"Journalist Tom Ricks fails to goad Greenwald into discussing a strawman"

...Russia's crackdown on the media is a "strawman"?

+1,000

for the current news and I am surprised that Greenwald could not articulate a relevant position.

And Greenwald not wanting to answer it is valid, too, if you theorize that he's trying to protect Snowden.

But it was an artless and defensive reply by Greenwald. He has a thin skin and likes to fight with other journalists.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

He likes to fight with fake "journalists."

So do I.

I notice that Greenwald's tendency is to pull the "Look, over there!" response, asking back a totally unrelated and often irrelevant question to deflect attention from the inconvenient subject at hand. And of course, then, never answering what he was asked. It's worse: he demands that the interlocutor answer HIS questions first, before he'll answer theirs. Then, when they do, he still refuses to answer. BUSTED!

In fact, it's a ploy I notice here a lot. When posed with the question of whether Putin's invasion of Crimea was justified, some of the diehards are quick to respond with questions about some prior, random untoward US action. And even when they receive responses, they still won't answer whether Putin acted correctly.

Let's be frank: this is CHILDISH. It's like when Mom catches you with your hand in the cookie jar and your defense is, "Yeah, well Tommy pooped in his pants!"

is that similar to this:

Greenwald: "Here's a bunch of information about what the NSA is doing."

Ricks: "But what about Russia?!?"

Greenwald is the only person in the universe who gets to set the topic of discussion. Everyone must focus on his topic, always and in every situation, and nothing else is to be discussed. Harumph.

Ricks has written plenty about the NSA and the Snowden revelations, so it's not HIM that was being asked the question. He started the conversation by asking a single question about media shutdowns in Russia. This is not some question out of left field for Greenwald, given his interest in first amendment rights and the protection of journalists from censorship. Game, set, match.

Sorry, but you can't turn the tables yet AGAIN.

He doesn't write about Russian or Brazillian politics, because that's not what he is interested in. He is first and foremost interested in what his own country, the United States, is doing, and so he focuses his efforts on those topics involving the United States.

Ricks tweeted this:

an organization called the Freedom of the Press Foundation, it would seem that you have placed yourself in the position of being legitimately asked about issues regarding **Freedom of the Press** by a member of the press. No matter where those issues arise. There's simply no way to wiggle out of that one.

https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/about/staff

PS: Don't pull the tweet that is way down the line in this conversation to try to prove your point. This was 13 hours after Greenwald refused a simple question about a subject he purports to care about: namely, freedom of the press.

with respect to his reportage on the NSA, by a member (Ricks) of the CNAS (a defense policy think tank) with a vested interest in disparaging Greenwald's character.

a thread yesterday with a similar sentiment. I don't understand why Snowden needs to comment on Russian politics at all or why some people have the need for him to do so.

who have posted something similar.

when other countries have similar issues or are worse. There is an irony of Snowden going to Russia and calling it a protector of freedom. Maybe for him but not for the Russians generally.

It would be like me saying the Russians do much worse, so what the NSA does is negligible and perfectly OK. I doubt you or Glenn are going to think that's OK. Yet that's what he's doing here. Saying he will pontificate on a subject and judge one country, but refuses to consider similar fact patterns of other countries, because they might disturb his conclusions.

that is in direct opposition to the motive that GG and Snowden have been proclaiming...

"Ricks' question was appropriate for the current news and I am surprised that Greenwald could not articulate a relevant position."

...is supposed to question Greenwald. I believe some think that's in the Constitution.

If you're critical of Greenwald, you're "attacking the messenger," but it's OK to attack someone who asked Greenwald a question and called him out for his non-response.

Thank you Democracyinkind,

I believe Snowden, Greenwald, and company are our last hope at getting this nation back on track. I'm excited by the collaborative efforts of these folks (The Intercept) in providing a worthy source where the corporate media has chosen to ignore (or more accurately - deceive).

I'm saddened by the small band of on-queue, blind party loyalists here on DU, and those who spend every waking breath, clawing for smear material in order to defend the indefensible. In my tent, there's no room for this, or similarly Karl Rove.

The current administration has, in no small measure, failed. What was once the political party I felt really cared about those they claim to represent has morphed into something very ugly and unrecognizable. One word captures this transformation quite effectively - criminal.

I've been following this site since The Dark Days of GW, but remain shy in joining in on the discussion. Essentially I feel that others are more eloquent in articulating my position - much like yourself

Thanks for sharing the jury information with me, as well as the opportunity to live and learn.

