I have often admired Jane Mayer's reportage. She has helped expose several elements of "the dark side" of America's worldwide Terror War. Her latest article in the New Yorker outlines the CIA's use of "Predator" drones to kill people by remote control in Pakistan. As the magazine notes, the Obama Administration is relying on these covert drone killers more and more, as it escalates America's military attacks in Pakistan -- ostensibly a sovereign nation allied to the United States.

Mayer's article relates a chilling story of suburban killers -- many of them stateside, firing their missiles from comfortable cubicles before heading home for dinner with the family -- operating in a secret program outside all traditional lines of legality and accountability. (Even the extremely low levels of legality and accountability that weakly adhere to the business of wholesale slaughter and destruction known as war.) For example, part of the program has been "outsourced" to private companies, who are killing people -- including hundreds of innocent civilians -- for profit, with American tax money.

The New Yorker's website has now published an interview with Mayer expanding on the original story. It too is chilling -- but not only for the further details of this state murder program. What is equally disturbing is the bloodless consideration of this bloody enterprise, based on the assumption that there is nothing essentially wrong with such an assassination program (with its inevitable "collateral damage"), as long it is more transparent, with the "legal, ethical and political boundaries" of the death squads clearly drawn.

The very first question gives us a glimpse into the bizarre, depraved moral universe of the American establishment:

How has the use of Predator drones by the United States changed the situation in Pakistan?

Well, there’s good news and bad news. According to the C.I.A., they’ve killed more than half of the twenty most wanted Al Qaeda terrorist suspects. The bad news is that they’ve inflamed anti-American sentiment, because they’ve also killed hundreds of civilians.

What is astonishing about this is that the interview doesn't end there, in a roar of outrage from Mayer and her interviewer: "They've killed hundreds of civilians!" Hundreds of Pakistani civilians, men, women and children with no involvement whatsoever in war or terrorism; just ordinary people living their lives as best they can -- just like your neighbor, just like your mother, just like you...or just like the people killed on September 11, whose deaths are used as an eternal justification for war and bloodshed on a global scale by the American state.

But these drone-murdered Pakistanis -- these human beings, these fathers and mothers, these grandparents, these toddlers, these brothers and sisters -- their lives are just statistics to be coldly weighed in the calibrations of imperial policy. The "bad news" about their deaths is not that they were murdered, not that these utterly defenseless men, women and children were blown to shreds without warning, without the slightest chance of escape, by flying robots controlled by unseen hands a world away; no, the "bad news" is that these that these killing might possibly hamper America's "counterinsurgency program":

How does the continued collateral damage from Predator drones square with General Stanley McChrystal’s order to the military to lay off the air strikes in Afghanistan and avoid civilian deaths?

Well, you could argue it either way. There is less collateral damage from a drone strike than there is from an F-16. According to intelligence officials, drones are more surgical in the way they kill—they usually use Hellfire missiles and do less damage than a fighter jet might.

At the same time, the fact that they kill civilians at all raises the same problem that McChrystal is trying to combat, which is that they incite people on the ground against the United States. When you’re trying to win a battle of hearts and minds, trying to win over civilian populations against terrorists, it can be counterproductive.

It can be counterproductive. When you kill hundreds of innocent people, it can be counterproductive. "Say, boys, how's my campaign shaping up these days?" "Well, Mr. Mayor, we're getting some negative feedback in the polls about your habit of machine-gunning people to death on the street every week. We've talked to some of our top PR people, and they say this kind of thing can be counterproductive."

And of course, this little passage also highlights the absurd hero-worship of our major "liberal" media toward the military chieftains who are increasingly dominating American policy, with increasing openness. Once again, as with the simpering hagiography offered up by the New York Times recently, we see the saintly image of noble Stanley McChrystal trying his darndest to avoid civilian casualties -- as he calls for 40,000 more troops (or "warfighters" as the Pentagon likes to call soldiers these days) to pour into the occupied land, spreading through the countryside and cities with bristling ordnance, backed always with close air support to provide "force protection."

This is the same General McChrystal who ran death squads and torture chambers in Iraq. As Fred Kaplan noted in Slate earlier this year:

McChrystal's command also provided the personnel for Task Force 6-26, an elite unit of 1,000 special-ops forces that engaged in harsh interrogation of detainees in Camp Nama as far back as 2003. The interrogations were so harsh that five Army officers were convicted on charges of abuse. (McChrystal himself was not implicated in the excesses, but the unit's slogan, which set the tone for its practices, was "If you don't make them bleed, they can't prosecute for it.")

McChrystal was not "implicated" in the "excesses" because in the American system, power and authority entail no responsibility; the buck always stops lower down the line, with a few "bad apples" or designated fall guys. The obscene spectacles of the Bush torture regimen -- and Barack Obama's frenzied efforts to shield the torture architects (and practitioners) from the slightest accountability -- give ample proof of this essential element of the system.

And yet here too, Mayer expresses the staggering blindness that afflicts the establishment media. Here she is explaining one of the problems of the CIA drone program: its lack of transparency, which she contrasts with the Pentagon system:

Well, the problem with this program is that it’s invisible; I would guess there must be all kinds of legal safeguards, and lawyers at the C.I.A. are discussing who we can kill and who we can’t, but none of that is available to the American people. It’s quite a contrast with the armed forces, because the use of lethal force in the military is a transparent process. There are after-action reports, and there’s a very obvious chain of command. We know where the responsibility runs, straight on up to the top of the government. This system keeps checks on abuses of power. There is no such transparency at the C.I.A.

One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry at this. When is the last time that responsibility for military depredations -- such as the systematic abuses in the American Terror War Gulag (with Abu Ghraib as just one small example) -- has run "straight on up to the top of the government"?  The schizophrenia that afflicts our great and good and bestest and brightest is painfully evident here: Mayer herself, in her reports on the Gulag abuse, has shown, in great detail, that they were not aberrations by "bad apples" but were imposed from the very top of the chain of command.

Yet here she is blatantly contradicting her own reportage, the indisputable facts that she herself has uncovered. But such are the inevitable, wrenching cognitive dissonances that arise when you accept the basic assumptions of the militarist system -- which you must do, to some extent, to get a seat at the "serious" table in America's media-political establishment. She is probably not even aware that she is doing it; she is simply following the standard template for "process stories," which require stark contrasts between the protagonists, who are usually cast in good guy-bad guy mold. In this case, the protagonists are the two state apparatuses -- the Pentagon and the CIA -- who wield the power of faceless, remote-control death over innocent, undefended human beings. In this "process," it is the unregulated CIA killers who are the bad guys, and so the Pentagon must be recast as a stickler for accountability all the way up the line, despite the mountain of evidence against this ludicrous interpretation -- evidence which, we must emphasize again, Mayer herself has been instrumental in compiling.

