Friday, August 26, 2011

Prattle Royale

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the ultimate political cliché grudge match. In the right corner, it's an aging imperialist goon who believes that indiscriminately killing and torturing people in the name of the almighty American way is entirely justified and who, when it comes to being questioned about his actions, makes Colonel Nathan Jessup look like George McFly.

In the left corner, it's two effete weenies whose self-righteousness is matched only by their bottomless reservoir of indignation and whose signature move involves wonking their opponents into submission.

Who ya got?

The Huffington Post: Chris Hayes and Glenn Greenwald Rip Dick Cheney (And, of Course, Barack Obama)/8.26.11

It's like if Jugdish, Sidney and Clayton suddenly got off the couch and tried to beat Neidermeyer to death with the punch ladle at the Omega house.


VOTAR said...

Glad you're posting this. I watched it last night, and -- say what you will about Hayes and Greenwald -- what they are saying is not only true, but necessary. This needs to be made abundantly clear for the rest of recorded history: Dick Cheney is a WAR CRIMINAL, who is not only getting away with his crimes, he's bragging about it, and the media treats him like a curious side story.

Regardless of the messengers, the message rings loud and clear: bringing the perpetrators of crimes against humanity to justice is now too much of a hassle to bother with. How low does a neo-con have to go before the destruction they wage on the world is dealt with as the unashamed evil that it is?

Chez said...

I actually agree 100%. Cheney's a war criminal who should be in prison for the rest of his life. I just thought the two perfect stereotypes of the right and left were kind of amusing. Although it just irritates the shit out of me that Greenwald of course didn't miss the opportunity to drag his great white whale into it. Comparing Obama to Cheney, regardless of what you may think of the job the president has done, is absurd and makes me take you a lot less seriously.

J. Dack said...

Somewhat related, have you seen this?

I about pissed myself laughing.

John Foley said...

I honestly, literally don't know what Greenwald wants anymore. I really don't. I used to think that --as overbearing as he was-- there was still a solid foundation of principles in there somewhere. I now believe he's so in love with being a professional complainer he's lost sight of everything else. Being the only sane man as it were. I don't think anything would make him happy. Even if he got the ideal progressive President, Congress and Senate, he'd find a way to accuse them all of being corporate stooges who were "just as bad as Bush."
It's painful to listen to.

Ursula said...

I recently came back from a long holiday in Central Europe. I had a chance to talk to a lot of people there and when the conversation turned to US politics (I think the conversation almost always turned to the topic of US politics) many people there said “Warlord Bush” and “Warlord Cheney” without a hint of irony or indignation.

Greenwald can be a little much to take in most of the time. But Hayes I just love. And their exchange was spot on. Cheney is a war criminal. Obama’s “don’t look back, look forward” attitude is my biggest disappointment with him. Warlord Bush and Warlord Cheney should be rotting in jail.

Chez said...

I very much agree with the idea that there are certain issues Obama shouldn't have "looked forward" on. I wrote about that quite a bit during his transition into office -- that while he needed to to whatever it took to heal America, it was also incumbent upon him not to let certain crimes just be swept under the rug. For the record, his treatment -- or lack thereof -- of the Wall Street types who sunk us and the Bush types who sullied our name through global illegality has always pissed me off.

Still, I've made my opinion of Greenwald's constant pious hectoring very well known. John, you hit it on the head -- he really does believe he's journalistic integrity's last man standing and that if you don't blame Obama for just about everything, as he does, you're some kind of intellectually dishonest sycophant. That's nonsense. Greenwald's entirely predictable shtick got old a long time ago. The day he writes about more than maybe four topics -- yes, I know, Glenn, Wikileaks rules, Manning is a hero, Obama sucks, etc. -- is the day I'll start giving his opinions any credence.

John Foley said...

It's perfectly possible to agree with someone's argument and still think they're being an obnoxious prat about it. Witness.

Anonymous said...

Your take on this exchange seems petty. You may find these two to be tiresome but show me another extended moment on TV where the view that they express is being aired.

You state that at the time of Obama's refusal to hold the Bush admin accountable (indeed the Obama admin even went as far to actively quash charges in Spain and Germany), you thought it problematic. Well, here's two people committed to that idea, presenting it on National Television and you piss on them because of their demeanor or because their portfolio is not as complete as you think it should be.

I'd suggest you're a bigger problem than they are..

The Dork Knight said...

I know you loath the Greenwald, but why you gotta pick on Hayes? The guy is sharp as hell.

Chez said...

Appreciate the defense of Hayes, Dork. I tend to give a little less credence to the views of the ever-popular "anonymous."

That being said, I always enjoy it when the indignant neglect to read the line in the masthead about how we're largely about mockery around here.

Once again, I've made it pretty clear what my issues are with Greenwald's constant trashing of Obama on subjects far beyond those he deserves to catch a certain amount of crap for (like beating him up for anything and everything). It has a lot to do with -- and how many times have I said this now? -- demanding "smart accountability," meaning the kind that takes into account political reality and the potentially devastating impact of never giving a generally progressive president a break simply because he hasn't satisfied your every expectation or demand. Greenwald thinks it would be worth it to sacrifice the country to prove a point; he's said as much, in fact. I think that's absolutely batshit and incredibly petulant.

Anonymous said...

Sorry about that- didn't see the "mockery" in the masthead! I shall change my tune, if permitted, and be indignant about how lazy and lame your mockery is.
Your critique of Greenwald is shallow, you clearly have no idea who Hayes is, you don't know what a wonk is and you seem to be allergic to typing anything that's funny.

Chez said...

Oh well. Can't please everybody. By the way, huge fan of exclamation points -- almost as much as I am of people who use the word "shall" in the year 2011, Byron.

Mart said...

Even if you wish he would stop attacking Obama from the left, my read is Greenwald is consistent no matter who the boss is.

If Pres. McCain wanted to drop freedom bombs on Libya, continued rendition and torture (even on a much smaller scale), if the Iraq and Afghanistan wars still seemed endless, if he expanded hitting various nations with predator drones, continued vast eavesdropping programs, etc. - the left would be screaming bloody murder.

Only a few like Greenwald point out that we have quietly drifted far right and what was once thought of as war crimes, is now OK if Obama does it.

Chez said...

Over a larger swath of civil rights and civil liberties, though, Greenwald has been anything but consistent. He has his pet issues. If you lean his way on them, then a lot else can be overlooked or forgiven; if you don't, you're a criminal.

Fred Sowder said...

Glad I'm not the only one that finds Chris Hayes all kinds of annoying. "Effete weenie," indeed. I can agree with your politics all damn day, but if you rarely make sense in making your point, you're just fucking annoying. (Also, I just loved the ever-appropriate captcha that came up before I posted this: unwad. Unwad, indeed.)