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
www.exiledonline.com
Koch Whores / January 3, 2012

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:

http://www.registan.net/index.php/2010/11/30/a-salonian-beclowning/

http://www.salon.com/2010/11/30/wikileaks_10/

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?

(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:

Here: http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/will-republicans-take-lessons-from-british-conservatives-1.169415

“Glenn Greenwald of the libertarian Cato Institute, endorsing the California measure, notes that…”

Or here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8207584/Politicians-should-say-what-they-really-think-about-drugs.html

“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…

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 twitter.com/exiledonline

88 Comments

Add your own

  • 1. 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: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

  • 2. 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

  • 3. 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.

  • 4. 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:
    [PLEASE DEPOSIT 50 BRAZILIANS REALS FOR THE FIRST MINUTE]

  • 5. 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!

  • 6. 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:

  • 7. 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:

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

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

  • 9. 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.

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

    Goodman is the Nancy Grace of the antiglobalization Left.

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

    lol

  • 12. 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.

  • 13. 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.

  • 14. 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?

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

    @62

    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.

  • 16. 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.

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

    Exile’d going after Amy Goodman, now?

    [AEC: NO, AND FUCK YOU FOR PRETENDING WE ARE, TROLLBAGGER]

  • 18. 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.

  • 19. 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?

  • 20. 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.

  • 21. 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.

  • 22. 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.

  • 23. 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 – is.gd/jrXvDc is.gd/LdaqNt #SuperCovert” (https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/154655698138038272). 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.

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

    What your mom said.

  • 25. 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.

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

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

  • 27. 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…

  • 28. 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”.

  • 29. 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?

  • 30. 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.

  • 31. 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.

  • 32. 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.

  • 33. 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 bloggingheads.tv. I think its high time you two settled this in the cage. Two men enter. Two men and a baby leave.

  • 34. 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!

  • 35. 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?

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

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

  • 37. 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!

  • 38. 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.

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/44314_Glenn_Greenwald_Will_Speak_to_a_Koch-Funded_Event_Named_After_a_Pro-Lynching_Racist_Dixiecrat_Congressman


Leave a Comment

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

Required

Required, hidden

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed