Re: [Marxism] The Mueller Report: Glenn Greenwald vs. David Cay Johnston on Trump-Russia Ties, Obstruction & More
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * I agree with Michael Karadjis that Trump views China rather than Russia as the major rival to US imperialism. But this does not exclude some rivalry and conflict between the US and Russia. An example is US anger over Turkey's decision to buy S-400 missiles from Russia. Michael dismisses the idea that Turkey would try to invade northeastern Syria. But Turkey's invasion of Afrin shows its determination to crush the democratic experiment in northern and eastern Syria. A Turkish invasion of northeastern Syria can not be ruled out. Turkey would have to consider Russia's reaction to such an invasion. While Russia gave permission for the Afrin invasion, it would not necessarily do so for northeastern Syria. Russia seems to prefer a negotiated agreement between Assad and the Democratic Autonomous Administration. It could use the threat of allowing a Turkish invasion as a tactic to pressure the DAA to accept a bad deal. Chris Slee From: mkaradjis Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2019 12:41:13 PM To: Chris Slee; Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition Subject: Re: [Marxism] The Mueller Report: Glenn Greenwald vs. David Cay Johnston on Trump-Russia Ties, Obstruction & More Actually I think the Mueller report shows that Trump was up to his eyeballs in collaboration with the Russian Tsars, and I’m not sure why there has been a rush to exonerate him on the left, when the report clearly does not do that at all. Just to make clear, I don’t think Trump’s election victory had much to do with the obvious attempts by Russia to interfere in the US elections, the obvious and proven collusion by Trump and his entire team with the Russians, and wikileaks blatant collaboration with Trump-Putin – I agree entirely with all the points that Trump won because of Clinton and the failures of US capitalism under Obama, but that’s a different matter. Was this collaboration due to Trump being an agent of the Russian oligarchy as John claims? Trump may well have more special links with the Russian oligarchs than others have, but I just don’t think that is necessary to explain US policy. The position of the Trump team that China rather than Russia was the major rival to US imperialist interests was entirely logical; as any study of the massive export of Chinese capital, compared to the pathetic level of Russian capital export (Michael Probsting’s book ‘Anti-Imperialism in the age of great power rivalry, and Louis’ review of it here on marxmail for reference) would suggest. Russian imperialism also rivals US imperialism (as do EU and Japanese imperialisms), but I’ve always thought it a mistake to view economically weak Russian imperialism as the major rival of US imperialism. Certainly there is the fact that Russia has greater military power than any of the other rivals to US imperialism, so it can throw its weight around more, and there is its diplomatic weight and the ideological echoes of history that weigh on US and Russian ruling class attitudes to each other in terms of “credibility” and such, but while these are important factors they should not be confused with more fundamental rivalry. Actually on the question of “sub-imperialism” which Patrick Bond hammers on about, I’ve always found it very useful, except when it comes to drawing the line questions. While the BRICS are a good metaphor for sub-imperialism, I think we could very usefully add states such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey, while I think China has clearly emerged as an imperialist power more so than Russia. Russia if anything has more characteristics of sub-imperialism than China does, and I think it is useful to see US-Russia relations in that light. The fact that neither the Obama nor Trump administrations has had any problem with the 4-year Russian terror-bombing of Russia and effective occupation of parts of that country, and of parts of Syria’s state apparatus, is not some coincidence or something unique about both leaders, it is US imperialism looking after its interests. The fact that more anti-Russian voices under both administrations have tended to be oppositional, and thus rhetorical, is also the opposite of coincidence. It corresponds completely to the attitude of major US ally in the region, Israel, with its very close relations with Moscow, and increasingly with US allies in the Gulf, especially under Trump as the US-Saudi-UAE alliance has strengthened while these same states are developing excellent relations with Moscow and recognising Assad’s regime. >From the onset of Russian intervention to bolster Assad – about a year after &
Re: [Marxism] The Mueller Report: Glenn Greenwald vs. David Cay Johnston on Trump-Russia Ties, Obstruction & More
