Vanity Fair profiles The eXile: "Gutsy...visceral...serious journalism...abusive, defamatory...poignant...paranoid...and right!"
MSNBC: Mark Ames and Yasha Levine
Broke the Koch Brothers' Takeover of America
Koch Whores / January 3, 2012
By Team eXiled

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.”


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?

(Updated: We have since discovered that Greenwald’s hero John Tyner was  working for ViaSat, a major military-intelligence contractor, when Greenwald publicly vouched for Tyner’s integrity. Among ViaSat’s major government clients are Homeland Security, the Pentagon, and the NSA. ViaSat also makes electronics for battlefield Predator drones. In other words, anti-TSA hero John Tyner works for a company that services the US national security state, helping kill foreigners with drones, and spy on the world with NSA satellites. Which begs the  question: Why did Greenwald vouch for a military-intelligence contractor, without disclosing his conflict-of-interest? Mark another entry in Greenwald’s  ledger of questionable ethical behavior.)

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…”

Or here:

“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.” (

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…

Read more:, Team eXiled, Koch Whores

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


Add your own

  • 1. Eye-on-Glenn  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    Hi there — I saw that the eXiled team says it has a “ledger” on Greenwald… I’ve got a big fat file on this guy, who has quite the paper trail, if you know where to look. He’s one of those lawyer-turned pundits who doesn’t quite understand that your past is fair game. Wondering if I should write the article, or leak what I have to you guys? Maybe I should just email Greenwald some questions I have about his past first. Good work guys, I’ll be in touch.

  • 2. Hey all  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    Glenn’s success on the left is a perfect measure of the lack of class consciousness out there… he’s “rights” focused. When it comes to what matters most to everyone, wealth and opportunity, Glenn’s colors run pretty elite. A billionaire presidency can not possibly be anything other than a kleptocracy….he’s got that sensibility that the rich are righteous.

    Billionaires don’t descend from heaven. They exploit, they scheme, they are hyenas.

    We’ll know that there’s a pulse in the left when calling for billionaire presidents is grounds for instant removal from any leftwing publication. Meanwhile, priority #1: hold on to your genitals, the TSA is going to steal them from you

  • 3. DocAmazing  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    Greenwald’s latest brainstorm is “Ron Paul is better on the issues than you libs”, which is exceptionally rich given his Koch habit.

  • 4. darthfader  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 4:38 pm

    You know, it’s funny: the Almighty Censor carved my comments to pieces once – on the Tyner story, as I unknowingly repeated Greenwald’s vacuous defense of the issue. I even used the “but the ACLU” line, just like Greenwald does here.

    Yet, when the truth came out, Tyner turned out to be a secret Rothbard-racist Ron Pauler, the Ames/Levine piece turned out to be correct (the anti-TSA hype was a Koch-paid anti-union smear) and Greenwald turned out to be totally wrong.

    Yet, we never heard a peep from Greenwald, y’know, admitting he was wrong, or admitting that he took money from the people who paid for the anti-TSA smear.

    Honestly, under those circumstances, I’m pretty glad the Censor worked. It kept the libertarian bullshit from spreading.

    Thanks, Almighty eXile Censor!

  • 5. DeeboCools  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    “(Open to all. Comments can and will be censored at whim and without warning.) ”

    I love how this continues to be a source of unending “controversy” among libertarians. This is Ames site, and he can do whatever he wishes with it. I figured libertarians could understand that.

  • 6. Henry  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    Oddly, I’m feeling slightly sad. I used to read Greenwald.

  • 7. ArtificerSerges  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    Do people not realize by now what is going to happen when bullshit gets posted on (or about) this place? Judging by the reaction every time one of these articles is posted, and the “shock” that people feel when the Almighty eXile Censor is forced to rescue this site from idiots, I suppose not.

    At least it’s comforting (and of course very entertaining) to see them put in their place.

  • 8. Everybody Gets Ice Cream  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    I am tempted to get that twitter thing all the kids are using so I can follow this Glenn Greenwald of the libertarian CATO Institute guy.

  • 9. dominic  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 5:31 pm

    have to admit i am so damned perplexed over thes continued Row with Glen Greenwald, mainly because he is such a darling of Democracy Now! the infallible news source (a little to liberal sometimes, i admit, but better than anything else out there)

    I DID once here Greenwald, very very recently, praising the Tea Party, and calling them and Occupy equally as legitimate, which reminded me that you guys hated him…I just dont understand why DN! would support him so strongly

  • 10. gc  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 5:51 pm

    @ 2


  • 11. Sturgeon Slaw  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 5:53 pm

    “Ethical Internet journalism”
    There’s my oxymoron du jour, right there. Even without taking into consideration the seriously demented nature of internet comments in general … well, maybe calling people moonbat fucktard gayz is the pinnacle of ethical behavior; it’s been a while since I’ve studied that crap.

    Seriously, what does “ethical journalism” even mean any more? All I see at the NYT and WaPo, those bastions of respectable reportage, is bullshit agenda-driving, non-contextual disengenous factoids, unattributed sources, and desperately sweaty status quo reinforcement. The stenography of prevarication, sucking up to power – and it gets more disgusting the farther down the media food chain you go. (And then you come to Greenwald and his fellow travelers’ attempts at self-hagiography.)

    I come to the eXiled to get the FUCKING TRUTH!! I don’t give a rat’s ass where it comes from or how it’s presented or if it’s biased. I’m just goddamned sick of being lied to.

