needs clearing again.

In Anbar, many of the places we cleared ended up in trouble because there were not enough troops (Iraqi) to follow on. In Mosul, it was better.

Besides in your quote it specifically says "tall afar" so McQ’s basic point is in fact confirmed...Lieberman could have seen such operations at several locations in Iraq. Prior to 2006-2007, we were focused more on Anbar, but now that seems to have settled down (except Ramadi) and Baghdad has become the focus.

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Lieberman’s recent point was about the US capability to clear, hold and build, not the Iraqis.
Yeah it all depends on what the meaning of ’is’ is.
 
Written By: Fledermaus
URL: http://
Actually I don’t think that clear-hold-build is all that new ...
I don’t believe I ever said it was. I said the COIN doctrine is new (and c-h-b is only a small part of that doctrine).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Greenwald seems to have built a cottage industry for himself being outraged by "liars," and in Greenwald’s world there are only anti-war Democrats and liars.

The focus of today’s outrage is poor Joe Lieberman’s essay in the Wall Street Journal in support of the surge. It isn’t just wrong. It is "an act of dishonesty and corruption as audacious and disgraceful as one can find."

It is dishonest and corrupt, according to Greenwald, because the "new strategy" that Lieberman is praising is the same as the old, failed strategy that Lieberman was trumpeting last year.

Except that it is quite possible, indeed probable, that Lieberman had been shown some models of success in Iraq last year that he believes can now be replicated in Baghdad with a stronger American presence.

Of course, it is debatable whether or not this is a reasonable hope to have, but Greenwald would like to avoid that particular boring discussion in favor of simply finding a way to interpret Lieberman that will allow him to work himself into a melodramatic foot-stomping outrage.

Meanwhile, the Q and O guys have been evaluating the surge as a military strategy. It isn’t as theatrical, but it is a lot more informative.


 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
And with that, I bid you all adieu.
You messed up the exit line, you stupid bint.

The proper exclamation is Good DAY, sir! when you declare your imagined superiority and then run away from the debate.
 
Written By: Thomas Ryan Wilson Hypatia Ellison Ellens-Ellersburg
URL: http://
Clear, hold, and build isn’t new, but we are applying it to a new area, that area being Baghdad.

In every previous CHB operation, we required 2 things, Iraqi troops to hold the areas, and local leaders with the political will to back the operation. Without those two things, the operations would have been doomed to failure, as the local leaders would denounce the inevitable destruction and civilian casualties that occur.

But, when you have a determined enemy who digs in within a civilian population, doesn’t wear a distinguishable uniform, and otherwise doesn’t follow the rules of war, those are the results.

So, the previous large scale security operation we tried, last year, failed because we lacked the Iraqi troops to hold the neighborhoods and the government there lacked the political will to deal with everyone and anyone, no matter what their sect or political backing.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://inactivist.org/blog/keith_indy
Regarding the update, CONTEXT is everything, and Greenwald never puts things into their proper context.

He would rather rhetorically smear someone.

Why let the facts stand in the way of a good attack.

Also, the point in my previous post holds, Operation Forward Together failed for two reasons, not enough Iraqi troops and a lack of will from the Iraqi government. It does no good to go after the militias and deaths squads of only one side of the fight. Everyone must put down their arms.

Anyone, regardless of what side they are on, who doesn’t put down their arms and join the political process, needs to be treated the same way. That was a glaring failure the last time around, and it is one of the signs of hope this time around.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://inactivist.org/blog/keith_indy
And of course, before I’m attacked myself, when I say, Greenwald never, I really mean, nothing I’ve ever read of Greenwald.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://inactivist.org/blog/keith_indy
Keith,

I was quoting Mona. She is the one who said Greenwald never admits he is wrong. I just say that I see no evidence she is incorrect on any key points.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
I just say that I see no evidence she is incorrect on any key points.
About Greenwald refusing to admit he is wrong I mean. On other matters she is if not wrong, hysterical.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Mona.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://

How dare you criticize Greenwald!
              |



 
Written By: Korla Pundit
URL: http://www.korlapundit.com
Jealous much?

Glenn Greenwald has had his statements engraved on the door of the Senate, has twelve law degrees, and is author of the New York Times Best Selling Book “How Would A Patriot Omit Relevant Context?” His offhand comments to his dog often become front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country. And he has the most-read blogs on the Interent, or indeed the history of civilization, after just 9 days of blogging. I love how all you super-important rightwing bloggers attack me, I mean him, just to get traffic.

I bid you GOOD DAY, sir.
 
Written By: TallDave
URL: http://semirandomramblings.blogspot.com
Look, nobody other than the loony tunes on the far Left pay any attention to Greenwald anymore. In fact, Senator Feingold apologized to an audience recently for having cited Greenwald as some kind of authority while the Senator was making remarks on the Senate floor. He said it was one of his more regrettable moments on the Senate floor.
 
Written By: J. Cole
URL: http://
Lieberman was sure the clearing, holding and building he saw all over Iraq (and not just Talfar) in 2005 was probably going to lead to U.S. troop reductions in 2006. What rosy-eyed drivel — but we should believe his prognostications now? Why?
Well, we could debate whether or not the assumptions behind the new strategy appear reasonable or not. One way we could evaluate the new strategy would be to look at Tall Afar, where Colonel McMaster ran what amounted to a pilot program in 2005.

Joe Lieberman wants Americans to give the surge a chance to work. He claims to have seen some successes in Iraq and he believes that the techniques that led to those successes could be applied to Baghdad. Since propositions about what Joe Lieberman was thinking when he wrote his Op-Ed are inherently unprovable, we could choose to assume that he is drawing on the lessons of places like Tall Afar, and proceed to have the debate.

Greenwald chose Option B: He chose to assume that Lieberman is an evil liar, and spent an entire column on Salon.Com basically saying "Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Liar, liar pants on fire!"
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Mona, are you Greenwald’s mother or something?

Because every time I end up at a blog that mentions Greenwald or (Heaven forbid) offers a critique of something he’s written you are immediately in the comments defending him.

Do you have a set up with an email with a loud audio alarm that notifies you whenever anyone on the net mentions Greenwald?

Or are you another of his sock puppets?
 
Written By: Ellison?
URL: http://
Perhaps mona is a member of the GADL...
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com/
Mona, if you could just have Misters Greenwald carve the truth into a couple of stone tablets and schlep them down the mountain for deliverance unto we heathens, I’m sure it would clear things right up.

Ellers akbar!
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
First time visitor. I have a question: what do you expect to read in Salon? A dissertation on Free Markets? A thoughtful piece about saving democracy in Russia? Salon is, well it’s Salon and the only interesting thing that has ever been in that rag is the occasional literate paragraph by Camille Paglia (the Libertarian Democrat???) which is buried among the hundred or so other rambling paragraphs.

I like the other parts of your blog and I’ll keep coming back.
 
Written By: Howard Veit
URL: http://oraculations.blogspot.com
Camille Paglia
That’s reason enough to read it Howard. I’m a Paglia fan (as I assume you are). The rest? Blog fodder ... you know how that works. ;)

Thanks for stopping by and yes, by all means, do come back.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"His offhand comments to his dog often become front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country."

Do not take this comment lightly, a man so socially graced that his dog can type, is one everyone should pay attention to. Even without all the accolades, the dog has a very strong point to make, and does so with extreme elloquence. Let’s not subdue the dog’s ability to feed his master, it is a tendency we should avoid.
Myself, I like the dogs thoughts, though they generally make no real sense.

Good day sir,
Doggy
 
Written By: Robert
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider