The Intercept: As Democratic Elites Reunite With Neocons, the Party’s Voters Are Becoming Far More Militaristic and Pro-War Than Republicans

marrec

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
6,775
This has to be one of the dumbest takes I've seen in a while... or at least today.
There's a conversation that NEEDS to be had on the liberal response to Trump which includes (but is not limited too) a retread of neo-liberal imperialism in response to his isolationist policies.

However, Glenn doesn't want to have that conversation.
 

Psychoward

Member
Nov 7, 2017
15,513
There's a conversation that NEEDS to be had on the liberal response to Trump which includes (but is not limited too) a retread of neo-liberal imperialism in response to his isolationist policies.

However, Glenn doesn't want to have that conversation.
A retread of neo-liberal imperialism is wanting to remain allies with our allies? Who has called for more wars on the left? /crickets

Who has called for escalation to war for Iran? I'll give you 3 guesses.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,940
He wasn't a journalist at the time. He literally could not have displayed support for the Iraq war even if he wanted to.

The book that includes the preface you're quoting from, which is one of his first pieces of actual political writing, literally denounces the Bush/Cheney administration and its actions in Iraq, and that paragraph is clearly written in the past tense in an attempt to explain how he felt back then, and how his thoughts regarding that administration evolved.

To quote from Greenwald himself:


https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/1/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more

Just another liberal fabrication used to discredit leftists who dare criticize the Democratic party. Once again, it's always the messenger, never the message.
I have read this 3 times because it strikes me as impossible that your are arguing something as silly as I think you are arguing.
 

Suiko

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,503
There's a conversation that NEEDS to be had on the liberal response to Trump which includes (but is not limited too) a retread of neo-liberal imperialism in response to his isolationist policies.

However, Glenn doesn't want to have that conversation.
It all comes down to reason.
Occupying a country to prevent the spread of communism is not a good enough reason to use military resources.
Occupying a country to prevent the eradication of the kurds might be a good enough reason.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,660
There's a conversation that NEEDS to be had on the liberal response to Trump which includes (but is not limited too) a retread of neo-liberal imperialism in response to his isolationist policies.

However, Glenn doesn't want to have that conversation.
I don't believe for a second that most Democrats are pushing more towards neoliberalism because of Trump. In fact, the midterms show that Democrats are moving farther left than ever because of him. Trump's attempts at isolationism are destabilizing the rest of the world at an alarming rate by propping up murderous regimes such as Russia and Saudi Arabia.

Someone will always fill a vacuum of global influence. Period.
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,693
Arkansas, USA
There's a conversation that NEEDS to be had on the liberal response to Trump which includes (but is not limited too) a retread of neo-liberal imperialism in response to his isolationist policies.

However, Glenn doesn't want to have that conversation.
That conversation will be had among the Democratic presidential candidates next year and I'm really looking forward to it.

I am in no way a jingoistic imperialist, but I do expect any candidate that wants my support to steadfastly defend the value of NATO. And that will necessitate taking steps to reign in Russian aggression.
 

SG-17

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,159
It all comes down to reason.
Occupying a country to prevent the spread of communism is not a good enough reason to use military resources.
Occupying a country to prevent the eradication of the kurds might be a good enough reason.
Using military force to stop a genocide is completely and perfectly acceptable and the moral thing to do.
 

kadotsu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,139
You can condemn that article, just don't act surprised when Beto and Kamalla put Bill Kristol in a high position of their campaign.
 

Brazil

The Dude of Prophecy
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
8,380
São Paulo, Brazil
He literally said he supported it at the time in his own book! Why would he lie?
Glenn: "I agreed with the Iraq war"

Y'all, and Glenn himself, for some reason: "That doesn't count but some reason was included to show how I've changed "
So he supported a war.

He just changed his mind.

Like the rest of the country.

And yet other keep that blame
And individuals like you make excuses for him.

Also the act of CHANGING YOUR MINd requires you to have a different position then before.

That position was supporting the war.
He changed his mind from supporting the war to not supporting it. Which means “he supported the war” is a true statement.
So he supported the war before he didn't.
I have read this 3 times because it strikes me as impossible that your are arguing something as silly as I think you are arguing.
Let's take a look at what started this argument instead of moving the goalposts.

