Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins Bill Maher’s night

US Politics
on 88 Comments

Last night Bill Maher had Glenn Greenwald on his show. Maher, a self-professed atheist who thinks religion is poison but thinks Israel is wonderful got a big surprise.

Much has been written about Maher and his special loathing of Islam and much of it is fair. But this segment is especially telling. The whole 9:00 piece is worth watching but things really get rolling around the 5:00 mark. Greenwald thoroughly takes Maher to task for his blatant disregard of history and his “my side is better therefore we can do what we want to whomever we want” attitude. The video speaks for itself so I won’t say much more about it except that Greenwald’s deconstruction of Maher proves that the essence of Maher’s thinking is as irrational as the religions he so often disparages.

About Scott Roth

Scott Roth is publisher of Mondoweiss.net. Follow him on twitter at scottroth76 .

Other posts by .


Posted In:

88 Responses

  1. Tzombo
    May 11, 2013, 1:32 pm

    Maher is a dick in so many ways, it’s not even funny.

    • Rudolph
      May 12, 2013, 12:24 pm

      Maher should try the following Terrorism Quiz: link to detailedpoliticalquizzes.wordpress.com

      Question 6: In 1958, according to the United States National Security Council, what was the main reason the Arab people hated the US?

      Answer:
      -“In a staff discussion…president Dwight Eisenhower described ‘the campaign of hatred against us (in the Arab world), not by the governments but by the people’. His National Security Council outlined the basic argument: the US supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is ‘opposing political or economic progress’ because of its interest in controlling the oil resources of the region. Post-September 11 [2001] surveys in the Arab world reveal that the same reasons hold today, compounded with resentment over specific policies [such as the US’s]…crucial support for Israel’s harsh military occupation…”
      -“As a Rumsfeld-era Pentagon study concluded: ‘Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather, they hate our policies.’ In particular, it is ‘American direct intervention in the Muslim world’ – justified in the name of stopping Terrorism – that ‘paradoxically elevate[s] the stature of and support for Islamic radicals’.”

  2. Wonder Bunder
    May 11, 2013, 1:34 pm

    Watched that last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. Greenwald was his usual self, grounded in logic and the facts, and he picked apart Maher, who was also his usual self, pretending to be a voice of reason while spewing his weekly Islamophobic rhetoric.

  3. Cliff
    May 11, 2013, 2:08 pm

    Glenn is amazing as always.

  4. Justpassingby
    May 11, 2013, 2:15 pm

    Greenwald effiectively put Maher down, just look how angry Maher is, trying to gaze at the audience to get applause but get nothing back.

  5. RudyM
    May 11, 2013, 2:27 pm

    Nicely played by Greenwald. I find Bill Maher painful to watch though. He’s basically just a clown, egged on by the more idiotic portion of his audience which seems to worship his smugness.

    I think there is more that could be said about the U.S. government playing both sides, including some possible historical ties between CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood, but I haven’t looked at that closely enough to be sure. I can say for sure that without the U.S. government’s involvement in organizing extremist Islamist guerillas/terrorists as proxies, the phenomenon would be much weaker. Afghanistan, Gladio B (see Sibel Edmonds), and recent surprisingly open instances of U.S. backing for Salafists in Libya and Syria.

    Greenwald has something up now about he Maher segment:

    link to guardian.co.uk

    I do think Islam, as conceived by its founder, lends itself to more repressive, less open societies than Christianity; Jesus was not about taking the reins of political power, even if it didn’t take long for Christianity to merge with state power. The fact that all major schools of Islamic law endorse the death penalty for apostasy is unforgivable in my view.

    • Taxi
      May 11, 2013, 3:48 pm

      When western christianity was stuck in repression and the dark ages, islam was experiencing a golden age with societal freedoms and prosperity parallel with our contemporary own. Maybe you should read up on the history of islam – find out about it’s golden age and what subsequently followed in history that led it’s golden age to falter and dim.

      Point is, and Glenn made this point very clear too: it’s false to single out a specific religion for being more violent, more regressive, more repressive, more political etc than others.

      I’m no fan of religion, but I would point the finger at the religious before I pointed the finger at religion.

      • quercus
        May 12, 2013, 7:17 am

        @Taxi. ” ….. I would point the finger at the religious ….” I completely concur, religion itself is not the cause of violence or repression, but rather the people. It always people. I would submit that the basic tenets of Christianity are good, but the powerful institution that became known as the Roman Catholic church, was often used as a tool to maintain that power and control over a population. In a broader context, it is not institutions themselves that are flawed, by the humans who run them.

        Take our own country, we have in the Constitution, a document that attempts to provide a large degree of personal freedoms to individuals,
        and yet, despite this, those freedoms have been eroded and weakened over the course of that document’s life. Is it because the Constitution was re-written? No. It is because individuals in power have chosen to betray its principles, to misuse it, all in an effort to further political agendas.

        We are all of us, flawed, unfortunately, some of us have more dangerous flaws than others. One of the greatest flaws, is the desire for power.

        As an end, Mr. Maher is a silly, egotistical twit, and he carries his bias like a cudgel.

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 13, 2013, 1:59 am

        “religion itself is not the cause of violence or repression, but rather the people.”

        Baloney. Ask the people doing the violence and repression and they’ll tell you they’re doing it because the religion demands it. That the religion doesn’t cause violence and repression from every believer doesn’t mean that it’s not the cause in those cases where believers DO act in that manner.

        ” I would submit that the basic tenets of Christianity are good, but the powerful institution that became known as the Roman Catholic church, was often used as a tool to maintain that power and control over a population.”

        I would submit that unless you are generalizing those tenets to an unrecognizable level, in which it becomes a mush of humanism and basic manners devoid of anything uniquely Christian, yours is a hard statement to back up. In contemporary America, the basic tenets of Christianity — to look at the actions of the majority of Christians in the country — consists of hating gay folks, suppressing women and their rights and interests, throwing poor folks into the pool to sink and swim without any help from the government, and inflicting their religion on children in schools and in public in violation of the separation of church and state. And you can’t just blame the Catholics on this one, because many of these things are the product of Protestant Christianity.

        “No. It is because individuals in power have chosen to betray its principles, to misuse it, all in an effort to further political agendas.”

        Yes, and often those agendas are religious tenets which the politician is attempting to enact into law simply because the religion tells him it is what he, as an adherent of that religion, should be doing as a believer.

        In sum: sometimes it’s the person, but often it’s the religion.

      • Taxi
        May 13, 2013, 3:40 am

        Religion is just a collection of stories. Some stupid, some profound. Dangerous interpretations of these stories by humans is the problem, in my view.

