Glenn Greenwald Is Now Apparently A Traitor Because He Calls Out Journalists And Democrats On Their Lies

Pulse massacre

Even before he quit The Intercept, the investigative news organization that he helped found, in protest of its refusal to report the Hunter Biden laptop story so it wouldn’t hurt Joe Biden’s prospects in the 2020 election, journalist Glenn Greenwald was calling out the mainstream media for flagrant dishonesty and partisan reporting during the Trump administration. Greenwald, who is a non-partisan critic and a libertarian muckraker, is now being accused of being a “traitor” by progressives because he’s doing what reporters used to regard as their duty. How dare a journalist deliberately undermine a false narrative being advanced by the news media for “the greater good”?

His recent exposé shows why Greenwald is an ethics hero as well as a possible savior of his profession, which looks like it is going down for the proverbial third time.

Since it is “Pride Month”—yes, we have a special month celebrating how people have sex and who they have sex with—politicians decided to use the approaching five year anniversary of the PULSE massacre in Orlando to grandstand about LGBTQ hate crimes, and, by extension, those evil conservatives who clearly hate gays and transsexuals. Omar Mateen shot and killed 49 people on July 22, 2016 at an Orlando gay nightclub, so the narrative has become that Mateen, was motivated by anti-LGBT hate. This is simply untrue; it isn’t even a matter of controversy. Mateen was an Islamic terrorist, and his motive was to punish innocent Americans for President Obama’s bombing campaigns in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. He made that undeniable in what he wrote and said. He probably didn’t even know PULSE had a gay clientele. All evidence shows that he chose PULSE at random.

Never mind: Facts Don’t Matter. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) called the massacre an “unspeakable act of hate toward the LGBTQ+ community.” Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) said that “the LGBTQ+ community was targeted and killed—all because they dared to live their lives.” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) claimed forty-nine lives were lost due to “anti-LGBTQ hate.” The leader in this lie was President Obama, who said in the wake of the shooting, “This was an attack on the LGBT community, and hatred towards people because of sexual orientation, regardless of where it comes from, is a betrayal of what’s best in us.” Then-candidate Hillary Clinton went to Orlando and pronounced the shooting by Matteen to be “ an act of hate” on “an LGBT nightclub during Pride Month.” Attorney General Loretta Lynch, referencing the shooting, said that “a cruel irony that a community defined almost exclusively by whom they love [LGBT people] is so often a target of hate.”

To be fair, it should be noted that President Trump, undoubtedly to prove that he had nothing against “the gays,” also adopted the narrative, saying in a speech, “A radical Islamic terrorist targeted the nightclub, not only because he wanted to kill Americans, but in order to execute gay and lesbian citizens, because of their sexual orientation.”

Greenwald saves his harshest venom for the “liberal propagandists who pose as journalists” that promoted the lie as fact:

“Jeet Heer wrote in The New Republic. “Let’s say it plainly: This was a mass slaying aimed at LGBT people,” Tim Teeman wrote in The Daily Beast. In USA Today, James S. Robbins speculated that Mateen was likely “trying to reconcile his inner feelings with his strongly homophobic Muslim culture.” In the days following the killing spree, one writer in USA Today, Steph Solis, even accused those of questioning this narrative of propagating bigotry and exhibiting cruel indifference to gay suffering: “Those who insist the shooting was solely an Islamic terror attack try to erase the LGBT community from the narrative, causing only more pain by invalidating their experiences in this ordeal.”

For the rest of his report, Greenwald reviews the overwhelming evidence showing that anti-LGBTQ animus played no role in Matteen’s crime. He concludes in part,

Lying about what happened dishonors Mateen’s victims. It harms the cause of LGBT equality, which does not need lies and fabrications to be a just movement. It obscures how often U.S. violence in the Muslim world causes “blowback” — to use the CIA’s term — by motivating others to bring violence to the U.S. as retaliation and deterrence for violence against innocent Muslims…No matter how noble the intent, journalism — and activism — becomes corrupted if it knowingly supports falsehoods. That the PULSE massacre was an act of anti-LGBT hatred is a fiction. Unless you are a neocon, there is no such thing as a “noble lie.” It is way past time for politicians and activist groups to stop disseminating this one.”

What a traitor.

