Annotated WuzzaDem: The Facts Behind the Greenwald Sock-Puppetry
This post sets out the evidence suggesting that Glenn Greenwald has engaged in sock-puppetry. With the permission of John from WuzzaDem, I will be relying heavily on the WuzzaDem sock puppets. Consider it an annotated version of John’s recent Insta-linked post.
Why this post? Because it ties it all together in a way that I haven’t seen before. And it’s another chance to see the WuzzaDem puppets again.
Keep in mind that sock-puppetry is, as Instapundit says, a “venial sin” (as opposed to a mortal sin). Yes, there is an element of dishonesty to it. But really, it’s mostly goofy and laughable — which is why the puppets are on hand to help me make the point.
As I noted the other day, Greenwald shared an IP address with sock puppets named “Ryan” (posting at Riehl World View), “Ellison” (posting at Ace of Spades), and “Thomas Ellers” (posting at Q&O).
Greenwald shared a second IP address with a sock puppet named “Wilson” (posting at Protein Wisdom).
I’ve since learned that 3 comments from a “Rick Ellensburg” at a February 2006 Right Wing Nuthouse post originate from the same service provider that Greenwald was using at the end of 2005 and in January 2006.
All of the IP addresses are based in Brazil, where Greenwald spends much of the year with his boyfriend. That fact led Ace to publish this excellent poster:
No actual people have come forward claiming to be Ellers, or Ellensburg, or Ellison, or Ryan, or Wilson. And in addition to IP address evidence, other factors point to the sock-puppets being Greenwald. Remember that the reason I checked the IP addresses to begin with is because someone (Ace’s commenter Shawn) saw similarities between the style and content of the sock-puppet comments and Greenwald’s style and content.
A thorough examination of the sock-puppet comments, which I perform below, shows that the sock-puppeteer is either Greenwald, or a person who is his carbon copy in personality, writing style and verbal tics. His English is every bit as competent as Greenwald’s own comment prose. The commenter is fully conversant with idiomatic expressions, including some that are specific to the blog-world.
Also, the commenter is quite Greenwald-like in his obsessive interest in (and encyclopedic knowledge of) Greenwald. He has a truly astounding knowledge of Greenwald’s posts, Greenwald’s updates, and Greenwald’s enemies. He knows all about Greenwald’s commenters — including which ones like Greenwald and which don’t, and which ones used to, but suddenly changed their minds.
Sounds kinda like me!
Under assumed names, the obsessive Greenwald fan simply helicopters into a comment thread. He defends Greenwald under an assumed name, and then helicopters out. Some of the names used by the commenter never appear on the Internet again.
Although Greenwald often comes on to comment threads to defend himself under his own name, Greenwald and his sock-puppets don’t seem to show up in the same threads. Apparently, when a same-IP commenter shows up to defend Greenwald, Greenwald himself doesn’t feel the need to defend himself in the same threads. The fact that people support him in those comment threads isn’t enough to keep him from commenting; only the excellent defense provided by the sock puppets is sufficient to keep Greenwald from participating. (Indeed, Greenwald and his sock-puppets have almost never appeared on the same blog — almost as if they thought that the IP addresses couldn’t be cross-checked if they posted on different blogs.)
Furthermore, as Ace has shown, it has happened that a suspected sock-puppet says things in comments one day, and these observations show up in Greenwald’s posts the next day.
Uh-oh. Did I really do that?
Finally, the sock-puppet commenter has been quite protective of Greenwald’s reputation, following critics from thread to thread to defend the good name of Glenn Greenwald. Yet, if we are to assume that he is a different person from Greenwald, such as Greenwald’s boyfriend, he has all of a sudden chosen to let Greenwald twist in the wind. The boyfriend, formerly so concerned with Greenwald’s reputation, is now leaving thousands believing Greenwald guilty of some silly sock-puppetry. Where is the sock-puppet’s regard for Greenwald’s reputation now?
Let’s get to the details, starting with the confirmed IP address matches.
IP address 201.37.43.117
The posts from IP address 201.37.43.117 began on July 13. Blogger Ace of Spades wrote a post about Glenn Greenwald, and his commenters were chiming in. WuzzaDem provides the visuals:
What’s up, homesock?
How’s it hangin’?
