How Many Punks Does It Take To Embarrass Glenn Greenwald?

Glenn Greenwald opens a new frontier by criticizing Glenn Reynolds for a post he didn't link to.  Folks who go to Greenwald's  post will currently see this:

One of Instapundit's favorite blogs speaks on race

(updated below - Update II - Update III)

Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds today linked to what he called "EASTER THOUGHTS" from one of his favorite right-wing blogs gers, his namesake, "Instapunk." That Easter post has a large picture of a crucified Christ along with a lovely religious poem.

But there is trouble in paradise, as the InstaPundit explains in an UPDATE:- "InstaPunk" is a group blog!

Careful readers of Greenwald will note a subtle acknowledgment of that problem by his presentation of the crossed out "favorite right-wing blogs gers".

Now if Greenwald could only contact Memeorandum, which preserved his original title:

One of Instapundit's favorite bloggers speaks on race

Oh, dear.  Despite three Updates, Greenwald has yet to mention explicitly the little problem with his creative attack.

TRICK QUESTION: How many punks does it take to embarrass Glenn Greenwald?  I haven't seen evidence that he is capable of embarrassment.

PILING ON:  Can we count on Dave Neiwert to just make stuff up that suits his narrative?  Yes We Can!

Glenn Greenwald has a superb piece pointing out a Glenn Reynolds-endorsed post from Instapunk that truly lays bare the ugly racism that has been rising, like all scum, to the top of the conservative movement these days...

Of course the post in question was not "Reynolds-endorsed", but wouldn't it be great for Neiwert if it had been?  So let's pretend!  Long time readers will recall that Dave Neiwert was one of the libs who discovered that Ann Coulter could bend space-time.  The reality was interesting enough, but not nearly as interesting to the reality-based community as their own fiction.

I WASN'T LOOKING IN THAT DIRECTION:  Cavalry from the left in the person of Mark Kleiman (who missed this Oprah follow-up from Glenn).

TIME WARP:  Mark Kleiman still misses the Oprah news and fails to surprise, in his second Update:

Tom Maguire, intending to defend Reynolds and attack Greenwald, instead succeeds in illustating Greenwald's point: that hate speech isn't offensive to some people on the "respectable" right. The good news is that, hypocrisy being the tribute vice pays to virtue, Maguire has to pretend that the hate speech he's defending isn't actually hateful. Instead of arguing for the value of what the Old Punk had to say, Maguire pretends he said something else and then argues for the value of that imaginary contribution instead, accusing Greenwald and other "lefties" of intolerance for wanting not to hear it.

Calling the Old Punk "hateful" ends any thought of dialogue, which is obviously Kleiman's objective.  If this were a group discussion I would be looking for a commonality to draw a person into the talk, not an extremity that could be used to exclude them.  As to how typical the Old Punk might be, with the dialogue over we will never reach that question.

Kleiman makes hay of an internal contradiction in the Old Punk's post which I skated past - after telling us he likes some black people the Old Punk tells us he dislikes all black people.   Tricky.  Since the OP then focused on the gangsta wanna-bes as offensive, I resolved the contradiction in favor of trying to interpret his real message.  Obviously, folks inclined to find the worst he said and use that as an excuse to ignore everything else are free to do so.

Kleiman concludes with unexpected drollery:

I'm astonished that Tom Maguire sees it differently. But then the Irish-Americans were always a potential a fifth column: slaves to the Pope, friends to slavery and traitors to the Union, dirty, lazy, drunken, and dishonest.

Let's have a conversation about it.

I think we had that conversation; certainly John Kennedy addressed the "slaves to the pope" question in 1960, although others insist that anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice. 

So his point is what - that his anti-Irish sentiment is as historically antique as the Old Punk's anti-black sentiment?  Interesting opinion, since we are often told that anti-black sentiment is alive, well, and a problem in need of a solution.

Or is his point that anti-Irish sentiment is as out of the mainstream as anti-black sentiment?  Again, this is news to me.  Good news, if I can believe it.

