-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
The Intercept: As Democratic Elites Reunite With Neocons, the Party’s Voters Are Becoming Far More Militaristic and Pro-War Than Republicans
- Thread starter Sokrates
- Start date
yeah do any of you have any receipts that no one actually cares about the Kurds and this is all political?
I don't see any caveat in that link that they didn't include any of his articles in their analysis.
One instance of a journalist making up stories and then being fired is not enough to call into question the integrity of an entire outlet. Obviously.
The non-Greenwald articles at The Intercept are much, much better on average. They also are under the purview of the EIC. This is not an unrelated coincidence.
This is a bad take. I don't call Trump a traitor because he's an isolationist and is pulling the U.S. military out of other countries. He's a traitor because he's putting his own personal interests ahead of the very country he was elected to lead - possibly to the benefit of other hostile entities that he's indebted to. He's a liar and conman - he owes no loyalty to anyone or anything but himself.
The GOP isn't unpatriotic because they're anti-military. It's because they're putting party before country and enacting policies that directly benefit them while causing harm to others. That's a betrayal of the responsibilities to the citizenry and what the purported ideals of the country should be.
Liberals getting shamed by the GOP for being anti-American during Bush's "you're with us or against" crusade doesn't mean we can't hold other citizens - especially our elected officials - to task for when we feel they're betraying the very foundation of what we believe the U.S. should stand for.
Also, the page you quoted said the outlet was known for its sensationalism.
OP
OP
Moral outrage at the possibility of Kurdish genocide is a convenient cover for continued intervention and deployment, whether you individually care about what happens to them is irrelevant because it only fuels the political will to keep boots on the ground and, by extension, keep influence over the region.
Again, whataboutism. Can't take the criticsm, so deflect as much as you need to. Squirrel!
The intercept is run by Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald hates democrats more than republicans so I don't trust a word about Democratic Party from intercept
There have been some good Intercept articles. Remember when Pelosi got them to print an article about how great Pelosi was? Still a marvel of modern politics in my view.
As always, I think Greenwald started with an argument here and picked evidence to support it. Yes, people now oppose withdrawal from Syria because Trump likes it. That is characteristic of politics in the era of negative polarization. Doesn't mean the general Democratic politician, or voter, has a generally neoconservative worldview. The entire point of negative polarization is that people are adopting stances generally in opposition to Trump rather than modifying their ideological structure. They'll take their cues from Democratic party leaders, and the official Dem view has been something like "we should end the war but we don't trust Trump to do it right." Which...seems correct?
In the general case, if the argument is "just because Frum and Boot are Democrats now doesn't mean we should trust them on foreign policy," that seems correct to me. I don't think Greenwald really proves his thesis beyond that, though.
As always, I think Greenwald started with an argument here and picked evidence to support it. Yes, people now oppose withdrawal from Syria because Trump likes it. That is characteristic of politics in the era of negative polarization. Doesn't mean the general Democratic politician, or voter, has a generally neoconservative worldview. The entire point of negative polarization is that people are adopting stances generally in opposition to Trump rather than modifying their ideological structure. They'll take their cues from Democratic party leaders, and the official Dem view has been something like "we should end the war but we don't trust Trump to do it right." Which...seems correct?
In the general case, if the argument is "just because Frum and Boot are Democrats now doesn't mean we should trust them on foreign policy," that seems correct to me. I don't think Greenwald really proves his thesis beyond that, though.
It also certainly doesn't mean the best of reputations, but sure, go to bat.
I've never used the word, others have when they can't find a way to argue against the idea that a liberal democratic one world government with a technological utopian base (automation and AI used to virtually end scarcity) is the best outcome for humanity.
Greenwald has long criticized the Center-Left embrace of, and rehabilitation of, Neocons like Bill Kristol, David Frum, and Max Boot who have cynically exploited the anti-Trump sentiment to ingratiate themselves with a whole new generation of Democrats who don't know how evil and destructive those guys are, and how many millions of people were killed or displaced because of the policies they advocated for.
The idea that there's a coherent strategy objective in maintaining a troop presence in Syria that would be upended by a hasty draw down is absurd. Congrats Democrats, you're siding with John Bolton on foreign policy. Over and over it's been proven that our military presence in Middle Eastern countries fuels extremism and terrorist activity. Just because Trump's isolationist policies clash with the Neocon project to expand military presence in the Middle East, doesn't make the Neocons good.
The same criticisms were levied by the same people at Obama when he advocated for a draw down from Afghanistan and Iraq. "This undermines our allies! We can't lead from behind! Obama is dithering!" War mongers always advocate for more war. The fact that the guy advocating for less war is an asshole, doesn't mean less war is suddenly bad.
OP
OP
More like it's normal for media outlets to fuck up from time to time with regards to journalists fabricating stories.
You're trying to paint this as an issue unique to the Intercept when it affects journalism as a whole.
As someone who fits this hit pieces "Profile" for me its you brake it, you pay for it. You don't get to effectively leave our allies behind to die in a fight we helped escalate, or wash your hands from attrocities we helped support monetarily and militarily because it costs too much now.
To me the hypocricy of, "We need to involve ourselves in this conflict because...freedom!"
