The eXiled received this comment from Glenn Greenwald on the Joshua Foust article by Mark Ames. Greenwald has been undertaking the sordid work of defending his fellow libertarian Joshua Foust, despite Greenwald’s supposed principled stand against war-mongering, conflicts-of-interest and covering for Third World tyrants. We print below Greenwald’s comment posted on the Foust article, followed by our response:
Glenn Greenwald | January 3rd, 2012 at 7:29 am
I’m not surprised to see such blatant misinformation at this place.
I did not “side with” Foust. In fact, I had my own fairly acrimonious exchange with him a year ago when I wrote about his undisclosed ties to defense contractors and his friends spent days swarming me in his defense. See here:
But I also know that Mark Ames is extremely irresponsible with his “facts.” Aside from the piece that he wrote about John Tyner that the Nation had to retract, he continuously refers to me – ever since he had to retract that article – as “Glenn Greenwald of the CATO Institute,” which is nothing but a total lie.
I’ve never been employed by the CATO Institute. I have no ongoing or regular relationship with them at all and never did. I’ve been writing about politics for 6 years. In all that time, I’ve written a grand total of 2 articles – TWO: one advocating drug decriminalization based on its success in Portugal, the other opposing the growing bipartisan Surveillance State.
To claim – based on 2 freelance articles – that I am “of the CATO Institute” – as a way of discrediting me as some sort of libertarian – is a blatant, deliberate lie (are drug decriminalization and opposition to the Surveillance State now anathema to liberal politics?).
I’ve written far more articles for The Guardian and the ACLU over the years. Why doesn’t Ames say: “Glenn Greenwald of the Guardian” or “Glenn Greenwald of the ACLU”? That would be equally false – since I’ve never been employed by or affiliated with them either – but it wouldn’t further his smear campaign.
So yes, I think Foust’s relationships are relevant, to the extent they’re accurate. I’ve written about them before myself. But the last person I’d trust to expose them is Mark Ames given my personal experience in being smeared by him falsely as “of the CATO Institute.”
THE EXILED REPLIES:
It’s hard to believe that this is really Glenn Greenwald since he makes statements here that are easily debunked and patently false, whereas the real Glenn Greenwald has a reputation for operating on a more sophisticated and intelligent level. On the other hand, this comment did come from Brasil, and even Glenn has been known to have his down days, so we’re going to go on the assumption that this really is Glenn Greenwald and respond as follows:
1. Where is the “blatant misinformation” in this article? Please back up your wildly unfounded assertions. Are you saying that there is no evidence whatsoever that up to 70-plus were massacred in Kazakhstan? Or that Chevron is a partner with the state oil company whose subsidiary sparked the massacre? Please explain your accusation, specify exactly where in the article this “blatant misinformation” is.
2. We are aware of your little mini-spat with Joshua Foust, and we are aware that you would and should normally be on the opposite end of a defense-industry flak, warmonger and attack-troll like Foust. That is why we were deeply bothered—we would say “shocked” but we’re growing used to this, and have added Greenwald’s reaction to the growing ledger we’re keeping on Glenn Greenwald’s questionable ethical behavior. A principled Glenn Greenwald would not prioritize the petty hurt feelings of a defense-industry flak over defending the massacred victims in Kazakhstan and the role Chevron has in Kazakhstan’s state oil firm—instead, what we see here is this real-world, petty Glenn Greenwald placing his own hurt feelings above his supposed principles, forming common cause even with a warmonger and massacre-denier. That’s pathetic—Greenwald’s fans expect him to show a greater commitment to his principles than this.
3. Greenwald falsely claims that The Nation “had to retract” our piece about the TSA and John Tyner. In fact, the Nation did not retract that piece. The Nation did not retract the piece because all of the facts were correct. That is why the piece is still up. Will Glenn Greenwald now apologize for falsely claiming that The Nation retracted our article?
The Nation apologized to Tyner (but did not retract the piece), and the only reason why the Nation apologized was because it was forced to by a hysterical campaign led by Glenn Greenwald and his libertarian comrades. The Nation apologized without knowing that Greenwald was privately coaching Tyner at the time that Greenwald attacked Ames and Levine’s article in The Nation. We repeat: Greenwald was coaching Tyner, according to email threads leaked to The eXiled, and Greenwald did not disclose this. Why didn’t Glenn Greenwald disclose his relationship to John Tyner?
Moreover, Tyner has since admitted that he deceived the public and that he had in fact planned his “Don’t Touch My Junk” stunt–the Nation apology was based on believing Tyner hadn’t planned his “Don’t Touch My Junk” stunt. Did Glenn Greenwald know that Tyner was deceiving the public when he claimed he hadn’t planned his “Don’t Touch My Junk” stunt? If so, why didn’t Greenwald disclose this? Why didn’t Glenn Greenwald disclose his own deep libertarian ties, and ties to the Koch-founded Cato Institute, going back several years, when Greenwald attacked our article exposing the Koch-funded libertarians leading and fronting the anti-TSA media hysteria? Why hasn’t Glenn Greenwald apologized for not disclosing his conflict-of-interest? Also, John Tyner has come out in favor of privatizing the TSA, against unions, against gay marriage, against drug legalization and as a follower of racist libertarian Murray Rothbard, promoter of David Duke’s candidacy, contradicting the progressive Jimmy Stewart image that Greenwald painted in his article defending the Koch-linked libertarians behind the anti-TSA media hysteria.
