almightylol

Irony escapes him.

What a fraud.

Fuck you, Ellensburg.

The difference, "Socky", is that here the "error" was exposed quickly, openly acknowledged, and corrected.

Its called "integrity".

That 'big eye' illustration of Greenwald on the Salon page is rich.

That sound familiar, Socky Sockpuppet?

Ouch.

What's worse, questioning the veracity of a memo of unknown provenence using an image of a Lenox porcelain figurine as a US Government logo, or wildly exaggerating its contents to claim the troops in Iraq are soon to be "going hungry"?

Which is it Greenwald(s)?

Charles Johnson...SUPER Genius!

/Wile_E._Coyote_voice

Speaking of "calumnious" (now that we all know what that means)...

BTW, I forgot the link in my #7:

As found by Ace of Spades: Lenox China "Defender of Freedom".

I hope he gets athlete's face.

So Charles, is it uncomfortable wearing Greenwald as an asshat?

Prepare, lizards. Since this one looks bad for RightOfCenter, ProIsrael, ProGWOT, it may get some airplay.

(They'll add just enough detail, not enough to give us credit for busting other things (fauxtographs, etc.), though.)

"Glenn Greenwald -- he's calumn-a-licious!"

Sock puppets stink.

#15 Killgore Trout

'Cept for yours. :)

Another string of cracks at sock puppets ? That's it - I'm calling a meeting at the local tomorrow. Youz all was warned...

#16 Ma Sands
I'm drying Lavender today. My house has never smelled so good.

Sockpuppet or Chihuahua?

Both is an option.

Methinks, this is another case of Ends Justify Means.

Oh? Please explain.

Well, if you are busted using sock puppets, it's no big deal. After all, you're on the good side. You can do whatever you need to get the job done.

But, what about LGF? Didn't they over-react and discredit themselves?

No, they aren't allowed to CRITICALLY ANALYZE memos. Only we are allowed to criticize anything. We are on the good side.

(Good on Charles for owning up to it. If I contributed, I apologize, retract etc. As it is, I'm not worthy to be in the same paragraph as Charles.)

12 George Ford

What does that mean?

#21 MM

I was trying to determine that myself...

# 18 K T

Ever plant any sage ? I put two cheapo sage plants in the rock garden years back. One croaked soon after. I have to use everything short of nuclear weapons to prevent the other one from devouring the entire neighborhood. And my $ 1.95 golden oregano is not far behind.

Oh! It's salon-dot-com. I was right. They're the good guys. They know everything. I should shut up.

Shame on LGF for questioning the great and powerful salon-dot-com. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

(I wonder if he/they are critical about "leaked" memos that put GWB & the Administration in a good light?)

22 ctp

It sure doesn't sound nice.

What else could they possibly do to lose credibility altogether?

Try saving America while living in Brazil? What would an expatriate do?

Sorry. It was my lame attempt at humor/insult aimed at someone that seems to spend too much time up Mr. Johnson's backside.

#25 MM

No, it didn't, but #27 seems to clear it up... No harm, no foul...