  • 12. Miguel  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 6:02 pm

    @5 It’s the damn proxies again.

    Sometimes I wonder why the exile gives these creeps the time of day. Then I saw how highly rated Greenwald was rated as a pundit on his wikipedia page. The world has gone to shit.

  • 13. Murray Rothbard  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    Freedom of speech is supposed to mean the right of everyone to say whatever he likes. But the neglected question is: Where? Where does a man have this right? He certainly does not have it on property on which he is trespassing. In short, he has this right only either on his own property or on the property of someone who has agreed, as a gift or in a rental contract, to allow him on the premises.

  • 14. Knob Gobbler  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 7:30 pm

    I am in heaven. I finally get to read a professional takedown of this smarmy fucktard.

  • 15. charln  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 7:35 pm

    @13 You don’t seem like a very nice person.

  • 16. Austin  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 7:35 pm

    i guarantee this is the lamest, least important comment trolling attempt you’v read in years. Congrats everyone on reading such a useless shill defender/cry-baby such as myself.

    This comment is brought to you by Swamp Trolls for Ron Paul Promotion Network, a federally funded 501c3 grassroots organization.

  • 17. Karl Farts 3148  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 7:51 pm


  • 18. Soj  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 8:09 pm

    Ironically, Glenn Greenwald (GG) is to me what Ron Paul is to many of GG’s fans – he’s an articulate defender of SOME things which they agree with very, very, very much.

    The problem of course is that, while less (publicly) articulate on other issues, he supports things one DISAGREES with very, very much. In RP’s case the list is well known (newsletters, abortion, etc) but GG is a little more disingenuous, which is a real problem.

    As comment #11 says, I think we all value and support the Exile precisely BECAUSE of the forthrightness and the honesty. I don’t personally agree with everything Ames has ever said or done, or anyone else on this website (in either of its incarnations) but at least I know that everything is upfront.

    Likewise, it is precisely because of this obfuscation and hiding on GG’s part that makes me resent him so much. If he wants to be a Koch boy (which I loathe) and simultaneously carry water for the ACLU (which I fully support) then so be it. But be honest and up front about it!!!

    And GG, if you’re reading this, quit tweeting about your hurt feelings. Use your keyboard and write out a proper rebuttal. Sheesh!

  • 19. Mason C  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 8:30 pm

    The outing/kneecapping of Foust gets even better. Great stuff here. Greenwald’s stealth career as a pwog pundit always sounded stale – too polished, the glib cant of discussing trench warfare in a tuxedo…on Democracy Now. Which now, on the strength of these two articles, has things to answer for.

    Can the Maximum Leader at DN! can lay off the celebrity pundit moonshine and show Greenwald the door? The odds aren’t good – the Cult of Amy marches with blinders and the prospect of housecleaning on the left causes all kinds of sudden illness – the prestige vapors, the funding loss virus, the careerism fuck you’s.

    The AEC Responds:
    To be fair, Amy Goodman has done real reporting over the years, and is seriously principled and gutsy. When has Greenwald reported on anything about inequality and state brutality in Brazil? Instead he focuses on safe issues like “drug decriminalization” and does conferences with neoliberal ex-presidents of Brazil. He’s not in the same league with Amy Goodman.

  • 20. Hannibal  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 8:52 pm

    for heavens sake, who take this shit seriously, a big big shout out to mark ames for being so great; this is really the best take-down of a gigantic douche like greenwald; and foust is onto something, with his journalistic integrity tirade, I really hope this is not the last sweet, sweet takedown…

  • 21. Nobel Appeasement Prize  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 9:11 pm

    Greenwald (unwittingly?) perpetuates the mixed style of Nat Hentoff’s ever-dogged pro-Bill of Rights/anti-abortion pugilism.


  • 22. Brendo  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 9:42 pm

    Just do hit pieces from now on! They are so damned readable

  • 23. Gommorrah  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 9:42 pm

    I’m a suicide Koch troll sent on a mission to sacrifice my troll life for the good of greater, more important Koch funded crypto-libertarian shills like Glenn Greenwald of the libertarian Cato Institute. What I’m gonna say is that I’m pretty sure that Greenwald attacked your Tyner piece originally because the thrust and main point of your article, that Tyner was some paid-off agent provocateur, was and remains entirely baseless paranoid nonsense. That’s because Tyner first claimed he had not planned in any way to make a scene or provoke the TSA. He even deceived Lawrence O’Donnell point-blank on live television:

    O‘DONNELL: So wait—so you—were you looking for trouble, John Tyner, when you went through that?

    TYNER: No.

    But after Tyner was caught hiding and destroying evidence that he’d deceived the public, he confessed:

    about two weeks prior to my encounter with the TSA at the San Diego airport, I wrote a blog entry about the TSA. Don’t bother looking for it because I deleted it prior to posting my recollection of the events and the accompanying video. I don’t have any copies of it, either.

    …When I posted my account and video of my encounter at San Diego, I also deleted the post in question. I thought that no one would believe that my encounter was not a set up if they knew…

    To those of you who feel duped, I apologize.