Hey, did you hear what Glenn Greenwald…
At 6:14 a.m. Pacific time (10:14 a.m. Brazil time), someone named Ellison (a name similar to suspected sock-puppets “Rick Ellensburg” and “Thomas Ellers”) left a comment on Ace’s site, in this thread. (Ace’s timestamps are on Central time; all times are Daylight Savings Time.) The comment read as follows:
Greenwald only has a New York Times Best Selling Book on the Bush Administration and its abuses of power. And he has one of the most-read blogs on the Interent, after 9 months of blogging. And Senators read from his blog at Senate hearings and his posts lead to front-page news stories in major newspapers.
Why would anyone think what he has to say matters? It’s not like anyone listens to him. It’s not like he’s Ace, or Jeff Goldstein, or Patterico, or Sister Toldjah or Glenn Reynolds, or someone who really matters.
Great advice, you super-important bloggers should only to each other and about each other. Don’t bother with anyone in the Left because if you ignore them, they’ll just go away.
Translation:
Jealous, much?
The comment left by Ellison hits what I like to call the Four Pillars of Greenwald’s Greatness: 1) bestselling book; 2) 9-month rise to Internet mega-success; 3) Senators read from his blog; and 4) newspapers print front-page stories based on his blog. Remember the Four Pillars; you’ll see them again. Here is how John from WuzzaDem sums them up:
That’s right. I’ve written a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority, broken a story on my blog about wiretapping that led to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country, and Russ Feingold read from my blog during the Censure hearings.
Well, John got only three of the four. But John isn’t Glenn Greenwald. I bet Glenn Greenwald knows all Four Pillars of his own Greatness by heart. It is quite possible that, as he drifts off to sleep every night, he recites each of the Four Pillars in his head.
But it wouldn’t do for Greenwald to go around talking about the Four Pillars using his own name. It smacks too much of excessive self-adulation, which turns people off:
Don’t you think it’s a little unseemly to be bragging about yourself?
Greenwald is a smart guy, and he probably knows this. It’s much better to have “Ellison” say it:
For your information, Mr. Greenwald has written a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority, broken a story on his blog about wiretapping that led to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country, and Russ Feingold read from my blog…
Yeah, that sounds a lot better.
D’OH! Except for the “my” part!
Don’t you mean his blog?
Let’s fix that:
Right, right - Russ Feingold read from his blog during the Censure hearings.
Much, much better.
This “Ellison” character knew the names of many of Greenwald’s blogger critics at that particular point in time: Ace. Jeff Goldstein. Patterico. Sister Toldjah. Glenn Reynolds. He rattled them off with an amazing familiarity. [UPDATE 7-27-06 5:33 p.m.: Ace writes to note that all these people were specifically mentioned at the end of his post, so this point is not particularly compelling.]
All of these bloggers had recently published posts about Greenwald, and “Ellison” was familiar with them all. Evidently, Ellison was savvy about the Internet, knew who Greenwald’s critics were, knew how to get to their sites, and remembered all of their names as he constructed a blog comment.
Note that, while Greenwald often shows up in blog comments that criticize him, he didn’t show up in Ace’s comments. It is somewhat uncharacteristic of Greenwald not to show up in the comments of a post by a major blogger that criticizes him.
Hey! Are you criticizing me?!?!
And Ace’s post is brutal. It calls Greenwald “foaming and insipid,” and suggests that he is a no-name:
Not even Glenn Greenwald knows who the fuck who Glenn Greenwald is. The other day, he was buying some batteries at Radio Shack, and, per their procedures, they asked him his name. “I have no idea who I am,” he’s reported to have said.
That must have upset Greenwald, who (as we will soon see) read Ace’s post and the comments to it. After all, none of the Four Pillars of Greenwald’s Greatness apply to Ace! Greenwald had to have wanted to point this out. Yet, as Ace explains in his classic ironic fashion: “Like an e-Gandhi, [Greenwald] refused [to] respond to my verbal violence in any manner whatsoever.”
I like to remain above the fray, you dishonest hypocrite.
It is Greenwald’s great fortune that “Ellison” was able to do this for him. Unfortunately, he did it from Greenwald’s own IP address.
Remember this, because it’s a common theme: when the sock-puppets appear in a thread about Greenwald, Greenwald does not appear.
(One minor point: Ellison uses the term “super-important.” Greenwald says “super important” here.)
Seventeen minutes after Ellison’s comment at Ace’s site, Greenwald left this comment on my site under his own name. This comment used the same IP address as the Ellison comment. The comment was left at 6:31 a.m. Pacific time. In the comment, the famously civil Greenwald made a false accusation about my supposedly removing comments from my site (I didn’t), called me a “liar,” and called my comments obsessive, hypocritical, hysterical, petulant, and shrieking.
