Drones The Daily Banter

Greenwald: ‘Drone Apologists’ and ‘Democratic Partisans’ Are Racists

My Tuesday column. Once more into the fray:

Glenn Greenwald’s ongoing crusade against anyone who dares to see nuance in the debate over targeted killings and the war on terrorism has risen to a not-so-surprising new level. Namely, Americans who oppose targeted killings of American citizens on American soil, but who also support the targeted killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki are racists. Furthermore, Greenwald made it perfectly clear yesterday that if anyone sees civil liberties and war powers as dual priorities in this area, and drone hysteria as a secondary distraction, they’re simply drone apologists.

Now, if you’ve read any of my articles over the years, you’d know that I have a fairly well-tuned racism radar. I’m not afraid to point it out when I see it, and I think I have the education and expertise to recognize it, even when it’s insidiously covert. But it’s a huge stretch to call the disparity between support for the killing of Al-Awlaki in 2011 and the less enthusiastic support for domestic drone strikes in 2013 as racism. Greenwald is over-reaching times a thousand — taking an extreme posture (again) as a means of scolding and shaming anyone who doesn’t exist within his conspiratorial neo-left/libertarian clique. I’ll get into the ultimate in Greenwald shaming at the end of this post.

First, let’s look at the polling he cited. Greenwald began by citing a new Gallup poll showing that Americans by a margin of 52-41 oppose the targeted killing of U.S. citizens who are suspected terrorists. [continue reading here]

  • D_C_Wilson

    I wonder if Greenwald considers the Union soldiers at Fort Sumtner racists because they didn’t give the Condfederat soldiers a trial before returning fire.

  • zirgar

    I once saw a Twitter “debate” where Greenwald accused someone of homophobia for simply tweeting that Greenwald chooses to live in Brazil. The only way I could see how he made that leap was, now follow this closely, since Greenwald is gay and he can only be with the person he loves by being with him in Brazil, it therefore is not a choice, and to call it a choice is to trivialize his experience, hence any focus on him living in Brazil is an indictment of his homosexuality, ergo, the tweeter was a homophobe. *facepalm* Pretzel logic par excellence!

    *Greenwald himself offered no explanation for why or how he connected homophobia to the other person for merely pointing out that he is an ex patriot, so I did that all myself. I guess it’s right. It’s the only connection I could find in the whole mess.*

    • D_C_Wilson

      This is why I stopped reading anything by Greenwald years ago. His use of ad hominem attacks is right on par with any Fox host.

  • mrbrink

    The polling he’s groping for is hilarious. Greenwald’s extrapolations border on mental asphyxiation. The whole ‘Democratic partisans are just anti-Muslim racists’ is the all too typical style of Greenwald who uses the whole fucking roll of duct tape to thoroughly plug every last air hole.

    First of all, that polling is all over the place, but when you ask Americans if it’s cool for the government to kill “Americans citizens” and they say no, I’m just a little bit skeptical. We strap American citizens to chairs and electrocute them– while we watch behind glass. Shit-kicking Governors sign stacks of death certificates. We let corporations poison our food, land, air, and water. Health insurance companies have been sentencing American citizens to death for years. Our last president proudly tortured captive human beings to death as a matter of public policy. Yeah, sure, Americans don’t want to kill “American citizens” but we’ll kill the shit out of each other for that $39 DVD player, or that $20 dollars in the register.

    Greenwald speaking of everybody’s All-American American: “From a legal and constitutional perspective… Al-Awlaki was every bit as much of an American citizen as the nice couple down the street.” Fuck outta here. Al-Awlaki did not vote, pay taxes, or contribute anything but threats of violence and encourage acts of violence as an effective field general in a low budget war on innocent people, all while protecting himself surrounded by other innocent people.

    Greenwald seems to think the President can just pick a name out of the fucking yellow pages and order a drone killing on some unaccountable whim. If Greenwald is ever targeted for a drone strike, it’s only because the CIA, FBI, State Department, Pentagon, NATO, Mossad, the UN, motherfucking 007 and his own Mudda couldn’t get to him, or convince him to turn himself in like that nice couple down the street would most certainly do. Fuck head.

    But for me, I think Greenwald using the Politico headline to insinuate that normal human beings who do not treat drone policy like a fucking Ouija board at a 13 year old’s sleepover party are well represented by motherfucking Politico is the soggy bottom piece of bread in his soft serve shit sandwich.

    • JMAshby

      I’ve never lived “down the street” from anyone who bought plane tickets for the 9/11 hijackers or recruited the underwear bomber. At least not to my knowledge. I have however lived next door to people who vote Republican even though they know Republican policy is bad for them all because they hate niggers (their words).

      Hence I moved north to Ohio.

      • mrbrink

        Ohio is better for it. I hope you are too.

    • i_a_c

      No fucking shit. We kill Americans all the time, due process or none. Yet an al-Qaeda officer launching armed attacks against his own country is the centerpiece of Greenwald’s “gubmint bad” rants. Fuck that. Greenwald exalts Rand Paul who would let corporations kill whomever they want or discriminate as they please in the name of Teh Free Market. Spare me the faux outrage over his BFF Anwar.