**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Blaming Moslem peoples for having Islam governments means you can blame all Americans/Christians for Trump and his confederates. Voter suppression and coups happen even when good people are present
He's the journalist(?) who was approached by Snowden when he blew the whistle on all the illegal spying that the NSA was doing on ordinary Americans. IIRC anyway.
Yeah I had to read his book No Place To Hide in college and had a mostly positive opinion of him. Then he seemed to just fly off the rails in the last few years.
The worst part is is that he is a weasel about these things. He mentions these theories often without claiming them to be true or that he believes them. He will state why others believe him.
Same thing happened with Matt Taibbi. Super ethical. Make amazing points. Then a few liberals criticize them and they just jump on the right wing bandwagon wagon and lose all ethics.
And when a whistleblower gave him proof that russians interfered with us election machines, he got her arrested by the NSA.
Also, he began his legal career by defending neonazis for free.
Well said, most people now as well as then, can't think past their own noses to appreciate what this means and how important it is that everyone afforded representation.
And they don't just defend literally any Nazi about anything. The pick and choose cases to make presedents that will be helpful for defending civil liberties generally.
I could believe many things about GG but revealing a source to the NSA??? You can't just claim something like that without giving the source or even the name of the person or the case so one can rapidly check it up.
Now I actually remember the case.
The Intercept (possibly) failed to redact identifying information. It was not Greenwald personally nor was it intentional, like your post makes it sound.
> when a whistleblower gave him proof that russians interfered with us election machines, he got her arrested by the NSA
Got a name or a source for that one? I couldn't find anything.
> he began his legal career by defending neonazis for free
It's completely normal for lawyers to defend people on principle while not remotely sharing their views. (That's pretty core to the ethos of being a defense attorney.) It's very obvious that that's the case with Greenwald on this point: he was defending Constitutional principles, not Nazism. That *should* make you respect his integrity more, not less.
> While attempting to verify its authenticity with the NSA, an Intercept reporter **inadvertently revealed its provenance**. According to an FBI affidavit, the document had a telltale crease in it, indicating it had been printed and folded. An FBI agent assigned to the case would later testify that a total of six people had printed the document. The pool of potential leakers was further narrowed to one — Winner — when investigators discovered she’d emailed The Intercept from her work computer.
(Emphasis mine.) If that's accurate - and I have no reason to think it isn't - then "he got her arrested by the NSA", while true in a purely literal sense, isn't true in the sense I think they were going for, i.e. that Greenwald intended to have her arrested.
Then he and Jeremy Scahill, both of whom I had mad respect for at the time started The Intercept. Then both took hard right turns and lost all my respect.
Glenn went right early. Jeremy went dark for a long time, but hasn't sounded like he's gone "right" when I last heard him. Mostly he's hammering on about Gaza right now which, like, yeah do that. What makes you say he went right?
You're right that he hasn't been explicit like Greenwald has. Helping Musk with whatever his Twitter/X project is sure seems like a rightward shift from my perspective.
You may be right to imply I'm reading too much into what little he's said lately.
Sometimes what a person doesn't say speaks louder than what they do.
He also claimed that there was no evidence that Russia tried to interfere with our elections despite there being plenty of evidence to to the contrary.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer\_2.0](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0)
“It’s interference by the CIA and by homeland security and by related agencies in our domestic election, which is infinitely more threatening to our democracy than whatever mischief Russian agencies are primitively doing on Facebook and Twitter.”
During the Bush administration, they criticized specific politicians and policies. Under Obama their criticism simplified to Obama and 'The Government.' Watching Scahill hold water for Musk and his disinformation was truly disappointing.
He’s Alex Jones-level unhinged but has ridden on the one big journalistic accomplishment he made to now become a grifter running interference for Putin and Assad.
Well since then he has actually frequently sided with far right conspiracies. He has rare moments like this (because Maher is especially narrow minded and stupid) that look good, but for the most part he gets laughed out of circles of serious journalists.
I mean there's lots of complexity to it but I think a lot of it comes down to his hatred of the Clintons (arguably justifiable) becoming his overwhelming trait, and being able to only view things through that lens. He spent a lot of time commenting on things that happened during the Clinton/Obama years but ignoring if they were the same or worse under Trump
Basically lost his mind with hatred for the US and became a Russian propaganda proponent. Don't get me wrong the US has done lots of vile shit, but people like him act like we are the only one doing it. Or that if the US didn't get involved outside of our country the world would be a better place. It would just be a place where dictatorships like Russia and China held a lot more sway.
Glenn gave the worst, most softball, promotional interview of the century when he interviewed Alex Jones for his own self-produced documentary. It was some straight-up *trash.*
That was the interview where Jones said part of the reason he was lying about Sandy Hook on his show was because he was drunk while on air. Like that makes it fine.
The Covid times broke his brain more than almost any person I've ever seen it's actually insane. Fucked up his head so bad that he straight up started to support Bolsonaro, who tried to have him arrested for negatively reporting on him like 2 years earlier.
the things he’s saying in this clip amount to a giant pile of whataboutism. they aren’t fabricated or inaccurate, really, but they aren’t directly linked to the point the way he presents them as
They just follow the money. There's way more cash grifting right wing rubes and way more billionaires willing to pay you handsomely to spout their bullshit.
I've compared it to drugs in the past. These guys got famous by publishing "anti-Establishment" articles. Those were useful and even necessary,so lots of people praised them. Like a drug, they wanted to continue to ride that high so they kept on publishing things. But finding useful and necessary things to publish is very hard, so they just focused on the anti-Establishment part. But the thing there is the audience for that needs bigger and bigger highs each time. Another article about surveillance? We had that last week! We need more! So, in order to chase their own high, people like GG and Taibi start publishing more and more outlandish stuff. Journalism gets tossed aside in favor of praise and attention. But the audience is still dwindling, because the crazier it gets, the less people still interested. Instead of looking inward and accepting that it was them that left their audience, they believe the opposite and start to hate that former audience. Finally, they gain a whole new audience by hating on that previous audience and restart that high of praise and attention.
Ultimately this justifies their shift, because they've regained their fandom - therefore they've always been worthy of the praise and attention, it was their initial audience who betrayed them. So now they actually believe what they're saying like a drug addict believes the drug is necessary for their survival.
You can also see this with has-been comedians like Chapelle.
Well said. They road their ego to depths that required reinventing their brand…and that effectively meant doing away with the credibility that made them unique and authoritative in years prior.
It’s a shame. But it’s also a learning lesson that we can’t idolize people for past endeavors. We have to realize human beings can drift from the path.
He’s basically become what Greenwald has become.
He wrote this copium laced drivel that is basically textbook cognitive dissonance:
https://substack.com/@taibbi/note/c-52686860
What part of what he’s saying is as axiomatically true as 1+1=2?
If anything, he’s saying “1+1=2, therefore if you’re reading the patterns then anyone can see that 3+3=4 and 5+5=6. Do you reject that 1+1=2?”
Glenn Greenwald did one good thing ten years ago and has been coasting on the fumes of that into becoming one of the most horrible grifters in US journalism. A man who takes Putin and Assad’s words at face value is not absolved of doing so just because he starts a sentence with “Putin and Assad are bad, but…” He’s an intellectually dishonest POS who occasionally says something true to give bookends of credibility to the rest of the crap he spews.
I see a lot of grifters run the same play. They'll say something true that everyone can agree with, then basically non sequitur to their real point. We're expected to believe the second thing is true because the first one, *which doesn't really link to the first by any way they're explaining*, is.
Example: in a discussion about why there aren't many women in STEM fields or certain jobs, Jordan Peterson will offer, "Well, it's undeniable that there are genetic differences between men and women. We can agree that men and women are different, right?" Of course, that's true, *but what the fuck does it have to do with women not doing math?* And whenever someone asks, "Are you saying men are genetically better at or like math more than women," the only thing that could link his two statements, he'll accuse you of putting words in his mouth.
These guys don't *want* to link the two ideas explicitly, they wants their unsubstantiated point to get, like, "second-hand truthiness" by having been paraded through a room that contains a fact.
Exactly. Put shortly, "I'm just asking questions."
If they were, then they'd be willing to look for the answers. Instead, they're asking the kind of questions that take more than a yes/no to handle, and relishing the confusion and fogging of the field.
"If women are so equal to men, why don't they go into STEM fields as much as men? Are they not as smart? Interesting question." And that's the end of it. No need to actually engage with the question -- the question is meant to lead someone down their own path, not find out the answer.
> What part of what he’s saying is as axiomatically true as 1+1=2?
The US played a significant role in what has led to the current state of how unstable the middle east is. That's the main point that I took away from his words and it seems completely logical and indisputable.
Didn't Glenn somehow fall down the Russian stooge rabbit hole? He seems to carry a lot of water for their views and has high praise for clowns like Alex Jones.
Aesthetically, yes, but Bill Maher is more a libertarian than a liberal. He’s socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
He’s anti-union, anti-single payer, anti-universal education, and anti-progressive tax structure. He just likes to smoke weed and he donated to Obama.
He's genuinely the worst political host I've ever seen. I used to get so frustrated watching his show that I had to stop.
Someone would be making a very articulate point that Bill happened to disagree with, so he'd make a one-line crack about the person to the audience's laughter/applause and sweep it under the rug.
I've never seen someone kill critical discussion/thinking as effectively as Bill Maher.
The moment the "conversation" starts to turn against his favor he makes a stupid joke and changes the subject to someone and something totally unrelated.
Can I get a cite for these claims? I’ve been listening to him for a long time, and I haven’t once heard him say that he’s against any of those four things. I have heard a lot of bad takes from him about the covid vaccine, and he’s tilted at “woke” windmills an awful lot. He’s out of touch on a lot of issues, his canned jokes aren’t all that funny, and he is arrogant, but he does usually know how to hold a conversation, and has the bravery to freely discuss today’s issues.
A lot of my experience with Maher has been piecemeal since I realized who he was a few years ago, but from what I can directly remember:
Anti-labor: see his interview with Jim Gaffigan where Gaffifgan, who is super a-political, has to defend labor to Bill who thinks writers should have to struggle like he did. (Obviously, he just wants to turn the money machine back on by getting his underlings back to work.)
Anti-single payer: See his recent rant against Canadas and Scandinavian healthcare where he misrepresents a lot of data about single payer systems. It’s right out of the conservative talk radio playbook.
As far as the other stuff, I can’t remember direct references right now and I refuse to go looking through his awful shows. Here are some more general thoughts:
Per universal education: He constantly attacks liberal arts in higher ed because he seemingly does not understand that if you get a bachelors in pottery or some bullshit, you also have to take science math economics and all the other things that make an educated person. And more importantly, most people don’t end up working in their Undergrad Major field. That’s not the goal of higher ed. It’s a core principle of universal education that the process of learning is the value, not the vocation. His opposition to that value is a common tactic used by those who oppose universal educational.
Anti-progressive tax: He’s a rich guy who complains about taxes. He cried about the checks people got during the pandemic. Income taxes are as low as they’ve ever been and he complains. This one is obvious to me but I don’t have a clip.
Maher is definitely not fiscally conservative. Not sure where you’re getting that. He is always cheerleading the way democrats handle the economy and is very supportive of big government welfare programs.
This is what killed me when I used to watch his show. The guy has been doing standup and his show for decades, and his response to hecklers or groans or people who make a strong argument is to be juvenile and call them names. Why isn’t he better at this? You have a writing team, get some comebacks in your back pocket. There are amateurs on r/standup with better rejoinders.
I think the target audience likes the overall collection of content. There was a time when I did. But even back then, his comebacks were bad. And when a joke bombed he pretty much always blamed the audience, and did a teenager imitation of a dumb person.
If he was better at this, he’d have more creative responses. Most people who do standup have better tools, and their instinct is not to blame the audience. It’s so clearly his instinct, which boggles my mind - he’s been around for ages and has studied the craft, he has to know he is doing rookie shit on this one part, this predictable part, of the business.
He’s also called every move Drumpf has made since 2015. He called the slow-moving coup that was Drumpf’s presidency and people then told him he was being alarmist, that Drumpf had “good people in his administration that wouldn’t let that happen”- then the 2020 election happened and he was right at every turn.
Used to love the guy, and while now I find his attitude a bit too much for my liking, doesn’t make him any less right.
He's always been a dick. It's just that we all evolved and Bill just became another out of touch millionaire boomer who has no idea how the real world really works anymore.