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 13, 2013, 10:23 am

        “Religion is just a collection of stories. Some stupid, some profound. Dangerous interpretations of these stories by humans is the problem, in my view.”

        I think that this position presupposes that if something evil comes out of religion, that it is a poor interpretation; that, absent bad interpretations, religions are good. I’d dispute that.

      • Taxi
        May 14, 2013, 3:37 am

        I’m like you, Woody – no fan of religion at all, mainly because of the ridiculous superstitions and contradictions in a chunk of their tenets.

        Ya think, Woody, if nobody ever read the bible, koran, torah, etc – that these books were just lying on the shelve collecting dust, the world then would have no evil?

        Aren’t you here giving undue and non-existant powers to inane objects like books, money etc.? And also aren’t you here excusing the evil that man does by blaming the literature they’re reading?

        I don’t know about you Woody, but I’ve never met a psychotic book. I have, however, met a few psychotic humans who can read.

        You know we do have this little thing called ‘free will’ – the free will to do this, and the free will to do that. Our choice. Our individual choice.

        “A Native American elder once described his own inner struggles in this manner: Inside of me there are two dogs. One of the dogs is mean and evil. The other dog is good. The mean dog fights the good dog all the time”. When asked which dog wins, he reflected for a moment and replied, “The one I feed the most.”
        ― George Bernard Shaw

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 14, 2013, 10:09 am

        “Ya think, Woody, if nobody ever read the bible, koran, torah, etc – that these books were just lying on the shelve collecting dust, the world then would have no evil?”

        Of course not. Religious thinking is merely one species of irrationality that fuels the evil in the world. My point is simply that it is foolish to ignore the causal relationship that religious thinking has to evil, or to pretend that the cause is something other than the religious thinking.

        “Aren’t you here giving undue and non-existant powers to inane objects like books, money etc.?”

        No, I’m giving proper power to those things as they exist in the context of human societies and human psychology. These things influence human behavior and human thinking even if they, of themselves, are incapable of agency.

        “And also aren’t you here excusing the evil that man does by blaming the literature they’re reading?”

        Not at all. “Blame” is a moral judgment. Inanimate objects have no autonomy or agency and, therefore, are not subject to moral judgment. It is, however, amenable to assessments of causation. Literature can cause evil in the world, even if there is no rational basis to make a moral judgment of the literature itself.

        “You know we do have this little thing called ‘free will’ – the free will to do this, and the free will to do that. Our choice. Our individual choice.”

        Not in the sense you mean. It’s a pleasant illusion but it is an illusion. One’s choices are determined by the working of the brain, which are shaped by many things, including our histories and our experiences. People do not make choices based on a blank canvas, making evaluations of their choices free of any influences save axiomatic principles. The choices people make are heavily influenced by what they’ve read, learned, talked about with others, experienced and have been exposed to, coupled with things like the psychology evolution gifted them and the mores of their societies. If this wasn’t so, the multi-billion dollar advertising industry would not exist.

        Religion is there to influence those decision, to a powerful degree, because it taps into and co-opts many, many, many pre-existing psychological facts and functions of the human mind, such as our preference for proscribing agency to phenomena, our acceptance of hierarchical social structures, our difficulty in intuitively assessing probabilities accurately, our inquisitiveness and our anxiety of existential issues. Religion doesn’t dictate choices, but it influences them, often to a dispositive degree.

      • Taxi
        May 15, 2013, 1:43 am

        “Influences”, yes for sure. But the ultimate responsibility still lays in the hands on the individual, not in the pages of books. Otherwise, anyone can commit evil and claim that the ‘book’ made me do it (which ironically, religious zealots actually do). I’m thinking here also of the words of the infamous, psychotic serial killer, David Berkowitz, “the dog made me do it”.

        There’s no going round it Woody: individuals are still responsible for their actions, above all and beyond – whatever their “influences”.

      • Citizen
        May 15, 2013, 6:48 am

        @ Taxi

        Individuals are still responsible for their actions and omissions, above all and beyond – whatever their “influences”.

        As in both conduct and lies by omissions, or commission.

        Some people believe in Fate–that’s big in some cultures. One twist on this is the Christian fundy who takes no responsibility as it’s in God’s hands and God will do whatever God wants to do. Right?

      • Taxi
        May 15, 2013, 7:29 am

        Citizen,

        Destiny or free-will?

        Now there’s a funky swamp I wouldn’t wanna dip my toes in.

        For sure many religious people have outsourced much of their personal responsibility to their respective god – passed the bucket to the old man in the sky.

        All I know is the single me-voice in my head: nothing else exists inside me except for my me-voice analyzing and deciding this and that. Believe me I’ve looked and looked hard.

        Maybe I don’t have the gene that allows me to hear the ‘voice of god’ instructing me. Meh. Just as well.

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 15, 2013, 9:06 am

        ” Otherwise, anyone can commit evil and claim that the ‘book’ made me do it (which ironically, religious zealots actually do). ”

        Yes, and they’d be right. Why is that fact so threatening to your worldview?

        “There’s no going round it Woody: individuals are still responsible for their actions, above all and beyond – whatever their ‘influences’.”

        We’re talking about two different things. You’re making a claim about moral judgement: that the person is morally responsible. Fine. (It’s one of the more pointless conclusions one can reach subject, in my opinion, because it’s merely a restatement of the premises used to reach that judgment and, as such, says more about the moral judge than the subject of the judgment.) I’m talking about causation, not moral judgment. If a person hates gay people because his religious texts tells him to, the religious text has caused the hatred. And that’s true even if the person would have otherwise found another reason to support the hatred. Now you may or may not find the hatred to be morally wrong (sadly, a lot of people don’t) but there is no doubt, as a factual matter, that the text caused the hatred.

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 15, 2013, 9:10 am

        “All I know is the single me-voice in my head: nothing else exists inside me except for my me-voice analyzing and deciding this and that. Believe me I’ve looked and looked hard.”

        The “single me-voice” is the conscious mind. What about all the non-conscious-mind parts of the brain’s work? Ever made a decision out of fear? Regret? Anxiety? Anticipation? Did you consciously choose to have those feelings? No, of course not. But they are there, inside you, causing and often dictating your decisions,

      • Taxi
        May 15, 2013, 9:59 am

        Easy now Woody.

        I don’t feel “threatened” at all but I do find your idea that books are responsible for evil acts committed by humans a ridiculous notion.

        I ain’t gonna indulge you further on this point.

        You probably think that music too makes kids commit suicide, right?

