I’m a little late coming to this party, but in an article from 2-19 in Salon, Glenn Greenwald takes issue with Jonah Goldberg regarding comments in NRO’s The Corner, where he promotes reading of Dana Priests articles on the execrable conditions at Building 18 at Walter Reed, but opines that he’s wary of Priest’s motives:
I don’t trust Dana Priest that much, and I am suspicious of some of possible motives behind the series, so with those caveats in mind, I still think the Post’s series (See here and here ) on what some of our wounded troops go through is must-reading. Hospitals for vets returning from the front should be palaces and the last thing in the world any of them deserve are bureaucratic hassles. Though I should say that I’ve visited wounded troops and from my very limited experience they are surrounded by people who really do care.
Among the outlandish suggestions that Goldberg makes is that perhaps Fox ought to pull Geraldo Rivera from covering matters related to Anna Nicole so as to focus on the story. Greenwald supposes that this means that, in Wingnut World, only someone affiliated with Fox will be seen as carrying sufficient authority to be regarded as reliable.
Greenwald argues that the lesson of Goldberg’s reaction to Priest’s investigative pieces is that righties dismiss out of hand anything that doesn’t suit their narrative.
That pretty much sums up what has happened to our country for the last six years. Evidence and information which reflects poorly on the Leader is suspect because it comes from the likes of Dana Priest, and things cannot be believed until Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera—currently on “the Anna Nicole beat”—is able to look into things and tell us the real story.
In an update, he continues:
Jonah adds two updates to his original post in which he defends himself by asserting that Priest “has something of an agenda in my opinion”—without, as usual, bothering himself to provide any support whatsoever for that accusation. He does, though, bring himself to add: “I’m hardly the first person to raise such a complaint”—without identifying anyone who previously made such allegations against Priest and, again, without providing any actual rationale for the accusation.
What kind of a person publicly hurls accusations like that—that Priest’s reporting is suspect and untrustworthy because she’s driven by some secret “agenda”—without offering even the slightest basis or documentation to enable the reader to assess if the accusations are true? The reality is that Priest is an investigative reporter whose articles sometimes reflect poorly on the conduct of the Bush administration. That is enough to know that she cannot be “trusted”; by itself, that constitutes “proof” that she is burdened by an “agenda”.
In yet another update, he responds to readers who’ve stated that perhaps Goldberg means to bring attention to this issue, he does acknowledge that at least Goldberg provides links to the article, unlike the rest of the Wingers who ignore the story entirely. Still, the fact that he cites approvingly the anonymous email of someone claiming that 5% of wounded vets complain vocally about conditionsâ€â€anonymous email!â€â€demonstrates that it is Goldberg who in fact has an agenda.
That the Great Pseudonymizer would make such an issue of anonymity is just bizarre.
Conditions at Walter Reed are apparently not as they should be, and this should concern all of us. Goldberg probably wishes to draw attention to this fact on Fox, where it might have some impact on the behavior of viewers who genuinely want to support the troops. The idea that poor conditions at at least one of the facilities means that the Bush administration has inflicted neglect upon the patients certainly plays to Greenwald’s readership at Salon, but hardly seems likely; I doubt the Decider has made any decisions affecting the facilities, and indeed it seems more likely the kind of thing that Congress might address than the Chimperor himself. I don’t see where Priest had to go to any extraordinary lengths to gain access when she traveled from DC to far-off Bethesda D.C. (thanks, Ric) to do the story. Certainly, part of Goldberg’s wariness regarding Dana Priest’s motives may have something to do with his knowledge of her associations. Perhaps he suspects that Priest hopes her readers will make the very leap of judgment that Greenwald does. Perhaps conditions at Walter Reed suggest what we might be able to expect from a national health service.
Everyone brings his or her “worldview†(alphie) to the table in framing any issue, and in the case of the politically inclined, this tends to take the form of ideology. The idea that Greenwald’s view is non-ideological because he believes that it is centrist is absurd. The defining story, not too different when you get down to it from the redemption narratives of fundamentalist Christians, is that he and Sullivan used to be associated with the conservative right, but that the Neocons moved so far to the right that they were abandoned to their present positions. In other words, they have remained true to their principles, like Julius Caesar in Shakespeare’s play:
“I am constant as the northern star,
Of whose true-fix’d and resting quality
There is no fellow in the firmament.”
–From Julius Caesar (III, i, 60 – 62)
So, in other words, they are the mirror versions me, whose journey to wingnuthood was precipitated by the absurdities of ivory tower multiculturalism. It is a narrative of authenticity, not having any probative value per se, but in his story, Greenwald, who would like so many people to admit so many things, continues to fail to cop to the sockpuppeting. Instead, this paragon of objectivity goes out of his way, whenever possible, to go after Reynolds and others whom he considers right-wing, for (in Greenwald’s view) donning the mantle of centrism and preening himself on it. Of course, this is just the mantle that Greenwald would like to claim for himself, and in fact the overriding agenda of all of Greenwald’s writing is to claim that his views comprise the centrist position in American politics, voters be damned, unless their opinions happen to agree with yours.