Good DAY, sir!
Greenwald then spammed the same comment to four other threads involving him, to make sure everyone coming to my blog to read about him would see it. The comments were left at 6:39 a.m., 6:40 a.m., 6:41 a.m., and again at 6:41 a.m.. Later, at 7:19 a.m., he left another comment on the first thread, again calling me a liar.
Good DAY, sir!
The spamming of the same comment on five different threads of mine shows something significant about Glenn Greenwald: he is obsessive about defending his reputation, even in blog comments.
That’s no big deal. A lot of bloggers are the same way, including me — and plenty of other bloggers I could name. I bet a few names are already popping into your head as I say this. You know who we are. If you criticize us on your blog, more likely than not we’ll pop up to defend ourselves.
It’s a personality trait. And Greenwald himself has that personality trait in spades. Say anything bad about him, and BOOM! there he is.
That is such a lie. You right-wingers are such dishonest hypocrites.
Hey, now that I think of it, he looks kind of like…
Back to the timeline:
Later that same day, Greenwald left two comments under his own name at this Villainous Company thread, at 11:13 a.m. Pacific (2:13 a.m. Eastern), and 12:15 p.m. Pacific (3:15 p.m. Eastern). (Villainous Company’s timestamps are on Eastern time.). In those comments, Greenwald gave himself a little pat on the back for his extraordinary civility, and criticized Cassandra for suggesting (in the aforementioned Ace of Spades thread) that he was a “whack job.”
This is how we know that he not only read the Ace of Spades post, which was brutal in its derision of Greenwald, but all the comments to Ace’s post as well. He actually talked to Cassandra about it that day. Yet, as noted above, Greenwald did not respond to Ace, leaving those duties to “Ellison.”
Four days later, on July 17, someone using the same IP address used it to leave three comments under the name “Ryan” on Dan Riehl’s blog.
I guess it’s up to me to set you straight about Glenn Green…
The first comment was on July 17, at 1:31 a.m. Pacific (Dan’s timestamps are on Eastern time):
What’s happening here is obvious. Instapundit is so full of frustration and anger towards Greenwald’s criticisms that he links to every loser and sicko who writes a single negative thing about Greenwald, no matter how extreme, deranged, bitter, etc.
So now they’re all trained that if they want attention and traffic from their master, they need to be good little attack poodles and write about Greenwald - the more personal and inane, the better. Insty has linked to 10 posts like this, at least, in the last week.
Dan needs attention and traffic - he doesn’t exactly have a lot of either - and this is the only way he can get it. Greenwald is his meal ticket.
I don’t even know why I’m talking to you - you’re not published. You all rely on me for traffic. Good DAY, sir.
Ryan, like all of the suspected sock-puppets, speaks colloquial English, like Greenwald. He sets off phrases with hyphens, just like Greenwald. He calls Instapundit “Insty” — a strange phrase for a Brazilian. He knows how many posts Instapundit has posted about Greenwald in the previous week. He also uses the terms “sicko” and “attack poodles.” The phrase “attack poodles” — an invention of James Wolcott — is a favorite of the American left in general, and of lefty bloggers in particular. It is far more likely to be used by a devoted blogger and blog reader than by someone who isn’t.
Again, these comments are something that Greenwald may well be thinking — but it wouldn’t do for them to be posted over his name. So they were posted from a different name — from Greenwald’s IP address.
The second “Ryan” comment was left on the same day, at 6:42 a.m. Pacific. It mocked Xrlq’s takedown of Greenwald, as well as Xrlq’s 200-visitor-a-day traffic. As evidence of the alleged weakness of Xrlq’s takedown, the comment cited a leftist satire web site that features a writer named “Retardo Montalban.” The “Retardo” web site is a Greenwald favorite which he had linked frequently in recent weeks, pointing specifically to a “Retardo” post about Jeff Goldstein as evidence of Goldstein’s allegedly violent rhetoric.
I do like that “Retardo” guy.
Coincidentally, so do I!
The next day, July 18, “Ryan” left a third comment, at 7:24 a.m. Pacific. This one is my favorite of all the sock-puppet comments. It responded to allegations regarding Greenwald’s career — something that “Ryan” at Greenwald’s IP address pretended not to know about. So “Ryan” used the device of “e-mailing” Greenwald, who “responded” in an e-mail that Ryan could then print:
I e-mailed Greenwald yesterday about this, pasted BumperStickerist’s accusations, and asked Greenwald if it was true. This is what I just received in response:
“Thanks for sending that.