    On top of that, the evidence shows that Tyner concealed his extremist rightwing ideology by posing as a progressive-libertarian. Since then, Tyner has made common cause with John Birchers and Neo-Confederate conspiracy theorist groups which have been denounced by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Specifically…but hey, at no point did he claim say that he ever took any money or orders from anybody, and nothing you have ever demonstrated contradicts that. Yep, trust poor Tyner. He’s the good guy here. He’s the guy who got his junk felt up. Why would he lie, despite admitting that he lied multiple times to deceive the public and pull off his gate rape stunt.

  • 24. wiley-joshua-קוליק  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 9:48 pm

    okay okay okay now Greenwald is outed as probable permitted-opposition drone:


    May the sun shine and burn these scums from da land. ”[…]LEAVE A BLANKET OF ASH ON THE GROUND.”

    (i knew about greenwald too, evn if was just a hunch. something about the incredible yawning pedantic tediousness of his articles, and the incredibly whiny tone figured him for a drone strawman manchu wok mothafucka. of course i agreed with the points… but if the points are being made by a straw drone… you get the idea)

  • 25. jimmy james  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 10:26 pm

    God, what a beautiful dustup.

    The GOP does it every so often, where they go into a frenzy trying to one-up each other with conservative bona fides. Democrats do this basically never, with the result being that there are a ton of fake liberals out there, like libertarian Glenn Greenwald of the Cato Institute.

    We will have to teach this, among other lessons: IF YOU TAKE KOCH MONEY, YOU’RE OFF THE FUCKIN’ TEAM.

  • 26. Eurotrash  |  January 3rd, 2012 at 11:02 pm

    Hey Greenwald, you don’t talk to Ames. You listen to him. The man’s enlarged my mind. He’s a poet-warrior in the classic sense.

    I mean sometimes he’ll… uh… well, you’ll say “hello” to him, right? And he’ll just walk right by you. He won’t even notice you. And suddenly he’ll grab you, and he’ll throw you in a corner, and he’ll say, “on 9/11, every citizen in America was under attack except for one.” I mean I’m no, I can’t… I’m a little man, I’m a little man, he’s… he’s a great man. I should have been a balding, suede jacketed ex-pat scuttling across Hungry Duck’s dance floor…

  • 27. Fischbyne  |  January 4th, 2012 at 2:04 am

    It’s funny how people don’t understand the genius of the Exiled comment policy. No other publication takes their comment section as seriously, which is why that at times Exiled comment strings approach a jazz riff. Any idea of “Internet journalism ethics” is a real howler in a country where most comment sections are commonly abandoned to semi-literates calling one another fags and “loosers.” Not to mention corporate trolls.

  • 28. Duarte Guerreiro  |  January 4th, 2012 at 2:12 am


    That was good for a laugh.


    Precisely, you feel it in your gut. Greenwald is like the guy who farts in the elevator and then ratchets up the moral indignation to 11 if you accuse him, hiding behind outraged civility. What a goddamn coward (I was going to say fag, but I don’t want to encourage “homophobic violence fantasies”).

    When the Nation thing happened you could feel Ames and Levine going “what the fuck, douche, we’re on the same side”. Glad they reverted back to terror mode. Take some amphetamines and remember THEY ARE ALL OUT FOR YOU! ONLY YOUR CRUSADER READERS ARE LOYAL UNTO DEATH.

  • 29. Virgil  |  January 4th, 2012 at 2:12 am

    Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like we’re about to hit peak Ames? Greenwald must surely be one of the final bosses of the libertarian hive. Could only be better if Ames, Yasha and Dolan fist fight zombie Von Mises, Rand and Hayek in the ruins of Mt Rushmore. Shine on you crazy bastards!

  • 30. Toni M.  |  January 4th, 2012 at 2:48 am

    I look forward to Glenn Greenwald of the Cato Institute apologising for the catalogue of lies he’s spewed out.

  • 31. Down and Out of Sài Gòn  |  January 4th, 2012 at 3:35 am

    Bush II had the same ability that HST said of Nixon – making his enemies seem honourable. That’s why a lot of people gave Glenn Greenwald a break, and still do. He was one of those major bloggers who was against Bush the younger, and (unlike Foust) against him when it counted in 2005 or so. The worst people said of him was that he wrote very long and boring articles (always with Addendums I-XIX). But I always saw it as “Too Long, Didn’t Read” for the greater good.

    With Bush not around to kick around anymore, we’re learning quickly about a lot of bloggers’s characters flaws, and less tolerant to give them a pass. A lot of people are pissed off at the moment with Greenwald because he’s supporting Ron Paul, and Ron Paul is the sort of “libertarian” who wants a weak federal government, but is fine with 50 totalitarian states. A dickhead in other words.

  • 32. bob  |  January 4th, 2012 at 3:55 am

    “…really bizarre homphobic violence fantisies…”

    I am going to assume he misspelled homophobic.

    I can’t think of a single non-bizarre homophobic violence fantsy. I can’t even come up with a bizarre one. Probably my lack of creativity. This could also be a logical conundrum that is not meant to be read or understood as written, but read fast…In that case…

    I think he just called you gay, but doesn’t have the balls. He added the “phobic” at the end of homo, did you catch that?

    This is how you make friend and influence people in the post “don’t ask, don’t tell” military industrial complex.

  • 33. t5k  |  January 4th, 2012 at 6:21 am

    “homophobic violence fantasies” you know you’re on to something when they’re down to this card. challenge him to a fight.

  • 34. G.G. Allin  |  January 4th, 2012 at 6:47 am

    Please do more of these hit pieces, and less reviews of contemporary Hollywood movies. I actually like the reviews of Hollywood movies, I just want a great ratio of hit pieces to reviews of Hollywood movies. Thanks!