Peace

You have a talent for expressing your opinion in a clear, unequivocal manner.

I appreciate your directness.
Please post more here at DU.

"I especially am becoming more sympathetic to Snowden the more current and former American intelligence officials talk about killing Snowden and holding forth in other ways. Bart Gellman, one of the reporters who has broken a lot of Snowden's news, wrote of a confrontation with a self-righteous general last summer, who angrily said to him, "We didn't have another 9/11 [because intelligence enabled warfighters to find the enemy first]. Until you've got to pull the trigger, until you've had to bury your people, you don't have a clue."

Of what he describes as authoritarian tactics of US, England, and other western nations...his silence on such a huge geopolitical move by one of the G8 and UN security council permanent member is pretty ridiculous.

documents and expounding on the government secrets, surveillance and nefarious deeds of China and Russia. Then I would say, "those guys really are courageous--and they're consistent!" Think it will ever happen? Of course not, because that's not their job. Their job is to undermine the US.

Snowden did when he worked for BAH, right?

My guess is that if someone - far less known than Snowden is these days - were to get that information from Russia and/or China, Greenwald would print it upon verification. Not a stretch.

Jesus, DU is starting to look like the comments section of YouTube.

*derp, derp, derp, Snowden should steal some commie USSR Soviet commie docs!!! aree-huh-duh-derrrr!!!!!"

Uh huh. That's why they're not doing it. Plus, it's all their patriotic LOVE for this country (that neither live in) that makes them focus their efforts solely on the US. Goddamn, the gullible and easily influenced.

Can't afford to. Too "old" to get a job offer elsewhere.

Talk about gullible and easily influenced.

Why does that matter?

Seems he's gotten pretty comfortable in the Kremlin's shadow.

They aren't principled and have no real values in their politics.


http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html

... By "nationalism" I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled "good" or "bad." But secondly -- and this is much more important -- I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.

... It is also worth emphasizing once again that nationalist feeling can be purely negative. There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the USSR without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist -- that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating -- but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also -- since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself -- unshakeably certain of being in the right.

... (examples of) NEGATIVE NATIONALISM

1. ANGLOPHOBIA. Within the intelligentsia, a derisive and mildly hostile attitude towards Britain is more or less compulsory, but it is an unfaked emotion in many cases. During the war it was manifested in the defeatism of the intelligentsia, which persisted long after it had become clear that the Axis powers could not win. Many people were undisguisedly pleased when Singapore fell ore when the British were driven out of Greece, and there was a remarkable unwillingness to believe in good news, e.g. el Alamein, or the number of German planes shot down in the Battle of Britain. English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong. As a result, "enlightened" opinion is quite largely a mirror-image of Conservative policy. Anglophobia is always liable to reversal, hence that fairly common spectacle, the pacifist of one war who is a bellicist in the next.
.
.
.

more at above link

and a perfectly legal one at that, so I think you might have a valid point.

shocked by an authoritarian state's suppression of the media? And while in the iron clutches of that state, they are supposed to take umbrage as if there were moral ground to stand on and they were just refusing to do so?

I dunno. Yeah, goading i what it is. And who is to sat Ricks isn't just another embedded military stooge for the national security establishment?

If I were them, I would never respond to random attacks, just keep on script. They didn't invade the Crimea, after all.

I bet they'd get along splendidly.

a random attack?

"Glenn, any comments from you or Edward Snowden on the recent round of media shutdowns in Russia?"

Oh my gawd! Horrible, vicious attack!!

He's there - saying something could land him in jail.

That's your logic.

He might never be able to talk to Snowden again afterwards because I am sure Putin and his goons would cut off access, but he isn't protecting his source.

That was the initial argument.

except for you.

Ed is in Moscow. Glenn is not. Glenn is where he can say what he thinks of Putin without reprisal.

one peep against Putin. Good, because where it was just an educated guess before.. now there's proof that Glenn's lips are zipped when it come to saying anything negative about snowald's Russian benefactors.

snip//

"He did mockingly tweet this morning, "Has Snowden condemned the earthquake in LA yet?"

His point being, I suppose, that Greenwald and Snowden are not required to comment on all events. My point being that the LA earthquake has not enabled Snowden's actions."

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/03/17/ok_i_have_had_it_with_the_moral_posturing_of_glenn_greenwald_and_edward_snowden

Greenwald and Snowden don't stand up to scrutiny.. it's a good thing for them they have so many fans who don't give a shit what they say or do. Anti-America First.. and the rest of the world can do whatever the fuck it wants. "Moral Posturing", Indeed.