I worked at Wachtell, Lipton as a Summer Associate after my second year at NYU, as a pre-Bar Associate during my entire third year at NYU and once I graduated, and then as a practicing Litigation Associate once I was admitted to the New York Bar.
Anyone who says that I did not practice law there after I passed the bar is lying — and deliberately so, I would think, since nobody who says such a thing could possibly have any basis for knowing that.
In any event, I can’t imagine what point anyone thinks they’re making. Wachtell is known to be the most selective law firm in the country. What point do they think they’re making, exactly?”
You people are morons, seriously. You run around claiming things without having any idea if there true. And then when you get exposed as liars, you slink away and repeat the next lie.
WuzzaDem explains it this way:
Well, I’ve never met the man personally, but I did recently e-mail him, and this is the reply I received:
Dear person I’ve never met personally: Thanks for your note. As a matter of fact I did write a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority, and I am indeed the person who broke a story on his blog about wiretapping that led…
Yeah, yeah, we get the idea. Listen, why don’t you just quit while you’re ahead. You’re really making an ass out of yourself.
Ryan, remember, posted from Greenwald’s IP address. To get the information he needed, he didn’t need to e-mail Greenwald. All he probably had to do was shout across the room to Greenwald — probably to a mirror.
Right about the same time, the same IP address was used numerous times by a Thomas Ellers in comments to this Q&O post.
Did someone mention Glenn Greenwald?
(Note that the name “Thomas Ellers” is similar to “Ellison” and “Rick Ellensburg.”) The Q&O post is from July 17; we don’t know exactly when the comments were left, and certain of the Q&O people have conspicuously refused to provide that information. There are no permalinks to the Ellers comments, but here they are:
I love how Franks claims not to know who Greenwald is and never reads his blog - “I really have no idea who Glenn Greenwald is” — but somehow also claims to knows that he’s just a “lefty-boy” who only writes “pretty much what you could read at the Democratic Party’s web site.” Wouldn’t you have to know who he is and read him to know that?
I love how you’re so dishonest and hypocritical!
As we will see below, beginning the comment with the phrase “I love how . . .” is a “tell.” That’s how Rick Ellensburg began his comment at Right Wing Nuthouse: “I love how you criticize the post for being too long and then criticize it for not including enough examples.” This is a phrase that Greenwald himself uses in a comment at Wizbang on July 4: “I love how Lorie Byrd thinks she knows more about the security concerns of Rumsfeld and Cheney than the Secret Service and Rumsfeld himself know.”
More Ellers from Q&O:
David S. used to go to Greenwald’s blog every day and write paeans to Greenwald that made Mona’s praise look mild by comparison. Then one day, Greenwald ignored a bunch of questions David S. was posing and David S. had a very bruised ego (”I know he has 250 comments every day, but I’m different and must not be ignored!”). Then he announced he would never come back and now goes around the Internet bad-mouthing Greenwald. From a fan to a hater, overnight.
Which brings up an interesting point: isn’t a lot of this hatred of Greenwald jealousy-based.
Jealous, much?
“Ellers” has an encyclopedic knowledge of Greenwald’s site, including Greenwald’s arguments, his commenters, and the content of his posts and updates. Evidently, “Ellers” has read Greenwald’s blog so religiously that he knows when “David S.” was a Greenwald fan — and when he turned against Greenwald, and why.
It’s the weirdest thing; Ellers has an amazing familiarity with Greenwald’s blog and with David S.’s history as a commenter . . . yet if Ellers ever commented on Greenwald’s blog, I can’t find any evidence of it. I assume that if any of his defenders can, they’ll let me know.
The comment continues:
The Bestselling book, all the media attention, the overnight blog success, etc?
Do I really have to recite all Four Pillars?
The comment continues:
I’d be the first to say his style can be bombastic and he can be overly aggressive. But nobody denies that he’s very smart, and among liberal bloggers at least, very moderate and rational in his view, and unusually willing to engage debate. So it’s hard to figure out what there could be about the guy that generates such strong emotions.
Here Franks want to pop up out of the blue and announce that he doesn’t care about Greenwald, and does so by creating yet another post with his name in the title and then calls him a series of names. Not exactly the sign of someone who doesn’t care about Greenwald. So what’s really going on here?
