13 2 mins 9 yrs

It was a bad day at Slate when they allowed Glenn Greenwald to escape to The Guardian. The mans’s a gem. It seems he spends most of his time outside of the US now. That’s probably not a bad idea. Here he destroys CNN/government spokesman Jeff Toobin (wearing comical amounts of slap) on the Manning and Snowden affairs, and smashes the pro-State arguments along the way. He does it by logic, reason and turning their arguments back against them, going via Bob Woodward, Daniel Ellsberg and Dana Priest –


h/t economicpolicyjournal

An interesting point is the one about the administration’s public claims that Manning “had blood on his hands”, since debunked in secret. Over here that might be regarded as being prejudicial to a fair trial. Investigations have stopped and trials collapsed because someone influential enough has blabbed without thinking. Nothing would have stopped Manning’s prosecution of course. The State cannot bear to be mocked, so he was always going to be done, but lies that were flung about ahead of his trial were pure propaganda.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]


  1. Pete: great youtube! I can barely stand to watch CNN anymore so I’m glad you posted it, otherwise I would have missed it.

    Greenwald is really impressive and Jeff Toobin is such a tool. Investigative journalism seems to be dying in this Age of Obama

    And Snowden is also not a traitor – although accused.

  2. I don’t know about his voting record or political philosophy, Petr, but I think Greenwald is a very good investigative journalist. Thank God there are one or two left!

    These are odd times.

    For example, although conservative, right wing and pro-Israel, I recently found myself agreeing with Noam Chomsky about Snowden.

    “Turning and turning in a widening gyre…things fall apart; the center cannot hold”

  3. Patty –

    The impression that Greenwald is a Left Winger came about because he rose to prominence by criticising the Bush regime, which he did rather well. Well that’s reasoning based on a non-sequitur.

    He’s much closer to being a (classical) liberal/libertarian.


    Some of his positions/priorities:

    here are views I’ve publicly advocated. Decide for yourself if the “libertarian” label applies:
    * opposing all cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (here and here);
    * repeatedly calling for the prosecution of Wall Street (here, here and here);
    * advocating for robust public financing to eliminate the domination by the rich in political campaigns, writing: “corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture” (here and here);
    * condemning income and wealth inequality as the by-product of corruption (here and here);
    * attacking oligarchs – led by the Koch Brothers – for self-pitying complaints about the government and criticizing policies that favor the rich at the expense of ordinary Americans (here);
    * arguing in favor of a public option for health care reform (repeatedly);
    * criticizing the appointment of too many Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street officials to positions of power (here, here and here);
    * repeatedly condemning the influence of corporate factions in public policy making (here and here);
    * using my blog to raise substantial money for the campaigns of Russ Feingold and left-wing/anti-war Democrats Normon Solomon, Franke Wilmer and Cecil Bothwell, and defending Dennis Kucinich from Democratic Party attacks;
    * co-founding a new group along with Daniel Ellsberg, Laura Poitras, John Cusack, Xeni Jardim [sic], JP Barlow and others to protect press freedom and independent journalism (see the New York Times report on this here);
    * co-founding and working extensively on a PAC to work with labor unions and liberal advocacy groups to recruit progressive primary challengers to conservative Democratic incumbents

  5. Petr Tarasov –

    That’s a Breitbart headline.

    Of those 11 points, libertarians could agree with six and would have little problem with two of them. Noted is that he has called for a return to the 1776 constitutional vision, and that he doesn’t call for worker’s farming collectives.

    You frequently claim that every commie under the sun is no commie, yet all of a sudden Greenwald is Left Wing? By the standards you apply to Mao and Stalin, he’s halfway fascist.

  6. ” At least, I suppose, you appear to accept he’s no libertarian.”

    You mean you’re not the only one?
    There may be more?


Comments are closed.