I thought Rahm was an oily operative before Greenwald repeated what I already knew to be the truth about Foley.
What Greenwald did in order to attack Emanuel was to muddy the facts - both about what was known "to be the truth about Foley,"" and about the definition of a lie.
Greenwald is proud to be an accomplished lawyer, yet in his post he wants us to believe, as Talk Left so aptly put it, that he is an "ingenue."
In his post Greenwald points to an interview Emanuel had with Stephanopolous back when the Foley story just broke. In it Emanuel was repeatedly quizzed about his knowledge of the e-mails Foley sent to pages. Emanuel carefully replies that he never saw them.
Greenwald concludes that "Emanuel was clearly and deliberately misleading," and so is "guilty of the same thing, Exactly the same thing" as Hastert's Chief of Staff who has been "telling" "blatant lies" "ever since this scandal began."
In fact it is Greewald's post which is "deliberately misleading." Here's why:
1. As Talk Left put it "In every meaningful sense of the word, Emanuel ducked the question in order not to lie. Ducking the question is not lying .... In any meaningful sense Glenn has misstated the meaning of lying."
2. Greenwald is sure that Emanuel lied, because of a CNN report which was based on the word of an un-named campaign committee aide. Greenwald writes that the report stated that the
"Illinois Democrat was informed in 2005, but never saw the correspondence and did not have enough information to raise concerns. The aide said that Emanuel took no action because his knowledge was "cursory" and little more than 'rumor.'"
This is Greenwald's own description of the report. In order to conclude that Emanuel is lying, Greenwald has to cherry pick from this uncorroborated report from an un-named source. Greenwald embraces the aide's conclusion that Emanuel was "informed in 2005" but rejects the aide's characterization of the information as "cursory and little more than rumor." And there was plenty of rumor.
3. Greenwald again tries to play the ingenue when he writes that "Any reasonable person would have come away from the interview (as I know I did) with the strong impression that Emanuel... had no reason to know anything was amiss with Foley until ABC broke the story." Accusations had started to float around Washington in 2003 and 2004 about Foley's behavior. Greenwald is far too smart not to know that such rumors fly around Washington at the speed of light. There is no way any sentient Congressman had no suspicion that there might be something "amiss with Foley." In March 2005 one D.C. Blogger warned about Foley "If he cruises you in the bathrooms of Congress, Ignore him!". He also wrote in a headline: "Read about how Mark Foley hit on men less than half his age at the Republican Convention." In another post; "A source has confirmed with blogACTIVE that Foley lives a practically out lifestyle at his Florida residence, often seen entertaining gay men, some of who the source described as "close to underage." This is not some obscure blogger: GQ magazine has done a piece on him, and Glenn Greenwald himself has written extensively about him on his own blog. Even my commenter, with whose quote I started this piece, 'already knew the truth about Foley.' Somehow, Greenwald didn't, and neither, he implies, did the rest of Congress.
Near the conclusion of his piece, Greenwald writes about Emanuel:
"he sat there on ABC and adopted this melodramatically concerned, earnest voice, as he expressed righteous outrage."
If you substitute "he sat there on ABC..." with "he opined on his blog..." you've done a pretty good job of describing the sanctimonious Glenn Greenwald.