Yes, constantly. In previous threads and this one, when Glenn is cornered, he resorts to the age-old logical fallacy of noted that I sound like "O'Reilly" and "Fox News" on this issue. I'm accused of "palling around with Neo-Cons" because on this one issue I think they're closer to the truth (for the wrong motivating reasons) than are you people, with your grand financing conspiracies and hidden control of Washington.

I brought up O'Reilly to condemn him. Glenn notes the "irony" that O'Reilly agrees with me on this issue, like that means anything (like O'Reilly has any idea what he's saying half the time).

Now Glenn wants to take his ball and go home:

Yes - I do it so "constantly" that, yet again, he says I say X without citing a single instance.

Do I really need to go back and cite the half a dozen times this week you've noted that I "sound like Fox News"? Is that really necessary Glenn? You won't even grant me the point that you yourself know is true?

This is the last syllable I'm wasting to or about him: the only reason I cited the fact that he and O'Reilly have the same views on Israel/Gaza (and the Israel/Lebanon war? he doesn't say) isn't because I was arguing that "if O'Reilly supports it, then it must be wrong." It's because he was accusing me of thinking like O'Reilly -- rather ironic, given that it's him and O'Reilly who aren't merely on the same side here, but have very similar views.

Wow.

Lawerly retroactive rewrite. Genius, Glenn.

You were EXACTLY doing just that. You were smearing my point by arguing others who support it are suspect, therefore the point itself must be suspect. If there was a damn search engine on this lousy-ass salon posting, I'd find the many times you did EXACTLY that. And your definition of "irony" ranks up there with Alanis Morisette. My point was about manichean binaries and double-standards in punditry, something you have mastered in your time morphing into the very types you critique.

But you introduce the actual issue being discussed to change the subject when called out for practicing the very bait-n-switches O'Reilly uses. It's not even good lawyering.

I'm done with him. I'm not going to spend any more time pointing out that his sole tactic is to attribute to me words, beliefs and ideas I've never expressed and don't espouse. I trust everyone sees that he repeatedly claims I say things without linking or quoting. There's a good reason for that.

What have I I claimed, specifically, that you don't espouse? Cite sources. Cite quotes.

OMG!! You didn't cite sources and quotes to back what you just attributed to me? Hey wow, I can play the lawyer dance, too.

I don't think he's maliciously motivated. I just think that, and I believe he's acknowledged, he has a very strong emotional attachment to Israel -- and that emotional attachment is never going to be moved with reason.

Thanks for the psychoanalysis, Freud. Someday, when you're away from this board, you might want to take a look at your own fairly obvious biases. Because your claims that your heart sings for the poor innocent children of Palestine is laughable.

I can understand your confusion. I was discussing ways of framing debate and how a propagandist like O'Reilly frames his opposition. Glenn shifted it to the actual issue. The actual issue is immaterial when discussing the methodology of smearing an opponent, something Glenn has mastered from his time critiquing the punditry class.

But that's how Glenn manipulates the language. It isn't a military response, it's a "War on Gaza" or "Israel's attack on Gaza." Not Hamas. "Gaza."

Here's the list from today's post:

"Israel/Gaza"

"Israel's military actions"

"Israeli attack"

"bombing campaigns of civilian populations"

"Israeli attack on Gaza"

"inhumane civilian slaughter"

"Israeli attack on Gaza"

"Israeli war on Gaza"

Total times Glenn discusses "Israel's war on Hamas"? Zero. For Glenn, Israel has declared a "war on Gaza," which if it were true, would quite obviously result in the death of every person in Gaza.

It's classic propaganda language techniques, which Glenn refuses to admit he does. For his side is the "truth" and the other side suffers from "bias."

But that's the question, isn't it? How often has Glenn entertained the fact that Hamas hides in civilian areas? Launches mortar fires from schools and rooftops? These concepts have been summmarily excluded from Glenn's posts, which is why "Hamas" is barely mentioned, and we hear about Israel's "attack on Gaza."

This doesn't excuse Israel for war crimes. If we learn that Israel launched indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas without just cause, there should be severe global condemnation.

But we don't know that yet. This is still unfolding.

Only the omniscient Glenn Greenwald knows that Israel is simply killing civilians. Because it's fun, I guess. Thus, it is a "war on Gaza." Not "Hamas."

Glenn knows this, because civilians have been killed. He doesn't need to wait to learn more about where those civilians were, or where Hamas was stationed during the battles. He knows all he needs to know.

To quote the great philosopher Aristotle, yo' momma.

I noticed that! And... and you know what else I noticed? Guess how many times Glenn discusses "homicide bombers," "enhanced interrogation techniques," and "Freedom Fries."

The difference, you dunderhead, is that Israel has declared a war on Hamas militants in Gaza. Now we can debate the efficacy of their execution, but Glenn's desire to obscure that rather salient point with his "war on Gaza" linguistic shift is a switch worthy of the best propagandists in the Bush administration.

Israel is, at least theoretically, declaring a war on Hamas militants. This is the framework of this response, Glenn's language games notwithstanding.