This has to be one of the dumbest takes I've seen in a while... or at least today.
.
A retread of neo-liberal imperialism is wanting to remain allies with our allies? Who has called for more wars on the left? /cricketsThere'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.
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/20...read-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.
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 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 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.
"Conservative" Tucker Carlson runs interview with Leftist Vanguard Glenn Greenwald
Using military force to stop a genocide is completely and perfectly acceptable and the moral thing to do.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.
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.
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.
Glenn Greenwald was not gung-ho about Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria.
Yeah, I don't see that happening.You can condemn that article, just don't act surprised when Beto and Kamalla put Bill Kristol in a high position of their campaign.
I'm pretty sure you asked for receipts, they were delivered, and you were the one moving goalposts, but hey.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.
Uh-huh.I'm pretty sure you asked for receipts, they were delivered, and you were the one moving goalposts, but hey.
Our allies, namely Turkey, are the ones interested in eliminating the Kurds.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.
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/11...re-militaristic-and-pro-war-than-republicans/
What are your thoughts on this ERA? Do you think that the Democratic Party is becoming too jingoistic or militaristic?
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Our allies, namely Turkey, are the ones interested in eliminating the Kurds.
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.
They're not situational allies. They're a NATO member, and thus essentially a full-on ally. Picking favorites is irrelevant.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)
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.
But hey, we're the ones moving goalposts.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.
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.
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 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.
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.
There's a difference between being challenged, and lied to. You've posted a lot of half-assed defense in favour of easily disproven lies over your (congrats!) 88 posts.LOL @ the posters wanting to ban The Intercept. Some people really do want to live in a bubble where their views are never challenged.
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.
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.
LOL @ the posters wanting to ban The Intercept. Some people really do want to live in a bubble where their views are never challenged.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-intercept/
Overall, we rate The Intercept progressive Left Biased based on story selection that favors the left and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing.
Damn right. A technoutopian United Earth is the only viable future for humanity. The less individual sovereign nations the better.
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,"
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?
So you are going to actually use the 'you are just virtue signalling' argument?
You have an actual argument to his point?So you are going to actually use the 'you are just virtue signalling' argument?
This has to be one of the dumbest takes I've seen in a while... or at least today.