Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
More on Watergate
105 views
Skip to first unread message
Howard
Aug 3, 2017, 2:41:34 PM8/3/17
to
I've started reading Watergate by Fred Emery to get a better handle on
the whole scandal. A few things that jump out at me...
I knew G. Gordon Liddy was nuts, but I hadn't realized how much. He was
a fan of Nazi Germany and seriously proposed kidnapping student leaders
and assasinating one journalist. He promoted schemes like dressing up
infiltrators as hippies and having them pee on George McGovern's carpet.
I knew the Watergate break in was sloppy, but I hadn't realized how
amateurish he and the rest of the minions were.
Their lousy spycraft was reflected in the rest of the Nixon
organization. After the burglary of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's
office and before the Watergate break in, J. Edgar Hoover died. Nixon
and his staff knew that Hoover had literally tons of file cabinets with
damaging intelligence on key Democrats, but instead of securing those
files for later review by a friendly Nixon appointee, they were
hoodwinked by Hoover loyalists who later destroyed the files to hide
evidence of FBI spying.
There was an odd casualness in the entire executive branch. John Dean
was hired as White House Counsel after practicing law for six months
based on a single recommendation and a half hour interview. During
election season as the Vietnam War still raged, critical negotiations
were going on with the Soviets and Chinese, and the election was
looming, people would go on vacation and be unreachable, Nixon would
linger in Florida with friends. Nixon's involvement in the coverup
seems almost inevitable given the way Nixon pushed so hard for dirty
tricks and cared so little about how they were carried out and whether
the perpetrators were any good at their jobs.
There's no question Nixon sunk to Trumpian levels of paranoia and
craziness, but the odd thing is how he could switch between weak and
dumb at one moment and well-reasoned in another.
It was disturbingly easy at first keeping things under wraps, as people
like FBI Director Patrick Gray helped the White House out. But the
looseness of the conspiracy and its size made it harder and harder to
contain. People started lawyering up and realizing that lying to
protect Nixon was putting themselves in real danger, and that's when
things really began to fall apart. Nixon simply couldn't argue any more
that people were safer sticking together than striking out on their own.
the whole scandal. A few things that jump out at me...
I knew G. Gordon Liddy was nuts, but I hadn't realized how much. He was
a fan of Nazi Germany and seriously proposed kidnapping student leaders
and assasinating one journalist. He promoted schemes like dressing up
infiltrators as hippies and having them pee on George McGovern's carpet.
I knew the Watergate break in was sloppy, but I hadn't realized how
amateurish he and the rest of the minions were.
Their lousy spycraft was reflected in the rest of the Nixon
organization. After the burglary of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's
office and before the Watergate break in, J. Edgar Hoover died. Nixon
and his staff knew that Hoover had literally tons of file cabinets with
damaging intelligence on key Democrats, but instead of securing those
files for later review by a friendly Nixon appointee, they were
hoodwinked by Hoover loyalists who later destroyed the files to hide
evidence of FBI spying.
There was an odd casualness in the entire executive branch. John Dean
was hired as White House Counsel after practicing law for six months
based on a single recommendation and a half hour interview. During
election season as the Vietnam War still raged, critical negotiations
were going on with the Soviets and Chinese, and the election was
looming, people would go on vacation and be unreachable, Nixon would
linger in Florida with friends. Nixon's involvement in the coverup
seems almost inevitable given the way Nixon pushed so hard for dirty
tricks and cared so little about how they were carried out and whether
the perpetrators were any good at their jobs.
There's no question Nixon sunk to Trumpian levels of paranoia and
craziness, but the odd thing is how he could switch between weak and
dumb at one moment and well-reasoned in another.
It was disturbingly easy at first keeping things under wraps, as people
like FBI Director Patrick Gray helped the White House out. But the
looseness of the conspiracy and its size made it harder and harder to
contain. People started lawyering up and realizing that lying to
protect Nixon was putting themselves in real danger, and that's when
things really began to fall apart. Nixon simply couldn't argue any more
that people were safer sticking together than striking out on their own.