As far as the rhetorical question, “What kind of a person publicly hurls accusations” regarding another’s unspoken agenda, well, Glenn Greenwald, for one, and Dan Collins for another. That kind.
I stood upon a high place,
And saw, below, many devils
Running, leaping,
and carousing in sin.
One looked up, grinning,
And said, “Comrade! Brother!“
–Stephen Crane
In my opinion, anyone claiming to be “centrist” is suspect until proven otherwise. In fact, anyone with a non-centrist ideology has a strong reason, if so inclined, to try to portray opponents as extreme.
Far more candid to own up to the ideology and show why it is valid and others not, than to pretend to be “above” such considerations while attacking only one end of the political spectrum.
Reynolds has been highly critical of right-wing people when called for, as has our Jeff. Has Greenwad ever been equally critical of left-wingers?
<snicker> Oops.
Dan,
It’s even easier: Walter Reed hospital is entirely with DC’s borders. Though the aged facility is–or is expected–to close, and shift to new construction on the grounds of Bethesda’s naval medical center.
Cordially…
Everyone brings his or her “worldview†(alphie) to the table in framing any issue, and in the case of the politically inclined, this tends to take the form of ideology.
I suppose that’s true of the people who take their mental cues from “opinion leaders” Dan. Not everybody does, though.
It’s not hard to detect if someone’s “worldview” distorts their thinking.
1. Do they tell the truth?
2. Do they tell the whole story?
Pretty simple.
Works in court and punditry.
Too bad you fail on both counts alphie.
alphie,
I can only conclude that you are either God, or haven’t any appreciation for what I’m talking about, i.e. the provisionality of any human knowledge.
A myopic is technically right to point out that glasses distort one’s vision, but I’m not letting one drive my car.
I’m a new reader of Protein Wisdom. I’ve seen Greenwald referred to here several times as a “sockpuppet”, and here is “Great Pseudonymizer”. I know this is probably old hat for you guys, but when I use the search box, I can’t find an original post that gives the evidence supporting that characterization. Could you provide the link?
Thanks,
This is the best overview.
This oughta do it, sfH.
Dang it! Late again.
Our new friend posted a defense of Glenn here.
Some of this obviously has to do with different backgrounds assumed in the left and right side of the blogosphere. It seemed odd to me that anyone would expect Jonah Goldberg to justify every single appositive, as if something like “I don’t trust Dana Priest’s objectivity” is a surprising statement. Most of his readers (including me) probably didn’t flinch at all; if we’ve heard of Dana Priest, we’ve probably developed the same general impression of bias, and not bias in favor of the Pentagon (even if we couldn’t cite specific examples, which I can’t). We certainly wouldn’t have expected him to waste time justifying his skepticism; we haven’t world enough or time to waste on such trivialities.
In Greenwald’s world, though, that was probably a controversial thing to say. So he complained, probably partially because he needed something to be outraged about, but also because the line would have seemed jarring to him in a way that it wasn’t to me.
I completely agree with that, Steve. But Glenn doesn’t see himself as partisan, because of his privileged insight and greater rectitude.
At this site, we learn the following troubling news:
How is it that someone as acute and perceptive as Jack Murtha could have missed the evident signs of squalor and negligence at Walter Reed? Is he part of the cover-up? I bet Dana Priest is on the case and will very soon detail Murtha’s complicity in a no-holds-barred expose that should put paid to any discussion of her agenda.
That’s worth a post, happyfeet. Care to write it up?
I’ll give it a shot… is that email address @ earthlink good?
Yes, it is.
Hello happyfeet
Is there a distinction between the Med Facilities and Building 18?
From Wapo:
Are there protocols for visiting congressmen and has he seen Building 18 or just the Daily Miracle wing? The place is over 100 acres, so presumably there’re a lot of places to hide the bad from the curious.
(BTW my only expertise in this area comes from that M.A.S.H. episode where they kept Captain Tuttle a secret from the brass–I’m just asking).
That’s a good question, Themistocles. I say that the first step toward getting to the bottom of it will be posing that question, and others, such as, to whom have the inmates of Building 18 complained about their treatment? I would like to solicit communications from patients regarding their letters to the administration and their Representatives in Congress.
Agreed Dan.
I am a little unclear about this bit here, but assuming it is correct, and not to denigrate the wounded, but this number seems astonishingly low based on my experiences with hospitals.
Yes, B Moe, but that’s assuming something that an unnamed source, which I’m sure Dana Priest has never used, is reliable. Sockpuppets, now–they’re reliable.
Saw these laws somewhere else::
1. People are stupid and lazy
2. People working in government bureaucracies do not have incentive to overperform.
Speaking as a former military health care soldier and even a patient at WRAMC, please keep this story in mind when those on the left say they want government run health care.
Dan – what I could put together is in your inbox – please edit in part or discard in whole as you see fit –
And because socks come in pairs, with both left and right.
Pablo wins the thread.
Not to mention soldiers.
Another success of Al Gore’s “reinventing government”.
I’m sure the money meant for out military went to a good cause though.