Despite my not having said a single word to her since 2018, the whistleblower today claimed she's "terrified" of me, implying serious personal abuse. See for yourself.
I found this to be a really heartbreaking exchange to read. It is an all-too-familiar example of how media-generated moral panic (particularly from "liberal" legacy networks and Silicon Valley) contaminates communication in irrevocable ways. The beautiful complexity that comprise friends and family members gets reduced to binary labels such as "ally" or "enemy". It's a devasting result of the divide and conquer strategy that has been dialed up to unbearable levels since Trump took office. Many of us know personally what it's like to be on the receiving end of a close friend or family member's rage, because we're insufficiently upset, or have a different opinion, about a hot topic in a news cycle.
I have tremendous empathy and appreciation for everything Chelsea endured, which makes it even more tragic to see a pillar of moral courage denouncing someone for not obeying the dictates of the monoculture.
To be honest I did not find it heartbreaking, or upsetting, but rather manipulative on her part. Her ambiguity will garner her a lot more attention then had she made a non ambiguous accusation that could be directly confronted. She no doubt feels justified in her melodrama because Greenwald does not adhere to the cultish left which has been critical of his appearances on Tucker Carlson, and no doubt his leaving the Intercept because they wouldn't publish an article critical of Biden, or that he calls the "insurrection" by it's right name, a riot, etc. The zealotry, common place among the left, tuns me off, and her remarks do as well.
I actually never saw her as heroic. I ways found her motives and methods suspect and now that the histrionic nature of the left, particularly the Trans community, is out in the open, her behavior makes a lot more sense.
I don't understand how anyone can see Chelsea Manning as heroic or - frankly - deliberate. I have always regarded Manning as the complete opposite of Snowden. Snowden had a sincere concern, a clearly articulated objective and the material he leaked was highly relevant to those concerns and objectives.
The publicly released chats between Manning and WikiLeaks are indicative primarily of mental illness and a profound sense of discomfort by Manning with herself and her place in society. The material she released is borderline irrelevant to what are plainly the political issues she cares most about. I mean, state department profiles of Icelandic politicians? Summaries of mundane collections of information from local sources? State department assessments of local political realities that were rarely any more insightful than the type of speculation you could see in local newspapers? Why?
Sure, some of it was "newsworthy" in the plainest sense of that word, but also sort of not? Even the so-called collateral murder video strikes me as something not worth risking going to jail for. I mean, it's a video of a military strike, following express authorization to open fire, against a group of Iraqis, some of which were armed with RPGs and AK47s. It's not like the audio contains an acknowledgment that there are a couple of Reuters reporters with the armed men. I'm sure commenters here will vehemently disagree with me, but did anyone really need to see this video to understand that this sort of thing - unavoidably - occurs in war zones?
I had the same reaction. Her tone alternates between being apologetic for her anxiety about what Glenn's appearances on Fox will result in and demanding that he share it by refusing to appear on Carlson's show. Her actual concern is as mysterious as her latest tweet about being terrified of him for no specific reason. I think she has been a heroic figure in the past, but this exchange and her current tweets suggest that the psychological torture she suffered in prison may have left her emotionally unstable. I thought their exchange about someone named Emily was very revealing. His blocking of Emily is part of her attack on what, in her eyes, he has become, but when he tells her that he has found Emily, doesn't know her, but that she has blocked him, not the other way around, Manning's response is "Why are you telling me this?" I'm not sure she remembered what she had accused him of.
As far as Greenwald being on Tucker, his choice. I like Tucker Carlson even though I don't agree with him on any number of issues. Manning along with a very significant part of the so called left have become very authoritarian in their position, and it's not only something I see played out between people like Manning and Greenwald, but in my own life. It could be that she is having some emotional issues, but the attitude she expresses is very prevalent on the left. On a third cousin's Facebook page political issues were discussed, and should you in anyway defend Trump you were viciously attacked. This was a group who were republicans for Biden, and basically not a liberal group at all. Trump's comment about Clorox came up and most thought he was suggesting people should, could ingest it to kill the corona virus. That wasn't my take and believed he was talking about an anti-viral like Clorox that could be taken internally for Covid. Someone, well educated, rich, suggested I drink a bottle of Clorox and kill myself. I told her I felt she was threatening my life by suggesting such a thing, and would report her to Facebook, I was putting it on, but it scared the hell out of her and she deleted everything and never addressed any other comments I made. I got off that site and said goodbye to that cousin I barely knew, and realized that people so hate Trump they feel justified in attacking you, threatening you, while they proclaim to take a liberal stance on issues unlike Trump's "ignorant" following. People are empathetic toward Manning and feel she might be loosing it, but she is no different in her views then those I've come across, and to hell with them.
Thanks for this anecdote. I've got my own. Although I've enjoyed chatting with (real-world) friends as well as political groups on FB, I now have dropped it completely after finding myself repeatedly shadow-banned last year for asking provocative but carefully-reasoned questions.
I'm convinced we (us "commoners", certainly) are all subjects in a very wide scale propaganda psy-op. That may sound like unhinged paranoia today to the average citizen, but the evidence is overwhelming *if* one is unafraid to look, and is also careful not to take unreasonable (irrational) extrapolations beyond that evidence. These tasks -- responsibilities, really, in a democratic society -- seem to be too hard for most people.
If you are not an ardent adherent of the new left you will be defined as ignorant, uninformed, and a bigot, etc. Their hypocrisy is stunning, and I agree that it doesn't pay to confront it. Some other distant cousin on Facebook passed along a meme that defined all those who voted for Trump as a cultish lot who were uneducated and totally amoral. This is the new left talking. What is striking is that they are unaware of their profound prejudice, and are guilty of pushing the same mindset they claim to abhor.
I mean that the psychological research on, and *promoting*, mass manipulation that has been going on for over a century has, at least in the last few decades been applied in a very wide-scale, systematic fashion to the West (and I imagine everywhere). *This* is what is involved destroying Western democracy -- not the subjects of idiotic accusations like Russian FB ads "fomenting discord", or unhinged Trump rioters on Jan 6.
Mass manipulation (propaganda) was openly and famously advocated by Lippmann and Bernays in the 1920s as the antidote to the contemporary citizen's inability to understand** the complex world thoroughly, by replacing them with technocrats; it was described in action by Chomsky and Herman in late 1980s; to identify just three well-known students off the top of my head. In the U.S., it has been apparent to me since c.1980 (I've been around a long time) that we had entered a new era of dangerously very wide bifurcation of public and private government goals.
--------
**Their error here, IMO, being the conflation of citizens' *moral* right to be sovereign, with their *functional* right to "run" things through representative democracy.
If manning is so confidently righteous, why not go on tucker and explain "her" side? Maybe deep seated guilt at violating "his" (at the time) oath to protect national secrets.
"No, the only crime in war is losing." Spoken like a true might makes right lizard-brained American exceptionalist war crimes apologist. Kindly attempt to urinate up a multi-stranded hemp product.
So, no particular disclosures disturb you. Sounds like a true useful idiot. You're fortunate your country gives you the right to hate it. But that only lasts as long as competent Americans protect that right. After we're conquered, your new masters will demand loyalty.
Victory against irregular forces doesn't mean generals in fancy uniforms sitting at a table to sign surrender documents. Victory is preventing those irregular forces from accomplishing their objectives, and protecting ours. Coddled people who don't understand how the world works want a quick, decisive fight with a formal resolution. Doesnt walk that way..
All three of the countries you mention were proxies for bigger conflicts, and were effective in protecting our interests and damaging theirs. No one cared about Vietnam, except the Vietnamese. That campaign stopped soviet expansion. We won, they lost.
Some people hope for American failure. They'll always be disappointed, relying on their ignorance to construct consolation.
Has she gone to other, "friendly" shows? Or is she not invited there? Not much manning anything, looks like, hence picking on Greenwald, doing the womanning instead.
"The beautiful complexity that comprise friends and family members gets reduced to binary labels such as 'ally' or 'enemy'" Agreed. But it's not just interpersonal relationships, there is so much interaction in society that can be "beautiful[ly] complex", if it is allowed.
The idea that there is (necessarily) a war, that one *has* to choose sides, and that, consequently, one *has* to drop communication with "the enemy" ... all the way down to interpersonal relationships, destroys that. War thinking is completely toxic to democracy, and to any society, but that has been a primary method of our new "Leftist" totalitarians.
I agree that war is destructive to the mind as well as to the body-- war is the ultimate vehicle for scaring people into submission, imprinting black & white values, and hiding high crimes by leaders. Most wars are motivated and manufactured from the political and economic desires of those in power or contesting for power. I listened to a podcast the other day where Eva Bartlett and Kitt Knightly speculated that the *main* reason for the war in Afghanistan may have been to launder money and steal trillions of dollars.
How "left"? I'd describe today's rulers (both Dem, Repub & foreign) as "technocrats". Common people are no longer individuals who vote and whose opinions matter, but rather a flock to be managed efficiently and sheared as needed. I disagree with those on the right who accuse practically anyone with whom they disagree, or dislike, as being globalist leftist radical socialist communist Antifa revolutionaries.
The division started with the Clinton’s and every president since. The baby boomer generation know no bounds and was never civil or concerned with the results of their own actions. Of course I am generalizing but stereotypes are earned.
I don't normally bandy this about - but I know Glenn personally, I knew his mother, she was a very good friend. Glenn Greenwald, whatever might think about his politics, is a good man and a loyal friend. He is not a monster.
Manning said what she said, but her newfound fear and hatred for Glenn Greenwald has no basis in reality.
Yes. Suspended, probably forever. I appealed, but that has never worked for any of my locks, or other sanctions in the past. I have been unpersoned. 12 years of tweets, many people that I only 'knew' there, my ability to ask a question of many people and get a good answer, to do research, etc. All gone. And all over an albeit rude tweet.
I'm sorry that happened to you. Shows you should never let an evil corporation be the sole holder of your data. People have lost access to years of their Gmail, like Dennis Cooper (who was eventually allowed to download the messages after getting publicity and threatening legal action). I wonder if legal threats, or recovering things that happen to be stored in the Internet Archive, or threatening bad publicity, would work for you.
In general, it's best if people periodically download to their PCs everything of theirs that's stored on an evil corporation's servers, particularly evil social media companies. In particular, it's a lot easier to download the complete set of your tweets before the account gets banned, since you can just ask Twitter then.
Slightly OT - my apologies, but your rbought up Inernet Archive as an alternative for content preseration. My observation is that for the past few years, IA seems to have become pretty wussy about saving content from any site (any site with a legal staff, at least) that might harbor any objection whatever to independent archival, no matter how legally weak those potential objections seem. Kahle & co might be justified in that behavior in a potential short-term costs vs revenues sense, but the loss of utility is telling, and the accumulated reputational costs will likely be very serious. I have a concern that IA and its content might not exist in a few (possibly very few) years. I absolutely do NOT regard Google as a viable alternative to IA.
I cant stand twitter and dont have an account but thats the free market at work. Its odd to me to hear (not that this is you) supposed free-market conservatives angry private businesses are doing things their way.
There was never an implication of free speech on twitter. This is the massive argument I got in with net neutrality proponents before Trump/Pai. There is NO expectation of free speech on a private companies platform.
I regard your classification of companies as "private" that utilize business models that are sheltered by government regulations such as Section 230, and/or that depend on favorable treatment from telecomm giants that themselves get nearly exclusive privilege to play in government-restricted markets, to be highly questionable. If a company is so dependent on the State that it would probably fail in the face of open competition, it should be be subject to thevery same mandates and restrictions that (supposedly) limit government. The rat's nest that is today's internet has as little in common with an actual competitive market as shit has with Shinola (possibly less).
Oh, we’ve had the pleasure of protests against compulsory vaccination here. Abbotsford’s in the middle of the bible belt in BC, and it looked like all the brats came home from bible camp to protest.
We had a serious heat weekend end of June, and my small portable a/c gave up the ghost at the very end of it. I’ll give it a recycle with full military honours.
I got a new one…lucked in on sale…50% more capacity, and quieter!
I was overjoyed with the news that Chystia Freeland had to spend time in Twitter jail…hoist on her own petard!
Speaking of all this, Bill…I either didn't realize or I had forgotten that Chelsea was denied entry to Canada because she was regarded as a traitor by Prime Minister(s) Truharp!
Canada is a five-eyes agreement country it is no surprise they would back their five-eyes agreement partner the US over intelligence matters. That was the very reason for the agreement.
This is a remarkably telling moment. Glenn Greenwald has been absolutely consistent on principle. Among the available examples, he opposed indefinite pre-trial detention under harsh circumstances for Chelsea Manning, for accused Islamist terrorism defendants, and now for January 6 defendants. He's been pro-due process, a serious critic of the national security state, and an opponent of domestic political surveillance.
To the contemporary American "left," this means Greenwald has moved right – because he's applying a principled opposition to cruelty and abuse of process to people who are identified with the right.
The important fact here is that, on matters of principle, Greenwald HAS NOT MOVED. We have a "left" now that only applies categories of identity to its analysis, without any other unifying principle: January 6 defendants should rot in pre-trial solitary detention, because suck it Trump. It's hard to watch.
Instantly proving the lies of the left since 1968.
That the left never wanted tolerance or equality, they wanted the same totalitarian bullshit they complained about for decades, just with them in charge.
Please identify just who the fuck your pea-brain thinks is on the left. I guarantee you will identify liberals and DemoCRATS, not leftists. This lazy and clownish marginalization of the actual left by false conflation with these liberal performance artists is none the less effective on small minds. Hint... No leftist worthy of the name ever bought the Russia-gate propaganda and the war criminal HRC's idiotic flailing after failing to beat her hand-picked candidate, the talented and racist carnival barker Trump. No leftist supports endless wars, authoritarian censorship, the DemocRAT(ICK) party or CIA fuckery. Liberals have demonstrated that the Tea Party did not have a lock on the "moranic" imbecile market.
By no means meaning to break up this lovefest but simply curious - I observe this indignation of "left" term being misused etc. The ones who make that argument - and you are one of them - do they also have the same attitude towards the term "right"?
In other words, same DNC shill, different DNC speech. Another gatekeeper of what is left and what is right, because only John Kelly is worthy of saying what is.
First, recognize that Ill do whatever the fuck I want, and in no way, shape or form, am I beholden to answer shit from you.
Now go run along and tell everyone (just like Art and Mona) how everyone who calls themselves left isn't and only you are the true gatekeeper of what is left or right.
Excellent summary. Conservative here who disagrees a ton with Glenn on some politics but I am 10000000% behind his devotion to truth as the starting point.
His consistency is a breath of fresh air in a fetid bath of lies and corruption.
The level of ingratitude is astonishing ... this is the Left perfectly expressed. Blinkered by their moral vanity and unable to look beyond the most basic fundamental understanding of what makes a relationship. Glenn literally moved mountains for Chelsea yet her craven need to put politics before friendship is one of the worst example of human character I've ever witnessed.
Ironic isn't it? The Enlightenment and the Rennaissance, and centuries of struggle, finally succeeded in separating Religion from its historical seat of political power, only to find the decendants of Western Civilization pining for a Religion of political conformity in the third millenium.
Jesus freaks back in the early 80's often used the image of a "hole in the soul" that could only be filled with Jesus. As spiritual beings covered with meat, I think we are all seeking meaning in our lives and most who don't succumb to the will for power or chronic intoxication find religion. The religion could be Global Warming, an imaged Peace in the Mideast, mushrooms, or the repetition of Om Mani Padme Hum. There is no reason to despise those whose limited mental capacity puts them in one religion or another. We must have pity for those with such proclivities and superstitions.
Yes and well said, but when the religion becomes Authoritarian Socialism, a response of much more than pity is required by those who will not drink the Kool-Aid.
Without meaning to be unkind, CM sounds a bit overwrought and not exactly rational. For what it's worth, I don't think Glenn Greenwald did anything wrong. He has been a generous and supportive friend to CM, but I think she is in a bad way.
She was held in solitary confinement. That can really mess with people. I wouldn't be surprised if she were still struggling with mental health issues as a result.
Merriam-Webster: "Torture definition is - the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure."
Methinks you have the definition wrong.
You may have that confused with "punishment": a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure.
People are deprived of their liberty by being sent to prison to live in a cage for years or even decades. That is the "punishment". They are not sent to prison FOR punishment.
Punishment, i.e. deliberately inflicting pain, never made anyone a better person. Solitary confinement is real torture.
It’s important to recognize that nearly everyone in the political sphere is just parroting talking points crafted by PR firms. Very little independent or even critical though is given to political identity.
This has the troubling effect of people identifying with their oppressors. They’re too hypocritical to be moved on these issues until something in their lives actually breaks, and when it does there’s a tailor made counter-identity that they’re co-opted into. It’s a brilliant way to prevent people from addressing their oppression.
(1) "They’re too hypocritical to be moved on these issues until something in their lives actually breaks..."
Yes, and I'd add that -- ordinarily -- this hypocrisy occurs because they're not sufficiently conscious. This point might be extended to many of life's experiences, not just political beliefs and actions.
(2) "...and when it does there’s a tailor made counter-identity that they’re co-opted into"
Yes, absolutely, but unfortunately: In a healthy society, one not showered with layers of sophisticated propaganda, what they would be doing instead is start *thinking* for themselves -- and this thinking would be sufficient to dig them out. I'm not so sure this is possibly any more, for most people.
"Over his decades in politics, he has constructed a mythical persona full of tall tales of derring-do, exaggerations and outright lies about his accomplishments. He lied about nonexistent academic awards and scholarships and plagiarized speeches willy-nilly.
He pretended that he trained as a racial activist in black churches, claimed he was at the center of the civil-rights movement in Selma and Birmingham, and that he had been arrested in Soweto on his way to see Nelson Mandela in prison. None of it was true.
Each lie served to boost his ego, to place him as the shining superhero of every grandiose story."
Joe Biden as a personal figure uses intimidation, gaslighting and blackmail to achieve his ends. Outwardly he's a pathological liar. He probably qualifies as a grandiose narcissist, which is perfect for state department figureheads (not the brains).
I like to think this was all obvious to people. The narrative come election time was that people didn't care as long as he wasn't Trump. Our election credibility is a disaster, but the plausible narrative blunts any reaction.
The Afghanistan risk card got shuffled back into the deck, but I imagine Biden is being managed with mostly the same playbook as the last grandiose narcissist to occupy the office.
Joe Biden being controlled is not something I believe happened with Trump.
Trump didnt have handlers the way Biden does. The same handlers like Sullivan who have been tied to Klobuchar (while she was letting Chauvin off) and then Hillary.
I do have a sneaking suspicion that TPTB thought that Trump was such a critter of reflex that they could find buttons to push to make him do their bidding, and were forced to find ways to trash him when they found out they had misjudged. Of course, none of us plebes know what grand strategies and schemes the "elite" have cooked up, so it really isn't possible to categorically demonstrate that Trump's rise & fall isn't/wasn't an intentional part of the plan.
You’re probably correct, insofar as Trumps cronyism incidentally insulated himself from permanent DC in an unprecedented way.
Now that Biden has committed the cardinal sin of ending a war I’m curious to see how long he lasts. If he were to attempt to exercise presidential authority again in any unexpected way I expect we’d see a clamor for his removal with questions about his competence arising from state media.
Ultimately they *are* being managed in the same way- as figureheads. Biden just represents less of a PR nightmare where the joint chiefs, state department and alphabet agency soup have to explicitly undermine or ignore the elected president. I think the big difference is that Biden is less contrarian and, to your point, more maleable.
Because the (formerly one) two parties control the entire country and tbh we should all be shocked they even let Trump win once, given that he wasn't a lifer politician like they all are.
As a kid I was always fascinated with history, growing up in Chicago. However I soon learned that the history they teach in school and the actual history did not always match up. Im pretty sure the US has always been corrupt, its only now that the media gatekeepers cant keep a lid on all of it anymore.
For example, go look up people like Moses Annenberg and then compare actual information vs the horseshit Wikipedia has as a summary of him. Or someone like a google executive.
For decades we were told Bill Gates was a high priest of purity. We now know he was out trying to fuck anything that caught his eye just like all the bad conservatives he attacked over the years.
Careful. There is a distinction between the “left” and “liberal” Biden supporters. The left agrees with GG. Liberals support censorship of the right not realizing it will come back to bite the left, whom they purport to align w.
The DNC explicitly hasn’t been a left party since before the 90’s and the Clintonian “Third Way”. It could be said that we haven’t really had an election since the 90’s- merely the appearance of one- and that no politicians authentically represent a leftist movement as it would be recognized anywhere else in the world. More realistically we haven’t had an authentic leftist movement since the rainbow coalition.
This is all in flagrant contrast to the deeply “leftist/socialist” behaviors of the power elite, represented by firms like Black Rock, Goldman Sachs, et al which wield true power regardless of whether the tassels in the oval office are blue or red. They get zero interest loans, bailouts, and contracts regardless of who wields power.
No, she's just someone on the left, of which there are many, who have no tolerance or acceptance unless one adheres totally to their "left wing" talking points. Any deviance will be met by all manner of accusations, threats, etc, as Manning has done here. I wish Greenwald had not apologized for referencing his being there for her during her suicide attempts. It's interesting that the left extols freedom of speech, but attacks someone with such viciousness because they dare to speak to Tucker Carlson.
Let's be honest: Chelsea Manning performed an heroic act of great value, but was and is a deeply troubled human. From the Lamo correspondences, to her suicide attempts, to this latest heartbreaking chapter, she presents herself as passionate but seriously untethered.
I beg to differ. While I can understand Snowden to a great degree, since he was a civilian, and protected by whistleblower laws, and much more lenient laws on protecting national secrets, I have a lot less sympathy for Manning's release of information.
Manning was a soldier. Sworn...SWORN to protect the US and her secrets, not to pass judgement on them. If a soldier is put in a position where they are morally offended, or feel they cannot perform a duty, there are ways and means around such things. (Conscientious objector, anyone?) Or even, the Military Whistleblower Protection Act of 1988 ( https://whistleblowerlaw.com/military-whistleblower-protection-act-protect ).