BillT...@billturlock.com
Aug 3, 2017, 3:14:37 PM8/3/17
to
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 18:41:31 +0000 (UTC), Howard
<howrd...@otmail.com> wrote:
>I've started reading Watergate by Fred Emery to get a better handle on
>the whole scandal. A few things that jump out at me..
.... snip Elegant Précis ....
<howrd...@otmail.com> wrote:
>I've started reading Watergate by Fred Emery to get a better handle on
>the whole scandal. A few things that jump out at me..
TY!
Whiskers
Aug 3, 2017, 3:37:31 PM8/3/17
to
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
bill van
Aug 3, 2017, 5:42:26 PM8/3/17
to
In article <slrnoo6uro.1...@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
a few others started pursuing Watergate, and even then it took a long
time for the rest of the media to join the hunt.
Trump had no such free ride. He was such a loose cannon during the
election campaign that major media, state attorneys-general, civil
libertarians and others were ready to watch him very closely and speak
up once he was in office.
At least that's how it looks from here.
What do you guys south of the line think? Can General Kelly save the
Trump administration by insisting everyone start acting as if they
were sane?
--
bill
Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
> On 2017-08-03, BillT...@BillTurlock.com <BillT...@BillTurlock.com>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 18:41:31 +0000 (UTC), Howard
> > <howrd...@otmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I've started reading Watergate by Fred Emery to get a better handle on
> >>the whole scandal. A few things that jump out at me..
> >
> > .... snip Elegant Précis ....
> >
> > TY!
>
> Timely reminder that shenanigans aren't a new thing.
We didn't hear about Nixon's shenanigans until the Washington Post and
> On 2017-08-03, BillT...@BillTurlock.com <BillT...@BillTurlock.com>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 18:41:31 +0000 (UTC), Howard
> > <howrd...@otmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I've started reading Watergate by Fred Emery to get a better handle on
> >>the whole scandal. A few things that jump out at me..
> >
> > .... snip Elegant Précis ....
> >
> > TY!
>
> Timely reminder that shenanigans aren't a new thing.
a few others started pursuing Watergate, and even then it took a long
time for the rest of the media to join the hunt.
Trump had no such free ride. He was such a loose cannon during the
election campaign that major media, state attorneys-general, civil
libertarians and others were ready to watch him very closely and speak
up once he was in office.
At least that's how it looks from here.
What do you guys south of the line think? Can General Kelly save the
Trump administration by insisting everyone start acting as if they
were sane?
--
bill
Boron Elgar
Aug 3, 2017, 8:23:26 PM8/3/17
to
Howard
Aug 3, 2017, 9:50:26 PM8/3/17
to
Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote in
> <BillT...@BillTurlock.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 18:41:31 +0000 (UTC), Howard
>>
Department prosecutors initially were either complicit or very reluctant
to expand the case past the narrowest circumstances of the Watergate
break in.
I am reasonably hopeful that Mueller is being a lot more agressive. The
initial Watergate investigation was handled by fairly low level people,
while Mueller is hiring a lot of high level, very experienced
prosecutors and their areas of expertise suggest that Mueller is looking
into a lot of corners. It's reported today he's convened a grand jury
for the Russia case to go along with the one that already existed for
Michael Flynn. It's certainly possible nothing will come of either one,
but they may also be precursors to indictments.
On the other hand, once things started smelling fishy, the Democrat-
controlled Senate got serious about investigating. It's still
questionable whether the current Senate has much appetite for it.
> <BillT...@BillTurlock.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 18:41:31 +0000 (UTC), Howard
>>
>>>I've started reading Watergate by Fred Emery to get a better handle
>>>on the whole scandal. A few things that jump out at me..
>>
>> .... snip Elegant Précis ....
>>
>> TY!
>
> Timely reminder that shenanigans aren't a new thing.