He is pretty well stuck in Russia and GG and Poitras and all the others can sell Snowden's contraband to whoever for the best price. So far they got a good deal with Omidyar - I doubt so very much they'd get that offering if they didn't have all those documents.

How utterly shameful. The idea that people can support this kind of deceit is .... well it pretty well proves why we can't have nice things.

What do GG and Eddie call you? Whispy?

I'm beginning to suspect the worst about him!

if someone has more information on that I would appreciate a link.

Something tells me this has something to do about Greenwald's avoiding that question.

This from Feb. 26:
http://pando.com/2014/02/28/pierre-omidyar-co-funded-ukraine-revolution-groups-with-us-government-documents-show/

Wheeler is partly correct. Pando has confirmed that the American government – in the form of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) – played a major role in funding opposition groups prior to the revolution. Moreover, a large percentage of the rest of the funding to those same groups came from a US billionaire who has previously worked closely with US government agencies to further his own business interests. This was by no means a US-backed “coup,” but clear evidence shows that US investment was a force multiplier for many of the groups involved in overthrowing Yanukovych.

But that’s not the shocking part.

What’s shocking is the name of the billionaire who co-invested with the US government (or as Wheeler put it: the “dark deep force” acting on behalf of “Pax Americana”).

Step out of the shadows…. Wheeler’s boss, Pierre Omidyar.

Yes, in the annals of independent media, this might be the strangest twist ever: According to financial disclosures and reports seen by Pando, the founder and publisher of Glenn Greenwald’s government-bashing blog,“The Intercept,” co-invested with the US government to help fund regime change in Ukraine.

I'll check it out when I return.

" he'd be "happy to comment," but not before he saw Greenwald denounce Vladmir Putin "and his crackdown..."

I guess a lot of people require that their conversations on A be predicated on the wholly different topic B. I'm further guessing that they even pretend to have a valid reason to do so... like in this instance.

for causing the Snowden and Greenwald fanbois and fangrrls to petulantly flail their tiny fists.



Sid

And then it transpired that Omidyar was secretly funding the protests, and now Glenn doesn't want to talk about it?

Hmm.

Also, he has boxes in garage....or is that the other guy?

but let's try.

eom

Not presently, no. Assanexpat.

are you kidding with this NonSense?! better luck tomorrow.

Leave Greenwald alone.

I think some people believe the Constitution bans criticism of Greenwald or even asking him a question. LOL!

I think the separation of powers may ban the spying of one branch of government on another branch.

WAIT, look over there, Putin!

"I'm not sure about the Constitution and Greenwald, but I think the separation of powers may ban the spying of one branch of government on another branch. "

..."separation of powers " doesn't apply to criticism on DU.

he is selling that 99% that has not yet been released to his boss Omidyar basically, and profiting nicely from it I'm sure all under the guise of saving freedom of speech and lollipops and free journalism around the globe.

What a fucking weasel. The slowest leaker in history. Maybe when his new book comes out he will feed out just enough bait for more sales. jaysuz, how some can't see through this charlatan is a sad mystery.

We can use it for all the hit pieces directed at people who don't clap loudly enough for the national security state.

be a Leave GG ALONE Group.

The only way he knows how to answer a tough question is to ask that person a few 'tough' questions which have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic on hand...

Talking Points Memo ✔ @TPM

To TPM, Greenwald quotes Chomsky—"My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state" http://bit.ly/PJ6LFU
Bobfr @Our4thEstate
Follow
@TPM Wonder how #Greenwald's FSB handlers will respond to him referring to Russia (aka CCCP 2.0) that way. #Crimea pic.twitter.com/Ivq3DtI8QV
9:31 AM - 17 Mar 2014
1 Retweet
Reply
Retweet
Favorite


<<<Greenwald

DAMAGE CONTROL EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM!

I've been doing a pretty good job of not trusting anyone


(not directed specifically at this OP, I just haven't had much to say about the topic so I thought I'd say that)

Greenwald took the hypocritic oath.

brain surgery, cog.

...the Center for a New American Security.

Just when you thought PNAC was gone.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2100758

unlike Greenwald and this guy: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023676169

Peter Beinart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Beinart#Works_and_views

about whatever deal is in place with the Russian Gov't to guarantee Snowden's safety, along with feeding, clothing and housing him -- Because the question isn't going away no matter how much he ducks, evades, and re-directs....

The first condition of the deal (no criticism or negative comments of Russia's domestic and international policies) is *clearly* obvious by now...I've been wondering how many more conditions were agreed to, and what they might be...