Be Careful when you see Pulitzer Prize Winners & "Others TRASHING Snowden & Greenwald...

[KoKo]

Coalition of the Shilling--
by Nathan Hodge-by The Nation

On February 25 journalist Thomas Ricks published an important scoop on his blog at ForeignPolicy.com: Army Gen. Raymond Odierno, the top US commander in Iraq, had requested keeping a brigade in northern Iraq beyond President Obama's deadline for the withdrawal of combat forces. The timing of the story was intriguing. Just two days earlier, Ricks had published an op-ed in the New York Times calling for US troops to remain in Iraq long term. "I think leaders in both countries may come to recognize that the best way to deter a return to civil war is to find a way to keep 30,000 to 50,000 United States service members in Iraq for many years to come," he wrote. The op-ed coincided with a policy brief by Ricks issued by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), the Washington think tank where he is a senior fellow.

Ricks, a longtime military correspondent for the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and author of the bestseller Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, had been a prominent critic of US policy in Iraq. Recently on his blog, he called the decision to invade "one of the biggest blunders in American history." But his op-ed, along with the rollout of the policy brief and the news story, was selling the idea of a long stay in Iraq.

CNAS, like most think tanks, bills itself as "independent and nonpartisan"; its leadership says that it takes no positions as an institution. But it played a key role in selling the escalation of the war in Afghanistan, and now it could help prepare the ground for the president to reverse course on Iraq and keep a large force in the country.

It's part of a new influence game in Washington. Think tanks, once a place for intellectuals outside government to weigh in on important policy issues, are now enlisted by people within government to help sell its policies to the public, as well as to others in government. Institutions like CNAS are also heavily funded by major weapons manufacturers and Pentagon contractors, creating potential conflicts of interest rarely disclosed in the media.

Indeed, the presence of journalists on the payrolls of think tanks is crucial to their clout, lending them the imprimatur of neutral, nonpartisan news organizations. Since its founding in 2007, CNAS has played host to a string of reporters from major US newspapers: Ricks worked on his most recent book, The Gamble, at CNAS; Post reporter Greg Jaffe and former New York Times reporter David Cloud worked on The Fourth Star, a book profiling four Army leaders, while in residence; Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt, veteran military and intelligence reporters for the Times, are researching a book on counterterrorism there. And CNAS isn't the only place where national security reporters have set up shop. Times military correspondent Michael Gordon is a senior fellow at the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a new think tank founded by Kimberly Kagan, the wife of Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and a cheerleader for the "surge" strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

MORE AND A GOOD READ of what's going on when Newspapers Downsize Reporters AT:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/13-5

[Scuba]

1. So "journalists" are members of "think tanks" funded by the Military Industrial Complex?

No one could have predicted that.

[MADem]

13. Glenn Greenwald worked for the CATO Institute....but hey, nothing to see there, move along!!

They gave him enough money to keep him going for several YEARS.

But never mind that....move along, now.

[KoKo]

21. That's not true... n't

[MADem]

25. It IS true--the money they gave him kept him afloat for a couple of years, and he was

tasked to come to parties, fundraisers, Q/A, etc. to earn that check.

The point is, though, that lots of people affiliate themselves with think tanks..for the MONEY. They have lots of it and they pay well.

[KoKo]

26. It's Not True!

sorry.. It's Not True....

[Maedhros]

32. Here's Greenwald's side of the story:

From http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more :

I am not now, nor have I ever been, employed by the Cato Institute. Nor have I ever been affiliated with the Cato Institute in any way. The McCarthyite tone of the denials is appropriate given the McCarthyite nature of the lie.

In seven-plus years of political writing, I have written a grand total of twice for Cato: the first was a 2009 report on the success of drug decriminalization in Portugal, and the second was a 2010 online debate in which I argued against former Bush officials about the evils of the surveillance state.

I not only disclosed those writings but wrote about them and featured them multiple times on my blog as it happened: see here and here as but two examples. In 2008, I spoke at a Cato event on the radicalism and destructiveness of Bush/Cheney executive power theories.That's the grand total of all the work I ever did for or with Cato in my life. The fees for those two papers and that one speech were my standard writing and speaking fees. Those payments are a miniscule, microscopic fraction of my writing and speaking income over the last 7 years. I have done no paying work of any kind with them since that online surveillance debate in 2010 (I spoke three times at Cato for free: once to debate the theme of my 2007 book on the failure of the Bush administration, and twice when I presented my paper advocating drug decriminalization).

