The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Motives for the Pulse Terrorist Attack
Glenn Greenwald has what strikes me as a pretty thorough discussion; if others have a contrary view, I'd of course be glad to link to it as well. An excerpt:
On the fifth anniversary of the PULSE nightclub massacre in Orlando, numerous senators, politicians and activist groups commemorated that tragic event by propagating an absolute falsehood: namely, that the shooter, Omar Mateen, was motivated by anti-LGBT animus. The evidence is definitive and conclusive that this is false—Mateen, like so many others who committed similar acts of violence, was motivated by rage over President Obama's bombing campaigns in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, and chose PULSE at random without even knowing it was a gay club—yet this media-consecrated lie continues to fester.
On Saturday, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) falsely described the massacre as an "unspeakable act of hate toward the LGBTQ+ community." Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) went even further, claiming "the LGBTQ+ community was targeted and killed—all because they dared to live their lives." Her fellow Illinois Democrat, Sen. Dick Durbin, claimed forty-nine lives were lost due to "anti-LGBTQ hate" (he forgot the +)….
But … there never was any evidence that supported the storyline that [Mateen] was driven by hatred for LGBTs. The evidence that was available suggested the opposite.
On June 12, 2016, Mateen spent just over three hours in PULSE from the time he began slaughtering innocent people at roughly 2:00 a.m. until he was killed by a SWAT team at roughly 5:00 a.m. During that time, he repeatedly spoke to his captives about his motive, did the same with the police with whom he was negotiating, and discussed his cause with local media which he had called from inside the club. Mateen was remarkably consistent in what he said about his motivation. Over and over, he emphasized that his attack at PULSE was in retaliation for U.S. bombing campaigns in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan….
In the hours he spent surrounded by the gay people he was murdering, he never once uttered a homophobic syllable, instead always emphasizing his geo-political motive. Not a single survivor reported him saying anything derogatory about LGBTs or even anything that suggested he knew he was in a gay club. All said he spoke extensively about his vengeance on behalf of ISIS against U.S. bombing of innocent Muslims.
Mateen's postings on Facebook leading up to his attack all reflected the same motive. They were filled with rage about and vows of retaliation against U.S. bombing. Not a single post contained any references to LGBTs let alone anger or violence toward them. "You kill innocent women and children by doing U.S. airstrikes," Mateen wrote on Facebook in one of his last posts before attacking PULSE, adding: "Now taste the Islamic state vengeance."
It was of course nonetheless possible that he secretly harbored hatred for LGBTs and hid his real motive, but that never made sense: the whole point of terrorism is to publicize, not conceal, the grievances driving the violence. And again, good journalism requires evidence before ratifying claims. There never was any to support the story that Mateen's attack was driven by anti-LGBT hatred, and all the available evidence early on negated that suspicion and pointed to a radically different motive….
Reporter Melissa Jeltsen covered [Mateen's wife's] trial for The Huffington Post and — writing under the headline "Everyone Got The Pulse Massacre Story Completely Wrong" — explained:
Mateen may very well have been homophobic. He supported ISIS, after all, and his father, an FBI informant currently under criminal investigation, told NBC that his son once got angry after seeing two men kissing. But whatever his personal feelings, the overwhelming evidence suggests his attack was not motivated by it….
There is much more in Greenwald's article; thanks to InstaPundit for the pointer.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Greenwald's right turn is just amazing.
I don't think he's turned right. He definitely has an anti statist streak to him, perhaps a bit of a libertarian streak. But he's not conservative in the slightest.
Just take a look at his twitter feed for his frequently liberal perspective. You'll find he's often quite left of center.
Regards,
Joe Dokes
I'm with Joe here--not the slightest evidence of a right turn by Mr. Greenwald, more of a staying sane -- not to mention honest -- while most of the left is veering off into insanity.
^This.
Whether the left is veering off into insanity depends on whether you think progressive ideas are insane. That, however, is not quite the same thing as having an entire political party being run by conspiracy theory nuts, crazies who think the election was stolen, nutters who think the pandemic was a hoax, etc.
It's one thing to debate ideas. It's another thing to have, as does the right, an entire base completely out of touch with reality.
4 years ago the shoe was on the other foot, and you had an entire political party being run by conspiracy theory nuts, crazies who think the election was stolen through collusion with the Russians, nutters who think Trump was a Manchurian candidate etc..