Are you obsessed with me??
Recall, by the way, that Ellers’s theory — that any criticism of Greenwald is based on jealousy — is a theme we saw in comments from “Ryan” using the same IP address. This is not the first time this theory will emerge, and it won’t be the last.
Q&O commenters try to take on Ellers:
You are aware that Mr. Greenwald has written a New York Times bestselling book on executive…
We know, we know. Listen, why don’t you just tell “Mr. Greenwald”…
But Ellers persists:
From Shaughnessy’s blog:
I am a great admirer of Glenn Greenwald. I think he is constructively trying to direct the power of the internet into public affairs and politics. Further, having just endured the Sunday talk shows, I am affirmed in my opinion that the quality of debate is significantly higher in this blog than that offered by the TV news outfits. Putting those two things together, I think Glenn has embarked on a worthy undertaking in trying to enlist grass-roots internet support to impact politics and political changes.
And another post:
You can find my comments at Glenn Greenwald’s blog, Unclaimed Territory. Mr. Greenwald, in my opinion, runs the most respectful, thoughtful, and intelligent politico-legal blog in the whole dang blogosphere.
I will add this. I believe that blogs like Mr. Greenwald’s demonstrate the awesome democratic potential of the internet. Such innovations are how we, as a united people, can proceed.
But today:
I could not care less what Glenn Greenwald thinks or says.Tell me there isn’t something going on here on an emotional level in terms of the response to Greenwald.
I’m get — I mean, Mr. Greenwald is getting to you! You can’t respond to the substance!
and this:
Oh, as for Greenwald’s “best-seller,” (self-decribed as such on his website, just above the review by the high-school girl in the Mercury News) well here’s a free tip for you, Mr. Ellers: Don’t believe everything you read.Can you elaborate on this accusation? I’ve clicked over to the links I’ve seen on his site and saw the book, right there, on the Times Best seller list on several different weeks. Are those pages fabricated? Has his book not really been on the Times’ Best Seller list like he claims, or at #1 on Amazon? If so, this is a big story, so I’m interested in your support for this accusation.
I do too have . . . I mean, Mr. Greenwald does too have a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority!
Let’s move on to the next IP address — because Greenwald and the sock-puppets share two of them.
IP address 201.17.101.161
Kevin at Wizbang has confirmed for me that Greenwald used IP address 201.17.101.161 to leave a comment at Wizbang on July 4, here, that begins: “I love how Lorie Byrd thinks she knows more about the security concerns of Rumsfeld and Cheney than the Secret Service and Rumsfeld himself know.” As we already saw, the “I love how” language is characteristic of suspected sock-puppet Thomas Ellers. As we will see, it is also characteristic of suspected sock-puppet Rick Ellensburg.
On July 8, Greenwald posted at Confederate Yankee under his own name, in this thread, using the same IP address. As the civil Mr. Greenwald is wont to do when he wanders onto conservatives’ blogs, he called Confederate Yankee a hypocrite: “It’s difficult to put into words what a hypocrite Confederate Yankee is.”
I’ll give it a shot: you, sir, are a HYPOCRITE.
The same IP address was in evidence on July 12, when Greenwald left three comments on my site under that IP address. The first was left at 5:01 a.m. Pacific. This was the comment in which he told the following lie about me: “You certainly were vigilant in railing against those irrlevancies, even though you’re way too busy to notice or condemn any of the far more significant, vile rhetoric pouring forth regularly from the higher echelons on the Right — a glaring inconsistency which, incidentally, was the principal point of my post.”
Good DAY, sir!
Greenwald left two more comments on my site using this IP address on July 12: this one at 5:10 a.m. Pacific time, and this one at 6:54 a.m.
Enter “Wilson,” later that evening. It’s a name made famous as the name of a ball that Tom Hanks talked to while stranded on a deserted island.
Are you talking about Glenn Greenwald?
(h/t Pablo.) It’s a good name for someone who’s talking to himself. Anyway, on Jeff Goldstein’s site, using the same IP address as the above comments by Greenwald, “Wilson” said:
What I don’t quite understand is, why do so many, almost all on the extreme Left, consider Greenwald some kind of great constitutional authority.Lets see, a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority. Breaks a story on his blog about wiretapping that leads to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country. Russ Feingold reads from his blog during the Censure hearings.