I have done far more work for, and received far greater payments from, the ACLU, with which I consulted for two years (see here). I spoke at the Socialism Conference twice - once in 2011 and once in 2012 - and will almost certainly do so again in 2013. I'll speak or write basically anywhere where I can have my ideas heard without any constraints. Moreover, I'll work with almost anyone - the ACLU, Cato or anyone else - to end the evils of the Drug War and the Surveillance State. And I'll criticize anyone I think merits it, as I did quite harshly with the Koch Brothers in 2011: here.

The very suggestion that there is something wrong with writing for or speaking at CATO is inane and childish. The claim that it means I "worked at CATO" is just an obvious lie. If writing for or speaking at CATO makes one a right-wing CATO-employed libertarian, then say hello to the following right-wing libertarian CATO employees, all of whom have been writers for or speakers at the CATO Institute in the past:

Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas (Writing for CATO's Unbound: here and here);

Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (speaking about surveillance issues at CATO in January, 2011, speaking again at CATO in July, 2012 about FISA, and favorably citing CATO);

Democratic Rep. Jared Polis (defending CATO as "a leader in fighting to end the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and helping to end the War on Drugs&quot .

the ACLU's Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson (speaking at the CATO Institute's 2011 event on FISA);

Brown University Professor Glenn Loury (writing for CATO's Unbound);

liberal blogger and Clinton Treasury official Brad DeLong (writing for CATO's Unbound);

Harvard law Professor Lawrence Lessig (writing for CATO's Unbound);

liberal blogger and GWU Professor Henry Farrell (writing for CATO's Unbound); and

Wall Street critic and securities professor William Black (writing for CATO's Unbound).

Trying to judge someone for where they write or speak - rather than for the ideas they advocate - is about as anti-intellectual and McCarthyite as it gets. CATO has a far better record of advocacy than the mainstream Democratic Party on vital issues such as opposing the Drug War, secrecy abuses, the Surveillance State, marriage equality for LGBT citizens, anti-war activism, and reforming the excesses of America's penal state. They were attacking Bush and Cheney for power abuses (see here) and aggressive wars (see here) far earlier, and far more loudly, than most mainstream Democratic politicians

As is obvious, all sorts of liberals, progressives, and even leftists have written for or spoken at CATO. It's a think tank devoted to debate and discussion of public policy, and invites a wide range of speakers to participate.

I'm proud of all the advocacy work I've done against the evils of the Drug War and surveillance abuses -- whether it's at the ACLU, CATO, the Socialism Conference or anywhere else. That's why I write openly about all of that work. But the claim that I've ever worked at CATO or was in any way affiliated with them is just an outright lie.

[KoKo]

34. Recommend...well worth the Read..n/t

[Maedhros]

36. They've all seen it before.

They have closed their minds on this issue.

[KoKo]

38. I know...sometimes I look back to posts and what's ignored is very

revealing. It's like trying to give info until one is "blue in the face" and there's no discussion...but the Talking Points keep coming...because that's what is important and not the rebuttal.

But...still ...they CAN NEVER WEAR OUT THE TRUTH! It just keeps coming! Seeping through the cracks and shouting through the brick walls. Ya' just can't keep it out....

That's The Fail...

[Maedhros]

44. I am truly baffled by many of these people.

Sure, some are obvious plants sent here to assassinate Greenwald's character. But some appear to be actual Democrats who at some time between when Greenwald was being praised for attacking the Bush Administration and now have developed an antagonism toward him. Not a mild dislike, or a measured repudiation of his positions, but a white-hot unquenching venomous ire usually reserved for people like O'Reilly or Limbaugh.

All directed toward a guy whose primary target is the War on Drugs and the National Surveillance State. He's not a war monger, he's not some rabid pro-Israel goon, he doesn't lambast people for being "liberals" or "socialists", he doesn't demand lower taxes or more military spending or a giant wall on the Mexican border.

It just doesn't make sense, and it's just not worth wasting my time trying to engage with these wild-eyed vitriolic fanatics anymore.

[KoKo]

45. I've given up trying to deal with the "Turn Around." The reasons

for it are not even important. I had to resort to "ignore list." There's no dialogue or discussion with them. Can't even find a reference point in common with them.

[adirondacker]

27. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a Think Tank inclusive to controversial debate?

I knew of someone that was in a military war games think tank and drove around in a VW bus with a Greenpeace sticker.

[Maedhros]

30. Those are some pretty specific allegations.

You should post links to some kind of evidence showing that Greenwald:

1. Received money from the Cato Institute
2. That the sum of money was large enough to "keep him afloat for...years"
3. That Greenwald attended parties, fundraisers, etc.

Otherwise, without some kind of evidence, some may think that you are posting bald-faced lies and lack integrity.