18 thoughts on “Glenn Greenwald Is Now Apparently A Traitor Because He Calls Out Journalists And Democrats On Their Lies

  1. Greenwald continues to impress me. He may just be the most courageous journalist working today (a rather small club, from the looks of things…).

    When he jumped ship from the Intercept and announced his Substack page with subscription fee, I jumped aboard. I am proud to have done so, just to keep this guy working.

  2. I have to admit, I fully swallowed the narrative back in 2016. I think I had some choice words to say at the time…. If I recall correctly, I think they got me a Comment of the Day at the time, though probably more for the ideas surrounding the post than parroting what ended up being a false narrative, although I apparently did just that.

    Pulse was one of those things where no one was really holding the narrative to account because it reinforced both side’s priors. I have to admit, I was fully suckered in because it didn’t surprise me in the least that a Muslim extremist would target gay people, and I didn’t see any accounts of people pushing back against the narrative.

    I’m going to have to do a little bit of thinking on this, because I believed this narrative for five years. It’s jarring.

    • And didn’t the Biden administration repeat the false narrative just yesterday? And the night club is going to be made a national monument or something? So the narrative is still being flogged!

      This is the exact same game plan as the cover up of the Benghazi embassy attack. Militant Islamists attack an embassy and the Obama administration lies to the public, saying it was in response to an anti-Muslim video. During the closing days of a campaign where Obama was claiming, “Militant Islamists? What militant Islamists? We took care of those guys, the Jayvee.” So here they did the same thing. Brazen.

      Particularly nice the way they slimed the lowest of low and most despicable of human beings: closeted gay men.

      • The more I read about this, the more amazed I am;

        “As the FBI investigation into Mateen proceeded, all the early media gossip — that Mateen was a closeted gay man who had searched for male sexual partners and had even previously visited PULSE — was debunked. The month after the attack, The Washington Post reported that “The FBI has found no evidence so far that Omar Mateen chose the popular establishment because of its gay clientele,” and quoted a federal investigator as saying: “While there can be no denying the significant impact on the gay community, the investigation hasn’t revealed that he targeted PULSE because it was a gay club.” The New York Times quickly noted that no evidence could be found to support the speculation that Mateen was gay:

        F.B.I. investigators, who have conducted more than 500 interviews in the case, are continuing to contact men who claim to have had sexual relations with Mr. Mateen or think they saw him at gay bars. But so far, they have not found any independent corroboration — through his web searches, emails or other electronic data — to establish that he was, in fact, gay, officials said.

        The following year, the local paper that most extensively covered the PULSE massacre, The Orlando Sentinel, acknowledged that “there’s still no evidence that the PULSE killer intended to target gay people.””

        *I* thought Mateen was gay, that was the accepted narrative at the time, how the hell did I not know this?

  3. As I noted at the time (I can’t believe it’s been five years), whenever you have two preferred groups in conflict, it sends the Left into a Gordian knot situation. A Muslim killing gays? Muslims kill people? How can that be? Yikes. How do we play this? Oh, wait, we deify the dead as victims of a hate crime. That way, the bad guys are rednecks in pick-up trucks. Yeah, that’ll do it! Much like black on black crime as discussed in the Sullivan post preceding this one. Blacks kill other black people? How can that be? Oh, wait, systemic racism and white supremacy. Whew. That was a close one! The left has a limited set of concepts and terms and makes them serve any and all purposes, regardless of whether they fit. When all you have is a hammer….

    • It’s quite disturbing the extent the left bends over to push this narrative. Just the other day, John Oliver did a bit on Asian immigrants and concluded that the bulk of black on Asian violence is due to the “model immigrant” status applied to them by white men.

      • Wow. That’s … creative. So, violence against Asians is justified because they are competent. That’ll teach those slants and chinks and gooks. And here I thought those black guys stomping on people’s heads were simply mentally ill. They’re actually social justice warriors meting out … social justice!

      • Well, that’s contrived, but Asians and Jews ARE model immigrants, and the proper response is to follow their examples and emulate them, not resent them. Non-illegal Hispanics are also impressive immigrants.