Maybe that has something to do with why. Any conservative bloggers with credentials like that? All compiled in 9 months or however long its been since he started blogging?
Jeffy’s funny poems are great and everything, and im sure your anonymous lawyer friends are really smart and all, but hard to say they compare to those things.
In other words . . .
For your information, Mr. Greenwald has written a New York Ti –
No, wait — wrong puppet . . .
For your information, Mr. Greenwald has written a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority, broken a story on his blog about wiretapping that led to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country, and Russ Feingold read from my, uh, his blog…
There are the Four Pillars emphasized by Ellison and (as to three of the four) Ryan above, under another IP address shared with Greenwald: the best-selling book, the front-page articles, Senators reading from the blog, and the meteoric rise of the blog in 9 months.
By the way, “Jeffy” seems like odd terminology to use for someone unfamiliar with Goldstein’s blog. Of course, Greenwald is very familiar with Goldstein, having engaged in numerous debates with him previously.
The final suspected sock-puppet, Rick Ellensburg, shared an address space with Greenwald on the Brazilian Telemar Norte ISP in late 2005 and early 2006. This is based on Greenwald’s having posted comments under that address space on numerous blogs in early 2006, including Protein Wisdom in January 2006. Ellensburg’s comments were posted in February 2006.
Meet Mr. Ellensburg:
I guess it’s up to me to set you straight about Glenn Green…
Knock it off, already. We know it’s you.
He looks just like that guy who was just here.
I’m sure I don’t know who you’re talking about. None of the other puppets have these ultra-cool Groucho glasses.
Oh, brother.
The name “Rick Ellensburg” is, of course, similar to “Thomas Ellers” and “Ellison.” And the writing style and content is remarkably similar to that of Greenwald. Let’s look at one of Ellensburg comments in this post:
I love how you criticize the post for being too long and then criticize it for not including enough examples.
I also love how you criticize it for not having enough examples and then ignore most of the examples Greenwald gives.
I love how much I sound like Glenn Greenwald!
Ellensburg’s comment continues:
The article about Barr makes clear that the whole room hated Barr for criticizing Bush, not just one imbecile.
And if you’re not familiar with the way in which even life-long conservative Senators are no longer conservative when they jump out of line, it’s only because you don’t read the papers. Should he have included every instance of that in his single post?
And Michelle Malkin already advocates internment camps. It’s hardly “baseless” to think she would advocate new ones.
And you need to learn to read. Greenwald said that Goldstein and Goldberg would likely support far more extreme measures than the ones already revealed, but that they would likely NOT be without limits at all as to the powers they’d be willing to give Bush (unlike Malkina and Hinderaker). You mock that statement as some sort of contradiction. Do you really not understand the difference between advocating further powers but not advocating absolute powers? Apparently not.
And they just had a conservative event and the whole place erupted in cheers when Ann Coulter urged violence on ragheads and called for the deaths of liberal supreme court justices and bill clinton. Is that conservative to you or a cult?
And he said it’s not just the excess spending but the total lack of distrust in the federal government, as shown by the huge powers they want to put in Bush – FISA, torture, renderings, Guantanomo, etc. Where is the distrust of Government?
And Bush wants gov’t in every aspect of our lives – Schiavo, gay marriage. Everything is federalized, nothing left to the states. This is all in his post; you ignored it.
Ultimately, you’re just oversensitive. He didn’t say all people who support Bush are slaves and cult members. Many are. You acknowledge that yourself in your own post.
Ellensburg is certainly familiar with Greenwald, his blog, and his positions. Yet I can find no evidence that he ever commented on his blog.
I’m a lurker!
Describing conservatism (and respect for Bush) as a “cult” is a major Greenwald theme. For example:
Conservatism in some circles really has morphed into The Cult of George Bush, which is why any criticism of the Leader — even when the criticism is based on conservative principles — is deemed to be blasphemous to the Cause.
or this:
In many ways, over this time period, the GOP more closely resembled a cult than a political party, and the cohesiveness of the cult was centered around Personality — a glorification of, and blind reverence for, George W. Bush.
So? It is a cult!
It sure is!
And my goodness, these arguments are certainly rather U.S.-centric for a guy posting from a Brazilian ISP:
And he said it’s not just the excess spending but the total lack of distrust in federal government, as shown by the huge powers they want to put in Bush – FISA, torture, renderings, Guantanomo, etc. Where is the distrust of Government? And Bush wants gov’t in every aspect of our lives – Schiavo, gay marriage. Everything is federalized, nothing left to the states.
