While I found the New York Magazine profile of Glenn Greenwald enlightening, I couldn’t help but notice Glenn deploys a secret weapon when attacking the logic of the Trump-Russia investigation: specious logic of his own.
Glenn’s general thesis is laid out here:
I largely agree with this. I see liberals, Democrats, progressives, and members of “The Resistance” allowing way too much of their focus & energy to be swept up by Trump-Russia mania -- particularly when there are many more worthy battles to fight. I also believe, however, that confronting the existing power structure and believing in the Mueller investigation (whatever his ultimate findings may be) are not mutually exclusive notions.
When Greenwald tries to bolster his argument, it goes off the logical rails for me:
In arguing that the story is a red herring, he seems to be relying on a...red herring.
He does appear to have a proclivity for cherry picking extreme comments from anonymous accounts and projecting it upon the entire “Democratic orthodoxy”.
And he goes back to that well quite a bit:
And again...
Ok this one is kinda funny...
But at the end of the day, this obsession with the “Kremlin agent” mantra does a disservice to Glenn’s larger goals of refocusing attention to the rot in current power structures, the corrupt two party system, rampant imperialism, and an expanding police state. It seems he's too often preoccupied with propping up twitter trolls as representative of the "establishment" and fighting with them.
Answer Me This
Do you buy Greenwald’s larger argument that the investigation is a red herring? If so, do you think he’s going about it in the most effective manner?
|| @bubbleboy ||
