Greenwald's Apologetics

I've seen enough of Greenwald's -- and others' -- apologetics on behalf of Omidyar and his New Media Venture First Look and on behalf of those employed by it to be a little bit sickened to slog through one of them again. Greenwald is even more prolix than I am, and he is known for being less than forthcoming. Marcy Wheeler has also issued a statement. There are apparently several others out there, but I'll stick with Greenwald for now.

Background

As a lot of people seem to know -- but many are blissfully oblivious, may they remain at peace! -- Mark Ames over at Pando, one of America's most inveterate Big (enough) Media journalists, a muck-raker of muck-rakers, and all around bon vivant terrible, posted a piece yesterday at Pando in which he pointed to documentary evidence that was apparently quite easy to find that Pierre Omidyar, through his Omidyar Network, has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Ukrainian opposition that recently succeeded in overthrowing the Yanukovych regime in Kiev.

Omidyar's efforts were aligned with those of a plethora of State Department agencies and activists, NGOs and foundations which together poured millions and millions of dollars into the Yanukovych opposition, providing abundant financial support at the very least. The CIA has also long been rumored to be a part of the funding and support mix keeping the protests going and eventually enabling the end of Yanukovych's rather inept rule.

The fact of direct American involvement in funding the Ukrainian opposition is hardly a surprise, as these things are going on all over the world all the time, and they have a long and brutal history. The surprise, if there is one, is Omidyar's direct funding of opposition groups to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. So far as I've seen, no other billionaire is directly funding the opposition in Ukraine.

Ames said he was clued to look into the matter of outside funding of Ukrainian opposition groups by a series of tweets by Marcy Wheeler which mentioned coups and dark or deep forces and American financial and other backing...

And shortly he found documentary evidence of Omidyar funding of Ukrainian opposition groups in the archives of one of those groups. You can find just about anything online if you look hard enough, eh?

Ames suggested that there might be a journalistic conflict of interest, hmmmm, if Omidyar is funding oppositions while his stable of journalists are... ignorant?

Hard to say.

At any rate, after stonewalling yesterday, both Greenwald and Wheeler have "responded" to the Ames piece with what can only be called Apologetics, and like the Catholic kind, one can believe them or not, but it is difficult or impossible to argue with them, for they ultimately rely on Faith Alone.

GREENWALD

I shall now attempt to do a running commentary on Greenwald's response. (Italicised segments are my paraphrases of Greenwald's statement at the Intercept.)

A. Intro. I just found out about this 30 minutes ago, sorry I haven't responded before now. I don't follow Twitter all the time, you know.

1. This would be called a "dodge" in any rational situation, as the story was posted many hours before someone apparently alerted him to it, and Wheeler had been furiously Twittering with Paul Carr for hours already over it. To suggest that Greenwald hadn't been alerted earlier than "30 minutes ago" is disingenuous at best. 

B. I have not spoken to anyone, not Pierre or anyone else in the world about this matter...

1. "Spoken" maybe not, but there is always Twitter and various other communications media that don't require one to "speak"  with whomever one is communicating. To say he hasn't "spoken" says nothing about other forms of communications.

C. I barely know what this is all about, but I'll try to address this and other issues I feel are important. 

1.  "I had no prior knowledge..." (h/t Tanya Harding) A classic dodge. Lawyers and politicians use it all the time. "You've caught me unawares, I know so very little, but if you'll permit me, I'll attempt to respond to your questions one at a time, and if you'll allow me to, I'll make a statement about what I believe is really important here."

D. While I literally know nothing about this article, in five minutes on the Google Machine, I discovered that this supposed Bombshell about Omidyar's funding of a Ukrainian opposition group was already long since made public because the investment was announced on the Omidyar Network website years ago. So obviously there's no story here. Move along.

1. Uh, "investment?" Ok then, so if this was an investment, one would assume earnings -- a return on investment, no? How, exactly, would that work? Oh, never mind.
2. A grant is not an "investment," but in classic Greenwald style, he conflates the two, at one point referring to an "investment" and in the very next paragraph referring to a $3 million "grant" that covers the same thing as his previous "investment."  This is a form of trickery called "sleight of hand," in which terms get deliberately jumbled so that later he can say with a straight face, "I don't know what you are referring to."

E. I am as concerned as anyone else with the financial dealings of corporations and billionaires who fund journalistic enterprises, really, I am, but in this case, it doesn't look to me like the Omidyar Network is ashamed of funding this (single) Ukrainian opposition outfit. Look! They announced it years ago for all the world to see! Hardly hiding it at all.

1. This is both disingenuous and nonresponsive as nobody claims they were ashamed of it or trying to hide it. The fact that a grant (or was it an "investment?" You decide) was announced in a 2011 press release and detailed on a website doesn't indicate anything about how well it was publicized. But that isn't the issue. 

F. I am so confused! What is the "scandal" here? I thought just 72 hours ago EVERYONE was on the side of the opposition. Now we're not supposed to be? When did this change come about? And why in Heaven's Name should First Look be expected to respond to this nothingburger? I didn't support the opposition. Really. In fact, I was called a "Putin Shill" for NOT supporting the rebellion. I'm on your side. Really.