Nixon might have gotten away with it all because the FBI and Justice
>>>on the whole scandal. A few things that jump out at me..
>>
>> .... snip Elegant Précis ....
>>
>> TY!
>
> Timely reminder that shenanigans aren't a new thing.
Department prosecutors initially were either complicit or very reluctant
to expand the case past the narrowest circumstances of the Watergate
break in.
I am reasonably hopeful that Mueller is being a lot more agressive. The
initial Watergate investigation was handled by fairly low level people,
while Mueller is hiring a lot of high level, very experienced
prosecutors and their areas of expertise suggest that Mueller is looking
into a lot of corners. It's reported today he's convened a grand jury
for the Russia case to go along with the one that already existed for
Michael Flynn. It's certainly possible nothing will come of either one,
but they may also be precursors to indictments.
On the other hand, once things started smelling fishy, the Democrat-
controlled Senate got serious about investigating. It's still
questionable whether the current Senate has much appetite for it.
Howard
Aug 3, 2017, 10:11:39 PM8/3/17
to
Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote
to go to buy the silence of the Watergate burglars. If they had gotten
the burglars a lot more money and faster promises of clemency, they
might have managed to keep a lid on things. But the White House
couldn't keep all of them in line and once one thread came loose, all of
the previous sloppiness was impossible to keep secret.
>>Trump had no such free ride. He was such a loose cannon during the
>>election campaign that major media, state attorneys-general, civil
>>libertarians and others were ready to watch him very closely and speak
>>up once he was in office.
>>
>>At least that's how it looks from here.
>>
>>What do you guys south of the line think? Can General Kelly save the
>>Trump administration by insisting everyone start acting as if they
>>were sane?
>
> No
What she said.
Trump is nuts, Mueller isn't going away, and there are now enough ex-
senior staffers running free that even if Kelly can keep current
staffers buttoned down (which I doubt), there are lots of opportunities
for former people to leak.
And given the leak of the transcripts of Trump's nutty phone calls to
the leaders of Mexico and Australia, and the leak about Trump writing
the misleading statement about Trump Jr.'s meeting, it appears Kelly is
struggling to keep leaks under control. People under him will find ways
to undermine him, and Trump will be Trump.
>>> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 18:41:31 +0000 (UTC), Howard
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>I've started reading Watergate by Fred Emery to get a better
>>> >>handle on the whole scandal. A few things that jump out at me..
>>> >
>>> > .... snip Elegant Précis ....
>>> >
>>> > TY!
>>>
>>> Timely reminder that shenanigans aren't a new thing.
>>
>>We didn't hear about Nixon's shenanigans until the Washington Post and
>>a few others started pursuing Watergate, and even then it took a long
>>time for the rest of the media to join the hunt.
The sense I get is that Nixon and company misjudged how far they needed
>>> >>handle on the whole scandal. A few things that jump out at me..
>>> >
>>> > .... snip Elegant Précis ....
>>> >
>>> > TY!
>>>
>>> Timely reminder that shenanigans aren't a new thing.
>>
>>We didn't hear about Nixon's shenanigans until the Washington Post and
>>a few others started pursuing Watergate, and even then it took a long
>>time for the rest of the media to join the hunt.
to go to buy the silence of the Watergate burglars. If they had gotten
the burglars a lot more money and faster promises of clemency, they
might have managed to keep a lid on things. But the White House
couldn't keep all of them in line and once one thread came loose, all of
the previous sloppiness was impossible to keep secret.
>>Trump had no such free ride. He was such a loose cannon during the
>>election campaign that major media, state attorneys-general, civil
>>libertarians and others were ready to watch him very closely and speak
>>up once he was in office.
>>
>>At least that's how it looks from here.
>>
>>What do you guys south of the line think? Can General Kelly save the
>>Trump administration by insisting everyone start acting as if they
>>were sane?