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Actually I think the Mueller report shows that Trump was up to his eyeballs in collaboration with the Russian Tsars, and I’m not sure why there has been a rush to exonerate him on the left, when the report clearly does not do that at all. Just to make clear, I don’t think Trump’s election victory had much to do with the obvious attempts by Russia to interfere in the US elections, the obvious and proven collusion by Trump and his entire team with the Russians, and wikileaks blatant collaboration with Trump-Putin – I agree entirely with all the points that Trump won because of Clinton and the failures of US capitalism under Obama, but that’s a different matter. Was this collaboration due to Trump being an agent of the Russian oligarchy as John claims? Trump may well have more special links with the Russian oligarchs than others have, but I just don’t think that is necessary to explain US policy. The position of the Trump team that China rather than Russia was the major rival to US imperialist interests was entirely logical; as any study of the massive export of Chinese capital, compared to the pathetic level of Russian capital export (Michael Probsting’s book ‘Anti-Imperialism in the age of great power rivalry, and Louis’ review of it here on marxmail for reference) would suggest. Russian imperialism also rivals US imperialism (as do EU and Japanese imperialisms), but I’ve always thought it a mistake to view economically weak Russian imperialism as the major rival of US imperialism. Certainly there is the fact that Russia has greater military power than any of the other rivals to US imperialism, so it can throw its weight around more, and there is its diplomatic weight and the ideological echoes of history that weigh on US and Russian ruling class attitudes to each other in terms of “credibility” and such, but while these are important factors they should not be confused with more fundamental rivalry. Actually on the question of “sub-imperialism” which Patrick Bond hammers on about, I’ve always found it very useful, except when it comes to drawing the line questions. While the BRICS are a good metaphor for sub-imperialism, I think we could very usefully add states such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey, while I think China has clearly emerged as an imperialist power more so than Russia. Russia if anything has more characteristics of sub-imperialism than China does, and I think it is useful to see US-Russia relations in that light. The fact that neither the Obama nor Trump administrations has had any problem with the 4-year Russian terror-bombing of Russia and effective occupation of parts of that country, and of parts of Syria’s state apparatus, is not some coincidence or something unique about both leaders, it is US imperialism looking after its interests. The fact that more anti-Russian voices under both administrations have tended to be oppositional, and thus rhetorical, is also the opposite of coincidence. It corresponds completely to the attitude of major US ally in the region, Israel, with its very close relations with Moscow, and increasingly with US allies in the Gulf, especially under Trump as the US-Saudi-UAE alliance has strengthened while these same states are developing excellent relations with Moscow and recognising Assad’s regime. From the onset of Russian intervention to bolster Assad – about a year after US intervention against ISIS began – the two superpowers have cooperated closely in Syria. Sure there have been bumps in the road, but overwhelmingly their agreement to share the Syrian sky as both bomb Syria – in many cases, bombing the same targets even at the same time - has been almost a model of cooperation. Is this due to US weakness, or to Trump being a money-launderer for Russian oligarchs? I my opinion, no, it is due to US imperialism looking after its interests. Just to be clear, John may well be right that Trump is also a money-launderer for Russian oligarchs, but I think that is of minor significance to the rest of the US ruling class. Who has the upper hand in Syria in this cooperation? Many would say Russia does, with the US showing its “weakness” or “retreat” etc. This is extraordinary nonsense. The US war against ISIS (and often against Nusra/HTS and sometimes other Islamist or even mainstream rebels) has cost countless billions of dollars, has destroyed entire cities, has killed thousands of people, all with full intelligence collaboration with Russia and the Assad regime. It is not a small war. Russia is waging a much bigger and far more murderous war in Syria on behalf of the tyrant, because the US (and even more, Israel) is fine with that happening, in
Re: [Marxism] The Mueller Report: Glenn Greenwald vs. David Cay Johnston on Trump-Russia Ties, Obstruction & More
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * It is true that Trump has had a "decades-long relationship with Russian financiers". But I think John Reimann exaggerates the significance of this in determining Trump's foreign policy as president. Certainly Trump tried to improve relations with Russia early in his presidency. You could attribute this to his links with Russian mafia capital. But you could also say that it made sense for US imperialism to reach an agreement with Russian imperialism, its most militarily powerful rival, to minimise conflict, agree on spheres of influence, etc. John is wrong in his interpretation of the dispute over US troops in Syria. He says: "That planned withdrawal [of US troops from Syria] can only be seen as a step towards strengthening the position of Russia and its ally in the region - Turkey". On the contrary, Trump's aim was to re-establish the close collaboration which had existed between the US and Turkey, but which had broken down after the US began supporting the Syrian Democratic Forces against ISIS. Turkey is very hostile to the SDF and the Kurdish-led revolutionary movement in northern Syria. Turkey had supported various reactionary armed groups, including ISIS, against the YPG/YPJ and SDF. When the US began supporting the SDF, Erdogan began to seek a deal wth Russia. This deal involved Turkey abandoning the goal of overthrowing Assad, in return for Russia allowing Turkey to invade parts of Syria to attack the SDF. Russia, which controlled the airspace over Afrin (a predominantly Kurdish area of northern Syria, which was controlled by the SDF but geographically separate from the main SDF-controlled area in northeastern Syria), gave Turkey permission to invade. Erdogan has spoken of his intention to invade northeastern Syria. But the presence of US forces in that area, helping the SDF to fight ISIS, was an obstacle. Trump, by ending US support for the SDF, wanted to rebuild relations with Turkey and win it away from its increasingly close liinks with Russia. But other sections of the US ruling class were worried about the consequences of giving Turkey the green light to invade northeastern Syria. Such an invasion would disrupt the fight against ISIS, perhaps enabling it to grow in strength, not only in Syria but also in Iraq, where it remains very active. The invasion could have other unpredictable effects. For example, a Turkish occupation of northeastern Syria would be strongly resisted, resulting in economic costs and casualties that could cause discontent and perhaps a revolutionary upsurge in Turkey. Thus Trump was forced to back down on his withdrawal plan. But this had nothing to do with Trump's supposed support for Russia. Chris Slee From: John Reimann <1999wild...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2019 2:21:24 AM To: Chris Slee Cc: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition Subject: Re: [Marxism] The Mueller Report: Glenn Greenwald vs. David Cay Johnston on Trump-Russia Ties, Obstruction & More I am unsure exactly what Chris Slee is saying. Is he saying that Trump is not seriously compromised as far as his (Trump's) ties with Putin and the Russian mafia capitalist class? Is he saying that Trump's actions are not in large measure guided by his links? Because if so, then Chris has really missed what is happening here. To review: Trump has had a decades-long relationship with Russian financiers, whose money he has laundered through is real estate interests. In fact, even prior to that, there is evidence that he had made contact with the KGB when he visited Czechoslovakia with his first wife, who was from there. (See "House of Trump, House of Putin" for the full story on that.) His first act as Republican nominee - in fact, before he even was the official nominee - was to send an emmissary to the Republican platform committee to eliminate a call for sanctions against Russia. (We should keep in mind that the economic sanctions against Russia have been an important issue for Putin for quite some time.) During the election campaign and after, Trump continually caused shock waves with his verbal attacks on NATO. Then he had the series of private meetings with Putin. After one of these, he publicly took Putin's side against his own intelligence agencies. Then there was the planned removal of all US troops from Syria. It's true that he has evidently backed down, but this was seen as a huge shock at the time - serious enough to cause the resignation of several of his top appointees. That planned withdrawal can only be seen as a step towar
Re: [Marxism] The Mueller Report: Glenn Greenwald vs. David Cay Johnston on Trump-Russia Ties, Obstruction & More
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * I am unsure exactly what Chris Slee is saying. Is he saying that Trump is not seriously compromised as far as his (Trump's) ties with Putin and the Russian mafia capitalist class? Is he saying that Trump's actions are not in large measure guided by his links? Because if so, then Chris has really missed what is happening here. To review: Trump has had a decades-long relationship with Russian financiers, whose money he has laundered through is real estate interests. In fact, even prior to that, there is evidence that he had made contact with the KGB when he visited Czechoslovakia with his first wife, who was from there. (See "House of Trump, House of Putin" for the full story on that.) His first act as Republican nominee - in fact, before he even was the official nominee - was to send an emmissary to the Republican platform committee to eliminate a call for sanctions against Russia. (We should keep in mind that the economic sanctions against Russia have been an important issue for Putin for quite some time.) During the election campaign and after, Trump continually caused shock waves with his verbal attacks on NATO. Then he had the series of private meetings with Putin. After one of these, he publicly took Putin's side against his own intelligence agencies. Then there was the planned removal of all US troops from Syria. It's true that he has evidently backed down, but this was seen as a huge shock at the time - serious enough to cause the resignation of several of his top appointees. That planned