        It’s a stupid argument you’re trying to have with me, coming on all heavy-handed and pompous. It’s not the first time you’ve done this either. God help us all with your ‘father has spoken’ outbursts. Yes pun intended, dear!

        I’ve already succinctly explained my thinking. You don’t like it – so tuff! You wanna have the last word on it to make you feel intellectually secure? Well go ahead, Woody, knock yourself out.

        Sheesh!

      • Taxi
        May 15, 2013, 10:19 am

        Woody,

        You don’t know what you’re talking about – the human machinations as you describe them have no basis in the study of psychology. Human emotions reside both in the conscious and the subconscious, both are experienced/witnessed and interpreted by the same ‘me-voice’.

        You personally might hear many voices in your head. I certainly don’t. Even my ‘subconscious’ voice, like in my dreams, sounds just like my conscious one – but with quirkier assessments and expressions. Even when I’ve in the past gone into a sudden and inexplicable panic attack, it was still the SAME old me-voice panicking. No alien voices have taken over the brain’s microphone in my skull, Woody.

        I really just don’t see the value point of your ‘me-voice’ comment.

        Except of course cuz you’re mad at me and trying to stick a sharp elbow in just for the heck of it.

        Well you missed. You’ll always miss. Go home now.

      • Citizen
        May 15, 2013, 10:45 am

        @ Taxi
        I understand. I don’t have the gene that allows me to hear the “voice of God” either. When I’ve debated Christian fundies (who were generally nice people, wouldn’t hurt a fly, very neighborly, etc), I’m handicapped because unlike them, I don’t hear what baby Jesus is telling them, and when they point to the scriptures, I don’t have that way they have of focusing only on certain passages, and not contradictory ones, or of having accepted somebody they treat as definitive interpreter of any internal apparent conflict in the holy book–heck, I don’t completely trust any literature written by man, even if they say, in effect, it was written by man robots of God’s will and divine inspiration.

      • Citizen
        May 15, 2013, 10:52 am

        @ Woody
        Yeah, the conscious mind debates with itself, but internal image associations influence it, and they do pop up, and the rational mind is only often partly aware of this. A banal example, is somebody tells you something, instilling fear in you, and you at first accept their bugaboo, then pursue that bugaboo with intellectual curiosity, and find it is flawed, misleading, but then again, some people do nothing with it except quake in fear without looking at the premises of the logic behind it, the alleged facts behind it, whether or not it is an analogy “on all fours,” etc. That’s analytical thought. I think most people are not trained in analytical thought, nor do they have a predisposition for it.

    • seafoid
      May 11, 2013, 4:54 pm

      “I do think Islam, as conceived by its founder, lends itself to more repressive, less open societies than Christianity; Jesus was not about taking the reins of political power, even if it didn’t take long for Christianity to merge with state power”

      I don’t any of the 3 religions is superior to the other 2. Murder rates in the Christian states in Latin America are far higher than those in the Muslim states across the Middle East. Islam does a lot of stuff well even if the apostasy side is repugnant. Islam has the church/state problem. Women are treated badly in many Islamic countries. Israel shows what a Jewish state looks like. Rabbis can’t manage human rights very well. Wouldn’t like to be an Orthodox woman. Many US Protestant cults are nuts. Jesus wants you to be rich.

      Christ only knows how many people were murdered for him.

      And Christianity would never have spread without state power. Are there any Arian states ?

    • straightline
      May 11, 2013, 10:21 pm

      I’m always skeptical about wikipedia as a scholarly source but this page

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      suggests that there is a range of Islamic scholarly opinion about punishment for apostasy including (and I quote) ” no punishment at all as long as they do not work against the Muslim society or nation”.

      On the other hand the following is a quote from Deuteronomy:

      “If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.”

      • Basilio
        May 12, 2013, 10:33 pm

        The thing is with apostasy, if an apostate openly speaks about not believing in the religion, they take it as grounds for executing him. When you have secularism, you don’t have people using religion as an excuse to kill others whether they’re Jews, Muslims, or Christians. The idea of killing apostates comes from ancient Jewish traditions. And the idea of what it is to not work against Muslim society sounds rather arbitrary. Also, in practice, Buddhism was wiped out in Afghanistan under Islamic rule just as Canaanite paganism was wiped out by Jews when they conquered certain areas. Religions don’t often tolerate other religions. There are exceptions like in Senegal where the Muslim majority population is very good to the Christian minority, and there are never clashes between those nice Senegalese Muslims and the Christians . In Nigeria, unfortunately, you have loads of fanatics.

  6. Ecru
    May 11, 2013, 2:40 pm

    The rebels are not on “our” side? What an utter and complete wanker. The rebels aren’t supposed to be on “our” side (whatever that means), they’re supposed to on the Syrian people’s side!

    Why do people even bother with this self-important bag of swamp gas? If he seems intelligent it’s only because most US media is full of people who’d make a lobotomised marmoset look like Stephen Hawking.

    • German Lefty
      May 11, 2013, 4:01 pm

      The rebels are not on “our” side? What an utter and complete wanker. The rebels aren’t supposed to be on “our” side (whatever that means), they’re supposed to on the Syrian people’s side!

      Exactly! And Glenn is as great as usual!

  7. CloakAndDagger
    May 11, 2013, 3:08 pm

    Right after 9/11, Maher was actually critical of US action in Iraq and fairly vocal about it. Subsequently, and perhaps because of that, he was taken off the air.

    After a while, he returned. He seemed to have been chastened, and no longer seemed to be the gadfly he once was. It seemed that it was at that time that his anti-muslim tirades began and many of us see him today as a gatekeeper for the lobby.

    I wonder what happened to change him.

    • eljay
      May 11, 2013, 3:25 pm

      Good on Mr. Greenwald for smacking Bill Maher down.

    • Citizen
      May 12, 2013, 5:48 am

      @ CloakAndDagger
      If memory serves, he said on the air that the terrorist bombers of 9/11 demonstrated courage, no matter what else you say about them.

      • CloakAndDagger
        May 12, 2013, 7:11 pm

        I think he was referring to the shelling of Iraq from our ships. I believe he said that it required no courage to do that (not unlike the drones of today). I suppose the converse of the terrorists hurling their own bodies at the WTC is courageous by contrast. In the days of “support our troops”, that was deemed unpatriotic by the PTB.

        Someone took him to the woodshed and “reformed” him after that.

    • Jeff Levy
      May 12, 2013, 12:15 pm

      In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Maher had Noam Chomsky on the show,
      along with Andrew Sullivan. In his introduction, Maher told Chomsky he was the show’s most requested guest, especially among young people.

