More On Greenwald And “Extremist Rhetoric”
As a follow-up to my post on the liberal blogosphere, Greenwald, and MSM attention, I’d like to note a little hypocrisy on Greenwald’s part. In my previous post, I pointed out Greenwald’s argument that conservative bloggers are responsible for “extremist rhetoric” and “hate-mongering” which are, as Greenwald implies, worse than anything found in the liberal blogosphere. He also points out that prominent conservative bloggers either produce or link to this stuff regularly.
Well, here’s an perfect example of my point that what is “offensive” is often a subjective judgement of the reader. Yesterday, Greenwald linked to this filth by Cenk Uygur, calling it an “excellent post.” Uygur is commenting on both Bill Kristol’s appearance on FOX News Sunday and his column in which he argues that the United States should consider attacking Iran’s nuclear capability now. But unlike George Will’s response to Kristol’s argument, Uygur’s is nothing but fact-less drivel and name-calling with a side of troop bashing:
Bill Kristol has never seen a war he didn’t like. No, that’s too soft. A war he didn’t love and lust after. Here’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing pretending to be serious, sober minded analyst on television when in reality he is trying to get us sucked into horrific wars that other people will die fighting. Will he ever put on a uniform and fight any of the wars he so desperately wants to start? Hell no. Will anyone in his family or friends? Hell no.
They love to start wars, not fight them. That’s for the poor schmucks who don’t know any better and sign up to run the fool’s errands Kristol wants to send them on. (my emphasis)
You get that? Our troops are stupid “schmucks” that don’t really have any idea what they’re doing. But this is an “excellent post” according to Greenwald.
But even more amusing, Greenwald uses Uygur’s post to refute Kristol’s claim that “”Israel is fighting four of our five enemies in the Middle East.” Here’s what Greenwald writes:
So, “Israel is fighting four of our five enemies in the Middle East” — the only small exception being Al-Qaeda, which, as Cenk Uygur pointed out in this excellent post, happens to be the only group which actually attacked us. As I noted on Saturday, Kristol is now arguing that the Israeli war is really “our war,” and on Sunday he took that a step further by claiming that groups devoted exclusively to fighting Israel are somehow also among our “five enemies in the Middle East.” (Interestingly, Kristol doesn’t appear to count among our five Middle Eastern enemies the insurgents whom we are actually fighting in Iraq; he only counts as our enemies those whom Israel is currently attacking or threatening to attack).
In what conceivable way are Hamas and Hezbollah enemies of the United States? They are unquestionably enemies of Israel, but what grounds exist even for arguing that they are our enemies? And while Syria undoubtedly is no fan of the U.S., what actions has it engaged in that would make it a threat to the U.S. even remotely sufficient to wage war on it? Plainly, Kristol, like so many neoconservatives, recognizes no difference of any kind between U.S. and Israeli interests, and is thus salivating at the opportunity to finally induce the U.S. to wage war on Israel’s enemies.
Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah are the four enemies which Kristol is referring to. Let me educate Greenwald for a moment. The United States has “actually” been attacked by Hezbollah–that terrorist organization bombed a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut killing 241 Marines, soldiers, and sailors. Furthermore, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that, “It is beyond question that Hezbollah and its agents received massive material and technical support from the Iranian government.” In terms of Hamas and Syria, certainly neither has done anything to the United States that equals Beirut, but it’s rather naive to argue that both are exclusively problems for Israel but not the United States. The common thread is Islamic extremism and the country or group affiliation is largely irrelevant.
Anyway, my point is that Greenwald should reflect long and hard at the rhetoric, not to mention the historical accuracy, of those that he links to before positioning himself as someone above the fray and beyond reproach.