There are ways to blow the whistle for those in the military. What Manning did was.not.right. That they are not sitting in prison right now, they should be thanking the likes of Glenn and an extremely forgiving public.
Let's see . . . the USA has been fighting destructive wars in the Middle East and Africa for close to twenty-five years. There have been countless reports from civilians, ngo's, and media of butchery, bombings of weddings, assorted rape & pillage . . . How many investigations have there been? How many war criminals convicted of war crimes?
None, you say? That's rather odd. Unbelievable, in fact. I wonder why more soldiers, and/or U.S./NATO personnel, don't use the MWPA and other legal (e.g., USMCJ) provisions to officially report such crimes? Might it be that such reports do not go unpunished, almost never fairly investigated, and almost always covered up?
You claim: "There are ways to blow the whistle for those in the military." but that's not true in any meaningful way, as we all know if we're being honest with ourselves.
-
Your position also seems to be based on the idea that the US military is there to "protect the US" in some way. Far from the truth. The US military exists to protect the financial interests of the very wealthiest upper echelons of the virtually stateless corporate system (albeit largely based in America). I don't know about you, but when I think "The US", I think the *people* of the US. And the interests of the people of the US were not served by illegal wars and the copious war crimes that followed. It was actually the moral responsibility of every single US soldier to speak out about what happened, and only a very few, including Manning, did.
-
You and people like you really should stop confusing law, with right and wrong. People have a moral responsibility to do the right thing as they see it, whether the law of the state agrees with them or not. You can't escape that responsibility, you can never put it down.
My definition of hero is one who exposes themself to great personal risk for an otherwise unachievable, extraordinarily beneficial goal. One can argue each of those elements in Manning's case, but I believe her actions met those criteria. I concede every point other than your moral judgment.
I'm not making a moral judgement. I'm pointing out the laws of the United States. And PFC Manning broke them. PFC Manning plead guilty to (and was convicted of) multiple charges, and even apologized for harming the United States, as well as admitted to being (psychologically) disturbed at the time of the actions they took.
When reviewing all the events that lead to Manning's gaining access to those documents, to the release of the documents - heck, even the presence in the Army at the time, one wonders how all those event s took place in the first place. Someone, somewhere, along the line, should have stopped and assessed the situation and got Manning some help.
_______
I know with firsthand experience that the US tightened its security protocols and has made getting TS-SCI access a LOT harder to get and maintain.
So, in that regard at least, I agree with you, that Manning's actions did result in some benefit to the US. I fail to see how the release of state secrets for over 44 years (1966-2010) somehow was beneficial to the US, except to show the world that the largest democracy in the world is untrustworthy. One can argue the pros and cons of such a status, but I can't believe the world is somehow safer because of it.
You are, to use an over-nice term, a loyalist; and the rest of us have learned the lessons of 1776 better than you have.
Loyalists in 1776: "You people are taking the awful step of denouncing and opposing the king, so you can't call yourself patriots!"
Loyalists like you today: "You people are exposing the hidden wrong acts of the US government and contributing to its bad reputation, so you can't be beneficial to the US!"
Whether you know it or not, you would have been on the wrong side in 1776 if you had been brought up then. There's a big difference between the interests of the government and the interests of the country (or the world for that matter); Manning worked in that space as a whistleblower, and Greenwald does too.
Negative. I believe in personal freedom. It's why I'm not an authoritarian democrat. It's why I would have fought for the North in the Civil War and against slavery. So, please do not pretend to know the thoughts or intents of other people, since, unless you've picked up some form of telepathy, you do not.
I am very much interested in smaller government and against the authoritarian state. Which would have obviously put me against the superpower that was the British Empire at the time.
And, FWIW, there were spies on both sides of the Revolutionary War. And hanging was the result, if they were caught - by either side. Manning only narrowly avoided being charged with aiding the enemy, and likely only did b/c of the defense that they were mentally unstable at the time.
Also, there are ways of using whistleblower laws that are still legal. Manning, an admitted disturbed individual, broke multiple laws and didn't use the existing whistleblower protections available to them.
As I've stated elsewhere, Snowden is a different case. He is/was a civilian and the laws apply differently to him. As much as I disagree with the whistleblower who reported on Trump's call with the Ukraine, he at least did it the correct way (took the information to a member of Congress).
Obeying the law does not make one a worshiper at the altar of authoritarianism. It simply means one understands that one can be a lot more effective working within the constraints of the law than without.
If you doubt the concept, then quit your job and go start shaking down 7/11s for a living. Tell me how that works out.
I appreciate the clarification -- but you're still wrong.
Suppose that in 1775, a British soldier sympathetic to the Patriot cause had leaked the secret info about troop movements that Paul Revere (and Dawes and Prescott) ended up spreading. That soldier would have violated some strict British laws, but if he did it to protect Americans and for the cause of liberty, he would be in the right. And he should be celebrated as a hero.
Suppose that in France around 1900, a French soldier discovered military secrets showing that Albert Dreyfus was innocent and leaked the information to the French public, knowing that it would send message to the people of France and around the world that the French government was untrustworthy, but still willing to do it for the sake of the liberating political effects. Granting that this would be a clear breach of strict laws on military secrecy, is it actually wrong? Of course it's not. That French soldier should be considered as a hero.
I see other commenters have debunked the idea that Manning could have had as good an effect by using the procedures of the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, so I won't discuss that.
In general, as most Manning supporters realize, an oath to obey government orders (or military orders in particular) is not the highest value. Relations to actual humans are what matter most, not commitments to a non-human and sometimes unjust institution. The government or military often pushes people to act against what they see is right, because it is an institution with little tendency to do what's right itself. Humans are in a better position than institutions to be ethical agents, since no institution has an actual conscience. Manning saw that she could do more good for the people of this country by breaking the institution's rules, so she had the decency to follow that course.
But I probably don't have time to discuss this much further.
I wonder what your stance is on "committing the crime" vs "breaking the law". And specifically someone claiming that sometimes not doing the latter is equivalent to the former.
I remember when she was arrested. The Democratic Party loyalists loved Obama unconditionally and hated Chelsea Manning. I'm sure a lot of those people are now rallying to her side because she publicly attacked you. She'll learn the hard way what happens when you lock arms with people who worship political parties. Sad. I really admired her.
She's been co-opted. That's what happens to opposition without the fortitude and resources of Greenwald, Hedges, and the like. Much of the former activist left (where are the old movements against war? golbalism?) has suffered this fate.
In addition to the institutional abuse she suffered and (thus) her manifestly fragile mind, it sounds much as if she's now been talking to the wrong people for too long. Reminds me of what seems to have happened to AOC since she was first elected. Too bad Chelsea and Glenn hadn't stayed in contact.
Man. CM sounds like she has some fairly high anxiety. The friends/enemies dynamic - oddly, it was "the alleged left" who kept her in prison, but she's not calling Obama a Nazi. Glenn's view of defense/industrial ("both sides of the aisle") sociopathy is a lot clearer-eyed. But CM being "afraid" of Glenn just doesn't wash - at least not rationally. That's why I think CM has anxiety issues. Her response just isn't rational. So there must be another explanation. Not an easy story here at all. My opinion: Glenn you did your very best. That's all anyone could ever expect.
I’m not sure how rare CM’s type of thinking is. I would like to dismiss her as a crank but I think there are quite a few like her. I’ve always thought I needed that little voice in my head saying I might be wrong. Particularly on complex political issues that are constantly pitched to me through propaganda/hyperbole. Some people don’t have that little voice. Their political beliefs fuse with their identity as a human being. Thus, if you suggest one of those beliefs may be wrong, it is not seen as an attack on the political idea but an attack on them as a person. That’s where I think this “us against them” nonsense comes from. Are you on my team or not? CM’s texts are further disturbing in her description of deceitful relationships. Sure, I will hang out with you, laugh with you, including even TC. But deep down I know you are my enemy. That is some really demented thinking.
There used to be a tactic used mainly by the right - that this issue (e.g., abortion) ain’t a garden party. It’s a matter of life or death. We don’t tolerate differences of opinion over matters of life or death. It can be a very effective political argument - if it is used sparingly. But that tactic has been extended now to just about every political issue. Everything is life and death. You don’t believe in affirmative action? Well, you are a racist trying to do violence to minorities. You make an economic argument why raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour may have unintended consequences? Well, you want the poor to starve and die. There is no middle ground. You are either with us or you are my enemy.
Interesting that of the communications that did come from Manning, quite a few were mercenary in nature..."I have this tweet, can you bump it on your feed for me?" (paraphrasing). And, I know it's easy to heap blame on Manning, which, I'm not trying to do. But, one can certainly understand how Glenn would/could get defensive, given the efforts made in the past, and the seeming ingratitude in the present.
Soooo many people feel like Glenn has somehow switched sides. I can't say that I've agreed with everything he's posted recently about getting out of Afghanistan. (I'm glad THAT we are, not glad HOW we are, getting out.) But, Glenn is sticking up for REAL journalistic integrity, and if that means he shows up on TC, then he shows up on TC. It's shameful that so many on the Left (and it happens on the Right, though not as frequently) take this "Us or them" mentality.
That's NOT how we used to live, though the young, in particular, don't realize this. Twitter and social media has warped so many people's sense of reality. And what's worse, is that since most of those people on social networks (that aren't famous) are anonymous, those accounts are designed to manipulate. There are people behind those accounts that act in bad faith; and there are many that are foreign actors. Accounts manned by people from other countries DESIGNED to sow dissent in free countries.
I mention the above b/c it sounds like Manning is caught up in those same online "wars" that have worked to make it so that Americans can't even talk to each other, without feeling that they are talking with "the enemy" - as if that in itself is some offensive thing. (Even if they WERE the enemy, talking with them, is what you're supposed to do. What's the alternative? *Actual* war?)
No, it's not Glenn who has changed. It's those who lament his supposed changes who have.
I’ve been reading Greenwald for 15 years. He’s been a broken record on principles all that time particularly pro-civil liberties, corporate media criticism, and antiwar positions. How he tactically couches his arguments and to whom he targets and tries to court with those arguments for purposes of persuasion have changed over the years, but not the core beliefs.
If you were reading him while Bush-critical Democrats went silent when Obama continued or expanded those same Bush-era policies, you get his contempt for party-over-principle liberals in the Trump/Biden era now. If you read his criticism of government-propaganda spouting corporate media, like Fox News, in 2006, you understand his loathing for MSNBC now.
I’m sure he can be a prickly bastard to acquaintances in the business, but as just a media consumer I couldn’t give less of a shit about those internecine dramas.
Yeah honestly I started following the guy's work at some point in 2013, read a few of his books, and to me the people who claim he has changed have simply never really looked at it seriously. They're just dogpiling. They loved the guy as long as his defense of principles stood on the right partisan side for them, that's all.
For anyone who actually pays attention and understands his framework, he might be one of the most predictable commentators. I love his takes because they are super well articulated and substantiated most of the time, so I'm not saying he's boring or anything. But his principles are quite straightforward to follow. And I feel like most of the time, people rage about him for no other reason than the fact they've now decided he was bad, so they listen to what he says in search for the soundbite that will confirm their opinion that he's a grifter, then call him a fascist and move on. I can't remember the last time I saw anyone actually engage with the content of his argument and be so vitriolic.
