Twice in the past month, my private communications have been splashed
about the internet. That such a thing would happen is unfortunate, and
dishonorable, but sadly inevitable, I suppose. I ignored the first
case, in which a rather pathetic woman acolyte of Greenwald’s published
a hyperbolic account of a conversation I had with her at a beach picnic
on Cape Cod.
“A rather pathetic woman acolyte.” Yes, that would be our very own frequent commenteraimai, and not that Joke posts here, but he can consider himself pre-banned. Were she male, I wonder what Joe would have called her. The condescension, it burns us.
Look. Once and for all the doughnuts, this is about who’s right. It’s not about who has the longest resumé or the biggest pundit cock or who can piss the farthest off the top of the Chrysler Building. It’s about how Joe fucked up on FISA a year and a half ago, and instead of just sacking up and admitting it like any first-year J-school student would know to do, he flapped around and denied he’d made a mistake and he acted like an asshole and Glenn wrote it all down. Obviously Joe’s having some kind of breakdown over that, but there was a pretty easy way to have prevented it: DON’T BE SUCH A CHOAD. OR WHEN YOU ARE A CHOAD, ADMIT YOUR CHOADITUDE AND APOLOGIZE AND FIX YOUR FUCKUP. God. It’s like dealing with a two-year-old. Who has amnesia. You cannot shoot yourself in the foot and then blame the dude who laughs at your stupidity for the hole where your big toe used to be.
You’ll notice, in reference to aimai, that Joe doesn’t actually deny that he said anything she said. Also, screaming idiocies at the top of your lungs in a public place in the United States of America doesn’t constitute a private communication. It’s not like she read your diary, Joke. You’re a public figure, a fact you like just fine when it’s making you fat stacks but hate like burning when it causes you to get called on your snide shit.
Could what Joe said, and the manner in which he said it, cause damage to his reputation? Absolutely. He made a tool out of himself in public. In his profession that’s dangerous. Talking shit about your true feelings about what you cover is a major no-no for a journalist of any kind or political persuasion. This is why I was careful who I talked about my work with, it’s why I’m still careful even though nobody cares what happened five years ago in some neighborhood. Because if I was overheard howling about who really was a fucking asshole I was only pretending to take seriously for the purposes of a story, somebody could come up to me and say, “Hey, is that why you did X instead of Y?” and then we’re off to the races.
the past several years, Greenwald has conducted a persistent, malicious
campaign to distort who I am and where I stand. He is a mean-spirited,
graceless bully. During that time, I have never seen him write a
positive sentence about the US military, which has transformed itself
dramatically for the better since Rumsfeld’s departure (indeed, he
ridiculed me when I reported that the situation in Anbar Province was
turning around in 2007).
Emphasis mine, because that would be a relevant point were Joe the spokesman, say, for the Pentagon explaining why he was pissed at Glenn. Given, of course, that Glenn is under no obligation to write about anything except what he and his masters at Salon want him to write about. But I don’t see where Joe gets to decide that not writing “a positive sentence about the US military” is some kind of disqualification. I mean, what?
What I have seen from him, ad nauseum, are
intemperate attacks in which he questions the character of–no, it’s
worse than that: he slimes–anyone who has the temerity to disagree
Because calling someone “a rather pathetic woman acolyte” is such high-minded criticism.
Via theCrack Den.