[msanthrope]

39. Complete...with pics of GG at Cato donors event...

http://exiledonline.com/glenn-greenwald-of-the-libertarian-cato-institute-posts-his-defense-of-joshua-foust-the-exiled-responds-to-greenwald/

This long blog post includes information about the touring GG did on behalf of CATO, donor events, and the whitepaper he wrote and was paid for.

FYI...lots of people go to CATO events and panels....not the same as being paid for whitepaper and being a donor premium.

[Maedhros]

33. These people also worked for the CATO institute.

Which of them are evil?


Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas (Writing for CATO's Unbound: here and here);

Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (speaking about surveillance issues at CATO in January, 2011, speaking again at CATO in July, 2012 about FISA, and favorably citing CATO);

Democratic Rep. Jared Polis (defending CATO as "a leader in fighting to end the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and helping to end the War on Drugs&quot .

the ACLU's Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson (speaking at the CATO Institute's 2011 event on FISA);

Brown University Professor Glenn Loury (writing for CATO's Unbound);

liberal blogger and Clinton Treasury official Brad DeLong (writing for CATO's Unbound);

Harvard law Professor Lawrence Lessig (writing for CATO's Unbound);

liberal blogger and GWU Professor Henry Farrell (writing for CATO's Unbound); and

Wall Street critic and securities professor William Black (writing for CATO's Unbound).

[msanthrope]

40. None of these people wrote whitepaper for CATO, or were donor premiums...

http://exiledonline.com/glenn-greenwald-of-the-libertarian-cato-institute-posts-his-defense-of-joshua-foust-the-exiled-responds-to-greenwald/

Plenty of people go to speeches and panels, or write articles for think tanks....and it's disingenuous to conflate that with touring for, or writing whitepaper for, or being a donor's premium.....

[Maedhros]

42. The article you linked contains much of the same screeds that you post.

I find it underwhelming, and containing only the same tired and unfounded claims you make.

Just because others of your same mind set also have an unhealthy fascination with destroying Greenwald's credibility, doesn't make your allegations true.

Better yet, forget what Greenwald may or may not have done in the past. Judge his arguments on their merits and flaws, and post your reasoning. If your reasoning is sound it will stand up to criticism. If it is flawed, it will be taken apart. Trying to push propaganda smearing Greenwald with the Libertarian label is neither productive nor effective.

Now hie thee off to the ignore list, because you are just not worth responding to anymore.

[msanthrope]

43. So, after providing you with the proof you asked for, I'm on the iggy list? I love being

on people's iggy list! It means I get to post and they don't talk back!!!

[ProSense]

2. Oh brother.

Ricks, a longtime military correspondent for the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and author of the bestseller Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, had been a prominent critic of US policy in Iraq. Recently on his blog, he called the decision to invade "one of the biggest blunders in American history." But his op-ed, along with the rollout of the policy brief and the news story, was selling the idea of a long stay in Iraq.

Unlike Greenwald, Ricks opposed Bush's illegal invasion.

Greenwald can't answer a simple question so he twists himself into a pretzel, asking his own questions, refuses to answer, and then the person asking the question becomes the subject of attacks from Greenwald fans.

Why does Greenwald get to be the only one asking questions? I find his hypocrisy stunning, especially since he himself has used all sorts of tatics in attacking other journalists.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024685289#post56

[Octafish]

5. Ricks is on the neo-PNAC Center for a New American Security

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/center_for_a_new_american_security

Richard Perle's involved, so Ricks is more of the old "money trumps peace" crapola.

[ProSense]

6. Like I said,

Ricks opposed Bush's illegal invasion unlike Greenwald and this guy: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023676169

Peter Beinart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Beinart#Works_and_views

[Octafish]

8. So what?

Thomas "The Best Defense" Ricks backs Empire.

Seems like most of the journos with money these days do.

[grasswire]

9. Ricks = establishment

I don't think any Beltway journos should get a free pass, considering the possible influence of the MIIC's surveillance capabilities. Payola or blackmail are always a possibility.

[Luminous Animal]

10. Really? He opposed the invasion? Then why was he regularly catapulting Bush's WMD propaganda....

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001256.html

I realize he wrote a book called 'Fiasco' but that was a critique of the way the war was conducted. Not the actual invasion of Iraq.

And he's a lying coward...

Washington Post's Thomas Ricks Courageously Waits Four Years To Tell Us What He Thought About Iraq's WMD
Here's Thomas Ricks, telling us in a recent Time Magazine roundtable that he never believed Iraq had WMD:

TIME: On the eve of the war, which of you believed that we would go in and find no WMD?...Why did you feel that way, Tom?