"Process stories" -- reports on the inner workings of the power structure, almost always told from the point of view of interested insiders pushing factional agendas -- have become one of the chief staples of mainstream journalism in recent years. While they occasionally yield nuggets of useful information, they are, in essence, little more than scraps of court gossip, mixed with the poisonous whispers of conniving courtiers and scheming ministers and generals -- "packs and sects of great ones, that ebb and flow by the moon." It is surely no coincidence that these stories have come to dominate our journalism more and more as the imperial nature of the Permanent War State becomes more open and entrenched.

This blindness, this "institutional capture" of a journalist who comes to identify completely with the aims and ethos of her imperial sources, is perhaps best illustrated in this exchange:

Are people in Pakistan scared to move around because of the drones?

According to some recent studies, terrorists are scampering around only at night and accusing each other of being spies and informing on one another. So it’s had the desired effect in unraveling terror cells.

Note that the interviewer asked about the effect these terror strikes from the sky are having on the people in Pakistan. Have their daily lives been maimed and constricted by the American terror? A reasonable question, you would think, and an issue that should certainly be a factor in any "serious" examination of American policy in the region.

But Mayer answers in the language of the state terrorists themselves. Ignoring the plight of ordinary civilians in the ever-expanding number of areas in Pakistan now under the dread edict of American drones, Mayers reiterates the triumphalist propaganda of her sources, talking only of the drones' effects on the accused terrorists that have been targeted. The ordinary, innocent human beings being killed, hounded and terrorized by these imperial operations are, as always, invisible.

(Yet even a cursory glance at the headlines in the past week gives the bitter lie to this propaganda; reading the daily reports of deadly bombings at the very heart of Pakistan's security apparatus, we can see just how effective the drone attacks have been at "unraveling terror cells" in that country. What the American attacks in Pakistan have actually done, of course, is the opposite: they have expanded, embittered and emboldened opposition to an Islamabad government allied with foreign forces that rain death on innocent people out of the clear blue sky.)

But we should not leave the impression that the interview evinces no human compassion at all. Toward the end, the interviewer and Mayer focus on one set of victims who are genuinely suffering from the drone program: the brave suburban warriors sitting on their well-wadded behinds in cozy offices and well-appointed command centers as they push a button and blow up a house, a street, a village:

You mention in your piece that drone pilots, who work from an office, suffer from combat stress.

Someone sitting at C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Virginia, can view and home in on a target on the other side of the world with tremendous precision, even at night, and destroy it. Peter Singer, who wrote a book on robotic warfare, said that cubicle warriors experience the same stress as regular warriors in a real war. Detached killing still takes a tremendous emotional toll inside our borders. 
 

Oh yes, may the Lord protect and preserve all of our detached killers from the tremendous emotional toll inflicted upon them by their noble work!

Again, the point here is that a truly serious and sophisticated analysis of the situation would have stopped at the very beginning: "We are killing hundreds of innocent civilians, with robots, in a country we're not at war with -- one of our allies, in fact. What in the name of all that's holy – and all that's human – is driving our nation to commit these monstrous crimes, and how can we stop it?" That would be the issue under discussion. A truly serious and sophisticated analysis would not accept the hideous assertions and assumptions of state terrorists at face value, would not concern itself with the "process" by which imperial factions fight it out for the honor of perpetrating these atrocities – and would certainly not offer as its conclusion the earnest hope that the authors of these war crimes will find some way of doing them better:

What would the outlines of a more transparent drone program look like?

Michael Walzer, the political philosopher, has noted that when the United States goes about killing people, we usually know who they can kill and where the battlefield is. International lawyers are calling for a public revelation of who is on this list, where can we go after them, and how many people can we take out with them. They want to know the legal, ethical, and political boundaries of the program.

International lawyers want to know just how many people we can "take out" when we launch missile attacks in civilian areas. Our political philosophers want to know the ethical boundaries of assassinating someone who is suspected of being part of a group that our government currently does not like or find useful for its purposes. This program of systematic extrajudicial murder and mass slaughter of innocent civilians – often by private contractors whose profits depend on war and death –"raises interesting legal questions," Mayer says.

Such are the depraved parameters within which our most "serious" and "sophisticated" – indeed, our most "liberal" and "progressive" -- political analysis now takes place.

II.
Just as I was finishing this piece, I ran across Arthur Silber's latest essay, which explicates the implications of these depraved parameters far more thoroughly than I have done. You should read his entire post – and the links – but I think a few extended excerpts here will help will underscore some of the points I was trying to make.

Silber's piece was sparked by the resignation of Matthew Hoh, a former combat officer in Iraq who had become of the top U.S. civilian officials in Afghanistan. Hoh resigned his post as a matter of principle, he said, because he could no longer see any good purpose in America's military involvement in what is "essentially a far-off civil war," as the Washington Post puts it.

Hoh's "principled" action has won widespread acclaim among critics of the Afghan adventure. But as Silber notes, the "principles" behind Hoh's actions include a whole-hearted approval of – and keen participation in – the very policies of imperialism and war crime that have led to the murderous war in Afghanistan, and are certain to spawn other such depredations:

And [the issue of] Iraq returns us to Matthew Hoh, and why his resignation is ultimately meaningless. In fact, it is much worse than that. To underscore the very limited nature of Hoh's protest, consider the conclusion of the Washington Post story:

If the United States is to remain in Afghanistan, Hoh said, he would advise a reduction in combat forces.

He also would suggest providing more support for Pakistan, better U.S. communication and propaganda skills to match those of al-Qaeda, and more pressure on Afghan President Hamid Karzai to clean up government corruption -- all options being discussed in White House deliberations.

"We want to have some kind of governance there, and we have some obligation for it not to be a bloodbath," Hoh said. "But you have to draw the line somewhere, and say this is their problem to solve."

In this passage, you see how even Hoh supports the overall purposes of U.S. foreign policy. He refers to "combat forces," but this is deceptive terminology, which I analyzed in detail when the same device was used in connection with Iraq. And Hoh urges "more support for Pakistan," and "more pressure" on Karzai -- that is, he recommends continued and even greater involvement in countries that should not concern us because they do not threaten us, but he suggests we alter the emphasis and particular form of our involvement. This is tinkering around the edges, and it does nothing to address the actual problem.