  4. No pride flag in your yard, Jack? I figured you’d have one, since you have told many anecdotes about gay friends and were strongly in support of gay marriage, but, I get that those causes are not one and the same. Unfortunately, the media and the left do sort of lump all gay causes together on the left, and use the LGBT community as a special set of blessed victims to weaponize against those nasty conservatives. In fact one police department here in NJ is adopting pride patches with a rainbow border, for this month only.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cops-in-this-nj-town-are-the-first-in-the-state-to-wear-pride-patches-meet-the-detective-who-started-it/ar-AAL051w

    The officers aren’t required to wear them, but you know any officer who opts out is going to get a lot of grief.

    The fact is, just like any person of color who gets killed in an encounter with the police is automatically assumed to have been the victim of a racist attack, any gay person who is the victim of violence is automatically assumed to have been the victim of homophobia, because only a homophobe would attack a gay person. It doesn’t matter if it’s a robbery gone bad or a dispute over a parking place where the other person didn’t know the victim was gay, it’s got to be hate based.

    I am not sure how to say this, but I think the gay-rights people started on the “you have to be anti-” idea before BLM started pushing the idea that you have to be actively anti-racist. At first it was the red ribbon for aids, then it was the rainbow, now EVERYONE has to wear a rainbow something to show their support for the gay community during June, lest he be branded a homophobe.

    Frankly I don’t like the idea of being MADE to show support for any cause. It also bugs me that the pushy causes are almost always liberal or semi-liberal causes. No, I won’t join walks for this or that cause, I have other things to do with my Saturday. No, I won’t wear a pink shirt or tie in October for Breast Cancer Awareness, I’m a lot more aware of cancer than most. And I sure as the devil will NOT pin a rainbow flag to my lapel, although someone wondered once exactly what I was up to when I talked of celebrating with sangria in six colors. Would you let a co-worker press-gang you into some walk for a cause? Would you wear blue for diabetes awareness? How about being pushed to pin a poppy to your lapel for the veterans (red only please, if you wear a white one you risk being beaten up by angry veterans)? Didn’t think so.

    • Steve
      Not wanting to feel compelled to do something in support of a given cause is an idea I can support. I do thino there is a distinction between affirmatively showing support and simply being respectful to others. It takes virtually no effort to accept something handed to you such as a red poppy or a copy of the Watchtower. I accept them but do not have to demonstrate support unless I want to.

  5. Another example of this is the Matthew Shepard case in Wyoming. Shepard was enshrined in a national hate crime bill as a victim, supposedly because he was killed for being gay.
    In 2004, the ABC News news program 20/20 aired a report that quoted statements by McKinney, Henderson, Price, Rerucha, and a lead investigator. The statements alleged that the murder had not been motivated by Shepard’s sexuality but was primarily a drug-related robbery that had turned violent. Price said she had lied to police about McKinney having been provoked by an unwanted sexual advance from Shepard, telling TV journalist Elizabeth Vargas, “I don’t think it was a hate crime at all.” Rerucha said, “It was a murder that was driven by drugs.” (Info from Wiki)
    Also, The Book of Matt by Stephen Jimenez reexamines the crime and its cast of characters, clearly showing that Matthew Shepard was not killed for being gay. I read the book, it was very convincing.

    • Quite true. It was a drug deal gone bad. Pure click bait and the press (and those who Read-and-Believe! the press), including the queer* community, lapped it up.. I heard that there was already a movie in the works — money up, cast on tap, ready to roll … and oh, what a sigh of relief when they found out at the last minute that they’d almost fallen into the trap. Then it was bandied about that they could do the movie the way it ran, more of a doc. Whose dumb idea was that? It’s the wrong ending for a movie!

      *queer: the ultimate answer to alphabet soup since the women ducked out from under the “gay” blanket. The word carries a different history, perhaps even older and deeper, steeped in mystery.

  6. Jack said:

    Since it is “Pride Month”—yes, we have a special month celebrating how people have sex and who they have sex with…

    This smacks of a Jonathan Turley equivocation to me. I don’t think hetero sex is included in any way in “Pride Month,” at least not without a gay component (i.e. bisexual). “Pride Month” is 100% about “non-cisgender” relations. In other words, its about as discriminatory as possible.

    I don’t get why it has to be this way. After decades of fighting for the right to be considered the same as everyone else in terms of marriage and to live life without social stigma, and having made remarkable progress in just the last half-decade, now it’s all about finding ways to condemn “cisgender” folks for every horrible thing that happens to LGBTQIA$#@%XYZ+= people.