Or maybe he is thinking that I would never engage in a dialogue with a loon such as he.  Good point!  But one might argue that Obama sort of encouraged loons to come forward by inviting a national conversation about race.  "I want to hear what people think about the Irish, but not if it's nasty" - sort of phony, yes?

Let's close on a positive note - if national reconciliation on race means ignoring the views of people who express a problem with blacks, it should be an easy project.

Comments

[clarice]

Do not cross insty--I heart this response by him I know it's hard to get your mind around the idea that multiple pseudonymous writers might actually be different people, but . .

[SteveMG]

Apparently, in Greenwald's world Reynold's association (?) with this blog is important and must be noted but Obama's association with a black radical nationalist church for 20 years is meaningless.

In some world somewhere that makes sense; but not this one.

[clarice]

I still think this on Greenwald was one of the funniest blogger shticks of all time .

http://wuzzadem.typepad.com/wuz/2006/07/greenpuppet.html>The many faces of Greenwald

[hit and run]

SteveMG gets his quote in instapundit...

[SteveMG]

SteveMG gets his quote in instapundit

Yawn, he's quoted me before at least three times (I've lost count).

Harrumph, no credit though this time.

The air is quite clean and sweet at these altitudes. I just come here to enlighten the masses.

[PeterUK]

"How many Punks Does It Take To Embarrass Glenn Greenwald?"

How many can he get in a cabana?

[hit and run]

Heh.

[clarice]

Steve, guess which finger I'm holding up...

[SteveMG]

Steve, guess which finger I'm holding up...

I'm gonna' guess it's not your thumb?

Then work down.

[clarice]

Smooches..

[SteveMG]

Smooches..

Back at you.

[PeterUK]

"Steve, guess which finger I'm holding up.."

Well,it can't be your middle finger,you would drop the beer,you aren't a pinky pointer are you?

[Seixon]

It vexes me that such complete windbags have any following at all. Attack first, check your story later? Sounds a bit familiar...

How'd Glenn respond to the Obama (Clinton/McCain) passport "scandal"? Like Olbermann? Who, instead of letting the details and facts fall first, launch into a tirade and attack The Usual Suspects, only to find themselves completely wrong later?

I fail to see how these people are any different than pastor Wright, really.

[Charles Wilson]

It's bad enough when someone lies about you, but what really pisses off the wingnuts is when someone like Greenwald publishes the truth. Ha!

[clarice]

Dear Glen

[clarice]

Dear GlenCharles, When Greenwald publishes the truth, the entire world will quake so it will spin out of its orbit I'm afraid.

[clarice]

/strike>

[Glenn Reynolds]

Charles: Well, if Greenwald ever does that, we'll have a chance to test your theory!

[clarice]

/> /> />

[JD]

I wouldn't write for a group blog that had the racist post by "OldPunk" on it. Would you?

And I wouldn't link to a blog post on a group blog that had that post by "OldPunk" on it. Would you?

I prefer to participate in, and link to, groups that have zero -- not just a few -- horrible racists.

[hit and run]

I'm going on strike!

[SteveMG]

Greenwald publishes the truth. Ha!

What is truth? Nah, someone else's line about 2,000 years ago.

And the truth from Greenwald here is? You have the floor.

[hit and run]

Everything I say deserves to be stricken

[Old Punk]

Why post here then?

[SteveMG]

And I wouldn't link to a blog post on a group blog that had that post by "OldPunk" on it. Would you?

I cannot fathom how linking to another person's post is somehow indicative of support for a third (fourth?) person's ideas.

But I can't understand how citing (linking) another person's ideas is somehow an endorsement of those ideas. After all, Reynold's links to dozens of postings each day; do anyone think he endorses or supports the views in all of those posts?

If the post is interesting - even if I find the ideas behind it loathsome - I would certainly link to it.

Anyway, any regular or semi-regular reader of Reynold's knows that he isn't a racist or bigot. So, what's the point?

But this carries us away from the dishonesty of Greenwald's posting.

Which may be the goal.

[Ellers McEllerson]

Hey, isn't Greenwald's blog a group effort too?

[DaMav]

Greenwald could no more be expected to disavow his stupid comments about Instapundit than he could be expected to disavow his beloved sock puppets for posting with the same IP address.

[Old Punk]

"Hey, isn't Greenwald's blog a group effort too?"

Come on,it's Easter Sunday,this is a family show.

[JB]

Tom,

Memorandum is displaying the corrected title as of now.

[hit and run]

Why post here then?

To correct Clarice's html FUBAR, Old PUNK.

[JorgXMcKie]

Glenn Reynolds is so a racist and a bigot. He doesn't unthinkingly and reflexively support whatever the Progressive Truethink Line of the Day is, so he is, ipso facto, a racist and a bigot. QED. So, for that matter are the rest of you. Especially the non-white self-haters who refuse to come into the light that so purely bathes Greenwald. I know, because I have read Greenwald often enough (aw, c'mon, 2 times is, too, often enough) to understand the awesomeness of his Truthiness Power.

[D. M.]

I assume that this is the same Greenwald that caused a US Senator (forget which one now) to apologize on the Senate floor for having put something written by Greenwald in the record. Turns out what this Greenwald had written was a pack of lies and/or highly disingenuous nonsense.

[Jim Addison]

Don't people realize that GiGi is, at core, just an attention whore? This motivates most of his/her/their acts which draw attention, from the poorly-disguised sock puppets to the directly untruthful, like the post here discussed.

If we could resolve to simply ignore him/her/them, no matter how outrageous the offense, for a short period of time, it might just make his/her/their head explode.

[SteveMG]

Glenn Greenwald has a superb piece pointing out a Glenn Reynolds-endorsed post from Instapunk that truly lays bare the ugly racism that has been rising, like all scum, to the top of the conservative movement these days...

Oy vey.

Someone famous once said that all of man's problems originate from his inability to just simply sit in his chair and behave.

Give him a computer and his mischief multiplies.

[SteveMG]

Not to repeat my point needlessly, but these are the same folks who tell us that Obama's connection with a radical church is a meaningless association. It tells us nothing about the man.

But Glenn Reynold, a law professor in Tennessee, linking to a post at a blog where another, different commentator made a bigoted post is something we need to know because it tells us important things about him.

I just don't get it.

[Charles Giacometti]

So Greenwald correctly calls out Instarube for being a racist and the wingnut blogosphere bursts into tears, replete with unveiled references to Greenwald's homosexuality.

Your hero President Bush has an approval rating in the teens, and you, his sycophants in the blogosphere, have been unmasked as a bunch of yokels. It took longer than it should have, but it still happened. I suggest you all wipe the Cheetos dust off your hands and go masturbate, for one last time, on the picture of W. in his flight suit. Then, if you have any honor at all, you will all go blow your brains out and save your fellow citizens the cost of housing you in an insane asylum for the rest of your days.

[hit and run]

Good parody. I would have thrown in some Hallibuton -- but, who am I to criticize. 4 stars (out of 5)

[narciso]

Another day, another troll is born; The President's poll ratings are down; than
again he hasn't chosen an easy course; Clinton chose an easy course, after Somalia
slashing the Air Force under McPeak and to a lesser extent Fogleman, picking a totally
obscure officer Shalikashvili; passing over
the likes of General Hoar; which in
retrospect was the right course in that one instance. Deploying forcesthe 'critical' theatres of Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo. Slashing our intelligence service, because
the weak kneed former McNamara apparatchnik
gave way to the petulant Jersey congressman
who in turn was trying to placate his lefty
girlfriend.

The Congress, has lower ratings, partially because it can't deign to pass a budget, effectively fund our troops, provide effective guidelines for terrorist surveilance,prevent the leakage of classified information; begin to insure the solvency of Medicare or Social Security, or even consider the exploitation of energy sources on this continent. Instead they play games like the kangaroo trials of the
baseball players, provide rooting section for stalinist front groups like answer, et al.