      In analyzing the situation, Chomsky predicted, of course, that the US would not bring democracy to Iraq, that massive death tolls would result and pointed out that the invasion was nothing but a war crime. Maher shook his head at Chomsky’s lack of realism and Sullivan accused Chomsky of receiving huge payments for his appearances. Chomsky’s predictions have all come true, and I have never seen him on the show again. Sullivan is another story.

  8. Taxi
    May 11, 2013, 3:33 pm

    Man! Glenn Greenwald’s brains are so alive and so much faster than that pompous islamozombiphobe Bill Mahr.

    Best part was seeing the end of the clip where a chesty Bill literally gets pushed back into his seat and visibly deflates to receive a fast and furious blast of truths – one solid Glenn-truth after the other like bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang!!!

    Oh joy oh Chapeaux!!!

    Glenn! Glenn! Glenn! Glenn! Glenn! Glenn! Glenn! Glenn! Glenn! Glenn!

    • Pamela Olson
      May 12, 2013, 1:03 pm

      Hey, to be fair, I’m afraid of Islamo-zombies, too. In fact, pretty much any zombies…

      • just
        May 12, 2013, 1:25 pm

        Zombies are terrifying.

        (the first movie I ever walked out on was “Night of the Living Dead” 1990)

        Horrible.

  9. DICKERSON3870
    May 11, 2013, 4:14 pm

    RE: “Much has been written about Maher and his special loathing of Islam and much of it is fair.” ~ Scott Roth

    MY COMMENT: Sometimes I think Bill Maher is just a Dennis Miller* wannabe**. Other times I think he is a Michael Savage*** wannabe! ! !

    * Dennis Miller: “Listen Up Islam, We Don’t Like How You Fu–ed Up Cat Stevens.” [VIDEO, 10:42] – link to youtube.com

    ** Spice Girls: “Wannabe” [VIDEO, 03:58] – link to youtube.com

    *** Michael Savage: Lesson on History of Islam and Jihad – Why They Must Be Stopped [VIDEO, 08:39] – link to youtube.com

    • just
      May 12, 2013, 12:20 pm

      What the heck happened to Maher and Miller?

      They are bigoted idiots now and have joined the cesspool. I used to think them talented and clever…………..no more.

      (Cat Stevens still has a lovely voice and talent!)

      • seafoid
        May 12, 2013, 5:11 pm

        “What the heck happened to Maher and Miller?”

        Careerism. Maybe he has a place in the Hamptons.
        The path Michael Franti took probably didn’t appeal to him.

  10. seafoid
    May 11, 2013, 4:28 pm

    Maher’s line of argument in song

  11. Ramzi Jaber
    May 11, 2013, 4:51 pm

    Absolutely brilliant!

    Scott, thanks for this. I stopped watching Maher a long time ago as he is really racist and a zionist mouthpiece. So I’m very happy you pointed it out. You also introduced me to Greenwald.

    • ritzl
      May 12, 2013, 12:15 am

      Well better late than never, RJ. :) He’s an amazing advocate, and amazingly consistent (i.e. principles are THE only operative dynamic) advocate for doing the right thing, across a broad front of issues. Sadly, along with Moyers, a current, but hopefully not future journalistic anachronism.

      There are a few other just-slightly-off-MSM folks that are like him though. The Leveretts (as Kathleen points out), I like Nancy Youssef at McClatchy, and maybe Ali Gharib. There may be more on that short list. But Greenwald has a knack for quickly and directly applying his universal principles across a range of issues and in conversations like this, on camera, that seems unique. I wish there were many more like him. God I hope he’s inspiring some journalism school students to emulate him.

      • Kathleen
        May 12, 2013, 3:15 pm

        ” But Greenwald has a knack for quickly and directly applying his universal principles across a range of issues and in conversations like this, on camera, that seems unique. I wish there were many more like him. God I hope he’s inspiring some journalism school students to emulate him.”

        Greenwald really listens to the other person. And if they make no sense and are clearly racist, nationalist etc he takes them down quickly limb by limb. It is an absolute joy to listen to someone who is so fair, so consistent and knows constitutional and international law so well just makes me feel high and that there is hope.

        Ever watch Greenwald and Dylan Ratigan take Cliff May’s lame arguments apart and wipe up the floor with them. Wish the MSM would have him on more often. Think he scares them with his brilliance and matter of fact statements
        link to videocafe.crooksandliars.com

        The other point Glenn made about Benghazi is that clearly there should be an investigation as to whether mistakes were made and how involved Clinton was in those mistakes. All of us who have been shouting for over 10 years now about Bush and team and the lack of accountability in regard to their “pack of lies” that have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not over a million. While the Bush administration crimes are far more serious …crimes against humanity the same rules that we want applied to the Bush criminals should apply to Benghazi. Even though the Republicans will never apply those standards.

    • seafoid
      May 12, 2013, 2:05 am

      Ya Ramzi

      Greenwald is a columnist at the Guardian.co.uk site

      link to guardian.co.uk

      link to guardian.co.uk

      • Ramzi Jaber
        May 12, 2013, 9:31 am

        ritzl and seafoid, thanks for the additional references. I’ll read and follow.

      • tree
        May 12, 2013, 2:33 pm

        Greenwald started off as an independent blogger and then moved to Salon.com, where he wrote a nearly daily column for many years before moving on to the Guardian. You can read his Salon.com era writings here:

        link to salon.com

        And his archived earlier blog posts are here:

        link to glenngreenwald.blogspot.com

        He’s a treasure.

  12. gingershot
    May 11, 2013, 5:50 pm

    Like Sen Chuck Shumer – Maher is a self appointed (or compulsive, at least) Guardian of Israel

    Maher sure doesn’t like being made to look like the fool he is – it’s oh so obvious that he was boiling and then going for the ad hominem in a desperate last lunge. The audience saw it as well and it only made Greenwald look that much more brilliant

    He is one arrogant SOB and he didn’t get away with his Islamophobia-ProIsrael ‘secular Zionism’ masquarading as atheism this time. He doesn’t even know he DOES have a religion

    Not that Greenwald didn’t have to chase him back down three of his rabbit holes in order to catch him before he almost got away with it. Greenwald is as quick as lightning and but I think was also was ready for his tricks

    Maher should get out of the way of the blast furnace if he can’t take the heat. I can only wonder if he ever has Greenwald back on his show ever again – I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone go after Maher and just stomp out the embers of his fire like that ever before. Bill is going to have to call in and schedule some extra time on his usual therapy sessions this week after that whomping

    Maher is a ‘secular Zionist’ though I don’t even think he himself really knows it or would admit it (because then he wouldn’t be cool anymore) – it’s like it’s subconscious for him and perhaps a ‘replacement religion’ for him in a way. Mommy and Israel mushed up together somehow as an organizing principle of his personality.