They seemed pretty gung-ho about Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.
So was Glenn Greenwald.
Glenn Greenwald was not gung-ho about Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria.

Glenn Greenwald never wrote a word in support of Afghanistan, and therefore, was not gung-ho about Afghanistan.

Glenn Greenwald never wrote a word in support of Iraq. Instead, he wrote a book filled with criticisms towards Bush and Cheney, and denounced himself for being apathetic towards and, by extent, supporting the Iraq War while he wasn't even active politically. Therefore, he was not gung-ho about Iraq.

Glenn Greenwald never wrote a word in support of Syria, and therefore, was not gung-ho about Syria.

You can continue to get angry at Greenwald or Sirota or whomever every time they dare criticize the Democratic party, or you can look past the establishment-backed character assassination attempts of them and instead listen to what they're saying.
 

compo

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,245
I feel like calling each other jingoistic neocons is not very constructive in our efforts of removing republicans from power.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,964
Let's take a look at what started this argument instead of moving the goalposts.



Glenn Greenwald was not gung-ho about Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria.

Glenn Greenwald never wrote a word in support of Afghanistan, and therefore, was not gung-ho about Afghanistan.

Glenn Greenwald never wrote a word in support of Iraq. Instead, he wrote a book filled with criticisms towards Bush and Cheney, and denouncing himself for being apathetic towards and, by extent, supporting the Iraq War while he wasn't even active politically. Therefore, he was not gung-ho about Iraq.

Glenn Greenwald never wrote a word in support of Syria, and therefore, was not gung-ho about Syria.

You can continue to get angry at Greenwald or Sirota or whomever every time they dare criticize the Democratic party, or you can look past the establishment-backed character assassination attempts of them and instead listen to what they're saying.
I'm pretty sure you asked for receipts, they were delivered, and you were the one moving goalposts, but hey.
 

Joeytj

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,038
No, it's not that the Democrats are more militaristic, Greenwald just can't see a lot of nuance in electoral politics or even foreign relations. Democrats aren't and have never been completely anti-war, just anti-stupid wars and anti-imperialism.

The intervention in Syria isn't imperialism in the neocon way of doing war, and overall, Democrats are suspicious of all of Trump's intentions and motives, which is why they are also against Trump's handling of Syria and Afghanistan.

This is hard, but Glenn is just too rage-driven when it comes to Democrats and misses the forest for the trees a lot of times.
 

Tfritz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,016
Only reason Glenn goes there is as an outlet to spread his views because he's persona non grata in center-left outlets like MSNBC. He goes on Democracy Now! but you conveniently forget that.
Lol @ calling MSNBC "center-left" but also did anyone bother to tell him he 100% does not have to go on a show run by a man who is a hundred times worse than any MSNBC hack could hope to be
 

Kirblar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,224
There's a conversation that NEEDS to be had on the liberal response to Trump which includes (but is not limited too) a retread of neo-liberal imperialism in response to his isolationist policies.

However, Glenn doesn't want to have that conversation.
There's probably a conversation that needs to be had regarding the old '00s NeoCons and how they relate to today's realignment, but it's a really hard one to do without accidentally tripping over a bunch of entangled issues.
Only reason Glenn goes there is as an outlet to spread his views because he's persona non grata in center-left outlets like MSNBC. He goes on Democracy Now! but you conveniently forget that.
No, it's not. Glenn has a history of being anti-immigrant, was a big Ron Paul fan, and going onto Tucker Carlson falls right in line with Glenn's super sketchy history on social issues.
 

Psychoward

Member
Nov 7, 2017
15,513
Our allies, namely Turkey, are the ones interested in eliminating the Kurds.
You know what I meant. Turkey are only situational allies, between the EU and Turkey who would we side with? EU. Between Turkey and Saudi Arabia (lol) who would we side with? Saudia Arabia.

I meant more in the sense of keeping vulnerable nationalities like the Kurds safe while continuing to build up our current allies (that deserve alliances i.e. no israel or saudia Arabia)
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,940
Only reason Glenn goes there is as an outlet to spread his views because he's persona non grata in center-left outlets like MSNBC. He goes on Democracy Now! but you conveniently forget that.
It is the single most racist show on american television. It has been that consistently for years. The fact that Glenn has repeatedly judged it as a viable outlet for his views is a problem. Like, maybe if he spent less time on White Nationalist Nightly other shows would be willing to associate themselves with him.
 