The Supreme Court has done little better, authorizing a theft of private property
King John would find outrageous, (Kelo) giving due process rights to terrorists
(Hamdan, Hamdi, et al)releasing the 'right
number' of overcrowded prisoners, make a firm determination on affirmative action,
free speech funding, et al. In other words, either dereliction or malpractice on the key issues of the day.
of the day

[PeterUK]

H&R,
Sorry he implies guns which should be banned ,banned,banned! Loses a point for that.Could do with a soupcon of,"We have lost in Iraq" and of course the good old standby "We are all doomed because of Gorebal Warming".
Other than that,I agree a nice try.

[kim]

I just love it when I get a Cheetos that is basically two of them stuck together. The only thing better is when I get a Charles Giacometti stuck on himself.
======================

[Pale Rider]

Ah, this is wingnut country alright. Someone just stepped in a pile of crap and tried to blame Clinton for cutting our forces.

Hey--news flash "narciso"

That ten division Army that's been broken by this war George Bush started in Iraq? That's the Dick Cheney Army, as set out in his proposals after the first Gulf War.

Of course, wingnuts don't even bother to go back and read up on all the programs Cheney ordered killed, all of the units that he ordered to be deactivated, and all of the spending he slashed from the budget. Had Clinton deviated one iota from that plan, the Republicans in Congress would have crapped themselves. And they did, time and time again when Gingrich took over. They strung us out on that plan, and this is what you have right now, so shove that whole ball of lies up somewhere's dark, tight and dry, son.

[clarice]

I'm not feeling that Easter love today.

[SteveMG]

I'm not feeling that Easter love today.

Not anymore.

Somebody's giving out directions. Maybe like Halloween, we can turn the lights out, be quiet, and the kids won't knock at the door?

[Other Tom]

You can sure spot the Moonbats by their signature vulgarity, can't you?

[hit and run]

SteveMG:
Maybe like Halloween, we can turn the lights out, be quiet, and the kids won't knock at the door?

Bah...here, it's turn out the lights, be quiet, and when the kids come to the door fire up the chainsaw.

Gets 'em every time.

Though not every parent in the neighborhood finds humor in it.

[Porchlight]

Here you go, Clarice. It's that Messiah-Easter thing, it was bound to happen.

I watched Godspell on TMC thi afternoon - got a real Obamite vibe off that one, too.

[Porchlight]

*this* afternoon...

[Jane]

My guess is that all these trolls are Greenwald socks.

It's hard to not feel sorry for the guy.

[SteveMG]

Reynolds links to a Easter Day post at a blog where a separate blogger writes an ugly hateful post and we're now on to Cheney reducing the Army by 10 divisions and George Bush did something or other.

Rube Goldberg couldn't create that series of events.

No, he could not.

[kim]

Our volunteer military is doing alright, Balefull Writer; much better than al-Qaeda's. Observing the rules of engagement and combat, too, as befits a civilized and civilizing force. Now, what might civilize you? Sockie want a cracker?
===========================

[Tina]

Today, Mr. Obama's new paster, the Reverend Otis, declared that NPR was "National publican radio" and that the mainstream media was RNN - the Roman News Network who crucified the Reverend Wright just like the Romans crucified Jesus. Yes, this was Easter Sunday service in Senator Obama's "Church" -- the theme for today's sermon "How to deal with lynching in public".

[SteveMG]

wingnuts don't even bother to go back and read up on all the programs Cheney ordered killed, all of the units that he ordered to be deactivated, and all of the spending he slashed from the budget. Had Clinton deviated one iota from that plan, the Republicans in Congress would have crapped themselves. And they did, time and time again when Gingrich took over. They strung us out on that plan, and this is what you have right now, so shove that whole ball of lies up somewhere's dark, tight and dry, son.

This is taken from Blutarski's speech in Animal House?

Right?

Just waiting for the part about the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor.

[PeterUK]

"That's the Dick Cheney Army, as set out in his proposals after the first Gulf War."

It's called demobilisation,they do it at the end of most wars,kind of a tradition.