The Tucker Carlson appearances have become a recurring theme. Yet nobody proposes a cogent argument as to why what he's doing is bad. It's just "but Tucker" to dunk on him, then they're out. Then the quote about Trump and Tucker being socialists. Everyone just repeats that quote and quite obviously none has taken the time to actually listen to the argument and consider that he had just before that stipulated a redefinition of the word. The only people I've seen actually engage with that argument were Ben Burgis and the guy from Zerobooks, and they both have in common the fact that while they disagreed with the actual argument even in its full context, they didn't use that as a weapon to suddenly conclude that Greenwald was a complete idiot. They had a respectful and well argued disagreement against his argument, period.
“ I’m sure he can be a prickly bastard to acquaintances in the business…”
That may be one source of the situation. Glenn’s been in the pigpen, unafraid of the hogs. As a result he’s blunt. I get it, but folks in Chelsea's predicament wouldn’t. She’s fairly principled, but she’s delicate mentally and physically.
Well, the fact is, if you're intelligent enough to be a journalist, you're likely to have an opinion, and probably a well-formed (if not "IN-formed") one. And, by virtue of that, you'll likely have a "side" of some sort or another.
Glenn is, still, quite left of center. What makes him - while not unique, certainly of a dying breed - is that he has maintained journalistic integrity. And this, without (and probably because of) having "formal" journalism training. (He's a lawyer by trade - no Columbia Journalism School graduate he!)
So, he's maintained both his independence as a journalist - AND his journalistic integrity. And because of that, those of us who are right of center, like myself, can agree and disagree with him, without worrying that he'll move the goalposts on us, like so many in mainstream media do. (Russia-gate, the Hunter Biden story, and a zillion other examples.)
So, if/when Glenn is opinion writing about his left-of-center beliefs, because we know he has integrity - he gains a much larger following on those who do NOT agree with him, than the legions of people who feel like Manning - that if you're not in the Far-Left Cult-Think, then you're "Other" and must be shunned. Just shows that Right wingers are actually more open minded than the so-called "Progressives."
I think the posters are missing the point. They, meaning the bad guys have put Chelsea up to this, trying to defame Glen in any way possible. I wonder why? No, I don't have to wonder, Glen has been pushing the narrative about our corrupt government lately and they just don't want the general public to know about it.
Keep in mind, the Main Street media is NOWHERE to be found practicing journalism anymore and besides the fact that Glen makes them look like fools, the public is starting to figure out that they really are.
It takes a brave man to publish the facts as we know them, and Glen does not let his political philosophy interupt putting forth the truth. GOD bless him.
It really shows that these folks have built their own separate realities out of a flimsy deck of cards that is social media, likes, retweets. She even defines this as the "personal" v. "political" spheres.
Anyone that threatens their pseudo-reality is an enemy because you are attack the image they have of themselves. That is why she finds you threatening, Glenn. You have challenged, albeit unwittingly and unintentionally, her perception of reality, and that itself, she believes is a personal attack.
Lots of what people do, even on Twitter (and in real life as well), is based on what they think is right although reputation is also a factor. Seems fair to see Manning's tweets yesterday in those terms too.
Fair enough. I don't know what her motivations are. I just don't believe that they have anything to do with her legitimate fear of a man who has been a friend, colleague and advocate for her. It is difficult to see this as a good faith criticism on her part.
Well, first, I think Manning doesn't quite get some aspects of Greenwald's political moves. That doesn't say anything bad about her, because although Greenwald is highly transparent in some aspects of what he's doing, he's not entirely open about all aspects of his plans (not that he needs to be). She feels that Greenwald is influential and carries weight (which is true). And she worries that unknown aspects of his politics might lead him to have a big effect in future that would have drastically negative consequences for her and/or her political kin. I don't share that worry but I can understand someone feeling that way in good faith. Manning isn't the only good-faith person who has that worry, not by any means. Greenwald is not entirely without responsibility for his sparking this sort of worry in many good-faith people.
I'm inclined to compare Manning's phrase "terrified of you and everything you do" with the phrase by Intercept editor Betsy Reed "It would be unfortunate and detrimental to The Intercept for this story to be published elsewhere." Greenwald immediately misinterpreted Reed's phrase in a worse light than it was meant, but what the fairly even-keeled Betsy Reed is expressing in her own way is an understandable worry, the same kind of worry that Manning does. The worry is "Greenwald is influential and some aspects of his politics are hard to fathom, he may end up destroying values we hold dear, can we still consider him as friendly or should we see him as the opposite?" Greenwald often comes too close to treating that worry as expressing an absence of important values, when it is actually the result of good people having values that they're not sure if Greenwald will trample on.
So I would say that Manning's "terrified of you and everything you do" is expressed in highly dramatic form (if you know anything about Manning you know she does that, and I don't mind it in her) but it is nevertheless entirely in good faith. Greenwald himself rarely knows how to deal with this kind of emotional concern about him, whether it's expressed by a Chelsea Manning or a Betsy Reed or another equally good person. Probably he doesn't know because at least a small part of the answer lies close to home. I think Manning's comment should be treated as making a serious point which is not entirely what it appears to be on the surface, and should not be conflated with how the online comunity of Greenwald's detractors would see it.
Appreciating nuance seems to have taken a nose dive in the last 4-5 years. This seems to be particularly true for those who think of themselves as activists.The binary for the good guys and the bad guys just isn't doing it for me. My religious upbringing was kind-of an inoculation to that kind of thinking.
I am incredibly comfortable with what I don't know about Glenn because it is none of my fucking business. In his reporting, he has consistently stuck to principles that are based on the preservation of civil liberties. At times, that has made him sympathetic to one side or the other.
But his commitment to those principles is almost dogmatic. That is impressive. With a few exceptions, he may be all that remains of the fourth estate. An adversarial journalist is good for all of us. It was really good for Chelsea Manning.
To add to this, I am somewhat annoyed that the sausage factory is now in the public square. I do not want or need to know about how the journalism sausage is made. Petty grievances between activists, journalists and activist journalists do not inspire confidence.
I was musing through your post, saying to myself "yes, I can see how you might think these things" before you wrote:
"I'm inclined to compare Manning's phrase "terrified of you and everything you do" with the phrase by Intercept editor Betsy Reed "It would be unfortunate and detrimental to The Intercept for this story to be published elsewhere." Greenwald immediately misinterpreted Reed's phrase in a worse light than it was meant"
And I'm afraid to say that I consider your position to be astonishingly naive in this regard at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst. To describe Betsy Reed- a Democratic Party PR officer- as "even keeled" and "a good person" while characterizing her private censorship of Greenwald and subsequent public mockery of Greenwald as stemming from a "good faith" "emotional concern" is simply a butchery of history.
She meant to urge him not to publish the piece, not to ban publishing. I don't agree with her in that, but of course "PR officer" is a big exaggeration. Wanting to discourage messages that might help Trump is not the same as being a PR officer for the Democrats. I've met people who do PR for the Democrats and they don't want the Intercept to exist. Betsy Reed's decision was complex. Part of her reason was that she thought urging Greenwald not to publish, if it succeeded, would help the Intercept's internal harmony. She could not understand how it could be a reasonable choice for someone to change their presidential vote based on the case made in Greenwald's piece, although she was able to realize that some might do so. Also, she thought the points made and suggested by Greenwald's piece were more dubious than they really were. In her mind she was not opposing valuable journalism but discouraging the publication of misleading claims and suggestions that weren't well enough substantiated. If the article had contained a clearer smoking gun, I'm not sure she would have acted the same.
Of course I don't think Betsy Reed was right to do what she did, but then again, Greenwald himself has been credibly accused of suppressing dissenting articles: https://twitter.com/radleybalko/status/1321901809007546374 I don't think Greenwald was right either in what he did with Liliana Segura's article. As usual, any effort to make Greenwald the 100% hero is a distortion even if his fans keep wanting to treat things that way. I find that given my admiration for a lot of what Greenwald does, I have to constantly remind myself that he's human and he makes his share of missteps. I think that makes my interpretations more realistic.
I knew that if I mentioned Betsy Reed's statement some people's emotions would take over. The fact is that Greenwald has a similar effect on Manning and other good people. So there's an overall pattern, and rushing to interpret the pattern in a way that makes Greenwald entirely in the right is a mistake. That needs to be mentioned whether it's easy to face or not.
You are excellent at what the Greeks called sophistry, such beautiful phrasing - do you have a PhD in rhetoric? "In her mind she was not opposing valuable journalism but discouraging the publication of misleading claims and suggestions that weren't well enough substantiated" is such a treasure trove of charming misrepresentation and gaslighting. "In her mind the Democratic Establishment censor and gatekeeper was not..." would add just a little bit of truthfulness.
Linking to the tweet by Liliana Segura where she provides absolutely no details or evidence of her assertion is so clever, because you know that most people won't click through (as I did). You have to be a professional PA person, or someone else schooled in the discourse dark arts. Impressive work!
I found this to be a really heartbreaking exchange to read. It is an all-too-familiar example of how media-generated moral panic (particularly from "liberal" legacy networks and Silicon Valley) contaminates communication in irrevocable ways. The beautiful complexity that comprise friends and family members gets reduced to binary labels such as "ally" or "enemy". It's a devasting result of the divide and conquer strategy that has been dialed up to unbearable levels since Trump took office. Many of us know personally what it's like to be on the receiving end of a close friend or family member's rage, because we're insufficiently upset, or have a different opinion, about a hot topic in a news cycle.
I have tremendous empathy and appreciation for everything Chelsea endured, which makes it even more tragic to see a pillar of moral courage denouncing someone for not obeying the dictates of the monoculture.
To be honest I did not find it heartbreaking, or upsetting, but rather manipulative on her part. Her ambiguity will garner her a lot more attention then had she made a non ambiguous accusation that could be directly confronted. She no doubt feels justified in her melodrama because Greenwald does not adhere to the cultish left which has been critical of his appearances on Tucker Carlson, and no doubt his leaving the Intercept because they wouldn't publish an article critical of Biden, or that he calls the "insurrection" by it's right name, a riot, etc. The zealotry, common place among the left, tuns me off, and her remarks do as well.
I actually never saw her as heroic. I ways found her motives and methods suspect and now that the histrionic nature of the left, particularly the Trans community, is out in the open, her behavior makes a lot more sense.
I don't understand how anyone can see Chelsea Manning as heroic or - frankly - deliberate. I have always regarded Manning as the complete opposite of Snowden. Snowden had a sincere concern, a clearly articulated objective and the material he leaked was highly relevant to those concerns and objectives.
The publicly released chats between Manning and WikiLeaks are indicative primarily of mental illness and a profound sense of discomfort by Manning with herself and her place in society. The material she released is borderline irrelevant to what are plainly the political issues she cares most about. I mean, state department profiles of Icelandic politicians? Summaries of mundane collections of information from local sources? State department assessments of local political realities that were rarely any more insightful than the type of speculation you could see in local newspapers? Why?
Sure, some of it was "newsworthy" in the plainest sense of that word, but also sort of not? Even the so-called collateral murder video strikes me as something not worth risking going to jail for. I mean, it's a video of a military strike, following express authorization to open fire, against a group of Iraqis, some of which were armed with RPGs and AK47s. It's not like the audio contains an acknowledgment that there are a couple of Reuters reporters with the armed men. I'm sure commenters here will vehemently disagree with me, but did anyone really need to see this video to understand that this sort of thing - unavoidably - occurs in war zones?