>
> No
Trump is nuts, Mueller isn't going away, and there are now enough ex-
senior staffers running free that even if Kelly can keep current
staffers buttoned down (which I doubt), there are lots of opportunities
for former people to leak.
And given the leak of the transcripts of Trump's nutty phone calls to
the leaders of Mexico and Australia, and the leak about Trump writing
the misleading statement about Trump Jr.'s meeting, it appears Kelly is
struggling to keep leaks under control. People under him will find ways
to undermine him, and Trump will be Trump.
Peter Boulding
Aug 7, 2017, 4:26:26 PM8/7/17
to
On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 14:42:23 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote
in <billvan-F0F093...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>:
>What do you guys south of the line think? Can General Kelly save the
>Trump administration by insisting everyone start acting as if they
>were sane?
Here's Glenn Greenwald's take (probably writing from *well* South of the
line):
<https://theintercept.com/2017/08/05/whats-worse-trumps-campaign-agenda-or-empowering-generals-and-cia-operatives-to-subvert-it/>
--
Regards, Peter Boulding
pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal Images and Music: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=794240&content=music
in <billvan-F0F093...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>:
>What do you guys south of the line think? Can General Kelly save the
>Trump administration by insisting everyone start acting as if they
>were sane?
line):
<https://theintercept.com/2017/08/05/whats-worse-trumps-campaign-agenda-or-empowering-generals-and-cia-operatives-to-subvert-it/>
--
Regards, Peter Boulding
pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal Images and Music: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=794240&content=music
Boron
Aug 7, 2017, 4:43:14 PM8/7/17
to
On Mon, 07 Aug 2017 21:26:20 +0100, Peter Boulding
<pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 14:42:23 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote
>in <billvan-F0F093...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>:
>
>>What do you guys south of the line think? Can General Kelly save the
>>Trump administration by insisting everyone start acting as if they
>>were sane?
>
>Here's Glenn Greenwald's take (probably writing from *well* South of the
>line):
>
><https://theintercept.com/2017/08/05/whats-worse-trumps-campaign-agenda-or-empowering-generals-and-cia-operatives-to-subvert-it/>
I put Greenwald on a list somewhere between pond scum and skid marks.
<pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 14:42:23 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote
>in <billvan-F0F093...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>:
>
>>What do you guys south of the line think? Can General Kelly save the
>>Trump administration by insisting everyone start acting as if they
>>were sane?
>
>Here's Glenn Greenwald's take (probably writing from *well* South of the
>line):
>
><https://theintercept.com/2017/08/05/whats-worse-trumps-campaign-agenda-or-empowering-generals-and-cia-operatives-to-subvert-it/>
bill van
Aug 7, 2017, 4:44:36 PM8/7/17
to
In article <q1jhoc9l4u6doolca...@4ax.com>,
be-careful-what-you-wish-for.
--
bill
Peter Boulding <pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 14:42:23 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote
> in <billvan-F0F093...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>:
>
> >What do you guys south of the line think? Can General Kelly save the
> >Trump administration by insisting everyone start acting as if they
> >were sane?
>
> Here's Glenn Greenwald's take (probably writing from *well* South of the
> line):
>
> <https://theintercept.com/2017/08/05/whats-worse-trumps-campaign-agenda-or-emp
> owering-generals-and-cia-operatives-to-subvert-it/>
Interesting piece. Looks like a large case of
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 14:42:23 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote
> in <billvan-F0F093...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>:
>
> >What do you guys south of the line think? Can General Kelly save the
> >Trump administration by insisting everyone start acting as if they
> >were sane?
>
> Here's Glenn Greenwald's take (probably writing from *well* South of the
> line):
>
> <https://theintercept.com/2017/08/05/whats-worse-trumps-campaign-agenda-or-emp
> owering-generals-and-cia-operatives-to-subvert-it/>
be-careful-what-you-wish-for.
