The Alpha Sigma Sigma House

Why is it that one of the most important qualifications for being a righty is to be, well, an ass?  As a group, they invariably turn out to be rude, condescending, nasty, and unpleasant, especially when they’re wrong.  No wonder Rush Limbaugh is on his fourth wife; who could ever live with these people?  A fat, nebbishy nincompoop named Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic has gotten his plus-size panties in a bunch over some quite valid criticism from my favorite blogger, Glenn Greenwald at Salon, and popped off in the usual cowardly way that chickenhawks do: war via keyboard.  The results aren’t so pretty:

It turns out that the left-wing commentator Glenn Greenwald doesn’t like me (who knew?). In a rather long posting, he accuses me of many different sins, mainly, though not exclusively, having to do with my early support for the Iraq war, and for my reporting from pre-invasion Iraqi Kuridstan. (Greenwald has always been vehemently opposed to the invasion.)

So he starts right off obtusely saying, like a four-year old, that that “left-wing,”  long-winded Greenwald, for no apparent reason, just “doesn’t like me.”  Well, boo f*ucking hoo.  You say obnoxious, false, and asinine things in print; what’s to like?  And he manages, unconvincingly, to imply that Greenwald is some nobody anyway, even though he’s clearly smarter, much more highly regarded, and, well, more in touch with reality than ol’ Goldberg, and also lacks Goldberg’s lengthy and unblemished record of wrongness.


As it happens, I was e-mailing yesterday with the prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan, Barham Salih, and I mentioned Greenwald’s critique. I explained that Greenwald believes the invasion was a criminal act, to which Salih responded by asking if Greenwald had ever visited Iraqi Kurdistan. I said I didn’t know, not having too much contact with him, on account of him hating me. So Salih asked me to extend an invitation to Greenwald to visit Iraqi Kurdistan. So, Glenn, you are hereby invited to visit Iraqi Kurdistan. I’m happy to go with you (I’m actually a  pretty good travel companion — even Matt Yglesias says that I can be both “funny” and “charming,” though, to be fair, he also says I can be “dangerous” and “inaccurate”). But if you didn’t want to go with me, I’m sure I can find someone to go with you.

This paragraph smells so strongly of ass that I would only recommend it to the constipated, to be read on the toilet.  First, the bragging:  ”I emailed real Iraqis, nyeah nyeah.”  Then the fake best friend speaks up, then the completely fabricated offer, and then the insulting remark that Greenwald supposedly couldn’t find a traveling companion with the unfortunate but telling accidental admission that it’s Goldberg who has to beg people to ride with him on an elevator.  Glenn has a husband, fatso, and by the way, the Iraq invasion was illegal, and is seen as such by the majority of humanity.


The prime minister said we could invite Kurds from different political parties and media outlets to  a big, public forum, and Glenn could explain to them his position that the invasion was immoral, and the Kurds could explain why they supported the invasion. (Of course, we would try to find some Kurds who opposed the invasion, and there are, indeed, some out there, to meet with Greenwald as well).  We would also be able to visit Halabja, and the other towns and villages affected by Saddam’s genocide, and I’m sure we could arrange meetings with other Kurdish leaders and dissidents.

It’s funny how righties always try to pose as humanitarians, when they will gladly toss humans into the meat grinder, and money down the toilet, for their pet wars, which kind of makes life crappy or over for many more people that it “helps.”  Remember Laura Bush and the plight of Afghan Women?  Me neither.  Goldberg is just a cynical piece of shit who cares less about Kurds that he does about any other brown-skinned human;  Saddam was indeed a monster, but he never managed to kill as many Americans as, say, George W. Bush, who was, back in the day, Goldberg’s hero.


Obviously, I think this is a good idea, because I view the subject of Iraq as a complicated one, and I think that Greenwald has an overly simplistic, black-and-white view of the situation.  If he were to meet with representatives of the Kurds — who make up 20 percent of the population of Iraq and who were the most oppressed group in Iraq during the period of Saddam’s rule (experiencing not only a genocide but widespread chemical gassing) — I think it might be possible for him to understand why some people — even some Iraqis — supported the overthrow of Saddam. Also, as a bonus, I’m reasonably sure we could meet with Kurdish intelligence officials who could explain to him why they believe Saddam was secretly supporting an al Qaeda-affiliated Kurdish extremist group, and, if we have time, I could also arrange a visit to Najaf or the equivalent, where Greenwald could meet with representatives of the Shi’a, who also took it on the chin from Saddam.