[Other Tom]

"Clinton's most significant failings as President concerned less publicized but far more ominous matters of national security. Clinton's loathing of the American military led to his failure in his primary responsibility: the protection of the American people. His actions with regard to military preparedness speak for themselves. In less than three years, deployments increased while manpower decreased from 2.1 million to 1.6 million. That decrease was the foundation upon which stood Al Gore's purported "reinvention" of government. Of the 305,000 employees removed from the federal payroll, 286,000 (or 90%) were military cuts.The statistics for America's defense during the Clinton years reveal the deep-seated animosity of the administration toward those who served in the military. The Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50.

"While the U.S. military was used as a 'meals on wheels' service by the Clinton administration in its nation building adventures, the military had its own humanitarian crises at home on its own bases. The pay freeze instituted by Clinton was imposed on a military in which 80 percent of all troops earned $30,000 per year or less. Food stamp applications soared and re-enlistment rates dropped."

Before Clinton took office, there were indeed some reduction occasioned by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. No one in the G.H.W. Bush administration ever proposed or contemplated the draconian cuts imposed by Clinton

[Sue]

I just don't get it.

You aren't supposed to get it. Only those that drink the koolaid "get it".

[kim]

I've mentioned it elsewhere, but if Otis keeps this up, and he must in order to be credible, then Obama has a lose-lose choice. Does he go to church and listen to this stuff, or avoid it.

Obama has created this dilemma for himself. What would happen if he were actually exposed to the exigencies of world politics, instead of the cocoon he's been at in private schools, and private machine politics.

Still, I hope he gets the nomination; he's a lot more vulnerable than Hillary, who is merely feared by half the electorate. Watch her butter wouldn't melt in her mouth her way to victory, bamboozling the other half of the electorate and with media blowing her a fair following breeze.
============================

[Other Tom]

"Thursday Nov. 29, 2001; 7:18 p.m. EST

"Former Reagan Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger said Thursday that ex-President Bill Clinton cut back the U.S. military so severely that it's now just a fraction of the size of the fighting force that won the Gulf War ten years ago.

"'Just the Army alone that won the Gulf War along with 31 very fine coalition partners was over 900,000,' he told WABC Radio's Sean Hannity. 'And now it's under 400,000 - just about 400,000, which is a tremendous drop. And that's just one service.'

"The Reagan defense chief, whose new book 'In the Arena: A Memoir of the 20th Century' catalogues the Clinton-era's military neglect, suggested the cutbacks were so debilitating they may have left the U.S. unequipped to fight a multi-front war against terrorism."

Has the hapless Greenwald been sufficiently humiliated?

[Other Tom]

"Obama says he's talked to Wright in the past about 'some of his views,' and defends Trinity, saying 'This is not a crackpot church.'"

Guess he spoke too soon.

[PeterUK]

OT,
Sometimes you spoil that man.

[BD]

Ya know, I can't tell if the lefty posts here are legit or gags ....

which is a problem, guys - if you're going to attempt satire, the reader has to be able to spot the joke.

[kim]

I don't know about Pale Rider, but I recognize Charlie; the Cheetos and the masturbation are his schtick, the poor orange membered fella.
===========================

[Topsecretk9]

I think this all so hilarious because Greenwald is known for linking crap that does not support is idiotic points in the slightest or usually refute his points altogether. Too funny he steps in it again.

[Blue Texan]

Wait, so racist assholes don't post at Instapunk, the blog Reynolds regularly promotes?

[kim]

You still don't get it, BT; Obama is the racist asshole.
================================

[Barry]

There all at church, with obamamessiah.

[pst314]

Remember what Mary McCarthy said about Lillian Hellman? "Every word she writes is a lie, including and and the." Greenwald and Neiwert aren't that bad, but they seem to have aspirations.

[HumblePie]

Don't forget kiddies,
Support Racism
Vote Obama

[D. M.]

Poor, poor Charles Giacometti, Gleen Greenwald's former comfort cushion....but still defending him after being replaced by a Brazilian and sixty or seventy others.

[SPQR]

The Greenwald fans ain't the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree.

[SPQR]

Other Tom writes: "That decrease was the foundation upon which stood Al Gore's purported "reinvention" of government. Of the 305,000 employees removed from the federal payroll, 286,000 (or 90%) were military cuts."