4. Glenn Greenwald claiming he only wrote “2 freelance articles” for the Cato Institute is offensive it’s so utterly absurd. We know it. Glenn knows it. For one thing, one of those “free-lance articles” was nothing resembling a “freelance article”—it was a major policy whitepaper, a one-year massive report that included numerous speaking engagements on behalf of the Koch-founded Cato Institute. And let’s not forget, the Cato Institute was originally founded as The Charles Koch Foundation of Wichita. We merely copied the phrase “Glenn Greenwald of the libertarian Cato Institute” from the description used by numerous mainstream media outlets across the country over the past few years. For example:
“Glenn Greenwald of the libertarian Cato Institute, endorsing the California measure, notes that…”
“Judged by virtually every available metric,” says Glenn Greenwald of the Cato Institute, a libertarian US think tank, “the Portuguese decriminalisation framework has been a resounding success.”
Moreover, as Greenwald himself knows better than anyone, his ties to the Cato Institute and the Koch-funded libertarian nomenklatura go deeper than this. For example, Glenn Greenwald was one of the keynote speakers at an elite “Cato Benefit Sponsors” event, featuring Glenn and Cato fellow P.J. O’Rourke and winger Michael Barone. Who among progressives is invited as a top entertainer for the elite Cato Institute Benefit Sponsors event? Glenn Greenwald, that’s who.
Glenn Greenwald, “freelancer,” entertains more than 100 Cato Benefactors
But even if Greenwald’s ties to the Cato Institute didn’t go deeper, the idea that taking money from the Koch brothers for a one-year drug-decriminalization project shouldn’t be disclosed each time Greenwald attacks progressives while defending the Kochs’/libertarians’ pet projects—as when Greenwald defended Citizens United, much to progressives’ confusion, or when Greenwald attacked our article in The Nation about the Koch-funded libertarians leading the anti-TSA union campaign—is plain wrong and ridiculous. Payoffs and influence-peddling usually come in more subtle forms than payments marked “BRIBE.” In Russia, bankers would pay off government ministers not by giving them money earmarked “Vzyatka” but rather by giving them a “book advance” on a completely unrelated, intellectual endeavor. But even in Russia, bribery schemes like that, which clearly tie the recipient of that money to the donor of that money, led to ministers being fired. So when the Koch brothers pay for Greenwald to spend a year on a policy whitepaper, even on something as “benign” as a drug policy whitepaper, we don’t see it as benign when Greenwald simultaneously protects libertarians, defends Citizens United, and attacks journalism critical of Koch-funded libertarians.
We find it disturbing that Greenwald never said a single critical word about his benefactors the Koch brothers until a Weekly Standard interview with Charles Koch in March 2011, which finally elicited a mildly critical column (by Greenwald’s standards) of his Koch benefactors.
We believe that when you take money from the Koch brothers and a notorious corporate-rightwing libertarian outfit like the Cato Institute, that you should disclose your conflict-of-interest when you attack the credibility of journalists who expose Koch-linked libertarians running the TSA media hype, as we did at The Nation, or when Greenwald defends the Citizens United decision against progressives, as Greenwald did in 2010, much to progressives’ confusion.
Lastly, we find it disturbing that Greenwald said in an interview that he “would also be happy to see a billionaire run without the help of either party, to “disrupt the two-party stranglehold.” (http://www.out.com/news-commentary/2011/04/18/glenn-greenwald-life-beyond-borders)
5. As to why we never referred to Glenn Greenwald as “Glenn Greenwald of the ACLU” the reason is simple: We (and many other progressives) find it far more disturbing that Greenwald would take money from the Koch brothers and not disclose this relationship when discrediting critics of Koch-backed libertarians, or when defending Citizens United as Glenn has done. And we find it disturbing that when principles are at stake–a defense industry flak covering for a Central Asian despot’s massacre– versus Glenn’s personal hurt feelings and his friendships to fellow libertarians, Glenn Greenwald sides with his fellow libertarians and his petty feelings over principles.
UPDATE! Holy shit folks, you can’t make this up…Glenn Greenwald–we swear this is true, we’ll post a screenshot shortly–anyway, Glenn Greenwald actually tweeted to his libertarian comrade Joshua Foust his righteous indignation at The Almighty Exiled Censor’s patented troll-trapping policy. Greenwald called our policy, and we quote, “the most basic violation of ethical Internet journalism imaginable”. That’s Greenwald of the Cato Institute to Joshua Foust of the American Security Project, agreeing that the most, very worst of all journalistic violations is not lying, not taking money under the table, but what the Almighty Exiled Censor does here on these pages, fully disclosed. You can’t make this up, folks. Oh, how the mighty have fallen… More coming…
Depressing revelations: Glenn Greenwald forms common cause with a fellow corrupt libertarian shill, Joshua Foust…It’s not about antiwar or anti-massacres, it’s about corrupt bloggers defending each other…
Got something to say to us? Then send us a letter.
Want us to stick around? Donate to The eXiled.
Twitter twerps can follow us at twitter.com/exiledonline