*fastfoward a few years*
"Yeah its a shitshow with hundreds of thousands, but at least they've got some kind of elections even if its sham elections! Good Job!" pales in comparison to the idea we should not be the worlds policeman but if we take a side in a conflict we need to "own it" to make sure it doesnt turn into a humanitarian nightmare even to the detriment to US life and budgets.
To me the hypocricy of, "We need to involve ourselves in this conflict because...freedom!"
*fastfoward a few years*
"Yeah its a shitshow with hundreds of thousands, but at least they've got some kind of elections even if its sham elections! Good Job!" pales in comparison to the idea we should not be the worlds policeman but if we take a side in a conflict we need to "own it" to make sure it doesnt turn into a humanitarian nightmare even to the detriment to US life and budgets.
Well I'm glad we've shifted the goalposts from them lying to not having "the best of reputations". Very good.
Forced annexation of sovereign states in service of a flawed utopian ideal is pretty much the worst thing one can do in service of that flawed utopian ideal.
I was responding to what was given in defense of the Intercept as a first hand source, quoting the source given.
Because really, the honor and integrity of The Intercept means so much to so many.
OP
OP
And I responded to your dumb assertion that the fabrication scandal made the Intercept a unique source of fake news.
You shouldn't get your views about anything political from Glenn Greenwald in the same way you shouldn't get your information and views about climate change or vaccines from Alex Jones.
Quoting the shit you gave me from verbatim. You dumb dumb.
I am not the one saying that. That's from the https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-intercept/ site Numbers of Completion gave in defense of the outlet. I just read it and copy and pasted it back. Shit, literacy is rough.
This is in no small part because MSNBC has been trying to make people like Jennifer Rubin and Steve Schmidt seem cool for the past two years.
This is BS, Dems aren't pro-war, they are anti-stupid. Most people have no clue what's going down in Syria... but we should see it out until something is resolved. Same with Iraq and Afghanistan... we never should have went, but we did.. and leaving abruptly would just lead to chaos that would end up with us involved again in the future.
Yes, I'm sure when you suggested that the Intercept were liars, you were thinking of that one time a reporter made up some quotes in a few stories. A story you had definitely remembered before you saw it in that link.
Calls for Intercept to. be banned reminds me of call for video game sites like Kotaku, who ultimately, get dragged down due to bad writers. There are good writers at site and efforts would be better spent on the individuals actions.
That having been said, Im pretty sure a lot of people here have supported American wars at one point and then changed their mind.
That preface even notes that it wasnt safe to even protest the War. Being hit and the fabrication of nukes gave Bush an overwhelming support of the war to the point that not supporting it wouldve fucked you up big time. Democrats have always been subservient to public opinion, which is also why they are more seen as weak. The support was ultimately a reflection on the voting population.
That having been said, Im pretty sure a lot of people here have supported American wars at one point and then changed their mind.
That preface even notes that it wasnt safe to even protest the War. Being hit and the fabrication of nukes gave Bush an overwhelming support of the war to the point that not supporting it wouldve fucked you up big time. Democrats have always been subservient to public opinion, which is also why they are more seen as weak. The support was ultimately a reflection on the voting population.
I was a fan of The Intercept a long time before I wasn't, like a lot of things. I've been reading their (Reed, Scahill, Greenwald) shit for almost a decade. Realizations that things are gobshite is part of the maturation process. I read dozens of rags, good and bad, and I know where I'd place The Intercept in the grand scheme. That may change again, because hey, knowledge is good.
Last edited:
That's fucking nonsense. Were you not alive at the time? I personally protested the Iraq War. There were certainly pundits -- even one or two Democratic or independent politicians, as I recall -- who opposed the war.
So it's just that you don't like them then, not that they are liars?
And yet the only time militiristic hegemony withdraws is when it invariably affects the bottom line. "Own it till owning it is no longer lucrative no matter the impact".
I think they aren't a beacon of truth and honesty and my opinion on them wavers? Does that give you what you want?
Multiple democratic personalities voiced opposition to the war, much less multiple individual democratic voters.
Maybe they're confusing the Afghanistan Invasion with the Iraq Invasion?
You should email MBFC to get them to update their assessment.
I said overwhelming, not complete support.
And I was alive. I was alive when Bush won his reelection by popular vote as well
Majority of House Dems and 21 senate Dems voted against the Iraq resolution.
Does the US have a plan for leaving Afghanistan, Syria or Iraq? Does it even have a working committee to develop a plan for leaving? If the answer to either, particularly the latter, is no then the longer it stays the greater the potential blowback. But let's be honest the US isn't going anywhere while profits are being made and strategic interests are protected.
Furthermore, are we really going to pretend the US is, can be or needs to be forced to militarily involve itself anywhere. If this were true then saudi arabia, and not Afghanistan, would have been decimated by war post 9/11
The US is out of Iraq, there is no major security forces in Iraq like there are in Afghanistan. The troops in Syria are not there to prop up a faltering government either, so it's a poor comparison to make.
Yes, there is plans. We aren't front and center in Syria any how.. we are support and had relatively clear objectives... well as clear as you can really get in what amounts to a proxy war.
We have plans in Afghanistan as well, and shit just takes time.. and we are mainly again there for support of the Afghan military.
Just because you don't understand what's going on doesn't mean people are aimlessly doing nothing over seas. There's a strong argument to the US staying for awhile in support in the fact that leaving opens a vacuum of power for someone else to go in and fuck things up more.