#rsrh Glenns Greenwalds are whining again.

Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds notes – not publicly gleefully – that Glenns Greenwalds are very upset.  It seems that Greenwalds are bothered by the fact that while it was apparently OK to call Reynolds evil for endorsing a targeted assassination program against Iranian nuclear weapons engineers and terrorist-enabling mullahs, it’s apparently not OK for Obama to be criticized for effectively signing off on such a program.  It’s apparently even worse to publicly approve of Ron Paul’s Israel views when compared to Barack Obama’s.  Poor Greenwalds are feeling aggrieved. And betrayed. And scorned.

In order:

  • It’s of course not particularly evil to advocate the assassination of either group mentioned above.  Anybody who argues that the Iranian regime is not incredibly inclined to use a nuke on Israel is either: abysmally ignorant of the history of the region for the last forty years or so; almost cripplingly naive; or kind of wanting to see a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv (or having the threat of same break the Israeli state once and for all).  I leave it to the reader to decide which group best fits Greenwalds.  And, of course: telling people to go out and blow up random civilians kind of leaves you open to having the same thing done to you, only by professionals with better aim and a stricter code of ethics*.
  • The reason why Greenwalds and other virulently anti-Israeli progressives are being criticized and ostracized by marginally saner Democrats and liberals is because SHUT UP DOG YOU WILL BARK ON THE COMMAND OF YOUR BETTERS.  I don’t have to explain this, right?  The anti-war movement is aware that they’re not expected to think, talk, and especially act unless it’s to benefit a Democrat, yes?  Surely nobody’s that stupid… oh.  Right.
  • Lastly: upset at being stuck in the box until the next Republican President, Greenwalds? Well, that’s what you get for being crazy people**.

Moe Lane

*We will now pause while some benighted antiwar progressive attempts to use this post to equate me to a fanatical Wahhabi lunatic who tells other fanatical Wahhabi lunatics that it’s all right to randomly detonate explosives in civilian areas.  It should be entertaining to read, although probably the lack of a spell check key on the keyboard will provide the usual obstacle to comprehensibility.

**Read the article for the reason for that fairly gratuitous slam, which was meant with malice aforethought.


  • Rob Crawford says:

    “I leave it to the reader to decide which group best fits Greenwalds.”
    Hint: Matt Hale.
    (Oh, sure everyone’s entitled to a defense lawyer. But the Glenns didn’t act as his defense in a criminal case, but rather as his mouthpiece in suits Hale started.)

  • BigGator5 says:

    People say a Independent Ron Paul run would hurt the GOP. I respectfully disagree. Greenwald’s post makes the case for me.

  • Wombat-socho says:

    Who care what Gleenward say?

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com