- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Glenn, I read Drezner's blog comments and tried to respond to them, but all I got was a '404 error' page when I submitted them. Apparently he has a "they're all against me" filter which blocks comments he won't like, so I'll post here what I had written to post on his blog:
You say, "I certainly have not discussed them at the same length as Greenwald, but I think that's a rather high bar for anyone to meet -- Greenwald's writing style seems to be, "why write ten words when writing a hundred words makes the point in a redundant manner?"
Translation: I can't refute his arguments because he includes so much supporting evidence, so I'll attack his style.
Nice. The only word I can think of which adequately describes your response is, "Lame."
You say, "After his latest column, however, I don't see the point of engaging with him anymore. If Greenwald is incapable of distinguishing between different streams of thought, if he is incapable of distinguishing positive analysis from normative advocacy, if he is incapable of doing anything other than indicting the "establishment" as an undifferentiated mass of lickspittle imperialists, then there's no point in debating him."
Translation: There's no way I can keep up with Greenwald's argumentation, so I'll smear his posts and group them all into a neat, albeit ad hominem single exaggeration so as to justify why I won't engage with him further.
Instead of reducing your own spittle to just smearing Greenwald's style and the substance of his posts, be a better journalist, blogger, media elitist, or whatever you are and actually make some counter arguments that actually hold water. That's what would be impressive.
I won't, needless to say, be holding my breath.