    Would America have gone to war in Iraq (or nearly in Iran, or perhaps in Syria) if Maher, Jon Stewart, and others were ridiculing the Neocons on a nightly basis – showing America what dangerous men they were and what disasters they were lying us into? – helping create the space where it made it not a career death sentence for others to just laugh in the faces of Kristol and the other Neocons on our real news shows? – like the recent SNL Fellate a Donkey for Israel skit does?

    I hold Maher, Stewart, and all the rest of them as complicit as the NYTimes or Washington Post as giving the Neocons the ocean they swim in. They are part of the Israel Lobby. We need our court jesters (like Colbert) ON OUR SIDE rather on the Lobby’s.

    PS – Joy Reid was terrific as well

    • just
      May 12, 2013, 5:04 pm

      Joy was wonderful, and made a solid point about our ” glorious revolution”.

      I hope she is ‘seen’ more often, and Charles Cooke less.

  13. Diamond
    May 11, 2013, 6:32 pm

    I love it. Especially the part at 8:58

    Maher: “Not recently”
    Maher: (sees the look on Glenn’s face)
    Maher: (in his head: “I immediately regret that decision.”)

  14. ckg
    May 11, 2013, 6:56 pm

    You also introduced me to Greenwald.

    I’m sure I’m not alone among this site’s readers in acknowledging that Greenwald is the best columnist in the business. Kudos to the Guardian for hiring him.

  15. tear-stained uzi
    May 11, 2013, 7:24 pm

    Great clip! Glennzilla vs Mahernster Zero!!!

  16. chinese box
    May 11, 2013, 8:05 pm

    Wow, Maher was fuming. I guess he’s used to having his anti-Islam views validated, rather than challenged. Wonder if Greenwald will be invited back on in the future?

  17. riyadh
    May 11, 2013, 9:04 pm

    Why no post on Efraín Ríos Montt being found guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity? Israel provided tremendous support to his regime

    • seafoid
      May 12, 2013, 5:47 am

      That was wonderful news. Of course Israel and Rios Montt share a hatred of native peoples.

    • Ecru
      May 12, 2013, 6:55 am

      Thank you for bringing that up.

      Isn’t it a horrific irony, the people who whine the most about genocide and are constantly crying “existential threat” were a very REAL existential threat to the native people of Guatemala and continue to be one to every person on the planet.

    • Philip Munger
      May 12, 2013, 1:35 pm

      I didn’t know there was any sort of “tremendous support” by the Israelis for Montt’s regime. Is there a definitive article on this? I did a quick search and couldn’t come up with anything substantive.

      • Jeff Levy
        May 12, 2013, 2:18 pm

        “The weapons made by the death squad, I learned, were Israeli-made Uzi sub-machine guns … uzis and the larger Galil assault rifles (also Israeli-made) used by Guatemala’s special counterinsurgency forces, account for at least half of the estimated 45,000 Guatemalan Indians killed by the military since 1978, when Israel became the chief arms supplier to the first of three consecutive Guatemalan military dictatorships.”
        –How Israel Makes Friends and Enemies Around the World
        Victor Perera, Mother Jones July 1985

        For more extensive reviews see The Israeli Connection by Benjamin Beit Hallahmi, Chomsky’s Turning the Tide and the Fateful Triangle

      • tree
        May 12, 2013, 2:47 pm

        I did a quick google search using the term “Guatemala coup Israel” and came up with several hits. Here are two:

        link to merip.org

        link to nacla.org

        Even Wikipedia has a paragraph or two about Israel’s involvement:

        The Guatemalan military also maintained strong ties with Israel, which began selling and delivering weapons to the Guatemalan military during the Kjell Laugerud presidency.[178] Military items delivered to Guatemala by Israel between 1974 and 1982 included automatic weapons, light transport aircraft, and armored cars. From the mid-1970s through the 1980s, Guatemalan troops were primarily equipped with several different configurations of the 5.56×45mm NATO Galil assault rifle and limited numbers of the 9mm Uzi submachine gun, both manufactured by Israel Military Industries (IMI). Israel was also the principle supplier of military hardware to Argentina from late-1978 onward after the United States suspended aid to the Argentine military junta. The government in Argentina also supplied quantities of Israeli-manufactured weapons and hardware to the Guatemalan military on several occasions.[179] In addition to supplying arms to Guatemala (directly and indirectly through Argentina), Israel also provided intelligence and operational training to Guatemalan officers. Technical support was also given to the Guatemalan counterinsurgency by the Israelis, including a computer system located in an annex of the Presidential General Staff (EMP), behind the presidential palace in 1980. This computer system incorporated a data analysis system developed during the “Dirty War” in Argentina, and passed on by Argentine advisors, which was used to monitor electrical and water usage to pinpoint the coordinates of guerrilla safe-houses.[180] A total of thirty guerrilla safe-houses were infiltrated in 1981. In 1981 the chief of staff of the Guatemalan army said that the “Israeli soldier is the model for our soldiers”. After the March 23, 1982 junior officers coup, Efraín Ríos Montt told ABC News that his success was due to the fact that “our soldiers were trained by Israelis.” There was not much outcry in Israel at the time about its involvement in Guatemala, though the support was not a secret.[181] Despite public praise for Israel by Guatemalan authorities, many Guatemalan officials were also critical of Israel. General Hector Gramajo stated in an interview, “Maybe some Israeli’s taught us intelligence but for reasons of business…The hawks (Israeli arms merchants) took advantage of us, selling us equipment at triple the price.”[182]

        link to en.wikipedia.org

      • Ecru
        May 12, 2013, 4:26 pm

        I’m surprised you didn’t find anything I found quite a bit within seconds. Oh well, the vagaries of the interweb and search engines.

        link to jstor.org

        link to thirdworldtraveler.com

        link to nacla.org

      • Keith
        May 12, 2013, 5:50 pm

        PHILIP MUNGER- “Like Guatemala’s other suppliers of arms, Israel (which had been supplying arms to Guatemala since 1974) continued its aid provisions. The cooperation didn’t just involve material support, but also included providing intelligence and operational training, carried out both in Israel and in Guatemala. In 1982, Ríos Montt told ABC News that his success was due to the fact that “our soldiers were trained by Israelis.” There was not much outcry in Israel at the time about its involvement in Guatemala, though the support for Ríos Montt was no secret.”
        link to en.wikipedia.org

      • Kathleen
        May 13, 2013, 8:49 am

        Had read years ago that Israel was the main supplier of weapons and trainer of Montt’s forces.