Get off your moral high horse already.
I think his horse is more of a snake, it;s so low to the ground.
I don't think most Democrats ever believed that the 2016 election was stolen in the sense of actual fraud. There were no comparable claims to Trump's 2020 claims of truckloads of ballots being unloaded in the middle of the night. There was a sense that the electoral college had once more deprived the majority of its right to self governance, but that's not exactly the same thing.
And there was no question that regardless of whether there was actual collusion, Putin pulled out all the stops and did everything he could to get Trump elected. Which again is not quite the same as what we're getting from the right wing conspiracy theorists.
And as far as Trump being a Manchurian candidate, most of us simply thought he was a thorough self absorbed incompetent narcissist who neither knew nor cared what was involved in being president, and we mostly turned out to be right.
If anything Trump was the Manchurian candidate of the Democrats.
I seem to remember a big hubbub about how Russia helped steal the 2016 election for Trump....
Only under a very loose definition of the term "steal". Russia spread a great deal of misinformation that was mostly helpful to Trump, and did what it could to sow confusion. But again, if you limit "steal" to its common use meaning of outright theft, I don't remember anyone claiming that.
PUBLISHED FRI, APR 20 201811:10 AM EDT:
"The Democratic Party on Friday sued President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, the Russian government and the Wikileaks group, claiming a broad illegal conspiracy to help Trump win the 2016 election.
The multimillion-dollar lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court says that “In the Trump campaign, Russia found a willing and active partner in this effort” to mount “a brazen attack on American Democracy,” which included Russian infiltration of the Democratic Party computer network."
Democratic Party files suit alleging Russia, the Trump campaign, and WikiLeaks conspired to disrupt the 2016 election
Sigh.
The Democrats claimed in that lawsuit that Russia, Trump, and Wikileaks conspired to be disruptive, which they were. That is not the same thing as stealing ballots, dumping fraudulent ballots, or otherwise engaging in actual fraud. At no time did the Democrats allege that there was ballot tampering, that trucks showed up in the middle of the night with boxes of ballots, that election officials were bribed to change the results. Try to find something that's actually on point.
"At no time did the Democrats allege that there was ballot tampering, that trucks showed up in the middle of the night with boxes of ballots, that election officials were bribed to change the results."
You have a very poor memory, or perhaps just a very selective memory.
Hillary Clinton urged to call for election vote recount in battleground states
This article is more than 4 years old
Alleged irregularities in key states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin prompt demands for audit amid concerns over ‘foreign hackers’
Publius, did you read your own link? Sure, some people asked for recounts and made claims, but they weren't Hillary Clinton or the Democratic Party establishment. The Democratic establishment accepted early on that Trump had won.
"The Democratic establishment accepted early on that Trump had won."
That's baloney. Hilary was still talking about it last year!
Also, asking for a (single!) recount is part of the established process. It is not an attempt to override the voters' will, or to evade that process, like creating a fraudulent "audit."
"And there was no question that regardless of whether there was actual collusion, Putin pulled out all the stops and did everything he could to get Trump elected."
No. Rather, the goal was to leave the country ungovernable regardless of who won. Pretty much everybody but Trump thought that Hillary was cruising to a victory, so Putin wanted it closer.
But, so what? The resources Russia put into it were spitting into a hurricane, a few million in a billion dollar campaign. The idea that the Russians could actually skew the election outcome significantly with that level of effort, (Remember, they're a poor country with nuclear weapons, not an economic powerhouse.) is insulting.
Have you looked at the content they were posting to Facebook? I remember laughing at some of it during the campaign, it was so embarrassingly amateurish.
But as soon as Trump actually won? Guess what: Some of the bigger anti-Trump protests were actually organized by the Russians! THAT part of the story doesn't get a lot of attention from Democrats.
The question is one of intent, not actual ability. Someone who tries to kill someone else is guilty of attempted murder whether the attempt was clownish or almost successful.
And if you're Putin, you want the US governed by an incompetent, self absorbed narcissist who neither knows nor cares what is involved in being president.
And so Putin is happy that Biden is president today.
Have you been asleep for the past five months? Biden has shown himself to be anything but incompetent, or not knowing what is involved in being president.
But, as just explained to you, the intent was sow disarray and confusion. Putin couldn't care less. Clinton's wife was already being bought and sold on the open market so she was already owned.