withdrawal can only be seen as a step towards strengthening the position of Russia and its ally in the region - Turkey. As far as Venezuela: I think it is highly unlikely that Trump will send a military invasion, but that is more because even that dunce knows what a morass he'd be getting into if he did so. Yes, his hostility to Maduro in some ways conflicts with his relationship with Putin, but no capitalist alliance is always smooth. There are always conflicting interests. But overall, there is a reason that the more serious heads among the US capitalist strategists and thinkers - including the NY Times, the Washington Post and the Council on Foreign Relations - are so concerned. There is a reason that they denounce Trump's connections with Putin & co. And it's not that they want war and Trump wants peace. That's for sure. The reason is that their understanding is accurate. John Reimann On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 3:10 PM Chris Slee wrote: > John Reimann claims that "...the President of the United States is > seriously beholden to a rival capitalist class" (i.e the Russian > capitalist class). > > I see no evidence that Trump is acting in the interests of Russia. He > acts in the interests of United States imperialism. > > For example, he has imposed a severe economic blockade on Venezuela, > organised a coup attempt, and threatened to invade. This is typical > behaviour for US imperialism in Latin America. > > But Russia and China are beginning to challenge US dominance in Latin > America, as elsewhere. When the Venezuelan government asked for Russian > military aid to deter a possible US invasion, Russia sent a small military > contingent. Thus there is growing antagonism between US and Russian > imperialism in Latin America. > > Trump's ideas on what is in the interests of US imperialism sometimes > differ from those of foreign policy "experts". His stated intention to > quickly withdraw US troops from northeastern Syria was opposed by some of > his advisors, and eventually changed into a gradual withdrawal. > > But Trump's original plan was not totally irrational from the viewpoint of > US imperialism. It would have pleased Erdogan, who wanted to invade > northeastern Syria and crush the revolution there. It would thus have > improved US-Turkish relations, at least in the short term. > > But the foreign policy experts were worried about some of the other > effects of giving a green light to a Turkish invasion of northeast Syria. > It would have disrupted the fight against ISIS. It might also, in the > longer term, have destabilised Turkey, due to economic cost of the > occupation and the casualties inflicted by the resistance. > > Certainly Trump is erratic, and a less than ideal leader for US > imperialism, but that does not mean he is a servant of Putin. > > Chris Slee > > > ________________ > From: Marxism on behalf of John > Reimann via Marxism > Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2019 7:07:01 AM > T
Re: [Marxism] The Mueller Report: Glenn Greenwald vs. David Cay Johnston on Trump-Russia Ties, Obstruction & More
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * John Reimann claims that "...the President of the United States is seriously beholden to a rival capitalist class" (i.e the Russian capitalist class). I see no evidence that Trump is acting in the interests of Russia. He acts in the interests of United States imperialism. For example, he has imposed a severe economic blockade on Venezuela, organised a coup attempt, and threatened to invade. This is typical behaviour for US imperialism in Latin America. But Russia and China are beginning to challenge US dominance in Latin America, as elsewhere. When the Venezuelan government asked for Russian military aid to deter a possible US invasion, Russia sent a small military contingent. Thus there is growing antagonism between US and Russian imperialism in Latin America. Trump's ideas on what is in the interests of US imperialism sometimes differ from those of foreign policy "experts". His stated intention to quickly withdraw US troops from northeastern Syria was opposed by some of his advisors, and eventually changed into a gradual withdrawal. But Trump's original plan was not totally irrational from the viewpoint of US imperialism. It would have pleased Erdogan, who wanted to invade northeastern Syria and crush the revolution there. It would thus have improved US-Turkish relations, at least in the short term. But the foreign policy experts were worried about some of the other effects of giving a green light to a Turkish invasion of northeast Syria. It would have disrupted the fight against ISIS. It might also, in the longer term, have destabilised Turkey, due to economic cost of the occupation and the casualties inflicted by the resistance. Certainly Trump is erratic, and a less than ideal leader for US imperialism, but that does not mean he is a servant of Putin. Chris Slee From: Marxism on behalf of John Reimann via Marxism Sent: Sunday, 21 April 2019 7:07:01 AM To: Chris Slee Subject: Re: [Marxism] The Mueller Report: Glenn Greenwald vs. David Cay Johnston on Trump-Russia Ties, Obstruction & More POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Ralph Johnson, apparently approvingly, quotes Glenn Greenwald: "I think Donald Trump is a huge