1. Nonresponsive, disingenuous, and distractive. The issue is not that this is a "scandal" but that it is potentially important that a billionaire who is funding a New Media venture is also backing opposition efforts in foreign lands. It has nothing to do with whether Greenwald supports the Ukrainian coup or not. It's not about him in that respect.

G. I am so hurt! My life is in danger! I've been accused of being a criminal by no less than a Congressman of the United States of America! I take these things very seriously! Now I am being accused of not being on the right side of the Ukrainian uprising! This is not fair! This is not right! This will not stand! I put my life on the line, and everyone I work with is a fierce critic of government and corporations, and I will not have you accuse me of being a CIA tool! Stop it!

1.  Nonresponsive, disingenuous, distractive, irrelevant. This is what's known as "grandstanding." It has nothing -- at all -- to do with the article in question, it's merely Greenwald's plea for attention. In fact, Ames never mentions the CIA. We may have to come back to this erm... slip... later.

H. I had no prior knowledge of Omidyar funding of this previously unheard of Ukrainian opposition group, really, I didn't, even though any journalist worth the name should have been able to find it because it was all public and shit and they weren't trying to hide it or anything. I didn't know because I didn't care, I'm a perfessional. It has nothing to do with me. So why would I care? Huh?

1. Typical dodge, but it points to something that, if true, should be worrisome. Basically, Greenwald is using "Lawyer Ethics" -- he'll work for anyone who pays him, and he won't ask questions. That's not journalism. Far from it. The question here is whether he's telling the truth, because if he has never looked into the backgrounds and ties of any of his current/former employers, then he isn't doing even rudimentary due diligence. Or did he, as Alexa O'Brien so elegantly put it, "He fucking lied."

I. No one can tell me what to do! No one! No one! No one! I am INDEPENDENT!!!!! I report what I want to report!!!! Leave me alone! 

1. Irrelevant, nonresponsive, juvenile. 'Nough said.

J. I know you are but what am I? Neener, neener, neener. 

1. Juvenile, puerile, strawman, horseshit. Here Greenwald is accusing Ames, who he refuses to name, of being just like him, unaffected by the "repugnant" views of the of the media outlets they work for. So there. The problem is, Ames hasn't accused Greenwald or anyone else of being "affected," by their employer's political views. That's not the point.

K. I'm not a stooge for the government!

1.   Nobody said he was. But since he's so sensitive to the accusation that isn't made, maybe somebody should look into it...

L.  Everyone who's anyone works for the Oligarchs now, buster, even you, so don't you get on your high horse with me! Even the ACLU gets Soros money. Soros! Soros! Soros!

1.  Irrelevant. Ames has always been very up front about the investors in Pando, and their roles with the organization; Greenwald has always feigned ignorance and/or been evasive when asked about Omidyar and his actual role in First Look. Basically, he won't answer about Omidyar, but he seems to know plenty about the funders of other organizations while claiming to know and care nothing about Omidyar.

M. I'm not responsible for Pierre!!!!

1.   Nobody said you were!!!! Why are you yelling!!!!!

N. Money makes the world go around, the world go around, the world go around.

1. We know. Thank you for sharing.

O. Ames [Whose name I shall not utter, no, no, no, you cannot make me!!!] is a LIAR. I don't have "exclusive access" to the Snowden Hoard. Others have lots of docs too, it's not just ME!!!! LIAR!!!!

1.  Lie. Ames says that he and Poitras have the only "complete" sets of Snowden Docs, something Greenwald has on other occasions acknowledged, but here he implies that Ames claims that Greenwald and Poitras are the only journalists with any of them, but that's simply, obviously and grossly false. Greenwald has done this on other occasions as well when people say he and Poitras have the only "complete" sets of Snowden Docs. He lies and claims they are saying he and Poitras have the only  Snowden docs. Both Greenwald and Poitras are also employed by Omidyar. The issue in dispute is whether Omidyar has access to the documents. Greenwald denies it, but we have only his word to rely on. And that word is... decide for yourself...

P. My history speaks for itself! I don't approve of US Government interference in the business of other countries. I don't know anything about Ukrainia, I don't know anything about Pierre's funding of the Ukrainan opposition, and I DON'T CARE!!!!! 

1.  Note the dodge here: he is opposed to government interference in the affairs of other nations, but he has nothing to say about private foundations or individuals interfering. Nope. Not a word. 

Q. Pierre lets me do and say whatever I want! You can't stop me! And you better not try!

1.   Juvenile, nonresponsive. Tiresome. Has nothing to do with the topic of Omidyar funding of Ukrainian opposition.

 -----------------------------------------------------------
This is typical of Greenwald's defenses and apologetics. It's mostly about something other than the issue at hand, and when the actual topic is addressed, the answer is basically, "I don't care about anything but ME."

That's long been his answer to everything. What about MEEEE?
-----------------------------------------------------------

Oh snap! Paul Carr, Pando editor, responds to Greenwald's apologetics.

Should Glenn Greenwald ever find himself curious as to what his boss is up to, he can rest assured the answers will always be found right here on Pando.