I had the same reaction. Her tone alternates between being apologetic for her anxiety about what Glenn's appearances on Fox will result in and demanding that he share it by refusing to appear on Carlson's show. Her actual concern is as mysterious as her latest tweet about being terrified of him for no specific reason. I think she has been a heroic figure in the past, but this exchange and her current tweets suggest that the psychological torture she suffered in prison may have left her emotionally unstable. I thought their exchange about someone named Emily was very revealing. His blocking of Emily is part of her attack on what, in her eyes, he has become, but when he tells her that he has found Emily, doesn't know her, but that she has blocked him, not the other way around, Manning's response is "Why are you telling me this?" I'm not sure she remembered what she had accused him of.
As far as Greenwald being on Tucker, his choice. I like Tucker Carlson even though I don't agree with him on any number of issues. Manning along with a very significant part of the so called left have become very authoritarian in their position, and it's not only something I see played out between people like Manning and Greenwald, but in my own life. It could be that she is having some emotional issues, but the attitude she expresses is very prevalent on the left. On a third cousin's Facebook page political issues were discussed, and should you in anyway defend Trump you were viciously attacked. This was a group who were republicans for Biden, and basically not a liberal group at all. Trump's comment about Clorox came up and most thought he was suggesting people should, could ingest it to kill the corona virus. That wasn't my take and believed he was talking about an anti-viral like Clorox that could be taken internally for Covid. Someone, well educated, rich, suggested I drink a bottle of Clorox and kill myself. I told her I felt she was threatening my life by suggesting such a thing, and would report her to Facebook, I was putting it on, but it scared the hell out of her and she deleted everything and never addressed any other comments I made. I got off that site and said goodbye to that cousin I barely knew, and realized that people so hate Trump they feel justified in attacking you, threatening you, while they proclaim to take a liberal stance on issues unlike Trump's "ignorant" following. People are empathetic toward Manning and feel she might be loosing it, but she is no different in her views then those I've come across, and to hell with them.
Thanks for this anecdote. I've got my own. Although I've enjoyed chatting with (real-world) friends as well as political groups on FB, I now have dropped it completely after finding myself repeatedly shadow-banned last year for asking provocative but carefully-reasoned questions.
I'm convinced we (us "commoners", certainly) are all subjects in a very wide scale propaganda psy-op. That may sound like unhinged paranoia today to the average citizen, but the evidence is overwhelming *if* one is unafraid to look, and is also careful not to take unreasonable (irrational) extrapolations beyond that evidence. These tasks -- responsibilities, really, in a democratic society -- seem to be too hard for most people.
If you are not an ardent adherent of the new left you will be defined as ignorant, uninformed, and a bigot, etc. Their hypocrisy is stunning, and I agree that it doesn't pay to confront it. Some other distant cousin on Facebook passed along a meme that defined all those who voted for Trump as a cultish lot who were uneducated and totally amoral. This is the new left talking. What is striking is that they are unaware of their profound prejudice, and are guilty of pushing the same mindset they claim to abhor.
Could you clarify what you mean by calling it a psy-op? More specifics would help.
I mean that the psychological research on, and *promoting*, mass manipulation that has been going on for over a century has, at least in the last few decades been applied in a very wide-scale, systematic fashion to the West (and I imagine everywhere). *This* is what is involved destroying Western democracy -- not the subjects of idiotic accusations like Russian FB ads "fomenting discord", or unhinged Trump rioters on Jan 6.
Mass manipulation (propaganda) was openly and famously advocated by Lippmann and Bernays in the 1920s as the antidote to the contemporary citizen's inability to understand** the complex world thoroughly, by replacing them with technocrats; it was described in action by Chomsky and Herman in late 1980s; to identify just three well-known students off the top of my head. In the U.S., it has been apparent to me since c.1980 (I've been around a long time) that we had entered a new era of dangerously very wide bifurcation of public and private government goals.
--------
**Their error here, IMO, being the conflation of citizens' *moral* right to be sovereign, with their *functional* right to "run" things through representative democracy.
If manning is so confidently righteous, why not go on tucker and explain "her" side? Maybe deep seated guilt at violating "his" (at the time) oath to protect national secrets.
"national secrets" You misspelled "war crimes".
No, the only crime in war is losing. Any particular disclosures that disturb you? Or just opposed to winning?
On the other hand, the US war crimes complex death cult has not actually won a war in decades... so in that regard, you are correct : )
"No, the only crime in war is losing." Spoken like a true might makes right lizard-brained American exceptionalist war crimes apologist. Kindly attempt to urinate up a multi-stranded hemp product.
"urinate up a multi-stranded hemp product." - this is one of the best forums to learn about new products and their applications. In English too.
So, no particular disclosures disturb you. Sounds like a true useful idiot. You're fortunate your country gives you the right to hate it. But that only lasts as long as competent Americans protect that right. After we're conquered, your new masters will demand loyalty.
Vietnam? Afghanistan? Somalia? The US military IS a bunch of losers.
Victory against irregular forces doesn't mean generals in fancy uniforms sitting at a table to sign surrender documents. Victory is preventing those irregular forces from accomplishing their objectives, and protecting ours. Coddled people who don't understand how the world works want a quick, decisive fight with a formal resolution. Doesnt walk that way..
All three of the countries you mention were proxies for bigger conflicts, and were effective in protecting our interests and damaging theirs. No one cared about Vietnam, except the Vietnamese. That campaign stopped soviet expansion. We won, they lost.
Some people hope for American failure. They'll always be disappointed, relying on their ignorance to construct consolation.
Has she gone to other, "friendly" shows? Or is she not invited there? Not much manning anything, looks like, hence picking on Greenwald, doing the womanning instead.
Manipulative is spot on.
"The beautiful complexity that comprise friends and family members gets reduced to binary labels such as 'ally' or 'enemy'" Agreed. But it's not just interpersonal relationships, there is so much interaction in society that can be "beautiful[ly] complex", if it is allowed.
The idea that there is (necessarily) a war, that one *has* to choose sides, and that, consequently, one *has* to drop communication with "the enemy" ... all the way down to interpersonal relationships, destroys that. War thinking is completely toxic to democracy, and to any society, but that has been a primary method of our new "Leftist" totalitarians.
I agree that war is destructive to the mind as well as to the body-- war is the ultimate vehicle for scaring people into submission, imprinting black & white values, and hiding high crimes by leaders. Most wars are motivated and manufactured from the political and economic desires of those in power or contesting for power. I listened to a podcast the other day where Eva Bartlett and Kitt Knightly speculated that the *main* reason for the war in Afghanistan may have been to launder money and steal trillions of dollars.
How "left"? I'd describe today's rulers (both Dem, Repub & foreign) as "technocrats". Common people are no longer individuals who vote and whose opinions matter, but rather a flock to be managed efficiently and sheared as needed. I disagree with those on the right who accuse practically anyone with whom they disagree, or dislike, as being globalist leftist radical socialist communist Antifa revolutionaries.
Well stated, thanks
The division started with the Clinton’s and every president since. The baby boomer generation know no bounds and was never civil or concerned with the results of their own actions. Of course I am generalizing but stereotypes are earned.
I don't normally bandy this about - but I know Glenn personally, I knew his mother, she was a very good friend. Glenn Greenwald, whatever might think about his politics, is a good man and a loyal friend. He is not a monster.
Manning said what she said, but her newfound fear and hatred for Glenn Greenwald has no basis in reality.
The left as an entity is terrified of Glenn Greenwald because he fights for the truth before party.
The fearmongers in power will always hate those who seek the truth.
Agree, except that I wouldn't describe those in power as "left". But then, labels are rubbery things.
Agreed, Glen has always stuck to his principles. I've admired him and his journalistic integrity since the 2000s.
Hi, Bill…I see you got the boot from Twatter. Amazing how flexible Democrats and other liberals are with the truth. They’ve become repugnant.
Yes. Suspended, probably forever. I appealed, but that has never worked for any of my locks, or other sanctions in the past. I have been unpersoned. 12 years of tweets, many people that I only 'knew' there, my ability to ask a question of many people and get a good answer, to do research, etc. All gone. And all over an albeit rude tweet.
Hope things are well in your town.
I'm sorry that happened to you. Shows you should never let an evil corporation be the sole holder of your data. People have lost access to years of their Gmail, like Dennis Cooper (who was eventually allowed to download the messages after getting publicity and threatening legal action). I wonder if legal threats, or recovering things that happen to be stored in the Internet Archive, or threatening bad publicity, would work for you.
In general, it's best if people periodically download to their PCs everything of theirs that's stored on an evil corporation's servers, particularly evil social media companies. In particular, it's a lot easier to download the complete set of your tweets before the account gets banned, since you can just ask Twitter then.
Slightly OT - my apologies, but your rbought up Inernet Archive as an alternative for content preseration. My observation is that for the past few years, IA seems to have become pretty wussy about saving content from any site (any site with a legal staff, at least) that might harbor any objection whatever to independent archival, no matter how legally weak those potential objections seem. Kahle & co might be justified in that behavior in a potential short-term costs vs revenues sense, but the loss of utility is telling, and the accumulated reputational costs will likely be very serious. I have a concern that IA and its content might not exist in a few (possibly very few) years. I absolutely do NOT regard Google as a viable alternative to IA.
I did DL all my tweets on the reg. The last was a few months ago. Good advice. Thanks!
I cant stand twitter and dont have an account but thats the free market at work. Its odd to me to hear (not that this is you) supposed free-market conservatives angry private businesses are doing things their way.
There was never an implication of free speech on twitter. This is the massive argument I got in with net neutrality proponents before Trump/Pai. There is NO expectation of free speech on a private companies platform.
I regard your classification of companies as "private" that utilize business models that are sheltered by government regulations such as Section 230, and/or that depend on favorable treatment from telecomm giants that themselves get nearly exclusive privilege to play in government-restricted markets, to be highly questionable. If a company is so dependent on the State that it would probably fail in the face of open competition, it should be be subject to thevery same mandates and restrictions that (supposedly) limit government. The rat's nest that is today's internet has as little in common with an actual competitive market as shit has with Shinola (possibly less).
Nor should there be, just as no private entity ("public" corporations are private entities) should be FORCED to, say, bake a cake....
Oh, we’ve had the pleasure of protests against compulsory vaccination here. Abbotsford’s in the middle of the bible belt in BC, and it looked like all the brats came home from bible camp to protest.
We had a serious heat weekend end of June, and my small portable a/c gave up the ghost at the very end of it. I’ll give it a recycle with full military honours.
I got a new one…lucked in on sale…50% more capacity, and quieter!
I was overjoyed with the news that Chystia Freeland had to spend time in Twitter jail…hoist on her own petard!
Speaking of all this, Bill…I either didn't realize or I had forgotten that Chelsea was denied entry to Canada because she was regarded as a traitor by Prime Minister(s) Truharp!
Like Galloway!
Canada is a five-eyes agreement country it is no surprise they would back their five-eyes agreement partner the US over intelligence matters. That was the very reason for the agreement.