But the worst is this passage earlier in the story:

"I'm not some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to be in love," Hoh said. Although he said his time in Zabul was the "second-best job I've ever had," his dominant experience is from the Marines, where many of his closest friends still serve.

"There are plenty of dudes who need to be killed," he said of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. "I was never more happy than when our Iraq team whacked a bunch of guys."

The critical facts are few in number, and remarkably easy to understand: Iraq never threatened the U.S. in any serious manner. Our leaders knew Iraq did not threaten us. Despite what should have been the only fact that mattered, the U.S. invaded and occupied, and still occupies, a nation that never threatened us and had never attacked us. Under the applicable principles of international law and the Nuremberg Principles, the U.S. thus committed a monstrous, unforgivable series of war crimes. Those who support and continue the occupation of Iraq are war criminals -- not because I say so, but because the same principles that the U.S. applies to every other nation, but never to the U.S. itself, necessitate that judgment and no other.

While it may be true that some "dudes" threatened Hoh's life and the lives of those with whom he served, Hoh could never have been threatened in that manner but for the fact that he was in Iraq as part of a criminal war of aggression. In other words, he had no right to be in Iraq in the first place. And if he had not been, he would never have been in a position to "whack[] a bunch of guys."

Here Silber cuts to the absolute crux of the matter – in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in those Langley offices where "cubicle warriors" are suffering so much emotional turmoil from their "whack jobs" on hundreds of innocent civilians: We have no right to be doing these things in the first place.

And someone who stands foursquare behind an abominable war crime like the invasion of Iraq has no "principles," as this term is commonly understood. As Silber puts it:

The significance of Hoh's own judgment of his actions in Iraq, and his own failure to acknowledge the true nature of the U.S. presence there, lies in the fact that it undercuts his protest about U.S. strategy in Afghanistan on the most fundamental level. Hoh offers no principled opposition to wars of aggression: he approves of a criminal war in Iraq, but opposes it in Afghanistan. And he opposes it in Afghanistan not because it's a crime and morally abhorrent -- which it is -- but because it's not "working." It's "ineffective." This perfectly mirrors the typical liberal criticism of the Iraq crime: that it was executed "incompetently." Opposition of this kind finally reduces to no opposition at all, except on specifics. Such opposition is futile, inconsistent and contradictory, and ultimately worthless. It fails to challenge U.S. policy on the critical, more fundamental level -- and it invites a future catastrophe on an equal or, which is horrifying to contemplate, an even greater scale.

Hoh doesn't like the war crime in Afghanistan because it doesn't seem to be working out too well – not because it's wrong. Mayer doesn't like the CIA Predator program of targeted assassination and massive "collateral damage" because it's too unregulated, too opaque, and we need to find ways to make it work better – more like the Pentagon program of targeted assassination and massive "collateral damage."

But hey, isn't it good that a high American official has refused to take further part in the Af-Pak Terror War? Of course it is – relatively speaking. As Silber notes:

I view Hoh's resignation as a positive development in only one very limited sense. If a sufficient number of U.S. personnel resigned, for reasons similar to Hoh's or even for no reason at all, if they simply resigned, the U.S. would be unable to continue its current policy. But that will not happen, not in the numbers required.

Silber then notes that war critics who applaud Hoh's action have missed a critical point that makes hollow any claim of deeply held principle behind his resignation: his enthusiasm for "whacking" people in a country that American forces invaded in a savage and lawless act of aggression:

For me, the worst omission on [Glenn] Greenwald's part is his failure to comment on this statement from Hoh: "I was never more happy than when our Iraq team whacked a bunch of guys." I urge you to consider again the arguments as to why the U.S. invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq constitute an ongoing series of monstrous war crimes, and how Hoh's actions are only one part of an incomprehensibly awful larger criminal project. But Hoh "was never more happy" than when he "whacked a bunch of guys" -- "guys" that neither Hoh nor any other U.S. soldier should ever have been in a position to kill. And Greenwald finds none of this worthy of even momentary interest.

Yet in that single statement of Hoh's, and in all the assumptions that underlie it and all the policies to which it necessarily leads and to which it will lead again as long as those policies remain unaltered, lies a world of endless horror -- a world of agony, dismemberment, maiming, torture, of countless personal tragedies and lives forever changed and ended, and of growing instability and threats that are increased by U.S. actions. As long as the forces that drive U.S. policy are ignored or denied, as long as we do not engage this argument on those terms that are most crucial -- and as long as we will not identify the nature of U.S. actions for what they are, and in these instances, they are war crimes -- these horrors will continue without end.

Comments (37)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

ice said:

... Silber is incorrect - Greenwald actually did mention that comment of Hoh's: "Hoh told The Washington Post's Karen DeYoung that he's "not some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to be in love" and that he believes "there are plenty of dudes who need to be killed," adding: "I was never more happy than when our Iraq team whacked a bunch of guys." Plainly, there's nothing ideological about his conclusions; they're just the by-product of an honest assessment, based on first-hand experiences, of how our ongoing occupation of that country is worsening the very problem we're allegedly there to solve." Greenwald is well aware that Hoh is not anti-war. Glenn is actually using that to strengthen the point - even individuals who have no problem in principle with invading foreign countries and killing people are against the Afghanistan incursion on strictly technical/strategical grounds.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +0

Chris Floyd said:

... Clearly, you have not actually read Silber's post. He quotes that entire passage from Greenwald -- after having earlier gone into great detail how Hoh's "honest assessment, based on first-hand experiences" is based on glaringly obvious, readily available facts that should have been well-known to anyone before going into Afghanistan. Also, the fact that people oppose imperial war crimes on "strictly technical/strategical grounds" is, more or less, Silber's whole point and main criticism: that such "principles" will only lead to more and more of these horrific, immoral operations. If I refrain from murdering my neighbor this week on "strictly technical/strategical grounds" -- yet still believe it is my right to kill him any time I feel the conditions are favorable -- that's hardly a cause for celebration, is it? Again, I would suggest you read the whole piece, to get the full context of Silber's argument.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +1

Truth Excavator said:

War Resistance is Impossible Without The Truth If you get the gist of what AS is saying, then it's hard not to agree. Hoh's stance against the war in Afghanistan is not based on a moral position, he still believes the original crusade 'war on terror' is justified, but that it must be fought differently. He makes good points about the practical pursuits, and is obviously using his head, but his criticism is way below par. I try to address why such criticism does not add up to war resistance at my site.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009 | url
Votes: +5

Alan MacDonald said:

	Green We should serious start thinking about lobbying for a law that would explicitly ban Predators / Hellfires from being used in the U.S. Alan MacDonald Sanford, Maine
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +3

ice said:

... You're right, I hadn't (and still haven't) read Silber's post. I've read a lot of his stuff in the past, and I rarely disagree with his prevailing themes. However, I have read your whole comment... "Also, the fact that people oppose imperial war crimes on "strictly technical/strategical grounds" is, more or less, Silber's whole point and main criticism: that such "principles" will only lead to more and more of these horrific, immoral operations. If I refrain from murdering my neighbor this week on "strictly technical/strategical grounds" -- yet still believe it is my right to kill him any time I feel the conditions are favorable -- that's hardly a cause for celebration, is it?" I don't think that Silber's point contradicts Greenwald's point. GG made a very narrow point without stating an opinion on the larger point. In no way is GG saying that this war (or any war) would be justified if Hoh's objectives could have been met. He's simply saying - hey, here's a through-and-through army guy, and even within the context of what the military complex claims it is trying to do in the Middle East, he's saying it's impossible. So, I think AS is setting up a straw man. Lawyers, unlike many of us in regular conversation, are accustomed to making multiple arguments on the same matter (the case should be thrown out, but if it isn't thrown out this evidence should be excluded, but if it is included then the judge should direct the jury to disregard part of it, but if the jury doesn't disregard it I can explain why my client was doing the alleged action, etc.) GG is pointing out an inconsistency at a minor level without blessing any of the larger arguments. I read GG and AS both (though AS posts rarely enough that I catch up at intervals). I also read everything you post, and Distant Ocean. There are a lot of common themes - but GG tends to be very specific, and in doing so I believe he is misunderstood more than most bloggers, because of exactly this kind of issue. Anyway, perhaps it is you who have misunderstood Silber, or perhaps it is me who has misunderstood you. I'll read his full post before commenting further.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +2

Sean O'Neil said:

	... Glenn Greenwald's not "misunderstood." He's just very naive, and assumes he knows things to be "true" when in fact all he's doing is accepting as "truths" a bunch of sales pitches and "common knowledge" assumptions. Greenwald's a clown. If wisdom were a currency, he'd be a pauper.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +0

Sean O'Neil said:

Pee Ess "ice" engages in some long-winded subterfuge to defend little Glenn. I would note that everything "ice" accuses others here of being/doing, "ice" is doing and Greenwald is doing, and both are doing a far worse job of it. "ice" provides no specifics on what Greenwald supposedly analyzes properly. instead "ice" uses vague implication and emotional rhetoric... much like wee Glennie does when wee Glennie defends himself in comment threads. "ice" offers us "process analysis" regarding Greenwald vs Silber. what "ice" is doing is very much like what Greenwald does when Greenwald compares Democrats to Republicans, or Americans to Iraqis, Americans to Pakistanis, Americans to Iranians, or Israelis to Palestinians. it's a bunch of distinctions made, but made without real differences lurking behind them. it's classic process maven nonsense of the sort one hears inside the Beltway, where people debate process like extra-Beltway people debate sports teams.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +0

Mick Shrimpton said:

Thanks, Sean More to the point, "Ice" has admitted that he hasn't read Arthur Silber's post before logging his defense of Glenn Greenwald. He deserves credit for his honesty on this count, if not for his rush to post. As is his prerogative, Chris cites AS's thoughtful analysis, yet he states--and restates-- that the essential question never asked is, "hundreds of civilians killed in order to eliminate tens or dozens of supposed terrorist operatives in a country with which we are not at war?" We could side-bar the horror and immorality of that premise to discuss whether or not Glenn Greenwald takes his would-be heroes to task, but that would leave the real issue waiting. I fear that Wee Glennie, as you call him, has found himself on that downward-leading staircase, slick with the good intentions of progressive "activists," where blogger/film-maker/interviewee "celebrities" like Arianna Huffington constitute the laughably sad bottom landing. You can take people like Greenwald to be a force in the progressive movement--I wouldn't agree and think his impact is negligible--but this discussion can and should be reduced to and focused upon one gut-wrenching point: our country is now so lost and so utterly without a moral rudder that journalists will very purposely avoid the implications of Pakistani civilian casualties and rush to remind us that rent-a-cop robotic drone mercenaries suffer combat stress. Makes me wonder when our government will just cut through all the shite and announce the creation of a Ministry of Truth! For f*ck's sake.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +3

Sean O'Neil said:

... Mick -- you're welcome. I've been reading Greenwald for a few years now, used to engage him at his old UT blog until he kicked me out for challenging him on things he swore were true but were proved otherwise, and things I told him about that he swore were not true. Like many who work the field of paid essayist, he writes to an audience, rather than to tell the truth. This is his biggest downfall, his playing to an audience. I'd wager he was a lousy lawyer who never quite played well to the audiences he argued before, and that's why he became an essayist. As an essayist he uses all the worst traits of a trained litigator -- duplicity behind an earnest facade, that's the worst of them. The duplicity may not be intentionally misanthropic, but his laziness with facts is astounding. He stoutly refuses to challenge himself. This is not the mark of an intellectual, nor an honest broker.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +0

Sean O'Neil said:

Etc. As to leaving aside the questions of Greenwald's honesty -- Mr Floyd and Mr Silber have observed the reality squarely. We need a chorus? I say the truth is in the primary essay above, and in Silber's linked essay. With that truth in mind, what we need to work on is those who paper over the truth. The shaders, the obfuscators, the distractors. And this is why I will continue to criticize Greenwald, or "ice", or "Ovid", or anyone else who plays the game of distractor.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +2

yankee 30 said:

... The Ices, Ovids, Hohs, etc. don't seem to understand that the murder of one innocent is the same hideous crime as the murder of one hundred innocents. Deeply ingrained American exceptionalism will always facilitate the prevailing Madeleine "it was worth it" Albright rationale that our intentions are benevolent and things could be worse. This perverse crux of the matter will cause them to sputter 'til the bitter end. They will never "identify the nature of U.S. actions for what they are...".

report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +3

ice said:

Truth Excavator... I've now read Silber's post. AS wrote (and CF quoted in this post): 'I urge you to consider again the arguments as to why the U.S. invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq constitute an ongoing series of monstrous war crimes, and how Hoh's actions are only one part of an incomprehensibly awful larger criminal project. But Hoh "was never more happy" than when he "whacked a bunch of guys" -- "guys" that neither Hoh nor any other U.S. soldier should ever have been in a position to kill. And Greenwald finds none of this worthy of even momentary interest.' "Greenwald finds none of this worthy of even momentary interest" That's just idiotic. Yes, Greenwald finds this worth of interest - that's why he quoted Hoh. What he didn't find necessary was a few paragraphs of how horrible this mindset is, BECAUSE IT'S SELF-EVIDENT. Anyone who thinks that GG was giving tacit approval to the sentiment that it's ever fine to "whack" certain people needs to work on their reading comprehension. GG has many times gone into very specific details about the tortures inflicted by US forces to bring them viscerally (in the most negative light possible) to the reader's attention. GG doesn't agree with Hoh at all. Sean O'Neil - Would you list some specific examples from GG's work that fall into the categories you listed (lazy, factually incorrect)? Also - I'm using "vague implication and implied rhetoric"? You're making all of this up. Why? Fuck you. yankee30 - You also don't know me at all, and yet are happy to attack me. You magically know my feelings about war, even though I haven't said anything about them (other than I mentioned that I rarely disagree with AS's prevailing themes, which would be the exact opposite of what you are attributing to me)? So, fuck you too. Mick Shrimpton - Did you see GG on TV a few weeks ago? I find what you write surprising, because more than literally anyone else I've seen on TV over the last 8 years (admittedly, I don't watch much, but still) GG was very clear that a US attack on Iran would be nothing other than an unwarranted illegal invasion. Even more ironically, the person he was debating AGAINST was Arianna Huffington. This is surprising. I wrote a comment that was pertinent to the original post but said absolutely nothing about my own opinions. Less than 24 hours later, I reload and see I'm being judged a monstrour war-mongerer. Unimpressive.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +5

ice said:

AS, war, etc. I also want to make clear that I've read everything that AS has written on his site for the last couple years (perhaps longer). I well understand (and agree with) his argument that simply allowing oneself to contemplate war within the conventional wisdom framework means you've already lost the game. Nevertheless (and AS does this himself on occasion), I do find it necessary to speak within that language to make certain points. And, when I write: "GG was very clear that a US attack on Iran would be nothing other than an unwarranted illegal invasion. " that does not mean in any way, not by any perspective, that I think that there are circumstances that _would_ justify war. [Of course, it also doesn't mean the opposite.] It means just what it says - GG argued on TV that if the US today sent a military force to Iran, it would be unwarranted even by the professed standards of the US government, and that it would be illegal. And that's all that it means.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +2

Great Awakening said:

... I recently found this site and love it. Same with Arthur Silber. I am more familiar with Greenwald's writing and like him as well. But I find these inter-blog wars to be so very tiresome. I read your criticism and Silber's criticism of Greenwald as unduly personal and disproportionately harsh. And hey, these are valid and substantive arguments you guys are making--it just seems odd to use GG to make them and the heat directed at him seems unduly harsh (maybe it is me that is being unduly sensitive on Greenwald's behalf but I don't think so--I like his writing and he's doing a great job of shaking his fist as best he can at a broken system). As an aside, I was on another site and a commenter used some previous Chris Floyd smack-down of GG as a way to discredit GG (even Floyd thinks Glenn is a fraud . . .). This citation of Floyd was used to argue for the very Imperial policies Floyd finds so abhorrent. I'm not saying Floyd should consider himself an ally of GG and provide cover for him. Even though I like GG's writing I am open to the truth and if CF or AS wants to hone in on and criticize GG I want to hear it. It's important for liberals to hear the holes in their mainstream arguments (just as this piece does with Mayer). I just suspect a battle of egos below the surface. And I find it very counterproductive. Ice's argument is convincing to me. Thank you Ice for engaging. Too often the comments on blogs are sycophantic and "fans" of one blog line up to attack people that aren't all that different from them. Talk about tribalism! But I share your surprise at how your comments led to Floyd fans calling you a warmonger, etc. I love the arguments and analysis from all three of these sources and I am all for them referring to each others' work I just find the battle of the egos to be so disruptive. Carry on!

report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +6

Sean O'Neil said:

... "ice," you're a juvenile little snark-vector. Greenwald's errors are demonstrated by Silber. I don't need to retread Silber's work. In the past, Greenwald spread lies about Hugo Chavez and based the lies on his Brazilian "boyfriend's" rumors about Chavez. In the past, Greenwald argued FOR the "terror war" and against Palestinians. In the past, Greenwald denied the existence of the PNAC and argued for more Democrats, saying that Bush/Cheney were "incompetent." Greenwald missed the boat entirely there, because Bush/Cheney were hugely competent at achieving what they wanted. In the more recent past, Greenwald stumped for Obama. How's that for a major screwup? I'll stop there. Enjoy your childish delusions and petulant crippled put-down attempts, "ice." +++++++++++++++++++ The only "ego" at war here, "Great Awakening," is Greenwald's ego at war with reality. Whenever Greenwald chooses to paper over reality in order to curry favor with his fawning readership and to keep his own misperceptions and delusions safe and secure, he's engaged in waging war with his ego against reality. Like "ice" above, Greenwald is a petulant little waif who prefers his comfortable Privileged Position with a herd of mooing cows who defend his every word, as you and "ice" are doing here. Maybe you Wee Glennie's Wimps ought to try dealing with reality, instead of protecting your delusions and attacking "rethugs" as if those attacks indicate some sort of righteous indignation. Try looking in the mirror now and then. See the enemy who looks back at you. He's busy running from reality, because it makes him uncomfortable and requires him to admit he has been wrong about many things.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: -2

yankee 30 said:

	... ice, I don't even read Greenwald. I mean, Christ, there are only so many hours in a day. But anyone who defends a guy, who defends a guy who was never happier then when he was out "whacking" people, has a loose screw in my book. I mean, let's stick to the important issues. But if you're actually "some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to be in love", then I apologize.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +0

Great Awakening said:

... Sean O'Neil, I am more than happy to look into a mirror of reality. I'm open to the fact I have biases and incorrect information, etc. But your mirror is a mirror I would find in a house of horror--its warped and does not reflect reality. You immediately started (virtually) screaming at me and you make a lot of incorrect assumptions about me. I can tell the mirror you want me to use is flawed and you're full of piss and vinegar and bullshit (not a pleasant concoction). I do not hang on Glenn's every word anymore than I hang on Floyd's every word. Recently I've been enjoying Floyd's and Silber's essays more. But I still enjoy Greenwald's as well. I do not think these three guys are all that far apart. However, I'm open to hearing the evidence and this is the first time I've seen the evidence of Glenn's supposed faux-leftism and it does not convince me. My only other exposure to the Greenwald is a fraud argument was a ConservaDem that was trying to attack Greenwald from the right and used Floyd in his ad hominem attack on Greenwald. I'm open to other evidence but on the whole, I think these three writers share much more than differs between them. And I certainly don't think you bring any enlightenment to that debate-just bile. I agree with the overall argument of this essay. I just thought bringing Greenwald into it was weird. And sure enough, it stirred up irrational hate in his commentators such as you. You immediately label anyone that reads Greenwald's words differently as as "Wee Glennie's Wimps". You draw the irrational conclusion that I'm a Glenn sycophant, and agree with every word of his. I don't. I'm not. And project much? That's what I'm referring to above, about the inclusion of Greenwald as interfering with the larger argument. It stirs up irrational hatred in people like you. Anyway, I just find the Greenwald hate mystifying. Just as I do when I see Democrats go crazy over Kucinich. It doesn't make much sense and there must be some psychological explanation for it. I guessed ego. I don't know. I'll have to check out the criticism about Greenwald further but they do not comport with my overall understanding of his writings. He would not be the first example I would think of when thinking of putative liberals that simply reinforce the status quo. I'm open to hearing where he errs but to label him as similar to the Obamabots or Dem party fans is silly and hence why some of us are confused when we see the vigor with which you hate him.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +5

Harpfool said:

Hey Chris, does this make you happy? Here's a great post on a moral atrocity, referencing Arthus Silber's great post on the complete loss of moral compass in today's journalism, and your commenters become totally engrossed in a blogger pissing contest. Points totally lost. Silber is smart, and doesn't have a commenting facility. These people just further explain why we're in the situation we're in.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +2

Truth Excavator said:

In defense of ice..and GG The fact that Glenn Greenwald supports drug decriminalization, denounces the corporate media along with the status quo pundits who love it, and is for torture prosecution, makes him an ally in the fight for truth and reconciliation America today. But to go halfway in pursuit of truth is worse then never have gone at all, and that is where the criticism of GG comes in, for me, anyways. Too often GG stops short and fails to diagnose the real motives behind the War on Terror, and the depth of the insanity that is prevalent in the shadow government of the United States. AS has taken the plunge, and recognizes the criminals for what they are, but even he hasn't touched on the inconsistencies of 9/11, and CF is obviously very forceful and isn't afraid of the facts. GG is behind both of them and is barely touching the root of the problem. But thanks to the state of knowledge in the left he is getting the most attraction. With that said, we should not fault any of these writers for not always expressing the full truth about what's going on, what they have dedicated their minds to already shows what they are made of. All three of these writers have sound minds, write intelligently, and have shown on numerous occasions that they think things out to the fullest extent - I just wish all three were more willing to enlarge their scope and cover the big lie of 9/11 more often. I feel they are avoiding this issue at their own peril. And "Great Awakening", I don't think this has anything to do with ego, from what I've read, and I've only read AS and CF for a year, these two writers are battling for the truth on higher ground - something like ego won't drag them down, if they have complaints with a particular writers, it because they want to make a larger point or highlight a point of view that is lacking in gravitas. And I understand the point ice is trying to make. GG analyzes from different steps, and goes up and down to make his point pretty regularly, while AS is on the summit's peak and is tired that so few have caught up wit him. So to criticize GG's style of presentation, and that denounce his character is being impatient with him. When GG says "Plainly, there's nothing ideological about his conclusions; they're just the by-product of an honest assessment, based on first-hand experiences, of how our ongoing occupation of that country is worsening the very problem we're allegedly there to solve," he is speaking to a larger audience, who are not always on the same page as AS and CF, and their readership, including me. I have chosen to overlook the fact that GG is implying that most anti-war resisters are coming from an ideological view; I don't know why he chose that word in this context, other than to make it clear to his readers that anti-war critics hail from every base, and some of them have come to their conclusions by fighting first, and judging after. Sorry for the extra-long post, but if there is one thing I don't like is bringing others down. Hopefully, what I had to say was clear for you to understand, I certainly don't think this is all that needs to be said, or even if what I to say was completely sound.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009 | url
Votes: +4

Ron Reed said:

	Keep those internecine salvos flying! Reminds me of the ancient hoary joke about how leftists form a firing squad.... Harpfool, well said.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 29, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

druff said:

... "I don't even read Greenwald. I mean, Christ, there are only so many hours in a day." That's how I feel about Silber. Reading an entire Silber post feels like eating a whole meatloaf. It's too much, and you already got the point after the first few bites. And tooo heavyyy. I enjoy GG though, even if he's not the Alpha and Omega of leftist dissident discourse. What he does write about still has more impact than almost anyone, as far as it goes. "Too often the comments on blogs are sycophantic and "fans" of one blog line up to attack people that aren't all that different from them. Talk about tribalism!" Word. What happened to Blue Ox Babe anyway? Apparently whatever he/she had was quite contagious.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 29, 2009
Votes: +0

Great Awakening said:

... Hey Truth Excavator, Great comment. A very good summary of the state of our commentariat on the left, and these three writers in particular. There is a lot to be said for Arthur Silber's mountaintop essays, and he does have much more freedom than someone like Greenwald has. He brings an intellectual heft to these matters and he is able to explore issues much more methodically and intricately. His approach also does allow him to get the truth much quicker and he has to worry less about goring sacred cows. It seems inevitable that the larger audience Greenwald enjoys also brings with it added baggage. The attacks on him must be demorilizing (Silber seems like a fine fellow but I wonder how he would fare under the same scrutiny). It does take a lawyerly approach to do what Glenn does. He makes arguments daily, he interacts with commentators and critics, and he often uses the scattershot approach and he often argues in the alternative like Ice states. But I agree that Greenwald's post on the present subject is not very well thought out and Silber's point is well taken (I think Greenwald even states that he is travelling so I imagine his need to post regularly also leads to be inprecise, failing to cover all the angles, etc.--Greenwald has made many arguments on the inherent immorality of Obama's actions and wars so it seems nitpicky to point out the few instances where he is insufficiently moralistic--althought I support AS's and CF's efforts to be more moralistic). Anyway, as your analysis implies, I do think Chris Floyd is in the sweet spot here :) Not to get too meta here, but to get a wider audience I think one has to come down from the mountaintop sometimes. For bloggers I think that means posting regularly and allowing feedback. Yes, discussions with a wider range of people can be messy--but ultimately isn't the idea to share one's thinking with as wide an audience as possible? Of course within some limits. As far as ego . . . yes, I imagine any personal animosity from those like Floyd or Silber comes from a fidelity to their reasoning and how they do not like their message being diluted by those like Greenwald. However, life is messy and sometimes our allies aren't perfect and we have to use some perspective and sometimes its human nature to be very nitpicky of those that are more like us. Like a spouse that reserves their harshest criticism for their partner. It's very similar to the disgust some liberals have for Kucinich. Like it or not Kucinich is pretty much one of the few politicians that espouses policies that are closest to the Leftist policies most on this site would espouse. Yet often liberals can't handle it when a real person stands up and agrees with them on many things so they seek to tear him down based on his perceived differences. The holier than thou attack. It's kind of like they prefer the idea of the perfect liberal candidate and can't handle a real liberal with imperfections. Anway, great analysis.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 29, 2009
Votes: +3