  • 35. Gommorrah  |  January 4th, 2012 at 9:02 am

    A right-wing/libertarian dude gets pissy about the TSA, decides to stage a scene, posts about it on his blog, then lies about not deciding beforehand to stage a scene to give himself more credibility. Truly a master plan that could only have been the marching orders of Jim Koch. Not that I know who “Jim Koch” is and not that Ames and Levine ever claimed that “Jim Koch” was behind it, let alone Charles and David Koch. But Ames and Levine did properly tie numerous libertarians from Koch-funded organizations to the media hype against the TSA, but since I’m a fucking tool myself, the kind of tool who walks around with one of them Occams Razors that make me feel smart ‘n’ stuff, I’m going to ignore all that and just spend my life defending “Jim Koch”. Because that’s the sorta commtard I is.

  • 36. HamsterFist  |  January 4th, 2012 at 9:32 am

    Homophobic violence fantasies? So Ames is violent to homophobics or is it he publishes gay sex stories with violence thus making him homophobic? I’m confused. And not in a wanting to be gang raped by 30 navy dudes on the USS Reagan sort of way. Perhaps Greenwald is projecting his fantasies about Ames.

    Pro tip to Mark. If you don’t want a sore butthole, I don’t think I’d meet up with Greenwald and Foust at a bath house. Unless of course, They’re bottoms.

    The AEC does not approve of homophobic comments like this (unless of course it’s a homphobic violent fantasy)

  • 37. Doom  |  January 4th, 2012 at 9:43 am

    Fuck ’em up, Ames!

  • 38. Johnnie Q  |  January 4th, 2012 at 10:55 am

    Just read Mark Ames “Going Postal.” He shows quite well how pervasive the social anomie is in this society. Greenwald and Foust are simply a part of the flotsam being carried around in the whirlpool’s filthy waters. No place to go but down. Which brings me to another interesting connection. While reading about his duel with Foust and Greenwald it occurred to me that if this is the company Greenwald keeps, what to think about Democracy Now! who has him on quite a bit as an expert commentator on US foreign policy. I’ve been looking at Democracy Now! for a few years now with suspicious eyes. I’d like to see Mark Ames connect these dots also. It’d be interesting if someone other than me has made these connections also. Man, the rot just runs into everything eh?

  • 39. Buster Mountebank  |  January 4th, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    Is Amy Goodman paying attention to all this stuff? This Greenwald guy is on Democracy Now all the time. If not, she needs to clue in.

    I think it’s to Greenwald’s credit as a human being that he defends Bradley Manning and other whistleblowers. But I don’t understand how he can turn away from a the massacre in Kazakhstan. It’s like Chomsky’s rap on who counts as people in American political discourse.

  • 40. A Silver Mt. Paektu  |  January 4th, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    Why are any of you surprised that Amy Goodman and the rest of the DN! crew tolerate Greenwald? Despite her history of excellent reporting and the contributions she’s made to independent journalism, Amy Goodman is still just a liberal. Liberals, even the so-called progressives among them, are content to keep discourse and action within the scope defined by bourgeois right and lack the proper line and method to break through and rise above those barriers.

    I used to listen to DN! semi-regularly because of some of the guests they manage to wrangle. No more. Goodman/DN! failed to take a principled stand when the combined forces of Western imperialism (under the auspices of NATO) conspired to intervene in Libya. Goldman was so caught up in the Arab Spring’s fervor and so desperately wanted to see the Libyan rebels overthrow Qaddafi that she failed to maintain an appropriately critical viewpoint on Libya, even when establishment outfits like NPR were exposing the long-standing links between many of the rebel leaders and the CIA and when Col. Qaddafi’s press officers were explaining in plain English how the U$ and its imperialist allies were going to use the reorganization of Libyan society as a pretext for neoliberalization. Goodman’s willingness to compromise on Amerikan intervention when it helped the immediate interests of her team completely discredited her and DN!.

  • 41. Nobel Appeasement Prize  |  January 4th, 2012 at 12:58 pm

    1) CORRECTION: It now appears obvious that Greenwald WITTINGLY perpetuates the mixed style of Nat Hentoff (OF THE CATO INSTITUTE)’s dogged pro-First Amendment/pro-interventionist pugilism.

    See Greenwald quoted re: Hentoff:

    2) So, one might say,

    Greenwald:Hentoff :: Hitchens:Orwell.

    Except that, as we all know, Orwell went far beyond all writerly poseurs and took an actual bullet in the actual neck, fighting declared jingoists.