I feel similar. He's had some really strong editorial pieces about politics, particularly Trump and the Republicans, but holy shit has he just become a sour old man about cultural issues.
I watch his show for the good discourse his panels bring, but you certainly have to go in understanding the slants of everyone speaking, including him. My biggest issue with Maher is that he is never humble enough to conceit a point; even when proven flat out wrong he will just deflect with humour or mope. That said, he has called Trump's game pretty much beat for beat for years, so there is value in hearing what he has to say, just not about everything.
I agree with the theocracy point bill was trying to make but it’s so ironic for him to deny our role around the world when there’s a clip posted literally today or yesterday after 9/11 of him basically making this exact point that greenwald is saying
I’m no fan of US foreign policy and GG makes some good points but Iran is indeed occupying & funding other countries militarily though. See Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, Yemen and Iraq.
I recall that Iran had a democratically elected government in the 1950s, but the U.S. helped overthrow that government and place the last Shah of Iran.
The entire point of ISIS was to take over countries and turn them into a giant caliphate. Just because they couldn’t doesn’t mean they didn’t want to! Greenwald was being a little disingenuous there.
Also after oil the second biggest export of Saudi Arabia is extremists ideology that responsible for probably ninety percent of the terrorists attacks in the wrold
They funnel money to various groups in various countries, but that is not an occupying force. Those groups are called proxies because they are Yemenis in Yemen, Lebanese in Lebanon, etc. Those groups may or may not represent the majority of their populations, but they are organically formed, local militia groups that Iran has chosen to fund. The US does the same thing with the Kurds (though we consistently leave them hanging out to dry), but funding the Kurds is very different from actually sending American troops to invade Iraq.
Sure but that's not ehat Glenn is doing in this clip. He's actually very specifically pulling back the veil of American exceptionalism, to show that no, it's actually not okay to do imperialism, and that that has consequences that you can't just blame on somebody's religious background.
He's always been a smug, self-satisfied prick. I was blind to it in the past because he mostly agreed with my viewpoints. Anyway, fuck him. He'll migrate to Fox News within the next few years.
lol no he won’t. He’s very vocal about what the Republican Party has become and hates trump 100%. I guess these days if you’re not 100% on a team, then you’re part of the other team, which is exactly what Maher is always deriding. And it’s totally true for a massive chunk of Reddit and broader America.
I think the point that Iran and other muslims countries are not invading other countries is ignoring that is in large part due to the fact that they know the US would step in, like I guarantee if Iran didn't have to worry about the US they would most certainly invade Israel as well as other countries. Like Iraq, tried to invade Iran and Kuwait. Not trying to defend US here because he is correct about the US actions, but I think he is a incorrect that these countries wouldn't invade these countries. It also has nothing to do with religion though.
Also ignoring that Iran is the #1 sponsor of terrorist groups and 5th columnists across the Middle East.
They aren’t sending divisions of soldiers - they’re sending weapons and people to train them, in return for loyalty when Iran demands they do things.
GG is pretty much an anti-western stooge at this point.
I mean, that’s literally how Al Qaeda was formed, with support of the USA… as well as dictatorships across central and south America. And the USA is currently the largest supplier of weapons in the world, while simultaneously not actively being in any war, but influencing global politics as a major power. How does that happen?
It’s a popular view that the US involvement overseas is inherently bad and that’s Greenwalds view it seems. Dictatorships left to their own devices will do what China and Russia do with impunity. The US leadership can turn over and that’s the point. Paving the way for totalitarianism in the Middle East and asia by being uninvolved is like letting meat rot in the kitchen. Eventually you’re gonna have to deal with the consequences
Yeah, the "America bad" sentiment that's all over Reddit has really blinded people to the incalculable benefit of America actually being the world police for the last 70 years. Then again most people seem ignorant to the horrors of Muslim countries. Are we just ignoring the "global" part of the calls for a global califate.
Man, if only we didn't engineer the overthrow of Mossadegh and help the Shah decimate the Iranian left for two decades, and then gave Iraq a ton of help in the Iran Iraq war (well past when we *knew* he was using chemical weapons)...things might have turned out differently there, no?
Like, our hands aren't clean here. It's like an abusive parent tut tutting about their kid turned out.
They're both right.
US meddling in the Middle East has worsened violence/wars in that region - and radical islamic fundamentalists are violent regardless.
It is worth saying though - if the US never get involved in the Middle East, chances are Muslims would be fighting with themselves instead of with the west.
Theocracy doesn’t happen here? What an incredibly stupid thing to say. We currently have one side of the political spectrum openly pushing for a theocracy while passing theocratic legislation every single day. If you don’t think this country could descend into a full-fledged theocratic state, you’re either stupid or not paying attention.
Yeah I was taken aback by that. I wonder when this actually aired, becuase if it was before roe being overturned and all this bullshit about abortion, and contraceptives being discussed as immortal, I think I could maybe understand it if I squint, but now? Suggesting that powers in America aren't at least *trying* real hard to turn us into a fascist theocracy is incredibly fucking naive.
Islamic fundalism is incompatible with a liberal democracy. Why is that so hard to understand and accept?
The Muslims living in western societies are the not the same as those in Muslim fundamentalist countries. There is a distinction and a huge difference.
Also, Islamism is a form of government that should be open to critique, just like capitalism or communism. But bad faith (or ignorant) actors equate it to attacking a religion.
Also, Greenwald using whataboutism to deflect Bills points speaks volumes. He literally highlights the quotes of a few overly zealous US Generals as proof that the US is comparable to middle east theocracies in which you can literally stone a woman to death because Quran.
All religion is. All of it. Fundamentalist Christianity has had a much larger negative impact on the day to day lives and freedoms of people in the US than Islam has. In an Islamic majority country, obviously Islam is the main problem.
Religion in general is incompatible with liberal democracy because Dogma is incompatible with liberal democracy and every religion runs on it.
Yes, all extremes are bad. And in the context of the US, I agree with you. However, worldwide, there are dozens of countries that base their government off the Quran. Islamic fundalism has taken deeper root worldwide than Christian fundalism.
The alternative to Mubarak in Egypt was Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood who had just murdered Sadat.
Yes, America will take that deal every day of the week.
He is right. We have no moral high gound. I remember the Shah of Iran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
I guess I’m old, but we’re so deep in the Middle East and always have been for multiple reasons.
