Skip to comments.The 1990s are Back, Glenn Greenwald is Worried About Angry White Racist Militias
Posted on 02/24/2009 7:41:29 AM PST by Mobile Vulgus
Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com seems to think that Bill Clinton's nonexistent boogie men, "the militias," are back. Why are they back? Because all white people are angry, racists that are mad that Obama got elected, of course. What else could have dredged up this fantasy from the depths of the liberal's worst nightmares of the 1990s? Somehow, though, it's a bit hard to imagine Greenwald's main premise considering the fact that millions of those same white Americans Greenwald so fears actually voted for Obama.
But, in an effort to scold Fox News for airing Glenn Beck's recent "War Room" segments, Greenwald indulged in precisely the same sort of behavior he claims Beck does, namely that of making wild, unsubstantiated claims about the "other" side.
Greenwald imagines that militias are again on the rise because Barack Obama is "an exotic other occupying the White House" and because the U.S. is a "declining imperial power," these things upsetting to gun-owning, white folks, apparently. Greenwald also scoffs at the "militia movement" that Clinton talked about in the 1990s because they "completely vanished" once George Bush became president in 2000, that this shows they really had no principles he says.
But, here is what he ignores: that this so-called militia movement didn't really exist in the way that the conspiracy minded Clinton White House tried to pretend that it did. The reality is that the Clintons, they of the "great right wing conspiracy" theory, saw enemies under their beds at night. And its no wonder because the Clinton's bed had enemies IN it, much less under it...
Read the rest at Publiusforum.com...
No offense, but WTF are you talking about?
Did you even READ my post?
Just wait til you see a real militia Glenn.
Your second point seemed to accept the validity of greenwhatever’s accusation conservatives went to sleep during the bush administration.
By denying his claim I somehow validated it?
I clearly stated that I did NOT “go away” during the Bush administration.
So, how exactly does that statement validate his accusation that I “went away” during the Bush administration.
Please pardon the missing question mark.
I will try to make up for it by providing one random question mark in th?is post.
No, by saying “I, for one, did not ‘vanish’” you could be understood to be contrasting yourself with those who supposedly *did* vanish.
That is a tacit acceptance of his duplicitous premise.
No, it is not.
It is OVERT acceptance of the fact that I am only able to speak for myself, and not for others.
PLEASE - Feel free to speak for YOURSELF; but do NOT accuse me of saying, thinking, or doing something that I was NOT saying, thinking or doing.
Whatever you say, sport.
Don’t blame me if your writing can’t keep up with your meaning.
You’re the one with the reading comprehension problem, not I.