danger and menace to the republic for a lot of reasons that David is very adeptly covering, and I really hope that we can now turn our attention to those things, now that we?re done with this espionage thriller that has dominated us for three years. I hope we can focus on the things that matter." Like so much of the left as well as the alt-left, Greenwald completely misses the point, which is that the President of the United States is seriously beholden to a rival capitalist class. This is not a matter of patriotism nor defense of "national interests"; it's a question of understanding the political crisis of US capitalism, something which Greenwald is incapable of doing. That's because he is nothing but a somewhat more subtle version of Max Blumenthal/Ben Norton. He openly advocates a red-brown alliance, having equated the Occupy movement with the Tea Party as both being "anti-establishment" and concluded "I think that left and right as we understood them for the last four decades are starting to morph into pro-establishment and anti-establishment dynamics and that will only continue." Greenwald supports the Assadist Tulsi Gabbard, and is a collaborator with the far right Tucker Carlson. Basically, Greenwald is like so much of the left that sees any opponent of US imperialism as an ally, which is why he in effect defends Putin & Co. So I think his views on the Mueller Report have to be considered in this light. That there was collaboration, or attempted collaboration, between the Trump campaign and the Putin regime is really beyond doubt. What was the meeting at Trump Tower all about? What were the frequent contacts between Trump staffers and Russian representatives about? And the story goes back decades - to the fact that it was the Russian mafia capitalist class that provided much of Trump's financing for decades. Even Don jr. said this. And THAT is the real scandal of the Mueller "investigation" - that they never tried to lift the lid on that can of worms. But Greenwald? His views should not be taken seriously. John R
Re: [Marxism] The Mueller Report: Glenn Greenwald vs. David Cay Johnston on Trump-Russia Ties, Obstruction & More
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * John Reimann writes, quoting Glenn Greenwald: " I think that left and right as we understood them for the last four decades are starting to morph into pro-establishment and anti-establishment dynamics and that will only continue." That last comment especially, in which he dismisses a left-right divide, is the exact position of the likes of Steve Bannon and Alexander Dugin." I think part of the problem there is the confusion on the left these days. For the likes of Bannon, anyone in or left of the Democrats is 'left', and that encompasses a lot of different thinking, some of it having little or nothing to say about class. So in a sense Greenwald is right. Some on the "left" are generically anti-establishment. Until there is a genuine significant movement on the left, distinguishing what left means and separating it from incoherent anti-establishment thinking will be difficult. Cheers, John On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 9:27 PM John Reimann via Marxism < marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote: > POSTING RULES & NOTES > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > * > > I'm not sure if Ralph Johanson was asking me to document my claims about > Greenwald or if he was just commenting, but in case it's the former, here > goes: > > I had written that he is a somewhat more subtle version of Ben Norton/Max > Blumenthal and that he supports the Assadist, Tulsi Gabbard. I had > forgotten to mention that he too supports Assad. He does so in a more > subtle way than do Blumenthal and Norton, for example in this article: > > https://theintercept.com/2017/04/07/the-spoils-of-war-trump-lavished-with-media-and-bipartisan-praise-for-bombing-syria/ > Note > how he implies that US policy has been regime change in Syria and how he > casts doubt on who was responsible for the gas attack there. > > As for his support for Gabbard, see this article: > > > https://www.businessinsider.com/tulsi-gabbard-homophobic-history-defended-tucker-carlson-glenn-greenwald-2019-1 > This article also documents his collaboration with Tucker Carlson. This > article ( > > https://www.mediaite.com/tv/glenn-greenwald-rips-msnbc-to-tucker-carlson-they-fed-people-total-disinformation-and-exploited-fears-on-russia/ > ) > does likewise. It also shows how he aligns himself with the likes of Jeremy > Scahill. > > > As for his defense of the red-brown alliance and his equating the Tea Party > with Occupy, see this interview he did with RT while he was in Russia > https://www.rt.com/usa/432042-greenwald-rt-interview-moscow/ In it he is > quoted as saying, "Two of the most important protest movements in the US – > one was the Tea Party, the other was Occupy Wall Street – were both > perceived to be on different ends of the political spectrum. Yet they had > very similar issues in common. They were protesting the bailout of Wall > Street after the Wall Street crisis, the domination of corporations I > think that left and right as we understood them for the last four decades > are starting to morph into pro-establishment and anti-establishment > dynamics and that will only