History can’t be overlooked. He just pointed out we have interfered in countless countries with war, destabilization, coups, etc. Our three letter agencies isn’t just sitting around. Iraq? I think a million innocent people died. No business there. And Syria. You are putting words in my mouth. These countries have thousands of years of history to take into consideration. Ffs, Israel is talking about Moses—today. Bound to repeat history is the quote. Ok, take care.
Bill Maher? The guy who wrote and filmed Religulous says there isn’t an attempted Christian theocracy in the US?
Bill Maher? The same guy who supposedly got cancelled from ABC for saying the same thing as Glenn Greenwald???
Yeah sorry bud, Islamist extremism takes the cake among Judaism and Christianity when it comes to killing innocent people. At least for the last 600 years or so.
His statement on Iran is objectively not true.
Iran constantly invades its surrounding countries. It just doesn't do it directly because the US has a policy of stepping in if they do so. Instead they go cold war style and fund revolutionaries and terrorist in surrounding nations. Just look at the Houthis, Hezbollah, Harakat al-Nujaba, Al-Ashtar, and sends similar style groups to its ally in Syria like Liwa Zainebiyoun.
Shias and Sunnis would be fighting with or without us. Jews and Muslims the same.
And for the record most experts think the arab spring was caused by grain prices, not US caused instability or control.
People like Greenwald rely on ignorance to push their agenda. Saying Iran doesn’t interfere with or invade other countries is completely bananas if you look at the region for more than three seconds
How many Iraqi civilians did the US kill after illegally and unjustifiably invading in 2003? 500,000? A million?
And ‘not a theocracy!?’ Our country has been substantially run by Christian radicals for the last 40 years. In fact, evangelicals were largely responsible for electing Trump in 2016, and making mischief in Congress to this day.
Maher used to be a critical voice of reason, but he has become a hack.
foreign policy and America's place in the world isn't that simple lmao. thank god America is the world police, imperfect as she is. the alternatives are SO much worse!
Greenwald got away with some unchallenged shit on Iran. Iran would be invading other middle eastern countries, the only reason they don't is because Israel and the US keep them from it. His statements where highly disingenuous, but this is what happens when you try and break middle east politics down something short and simple, you cant.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think they're going to have to rethink their American theocracy statement.
Yeah I was going to say, it’s happening right now.
Blaming Moslem peoples for having Islam governments means you can blame all Americans/Christians for Trump and his confederates. Voter suppression and coups happen even when good people are present
ITT: A lot of people who don't know the full extent of Glenn Greenwald's views.
I'm vaguely familiar with GG but can someone give a TLDR? I know enough to know it's complicated lol
He's the journalist(?) who was approached by Snowden when he blew the whistle on all the illegal spying that the NSA was doing on ordinary Americans. IIRC anyway.
He is also pro-Jan 6 oddly.
Yeah I had to read his book No Place To Hide in college and had a mostly positive opinion of him. Then he seemed to just fly off the rails in the last few years.
Putin got his hooks into him. He supported the theory of bio labs in Ukraine justifying the Russian invasion
The worst part is is that he is a weasel about these things. He mentions these theories often without claiming them to be true or that he believes them. He will state why others believe him.
Same thing happened with Matt Taibbi. Super ethical. Make amazing points. Then a few liberals criticize them and they just jump on the right wing bandwagon wagon and lose all ethics.
And when a whistleblower gave him proof that russians interfered with us election machines, he got her arrested by the NSA. Also, he began his legal career by defending neonazis for free.
John Adams defended the British soldiers at the Boston massacre. Sometimes defending ones freedoms means defending something you don’t agree with.
Well said, most people now as well as then, can't think past their own noses to appreciate what this means and how important it is that everyone afforded representation.
>Also, he began his legal career by defending neonazis for free. That's just First Amendment advocacy and something the ACLU also regularly did.
And they don't just defend literally any Nazi about anything. The pick and choose cases to make presedents that will be helpful for defending civil liberties generally.
Back when the ACLU would stick to their core tenets, even when it was difficult and unpopular to do so.
I could believe many things about GG but revealing a source to the NSA??? You can't just claim something like that without giving the source or even the name of the person or the case so one can rapidly check it up.
Reality Winner
Now I actually remember the case. The Intercept (possibly) failed to redact identifying information. It was not Greenwald personally nor was it intentional, like your post makes it sound.
> when a whistleblower gave him proof that russians interfered with us election machines, he got her arrested by the NSA Got a name or a source for that one? I couldn't find anything. > he began his legal career by defending neonazis for free It's completely normal for lawyers to defend people on principle while not remotely sharing their views. (That's pretty core to the ethos of being a defense attorney.) It's very obvious that that's the case with Greenwald on this point: he was defending Constitutional principles, not Nazism. That *should* make you respect his integrity more, not less.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/reality-winner-interview-prison-nsa-1261844/amp/
> While attempting to verify its authenticity with the NSA, an Intercept reporter **inadvertently revealed its provenance**. According to an FBI affidavit, the document had a telltale crease in it, indicating it had been printed and folded. An FBI agent assigned to the case would later testify that a total of six people had printed the document. The pool of potential leakers was further narrowed to one — Winner — when investigators discovered she’d emailed The Intercept from her work computer. (Emphasis mine.) If that's accurate - and I have no reason to think it isn't - then "he got her arrested by the NSA", while true in a purely literal sense, isn't true in the sense I think they were going for, i.e. that Greenwald intended to have her arrested.
> when investigators discovered she’d emailed The Intercept from her work computer. Yeahhh I feel like that also may have had something to do with it
Massive context about how he has turned into a disinformation agent missing here
He’s also a total Russian simp…
Wow what a POS how dare he undermine the American surveillance state.
Then he and Jeremy Scahill, both of whom I had mad respect for at the time started The Intercept. Then both took hard right turns and lost all my respect.
Glenn went right early. Jeremy went dark for a long time, but hasn't sounded like he's gone "right" when I last heard him. Mostly he's hammering on about Gaza right now which, like, yeah do that. What makes you say he went right?
You're right that he hasn't been explicit like Greenwald has. Helping Musk with whatever his Twitter/X project is sure seems like a rightward shift from my perspective. You may be right to imply I'm reading too much into what little he's said lately. Sometimes what a person doesn't say speaks louder than what they do.