Metallix87

Member
Nov 1, 2017
9,240
You know what I meant. Turkey are only situational allies, between the EU and Turkey who would we side with? EU. Between Turkey and Saudi Arabia (lol) who would we side with? Saudia Arabia.

I meant more in the sense of keeping vulnerable nationalities like the Kurds safe while continuing to build up our current allies (that deserve alliances i.e. no israel or saudia Arabia)
They're not situational allies. They're a NATO member, and thus essentially a full-on ally. Picking favorites is irrelevant.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,593
Let's take a look at what started this argument instead of moving the goalposts.



Glenn Greenwald was not gung-ho about Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria.

Glenn Greenwald never wrote a word in support of Afghanistan, and therefore, was not gung-ho about Afghanistan.

Glenn Greenwald never wrote a word in support of Iraq. Instead, he wrote a book filled with criticisms towards Bush and Cheney, and denounced himself for being apathetic towards and, by extent, supporting the Iraq War while he wasn't even active politically. Therefore, he was not gung-ho about Iraq.

Glenn Greenwald never wrote a word in support of Syria, and therefore, was not gung-ho about Syria.

You can continue to get angry at Greenwald or Sirota or whomever every time they dare criticize the Democratic party, or you can look past the establishment-backed character assassination attempts of them and instead listen to what they're saying.
He literally said “I supported the Iraq war.” The idea he had to publish something to make that count is ludicrous. The idea that saying afterward he changed his mind means he never supported the war is ludicrous.

The line of argument makes no sense.
 

Clipjoint

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
157
LOL @ the posters wanting to ban The Intercept. Some people really do want to live in a bubble where their views are never challenged.
 

marrec

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
6,775
A retread of neo-liberal imperialism is wanting to remain allies with our allies? Who has called for more wars on the left? /crickets

Who has called for escalation to war for Iran? I'll give you 3 guesses.
Wanting to remain allies with our allies is a pretty basic way to view our continued intervention in the middle-east but I understand what you mean here. The problem is that the current hostile actors in the middle east are taking advantage of our superheroic jingoism to manipulate American strategic deployment. They're able to do that because of the policies of the Bush administrations but we cannot continue to dance to the tune of Russia and Saudi Arabia based on past mistakes.

It all comes down to reason.
Occupying a country to prevent the spread of communism is not a good enough reason to use military resources.
Occupying a country to prevent the eradication of the kurds might be a good enough reason.
I think this is too naive to be honest.

I don't believe for a second that most Democrats are pushing more towards neoliberalism because of Trump. In fact, the midterms show that Democrats are moving farther left than ever because of him. Trump's attempts at isolationism are destabilizing the rest of the world at an alarming rate by propping up murderous regimes such as Russia and Saudi Arabia.

Someone will always fill a vacuum of global influence. Period.
You see it even on this board, with former anti-establishment liberals going so far as to call Trump a "traitor" and to call the GOP who support him "unpatriotic" as if those words would have meant anything to them 12 years ago under the Bush regime.

That conversation will be had among the Democratic presidential candidates next year and I'm really looking forward to it.

I am in no way a jingoistic imperialist, but I do expect any candidate that wants my support to steadfastly defend the value of NATO. And that will necessitate taking steps to reign in Russian aggression.
It will be the most important part of any democratic candidate in my opinion.
 

Tfritz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,016
For someone who thinks his support of the Iraq War doesn't count because he wasn't a journalist back then, he sure does seem to spend a lot of time dunking on rando Russia conspiracy theorists twitters who have like, ten followers.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,660
You see it even on this board, with former anti-establishment liberals going so far as to call Trump a "traitor" and to call the GOP who support him "unpatriotic" as if those words would have meant anything to them 12 years ago under the Bush regime.
There's nothing wrong with being patriotic and loving your country for the good things it does. Trump is the closest thing to a traitorous president we've ever had, if not an actual traitor and it has nothing to do with just his attempt to pull out of certain areas of the middle east. It has everything to do with where Trump takes his marching orders from and who really benefits from this shit.
 