…and it’s wrong. Just like carrying on our membership in moribund NATO.
Well look at this some common ground. I agree 100%.
This is a remarkably telling moment. Glenn Greenwald has been absolutely consistent on principle. Among the available examples, he opposed indefinite pre-trial detention under harsh circumstances for Chelsea Manning, for accused Islamist terrorism defendants, and now for January 6 defendants. He's been pro-due process, a serious critic of the national security state, and an opponent of domestic political surveillance.
To the contemporary American "left," this means Greenwald has moved right – because he's applying a principled opposition to cruelty and abuse of process to people who are identified with the right.
The important fact here is that, on matters of principle, Greenwald HAS NOT MOVED. We have a "left" now that only applies categories of identity to its analysis, without any other unifying principle: January 6 defendants should rot in pre-trial solitary detention, because suck it Trump. It's hard to watch.
What's crazy is the Russiagate era saw liberals move to the right with natsec loving Bircher-ism, and they think HE has gone right.
Instantly proving the lies of the left since 1968.
That the left never wanted tolerance or equality, they wanted the same totalitarian bullshit they complained about for decades, just with them in charge.
Please identify just who the fuck your pea-brain thinks is on the left. I guarantee you will identify liberals and DemoCRATS, not leftists. This lazy and clownish marginalization of the actual left by false conflation with these liberal performance artists is none the less effective on small minds. Hint... No leftist worthy of the name ever bought the Russia-gate propaganda and the war criminal HRC's idiotic flailing after failing to beat her hand-picked candidate, the talented and racist carnival barker Trump. No leftist supports endless wars, authoritarian censorship, the DemocRAT(ICK) party or CIA fuckery. Liberals have demonstrated that the Tea Party did not have a lock on the "moranic" imbecile market.
Great, John, I'll ask you the exact question I asked Art and Mona who made this identical scree.
"Which politician do you support that you feel is actually 'on the left'?".
First, answer my request that you identify those you think are on the left, then I will answer your question. It is an easy one.
By no means meaning to break up this lovefest but simply curious - I observe this indignation of "left" term being misused etc. The ones who make that argument - and you are one of them - do they also have the same attitude towards the term "right"?
In other words, same DNC shill, different DNC speech. Another gatekeeper of what is left and what is right, because only John Kelly is worthy of saying what is.
LOL
I answered this bullshit question when you shitlords threw this tantrum back in December 2020.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-threat-of-authoritarianism-in/comments
First, recognize that Ill do whatever the fuck I want, and in no way, shape or form, am I beholden to answer shit from you.
Now go run along and tell everyone (just like Art and Mona) how everyone who calls themselves left isn't and only you are the true gatekeeper of what is left or right.
FUCK OUTTA HERE
In other words, "liberals" revealed their il-liberalism.
You might find politics less confounding if you didn't grossly misdefine the Right as "everything I hate".
To whom does "you" refer, M. Ian B or a generic "one"?
Excellent summary. Conservative here who disagrees a ton with Glenn on some politics but I am 10000000% behind his devotion to truth as the starting point.
His consistency is a breath of fresh air in a fetid bath of lies and corruption.
Man that is one heck of a truth devotion multiplier!
If extra zeros were all it took for commitment, lots of people would count as having courage and integrity.
The level of ingratitude is astonishing ... this is the Left perfectly expressed. Blinkered by their moral vanity and unable to look beyond the most basic fundamental understanding of what makes a relationship. Glenn literally moved mountains for Chelsea yet her craven need to put politics before friendship is one of the worst example of human character I've ever witnessed.
Manning does not come across as particularly hinged, and unfortunately you get to pay the price for not being an utterly tribal hack.
Politics is the new religion. Chelsea’s friend/enemy texts are the rantings of a troubled mind.
Ironic isn't it? The Enlightenment and the Rennaissance, and centuries of struggle, finally succeeded in separating Religion from its historical seat of political power, only to find the decendants of Western Civilization pining for a Religion of political conformity in the third millenium.
Whoever said history is dead was/is wrong.
Jesus freaks back in the early 80's often used the image of a "hole in the soul" that could only be filled with Jesus. As spiritual beings covered with meat, I think we are all seeking meaning in our lives and most who don't succumb to the will for power or chronic intoxication find religion. The religion could be Global Warming, an imaged Peace in the Mideast, mushrooms, or the repetition of Om Mani Padme Hum. There is no reason to despise those whose limited mental capacity puts them in one religion or another. We must have pity for those with such proclivities and superstitions.
Yes and well said, but when the religion becomes Authoritarian Socialism, a response of much more than pity is required by those who will not drink the Kool-Aid.
Without meaning to be unkind, CM sounds a bit overwrought and not exactly rational. For what it's worth, I don't think Glenn Greenwald did anything wrong. He has been a generous and supportive friend to CM, but I think she is in a bad way.
She was held in solitary confinement. That can really mess with people. I wouldn't be surprised if she were still struggling with mental health issues as a result.
Use of solitary confinement in the US is the very definition of torture....
Alexis de Tocqueville, a great admirer of US democracy, was deeply shocked (early and mid 19th century) by its use in US.
It is truly outrageous that it is still used - 200 hundred years later.
Merriam-Webster: "Torture definition is - the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure."
Methinks you have the definition wrong.
You may have that confused with "punishment": a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure.
Thank you for your effort and "clarifying"... ;-))
Extended solitary confinement ONLY creates serious mental illnesses.
Well, not sure about that, but I do agree that it's unjust and inhumane.
Do a bit of research - just as you did on other forms of torture - before starting typing into keyboard... ;-))
How long did mirriam or webster spend in torture conditions?
People are deprived of their liberty by being sent to prison to live in a cage for years or even decades. That is the "punishment". They are not sent to prison FOR punishment.
Punishment, i.e. deliberately inflicting pain, never made anyone a better person. Solitary confinement is real torture.
I used to work for Public Safety in Canada.
I have seen men in solitary confinement try to chew through their own wrists.
It's torture. High order torture.
Thank you Bill -- horrible to know...
Yes, but if the People want someone to rot in prison, it would be cruel to give them a cell-mate.
Do you think Manning handled what they did better or worse than Snowden?
It’s important to recognize that nearly everyone in the political sphere is just parroting talking points crafted by PR firms. Very little independent or even critical though is given to political identity.
This has the troubling effect of people identifying with their oppressors. They’re too hypocritical to be moved on these issues until something in their lives actually breaks, and when it does there’s a tailor made counter-identity that they’re co-opted into. It’s a brilliant way to prevent people from addressing their oppression.
(1) "They’re too hypocritical to be moved on these issues until something in their lives actually breaks..."
Yes, and I'd add that -- ordinarily -- this hypocrisy occurs because they're not sufficiently conscious. This point might be extended to many of life's experiences, not just political beliefs and actions.
(2) "...and when it does there’s a tailor made counter-identity that they’re co-opted into"
Yes, absolutely, but unfortunately: In a healthy society, one not showered with layers of sophisticated propaganda, what they would be doing instead is start *thinking* for themselves -- and this thinking would be sufficient to dig them out. I'm not so sure this is possibly any more, for most people.
"people identifying with their oppressors" - Yup. Democratic Party voters are like Stockholm syndrome victims.
As someone else mentioned, they have made politics religion. As we all know religion causes people to ignore normal thought processes.
Never expose someone's hero as a heel - as they will hate your very guts for that little 'favour'.
For example, William Whitten on this board since I said Trump was a fartknocker.
Or heel as a hero (or at least sympathetic), as in the present case.
Kindly ignore this post. Even i don't remember what i was thinking.
I thought it was fine.
Miranda Devine at the NyPost annihilated Biden this week.
https://nypost.com/2021/09/05/tree-of-lies-for-shameless-joe-biden-devine/
I quote:
"Over his decades in politics, he has constructed a mythical persona full of tall tales of derring-do, exaggerations and outright lies about his accomplishments. He lied about nonexistent academic awards and scholarships and plagiarized speeches willy-nilly.
He pretended that he trained as a racial activist in black churches, claimed he was at the center of the civil-rights movement in Selma and Birmingham, and that he had been arrested in Soweto on his way to see Nelson Mandela in prison. None of it was true.
Each lie served to boost his ego, to place him as the shining superhero of every grandiose story."
Joe Biden as a personal figure uses intimidation, gaslighting and blackmail to achieve his ends. Outwardly he's a pathological liar. He probably qualifies as a grandiose narcissist, which is perfect for state department figureheads (not the brains).
I like to think this was all obvious to people. The narrative come election time was that people didn't care as long as he wasn't Trump. Our election credibility is a disaster, but the plausible narrative blunts any reaction.
The Afghanistan risk card got shuffled back into the deck, but I imagine Biden is being managed with mostly the same playbook as the last grandiose narcissist to occupy the office.
I dont think I could disagree more.
Joe Biden being controlled is not something I believe happened with Trump.
Trump didnt have handlers the way Biden does. The same handlers like Sullivan who have been tied to Klobuchar (while she was letting Chauvin off) and then Hillary.
I do have a sneaking suspicion that TPTB thought that Trump was such a critter of reflex that they could find buttons to push to make him do their bidding, and were forced to find ways to trash him when they found out they had misjudged. Of course, none of us plebes know what grand strategies and schemes the "elite" have cooked up, so it really isn't possible to categorically demonstrate that Trump's rise & fall isn't/wasn't an intentional part of the plan.
You’re probably correct, insofar as Trumps cronyism incidentally insulated himself from permanent DC in an unprecedented way.
Now that Biden has committed the cardinal sin of ending a war I’m curious to see how long he lasts. If he were to attempt to exercise presidential authority again in any unexpected way I expect we’d see a clamor for his removal with questions about his competence arising from state media.
Ultimately they *are* being managed in the same way- as figureheads. Biden just represents less of a PR nightmare where the joint chiefs, state department and alphabet agency soup have to explicitly undermine or ignore the elected president. I think the big difference is that Biden is less contrarian and, to your point, more maleable.
Because the (formerly one) two parties control the entire country and tbh we should all be shocked they even let Trump win once, given that he wasn't a lifer politician like they all are.
As a kid I was always fascinated with history, growing up in Chicago. However I soon learned that the history they teach in school and the actual history did not always match up. Im pretty sure the US has always been corrupt, its only now that the media gatekeepers cant keep a lid on all of it anymore.
For example, go look up people like Moses Annenberg and then compare actual information vs the horseshit Wikipedia has as a summary of him. Or someone like a google executive.
For decades we were told Bill Gates was a high priest of purity. We now know he was out trying to fuck anything that caught his eye just like all the bad conservatives he attacked over the years.
"he was out trying to fuck anything that caught his eye" - based solely on the fact he was pals with Epstein?
Careful. There is a distinction between the “left” and “liberal” Biden supporters. The left agrees with GG. Liberals support censorship of the right not realizing it will come back to bite the left, whom they purport to align w.
The DNC explicitly hasn’t been a left party since before the 90’s and the Clintonian “Third Way”. It could be said that we haven’t really had an election since the 90’s- merely the appearance of one- and that no politicians authentically represent a leftist movement as it would be recognized anywhere else in the world. More realistically we haven’t had an authentic leftist movement since the rainbow coalition.
This is all in flagrant contrast to the deeply “leftist/socialist” behaviors of the power elite, represented by firms like Black Rock, Goldman Sachs, et al which wield true power regardless of whether the tassels in the oval office are blue or red. They get zero interest loans, bailouts, and contracts regardless of who wields power.
I just shake my head about Trump and Biden. Biden’s such a non-entity that he barely won the election, and Trump is so dumb that he lost to Biden.
No, she's just someone on the left, of which there are many, who have no tolerance or acceptance unless one adheres totally to their "left wing" talking points. Any deviance will be met by all manner of accusations, threats, etc, as Manning has done here. I wish Greenwald had not apologized for referencing his being there for her during her suicide attempts. It's interesting that the left extols freedom of speech, but attacks someone with such viciousness because they dare to speak to Tucker Carlson.
Let's be honest: Chelsea Manning performed an heroic act of great value, but was and is a deeply troubled human. From the Lamo correspondences, to her suicide attempts, to this latest heartbreaking chapter, she presents herself as passionate but seriously untethered.
I beg to differ. While I can understand Snowden to a great degree, since he was a civilian, and protected by whistleblower laws, and much more lenient laws on protecting national secrets, I have a lot less sympathy for Manning's release of information.
Manning was a soldier. Sworn...SWORN to protect the US and her secrets, not to pass judgement on them. If a soldier is put in a position where they are morally offended, or feel they cannot perform a duty, there are ways and means around such things. (Conscientious objector, anyone?) Or even, the Military Whistleblower Protection Act of 1988 ( https://whistleblowerlaw.com/military-whistleblower-protection-act-protect ).
There are ways to blow the whistle for those in the military. What Manning did was.not.right. That they are not sitting in prison right now, they should be thanking the likes of Glenn and an extremely forgiving public.
Let's see . . . the USA has been fighting destructive wars in the Middle East and Africa for close to twenty-five years. There have been countless reports from civilians, ngo's, and media of butchery, bombings of weddings, assorted rape & pillage . . . How many investigations have there been? How many war criminals convicted of war crimes?
None, you say? That's rather odd. Unbelievable, in fact. I wonder why more soldiers, and/or U.S./NATO personnel, don't use the MWPA and other legal (e.g., USMCJ) provisions to officially report such crimes? Might it be that such reports do not go unpunished, almost never fairly investigated, and almost always covered up?
You claim: "There are ways to blow the whistle for those in the military." but that's not true in any meaningful way, as we all know if we're being honest with ourselves.
-
Your position also seems to be based on the idea that the US military is there to "protect the US" in some way. Far from the truth. The US military exists to protect the financial interests of the very wealthiest upper echelons of the virtually stateless corporate system (albeit largely based in America). I don't know about you, but when I think "The US", I think the *people* of the US. And the interests of the people of the US were not served by illegal wars and the copious war crimes that followed. It was actually the moral responsibility of every single US soldier to speak out about what happened, and only a very few, including Manning, did.
-
You and people like you really should stop confusing law, with right and wrong. People have a moral responsibility to do the right thing as they see it, whether the law of the state agrees with them or not. You can't escape that responsibility, you can never put it down.
My definition of hero is one who exposes themself to great personal risk for an otherwise unachievable, extraordinarily beneficial goal. One can argue each of those elements in Manning's case, but I believe her actions met those criteria. I concede every point other than your moral judgment.
I'm not making a moral judgement. I'm pointing out the laws of the United States. And PFC Manning broke them. PFC Manning plead guilty to (and was convicted of) multiple charges, and even apologized for harming the United States, as well as admitted to being (psychologically) disturbed at the time of the actions they took.
When reviewing all the events that lead to Manning's gaining access to those documents, to the release of the documents - heck, even the presence in the Army at the time, one wonders how all those event s took place in the first place. Someone, somewhere, along the line, should have stopped and assessed the situation and got Manning some help.
_______
I know with firsthand experience that the US tightened its security protocols and has made getting TS-SCI access a LOT harder to get and maintain.
So, in that regard at least, I agree with you, that Manning's actions did result in some benefit to the US. I fail to see how the release of state secrets for over 44 years (1966-2010) somehow was beneficial to the US, except to show the world that the largest democracy in the world is untrustworthy. One can argue the pros and cons of such a status, but I can't believe the world is somehow safer because of it.
You are, to use an over-nice term, a loyalist; and the rest of us have learned the lessons of 1776 better than you have.
Loyalists in 1776: "You people are taking the awful step of denouncing and opposing the king, so you can't call yourself patriots!"
Loyalists like you today: "You people are exposing the hidden wrong acts of the US government and contributing to its bad reputation, so you can't be beneficial to the US!"
Whether you know it or not, you would have been on the wrong side in 1776 if you had been brought up then. There's a big difference between the interests of the government and the interests of the country (or the world for that matter); Manning worked in that space as a whistleblower, and Greenwald does too.
Negative. I believe in personal freedom. It's why I'm not an authoritarian democrat. It's why I would have fought for the North in the Civil War and against slavery. So, please do not pretend to know the thoughts or intents of other people, since, unless you've picked up some form of telepathy, you do not.
I am very much interested in smaller government and against the authoritarian state. Which would have obviously put me against the superpower that was the British Empire at the time.
And, FWIW, there were spies on both sides of the Revolutionary War. And hanging was the result, if they were caught - by either side. Manning only narrowly avoided being charged with aiding the enemy, and likely only did b/c of the defense that they were mentally unstable at the time.
Also, there are ways of using whistleblower laws that are still legal. Manning, an admitted disturbed individual, broke multiple laws and didn't use the existing whistleblower protections available to them.
As I've stated elsewhere, Snowden is a different case. He is/was a civilian and the laws apply differently to him. As much as I disagree with the whistleblower who reported on Trump's call with the Ukraine, he at least did it the correct way (took the information to a member of Congress).
Obeying the law does not make one a worshiper at the altar of authoritarianism. It simply means one understands that one can be a lot more effective working within the constraints of the law than without.
If you doubt the concept, then quit your job and go start shaking down 7/11s for a living. Tell me how that works out.
I appreciate the clarification -- but you're still wrong.
Suppose that in 1775, a British soldier sympathetic to the Patriot cause had leaked the secret info about troop movements that Paul Revere (and Dawes and Prescott) ended up spreading. That soldier would have violated some strict British laws, but if he did it to protect Americans and for the cause of liberty, he would be in the right. And he should be celebrated as a hero.
Suppose that in France around 1900, a French soldier discovered military secrets showing that Albert Dreyfus was innocent and leaked the information to the French public, knowing that it would send message to the people of France and around the world that the French government was untrustworthy, but still willing to do it for the sake of the liberating political effects. Granting that this would be a clear breach of strict laws on military secrecy, is it actually wrong? Of course it's not. That French soldier should be considered as a hero.
I see other commenters have debunked the idea that Manning could have had as good an effect by using the procedures of the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, so I won't discuss that.
In general, as most Manning supporters realize, an oath to obey government orders (or military orders in particular) is not the highest value. Relations to actual humans are what matter most, not commitments to a non-human and sometimes unjust institution. The government or military often pushes people to act against what they see is right, because it is an institution with little tendency to do what's right itself. Humans are in a better position than institutions to be ethical agents, since no institution has an actual conscience. Manning saw that she could do more good for the people of this country by breaking the institution's rules, so she had the decency to follow that course.
But I probably don't have time to discuss this much further.
I wonder what your stance is on "committing the crime" vs "breaking the law". And specifically someone claiming that sometimes not doing the latter is equivalent to the former.
I remember when she was arrested. The Democratic Party loyalists loved Obama unconditionally and hated Chelsea Manning. I'm sure a lot of those people are now rallying to her side because she publicly attacked you. She'll learn the hard way what happens when you lock arms with people who worship political parties. Sad. I really admired her.
I am shocked and distressed by what she has written today but I will always admire her for her bravery.
Definitely.
She's been co-opted. That's what happens to opposition without the fortitude and resources of Greenwald, Hedges, and the like. Much of the former activist left (where are the old movements against war? golbalism?) has suffered this fate.
In addition to the institutional abuse she suffered and (thus) her manifestly fragile mind, it sounds much as if she's now been talking to the wrong people for too long. Reminds me of what seems to have happened to AOC since she was first elected. Too bad Chelsea and Glenn hadn't stayed in contact.
Man. CM sounds like she has some fairly high anxiety. The friends/enemies dynamic - oddly, it was "the alleged left" who kept her in prison, but she's not calling Obama a Nazi. Glenn's view of defense/industrial ("both sides of the aisle") sociopathy is a lot clearer-eyed. But CM being "afraid" of Glenn just doesn't wash - at least not rationally. That's why I think CM has anxiety issues. Her response just isn't rational. So there must be another explanation. Not an easy story here at all. My opinion: Glenn you did your very best. That's all anyone could ever expect.
I’m not sure how rare CM’s type of thinking is. I would like to dismiss her as a crank but I think there are quite a few like her. I’ve always thought I needed that little voice in my head saying I might be wrong. Particularly on complex political issues that are constantly pitched to me through propaganda/hyperbole. Some people don’t have that little voice. Their political beliefs fuse with their identity as a human being. Thus, if you suggest one of those beliefs may be wrong, it is not seen as an attack on the political idea but an attack on them as a person. That’s where I think this “us against them” nonsense comes from. Are you on my team or not? CM’s texts are further disturbing in her description of deceitful relationships. Sure, I will hang out with you, laugh with you, including even TC. But deep down I know you are my enemy. That is some really demented thinking.
There used to be a tactic used mainly by the right - that this issue (e.g., abortion) ain’t a garden party. It’s a matter of life or death. We don’t tolerate differences of opinion over matters of life or death. It can be a very effective political argument - if it is used sparingly. But that tactic has been extended now to just about every political issue. Everything is life and death. You don’t believe in affirmative action? Well, you are a racist trying to do violence to minorities. You make an economic argument why raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour may have unintended consequences? Well, you want the poor to starve and die. There is no middle ground. You are either with us or you are my enemy.
To be fair, abortion is a matter of life and death.
Interesting that of the communications that did come from Manning, quite a few were mercenary in nature..."I have this tweet, can you bump it on your feed for me?" (paraphrasing). And, I know it's easy to heap blame on Manning, which, I'm not trying to do. But, one can certainly understand how Glenn would/could get defensive, given the efforts made in the past, and the seeming ingratitude in the present.
Soooo many people feel like Glenn has somehow switched sides. I can't say that I've agreed with everything he's posted recently about getting out of Afghanistan. (I'm glad THAT we are, not glad HOW we are, getting out.) But, Glenn is sticking up for REAL journalistic integrity, and if that means he shows up on TC, then he shows up on TC. It's shameful that so many on the Left (and it happens on the Right, though not as frequently) take this "Us or them" mentality.
That's NOT how we used to live, though the young, in particular, don't realize this. Twitter and social media has warped so many people's sense of reality. And what's worse, is that since most of those people on social networks (that aren't famous) are anonymous, those accounts are designed to manipulate. There are people behind those accounts that act in bad faith; and there are many that are foreign actors. Accounts manned by people from other countries DESIGNED to sow dissent in free countries.
I mention the above b/c it sounds like Manning is caught up in those same online "wars" that have worked to make it so that Americans can't even talk to each other, without feeling that they are talking with "the enemy" - as if that in itself is some offensive thing. (Even if they WERE the enemy, talking with them, is what you're supposed to do. What's the alternative? *Actual* war?)
No, it's not Glenn who has changed. It's those who lament his supposed changes who have.
I’ve been reading Greenwald for 15 years. He’s been a broken record on principles all that time particularly pro-civil liberties, corporate media criticism, and antiwar positions. How he tactically couches his arguments and to whom he targets and tries to court with those arguments for purposes of persuasion have changed over the years, but not the core beliefs.
If you were reading him while Bush-critical Democrats went silent when Obama continued or expanded those same Bush-era policies, you get his contempt for party-over-principle liberals in the Trump/Biden era now. If you read his criticism of government-propaganda spouting corporate media, like Fox News, in 2006, you understand his loathing for MSNBC now.
I’m sure he can be a prickly bastard to acquaintances in the business, but as just a media consumer I couldn’t give less of a shit about those internecine dramas.
Yeah honestly I started following the guy's work at some point in 2013, read a few of his books, and to me the people who claim he has changed have simply never really looked at it seriously. They're just dogpiling. They loved the guy as long as his defense of principles stood on the right partisan side for them, that's all.
For anyone who actually pays attention and understands his framework, he might be one of the most predictable commentators. I love his takes because they are super well articulated and substantiated most of the time, so I'm not saying he's boring or anything. But his principles are quite straightforward to follow. And I feel like most of the time, people rage about him for no other reason than the fact they've now decided he was bad, so they listen to what he says in search for the soundbite that will confirm their opinion that he's a grifter, then call him a fascist and move on. I can't remember the last time I saw anyone actually engage with the content of his argument and be so vitriolic.
The Tucker Carlson appearances have become a recurring theme. Yet nobody proposes a cogent argument as to why what he's doing is bad. It's just "but Tucker" to dunk on him, then they're out. Then the quote about Trump and Tucker being socialists. Everyone just repeats that quote and quite obviously none has taken the time to actually listen to the argument and consider that he had just before that stipulated a redefinition of the word. The only people I've seen actually engage with that argument were Ben Burgis and the guy from Zerobooks, and they both have in common the fact that while they disagreed with the actual argument even in its full context, they didn't use that as a weapon to suddenly conclude that Greenwald was a complete idiot. They had a respectful and well argued disagreement against his argument, period.
“ I’m sure he can be a prickly bastard to acquaintances in the business…”
That may be one source of the situation. Glenn’s been in the pigpen, unafraid of the hogs. As a result he’s blunt. I get it, but folks in Chelsea's predicament wouldn’t. She’s fairly principled, but she’s delicate mentally and physically.
Glenn Greenwald is an independent journalist. Why would anyone who cares about good journalism expect - or even want - Glenn to be on "a side"?
Well, the fact is, if you're intelligent enough to be a journalist, you're likely to have an opinion, and probably a well-formed (if not "IN-formed") one. And, by virtue of that, you'll likely have a "side" of some sort or another.
Glenn is, still, quite left of center. What makes him - while not unique, certainly of a dying breed - is that he has maintained journalistic integrity. And this, without (and probably because of) having "formal" journalism training. (He's a lawyer by trade - no Columbia Journalism School graduate he!)
So, he's maintained both his independence as a journalist - AND his journalistic integrity. And because of that, those of us who are right of center, like myself, can agree and disagree with him, without worrying that he'll move the goalposts on us, like so many in mainstream media do. (Russia-gate, the Hunter Biden story, and a zillion other examples.)
So, if/when Glenn is opinion writing about his left-of-center beliefs, because we know he has integrity - he gains a much larger following on those who do NOT agree with him, than the legions of people who feel like Manning - that if you're not in the Far-Left Cult-Think, then you're "Other" and must be shunned. Just shows that Right wingers are actually more open minded than the so-called "Progressives."
Word.
Just bizarre and sad. For what it’s worth, I’m happy to observe that you’ve definitely not done anything wrong.
I think the posters are missing the point. They, meaning the bad guys have put Chelsea up to this, trying to defame Glen in any way possible. I wonder why? No, I don't have to wonder, Glen has been pushing the narrative about our corrupt government lately and they just don't want the general public to know about it.
Keep in mind, the Main Street media is NOWHERE to be found practicing journalism anymore and besides the fact that Glen makes them look like fools, the public is starting to figure out that they really are.
It takes a brave man to publish the facts as we know them, and Glen does not let his political philosophy interupt putting forth the truth. GOD bless him.
It really shows that these folks have built their own separate realities out of a flimsy deck of cards that is social media, likes, retweets. She even defines this as the "personal" v. "political" spheres.
Anyone that threatens their pseudo-reality is an enemy because you are attack the image they have of themselves. That is why she finds you threatening, Glenn. You have challenged, albeit unwittingly and unintentionally, her perception of reality, and that itself, she believes is a personal attack.
🤣🤣🤣 I love how Glenn just took the entire pitcher of tea and spilled it all over the Internet. (Slow clap)
I really hope that the brief Twitter fame was worth it to her. Really sad.
I don't think fame was really her motive.
Lots of what people do, even on Twitter (and in real life as well), is based on what they think is right although reputation is also a factor. Seems fair to see Manning's tweets yesterday in those terms too.
Fair enough. I don't know what her motivations are. I just don't believe that they have anything to do with her legitimate fear of a man who has been a friend, colleague and advocate for her. It is difficult to see this as a good faith criticism on her part.
Well, first, I think Manning doesn't quite get some aspects of Greenwald's political moves. That doesn't say anything bad about her, because although Greenwald is highly transparent in some aspects of what he's doing, he's not entirely open about all aspects of his plans (not that he needs to be). She feels that Greenwald is influential and carries weight (which is true). And she worries that unknown aspects of his politics might lead him to have a big effect in future that would have drastically negative consequences for her and/or her political kin. I don't share that worry but I can understand someone feeling that way in good faith. Manning isn't the only good-faith person who has that worry, not by any means. Greenwald is not entirely without responsibility for his sparking this sort of worry in many good-faith people.
I'm inclined to compare Manning's phrase "terrified of you and everything you do" with the phrase by Intercept editor Betsy Reed "It would be unfortunate and detrimental to The Intercept for this story to be published elsewhere." Greenwald immediately misinterpreted Reed's phrase in a worse light than it was meant, but what the fairly even-keeled Betsy Reed is expressing in her own way is an understandable worry, the same kind of worry that Manning does. The worry is "Greenwald is influential and some aspects of his politics are hard to fathom, he may end up destroying values we hold dear, can we still consider him as friendly or should we see him as the opposite?" Greenwald often comes too close to treating that worry as expressing an absence of important values, when it is actually the result of good people having values that they're not sure if Greenwald will trample on.
So I would say that Manning's "terrified of you and everything you do" is expressed in highly dramatic form (if you know anything about Manning you know she does that, and I don't mind it in her) but it is nevertheless entirely in good faith. Greenwald himself rarely knows how to deal with this kind of emotional concern about him, whether it's expressed by a Chelsea Manning or a Betsy Reed or another equally good person. Probably he doesn't know because at least a small part of the answer lies close to home. I think Manning's comment should be treated as making a serious point which is not entirely what it appears to be on the surface, and should not be conflated with how the online comunity of Greenwald's detractors would see it.
Appreciating nuance seems to have taken a nose dive in the last 4-5 years. This seems to be particularly true for those who think of themselves as activists.The binary for the good guys and the bad guys just isn't doing it for me. My religious upbringing was kind-of an inoculation to that kind of thinking.
I am incredibly comfortable with what I don't know about Glenn because it is none of my fucking business. In his reporting, he has consistently stuck to principles that are based on the preservation of civil liberties. At times, that has made him sympathetic to one side or the other.
But his commitment to those principles is almost dogmatic. That is impressive. With a few exceptions, he may be all that remains of the fourth estate. An adversarial journalist is good for all of us. It was really good for Chelsea Manning.
To add to this, I am somewhat annoyed that the sausage factory is now in the public square. I do not want or need to know about how the journalism sausage is made. Petty grievances between activists, journalists and activist journalists do not inspire confidence.
I was musing through your post, saying to myself "yes, I can see how you might think these things" before you wrote:
"I'm inclined to compare Manning's phrase "terrified of you and everything you do" with the phrase by Intercept editor Betsy Reed "It would be unfortunate and detrimental to The Intercept for this story to be published elsewhere." Greenwald immediately misinterpreted Reed's phrase in a worse light than it was meant"
And I'm afraid to say that I consider your position to be astonishingly naive in this regard at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst. To describe Betsy Reed- a Democratic Party PR officer- as "even keeled" and "a good person" while characterizing her private censorship of Greenwald and subsequent public mockery of Greenwald as stemming from a "good faith" "emotional concern" is simply a butchery of history.
She meant to urge him not to publish the piece, not to ban publishing. I don't agree with her in that, but of course "PR officer" is a big exaggeration. Wanting to discourage messages that might help Trump is not the same as being a PR officer for the Democrats. I've met people who do PR for the Democrats and they don't want the Intercept to exist. Betsy Reed's decision was complex. Part of her reason was that she thought urging Greenwald not to publish, if it succeeded, would help the Intercept's internal harmony. She could not understand how it could be a reasonable choice for someone to change their presidential vote based on the case made in Greenwald's piece, although she was able to realize that some might do so. Also, she thought the points made and suggested by Greenwald's piece were more dubious than they really were. In her mind she was not opposing valuable journalism but discouraging the publication of misleading claims and suggestions that weren't well enough substantiated. If the article had contained a clearer smoking gun, I'm not sure she would have acted the same.
Of course I don't think Betsy Reed was right to do what she did, but then again, Greenwald himself has been credibly accused of suppressing dissenting articles: https://twitter.com/radleybalko/status/1321901809007546374 I don't think Greenwald was right either in what he did with Liliana Segura's article. As usual, any effort to make Greenwald the 100% hero is a distortion even if his fans keep wanting to treat things that way. I find that given my admiration for a lot of what Greenwald does, I have to constantly remind myself that he's human and he makes his share of missteps. I think that makes my interpretations more realistic.
I knew that if I mentioned Betsy Reed's statement some people's emotions would take over. The fact is that Greenwald has a similar effect on Manning and other good people. So there's an overall pattern, and rushing to interpret the pattern in a way that makes Greenwald entirely in the right is a mistake. That needs to be mentioned whether it's easy to face or not.
You are excellent at what the Greeks called sophistry, such beautiful phrasing - do you have a PhD in rhetoric? "In her mind she was not opposing valuable journalism but discouraging the publication of misleading claims and suggestions that weren't well enough substantiated" is such a treasure trove of charming misrepresentation and gaslighting. "In her mind the Democratic Establishment censor and gatekeeper was not..." would add just a little bit of truthfulness.
Linking to the tweet by Liliana Segura where she provides absolutely no details or evidence of her assertion is so clever, because you know that most people won't click through (as I did). You have to be a professional PA person, or someone else schooled in the discourse dark arts. Impressive work!