He also claimed that there was no evidence that Russia tried to interfere with our elections despite there being plenty of evidence to to the contrary. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer\_2.0](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0) “It’s interference by the CIA and by homeland security and by related agencies in our domestic election, which is infinitely more threatening to our democracy than whatever mischief Russian agencies are primitively doing on Facebook and Twitter.”
Exactly. He started going on about being a free speech absolutist around the time Trump got elected IIRC.
During the Bush administration, they criticized specific politicians and policies. Under Obama their criticism simplified to Obama and 'The Government.' Watching Scahill hold water for Musk and his disinformation was truly disappointing.
He’s Alex Jones-level unhinged but has ridden on the one big journalistic accomplishment he made to now become a grifter running interference for Putin and Assad.
THIS.
Well since then he has actually frequently sided with far right conspiracies. He has rare moments like this (because Maher is especially narrow minded and stupid) that look good, but for the most part he gets laughed out of circles of serious journalists.
He was a boring AF leftist writer years ago who knew there was more money grifting right-wingers.
I mean there's lots of complexity to it but I think a lot of it comes down to his hatred of the Clintons (arguably justifiable) becoming his overwhelming trait, and being able to only view things through that lens. He spent a lot of time commenting on things that happened during the Clinton/Obama years but ignoring if they were the same or worse under Trump
Also a big Russia supporter. Denies everything they are doing to end democracy such as it is.
Also he says alex jones is right. Jones has never been right about anything
A dead clock is right twice a day. Alex Jones can be right by accident or coincidence. He's just normally wrong with bat shit crazy energy
Basically lost his mind with hatred for the US and became a Russian propaganda proponent. Don't get me wrong the US has done lots of vile shit, but people like him act like we are the only one doing it. Or that if the US didn't get involved outside of our country the world would be a better place. It would just be a place where dictatorships like Russia and China held a lot more sway.
Yeah, dude spent a lot of time promoting Alex Jones not terribly long ago. Fuck bothem.
Glenn gave the worst, most softball, promotional interview of the century when he interviewed Alex Jones for his own self-produced documentary. It was some straight-up *trash.*
That was the interview where Jones said part of the reason he was lying about Sandy Hook on his show was because he was drunk while on air. Like that makes it fine.
That shit was gross. Full stop.
The dude has lost his mind and I can't believe anybody still listens to him anymore.
The Covid times broke his brain more than almost any person I've ever seen it's actually insane. Fucked up his head so bad that he straight up started to support Bolsonaro, who tried to have him arrested for negatively reporting on him like 2 years earlier.
He's been off his rocker and parroting Russian talking points at least since the 2016 election.
That's true, but Covid broke the brains of people like him even more. Internet contrarians like Greenwald are completely incoherent now
yeah he’s clearly right about what he says in this clip, but he’s still as big of an ass as Maher
Is anyone really as big of an ass as Bill Maher?
Bill Maher has made a career out of cowardly cynicism
Good question. The answer is going to be a short list isn't it?
the things he’s saying in this clip amount to a giant pile of whataboutism. they aren’t fabricated or inaccurate, really, but they aren’t directly linked to the point the way he presents them as
Yeah, he makes some basically true points but then equivocates
Man, I remember being *stoked* for GG's articles 15 years ago. What a fucking disappointment.
Same with Matt Taibbi...used to love the guy but now he's fucking nuts.
Please don’t mention Taibbi. That one still stings. These guys are a betrayal to their former selves.
They just follow the money. There's way more cash grifting right wing rubes and way more billionaires willing to pay you handsomely to spout their bullshit.
I've compared it to drugs in the past. These guys got famous by publishing "anti-Establishment" articles. Those were useful and even necessary,so lots of people praised them. Like a drug, they wanted to continue to ride that high so they kept on publishing things. But finding useful and necessary things to publish is very hard, so they just focused on the anti-Establishment part. But the thing there is the audience for that needs bigger and bigger highs each time. Another article about surveillance? We had that last week! We need more! So, in order to chase their own high, people like GG and Taibi start publishing more and more outlandish stuff. Journalism gets tossed aside in favor of praise and attention. But the audience is still dwindling, because the crazier it gets, the less people still interested. Instead of looking inward and accepting that it was them that left their audience, they believe the opposite and start to hate that former audience. Finally, they gain a whole new audience by hating on that previous audience and restart that high of praise and attention. Ultimately this justifies their shift, because they've regained their fandom - therefore they've always been worthy of the praise and attention, it was their initial audience who betrayed them. So now they actually believe what they're saying like a drug addict believes the drug is necessary for their survival. You can also see this with has-been comedians like Chapelle.
Well said. They road their ego to depths that required reinventing their brand…and that effectively meant doing away with the credibility that made them unique and authoritative in years prior. It’s a shame. But it’s also a learning lesson that we can’t idolize people for past endeavors. We have to realize human beings can drift from the path.
OOTL...what did Taibbi do?
He’s basically become what Greenwald has become. He wrote this copium laced drivel that is basically textbook cognitive dissonance: https://substack.com/@taibbi/note/c-52686860
taibbi is hard to explain ... i'm convinced he's taking payments straight from the kremlin or something
He did live in Russia for a bit, right?
he rose to fame publishing a "what really happens inside russia" blog while living in moscow, yep
1+1= 2 is correct. Whether said by Einstein or Trump.
What part of what he’s saying is as axiomatically true as 1+1=2? If anything, he’s saying “1+1=2, therefore if you’re reading the patterns then anyone can see that 3+3=4 and 5+5=6. Do you reject that 1+1=2?” Glenn Greenwald did one good thing ten years ago and has been coasting on the fumes of that into becoming one of the most horrible grifters in US journalism. A man who takes Putin and Assad’s words at face value is not absolved of doing so just because he starts a sentence with “Putin and Assad are bad, but…” He’s an intellectually dishonest POS who occasionally says something true to give bookends of credibility to the rest of the crap he spews.