        great that people brought this up

        Quite the read

        “http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/CAmer_Experience_ILAMC.html

        “With the exception of Nicaragua, which has purchased n1 weapons from Israel since the overthrow of the Somoza government, all the countries of the region are important clients and have signed military agreements with Israel. At the end of 1982, the New York Times quoted U. S. officials as saying that Israel was the largest supplier of infantry equipment to El Salvador and Guatemala, and had a “comparable role” in Honduras and Costa Rica.’ Israel’s role in the region goes beyond the provision of weapons and military communications and electronics equipment to include a broad range of military assistance, such as training, counterinsurgency and intelligence advice, and military-agricultural development projects based on the Nahal-type projects of the 1960s. Moreover, Israeli-Central American military ties are fraught with a political significance which by and large has been lacking elsewhere in Latin America.
        Perhaps as a result of Israel’s importance as a supplier, the governments of Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Costa Rica have been more forthcoming in their support of Israel than those of any other region. Guatemala, like Nicaragua under Somoza, has not supported a single UN resolution critical of Israel; Honduras has supported only four, and El Salvador and Costa Rica seven (Venezuela and Peru each supported eighteen anti-Israeli votes; Argentina 14; Mexico 13; Brazil and Bolivia 11 each; and Ecuador, 10). All the Central American states except Guatemala voted for the 1980 UN resolution condemning Israel’s “Basic Law of Jerusalem” and subsequently moved their embassies from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv. Honduras, Costa Rica, and El Salvador, however, returned their embassies to Jerusalem several years later. The only countries to have done so, they incurred the anger of the Arab states. “

      • Kathleen
        May 13, 2013, 8:57 am

        Guatemala and Israel have historically shared a warm, if sometimes dark, relationship—and it is one that is bearing new fruit today
        link to tabletmag.com

        But there’s a darker side to the friendship, particularly during the bloody chapter of Guatemala’s civil war. When human-rights abuses led the Carter Administration to cease military aid to Guatemala in 1977, Israel filled the vacuum. By 1983, the New York Times was reporting that Israel was not only acting as a surrogate for the United States (in a similar fashion to its actions in Nicaragua) but also working to oppose the Soviet Union and grow the market for Israeli arms. The cooperation didn’t just involve UZIs and hand grenades; it also included providing intelligence and operational training, both in Israel and in Guatemala, to the right-wing government.”

        Israel/Montt
        link to books.google.com

        ISRAEL SAID TO AID LATIN AIMS OF U.S.

        By PHILIP TAUBMAN, Special to the New York Times (The New York Times); Foreign Desk
        July 21, 1983, Thursday
        link to nytimes.com

  18. bijou
    May 11, 2013, 9:11 pm

    Glenn Greenwald is a national treasure. He should get a Presidential medal for his copious writings on American constitutional rights (and the steady evisceration thereof since 9/11).

  19. Shingo
    May 11, 2013, 11:50 pm

    Greenwald is incredible. He’s superbly articulate, consistent, and above all, fearless.

    I only wish he had been on the show to shred Maher’s arguments on one of those occasions when Maher launched one of his pro Israeli sycophant tirades.

    • seafoid
      May 12, 2013, 5:46 am

      He’s like the kid who pointed out the emperor was naked.
      He only speaks common sense.

      • Ecru
        May 12, 2013, 7:00 am

        That reminds me of the song “Tom Paine’s Bones” by Dick Gaughan.

        “They say I preached revolution
        Let me say in my defence
        That all I did wherever I went
        Was to talk a lot of common sense”

        link to youtube.com

        When common sense is seen as revolutionary – you know your society’s in trouble.

      • seafoid
        May 12, 2013, 5:16 pm

        Careerism, opportunism
        can turn the politics into cartoonism
        Let’s not patronize or criticize
        Let’s open the door and look inside
        Pull the file on the state of denial
        Hypocrisy is the Greatest Luxury
        Raise the Double Standard

  20. Kathleen
    May 11, 2013, 11:56 pm

    Glenn knocks it out of the park again. Maher was tripping over this own tongue..could not catch up to Greenwald…ever. Maher’s film about Religions was so obviously biased you could see right through it with in the first 15 minutes

    Bill Maher interviews Micheal Scheuer…This is a great piece. Maher freaks out because of Scheuer’s comments about Israel

  21. W.Jones
    May 12, 2013, 3:41 am

    Maher basically takes the view that the Arab Spring is bad and that the Middle Eastern countries are rampant with intolerant Islamic theocracies. His idea is that regime change means theocracy.

    He presents a stereotypical, and only negative view of their peoples. The Arab spring appears to be a series of movements against Middle Eastern governments in the last few years.

    In some cases like Egypt it was headed by liberal, pro-democracy activists, with likely some indirect support from US NGOs. Once people got the right to vote, they often voted for parties with a religious trend in them. However, if someone actually cares about Egypt’s people and values democracy, one should take the view that the Arab spring there was a positive there, whether or not one views the party elected into power favorably. For example, you might not like Obama, but if you care about Americans, you must view their holding of an election in 2008 favorably.

    In other cases like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain, it appears there might have actually been anti-theocratic aspects to the Arab Spring there. Again, Maher’s one-sided negative portrayal of movements for change and reform do not even favor his own disagreement with theocracy and Iran’s government.

    Finally, in cases like Libya and Syria, Maher’s criticism of the Arab Spring are right on the mark! In those instances, the “spring” is really a “winter” for democratic forces and tolerance, since in those instances it means an attempt to bring intolerant fundamentalist groups into power and brutalize secular governments and minorities. It is actually a continuation of the “regime change” experienced in Iraq, in a different form. But guess what, a key feature of the Spring there is that like in Iraq, it is being promoted by Maher’s government. Were it not for the government and its allies, those intolerant examples of change would not occur. Does Maher do his job as a critical commentator and point this out?

    Ultimately, if someone cares about people in the Middle East (and thus indirectly America’s relations with those countries), the person should want to promote reform and democratic movements, recognize both good and bad tendencies where they exist, and be willing to recognize his or her society’s own good and bad involvement in that process.

  22. tokyobk
    May 12, 2013, 4:53 am

    “Islam” is a proxy vehicle for Greenwald’s, Maher’s and for Sam Harris’ macro politics. All three dismiss anything about it which does not support the grand theory and focus on any aspect that does. As one of the competing versions of Truth on planet Earth for the last 1,400 years, Islam has enough history to supply each.

    • Cliff
      May 12, 2013, 7:20 am

      You’re equating Islamophobia (Maher, Harris, et. al.) to Greenwald?

