Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Did I say what Glenn Greenwald said I said?
Glenn Greenwald accused me of "repeating" the theory that "Hezbollah, not the Israelis, ... brought down the Qana building." Specifically, this is what he wrote, with the link to my post included:
That theory -- that it was Hezbollah, not the Israelis, who brought down the Qana building -- is being repeated by right-wing pundits and bloggers everywhere.
Now, I have no idea what happened at Qana. I wrote a post about a wire service story that relayed the IDF's claim that the building collapsed and killed the people inside many hours after the IDF air strike. Did I even get close to claiming that Hezbollah "brought down the Qana building"? Seriously. Argue it back and forth in the comments.
Now, I definitely believe that Hezbollah extracted every bit of propaganda value out of the Qana catastrophe. I also believe that facts may emerge that exculpate Israel legally, if not in the court of public opinion (in which Israel faces a stacked jury outside of the United States). And, finally, I am willing to believe that Hezbollah is both able and inclined to commit horrible crimes against fellow Arabs if it advances its strategic objectives. I do not, however, agree that my post stands for the proposition that Greenwald claims it does.
If you think I'm wrong, I'm open to argument.
12 Comments:
By 
K. Pablo, at
Tue Aug 01, 08:26:00 PM:
Well, if you want to parse in a most Clintonian fashion, you did "repeat" the "theory" by recapitulating it in your post. You did not advocate it, but that is not what Greenwald said you did. He specifically used the word "repeat".
Guilty as charged, but so what?
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Aug 01, 08:43:00 PM:
K. Pablo, the only "theory" I reported was the delay between the air raid and the collapse of the building, which is less a theory and more the assertion of a fact. I don't think I even implied that Hezbollah brought down the building, which is the "theory" that Greenwald said I repeated. So I still think I didn't didn't do it.
By Dan Kauffman, at
Tue Aug 01, 09:02:00 PM:
Greenwald did seem to make a habit of reaching connections in his post.
He atttributes this
"Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved."
To
"That happened because of statements like this, from Condoleezza Rice in September, 2002:"
I wonder what part of
"No one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on September 11,"
He fails to understand?
I am not a reader of that blog, since using your link to go there. I see no point.
I can get that stuff from CNN, Reuters, AP and CBS
By K. Pablo, at
Tue Aug 01, 09:04:00 PM:
Dude, come on... this is what you typed into your post:
Did Hezbollah -- the effective government in that area -- encourage the children to stay in the building, or to leave it? Did Hezbollah ammunition or explosives detonate, bringing down the building hours after the Israeli raid?
Is that the theory? Yes. Was it "repeated" in your post? Yes! I literally just copied it and pasted it here. Did you advocate or promote the theory? No.
Reading Greenwald's post, though, he does conflate your mentioning of the theory into support for the theory. He cites many other bloggers who overtly promote/support/promulgate it. Clever rhetorical trick, give him some props; he can craft paragraphs that appear to be well-cited. Sometimes the volume of citations lends credibility to an otherwise meritless argument.
By Adam Lawson, at
Tue Aug 01, 09:07:00 PM:
I didn't know who Greenwald was until about two weeks ago, and everything I've heard about him in the last two weeks leads me to believe he is, at best, a pompous blowhard who intentionally misinterprets everything he can.
By aem, at
Tue Aug 01, 09:25:00 PM:
Things are foggy. There is lots of misinformation and non information. So who said you published a "theory"?
Wikipedia on "Theory" says "In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts" and "In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model "
Greenwald thinks you were advancing a proposed explanation. I think it was clearly just a possibility. There's enough to be skeptical about and no free press in Hezbollah land.
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Aug 01, 09:52:00 PM:
K. Pablo, I love you like a brother, but I never thought for a minute that Hezbollah brought down the building. Perhaps ammunition stored there exploded, and perhaps Hez told people to stay there for innocent reasons. The point was to consider whether there were intervening causes after the Israeli attack, following up on the strange report from the initial IDF investigation. To me, that's totally different than accusing Hez of having "brought down the building."
By 
, at
Tue Aug 01, 09:57:00 PM:
Tigerhawk-You did not advance a theory, you asked some questions. Too bad the major media crawling all over the area aren't willing to do the same. Skepticism is not the same as speculation.
By Charlottesvillain, at
Tue Aug 01, 10:46:00 PM:
Of course you best check the IP address of anyone who takes the GG position, given his recent history of sock puppetry.
Frankly I'm disgusted that you linked back, since his whole gig is calling out bloggers with BS, getting a link back to get traffic. He should be ignored.
By Cassandra, at
Wed Aug 02, 01:05:00 AM:
Don't waste your time, TH.
I have never yet seen Glenn honestly summarize an opponents position.
Never. I don't believe he is capable of it.
By geoffgo, at
Wed Aug 02, 09:03:00 AM:
I was struck by the constant replay of the video showing removal of bodies from the rubble at Qana. Why no blood? Why were the corpses in such an advanced state of rigor mortis, after only 7-8 hours? I haven't seen much discussion of these aspects.
By , at
Wed Aug 02, 10:52:00 AM:
I think the most likely explanation is that nobody died in that building. The dead disabled children, and a number of other corpses, were brought in from Tyre in refrigerated lorries, instead of being buried in a mass grave in Tyre. I don't know what any of them died of. They were put in place in the rubble in time for the arrival of the journalists.___About 27 bodies were of adults, probably fighters, who had been killed by Israeli bombs - but not in that building.