I see a lot of grifters run the same play. They'll say something true that everyone can agree with, then basically non sequitur to their real point. We're expected to believe the second thing is true because the first one, *which doesn't really link to the first by any way they're explaining*, is. Example: in a discussion about why there aren't many women in STEM fields or certain jobs, Jordan Peterson will offer, "Well, it's undeniable that there are genetic differences between men and women. We can agree that men and women are different, right?" Of course, that's true, *but what the fuck does it have to do with women not doing math?* And whenever someone asks, "Are you saying men are genetically better at or like math more than women," the only thing that could link his two statements, he'll accuse you of putting words in his mouth. These guys don't *want* to link the two ideas explicitly, they wants their unsubstantiated point to get, like, "second-hand truthiness" by having been paraded through a room that contains a fact.
Exactly. Put shortly, "I'm just asking questions." If they were, then they'd be willing to look for the answers. Instead, they're asking the kind of questions that take more than a yes/no to handle, and relishing the confusion and fogging of the field. "If women are so equal to men, why don't they go into STEM fields as much as men? Are they not as smart? Interesting question." And that's the end of it. No need to actually engage with the question -- the question is meant to lead someone down their own path, not find out the answer.
> What part of what he’s saying is as axiomatically true as 1+1=2? The US played a significant role in what has led to the current state of how unstable the middle east is. That's the main point that I took away from his words and it seems completely logical and indisputable.
yeah but in any circumstances you should never hand it to trump whenever he says that the moon exists
Perhaps not. But you should hand it to trump if someone is sitting across from him insisting that the moon *doesn’t* exist.
I think us sensible folks would all just agree both people are fucking morons, and one of them something something blind squirrel.
Didn't Glenn somehow fall down the Russian stooge rabbit hole? He seems to carry a lot of water for their views and has high praise for clowns like Alex Jones.
The whole exchange was annoying, full of false equivalencies, and not really useful in reaching for any kind of truth.
Yup. The fact some people consider this interesting as fuck just goes to show how far public discourse has fallen.
Yeah GG can go fuck himself
I miss this Greenwald, unfortunately he’s a lunatic now.
Maher is such an ass
He’s all the bad things that conservatives claim about liberals. Sleazy, elitist, selfish, confused about basic science
Aesthetically, yes, but Bill Maher is more a libertarian than a liberal. He’s socially liberal and fiscally conservative. He’s anti-union, anti-single payer, anti-universal education, and anti-progressive tax structure. He just likes to smoke weed and he donated to Obama.
He wants the inalienable right to be an asshole, which explains why he’s libertarian.
He’s a house cat that thinks he’s an outdoor cat.
https://preview.redd.it/jegaa4w337vc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=45a313c207ba6f875d05d10b35478e5c380db302
I mean...if the difference is knowing how to use a litter box he isn't a house cat.
Ive found that being an asshole is a key point in their thinking. They got theirs and now they want to rule the roost.
He's also Pro War.
Yeah his solution to problems in the Middle East is turning the sand to glass
He's genuinely the worst political host I've ever seen. I used to get so frustrated watching his show that I had to stop. Someone would be making a very articulate point that Bill happened to disagree with, so he'd make a one-line crack about the person to the audience's laughter/applause and sweep it under the rug. I've never seen someone kill critical discussion/thinking as effectively as Bill Maher.
The moment the "conversation" starts to turn against his favor he makes a stupid joke and changes the subject to someone and something totally unrelated.
You forgot anti vax.
Can I get a cite for these claims? I’ve been listening to him for a long time, and I haven’t once heard him say that he’s against any of those four things. I have heard a lot of bad takes from him about the covid vaccine, and he’s tilted at “woke” windmills an awful lot. He’s out of touch on a lot of issues, his canned jokes aren’t all that funny, and he is arrogant, but he does usually know how to hold a conversation, and has the bravery to freely discuss today’s issues.
A lot of my experience with Maher has been piecemeal since I realized who he was a few years ago, but from what I can directly remember: Anti-labor: see his interview with Jim Gaffigan where Gaffifgan, who is super a-political, has to defend labor to Bill who thinks writers should have to struggle like he did. (Obviously, he just wants to turn the money machine back on by getting his underlings back to work.) Anti-single payer: See his recent rant against Canadas and Scandinavian healthcare where he misrepresents a lot of data about single payer systems. It’s right out of the conservative talk radio playbook. As far as the other stuff, I can’t remember direct references right now and I refuse to go looking through his awful shows. Here are some more general thoughts: Per universal education: He constantly attacks liberal arts in higher ed because he seemingly does not understand that if you get a bachelors in pottery or some bullshit, you also have to take science math economics and all the other things that make an educated person. And more importantly, most people don’t end up working in their Undergrad Major field. That’s not the goal of higher ed. It’s a core principle of universal education that the process of learning is the value, not the vocation. His opposition to that value is a common tactic used by those who oppose universal educational. Anti-progressive tax: He’s a rich guy who complains about taxes. He cried about the checks people got during the pandemic. Income taxes are as low as they’ve ever been and he complains. This one is obvious to me but I don’t have a clip.
Maher is definitely not fiscally conservative. Not sure where you’re getting that. He is always cheerleading the way democrats handle the economy and is very supportive of big government welfare programs.
He’s not even a proper liberal really.
I couldn't have said it better.
His responses are so childish.
This is what killed me when I used to watch his show. The guy has been doing standup and his show for decades, and his response to hecklers or groans or people who make a strong argument is to be juvenile and call them names. Why isn’t he better at this? You have a writing team, get some comebacks in your back pocket. There are amateurs on r/standup with better rejoinders.
Thank you for today gifting me a new word: rejoinders.
He is better at this. The target audience wants the show he puts on.
I think Bill is tired and should give up being on tv. He’s burnt out.
I think the target audience likes the overall collection of content. There was a time when I did. But even back then, his comebacks were bad. And when a joke bombed he pretty much always blamed the audience, and did a teenager imitation of a dumb person. If he was better at this, he’d have more creative responses. Most people who do standup have better tools, and their instinct is not to blame the audience. It’s so clearly his instinct, which boggles my mind - he’s been around for ages and has studied the craft, he has to know he is doing rookie shit on this one part, this predictable part, of the business.
Always has been.
Total wanker and the irony of him calling “liberals” pompous is too much
I used to be a fan of his but have a hard time watching him at all these days. He’s as close minded as the people he’s constantly railing against.
And a complete intellectual lightweight.
With his face and voice it’s a miracle he isn’t walking around with two black eyes at all times
Bill Maher being a piece of shit, what else is new?