In fact, Al Gore did take credit for the amount of total cuts - but - as should be no surprise - Al Gore had nothing to do with the Defense cuts, his charter specifically excluded the defense department.

[SteveMG]

Wait, so racist assholes don't post at Instapunk, the blog Reynolds regularly promotes?

There is not a shred of evidence that Reynolds in any way supports, endorses, backs or favors racist or even racialist thinking or views.

That he linked to a post about Easter that included another separate post by a different blogger that was ugly and hateful tells us nothing, absolutely nothing about the racial views of Glen Reynolds.

Anyone who doesn't have malicious intent and isn't out to simply smear him knows that.

[ROA]

With regards to military downsizing, didn't Clinton just implement the policy developed by Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney?

From Paul Wolfowitz’s interview with Vanity Fair in May, 2003:

...

Q: Since you brought that up let me ask you something related to that. I've looked at the remarkable Defense Policy Guidance of 1992 --

Wolfowitz: Wait a minute. Did you look at the guidance or did you look at the draft that was leaked before I saw it?

Q: That's a very good point. Actually all I saw were summaries of it. Is there a big discrepancy as to what was reported and what was in it?

Wolfowitz: Yes. In short. At some point I guess it's acquired such a life of its own I ought to go back and refresh my memory.
But the way I remember it approximately is as follows. I gave a quite substantial briefing to Secretary Cheney and what was then called I guess the Defense Resources Board on a post-Cold War defense strategy, the essence of which was to shift from a strategy for being prepared to fight a global war, to being focused on two possible regional conflicts. And to downsize the U.S. military by some 40 percent.

...

When we did a revised draft that in fact I had reviewed carefully, the State Department initially didn't want us to put it out, I think because it was a little too much. Well, I don't know why. They didn't want us to put it out. I don't want to speculate on motives. But in January of 1993 as we were about to leave, I said to Cheney don't you think we should publish it? And he said yes, we should. So it's available in the full text as the Regional Defense Strategy of January, 1993.
I know people say oh well, they just sanded off the corners because the real thing received such an adverse reaction. But the truth of the matter is what the Times was writing about was something that I'd never seen. What is published, while I will admit some of the corners are rounded off on it, reflects my views.

...

Pat Buchanan's "Republic Not an Empire" book spends its first chapter attacking the so-called Wolfowitz Memorandum.

Q: Right, I know that book.

Wolfowitz: And he laments the fact that these same Democratic senators who were attacking--in his view, appropriately attacking--the Wolfowitz Memorandum, had climbed on board the whole policy when it became Clinton's policy in the mid 1990s. He's correct in saying that what was considered by the New York Times to be such an outrageous document was U.S. consensus foreign policy, but during the Clinton Administration, not in this Administration. That is that these alliances needed to be retained, that NATO could be enlarged successfully, that we could downsize our military but we needed to retain a capability to deal with two major regional conflicts, which, by the way, is something that needed revision by the time I got back here. But it was the defense policy of the Clinton years, ironically.

Q: In fact John Louis Gaddis said that.

Wolfowitz: Who?

Q: John Louis Gaddis has said that, that if you look at Clinton's policy it actually does come out of the '92 guidance to some extent.

Wolfowitz: Not to some extent. It's pretty much verbatim.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2594

[HumblePie]

Though not Al himself, the Clinton administration was instrumental in the decrease of the military forces. Every branch of the service was hit. As for me, I witness "Black Friday" as we called. Thats when career officers with 10 years or less were called into the commander's office and told they would be discharged from the military within six months. At the same time, base realignment was entering into its second year and bases purposed by the Joint Chiefs were submitted. In one swift chop, a good portion of the military disapered.

[Larry]

No one in the G.H.W. Bush administration ever proposed or contemplated the draconian cuts imposed by Clinton
Posted by: Other Tom | March 23, 2008 at 08:47 PM

I don't remember word for word, but the numbers cited here sound like the ones that astonished those of us who were briefed by Butch Viccellio, May 1991 - December 1992, director, the Joint Staff, Washington, D.C., in October of 1992 (before Clinton was elected). My recollection was roughly 1/3 of everything was history. The "peace dividend", if you will. I hate like heck to side with Clinton, but facts are facts, dagnabbit.