  • 42. Gommorrah  |  January 4th, 2012 at 2:42 pm

    There were certainly several media figures and PR industry flaks tied to the Koch brothers, who spoke out against the TSA. Maybe they were against the TSA because polls showed 4 out of 5 Americans were not having hissy fits the way the Koch libertarians were:

    Either way, I am a troll

  • 43. exploitedtimes  |  January 4th, 2012 at 2:45 pm

    Firing on all cylinders. There’s a difference between actually possessing principles and getting paid to ‘articulately defend’ some principle or another. Also, Democracy Now is not necessarily any gold standard. Greenwald had a good early take on Wikileaks and DN featured some of that. But as far as the Tyner deal goes, Greenwald actually had a pretty coherent response at the time and it seemed like two solid points of view being hashed out. But as the story evolved, Greenwald disappeared, as other readers have noted, which would be understandable if that’s all there was to it. But if this really is Glenn Greenwald now, it is a surprise; one would certainly expect more ‘sophistication.’ Why even bring up Tyner and the non-retraction, in light of all the subsequent events that unfolded? That would display no tact at all, and tact is an area where Glenn Greenwald has proven quite def, as in his skilled defense of Wikileaks. It is all very perplexing, but if this shit is real, it’s a weak show from Greenwald here…As for Foust, well, beyond weak…

  • 44. Gommorrah  |  January 4th, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    Ames if you’re going to read and rewrite my comments I’m pretty sure that whatever you write will be better than what my retarded brain farts out

  • 45. Dom  |  January 4th, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    @ 26 Eurotrash

    That was inspired.

  • 46. jobsliver  |  January 4th, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    Wow, just wow. Glennzilla deserves a thrashing, its long overdue. Personally I think his descent over the last year (in particular) stems from the HBGary shit Anonymous exposed. That’s not a defense btw, just my uninformed guess. If he got chicken shit scared over the revelations and consequently toned down his coverage of say, Wikileaks, Defense of Julian Assange and Bradley Manning as he’s done since, that’s his own cowardly, pathetic decision. Yeah he did pen an article RE Manning at the fucking Guardian. (the rag that used 7 or 8 fucking writers in 1 piece to frame Manning as a frothing-at-the-mouth psycho, wannabe tranny, whoever cleared Him for info access?) Hilariously that piece was flanked with ads for the Guardian’s Julian-Assange-Is-Evil book infamously known for titling a chapter with the FUCKING PASSWORD to the cables’ file. Excellent choice of venue Glenn.

  • 47. jobsliver  |  January 4th, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    and big thanks to comment #40. Goodman brought that scumbag Juan Cole on repeatedly to spout humanitarian war-mongering. Utterly despicable. She’s also uncritically mouthed the Syria is next nonsense virtually daily since that shit started. I liked her better when her studio was in the firehouse and not cluttered with expensive equipment furnished by who, exactly?

  • 48. jobsliver  |  January 4th, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    Oh and why hasn’t Amy Goodman invited John Pilger to discuss the film one of her financial donors pulled from a screening in New Mexico? Can’t imagine.

  • 49. proletariat  |  January 4th, 2012 at 6:16 pm

    here’s the thing you have to realize re: goodman and greenwald.

    libertarians are actually pretty fucking good at PR. they dangle this carrot of liberty and freedom around, and to a lot of people on the left (which goodman qualifies just barely), this is very appealing. they ALWAYS lead with issues like drug legalization, decreased censorship and personal liberty. then they set the hook and reel you into their little randroid island.

    it’s a lot like scientology. they don’t tell you about the crazy shit until you’re too far in to walk away.

    also, it doesn’t help that amy goodman has largely lost her teeth lately.

  • 50. RanDomino  |  January 4th, 2012 at 6:32 pm

    Damn Ames, you’ve got so much dox the FBI forwards you FOIA requests.

  • 51. Mason C  |  January 4th, 2012 at 9:00 pm

    @Eurotrash #26: Outstanding. Get you a case of beer for that one.

    Another crypto-libertarian gem from Herr Greenwald. Ron Paul is misunderstood and Katrina vanden Heuvel is to blame:

  • 52. crazy_inventor  |  January 4th, 2012 at 10:26 pm

    re: Goodman

    I concur.

    I used to air DN, but there’s rarely anything worthwhile.

    searches sometimes dig up an old show, like dn2011-0805-1(ALEC exposed).wv, dn2009-1013-1 (positive thinking hurting america).wv, dn2003-1017-1(psyops and information operations used against public scandal).wv, but even then, so much fluff has to be edited out, it’s rarely worth the effort

    the one hour show typically yields only 5 to 15 minutes of usable material

    DN is like the other media outlets – only not quite as bad (they yield nothing at all)

    the best material seems to be text, comments, which I convert to synthesized speech (Julie of neospeech has the most natural voice, I’ve found)

    a bitcast or podcast of Exiled would be outstanding

    and the comment policy

    it’s ironic, there are places that say “the truth blog – no censorship” _all_ my posts were censored

    “A Free Speech Forum where you can Say and Talk about Whatever you want.” – I was singled out for punishment and harassment, to the point I withdrew in disgust, while since then the forum has died, due to lack of interest, and due to the people involved browbeating any dissent (not just me, anyone)

    – the places that brag about being free and true are shams, while I’ve never run afoul of “Comments can and will be censored at whim and without warning”

    even though some of my prior claims on here might come across as unbelievable and therefore trollish

    re: Greenwald

    no one who gets as much MSM airtime as he does could possibly be for real, in the sense of being truely on the side of the working poor, uncompromising, steadfast, in the way his articles suggest

    crypto indeed

  • 53. wengler  |  January 4th, 2012 at 11:42 pm

    In fairness to Glenn Greenwald, I’ve never heard him utter a positive word about unions. Needless to say, Kazakh state security shooting protestors like dogs in the street seems to be a violation of civil liberties. Ergo, what the fuck am I trying to say?

    Also what’s with this weird swipe at Amy Goodman in the comments? She gives a shit about unions. Don’t conflate her with Greenwald.