continue." That last comment especially, in > which he dismisses a left-right divide, is the exact position of the likes > of Steve Bannon and Alexander Dugin. > > In that interview, Greenwald continues "There are factions within the > intelligence community of the United States, the NSA, the CIA, the FBI that > hate Donald Trump and will do anything to destroy him, including leaking > classified information against him." While Greenwald dismisses the > Trump-Russia collusion as "conspiracy theory", it is he, himself, who > engages in this sort of nonsense here. Why would these "factions" inside > the CIA, etc. hate Trump? The reason given by his type in the past is that > "Trump wants peace". Is that what he's claiming? > > Greenwald an "exceptionally astute, well-informed spokesperson"? Hardly. > > Johanson dismisses my criticisms of Greenwald as being ad hominem attacks, > but in considering the views of a commentator on a particular issue it is > perfectly legitimate to consider their overall views. And I do think that > Greenwald's overall views mean that he's not to be taken seriously. > > John Reimann > > -- > *“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black > Jacobins" by C. L. R. James > Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook >
Re: [Marxism] The Mueller Report: Glenn Greenwald vs. David Cay Johnston on Trump-Russia Ties, Obstruction & More
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * I'm not sure if Ralph Johanson was asking me to document my claims about Greenwald or if he was just commenting, but in case it's the former, here goes: I had written that he is a somewhat more subtle version of Ben Norton/Max Blumenthal and that he supports the Assadist, Tulsi Gabbard. I had forgotten to mention that he too supports Assad. He does so in a more subtle way than do Blumenthal and Norton, for example in this article: https://theintercept.com/2017/04/07/the-spoils-of-war-trump-lavished-with-media-and-bipartisan-praise-for-bombing-syria/ Note how he implies that US policy has been regime change in Syria and how he casts doubt on who was responsible for the gas attack there. As for his support for Gabbard, see this article: https://www.businessinsider.com/tulsi-gabbard-homophobic-history-defended-tucker-carlson-glenn-greenwald-2019-1 This article also documents his collaboration with Tucker Carlson. This article ( https://www.mediaite.com/tv/glenn-greenwald-rips-msnbc-to-tucker-carlson-they-fed-people-total-disinformation-and-exploited-fears-on-russia/ ) does likewise. It also shows how he aligns himself with the likes of Jeremy Scahill. As for his defense of the red-brown alliance and his equating the Tea Party with Occupy, see this interview he did with RT while he was in Russia https://www.rt.com/usa/432042-greenwald-rt-interview-moscow/ In it he is quoted as saying, "Two of the most important protest movements in the US – one was the Tea Party, the other was Occupy Wall Street – were both perceived to be on different ends of the political spectrum. Yet they had very similar issues in common. They were protesting the bailout of Wall Street after the Wall Street crisis, the domination of corporations I think that left and right as we understood them for the last four decades are starting to morph into pro-establishment and anti-establishment dynamics and that will only continue." That last comment especially, in which he dismisses a left-right divide, is the exact position of the likes of Steve Bannon and Alexander Dugin. In that interview, Greenwald continues "There are factions within the intelligence community of the United States, the NSA, the CIA, the FBI that hate Donald Trump and will do anything to destroy him, including leaking classified information against him." While Greenwald dismisses the Trump-Russia collusion as "conspiracy theory", it is he, himself, who engages in this sort of nonsense here. Why would these "factions" inside the CIA, etc. hate Trump? The reason given by his type in the past is that "Trump wants peace". Is that what he's claiming? Greenwald an "exceptionally astute, well-informed spokesperson"? Hardly. Johanson dismisses my criticisms of Greenwald as being ad hominem attacks, but in considering the views of a commentator on a particular issue it is perfectly legitimate to consider their overall views. And I do think that Greenwald's overall views mean that he's not to be taken seriously. John Reimann -- *“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black Jacobins" by C. L. R. James Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] The Mueller Report: Glenn Greenwald vs. David Cay Johnston on Trump-Russia Ties, Obstruction & More