      Harris believes all Muslims are potential terrorists.

      Why don’t you accept similar blanket statements regarding Jews? Why don’t you apply the same intellectual framework Harris applies (complete with equivalent but opposite fawning over Alan Dershowitz and Israel) to Jewish identity and world Jewry?

      Glenn’s articles are thoroughly researched and substantiated.

      So why don’t you propose a counter-argument to something Greenwald has said rather than simply lumping him together with his political opponents (to make yourself appear ‘neutral’ or ‘fair’, i.e. ‘everyone is equally guilty/equally wrong/equally right’).

      What a lazy, liberal Zionist thing to say.

      • tokyobk
        May 12, 2013, 3:12 pm

        Cliff,

        I am not a liberal Zionist and my point is not in support of Zionism.
        Nor do I think they are all equally right or wrong. Simply as I put it, for each the discussion of Islam is serving a larger point.

        And by the way, you slip into saying that I am agreeing with Maher and asking me if -I- accept blanket statements about Jews. Why? In fact, no, I don’t accept blanket statements about Jews or Muslims and I agree that Harris spares Judaism (though not the OT) in ways he does not spare Muslims. Though he denies he is a bigot against Muslims. Have you read his rebuttal?

        That said, I don’t think any criticism of Islam no matter how strident is what is meant by Islamophobia. Nor do I think criticizing or even disliking the theology of Judaism is anti-semitism, as we mean it to define ethnic bigotry.

        Greenwald’s writing might be thoroughly researched on Civil Liberties (the issue that matters to him and the one in which he uses Muslims as the stand in for victim and Other) but he says almost nothing about the religion Islam, my point again.

    • Danaa
      May 12, 2013, 2:07 pm

      tokyobok, drawing a parallel between Maher’s steady villification of muslims – and islam, and Greenwald’s impassioned refrain against lumping all and one under some kind of an establishment-promoted umbrella, is beyond unfair. Glenn did not make ‘defense of muslims’ one of his linchpin topics, as Mahler did his obvious Islamophobia. To Greenwald, it is the the unfair persecution of muslims in the media, using the tools of Versailles and the court syncophants of the democratic party, is but one glaring example of the hypocricy and cow-towing to the PTB that has come to typify the power brokers and their lap-dog media in this country. He especially enjoys excoriating self-appointed guardians of “the left”, peddlers of identity politics who engage in white-washing the crimes of their own side, while leveling accusations against other entities in the world, guilty of much the same. he sspecially enjoys point out the way left and right close ranks on certain issues (such as the evisceration of the 4th amendment) while pretending there are big differences among them. The matter of zealous prosecution of muslims in the US, while pretending that the endless bombing carried out in our name has nothing to do with the rage of people who live in those countries, is an especially favorite topic of his. On that issue Glenn gives an articulate voice to all of us who see those connections loud and clear, but are not blessed with either his erudition or efficiency.

      Attempting to dump Greenwald and Mahler into the same type of cesspool for “proxy wars of words” is disingenuous, to say the least. Either you are not familiar with the body of Greenwald’s work (of which there is much to wade through by now, him being as prolific as he is scorching in the art of exposing the dishonest snivelers and peddlers of the “lie-du-jour” in the “most powerful country in the world”), or you didn’t really listen to this exchange, or – well, I won’t mention the third alternative.

    • tree
      May 12, 2013, 4:01 pm

      All three dismiss anything about it which does not support the grand theory and focus on any aspect that does.

      Not true on the part of Greenwald. He has no beef with legitimate criticisms of Islam or any other religion. But he abhors the bigotry and hypocrisy involved in the rantings of Harris and Maher.

      Let’s first quickly dispense with some obvious strawmen. Of course one can legitimately criticize Islam without being bigoted or racist. That’s self-evident, and nobody is contesting it. And of course there are some Muslim individuals who do heinous things in the name of their religion – just like there are extremists in all religions who do awful and violent things in the name of that religion, yet receive far less attention than the bad acts of Muslims (here are some very recent examples). Yes, “honor killings” and the suppression of women by some Muslims are heinous, just as the collaboration of US and Ugandan Christians to enact laws to execute homosexuals is heinous, and just as the religious-driven, violent occupation of Palestine, attacks on gays, and suppression of women by some Israeli Jews in the name of Judaism is heinous. That some Muslims commit atrocities in the name of their religion (like some people of every religion do) is also too self-evident to merit debate, but it has nothing to do with the criticisms of Harris.

      Nonetheless, Harris defenders such as the neoconservative David Frum want to pretend that criticisms of Harris consist of nothing more than the claim that, as Frum put it this week, “it’s OK to be an atheist, so long as you omit Islam from your list of the religions to which you object.” That’s a wildly dishonest summary of the criticisms of Harris as well as people like Dawkins and Hitchens; absolutely nobody is arguing anything like that. Any atheist is going to be critical of the world’s major religions, including Islam, and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

      The key point is that Harris does far, far more than voice criticisms of Islam as part of a general critique of religion. He has repeatedly made clear that he thinks Islam is uniquely threatening: “While the other major world religions have been fertile sources of intolerance, it is clear that the doctrine of Islam poses unique problems for the emergence of a global civilization.” He has insisted that there are unique dangers from Muslims possessing nuclear weapons, as opposed to nice western Christians (the only ones to ever use them) or those kind Israeli Jews: “It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of devout Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence.” In his 2005 “End of Faith”, he claimed that “Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death.”

      This is not a critique of religion generally; it is a relentless effort to depict Islam as the supreme threat. Based on that view, Harris, while depicting the Iraq war as a humanitarian endeavor, has proclaimed that “we are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam.” He has also decreed that “this is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims, but we are absolutely at war with millions more than have any direct affiliation with Al Qaeda.” “We” – the civilized peoples of the west – are at war with “millions” of Muslims, he says. Indeed, he repeatedly posits a dichotomy between “civilized” people and Muslims: “All civilized nations must unite in condemnation of a theology that now threatens to destabilize much of the earth.”

      ……

      When criticism of religion morphs into an undue focus on Islam – particularly at the same time the western world has been engaged in a decade-long splurge of violence, aggression and human rights abuses against Muslims, justified by a sustained demonization campaign – then I find these objections to the New Atheists completely warranted. That’s true of Dawkins’ proclamation that “[I] often say Islam [is the] greatest force for evil today.” It’s true of Hitchens’ various grotesque invocations of Islam to justify violence, including advocating cluster bombs because “if they’re bearing a Koran over their heart, it’ll go straight through that, too”. And it’s true of Harris’ years-long argument that Islam poses unique threats beyond what Christianity, Judaism, and the other religions of the world pose.