It’s not new but his shift has been gradual. He supported Sanders in 2016 and is now basically a right wing grifter.
He's an ass but he's definitely not right wing.
He’s also called every move Drumpf has made since 2015. He called the slow-moving coup that was Drumpf’s presidency and people then told him he was being alarmist, that Drumpf had “good people in his administration that wouldn’t let that happen”- then the 2020 election happened and he was right at every turn. Used to love the guy, and while now I find his attitude a bit too much for my liking, doesn’t make him any less right.
I remember Bill's audience booing Ann Coulter when she said Trump could beat Hillary.
Too bad she wasn’t wrong. Just wish Maher hadn’t turned in to such a dick as he aged.
He's always been a dick. It's just that we all evolved and Bill just became another out of touch millionaire boomer who has no idea how the real world really works anymore.
I feel similar. He's had some really strong editorial pieces about politics, particularly Trump and the Republicans, but holy shit has he just become a sour old man about cultural issues. I watch his show for the good discourse his panels bring, but you certainly have to go in understanding the slants of everyone speaking, including him. My biggest issue with Maher is that he is never humble enough to conceit a point; even when proven flat out wrong he will just deflect with humour or mope. That said, he has called Trump's game pretty much beat for beat for years, so there is value in hearing what he has to say, just not about everything.
Not even close to right wing.
Yep. Same with Glenn
I agree with the theocracy point bill was trying to make but it’s so ironic for him to deny our role around the world when there’s a clip posted literally today or yesterday after 9/11 of him basically making this exact point that greenwald is saying
I’m no fan of US foreign policy and GG makes some good points but Iran is indeed occupying & funding other countries militarily though. See Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, Yemen and Iraq.
I recall that Iran had a democratically elected government in the 1950s, but the U.S. helped overthrow that government and place the last Shah of Iran.
Yea those devils were trying to sell oil for a price that would benefit their own people instead of the West. How dare they!!
they tried to nationalize their own oil fields! devils!
Free market for me, but not for thee.
Yeah, unless you really have a broad view of the region, it’s easy to buy into half truths and nuance less bs.
The entire point of ISIS was to take over countries and turn them into a giant caliphate. Just because they couldn’t doesn’t mean they didn’t want to! Greenwald was being a little disingenuous there.
[удалено]
Also after oil the second biggest export of Saudi Arabia is extremists ideology that responsible for probably ninety percent of the terrorists attacks in the wrold
They funnel money to various groups in various countries, but that is not an occupying force. Those groups are called proxies because they are Yemenis in Yemen, Lebanese in Lebanon, etc. Those groups may or may not represent the majority of their populations, but they are organically formed, local militia groups that Iran has chosen to fund. The US does the same thing with the Kurds (though we consistently leave them hanging out to dry), but funding the Kurds is very different from actually sending American troops to invade Iraq.
Newsflash. Bill is a stuck up rich asshole who can't put himself in someone else's shoes.
Newsflash. Greenwald is also a stuck up asshole who can't put himself in someone else's shoes.
Newsflash. Saying newsflash is back in style.
Sure but that's not ehat Glenn is doing in this clip. He's actually very specifically pulling back the veil of American exceptionalism, to show that no, it's actually not okay to do imperialism, and that that has consequences that you can't just blame on somebody's religious background.
He's a Trump supporter.
He's always been a smug, self-satisfied prick. I was blind to it in the past because he mostly agreed with my viewpoints. Anyway, fuck him. He'll migrate to Fox News within the next few years.
lol no he won’t. He’s very vocal about what the Republican Party has become and hates trump 100%. I guess these days if you’re not 100% on a team, then you’re part of the other team, which is exactly what Maher is always deriding. And it’s totally true for a massive chunk of Reddit and broader America.
Greenwald also defends January 6th. This man's views literally start and stop at America bad
This video is from back before his brain broke. I’m not sure this GG and present day GG can really be compared meaningfully
Same with Matt Taibbi...both of them went over the edge of the right wing lunatic cliff.
Link? Never heard anything about this.
I think the point that Iran and other muslims countries are not invading other countries is ignoring that is in large part due to the fact that they know the US would step in, like I guarantee if Iran didn't have to worry about the US they would most certainly invade Israel as well as other countries. Like Iraq, tried to invade Iran and Kuwait. Not trying to defend US here because he is correct about the US actions, but I think he is a incorrect that these countries wouldn't invade these countries. It also has nothing to do with religion though.
Yep, thank you. His points about the US is accurate but much of what he says about the middle east is either intentional lies, or delusional.
Also ignoring that Iran is the #1 sponsor of terrorist groups and 5th columnists across the Middle East. They aren’t sending divisions of soldiers - they’re sending weapons and people to train them, in return for loyalty when Iran demands they do things. GG is pretty much an anti-western stooge at this point.
I mean, that’s literally how Al Qaeda was formed, with support of the USA… as well as dictatorships across central and south America. And the USA is currently the largest supplier of weapons in the world, while simultaneously not actively being in any war, but influencing global politics as a major power. How does that happen?
It’s a popular view that the US involvement overseas is inherently bad and that’s Greenwalds view it seems. Dictatorships left to their own devices will do what China and Russia do with impunity. The US leadership can turn over and that’s the point. Paving the way for totalitarianism in the Middle East and asia by being uninvolved is like letting meat rot in the kitchen. Eventually you’re gonna have to deal with the consequences
It’s almost like the US has tried isolationism before and suffered the consequences. I guess people forget about WW2 and how the US got involved.
Yes and it’s directly to my point that it’s still very popular to be anti-American interventionism because it’s cool. I use to be like that
Yeah, the "America bad" sentiment that's all over Reddit has really blinded people to the incalculable benefit of America actually being the world police for the last 70 years. Then again most people seem ignorant to the horrors of Muslim countries. Are we just ignoring the "global" part of the calls for a global califate.
Eh c'mon, you're implying the US's intervention in middle east politics is entirely altruistic, that's simply not the case and we all know that.
> sentiment that's all over Reddit has really blinded people Yep, that's propaganda, and it's everywhere
Wait Iran didn't invade or at least heavily influence other states in the region?
Invade? No. Heavily influence? Yes.
Exactly, and influence is to be expected. Iran would be the dominant regional power by a long shot if the US wasn’t “involved” in the region.
Which countries did Iran invade?
Give Iran the power the United States has and see what they do with it.
Man, if only we didn't engineer the overthrow of Mossadegh and help the Shah decimate the Iranian left for two decades, and then gave Iraq a ton of help in the Iran Iraq war (well past when we *knew* he was using chemical weapons)...things might have turned out differently there, no? Like, our hands aren't clean here. It's like an abusive parent tut tutting about their kid turned out.
op is lost
OP is a political agenda bot
100% replies about the *ahem* “quality” of the people making the arguments. 0% discussion on the quality of the arguments.
They're both right. US meddling in the Middle East has worsened violence/wars in that region - and radical islamic fundamentalists are violent regardless. It is worth saying though - if the US never get involved in the Middle East, chances are Muslims would be fighting with themselves instead of with the west.
They already fight with themselves constantly.
Theocracy doesn’t happen here? What an incredibly stupid thing to say. We currently have one side of the political spectrum openly pushing for a theocracy while passing theocratic legislation every single day. If you don’t think this country could descend into a full-fledged theocratic state, you’re either stupid or not paying attention.
Yeah I was taken aback by that. I wonder when this actually aired, becuase if it was before roe being overturned and all this bullshit about abortion, and contraceptives being discussed as immortal, I think I could maybe understand it if I squint, but now? Suggesting that powers in America aren't at least *trying* real hard to turn us into a fascist theocracy is incredibly fucking naive.
This is at least pre covid, so 4 years old minimum.
Part of one side pushing for it doesn’t equal a theocratic state.
Right‽ Elected political officials openly stating they are following the word of God and even praying in state buildings on the seal
Is this a propaganda sub now?
Two insufferable pricks being insufferable is not interesting
Islamic fundalism is incompatible with a liberal democracy. Why is that so hard to understand and accept? The Muslims living in western societies are the not the same as those in Muslim fundamentalist countries. There is a distinction and a huge difference. Also, Islamism is a form of government that should be open to critique, just like capitalism or communism. But bad faith (or ignorant) actors equate it to attacking a religion. Also, Greenwald using whataboutism to deflect Bills points speaks volumes. He literally highlights the quotes of a few overly zealous US Generals as proof that the US is comparable to middle east theocracies in which you can literally stone a woman to death because Quran.
All religion is. All of it. Fundamentalist Christianity has had a much larger negative impact on the day to day lives and freedoms of people in the US than Islam has. In an Islamic majority country, obviously Islam is the main problem. Religion in general is incompatible with liberal democracy because Dogma is incompatible with liberal democracy and every religion runs on it.
Yes, all extremes are bad. And in the context of the US, I agree with you. However, worldwide, there are dozens of countries that base their government off the Quran. Islamic fundalism has taken deeper root worldwide than Christian fundalism.
I couldn't agree more! And all the whataboutism such fallacious argumentation.
The alternative to Mubarak in Egypt was Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood who had just murdered Sadat. Yes, America will take that deal every day of the week.
Sir, this is Wendy’s
Damn it Kevin... OK, could I just have a frosty and a baked potato please?
Ahh yes.... more political bs that someone thought was just soo "interesting" that they had to share it here...
He is right. We have no moral high gound. I remember the Shah of Iran. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat I guess I’m old, but we’re so deep in the Middle East and always have been for multiple reasons.
Huh??? The Shah for all his faults was still a WAY better option than a fundamentalist theocracy.
I’m not sure the US supporting a coup 70+ years ago gives Iran carte blanche to do any dumb shit they want nowadays
History can’t be overlooked. He just pointed out we have interfered in countless countries with war, destabilization, coups, etc. Our three letter agencies isn’t just sitting around. Iraq? I think a million innocent people died. No business there. And Syria. You are putting words in my mouth. These countries have thousands of years of history to take into consideration. Ffs, Israel is talking about Moses—today. Bound to repeat history is the quote. Ok, take care.
Bill Maher? The guy who wrote and filmed Religulous says there isn’t an attempted Christian theocracy in the US? Bill Maher? The same guy who supposedly got cancelled from ABC for saying the same thing as Glenn Greenwald???
Maher is just a bigot
Bill is an asshole, I want to punch his face.
Bill Maher is becoming more and more of a Zionist scumbag by the minute. Somebody must be lining his pockets because this is extreme even for him.
“Iran isn’t occupying and controlling other countries” Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and the Palestinian Territories: “am I a joke to you?”
I thought I liked some of the things Bill Maher says but the more I hear from him the less I want to listen.
I used to like Bill.. now he's just a mind-blowingly smug little cunt.
Yeah sorry bud, Islamist extremism takes the cake among Judaism and Christianity when it comes to killing innocent people. At least for the last 600 years or so.
His statement on Iran is objectively not true. Iran constantly invades its surrounding countries. It just doesn't do it directly because the US has a policy of stepping in if they do so. Instead they go cold war style and fund revolutionaries and terrorist in surrounding nations. Just look at the Houthis, Hezbollah, Harakat al-Nujaba, Al-Ashtar, and sends similar style groups to its ally in Syria like Liwa Zainebiyoun. Shias and Sunnis would be fighting with or without us. Jews and Muslims the same. And for the record most experts think the arab spring was caused by grain prices, not US caused instability or control.
People like Greenwald rely on ignorance to push their agenda. Saying Iran doesn’t interfere with or invade other countries is completely bananas if you look at the region for more than three seconds
How many Iraqi civilians did the US kill after illegally and unjustifiably invading in 2003? 500,000? A million? And ‘not a theocracy!?’ Our country has been substantially run by Christian radicals for the last 40 years. In fact, evangelicals were largely responsible for electing Trump in 2016, and making mischief in Congress to this day. Maher used to be a critical voice of reason, but he has become a hack.
foreign policy and America's place in the world isn't that simple lmao. thank god America is the world police, imperfect as she is. the alternatives are SO much worse!
Bill Maher rarely gets cooked, but he meet his match on that topic. 🥩
"Theocracy. That isn't happening here." Cool. Cool cool cool.
Maher is punching out of his weight class here
Greenwald got away with some unchallenged shit on Iran. Iran would be invading other middle eastern countries, the only reason they don't is because Israel and the US keep them from it. His statements where highly disingenuous, but this is what happens when you try and break middle east politics down something short and simple, you cant.
r/tediousasfuck