RICKS: I thought that at most they would find some old mustard gas buried out in the '91 war that somebody had forgotten about. I remember asking the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs about a week before the invasion, "You don't know where the stuff is, do you?"

Here's Thomas Ricks before the war—not telling us what he believed, but instead writing down exactly what the U.S. government said. Note that Myers was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to whom Ricks addressed his "You don't know where the stuff is, do you?" question:

Myers Depicts War on Two Fronts
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 5, 2003

...One major early mission of U.S. forces would be to locate and secure Iraq's suspected arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, [General Richard] Myers said. The U.S. government expects to learn far more about those weapons programs once its forces invade Iraq. At that point, he said, the "giant shell game" played by the Iraqi government to conceal its weapons "would come to a halt," and instead "people would come forward and say, 'Here's where this is, here's where that is.' "

[ProSense]

15. That

"Really? He opposed the invasion? Then why was he regularly catapulting Bush's WMD propaganda....

I realize he wrote a book called 'Fiasco' but that was a critique of the way the war was conducted. Not the actual invasion of Iraq."

...timeline makes no sense. The piece claims he waited until 2007, but his book was published in July 2006.

Reporting is one thing, his opinion is another thing.

[MADem]

19. Here's Ricks talking in 2004

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/invasion/interviews/ricks.html

What it might mean is, despite the image a lot of people have of the military as eager to go to war, the military is actually quite eloquent in arguing against going to war, in arguing for other tools to be used, especially diplomacy. I think what you'll see is a lot of military officers saying, "Before you go to war next time, try some other tools. Try diplomacy. Get better intelligence. Don't stick it all on us."

The guy is an actual REPORTER who specializes in military issues and he REPORTED the views of the military accurately. Such a concept, to report precisely and accurately.

[MADem]

20. The guy is a reporter, not a cheerleader. You prefer the latter?

Good grief, someone needs to be the adult in the room and write down what happens, not how they deeply, personally, and intimately "feeeeeeeel" about things.



Give me an accurate JOURNALIST any day.

[MADem]

14. And Greenwald was paid for years by the CATO Institute.

These little outfits pay people. Guess it's OK for some but not others...?

[ProSense]

16. Everyone else's affiliations and background matters except Greenwald's.

He is also above criticism and doesn't have to answer questions.

[MADem]

18. Tell me about it--he doesn't even have to explain how he feels about Pootie, even while

he tries to play the "J'accuse" game with others.

I'm not buying it. Like I've said elsewhere, either Greenwald is the CIA's biggest asset or the world's biggest schmuck.

[Blue_Tires]

23. +1

[navarth]

3. The plot thickens.

The Greenwald/Snowden/Ricks/Taibbi continuing controversy is fascinating.

Thanks for the link.

[Maedhros]

12. I don't really see any controversy.

Ricks wrote something inflammatory and people are trying to turn it into something.

[frylock]

24. ricks pulled something outta his ass and the snowwald haters are tripping over their dicks..

to pat this guy on the back.

[Maedhros]

29. They are trying to make it a controversy.

As in so many other ways, they fail.

[KoKo]

46. But..on Ricks I would disagree with your list of people who SPOKE at CATO

compared to Ricks who is a fish out of another kettle in who he WORKS FOR....though.

Giving a one or two-time speech to Cato is different from working for a group that is working against issues that we Dem People care about...

See the OP. We can agree on some points...but, disagree on others, though.

[Maedhros]

49. I'm being consistent in my stance.

I can't criticize one set of posters for ad hominem attacks on Greenwald's character by smearing him with the Cato association, and then turn around and do the exact same thing to Ricks and his CNAS affiliation.

But that's okay, because I don't need to attack Ricks' character to show that his position is nonsensical. I can argue against his position based upon it's lack of merit alone (and Digby did just that here: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/objectively-pro-putin.html).

Ricks' association with CNAS is a separate issue from his criticism of Greenwald - and feel free to knock on him for it.

[hootinholler]

48. LOL

Summed it right up.

[navarth]

31. Maedros I don't disagree

Perhaps I expressed it clumsily.

It's a discussion that holds my interest.

[blkmusclmachine]

4. ,

,

[DeSwiss]

7. K&R!

[zeemike]

11. It's a big club.

And we are not in it.

[KoKo]

47. Becomes More Apparent...day after day! n/t

[3Stones]

17. .......