[HumblePie]

If I remember correctly, wasn't it John Kerry and his cronies that began the cuts and restriction on the Intelligence community?

[narciso]

Funny, how intelligence and defense cuts were the only real cuts in the
administration; how Clinton only had room to see the CIA director twice in two years; bringingup the macabre punchline, after that plane that crashed into the White House
"that was just Woolsey, penciling in a meeting" but Gore had nothing to do with it. Odd, how part of the Contract with
America, did concern itself with Defense cuts, remember that little detail. One was able to stop the attempted appointment
of Anthony Lake tied to the CIA demolishing; Phillip Agee abetting Morton Halperin; a vp at the Obama thinktank CAP.
They ended up with John Deutsch, who was mau-maued by the conspiracy peddlers, and
knuckled under to Sen. Torricelli's promotion of the agenda of a Guatemalan guerilla supporter. Having lost his chance at the Defense job, the job fell to one time Senate staffer, Tenet, got the job,
his chief briefer was John Brennan, who went on to head the key station in Riyadh
despite having no language fluency or cultural knowledge; who would later rise
to counter terror coordinator and to his post in the Obama campaign. unlike a previous occupant of the post Gary Schroen; a future chief of the Middle East section; who thanks in part to the Deutschprotocols, had no actual access agents in SouthWest Asia on 9/12/01. Need we examine the records of the crucial CENTCOM officials, Hoar, Zinni; in this key period.

[HumblePie]

Major draw downs within the intelligence community was drafted. Budget restraints on CIA, especially cuts in foreign recruits and ops (stating satellites could do the job better and cheaper). Breaking down functions and responsibilities for each organization and fashioning the "Intelligence Oversight Program". I remember while we were tracking Osama during the late 90's, if we came upon a US citizen or US business involved, we had to stop and package our work up and send to another agency that was authorized to investigate them. Then to top it off we were required to notify congress and get ready to testify before the "Intelligence Oversight Committee".

It was all nice and pretty on paper, but, most organizations did not have the manpower or funds to take on someone else's work. Sometime it might sit a while before someone took a look at it. To top it off, during the same time period it took around four months to review one days worth of satellite's coverage.. just not enough manpower to work it all. Gee, can you say intelligence gaps?

[HumblePie]

Don't have to narciso.

I was stationed at Centcom as an Intelligence analyst until late 98, and know the BS that went on. Every few months all the national agencies would get together for a "Terrorism Roundhouse" conference. Since the middle east is our Area of Responsibility (AOR), our interest in terrorist related activity was very high. We always had major fights with the CIA over their "thoughts" and "precieved" threats.

[HumblePie]

Then again, with no man-on-the-ground within the selected areas, we were reduced to reading reports from dissidents who wanted entry into the US or escaped certain countries and wanted a little revenge. Spent more time weeding out the BS and tried to confirm everything else.

[narciso]

Another example concerns the case of Terry Ward; the section chief sidelined by the Guatemalan affair mentioned above. It comes
up in the context of Jose Rodriguez, the Clandestine Service chief who authorized the
destruction of KSM and other AQ operatives:
http/www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1692571,00.html>

[M. Simon]

SteveMG,

Instapunk says for free what Chris Rock gets paid big money to say.

A Conversation About Race

[Tom Maguire]

This looks like the Cheney paper in question from Jan 1993.

A quick skim does not show a specific listing of, for example, Army divisions.

However, the intro has this:

Guided by the new strategy, we are restructuring our forces to meet the essential demands of strategic deterence and defense, forward presence, crisis response, and reconstitution. As we do so, we are reducing our forces significantly -- by more than a million military and civilian personnel. These reductions will reduce force structure to its lowest level in terms of manpower since before the Korean War and spending to the lowest percentage of GNP since before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

[M. Simon]

BT,

Want to watch a real racist in action?

Here is one for you:

Chris Rock

[sbw]

I'm not sure why this thread exists. Having read some GG in the past, the notion of reading GG wouldn't cross my mind... which, of course, obviates the need to respond to him.