This is where just being an ass descends into being a complete idiot with a lampshade on your head and a wet spot on the front of your trousers.  The bouncers are assuredly coming to get you when you, in 2010, claim that Saddam was involved with Al Qaeda.  Better yet, in Goldberg’s world, the rise of the Shi’a, which brought with it the rise of religious extremism in Iraq and directly led to the triumph of Shiite Iran in the region was all good, too.  Can a person be dumber and more self-contradictory than that and still be, pardon the expression, “toilet trained?”  As for the usual straw man arguments the pervade Goldberg’s thin and embarrassing tirade, saying Greenwald somehow fails to see how “complicated” the Iraq situation is is perhaps the most pathetic.  Greenwald, like every other sentient, “simplistic” human on earth, knew that Iraq would be a costly, pointless disaster, and it is, in spades, whether the Kurds are marginally and temporarily happier at the moment or not.


This is a sincere offer from a very important Kurdish official, and I hope Glenn Greenwald takes it seriously.

Why?  It isn’t serious.  The worst thing for the portly and pampered Goldberg would be that Greenwald takes him up on it, which I’m pretty sure he will.  That’s when Goldberg will pull a Sarah Palin (minus the cute) and back out and blame Greenwald.  I’ve seen this movie many, many, times.

12 Comments

  1. …what’s to lik?

    Omigod. Let’s not go there. ;-)

  2. nailheadtom says:

    “The bouncers are assuredly coming to get you when you, in 2010, claim that Saddam was involved with Al Qaeda.”
    ______________________

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

    http://www.nysun.com/foreign/saddam-al-qaeda-did-collaborate-documents-show/29746/

    http://husseinandterror.com/

    • cocktailhag says:

      Oh, for Pete’s sake, Tom. I guess part of being a righty is being a gullible fool.

    • avelna says:

      Buddy, even your hero GWB had to finally admit that there was no collaboration between Saddam and Al Qaeda. You’re just plain delusional.

  3. mikeinportc says:

    ….. having to do with my early support for the Iraq war,…

    Full stop! Right there! That’s enough , by itself, for lifetime of discredit and disgrace. ( However long it lasts, it will be more than thousands of Americans, and 1M+ Iraqis had, or the ~ 1.2M orphans had their parents, or the maimed had their health and wholeness.)

    “…experiencing not only a genocide but widespread chemical gassing)…”

    Facilitated by “intelligence” from ………, well,……us. ( Bush the Elder’s administration). Re Halabja, guess who got 100k in aid, the next day(!), with every relevant official, including the Pres., knowing full well what happened. Yeah, we care so much for the Kurds.

    Buddy, even your hero GWB had to finally admit that there was no collaboration between Saddam and Al Qaeda. You’re just plain delusional.

    I knew that at least 15 years ago. Bushco knew it too. AQ tried to assasinate Saddam, multiple times . They hated each other. AQ first attacked US targets because we were supporting Saddam. (The first was a mistaken attack on mostly Australian tourists, in Yemen. All those furriners look alike, don’t they?)

    “…Traitor to Islam.
    …Apostate Regime….
    …Bad Muslim….
    etc.,etc.

    And that^ is…….? A: Insults,mostly gratuitous, hurled at Saddam & the Baathists, by The Evil One, in those videos we couldn’t see , because it might be a signal to the Terra-ists . ( The above is the real reason, IMHO. Would’ve made it harder to sell the attack on Iraq.)

  4. rmp says:

    Greenwald makes it so easy for members of the WH Press Corps and other national security pundits to attack the damage and ridiculous logic perpetrated by Goldberg and his fellow slugs. Yet they remain silent and give these slugs time on TV to let their crap flow. They know they are no longer practicing journalism and that to stop the crap they would have to abandon political pandering and stenography. They would rather feed their egos and pocketbooks than serve the American people and the oppressed around the world.

    • rmp says:

      Right after commenting, I found this in Salon’s War Room:

      “Neutral” journalism can’t die fast enough: We’d all be better off if reporters simply acknowledged their biases and disclosed them to their audiences
      http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/06/29/neutral_journalism_reporters/index.html

      • cocktailhag says:

        Well said, especially the part about coming out about one’s biases. (Which could only lead to a discussion of why the WaPoo has 20 righties and three lefties…)

        • dirigo says:

          So, what are the parameters of the “American narrative” – nearly sixty-five years after World War II, almost forty years after the end of the Vietnam War, and about ten years after the start of the Afghan campaign (described just the other day as the “ignored” war by an MSM writer)?

          Hey! How about we take a deep breath and redefine the great story to go beyond war, guns, and all that?

          Now would be a good time.

          • dirigo says:

            “There’s a difference between beginning to pull out and switching off the lights. And it is conditions-based.”

            – Sen. Claire McCaskill
            – (D) Missouri
            – Member, Armed Services Committee
            – Interview, Hardball/MSNBC, 6/29/10

            Well, yes, Claire! But I’ve got a headache, and I’ve got a pressing deadline tomorrow. Not tonight, honey. Please.

            Of course, I love you !!!