Ellensburg, whose name is (like all the sock puppets) very American-sounding (and not very Brazilian-sounding), seems mightily concerned with things that affect the U.S. He knows all about the issues facing the U.S., including Schiavo, gay marriage, etc. Indeed, his call for distrust in government is a view that is largely idiosyncratic to the U.S.
Ellensburg shares some other verbal tics and subject-matter obsessions with Greenwald. Another Ellensburg comment reads:
And one other thing – in his update, he provides an example of conservatives who HATED FISA under Clinton and thought that eavesdropping on Americans, even with judicial oversight, was a dangerous threat to freedom.
Now, under Bush, conservatives not only love eavesdropping, but think that it’s fine that Bush is eavesdropping with no judicial oversight.
To recap:
Conservatives under Clinton – “eavesdropping with judicial oversight = fascism”
Conservatives under Bush – “eavesdropping with no judicial oversight = OK”
if you’re going to argue Greenwald’s point, you should argue the points, instead if pretending he had none.
To recap: stop PRETENDING that I’m not great!
Ace has shown that Greenwald absolutely adores the “To recap:” construction. Ace pulled six examples from just one month on Greenwald’s blog before Ace got bored with the exercise. In the same post, Ace showed how Ellensburg and Greenwald both love to set off phrases with hyphens.
Well, so do I (with dashes, not hyphens). Each point by itself is not damning — but it becomes so when you look at all these points in their totality.
In Ellensburg’s next comment, he manages to predict Greenwald’s exact arguments for the next day:
Even funnier – looks like Andrew Sullivan agrees with Greenwald, since he took the paragraphs you quoted and called it the “Quote of the Day,” saying Greenwald “diagnosed the situation accurately”:
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/02/quote_for_the_d_20.html
This is pretty good evidence that more than just Brent Bozell has called Sullivan a “liberal” for failing to lick George Bush’s ass enough.
And believe me, dogs know about licking ass!
As Ace has shown in this post, Greenwald’s post the next day cites Sullivan’s praise (go here and scroll to February 13):
Ironically, Sullivan, shortly after Moran posted this, took the precise paragraphs quoted above [Greenwald’s quotes, the ones Moran had attacked] and made them the “Quote of the Day” on his site, concluding that my post “diagnos[es] the situation accurately.”
Many other Ellensburg points end up in Greenwald’s post, including 1) the way that long-time conservatives are no longer considered conservatives if they don’t worship Bush; 2) conservatives don’t seem to be for limited government any more; and 3) the bloggers who criticized his post didn’t respond to his argument that conservatives had changed from “angry opposition to warrant-based FISA eavesdropping” under Clinton to “the stirring defense of warrantless, oversight-less eavesdropping now engaged in proudly by the Bush Administration.”
I didn’t even get a hat tip!
[UPDATE: Ace calls this “PREgurgitation — and it’s a good expression for what is happening here.]
Greenwald cites numerous commenters in the Right Wing Nuthouse thread — but the one commenter who so presciently predicted the content of Greenwald’s post, Rick Ellensburg, didn’t merit as much as a whisper of thanks for his cogent arguments on Greenwald’s behalf.
Because, as Ace says, you tip your hat to other people — not to yourself.
Greenwald’s post the next day is so Ellensburgian, he even uses the “So, to recap” terminology!
Ace has also documented that, despite Ellensburg’s extensive knowledge of Greenwald’s posts and arguments, Ellensburg has appeared on the Internet only once, to defend Greenwald in this one situation.
And, as I said, Ellensburg’s IP address comes from the same address space Greenwald was using just one month before, in numerous comments left in a January Protein Wisdom thread.
Wow. Even I’m convinced. Rick Ellensburg sure does sound a lot like me!
SO, TO RECAP:
What does all of this show?
Greenwald has all but admitted that the sock-puppet comments are coming from his IP address. But he has denied that he made the comments, and insinuates (but does not affirmatively claim) that it is someone else in the household — presumably his boyfriend.
Some have argued that it is more likely that Greenwald’s boyfriend posted the sock-puppet comments, and not Greenwald.
He’s right, you know. I read that at Wizbang!
More likely?!?!