Sean O'Neil said:

... The problem with talking about "internecine squabbles" is that it assumes everyone reading and commenting here is working from a Left vs Right, Dem vs Repub, Socialism vs Free-Market Libertarian Capitalism sort of dynamic. That's a serious problem, a grave error. I don't give a rat's ass about the "left" because "the left" is about as neutered and ineffectual as a left-handed person's right-handedness.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 29, 2009
Votes: -1

Sean O'Neil said:

... a Leftist Pwoggie above says: "1)I agree with the overall argument of this essay. I just thought bringing Greenwald into it was weird. And sure enough, it stirred up irrational hate in his commentators such as you. 2) You immediately label anyone that reads Greenwald's words differently as as "Wee Glennie's Wimps". You draw the irrational conclusion that I'm a Glenn sycophant, and agree with every word of his. I don't. I'm not. 3) And project much? That's what I'm referring to above, about the inclusion of Greenwald as interfering with the larger argument. 4) It stirs up irrational hatred in people like you." .............................. 1) Silber rightly criticized Greenwald's namby-pamby Empire-apology take on Hoh. That's how it got here. Jesus, can you even read? 2) Agreeing with Greenwald makes one a fool. Greenwald is a fool himself, Silber explained why. Jesus, can you even read? 3) I'm not "projecting." I'm talking about what I just said in response to 1 and 2 above. Please go research what is "projection," and return to show me how I'm "projecting." Jesus, can a PWOG even think without talking about "projection" whenever someone disagrees? The answer, dear PWOG, is no. 4) There's no hatred or irrationality here. Greenwald is wrong, as usual. What I feel toward Greenwald is disgust. Not irrationality, nor hatred. Disgust. Why? As a lawyer, he's got the intelligence refinement to see reality, yet he shuns that tool in favor of appeasement. Anyone who wants things to improve ought to be focused on reality, not appeasement. Where's the irrationality there? Where's the hatred? Talk about projection... I think that's why you think everyone's projecting -- because you are. Adieu, poor PWOG. Adieu.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 29, 2009
Votes: -2

druff said:

	... "As a lawyer, he's got the intelligence refinement to see reality" ?! :D
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 29, 2009
Votes: +0

love county said:

WHERE TRUTH TAKES YOU I've been reading CF for over a year, as with AS, and GG for about three years. Chris Floyd often makes very distinct points about the evil morality that has captured this government through the deep seated corruption of the beltway elites as well as the black ops boys, and how they work together to further the global agenda. It should be most obvious to any that are "looking" for the truth to see that all governments are in essence evil and that evil varies by degrees in all situations from country to country. Chris and his article these posts refer to makes great points on the state of this country and the morally depraved ruling class and their mental dysfunction as to how their mindset is stuck in the lizard brain rut, and this sticking is by design on their part. The New World Order rulers, the group known by their ancient tribal name of the Kenites are the most depraved humans on this planet, and our government is ruled by them from the shadows. Sorry to the anti Jewish groups but it is not a Jewish conspiracy by any means, but the Kenites use this Jewish fig leaf in which to hide in as it creates a wonderful cover for them. The joke has been of the rest of us that for years were misdirected by these masters of dark sayings. The argument here about is Greenwald good or bad is a relevant argument it seems since he too throws in his two cents worth on these same issues that Floyd engages in. I find Greenwald to be so mainstream it is hard for me to take him to seriously about some subjects. Greenwald does do a good job on taking the press to task on their transparent corporate behavior. He also hammers on corruption which I find encouraging. The truth is a most relative fleeting thing for everyone, but it is like wisdom as well, as both cry out in the streets to be heard. The relativity of truth as most all posters here probably already know will obviously be found by those seeking the bottom line no matter where it may lead to. The truth has a way of shaking up your world big time, and it's ugliness is a direct reflection of us as simple humans that seek to not believe that our rulers could actually be so sick and depraved, and they have lot's of guns also as well as all the money. Greenwald for me is seeking, but he may be afraid of what he may find and I think it stunts his intellectual process and keeps him grasping in the dark. I do enjoy reading him just as I enjoy AS and CF. The war on terror is of course a fraud, perpetrated on this country in order to set up a national security police state. All the current corruption in our government could be brought to a stop by a truthful independent hearing on the facts behind 911, and at the same time it would destroy all the black op budgets and would force a drastic change in our governance. It will not happen.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 29, 2009
Votes: +0

vfwh said:

... I don't believe this. Or, rather, I believe it and I shake my head in despair at how systematic some human group dynamics will always, AL-fucking-WAYS, play out. I don't want to get into the specifics. If you don't see how a Chris Floyd post about opposition to the war turning into a GG-bashing fest is a major fucking problem, then you are fucking lost to reality, people. There is no fucking absolute truth, there is only reality, and people talking about it, each using their own little piece of language to do so. Silber's so-called "mountaintop view" is nothing more than a misguided pretense that he is one of the elect few who are privy to the special gift of all-encompassing view and the ability to funnel The Truth through his own little language wormhole (in each individual post, mind you!). It's fucking lame and deluded! The Silber personality cult that is developing here is becoming fucking creepy. Fuck. I had the hope for a while that I had found someone here, CF (which I discovered thanks to GG, for fuck's sake!), who has guts, distance, intelligence, humor and wisdom enough to refrain from sectarian allegiance and provide a more bone-scraping POV than GG or others. All it shows is how naive I have remained over the years. Sean O'Neil: I don't want to live in a world where people like you would have any kind of responsibility. You scare the shit out of me. People like you, unlike CF (I still hope) or GG, are the real enemy, because you have not displayed here any qualities that substantially differentiate you from Sean Hannity.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 29, 2009 | url
Votes: +2

vastleft said:

	Sobering post, Chris Every American should read this.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 29, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

lambert strether said:

Lawless hit squads operating remotely from cubes What could go wrong? * * * This thread (I've had, and induced, several like it) makes me think that the left blogosphere (agreeing for the sake of argument that such exists) should adopt the policy that the Economist has with regard to author's names on articles: There are none. Such a policy might go far to putting the focus solely on the arguments made, and eliminating the internecine wars. Of course, the downside would be the surrender of personal identity, but is that so important?

report abuse vote down vote up

October 29, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

vastleft said:

	vfwh, I can see why you don't want to get into specifics Shorter vfwh: it's creepy to have a consistently high opinion of Arthur Silber, whereas it's necessary to have one of Glenn Greenwald. If you have specific points of disagreement with Mr. Silber, why don't you document them?
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 29, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

Chris Floyd said:

... I must say that I don't rightly understand some of these comments. One writer takes issue with something that another writer has written, because he thinks this illustrates some larger point he wishes to make on an important matter. This seems straightforward enough, a common practice in the "marketplace of ideas," where various concepts, approaches, understandings, and their implications, are thrashed out and examined. But somehow this is turned into "personal animosity," or envy, or "a blogger pissing contest," brought down to the level of a playground squabble. Because obviously, you can never disagree with someone's approach on an issue without some nasty, petty personal spite being behind it all, right? I don't mind if someone takes issue with my approach, if they say, Look, Chris, you're wrong about this, and here's why. Maybe I'll change my mind, see things from a new perspective, or maybe I won't agree; it's all part of the thrashing out process. But this notion that all disagreements stem from petty spite and "personal animosity" not only has nothing to do with what I write -- and what I link to -- it is also a very corrosive diversion from whatever important issue is actually under discussion. By shoving these issues and ideas into the ditch of a "pissing contest" or catfight or feud, we make it easier to trivialize and dismiss them. This is not only counterproductive, it's also tedious as hell. And while all this endless "blogger pissing contest" bullshit is going on, I've seen very few comments about the substance of the piece -- about Meyer's article, about the deeper implications of Hoh's resignation, given his avowed support for the vast war crime in Iraq. No, by all means, let's turn it into personal attacks, on Silber -- who said not one personal word about Greenwald, but took issue with him on the plane of ideas (and their practical implications) -- or on Greenwald, or me for my obvious "personal animosity." Let's make it all "personality cults" and "readership numbers" and any other meaningless thing we can come up with. But for God's sake, let's not think about the the substance of the pieces, or their implications. What fun would that be? As I said, corrosive, distracting, and tedious as hell.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 29, 2009
Votes: +3

Ron Reed said:

Thanks, Chris ... not only for the last post, but for your yeoman's work in bringing to the attention of readers that which is so carefully concealed by the minions of the empire and their stenographers in the "free" press. I've been reading your posts since the Kosovo war crimes, and just started reading Silber a few months ago, on links you provided. As a longtime follower of the works of Alice Miller, I am intrigued by the way Silber integrates them into his anti-empire worldview; it has opened up a whole new area of inquiry and pursuit for me. Aside from the kvetching in comment threads, my only complaint about your blog is that it's not much more widely read and known. As a teacher of contemporary history, I think it should be part of the curriculum of any serious class, though of course that is entirely out of the question in our extremely well designed for what it does school system.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 29, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

jfshade said:

	Brilliant piece What a sorry state of affairs. Even the most "liberal", hence generally dismissed, sort of mainstream journalist feels she must ignore the results of her own reportage in exchange for a seat at the "serious" table. Chris, do you really believe she could be "not even aware that she is doing it"? What potion could she be taking that would make her that delusional?
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 29, 2009
Votes: +0

vfwh said:

OT Specifics Hey there. @vastleft: re-reading my comment, let me clarify something that is not obvious from it: I like reading Silber's posts, and find them insightful. I don't like Silber's writing style much, nor do I like the self-agrandizing tone that creeps up sometimes (as in the essay that is referred to here, for example). I also find that he can fall in the trap of reductionist logical arguments, as if, indeed, there was but One Truth to any given situation and that he knew what that was. But he's just human like the rest of us, he who has never sinned and so on. I don't have a problem with that, unless people start buying into it and bullying others on it, like the two knuckle-dragging goons that barged in as soon as someone said "I think Silber is incorrect in that respect". Frankly though, I prefer Chris' posts, generally. There's more distance and humour, less posturing, more reality and dirt in them. I also read Chris' posts more regularly than Silber's, so my opinion may be biased by the sample. As to going into specific disagreements (i.e. actually substantiating what I say above, with quotes and so on) with Silber, I can do that some other time, in a more relaxed context, if you please don't mind. I have special sensitivity with sects of self-proclaimed Truth Knowing bullies, and seeing them strut in here just blew my nuts. Or maybe I'm just getting too old.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 29, 2009 | url
Votes: +2

Harpfool said:

It all about power (writ small) Chris - thanks for your response. I'm surprised that you're puzzled. This is the dynamics of the internet discussion group, where one individual (can you say Sean O'Neil) who has an excess of bile to spew hijacks the discussion and then pours scorn on anyone who responds to the provocation. These trolls adapted to the internet almost as fast as pornographers. So okay, people shouldn't respond to the provocation - but they do. For those good souls, I offer this item I found in the comments on another blog today: "Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." Words to live by.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 29, 2009
Votes: +2

Carto said:

Great as always Thank you Chris, for another great post and your years of service to my understanding. I remember when I could find you on the Moscow Times site. Was it that many years ago? What made me comment today, for possibly the first time at this site, is the strange tone of the comments section (not yours) with this story. I think I like the tussle but I can't say i've seen one like this on your site before. I always read Floyd, Greenwald, Cole, and Antiwar.com, monday thru friday. I make my own choices, and "cut and paste when needed."

report abuse vote down vote up

October 30, 2009
Votes: +0

Sean O'Neil said:

... to vfwh -- saying that my posted thoughts are sufficient to "scare you" tells a lot about your personal self-appraisal/self-respect. I don't know how criticizing a proven liar and self-deluder should frighten anyone, unless you are here to protect the acts of lying and self-deception, because that is all I'm threatening -- human thinking and communication patterns, patterns which choose fantasy over reality because that's easier than admitting error. I'm used to people building straw-men around an internet poster's style of posting. it's easy for you to assume you know what my intentions are, and for you to say there's reason to "fear" me, if the only tool you use for understanding another's posts is projection of your worst fears. so thanks for telling us all, in indirect fashion, what you fear. it's instructive that you would fear the exposure of self-delusion and lying for personal and political gain.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 02, 2009
Votes: -3