  • 54. proletariat  |  January 4th, 2012 at 11:52 pm

    greenwald has always been a libertard, and those of us who wear the glasses have always seen him and the rest of his randroid cronies as the disgusting blood sucking alien he is.

    the problem is, it’s tough to get someone to wear the glasses. it’s at the point now where you have to beat someone’s ass in an alley to get them to see the truth.

    amy goodman used to wear the glasses, but i suspect thai police broke them when they shattered her skull with their rifle butts. i’ll always respect what she has done, but age has mellowed her something fierce. 20 years ago she would have ripped a punk like greenwald a new asshole.

    and yes, Almighty eXiled Comment Improver, I have watched and am now making a “They Live” reference. Go–wait I was about to give advice to the AEC, but I know better. Just want to humbly add that it’s possibly the most clever critique of reagan era america ever made.

    feel free to insert a “homoerotic violence fantasy” here:

  • 55. Tracked & Followed  |  January 5th, 2012 at 1:11 am

    There are Gods after all. I and my friend have been seriously questioning Amy Goodman after that Pilger incident.
    But really this Glen Greenwald Shoeshine Boy to Big Kochs is really fun.
    A boring day ended so nice!

  • 56. proletariat  |  January 5th, 2012 at 2:31 am

    wait, #53…

    you’ve never heard him a positive word about unions, and you think that’s good?

    really? you owe unions for your cushy life. you sit in a chair while apple’s child slaves “lovingly” craft the next ipad, with extra coltan just for you! i’m IBEW local 1250 and i keep your lights on, but heh COMMIE UNION PINKO MARXISTS DESTROYING ARE NATION! fuck you, asshole.

    you should probably stick your head in an oven, you fascist piece of shit.

    union, yes! all you fascists are bound to lose.

    also exiled comment censor can insert a “homoerotic violence fantasy” here, because that accusation is funny as shit:

  • 57. proletariat  |  January 5th, 2012 at 2:35 am

    you’ve never heard him utter a positive word about unions, too. i hope the exiled comment censor will fix that, because i’ve been drinking a lot of водка.

    go ahead and delete this, or mock it as you please, just fix the previous comment!

    also exiled comment censor can insert a “homoerotic violence fantasy” here, because that accusation is funny as shit:

  • 58. Jet Jaguar  |  January 5th, 2012 at 8:43 am

    Ah. Glenzilla vs. Monster eXiled. Rip ’em King Ghidorah.

  • 59. Johnnie Q  |  January 5th, 2012 at 9:15 am

    Good to see that others are not blinded by Goodman. You’re right Jobsliver. Goodman was better when she wasn’t sitting in the center of what looks like Mission Control. You are also right Crazy_Inventor. Supposed progressive talking heads that make the rounds on the MSM have to be looked at as trojan horses; both the Greek kind and the prophylactic kind. They are simultaneously sheep in wolf’s clothing and scummy inside and out. Proletariat, you could also make the same analogy using the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Like Scientology it looks good at first and then, once you’re in they start talking about the 144,000 elect and we are not part of this world. Uh yeah, right(choke!). The problem with Libertarians is that their ideology ultimately makes sense only if you are stranded on a deserted island with no hope of finding Genie in the bottle lol. Yeah, you can be as free as you want! No government, nothing barring me from the exercise of my individual rights; I am a rock and I am an island. Where have we heard that before.

  • 60. RanDomino  |  January 5th, 2012 at 9:46 am

    Goodman is the Nancy Grace of the antiglobalization Left.

  • 61. Judas  |  January 5th, 2012 at 9:53 am


  • 62. Adam  |  January 5th, 2012 at 11:05 am

    Ubermensch Ames is the rugged individualist libertarians are always going on about; they just don’t like having their faces spit in by him.

    Imagine if you met your life-long hero and he called you a dipshit – poor libertards.

  • 63. wengler  |  January 5th, 2012 at 11:07 am

    #56 Jesus Christ, outraged commenters like me appeal to the great AEC to teach us how to write properly! We prostrate ourselves at the feet of thy holiness. We beseech you! Please teach us how to write “sarcasm”!

    I was saying that in fairness to Glenn Greenwald of the CATO institute, he has never given a shit about workers’ rights so why do we expect some dead oil workers to come between him and his libertarian friends.

    A dead Kazakh or two is the starter course for a dinner of shills.

  • 64. Zirb  |  January 5th, 2012 at 11:10 am

    Wow, it’s weird to see Glenn empathizing with Foust. But seriously, why are trolls like me still so upset about your courageous policy of improving comments? At least let Glenn’s through…how else is he supposed to earn his keep as an elite corporate troll?

  • 65. darthfader  |  January 5th, 2012 at 11:56 am


    Good point. Which one of these shut-in libertarian freaks went to Russia, started a business, smashed the competition, and fought government oppression and corruption tooth and nail?

    Answer? None of them.

    They must boil over when they realize that the people who actively lived out their jack-off fantasy like to spit on them for fun.