#21 & #22
re: 12 George Ford
~~~~~~~

I stumbled over that one, also. My guess is this: "Hey, Charles, you are PWNED! We got you this time so bad that your head must be up Greenwald's butt trying to apologize. Hah!11111"

(That's my guess, anyway. Maybe by the time I finish this, George Ford will have replied.)

23 Mike C.
I have both those in my herb garden. They're pretty much indestructible.

I was wrong again.

(*sigh*)

#18 Killgore Trout

What do you use, to dry it with? One of those special food dehydrators, with the shelves? --we used to do fruit leather & such with that.... :)

No, I usually dry it with paper towels. And not the good ones either. The rough, brown ones that go inside the lavatory dispenser. Smells better that way.

(Post & Run. tee hee &trade .)

The shame for Salon is not that they printed this dishonest column by some spiteful loser.

The shame is that there's zero chance that they'll print a retraction or fire the creep.

I think they know what side they're on, and truth and integrity have no meaning to them. Funny, I thought truth (and therefor integrity) was the job of the media. I must be out of date.

I'm so glad the Lord has blessed my crap with a higher IQ than the likes of that slime-tard. Isn't there a bar ditch somewhere where his thankfully dead body could be rotting away? At least in that scenario he'd be feeding worms, insects, and microbes. You know: Doing something good for mother earth. Giving back.

How excrement like him survives from day to day is a mystery to me. All of creation would celebrate his demise.

My turn to play. I‘ll play Devil’s Advocate, partly because I’ve looked at the various links and can’t seem to find the evidence that supports Glenn Greenwald, Larry Johnson, et al., to this being a widespread problem in Iraq.

If more is available, please show me.

I notice that Mr. Greenwald’s writings are not quite freely posted; apparently one must register just to read them. Why?

I took the risk of clicking on the sponsor logo, enduring the pompous yet fawning 4-screen ad(ulation) for Salon: “I love writing for Salon because the readership is so smart. They’re the best and biggest pack of editors in the business”.

Surely, these big editors can dig up the facts.

“Needless to say, the memo is authentic”

Is it? I suppose that it is real, in the sense that someone actually wrote it (and may have printed it).

The memo contains a picture of a porcelain figurine (not a real State Department or any other US Government seal), no office / unit / other identification codes, and is unsigned, i.e., no hand-written signature.

I’ve seen enough US Government documentation to be suspicious of something that looks like the memo in question.

But somewhat more importantly, is this memo in fact only applicable to one small area (and nowhere else)?

The memo would then be completely true, but only for a small area (the “US Embassy” grounds, see the e-mail).

I note that Iraqslogger, and everyone else seems to be taking the word of the BAGHDAD PRESS OFFICE.

Chad, an Ace of Spades HQ commenter, sends an e-mail concerning a story appearing in the Washington Post regarding a shortage of fresh foods reaching the embassy.

The response is:

“In short, the term “US Mission-Iraq” is how the military here generally refers to us; however, we at the Embassy simply call ourselves “the US Embassy” or, for the actual real estate on which we sit, “the Embassy compound.” As for the food-shortage notice, yes, it was a legitimate notice; however, food convoys have since begun to come in and we’re gradually getting back to normal.

Thanks for asking!

BAGHDAD PRESS OFFICE U.S. Embassy, Baghdad Email xxxxxxx”

Who wrote this e-mail response? Names, authority, etc.

The e-mail questions and e-mail response, as written, apply ONLY to the US Embassy, and nowhere else in Iraq.

Is / was there any evidence that this problem applied to a significant portion of the US Forces in Iraq?

It seems that Mr. Greenwald and “the best and biggest pack of editors in the business” have done no investigation.

The best they can do is hurl invective:

“Right-wing bloggers and "Pajamas Media" spent all weekend calling Larry Johnson a liar and a fraud when the only liars and frauds were, as usual, . . . .”

But let us expose the truth: the written words in the memo apply only to a few State Department children (who might have had to eat MREs).

Is there any evidence that the memo applies to anyone else more than 100 meters from the memo writer’s location?

Larry Johnson writes: “The bottomline is that our troops depend on a ground supply line that runs from Kuwait to the various bases in Iraq.”

But is there any evidence that a sizable proportion of the US troops in Iraq faced this same problem?

His opening line is: “Some brave soul in the U.S. military sent Pat Lang a memo issued Monday that shows the U.S. ability to support its troops is collapsing and very vulnerable to disruption”

The claim “vulnerable to disruption” is too generic, a simple 5 minute traffic jam or a flat tire could qualify. The memo does not support the claim “. . . ability to support its troops is collapsing . . .”, nor does the e-mail.

Is Larry Johnson telling the whole truth?

Is this, by Mr. L. Johnson, Mr. Greenwald and “the best and biggest pack of editors in the business”, “responsible commentary”?

I don't get it. The memo was advertised as being the status of the troops. While real, it had to do with the Embassy commissary, an entirely different matter. The memo may have been real, but the story was clearly false.

Fuck you Greenwald.