I respond to JOM in other threads because often it is informative, educational, and pleasant.

[glasnost]

The hilarious part about this stupid bulls*it, Tom, is the ridiculous irony.

If it was a church, would Glenn Reynolds have walked out of it? Eh? Rather than link to it?

Let's get down to brass tacks: Instapunk's blogger appears to be an offensive racist who apparently holds the entire black community personally responsible for Allen Iverson's existence - (despite the fact that said popular existence was mostly enabled by white men, but that's beside the point).

And Instapundit promoted that blog. And refuses to disown it! Obviously he doesn't find that stuff very offensive, eh? So is the obvious conclusion to be drawn.

The ironic part is that this is the exact same sin he's been tarring Barack Obama about. So all of the anguished wailing and gnashing of teeth on the right blogosphere about Obama/Wright should suddenly cease as, thanks to this little example, you come to understand exactly how easy it is to tolerate/passively endorse wacky racist baloney.

That stuff you have here about a conversation to be promoted, even with offensive jerks, is all very well and I endorse it as an idea. I endorse the idea when it came from Barack Obama in his speech. I'm a little more cynical about it when it comes from people who've spent all last week mocking and red-facing about Barack's Obama's chutzpah in taking the very same moral tack that you now opportunistically take.

Anyway, here's to you, Instapunk, Obama and Wright all sitting down together with tea and crumpets(rolls eyes)

Both you and Reynolds should do yourselves a favor and admit to his having used some...hmmm... poor judgement?

[clarice]

glasnost, does this mean if I link to the Washington Post, I agree with all the opinion writers who are published there..even if my link is to George Wills and E.J. Dionne also writes for that paper?

See, that's a better analogy.

As for Obama--his church had one pastor, a man he said was his spiritual guide, a man who is a certified crazypants anti-American Black racist.

I suppose you can't see this difference, but it's not a subtle one---really.

[kim]

Glenn, a typical link person.
==================

[Ranger]

Well, I am late to the party, but just a couple of points to make here.

Does anyone find it ironic that Greenwald, whose entire claim to fame as a "civil rights" litigator rests on defending the 1st Ammendment rights of the racist founder of the World Church of the Creator, is now bashing someone for some tanjentel connection with racist comments? I would say that Greenwald is much more closely associated with racist rehtoric at this point.

Second, as to the military draw down, the original plans for the draw down under Bush 41 called for reducing the size of the Army in two ways. First, cutting from 18 active duty divisions down to 12, and second, demobilizing a massive amount of the strategic logitics assests and saving money by not having those units in the forcestructure sitting around waiting for a war, but rather using civilian contractors to provide the resources only when needed.

The reduction from 18 to 12 divisions was significant, but a large part of that was only re-alignment, because most of the heavy division had only 2 active duty brigades, and a third "roundout" brigade of National Gaurd troops. During the first Gulf War, it quickly became apparent that those "roundout" brigades couldn't be mobilized in time for actual combat operations. As a result, though the size of the force was reduced to 12 divisions, the remaining heavy division were assigned an third active duty brigade. Only two full divisions were cut out of the force structure. The rest of the force was shuffled around to fill out other units. (For example, my brigade was moved from Germany and became the third active duty brigade of the 2d Infantry Division.)

It was the Clinton administration that decided to reduce the active Army from 12 to 10 divisions. That cut two more full divisions out of the Army force structure.

[M. Simon]

Let's get down to brass tacks: Instapunk's blogger appears to be an offensive racist who apparently holds the entire black community personally responsible for Allen Iverson's existence - (despite the fact that said popular existence was mostly enabled by white men, but that's beside the point).

Did you even read the post in question?

He mentions numerous black friends and blacks he admires.

What he was down on was people in the black community who , through their bad advice and bad example are bringing segments of the black community down.

Specifically racists like Wright.

[Joe Jackson]

Charles Giacometti is right. You right-wing ball-suckers do love you some Bush, which shows how stupid you are.

[sophy]

Welcome to our game world, my friend asks me to buy some knight noah .