Nobody believed President Trump could win.The only facts, show Putin paid less than $1/2 million in facebook ads. In a race that spent almost &2 billion
I doubt this. For all her faults -- which I will acknowledge are many -- she at least would have been a competent president. There's no doubt which of them Putin preferred.
Ah, only Republicans are conspiracy theory nuts. Here is a clear example of a left wing fake conspiracy, and your reaction is to blame Republicans as the only conspiracy theorists.
Go ahead. Make your side look like idiots and conspiracy theorists.
OK, so you don't understand what a conspiracy is. Thanks for sharing.
If only you would use an ordinary dictionary, one freely available for sharing, online or in physical form, you might be able to contribute to conversations. But I reckon that would require treating everyone against you as a real human.
OK, so you don't understand what a conspiracy is. Thanks for sharing.
25% of the ballots in Fulton Co. lack chain of evidence documents.
Boxes of ballots in Arizona are full of blank ballots.
But everything is on the up and up.
Like I was saying about right wing conspiracy nuts . . .
Are saying the SoS in Georgia is lying? He says he is unaware of the lacking of chain of custody proof. Not that its wrong.
Same in Arizona. Nobody is disputing boxes of blank ballots.
I'm not disputing that those claims may be true. I don't actually know if they are or not.
What I'm disputing is that they are evidence of anything even remotely close to a stolen election. Sure there are boxes of blank ballots; they printed off more than they needed because they didn't know in advance how many they would need. And with as many ballots as were cast, it would be remarkable if there weren't some with missing chain of custody documentation.
Being left-leaning, I wouldn't say that I see the left "veering off into insanity," though I would definitely say there are things you can't say and stay in good standing with the left/progressives, and it's a bit frustrating. The solemn pronouncements on Pulse are indicative of the trend, sure - it would be next to impossible for me to post on my FB anything cutting against that accepted narrative, for instance. There's a lot of stuff you just can't say.
But it still doesn't compare, in my view, to the insanity of insisting that the January 6 insurrection was merely a "tourist trip," or that Trump would have won the election (had we just tossed all of the wrong votes), etc.
If Jan 6th was a rebellion, where were the guns, and what do you call all the burning, looting, and murdering from the left during the summer?
What does what happened during the summer have to do with whether January 6 was a rebellion?
What does your refusal to see left wing rebellions where they exist have to do with seeing right wing rebellions where they don't exist?
I haven't taken a position -- at least not in this thread -- about whether BLM was a left wing rebellion. My point, though, is that whether it was or wasn't has zero to do with whether January 6 was. All you're doing is what-aboutism changing the subject.
What it has to do, is calibrating your notion of what constitutes significant violence.
There were perhaps a quarter million people in DC. If any significant fraction of them had been violent, they could have torn the Capitol down brick from brick. As it is, nobody was armed, the only violent death was one of the protesters shot by police.
This is your idea of an "insurrection", after what got called "protests" last year?
You've now moved the goalpost from "rebellion" to "significant violence." And it's just a distraction.
Was January 6 a rebellion, or was it not? The admittedly violent summer that preceded it has nothing to do with the answer to that question.
Communication requires words with agreed to definitions.
Communication does not, however, require changing the subject from January 6 to the previous summer whenever January 6 comes up.
I don’t think he’s gone right as much as the left has moved past him in its extremism. And most of his attacks on the left, like this one, are on the media.
Whatever you think of him, he’s earned his stripes in terms of reporting things that the powers that be don’t want exposed. The way they’d report any bullshit related to Trump regardless of the degree to which it was true compared to the way they’ve become state media for the current administration drives him up the wall.
No it isn’t…as a very rare NeverBush/NeverTrump Republican I am sympathetic towards his opinion. George Wu Bush was the worst president in history and it’s not even close! If you lived through his 8 years and understood how much he and Fox News and conservative talk radio and the right wing blogosphere (and early on right wing chain emails) damaged America you would agree that Trump isn’t even in the same league because Bush/Cheney literally stole and election and then lied us into the most asinine war in American history!?! Trump is the natural progression of the Orwellian echo chamber crafted under Bush/Cheney to sell the Iraq War and get Bush/Cheney re-elected.
"NeverBush/NeverTrump Republican"
AKA Democrat.