  • 66. jobsliver  |  January 5th, 2012 at 9:52 pm

    And I had to return. Following Glennzilla’s totally-not-endorsing-6-fucking-you-tube-clips of totally not crazy, batshit or otherwise, Ron Paul; Glenn returns to smarmily remind his followers that he’s totally not endorsing Ron Paul, despite all the words he types. He then spends copious verbiage lauding Paul and helpfully reminding the foolish that TINA’s still alive and kicking, electorally speaking. And look! Corey Robin totally agrees with him! BTW, thanks Mr. Ames for the link to that Robin article Glenn uses as a his opening defense. Borrowing (fuck, stealing) your use of re-writing headlines I’d saved Robin’s piece as “Corey Robin Does Clean Up for Glennzilla, Advertises (Vomit) Digby”, for my own scrapbook of news/politics. Side-note, my swipes at Amy Goodman are actually anger at witnessing someone whom I’d come to admire, deteriorate so dramatically. Thanks Mr. Ames for the link to the London Review of Books article suavely disemboweling that imbecile and plagiarist Luke Harding. Returning to the withering of Amy Goodman, she hosted Harding as the sole guest on the topic of Russian demonstrations. Un-fucking-believable.

  • 67. Johnny D.  |  January 6th, 2012 at 5:14 am

    Exile’d going after Amy Goodman, now?


  • 68. Max W  |  January 6th, 2012 at 9:41 am

    Damn Ames this is some fine reporting. I used to actually respect Greenwald, he’s usually a voice of semi-reason, I never would have suspected he had these connections, definitely brings some light to his views (defending CU, etc).

    A friend bought me a copy of “Sex, Drugs, and Libel” for Christmas, loving it so far.

  • 69. T.B.  |  January 6th, 2012 at 11:01 am

    Hard to imagine a rebuttal from Greenwald that would debunk all the facts presented in this article. His only chance is to deny he ever wrote the excerpt in the beginning of this article. Will the real Glenn Greenwald please stand up?

  • 70. YankeeFrank  |  January 6th, 2012 at 3:58 pm

    Well I read Greenwald regularly, and I find his writing principled and effective, if a bit tediously repetitive, in fighting against the constant attacks on our liberties. He also has taken a decent stand against the financial services industry’s corruption and crimes. He is very effective at exposing the hypocrisy and corruption of our dear leaders. I also enjoy the exiled regularly and find it a very effective disinfectant against the MSM garbage-barge. I was vaguely aware Glenn had worked with Cato on some drug war stuff, but really haven’t seen him soften his approach. I don’t know, this all seems a bit petty. I think the ease with which writing can be published on the internet (and impossibility of removing) lends itself to some less-than-thoughtful glurge that people, who mostly have incredibly thin skins, feel they must defend, instead of just saying “oops, shouldn’t have published this”. In any event I will continue to read both Greenwald and the Exiled.

  • 71. super390  |  January 6th, 2012 at 4:56 pm

    I will never forget Goodman’s coverage of the Indian uprising in Bolivia, not because it brought to power Evo Morales, but because I learned that the Indians don’t give a damn about Evo Morales or any government leader as long as he doesn’t get in their way. They’re the real thing; all our factions in America are posers.

  • 72. super390  |  January 6th, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    I think the antiwar movement should not have been allowed to overshadow the essential quest of the Left; the defeat of growing inequality within a capitalist society. It seems that the hatred of the American government for its interventions has not only been used by crypto-libertarians to indoctrinate hatred of any genuinely powerful democratic government, but it has covered up the intent of most of the interventions, which is to stop socialist uprisings on our corporate plantations. The libertarians never talk about the dependence of business on the military, because that discredits their fantasy that American capitalism doesn’t require cheap oil and death squads overseas. Everyone loves our entrepreneurs!

    In effect, when you’re at the point when people on the antiwar Left denounce FDR for defeating Hitler, it’s exactly the same thing as people on the antiwar Right (specifically Ron Paul) calling Lincoln a tyrant for settling the authority of the Federal government to call a black man a citizen and a human being. None of these people want there to be any effective government at all because they refuse to accept that political power pre-exists government and must either be seized by our agents or by our enemies. But the Right wins from this thinking because it knows the power vacuum will be filled by rule by the rich, while the left keeps waiting for spontaneous voluntarism to take over.

    Bunch of fucking hippies.

  • 73. Digital Lo-fi  |  January 6th, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    Well, when Mike Elk posted a link on Twitter to this story saying @ggreenwald was linked to the CATO Institute, I responded that it wasn’t just that he was linked but that he had lied about it, as if he was above it. Since Elk is probably someone Greenwald takes seriously he actually responded. “@digitallofi @MikeElk Totally – I hid it by writing about it continously on my blog – #SuperCovert” ( To which I replied with a quote from his statement above, “I’ve never been employed by the CATO Institute. I have no ongoing or regular relationship…” With the hashtag #downplay but I probably should have used #dissemble. Just like posting twice about his work for CATO is “writing about it continuously.” Really disingenuous.

  • 74. Knob Gobbler  |  January 7th, 2012 at 9:37 am

    What your mom said.

  • 75. jobsliver  |  January 7th, 2012 at 12:58 pm

    As TB observes, the Glenn Greenwald comment is the basis for Team eXiled’s dissection. I doubt he’ll address this, as he’s arrogantly stated in the past, when trashing the Ames-Levine Nation piece, he’s never heard of either of them. Additionally if Greenwald lacks the spine to just come out and endorse Paul, rather than wasting paragraphs to ham-handed persuasion, I don’t see him owning up to the comment one way or the other. It’s unclear which comment he’s referencing in the twats with Foust. It’d have to be a past comment as the one central to this article doesn’t bear any “homphobic violence fantasies”.
    Though not central to the piece, the twats Greenwald undeniably penned, commiserating with the inhuman Foust, establish the lie that he’s never ”work(ed) for the Cato Institute”. I imagine we’re left to conclude that receiving pay for effort doesn’t qualify as work. I’m unconvinced that a trained lawyer, familiar with the phrase “billable hour”, would devote time to a white paper and speaking engagements (1 example), pro bono, for a profit prizing/maximizing, human waste dump like Cato.
    It’s the twat-exchange between Greenwald and Foust that drove the last nail into the coffin of Greenwald’s credibility for me. (His defending Mr. Junk-Stunt basically began that process) That he would reach out to such an odious speck of vermin filth as Foust, lie so blatantly (never worked for Cato), and sympathize with such petty, catty, vindictiveness says everything about what kind of man he is.