--
bill
bobg
Aug 7, 2017, 7:07:44 PM8/7/17
to
Boron Elgar
Aug 7, 2017, 8:11:59 PM8/7/17
to
Snidely
Aug 8, 2017, 3:55:08 AM8/8/17
to
On Monday, bill van pointed out that ...
Lot's of "un-elected people setting policy", but that was the complaint
many people had about Bannon, too. I don't know which is worse. And I
suspect the divisions are more fine-grained than painted, with perhaps
Trad Mil vs CloakenDagger as one of the subplots.
/dps "well, hasn't always been?"
--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.
many people had about Bannon, too. I don't know which is worse. And I
suspect the divisions are more fine-grained than painted, with perhaps
Trad Mil vs CloakenDagger as one of the subplots.
/dps "well, hasn't always been?"
--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.
BillT...@billturlock.com
Aug 8, 2017, 3:27:30 PM8/8/17
to
>Here's Glenn Greenwald's take (probably writing from *well* South of the
>line):
Dedicated head-in-the-sand'r that I am, I was heretofore ignorant
>line):
of GG
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald
I think I like him!
Peter Boulding
Aug 9, 2017, 4:54:23 AM8/9/17
to
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 12:27:23 -0700, BillT...@BillTurlock.com wrote in
<824koc90kvi32v5no...@4ax.com>:
(Boron sure doesn't.)
That Wikipedia article ain't bad, but it misses my prime reason for becoming
a regular reader of his back in his "Unclaimed Territory" days--namely his
frequent, often incisive, sometimes delectably contemptuous, and to my mind
usually well-deserved attacks on MSM (mainstream media) news and opinion
pieces and the sloppiness, dishonesty, and bias of their supposedly star
authors.
<824koc90kvi32v5no...@4ax.com>:
That Wikipedia article ain't bad, but it misses my prime reason for becoming
a regular reader of his back in his "Unclaimed Territory" days--namely his
frequent, often incisive, sometimes delectably contemptuous, and to my mind
usually well-deserved attacks on MSM (mainstream media) news and opinion
pieces and the sloppiness, dishonesty, and bias of their supposedly star
authors.
Boron Elgar
Aug 9, 2017, 6:49:36 AM8/9/17
to
On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 09:54:17 +0100, Peter Boulding
I find him of no honorable journalistic bent, but a money-driven
coward of media who himself embraces and exemplifies the worst aspects
of the profession he rails against, and whose reputation he, along
with the sloppy, sensationalistic, source- harming writings of the
Intercept, do so much to harm.
He is the perfect journalist for the BernieBro, bullshit, alt-left
screed.
<pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 12:27:23 -0700, BillT...@BillTurlock.com wrote in
><824koc90kvi32v5no...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Aug 2017 21:26:20 +0100, Peter Boulding
>><pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote:>
>>>Here's Glenn Greenwald's take (probably writing from *well* South of the
>>>line):
>>
>>Dedicated head-in-the-sand'r that I am, I was heretofore ignorant
>>of GG
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald
>>
>>I think I like him!
>
>(Boron sure doesn't.)
That doesn't even begin to touch on it.
>On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 12:27:23 -0700, BillT...@BillTurlock.com wrote in
><824koc90kvi32v5no...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Aug 2017 21:26:20 +0100, Peter Boulding
>><pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote:>
>>>Here's Glenn Greenwald's take (probably writing from *well* South of the
>>>line):
>>
>>Dedicated head-in-the-sand'r that I am, I was heretofore ignorant
>>of GG
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald
>>
>>I think I like him!
>
>(Boron sure doesn't.)
I find him of no honorable journalistic bent, but a money-driven
coward of media who himself embraces and exemplifies the worst aspects
of the profession he rails against, and whose reputation he, along
with the sloppy, sensationalistic, source- harming writings of the
Intercept, do so much to harm.
He is the perfect journalist for the BernieBro, bullshit, alt-left
screed.
BillT...@billturlock.com
Aug 9, 2017, 2:52:22 PM8/9/17
to
Boron
Aug 9, 2017, 3:28:12 PM8/9/17
to
him a couple of days ago...
https://wonkette.com/621347/oh-go-fuck-yourself-glenn-greenwald
BillT...@billturlock.com
Aug 9, 2017, 10:41:40 PM8/9/17
to
On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:27:20 -0400, Boron
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>https://wonkette.com/621347/oh-go-fuck-yourself-glenn-greenwald
RoSRU
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>https://wonkette.com/621347/oh-go-fuck-yourself-glenn-greenwald
RoSRU
Boron Elgar
Aug 10, 2017, 7:03:16 AM8/10/17
to
Richard Hershberger
Aug 10, 2017, 9:19:56 AM8/10/17
to
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 9:50:26 PM UTC-4, Howard wrote:
> Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote in
>
> > <BillT...@BillTurlock.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 18:41:31 +0000 (UTC), Howard
> >>
> >>>I've started reading Watergate by Fred Emery to get a better handle
> >>>on the whole scandal. A few things that jump out at me..
> >>
> >> .... snip Elegant Précis ....
> >>
> >> TY!
> >
> > Timely reminder that shenanigans aren't a new thing.
>
> Nixon might have gotten away with it all
...if it weren't for those meddling kids!
> Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote in
>
> > <BillT...@BillTurlock.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 18:41:31 +0000 (UTC), Howard
> >>
> >>>I've started reading Watergate by Fred Emery to get a better handle
> >>>on the whole scandal. A few things that jump out at me..
> >>
> >> .... snip Elegant Précis ....
> >>
> >> TY!
> >
> > Timely reminder that shenanigans aren't a new thing.
>
> Nixon might have gotten away with it all
Richard Hershberger
Aug 10, 2017, 9:27:12 AM8/10/17
to
My brother years ago said of Greenwald that he would wake up one day a Fascist. Note that he is now de facto supporting Trumpism.
Richard R. Hershberger
Boron
Aug 10, 2017, 10:33:38 AM8/10/17
to
Supporting 45-ism and doing whatever he can to convince folks that
Russian interference/collusion is imaginary. Of course, Matt Taibbi
was blabbing that a lot, too.
Lesmond
Aug 11, 2017, 12:10:09 PM8/11/17
to
--
She may contain the urge to run away
But hold her down with soggy clothes and breeze blocks
Howard
Aug 13, 2017, 5:38:45 PM8/13/17
to
Boron <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 06:27:10 -0700 (PDT), Richard Hershberger
>
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 06:27:10 -0700 (PDT), Richard Hershberger
>
>>On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 3:28:12 PM UTC-4, Boron wrote:
>>> I am a fan of Wonkette, that just so happens to have an article
>>> about him a couple of days ago...
>>>
>>> https://wonkette.com/621347/oh-go-fuck-yourself-glenn-greenwald
>>
>>I view Greenwald as the lefty version of the Breibart crowd. The
>>difference is that Breibart is a force to be reckoned with on the
>>right, while most on the left look at Greenwald and go "What the
>>fucK?"
>>
>>My brother years ago said of Greenwald that he would wake up one day a
>>Fascist. Note that he is now de facto supporting Trumpism.
>
>>> I am a fan of Wonkette, that just so happens to have an article
>>> about him a couple of days ago...
>>>
>>> https://wonkette.com/621347/oh-go-fuck-yourself-glenn-greenwald
>>
>>I view Greenwald as the lefty version of the Breibart crowd. The
>>difference is that Breibart is a force to be reckoned with on the
>>right, while most on the left look at Greenwald and go "What the
>>fucK?"
>>
>>My brother years ago said of Greenwald that he would wake up one day a
>>Fascist. Note that he is now de facto supporting Trumpism.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Supporting 45-ism and doing whatever he can to convince folks that
> Russian interference/collusion is imaginary. Of course, Matt Taibbi
> was blabbing that a lot, too.
I think the Breitbart analogy isn't apt here because I think Greenwald
>
> Supporting 45-ism and doing whatever he can to convince folks that
> Russian interference/collusion is imaginary. Of course, Matt Taibbi
> was blabbing that a lot, too.
isn't nearly that stupid. I think he's capable of some genuine
insights, some of the time.
I think a better comparison is Hitchens. Both are (were) so stubborn
that once committed to a line of argument, there's no turning back.
Compromise and shades of gray don't work for them.
Greenwald and Russia is like Hitchens and Iraq. Hitchens simply could
not admit to his dying day that it was possible to oppose Saddam Hussein
and oppose going to war against Iraq, and it led to the craziness of a
guy who rightfully tore apart Kissenger later embracing Cheney,
Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. Greenwald is still unable to admit the
magnitude of Trump's danger or believe that someone can support the
intelligence community in some ways while deeply opposing them in
others.
Boron Elgar
Aug 13, 2017, 8:03:18 PM8/13/17
to
and extreme monetization of the Snowden info. I don' think he gave a
shit about the Snowden's act of contents of the info, but instead,
Greenwald used it to make himself in Assange, Jr, with almost as much
intellectual integrity and appeal, if you get my meaning.
BillT...@billturlock.com
Aug 13, 2017, 10:29:01 PM8/13/17
to
about these things, being a dedicated head-in-the-sand'r, without
the group, and to some extent, imgur.
Snidely
Aug 17, 2017, 2:39:21 AM8/17/17
to
Just this Tuesday, Snidely puzzled about:
(one of the subplots)
--
Rule #0: Don't be on fire.
In case of fire, exit the building before tweeting about it.
(Sighting reported by Adam F)
> On Monday, bill van pointed out that ...
>> In article <q1jhoc9l4u6doolca...@4ax.com>,
>> Peter Boulding <pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 14:42:23 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
>>> wrote
>>> in <billvan-F0F093...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>:
>>>
>>>> What do you guys south of the line think? Can General Kelly save the
>>>> Trump administration by insisting everyone start acting as if they were
>>>> sane?
>>>
>>> Here's Glenn Greenwald's take (probably writing from *well* South of the
>>> line):
>>>
>>> <https://theintercept.com/2017/08/05/whats-worse-trumps-campaign-agenda-or-emp
>>> owering-generals-and-cia-operatives-to-subvert-it/>
>>
>> Interesting piece. Looks like a large case of be-careful-what-you-wish-for.
>
> Lot's of "un-elected people setting policy", but that was the complaint many
> people had about Bannon, too. I don't know which is worse. And I suspect
> the divisions are more fine-grained than painted, with perhaps Trad Mil vs
> CloakenDagger as one of the subplots.
>
> /dps "well, hasn't always been?"
^ it
>> In article <q1jhoc9l4u6doolca...@4ax.com>,
>> Peter Boulding <pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 14:42:23 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
>>> wrote
>>> in <billvan-F0F093...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>:
>>>
>>>> What do you guys south of the line think? Can General Kelly save the
>>>> Trump administration by insisting everyone start acting as if they were
>>>> sane?
>>>
>>> Here's Glenn Greenwald's take (probably writing from *well* South of the
>>> line):
>>>
>>> <https://theintercept.com/2017/08/05/whats-worse-trumps-campaign-agenda-or-emp
>>> owering-generals-and-cia-operatives-to-subvert-it/>
>>
>> Interesting piece. Looks like a large case of be-careful-what-you-wish-for.
>
> Lot's of "un-elected people setting policy", but that was the complaint many
> people had about Bannon, too. I don't know which is worse. And I suspect
> the divisions are more fine-grained than painted, with perhaps Trad Mil vs
> CloakenDagger as one of the subplots.
>
> /dps "well, hasn't always been?"
(one of the subplots)
--
Rule #0: Don't be on fire.
In case of fire, exit the building before tweeting about it.
(Sighting reported by Adam F)
0 new messages