Correct, once Liz Cheney was voted into leadership in 2019 I left the GOP never to return. I thought Trump might be an enema for the GOP…instead he was more like a butt plug. 😉
Are you suggesting that Sara Palin's Butt Plug is actually Donald Trump?
I would suggest that Donald Trump's entire base could use a good proctologist to help them find their heads.
Appears you think half the country is loonie bin material. Says more about your bias than their sanity.
Trump's base is not half the country. More like a third.
"George Wu Bush was the worst president in history and it’s not even close! "
With hyperbole like this, it's hard to take you seriously. There are many "worse" presidents than W. Or at least "close".
Nixon was hopelessly corrupt
Johnson lied us into Vietnam, which was much much worse than Iraq
Harding had so many scandals it's hard to comprehend
And of course Buchanan directly led us to the actual US civil war, which resulted in more american deaths than any other war in history
Nixon was a solid liberal president and so the GOPe stabbed him in the back. Did you know the Bush administration pressured CIA interrogators to TORTURE detainees in order to elicit false confessions tying Saddam to 9/11??? That right there is much much worse than anything Nixon or Trump did.
Google “domino theory”—the Senate was much more powerful historically and LBJ shares Vietnam with powerful cold warrior senators that were his mentors.
And read Dred Scott—many powerful people attempted to head off the INEVITABLE civil war…but they couldn’t do it and so Buchanan shares that failure with numerous titans of American history.
Bush lied us into an asinine war…and attempted grossly unAmerican acts that fortunately were resisted to push that lie. Plus the Iraq War is the tip of the ice berg for Bush—his Energy Department officials are on record saying they didn’t believe the American people could handle the fact we were in an “energy crisis” and so they didn’t level with Americans in 2007 and 2008. The energy crisis was the cause of the 2008 Financial Meltdown!?!
Law and Order Tricky Dick was a liberal? The guy who partnered up with Agnew? Seriously?
And he wasn’t stabbed in the back. He won a record breaking election margin over an actual liberal and decided to squander it over a ridiculous break in that he didn’t know about in advance. I liked Nixon at the time (I was 15-16) but the adult me has to admit that he deserved what he got.
Seriously, Mr. Wage and Price controls? Yeah, he was from the left wing of the Republican party.
AND he created the EPA, the Commie.
" He won a record breaking election margin over an actual liberal and decided to squander it over a ridiculous break in that he didn’t know about in advance. I liked Nixon at the time (I was 15-16) but the adult me has to admit that he deserved what he got."
Even if you can't bring your self to admit that Nixon's dirty tricks team were NIXON's dirty tricks team.
It's hard to take you seriously....
Vietnam and the US civil war were much much worse than Gulf War II (for America.)
But those events had many “parents”…Colin Powell thought Bush was joking when he brought up Saddam in connection with 9/11!?! And Clinton didn’t invade Iraq with the exact same intelligence. And Bush campaigned in 2000 on having a “humble” foreign policy and he opposed nation building which was the high point of his campaign from my perspective because it was the only moment I considered voting for him after he said that. Leading up to Vietnam Americans thought we were about to die in a nuclear war!?! The Civil War was a loooong time coming and it was inevitable.
You're not being logical. You disperse responsibility for Vietnam and the US Civil war, while not offering the same benefit to W.
W didn't invade Iraq in a vacuum. There were a host of circumstances around it. Most notable was 9/11. You argue Americans thought we were gong to die in a nuclear war in regards to Vietnam. What did they think was going to happen to them after actually being attacked?
Colin Powell initially thought Bush was joking when he brought up Saddam in relation to 9/11.
Which means that Colin Powell either wasn't invited to or wasn't paying attention at the meetings where W told the team they were going to be taking out Saddam the first excuse they got.
"W didn’t invade Iraq in a vacuum. There were a host of circumstances around it. Most notable was 9/11. You argue Americans thought we were gong to die in a nuclear war in regards to Vietnam. What did they think was going to happen to them after actually being attacked?"
The thing is, we weren't actually attacked by Saddam. But we knew where to find him, unlike the people who did plan and carry out an attack on us. The intelligence services didn't manage to track down bin Laden until Obama was running the show.
Agreed. His mindset appears to be driven more by sheer journalistic integrity, and the general lack thereof in big-box media these days. This crisis is making some strange bedfellows.
It's not a right turn. He definitely has developed a loathing for the mainstream media and so criticism of it (from the left) often overlaps with criticism from the right.