      Most important of all – to me – is the fact that Harris has used his views about Islam to justify a wide range of vile policies aimed primarily if not exclusively at Muslims, from torture (“there are extreme circumstances in which I believe that practices like ‘water-boarding’ may not only be ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary”); to steadfast support for Israel, which he considers morally superior to its Muslim adversaries (“In their analyses of US and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so. . . . there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah”); to anti-Muslim profiling (“We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it”); to state violence (“On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right. This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that ‘liberals are soft on terrorism.’ It is, and they are”).

      link to guardian.co.uk

  23. amigo
    May 12, 2013, 5:53 am

    Maher is a patronizing jackass and Israel apolo-jest who makes money demeaning others.

    Sad pathetic moron.

  24. Kathleen
    May 12, 2013, 10:55 am

    With the few times Chris Hayes cultivated real discussions about the I/P issue, Maddow (her first breakthrough) having Carter on awhile back to talk about I/P talks (Rachel tip toed) but Carter took the opportunity and ran with it, Greenwald making it on several MSNBC programs (Dylan Ratigan, Up), Greenwald on Maher’s program…more cracks in the wall. Keep hammering on campuses, with your Reps, contacting MSM outlets, letters to your local newspapers, calls into national radio and T.V. programs, conversations, fact based information at churches, synagogues, mosques. Keep politely hammering

  25. just
    May 12, 2013, 11:16 am

    Greenwald is truthful and incredibly smart.

    If only more people (Americans) were so intelligent and fair.

  26. gingershot
    May 12, 2013, 12:56 pm

    Maybe this is why Maher gave up on his cognitive processes – her name is Coco Johnsen and he ‘dated her’ for 17 months. Imagine the ‘discussions’ he had with her – no wonder he flails trying to hold a conversation with Glenn

    Coco’s on the left in the red stripper dress

    link to google.com

    • Taxi
      May 12, 2013, 2:06 pm

      Bill Mahr might find everlasting conjugal happiness if he signed up with ihateislamlovematch.com.

    • Hester
      May 13, 2013, 12:31 am

      Oh my, some real sexist stereotyping there, gingershot.

      • Taxi
        May 13, 2013, 3:43 am

        Hester,
        I’m female and I don’t find gingershot’s reference “sexist stereotyping” at all. Unless, of course, you think all females are repressed Einsteins.

    • Ecru
      May 13, 2013, 4:04 am

      I don’t think that’s fair Gingershot. She could be a bimbo (and isn’t it revealing that the quintessential word for a female air head is in fact masculine?) she could be a brilliant mind, let’s not judge based on looks huh?

      However, whatever her intellectual acumen somehow I seriously doubt Maher was all that interested in her conversational skills anyway. After all, does he ever really listen to anybody but himself?

      • Taxi
        May 13, 2013, 5:15 am

        “Bimbo” in the 21st century has become a unisex label. I know we use it on both men and women in my circle of family and friends – we sometimes even affectionately call each others’ pets ‘bimbo’ – the neighbors’ pets too get a ‘bimbo’ from me every now and then.

        Now ‘Coco’ may not be a bimbo, but she sure tries hard to look like one. An archetypal one, no less. Not wanting to be mean here, just stating a visual fact. I mean she purposefully does not exactly dress like a librarian (another extreme fashion faux) – now does she? Any average joe and jane looking at C0c0’s pics would be likely to think she’s a bimbo and not a professorial librarian because of how Coco projects herself, not because of sexism or any other ism.

        So the question is: why would a smart and confident lady want to project herself as a dim tramp? I have no idea, is my personal answer.

        More to the point (since we’re dissecting Mahr’s pomposity and level of intelligence here), is beau Bill so needing to prove his virility in public that he’s attached himself to an exhibitionist with a Venusian complex? (I may have just invented this term, I don’t know, I’ll have to look it up later to see). I’m referring here to females suffering from subconscious low self-esteem who spend fortunes and large chunks of their time ‘goddessing’ themselves visually, theatrically, ritualistically, to feel approval and validation of self from the near and far world. We see this much in the pathology of today’s celebrity figures and some of their wannabe-celebrity followers.

        So okay I’m not a fan of Coco’s stylist but I actually think she has a sweet face (when she’s not ‘working it’). I’m not a fan of Bill Mahr because of his covert zionism and overt islamophobia. To me Bill Mahr is not above average smart, but he sure is an above average bombast – a performing pseudo intellectual (the msm is FULL of them). And if I had to rate Bill Mahr’s looks I’d say he’s probably one of the ugliest men on TV ( gaunt, gormless, beady eyes, too much make up and horrible uncley blow-dry job). Next to Bill Mahr, at least Coco looks like she’s full of beans and (risqué) funfunfun! Yes I’d rather have a beer with Coco.

        Even if somebody’s a bimbo, doesn’t mean they can’t still be your friend.

      • German Lefty
        May 13, 2013, 5:28 am

        Regarding “bimbo”: Please do NOT use that word in Germany, because it has a different meaning here. It means “n*gger”.

  27. Daniel Rich
    May 12, 2013, 4:57 pm

    Just a thought: would Mondoweiss lead by example and one day become Roth, Weiss and Azraq (أزرق)?

  28. Citizen
    May 12, 2013, 5:46 pm

    Maher (eyes glossing over) to Greenwald’s logical explanation of why Benghazi was important (beyond gotcha politics): “I’m bored–let’s move on!” He’s such a little, self-righteous, very biased prick. I’d like to see him locked in a long-stalled elevator with, say, the likes of
    Dick Chaney or Karl Rove. Hidden cameras rolling on CSPAN.

  29. gingershot
    May 13, 2013, 6:35 pm

    Andrew Sullivan links to the Greenwald vs Maher TKO and posts some interesting links to pushback from David Atkins (who says they’re ‘both wrong’) as well as Digby (??) who pushes back against David Atkins and says no, it’s Greenwald who’s right

    Digby
    “I don’t think it’s surprising in the least that when people find themselves on the receiving end of massive technology and military might, they become angry and violent. Sure, they might turn to their God and religion for justification, but the truth is far more prosaic — we dominate and kill them and they want revenge. It’s the oldest story in the book.

    The birth of widespread Muslim fundamentalist hatred for America stemmed from covert and overt support for dictatorships in the middle east, military interference in Afghanistan, Israel, the corruption of the oil patch states and their relationship to the richest most profligate nation in the world (us) and a desire for independence and self-rule. God’s edicts fall far down the list of reasons.”

Leave a Reply