After listening to Chris Hayes and reading that one of his references to the story about Obama assassinations was Glenn Greenwald, I perused many of Greenwald's anti-Obama articles cleverly disguised as "civil libertarian" and wonder how anyone in the progressive movement can take Glenn Greenwald seriously. Greenwald admits to being a civil libertarian, much in the mold of Ayn Rand, Rand Paul and most libertarians on the far right. After doing a stint at a Wall Street corporate law firm (Wachtel, Lipton) he strikes it out on his own by representing white supremacist Matthew Hale, who was the leader of the World Church of the Creator, and is now doing forty years in prison for authorizing a hit on a federal judge. Greenwald has not written a <em>single</em> article that has been favorable toward the Obama Administration, and he was one of the leading voices pushing this disproven idea that Obama is "the same as Bush" to try to undermine Obama's support in his progressive base. The conservative magazine <emForbes</em> indicates Greenwald is "one of the 25 most influential liberals in the media," despite his libertarian views and admission that he is not a liberal.
With this backdrop, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Glenn Greenwald is a conservative/libertarian mole within the progressive movement with the sole mission of undermining the movement. Specifically, with respect to authorized killing of Al Qaeda operatives: since when does one need a trial when one admits in writing continuously that they are part of Al Qaeda and are found to be engaged in an operational role in killing Americans? When have we <em>ever</em> asked on the battlefield whether one is authorized to defend oneself against the guy with the gun shooting at you, who is dressed in enemy gear and who has promised to kill you? Should we do as Greenwald suggests, and call a "time out" during the heat of battle and have a civil trial to determine whether this guy really is what he has demonstrated to be? I am all for due process when it make practical sense, but during the heat of battle when someone is actively trying to kill you, I think defending oneself first in battle and then defending oneself in court later if necessary appears to be the appropriate course of action. Maybe we should put Greenwald on the battlefield and see if he <em>really</em> thinks it's practical to call a time-out and go to court. Only in the wildest fantasy of an obsessed lawyer would such a thought even be possible, and Greenwald appears to be obsessed with second-guessing commanders on the ground, even though he himself could never really imagine what it is like to be on the battlefield of war.
War sucks, and I at least agree with Greenwald that we should avoid war if necessary, and quickly bring to an end any outstanding wars, as long as it is done responsibly so we do not have to go back in after we leave. But Greenwald's obsession with undermining Obama in this effort should make any progressive pause, especially given his right-wing background, his inability to write a single positive story about the Obama administration and his inability to write about anything other than civil liberties that progressives care about.
Santa Cruz, CA
May 22 2010 - 1:45pm