The right wing media is much worse than mainstream media when it comes to promoting Orwellian propaganda for their tribe…but that doesn’t mean the mainstream media hasn’t also gone tribal. I can easily see through the tribalism on both sides but I am also highly educated (both formally and informally) and have an IQ in the 120s. So I am sympathetic to his argument…but he undermines his argument by going on the network that helped lie America into an asinine war in the early 2000s.
Yes, none of the stalwart defenders of truth at CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. were actively promoting the "intelligence" related to WMDs.
Bush had over 80% approval after 9/11 and we now know Powell initially thought Bush was joking when he brought up Saddam being linked to 9/11!?! Bush gets 100% “credit” for invading Iraq. With the exact same information Bush had Clinton stepped up enforcing the no fly zone but resisted call from future Busy advisors to use force to remove Saddam from power.
Your judgement of the “mainstream” media is extremely generous. Their narrative to fact ratio right now is so far out of whack as to render them totally unbelievable.
"and chose PULSE at random without even knowing it was a gay club"
I seem to remember reading somewhere that Mateen had visited the Pulse before the day of the shooting, in which case he almost certainly would have known that it was a gay club. I live in Orlando, and anyone driving by it would have suspected it was a gay club just from the building decor. So I don't see how that sentence can possibly be true.
That said, it's certainly possible that the fact that it was a gay club didn't enter into Mateen's thinking; that he was just looking for a crowded club to shoot up. And I have no doubt that anger at the Obama administration was his primary motivation. However, given the intense homophobia among devout Muslims, it's not inconceivable that Mateen saw it as a two-for-one: He could get revenge against the Obama administration while at the same time killing a bunch of gay people.
So I'm skeptical that anti-gay animus had zero to do with it, even though anti-gay animus was likely a secondary rather than primary motivation. The two motives are not mutually exclusive.
"I seem to remember reading somewhere that Mateen had visited the Pulse before the day of the shooting..."
According to the linked huffpo article, this was from a confession the FBI coerced from his wife, which turned out to be false.
Assuming he didn't know it was a gay club, how did he happen to pick it? Did he just drive around randomly looking for clubs? Did he google "Orlando clubs" and go eeny-meeny-miney-mo down the list?
Stranger things have happened, granted, but for a radicalized member of a deeply homophobic religion to kill 50 people at a gay club purely by happenstance -- I'm still skeptical.
" Did he google “Orlando clubs” and go eeny-meeny-miney-mo down the list?"
According to Greenwald, he picked the first club on the list.
After checking out the local Disney sites and deciding they had too much security...
He was Goofyphobic! I don’t mind Goofy and Donald doin’ whatever it is they do…I just don’t want them in my community doin’ it in front of my kids!
That can't be right. Mickey tried to divorce Minnie because she was having an affair with Goofy.
she was having an affair with Goofy.
No. Mickey said he dumped Minnie because she was f#*cking goofy.
I buy it - it looks to have been a coincidence.
You really should read the linked article, where Glenn runs through a long and citation-heavy list of actual facts we know today rather than the initial media whisperings. Most specifically to your point:
I can’t believe we still attempt to link these mass shootings to a “motive” after it’s been going on for over 20 years!?! It’s pretty obvious most are the result of suicidal maniacs doing copy cat mass shootings to go out in a “blaze of glory”.
Did you know the El Paso shooter was an eco terrorist that supported progressive things like extreme multi culturalism such as dorms separated by ethnicity?? The media simply lied about his motives in order to attack Trump.
Guess what? Ages 18-26 is when young males fall into mental illness so the vast majority of mass shooters that are in that age group are mentally deranged suicidal young males…so it’s best to ignore their rantings and ravings.
"Guess what? Ages 18-26 is when young males fall into mental illness so the vast majority of mass shooters that are in that age group are mentally deranged suicidal young males"
Non-sequitur
I don't always agree with Greenwald. But I can say that he is thorough and any disagreement that I have with him will seldom be about the basic facts of a situation. It will be about the interpretation of those facts.
In this case he gets both the facts and interpretation 100% correct.
Not only was the guy a murderer, he seems to have watched too many Saturday morning cartoons.
"Now taste the Islamic state vengeance." So cartoonish.