MetalMagus

Avenger
Oct 16, 2018
325
Maine
Let's take a look at what started this argument instead of moving the goalposts.



Glenn Greenwald was not gung-ho about Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria.

Glenn Greenwald never wrote a word in support of Afghanistan, and therefore, was not gung-ho about Afghanistan.

Glenn Greenwald never wrote a word in support of Iraq. Instead, he wrote a book filled with criticisms towards Bush and Cheney, and denounced himself for being apathetic towards and, by extent, supporting the Iraq War while he wasn't even active politically. Therefore, he was not gung-ho about Iraq.

Glenn Greenwald never wrote a word in support of Syria, and therefore, was not gung-ho about Syria.

You can continue to get angry at Greenwald or Sirota or whomever every time they dare criticize the Democratic party, or you can look past the establishment-backed character assassination attempts of them and instead listen to what they're saying.
Actually, YOU started it by throwing the claim that the "Dems" were gung-ho about Afghanistan, Iraq and Syra. Nice use of charged language to insinuate that the entire dreaded "establishment" of Democrats were willing and eager to throw more bodies on the pile.

If Glenn's mea culpa shows he wasn't "gung-ho" about it then neither was the Democratic party. Were some representives and major media figures? Absolutely. But painting with a wide brush casts blame on people who don't deserve it, simplifies a complicated issue, and plows over any context or nuance.

But since you're ride or die for Greenwald, whatever. Cut off your nose to spite your face - fight neoliberalism and denounce it's ills all you want - you should and it deserves the push back - but when you ally with nationalistic autocrats and gangster states to do it then you've lost the fuckin' thread mate.
 

Razgreez

Member
Apr 13, 2018
325
LOL @ the posters wanting to ban The Intercept. Some people really do want to live in a bubble where their views are never challenged.
History constantly repeats. Posters here are, for example, pretending that America cares about "the vulnerable Kurds" meanwhile all the US cares about there are the valuable/strategic gas and oil resources and protecting their assets. People don't realise just how much US investment has been pumped into Kurdistan.

From an outsider's perspective the Democrats are ultimately no different to the Republicans in terms of actual global impact. Their constituents just like to convince themselves they are so that their decision on who to support appears to matter.
 

Cocaloch

Banned
Nov 6, 2017
4,562
Where the Fenians Sleep
Damn right. A technoutopian United Earth is the only viable future for humanity. The less individual sovereign nations the better.
Whiggery is philosophical nonsense. This usage was coined as a pejorative, and you and Weinberg are the only people I've ever seen try to rescue the word. Given that's in the context of annexation of another state, one that obviously doesn't want to be annexed, and in the favor of the universal monarchy, something all three of the Hegemons in world history have been against, makes it particularly baffling.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,964
And quoting your quote.

In general, The Intercept provides indepth investigative stories that are sensational in nature. Most stories are critical of the right-left establishment and lean strongly progressive left in ideology.
A factual search reveals they have not failed a fact check, however in 2016 they fired Juan Thompsonfor fabricating quotes and establishing email accounts to trick editors. The Intercept reported: “Thompson admitted to creating fake email accounts and fabricating messages, but stood by his published work. He did not cooperate in the review,”
 

Armaros

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,131
History constantly repeats. Posters here are, for example, pretending that America cares about "the vulnerable Kurds" meanwhile all the US cares about there are the valuable/strategic gas and oil resources and protecting their assets. People don't realise just how much US investment has been pumped into Kurdistan.

From an outsider's perspective the Democrats are ultimately no different to the Republicans in terms of actual global impact. Their constituents just like to convince themselves they are so that their decision on who to support appears to matter.
So you are going to actually use the ‘you are just virtue signalling’ argument?
 
Nah this is BS. I hate war and the US military industrial complex . The Democrats just don't want idiots to randomly pull out of countries out of nowhere and end up making situations even worse than they already are and also don't want idiots to let Putin do whatever he feels like.
 
Last edited:

marrec

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
6,775
So you are going to actually use the ‘you are just virtue signalling’ argument?
We need to separate the actually useful social term "virtue signalling" from the vitriolic usage that's cropped up recently particularly among the alt-right.

Virtue signalling isn't necessarily a bad thing.