[SidDithers]

22. Greenwald. LOL...nt

Sid

[Blue_Tires]

28. Interesting, but doesn't change the reality

that as long as Putin keeps fucking around in Ukraine (or god forbid expand his 'adventures' to other nations), Snowden/Greenwald look *very* suspect by intentionally keeping their heads in the sand and pretending what's going on there isn't a big story...If US/RU relations continue to deteriorate, there are going to be some difficult questions asked from a once-fawning global press and general public...Because what were once random coincidences in Snowden's 'official' story start falling neatly into place, and the entire narrative changes...

Those two have painted themselves into a corner, and in the very near future they're going to run out of evasions, deflections and "Yeah, but the U.S. is even worse" -excuses that the interviewers digest without a follow-up...Mark my words, Snowden, Greenwald, Harrison et al WILL have to choose a side sooner or later, and even if they want to get cute and all of a sudden become a bunch of hipster neutrals to escape criticism; they are *still* choosing a side....

[KoKo]

35. I think a "Big Picture View" might work better...than doing Sports Analogies about

folks having to "PICK SIDES." And I don't see any of them as "Hipsters."

What are you even talking about?

[Blue_Tires]

37. I'm referring to Russia's incursion into Crimea

and Greenwald/Snowden's steadfast refusal to even acknowledge it, much less comment on it...

What YOU talking about?

[KoKo]

41. What does Russia's protecting their Military Bases in Crimea have to do with

Snowden and Greenwald?

WHAT?

[Blue_Tires]

50. Oh, so THAT'S what all the fuss is about...

Russia is just moving in to protect their military bases in Crimea! All those troops and armored vehicles are just a part of one big-assed moving day!

I'll send an e-mail to our friends in Washington, Kiev and Brussels to let them know their worries are completely unfounded...

But to answer your question in the most basic of terms:

1. Russia is providing food, housing, and armed protection of Snowden 24/7

2. Russia's "moving day" hasn't exactly been bloodless, and has not been universally applauded by the rest of the free world

3. Yeah, Crimea was the obvious "gimmie putt", but there *ARE* some signs that Putin won't be satisfied with stopping there (Latvia and Belarus for example are also militarily strategic, and have large ethnic Russian populations he might feel compelled to "protect&quot

4. If Russia decides to expand further, then NATO is forced to play their hand -- That plus the fact that Snowden almost certainly swiped military documents as well as surveillance ones puts the story and his possible motivations in a whole different light

5. For all their 'liberty, freedom and justice for all' bullshit, Snowden/Greenwald/Harrison have been notably silent on a shockingly wide range of human rights abuses and violations of civil liberties Russian oligarchs impose on dissidents, journalists, GLBT, etc. etc. Greenwald is head of his own news outlet with a $250 million fucking dollar budget, and to my knowledge they STILL haven't typed as much as a word about one of the biggest stories on the planet (which is hilarious in its brazen hypocrisy since Greenwald was OPENLY calling out media like the BBC who he felt weren't giving sufficient attention to HIS story last year)

6. I'm a realist, so I can understand and appreciate any assurances, promises, whatever made on both sides to ensure Snowden's safety -- I just wish they were upfront and transparent about it (I realize Snowden's circle have maintained from the start that no deal was in place with the Russians, but Snowden's circle has been caught before using white lies, selective memory, lies by omission, changing details from earlier comments after-the-fact, etc. so their track record for honesty is already suspect)

7. Having said that (and I'm getting to the point), at what point does not wanting to bite the hand that feeds you (and I'm referring to RUSSIA if you're still lost), which is understandable, become a complete abandonment of any moral or ethical principle?

8. And for the "But the story is the most important thing and all you do is attack the messenger!!11!" -crowd: At what point does the, shall we say "missteps bordering on willful duplicity" from Snowden's circle begin to outweigh the value of the information revealed? Or will it ever? In this situation, does the end *always* justify the means? (because there's an appropriate term for this, and it ain't "whistleblower&quot

[Oilwellian]

51. Hmm...let's see

You said:

Having said that (and I'm getting to the point), at what point does not wanting to bite the hand that feeds you (and I'm referring to RUSSIA if you're still lost), which is understandable, become a complete abandonment of any moral or ethical principle?

Why don't you ask them?

U.S. Balks at Ukraine Military-Aid Request
U.S. Officials Wary of Inflaming Russia, Agree Only to MREs
WSJ

U.S.-Russia sanctions rhetoric shakes companies, investors
Reuters

Business leaders worry sanctions on Russia over Ukraine could disrupt world economy
McClatchy

Business groups: Don’t go overboard on Russia sanctions

Companies with potential stakes in the issue range from ExxonMobil to Boeing to PepsiCo. | Getty
Politico

Which "SIDE" will our moral and ethically principled government and business community choose?