A pathetic loser who wanted to join "something bigger than himself" by killing a bunch of people. Ooh, I bet his manhood was extended the full two inches! Good riddance to bad rubbish, say I.
Hopefully, he's met his 72 Virginians in the afterlife.
This does not appear to be news. There was an article on vox.com discussing the same issue and making the same points.
It's news when multiple politicians make a point of denouncing the anti LTGBQ violence on the 5th aniversary of the tragedy....
But it wasn't actually aimed at LTGBQ
Every single one of the bullets was aimed at "LTGBQ"
Yeah, it’s the politicians telling false stories that’s news. This is just Greenwald telling everyone the politicians are wrong and they should stop repeating falsehoods and tell the truth.
Yeah, it’s the politicians telling false stories that’s news. This is just Greenwald telling everyone the politicians are wrong and they should stop repeating falsehoods and tell the truth.
You are a great example of the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect
Here you actually get the cause and effect backwards. It is not the Politicians telling lies, and media just reporting the lies. With Pulse, the media told the lie and politicians picked it up. How about the lie, still told today that President Trump called skin heads "fine people"?
Nick Sandman ring any bells?
I got my early dose of Gell-Mann 40+years ago with 60 Minutes. They did a piece about the Power Company spraying high line rights of way with a poisonous chemical and causing health problems for near by residents. The chemical was Toradon, that has a low mammalian toxicity and not a carcinogen. 60 minutes got all the facts wrong. I rarely missed a Sunday Night with 60 Minutes, until that night. I was never able to watch the show again, because they start with a premise and then find reporting to support their narrative.
All media do the same.
Ever wonder why all shootings dont get the same coverage? Some have the wrong shooter. Or the wrong victims.
Right; he actually said "very fine people."
On both sides
"Nick Sandman ring any bells?"
Not unless you learn to spell his name correctly.
Article on vox.com was in 2018.
The left’s demand for hate crimes continues to exceed the supply.
This was a hate crime. Just not one that suits the left's agenda. Those people weren't killed for the crime of being gay, they were killed for the crime of not being Moslem.
Maybe some of them would have been Muslims, if the Muslims allowed gay people to be Muslims. As is usually the case, God remained silent when asked what He really thinks about all the gay people He created.
Well, of course the media ought to tell the true facts. But even so, there's something nice about the fact that the point he actually wanted to make to the world remains mostly unknown. At least in that way he has failed, so far.
GWBush is a topic on this thread.
When GWB ran the first time he needed a VP. Assigned Cheney to do the search and found himself.
Anyway, the story here is the word "gravitas"
Rush did one of his famous montages of the mockingbird media explaining that GWB "needed" someone to add gravitas to the ticket.
Rush had a full minute of all the talking heads using the exact same word, that most people could not define if asked.
Something that Rush did often. A montage of talking heads, using the exact same words in a story.
The Mocking Bird Media.
I hate to tell you this, but the various late-night talk shows have picked this up, and they get all the right-wing media repeating talking points in a supercut. It doesn't prove anything, other than lazy scriptwriters are lazy.
This deserves its own sub-thread:
Krychek_2 said:
"Have you been asleep for the past five months? Biden has shown himself to be anything but incompetent, or not knowing what is involved in being president."
This is exactly the opposite of my impression of Biden, having listened to and watched him since the inauguration, and especially this past week at the G7. U.K. press calling him senile. He losing his way upon standing up from a table, asserting he's been in office 120 days in brushing off reporters' questions when it's been 145 days, swapping LIbya and Syria three times, etc., etc.
He's clearly showing strong signs of failing cognitive abilities, and incompetence at basic presidential public duties.
"asserting he’s been in office 120 days in brushing off reporters’ questions when it’s been 145 days"
So, you're bad at math, therefore Biden is senile? If it's been 145 days since he took office, then he HAS been in office for 120 days. 145 is MORE THAN 120, not less than 120.
When the target of Greenwald's tendentious, self-aggrandizing anti-Americanism was GWB, virtually no one here, liberals like myself included, treated him as a credible source. Now that he's wandered so far onto the tip of the horseshoe that he's closer to the extreme right than he is to the moderate left, he's suddenly a genius!
Go figure.
"In the hours he spent surrounded by the gay people he was murdering, he never once uttered a homophobic syllable"
So, he didn't hate the gay people, he just wanted them dead. Ever hear the saying "actions speak louder than words"?