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * John Reimann wrote Ralph Johnson, apparently approvingly, quotes Glenn Greenwald: "I think Donald Trump is a huge danger and menace to the republic for a lot of reasons that David is very adeptly covering, and I really hope that we can now turn our attention to those things, now that we?re done with this espionage thriller that has dominated us for three years. I hope we can focus on the things that matter." "But Greenwald? His views should not be taken seriously." --- I accept that you will document what you write about Greenwald on request, but what is it that you object to in these three sentences: "Donald Trump is a huge danger and menace to the republic for a lot of reasons... I really hope that we can now turn our attention to those things, now that we're done with this espionage thriller that has dominated us for three years. I hope we can focus on the things that matter." You may differ about what "things that matter" means to Greenwald, as opposed to what it may mean to a Marxist, but to me it's a sort of an unobjectionable, fill-in-the-blanks statement. Moreover, Greenwald whatever his warts is an exceptionally astute, well-informed spokesperson for the civil libertarian liberal left, the kind I would not parse and quibble over as compared to all the criminals in high places out there, And as to his omissions and errors on the issues you mention that you oppose, this was hardly the place for him or anyone else to focus on them. Greenwald's observations on the Mueller Report read as if he was prepping to represent a litigant, at $750 an hour, rather than as an investigative reporter, however much his compensation - which cannot be a bad thing for us. Greenwald convinces me that there is no comforting life left in this project, either from DOJ or Congress, despite or just because of what's not been covered, and projecting politically, won't. Is It an appropriate time to trot out your list of his other political shortcomings, and then in conclusion write, "But Greenwald? His views should not be taken seriously." Sort of calls to mind those ad hominem attacks on Assange for his warts at this critical juncture, joining the attack dogs, rather than keeping our eyes on the main threat posed by his abduction and 7-year confinement to one room in the embassy, convening of a Pentagon-neighborhood secret Grand Jury to come up with a guaranteed indictment, and impending delivery to the dungeon in order to definitively chill whistle blowers and investigative reporters for the duration. We need all the help we can get, including when it comes to speaking out, effectively, on behalf of our dwindling civil liberties. Or do you think otherwise. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] The Mueller Report: Glenn Greenwald vs. David Cay Johnston on Trump-Russia Ties, Obstruction & More
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Ralph Johnson, apparently approvingly, quotes Glenn Greenwald: "I think Donald Trump is a huge danger and menace to the republic for a lot of reasons that David is very adeptly covering, and I really hope that we can now turn our attention to those things, now that we?re done with this espionage thriller that has dominated us for three years. I hope we can focus on the things that matter." Like so much of the left as well as the alt-left, Greenwald completely misses the point, which is that the President of the United States is seriously beholden to a rival capitalist class. This is not a matter of patriotism nor defense of "national interests"; it's a question of understanding the political crisis of US capitalism, something which Greenwald is incapable of doing. That's because he is nothing but a somewhat more subtle version of Max Blumenthal/Ben Norton. He openly advocates a red-brown alliance, having equated the Occupy movement with the Tea Party as both being "anti-establishment" and concluded "I think that left and right as we understood them for the last four decades are starting to morph into pro-establishment and anti-establishment dynamics and that will only continue." Greenwald supports the Assadist Tulsi Gabbard, and is a collaborator with the far right Tucker Carlson. Basically, Greenwald is like so much of the left that sees any opponent of US imperialism as an ally, which is why he in effect defends Putin & Co. So I think his views on the Mueller Report have to be considered in this light. That there was collaboration, or attempted collaboration, between the Trump campaign and the Putin regime is really beyond doubt. What was the meeting at Trump Tower all about? What were the frequent contacts between Trump staffers and Russian representatives about? And the story goes back decades - to the fact that it was the Russian mafia capitalist class that provided much of Trump's financing for decades. Even Don jr. said this. And THAT is the real scandal of the Mueller "investigation" - that they never tried to lift the lid on that can of worms. But Greenwald? His views should not be taken seriously. John Reimann -- *“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black Jacobins" by C. L. R. James Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] The Mueller Report: Glenn Greenwald vs. David Cay Johnston on Trump-Russia Ties, Obstruction & More
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * https://www.democracynow.org/2019/4/19/the_mueller_report_glenn_greenwald_vs This exchange between Greenwald and Johnston pretty much puts paid to this whole dreary, dragged-out investigation. As Greenwald concludes: "I think Donald Trump is a huge danger and menace to the republic for a lot of reasons that David is very adeptly covering, and I really hope that we can now turn our attention to those things, now that we’re done with this espionage thriller that has dominated us for three years. I hope we can focus on the things that matter." _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com