  • 76. blowback  |  January 8th, 2012 at 6:37 am

    Mark – my mom’s quite the tease, aren’t she?

  • 77. doofus  |  January 8th, 2012 at 8:15 am

    I love Exiled, I used to luv Glenn, especially during the Bush nightmare, and its been tough to realize another semi-hero is not the guy I thought he was, sigh:( Libertarianism is such an insidious and dastardly disease, it seems to infect even people I would hope would be immune. But it sounds like it got Glenn good and early and I just never knew it until Mark pointed it out.

    My own personal violent/homophilic fantasy is to see Mark and Glenn and Matt Taibbi (luv him too) in a hot threeway of man-on-man action. They are all kinda cute and at least one of them would probably really enjoy it. I think I might even pay a little money to watch that, and I bet I’m not the only one…

  • 78. Hosswire  |  January 9th, 2012 at 10:09 am

    Glen Greenwald may have a point when he says that he does not “work for” CATO or the Kochs.

    I mean, does a hooker “work for” the the Wall Street shitbird who gives her a call from time to time for blowjobs & anal?

    That whore’s not on the PAYROLL, right? She’s just gobbling that knob & taking it up the poop-chute when Mr. BigMoney drops her a couple C-notes.

    She’s just “freelancing”.

  • 79. jim  |  January 9th, 2012 at 11:39 am

    Greenwald launching a butthurt Tweet over eXiledonline mangling whatever comments it dislikes? A sincere sentiment to be sure – & I trust that the big stick jammed up his arse concurs with him wholeheartedly.

    What would be the over/under on his ever answering even a full half of that melodious barrage of questions you asked him, I wonder?

  • 80. DC Resident  |  January 9th, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    Oh, I get it. I spend my life licking the Kochs’ toes and shilling for them. And meanwhile, I envy The eXiled over the fact that Vanity Fair published a 10-page feature on them and not on my fellow corrupt Koch rent-boys like Greenwald. I wish someone would put me out of my servile misery.

  • 81. SamR  |  January 10th, 2012 at 11:50 am

    Don’t forget the 280k that GG and Hamsher raised for “Accountability Now.” A good portion money went to GG and Hamsher for their “consulting work.” At the end of the “Accountability Now” campaign, what had been accomplished? They implied that the money would support lefty Democratic primary challenges, yet the only outcome was to support GG and Hamsher’s wallets.

    GG probably doesn’t need to skim from the public anymore now that he’s got the sweet Koch cash, but before he was a shill he was a scam artist.

  • 82. atlas_lied  |  January 11th, 2012 at 12:09 pm

    Many of the posters above have made great points. What’s his name Todd Gitlin has summed up the fracturing of the left. In short, the left has disproportionately focused on relatively marginal, or even diversionary issues. Issues like anti-militarism, various historical redresses and whatever else should not drown out the importance of economics.

    In school I didn’t even think of the FIRE industry bankrolling various supposedly progressive causes in an attempt to distract the public. Safe to say, GG is an amoral yet relatively effective shill.

  • 83. adelphi  |  January 25th, 2012 at 7:45 pm

    Mark Ames and Glenn Greenwald should engage in a public debate. Not necessarily in person, for instance I’ve seen lots of remote webcam conversations between writers at I think its high time you two settled this in the cage. Two men enter. Two men and a baby leave.

  • 84. Jethro Troll  |  March 30th, 2012 at 1:10 am

    Wow, and you didn’t even go into Professional Defender of Racist Hate Speech Glenn Greenwald’s little Matthew Hale problem or his “I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration” or how much this Sao Paolo expat hated “illegals” when he lived in the US….

    What a True Progressive this man is!

  • 85. Bruce Majors  |  December 16th, 2012 at 2:54 pm

    I would love to be funded by the Kochs for a gay rights or any other project. And before, during, and after in would still be more logical and honest than you. As is Mr. Greenwald it seems.

    The Kochs have done so much more for humanity that you have. Of course, they do have that suspiciously kike-ish name that gets you so hot and bothered. Like Glen?

  • 86. Al Dorman  |  December 18th, 2012 at 8:34 am

    You Mark Ames comment drones are childish. Guilt by association and NOTHING more.

  • 87. Pat Mason  |  July 14th, 2013 at 6:13 pm

    There’s a simple fact you Greenwald critics continue to miss: I CARRY HIS WATER! And I carry his water IN ALL CAPS!

  • 88. Field Day  |  February 27th, 2015 at 12:35 pm

    Greenwald is speaking at another Koch festival in Texas in March 2015. The Exiled was right.

Leave a Comment

(Open to all. Comments can and will be censored at whim and without warning.)


Required, hidden

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed