Comments on: Greenwald defends Freeman and goes after ‘Israel-centric fanatics’ Schumer, Rahm et al

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

I guess the Left's honeymoon with Obama is officially over (did he REALLY need such fairweather friends anyway?).

So now the Left is without a party to manipulate. Good luck with that! :-)

By: Joshua

Joshua — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Slandering the Left still Suzanne? Frankly, I don't recall anyone, especially amongst the ones I call as the "true" Left, never had any delusions about Obama. They were a little less pessimistic, but men of Leftist stature such as Alexander Cockburn never had a doubt that Obama would not "change" a thing. I remember John Ross's scathing article on Obama a few months back.

I never knew the Left had a marriage with Obama in the first place. Abunimah, Khalidi, all left in the dirt by a certain President. I just read Abu'Khalil's description of Freeman and although he found Freeman quite impressionable, he called him a "Saudi apologist".

PS It also wasn't just "the Left", or the ones who are labeled that by the press, who were swept by Obama. I know plenty of conservatives who wanted to believe in him too.

By: Grumpy Old Man

Grumpy Old Man — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Good for Hugh to do this interview. He's a GOP party man, but rises beyond that at times.

By: Citizen

Citizen — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Obama faces an Israeli regime weighted in favor of Likud policy, which is contrary to the USA's & Quartet's policy--here is the Likud policy: http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm

What will Obama do? Still an open question.

Will he actually have the balls to use economic leverage, which the USA has?

I'm betting no.

But hoping yes.

He could work around I-P by talking to Iran and Syria, simultaneously, he could use the bully pulpit to
stop the settlements for a start.

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Glenn Greenwald is more of an outraged libertarian than a liberal, Suzanne. He has worked on projects with the Cato Institute, and he has always called things as he sees them with Obama.

Again, why all the attacks on critics rather than substantive responses? You also never acknowledge any merit to the arguments others make. It may be you are just angry and lashing out. However, based on experience with similar argumentative styles in other contexts, it also will persuade many readers that you fear your case is weaker than you acknowledge.

By: r

Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Sorry Ben..if the Felix Frankfurter professor of law at Harvard couldn't make a case for Israel that wasn't instantaneously exposed as a threadbare hoax, torn into confetti and thrown in his face, you can hardly expect much better from the likes of Suzanne, an awkward, transitional hominid lurking in the foliage, subsisting on gathered stones and filth.

By: arrgh

arrgh — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

"And only a portion, a small portion of it was actually funded by the Saudi government."

...as it turns out, the rest was funded by the actual Saudi princes. All of it.

So now, was this statement a flat-out lie or was it just a deception?

How typical of the so-called "left". Supporting the Tiananmen massacre a "stray comment"? How shameful!

And how shameful all this talk about "interests"? Would you kill your own mother if it were in your "interests"? Your friend? A passer-by on a street? A 7-11 clerk?

What depravity!

By: r

Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Speaking of "depravity" the clownish hebraic nutcase arrh, who believes the long discredited fairy tale of exodus and sees nothing wrong with israeli thugs invading other people's land and crippling or killing them during a protest has a soft spot for the activists of Tiannamin Square!

A joke in exceptionally poor taste.

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Yes, it doesn't speak well for Dershowitz either. He's made better arguments in court for clients with weak cases. His approach on this issue is to just pound on the table and project his own weaknesses on others. Such an approach won't impress judges favorably or, increasingly, it seems much of the public who pay attention to his act.

By: dana

dana — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Ben, I'd describe Glenn more as a CIVIL libertarian, something that's grounded in his background in constitutional law. libertarians tend to believe in minimal centralized government, whereas civil libertarians tend to believe central government is the only agency capable of enforcing the laws that are there – preferably both fairly and justly. By definition, they believe in CIVILITY and, by extension, in CIVILIZATION. but many pure libertarians tend to be too cynical and suspicious of any central authority to put much stock in fair enforcement of any rule, regardless of how just.

More precisely, I'd say that civil libertarians believe that government can -and should be -made a fair instrument of civic duty, whereas many libertarians (of the ones I encountered and read) seem to value personal liberty over civic duty. May be because they can't all agree on where that duty lies, it being a very large tent.

Glenn's special – and consistent – message is the importance of accountability. Not only for the three branches of government, but for the fourth rail – the press. It is for the later that he has been reserving his worst ire – and justly so. that he does so well, that I sometimes feel almost sorry for his target wimp-of-the-day. as for the rest of us, well, we get to cower behind Glenn – urging his to the barricades. Is that a funny image or what?