The whole thing is kind of precious. But I realize that Twit Wars and pissing contests bore a whole lot of people who have actual lives to lead... ;-)

Stalemate in Ukraine, As Everyone Stands Around Blinking; "Pierre" Helped Fund Coup

"They say" Russian troops are "occupying" key facilities in the Crimea, but there is no confirmation, as the troops on view have no identifying markings and they're not saying anything. I follow updates on the Beeb, not because they're even remotely "evenhanded," but because they are extensive.

Here's a portion of today's live updates:

1. Welcome to our live page on the developing crisis in Crimea - Ukraine's only Russian-majority region and the home of Russia's Black Sea fleet.
   Men in Russian military uniforms are blockading a military airport in the Black Sea port of Sevastopol. Meanwhile, men in military uniform without national insignia are patrolling an airport in the Crimean capital Simferopol.
2. Ukraine's newly appointed Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said in a Facebook post that the Belbek international airport in Sevastopol is blocked by military units of the Russian navy, calling it a "military invasion and occupation.''
3. The Interfax news agency reports that Russian servicemen wearing helmets and armoured body protection and backed by armoured personnel carriers, have taken up position on the perimeter of a military airport at Sevastopol. The agency quoted military sources in the region as saying that they had gone to Belbek military airport to stop "fighters" flying in.
4. A spokesman for the airport in Simferopol has told the Interfax Ukraine news agency that it is operating normally despite the presence of the armed men filmed patrolling it.
5. 07:53:
   Russian President Vladimir Putin has also ordered his government to continue talks with Ukraine on economic and trade relations and to consult foreign partners including the IMF and the G8 on financial aid, a statement on the Kremlin's website said. It also said Putin has ordered the government to consider a request from Crimea for humanitarian aid.
6. 07:58:
   It is not the only crisis facing the new Ukranian government: its currency, the hryvnia, has slumped to an all-time low. The IMF has said it is ready to step in and will send a team in the coming days to assess the economic situation, but Ukraine's finance ministry has warned it needs help urgently - and 35 billion dollars over the next two years to avoid defaulting on its debt.

Seems everyone is standing around blinking and drinking tea and waiting for someone else to do something. Frau Merkel is strangely absent.

Meanwhile, Mark Ames over at Pando has uncovered the rather handsome funding the Omidyar Network has been providing the rebels in Kiev, hardly surprising when you think about it. Billionaires and oligarchs and plutocrats are gonna do what they do, and one of the things they do is synchronize governments all over the world to their bidding. As Ames notes, this is not a new phenomenon, as George Soros was deeply involved in the Color Revolutions of Eastern Europe.

Nevertheless, knowing this man is partially funding the Kiev uprising is kind of icky. Since, so far, the rebels have gotten away with it, and their sponsors are pumping their fists and issuing threats all over the place, one can only wonder which plutocrat - desired and funded rebellion/coup will be next. Venezuela is already in the crosshairs, but many others are in process.

The other thing is that Pierre's funding is combined with that of USAID (also very active in Venezuela) and so serves the combined interests of the US Government and the Billionaire's Boy's Club, and Pierre is also funding all sorts of NGOs active in the rebellion.

There will be blowback, but this is a new chapter in the overthrow of recalcitrant governments and the installation of more compliant ones.

But they still call it "democracy" so it's all good.

Mark Ames Explains It All For You

"Yeah, but... what do we do about it?"

One of the most often heard complaints about Greenwald's longstanding rage against government -- almost never corporate -- abuses of power is his determined failure to provide any course of action or recommendations for effective remedy.

Which is not to say he hasn't provided any outlets for frustration, far from it. He's been instrumental in setting up or participating in all sorts of supposed political action outfits, and is always encouraging donations to them as a means of Being Effective Against The Man, but exactly what they accomplish is subject to dispute. Certainly the very expensive efforts engaged in to bring down Blanche Lincoln and Joe Lieberman didn't accomplish what was being touted by a long shot. For the most part, Greenwald simply demurred when asked what he thought should be or could be done about all the many things he was OUTRAGED!!!!!™ about.

Mark Ames now at Pando.com has few qualms about either raging at The Man or suggesting remedies for the many OUTRAGES!!!!!™ We, the People endure at the whims of Our Betters.

In his latest, he runs through some of the less-known history of the NSA and previous revelations about its, erm... overreach.

Actually, I knew a bit of it, but he goes into much more detail than I was aware of previously. It's not so much surprising as it is confirmational and disheartening.

These agencies are rotten to the core, steeped in their own Original Sin and so far as can be determined, they cannot be reformed.

The Report I read in the days leading up to Christmas makes many, many recommendations about how to reform the NSA and other agencies that have overreached but it never suggests that the powers which have been assumed by them should be abolished. Instead, the recommendations are to transfer them to more appropriate locations within the surveillance state apparatus or outside it to a private entity.

This, as Ames points out, has been done before, only to later discover that the Hydra has regrown its heads and is more powerful and invasive than ever.

So, what to do about it?

Unfortunately, this time Ames has no solution -- nor much snark about it, either.

He's as stumped as anyone else.

So what happened to the abolitionists?