    And they demand “Pride Week” so they can exclude the “cisgendered.” That’s how inclusivity works these days — be as exclusive and segregationist as possible, and welcome only those “normies” who are willing to self-flagellate in sack cloth and ashes for the sin of not being one of these favored groups.

    White “cisgendered” people can’t avoid being racist and can’t avoid being homo/trans/whatever-else-goes-here-phobic. We’re just plain no good, and the media wants to make sure to amplify anything that “proves” that. That the facts in evidence do not support that is of no moment, and it’s evil to notice their existence.

    So I guess some people in America are entitled to their own facts, after all — those that are “more equal” than the rest of us, or so I suppose. I appreciate Greenwald’s efforts to at least shine a light on this new reality.

  7. I’m going to have to disagree on at least part of this.
    First off, I see nothing suggesting anyone is calling Greenwald a “traitor.” I suspect there are some folks who think so, but I don’t see anything in print. (Peter King called him that in 2013, but that was before the PULSE attack.)
    More importantly, there’s a difference between what was said in the immediate aftermath of the event and what is being said today. Greenwald is absolutely correct to excoriate politicians who babble in 2021 about the PULSE attack as LGTBQ+ hatred. But they’re of a different sort than those who made what would at the time have been a perfectly reasonable deduction. This applies to the press, to the then-President, to both Presidential candidates, and to a lot of other people.
    Yes, it was sloppy to speculate, but, first of all, there was no one, including Glenn Greenwald, saying “wait a minute; we don’t know that.” Sorry, Glenn, you don’t get to say “I told you so” if you didn’t tell us so. The line between confirmation bias and learning from experience is fine indeed, and it’s not unreasonable to think that an attack on a gay nightclub was an attack on a gay nightclub, especially when the perpetrator turned out to be an adherent of an Islamic sect that is anti-gay even by the standards of that religion. In the words of more than one of my favorite TV detectives, “I don’t believe in coincidences.” (Perhaps I should.)
    I see little difference here from the immediate reaction by even normally reliable news sources that the guy who set off a bunch of bombs and shot up a summer camp in Norway a decade ago must have been an Islamic terrorist. Erick Erickson even snarkily observed, “I bet you it was not Lutherans who did it.” As it turns out, he’d have lost that bet. Actually, there was more reason for the assumption of anti-gay bias than of Anders Behring Brevik being Muslim. Indeed, it was Glenn Greenwald (!) who pointed out that barely 0.3% of terrorist attacks in Europe were perpetrated by Islamic extremists.
    Indeed, there was no… how do I put this? There was no “evidence of lack of evidence” in the PULSE attack until the FBI had completed their investigation, well after most of the early commentary. So whereas those politicians and journalists don’t get a complete pass, neither would they have been regarded as particularly perspicacious had their suspicions been proven accurate. Unlike their 2021 colleagues, they were neither consciously lying nor willfully suppressing evidence, even when they said things that turned out not to be true.
    I’m reminded of the evolution of the Ancient Greek word hamartia. It first meant “to miss the mark,” as an archer might. Later, Aristotle uses the term to denote an error of judgment, for example by a tragic hero. By the time of the New Testament, it’s the word for “sin.” Greenwald sees only sin; I think there’s more ambiguity.
    As is so often the case, Greenwald has a good point, but undercuts it with preening self-importance and by massaging evidence to fit this week’s political agenda.

    • Wasn’t the assumption that the recent massage parlor shooting was an anti-Asian hate crime the same kind of presumption? I admit to being hypersensitive to presumed hate crimes, presumed bigotry, etc, and especially when terrorism is involved. Nobody should have made any statements with any assumptions before the facts were in.

      You are right about GG. Overstating his case is a persistent habit, and it undercuts his influence,

  8. How things do change! A gay liberal (in the true sense) is now a semi-reglar on Tucker Carlson’s show.

    The Mateen incident also produced another incident of an uncorrected outright lie in one of Snopes’ “fact checks”. Mateen’s father prominently appeared at a Hillary Clinton rally, and it was reported that he had been invited. Snopes “debunked” that, saying that neither the campaign nor Mateen had made that claim. Ironically, the photo serving as the header for the Snopes piece is a still from a broadcast interview where Mateen is heard to say “I was invited by the Democratic Party; I’m a member.” .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.