I have just demonstrated at great length that the sock-puppet commenter shares several factors with Glenn Greenwald. As Ace says:
Yes, yes, yes, I know… it just so happens that Glenn Greenwald has been blessed to be living with a perfect Spirit Twin who spends all of his day doing what is actually Glenn Greenwald’s job (i.e., defending Glenn Greenwald, recruiting for the cult of Glenn Greenwald), and also seems to do this while Glenn Greenwald is known to be active on the Internet, and is fully committed to, and fully conversant with, all of Glenn Greenwald’s arguments and beliefs, and furthermore does not merely content himself to briefly tout his lover’s accomplishments, but rather argues all of his points in full on his behalf, and furthermore is capable of mimicing his lover’s writing style, with its various gramatical and word-choice tics, at will.
For the sake of amusement, let’s assume this to be true for one moment. Assume that Greenwald’s boyfriend is just as dogged in defending Greenwald as he is. Just as prone to make the same points in idiomatic, blog-centric English. Just as apt to frequent the blogs that criticize Greenwald. Just as familiar with Greenwald’s arguments, posts, updates, and commenters — including facts about when Greenwald’s commenters liked Greenwald, when they stopped, and why. Just as rabid in the utter fanaticism for defending Greenwald that Greenwald feels himself. And just happens to have landed on all the comment threads that Greenwald himself overlooked.
If that’s really true, then the boyfriend’s fetish about protecting Greenwald’s reputation appears to have landed Greenwald in hot water.
Wouldn’t you think the boyfriend would step forward to take the heat?
The boyfriend was fanatically loyal before, spitting out the Four Pillars of Glenn’s Greatness to anyone who would listen, because Glenn’s Reputation Must Be Defended.
Now, Glenn’s reputation is taking as big a hit as it’s probably ever taken — all due to the boyfriend’s actions. Yet the boyfriend, previously so rabidly defensive about Greenwald’s reputation, is now suddenly silent.
Is this believable?
It’s much more reasonable to believe Greenwald was using sock puppets, got caught, and lied about it.
If this boyfriend is so obsessive about protecting his boyfriend Greenwald from personal attacks, why is he letting him twist in the wind now?
Why does this matter? Let me quote from an earlier post of mine, about the sock-puppetry of Michael Hiltzik:
Why does this matter — or does it? After all, I’m obviously not objecting to use of pseudonyms by bloggers and blog commenters. How could I be? I mean, you’re reading a post by someone who calls himself “Patterico.” And, while I made the decision to make my real name public long ago (it’s Patrick Frey), many of my commenters use pseudonyms. So what’s the big deal?
Here’s the thing. I am actually a strong defender of people’s right to comment anonymously, or pseudonymously. I myself was semi-pseudonymous for the first several months of this blog. But I don’t think that commenters should use pseudonyms to pretend to be something or somebody they aren’t.
Speaking of Hiltzik, it’s worth saying a word about motive. Some have argued that there is no reason for Greenwald to resort to sock puppets, since he posts under his own name.
Talk to former blogger Michael Hiltzik. He admitted his sock-puppetry (though he initially denied it, until I posted irrefutable evidence of it). And Hiltzik was not shy about expressing strong opinions under his own name — even quite rude and confrontational ones.
In Greenwald’s case, the motive was even more obvious: there were things he wanted to say that would be unseemly to publish under his own name. So he did it under a different name. Simple as that.
Can you explain it any better, Mr. Greenwald?
To recap:
I love how it’s super-important for bloggers - who are part of the cult of Bush and act like good little attack poodles - to continually ignore these facts, which I learned by e-mailing myself:
Greenwald has a New York Times bestselling book. And he’s broken front-page newspaper stories. And senators read from his blog in Senate hearings. And in just 9 months, he has become a super-blogger.
So good DAY, sir!
Patterico,
;D. ROFL. Sockpuppetry is so 1970’s (and it is probably older than that). I’ve seen it on USENET, the old dialup BBS systems (I was a sysop back in the day), heck, I’ve seen it done on real pin up flyers posted on college campus cork boards. Back in the dark ages (Bush 41) TownHall was a BBS. When the Heritage Foundation brought it to Compuserve (before AO…..), a few of the regulars of the TownHall Forum used to drop in on the Democrat Forum to read and occasionally provoke
the rather mild invective posted there by today’s standards.
Thanks for the memories….
Comment by Charles D. Quarles — 7/27/2006 @ 2:11 am
[…] Patterico does a long, well documented expose of one Sergeant Sockpuppet. AKA, Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald apparently being a character with serious emotional issues, and an exaggerated sense of his own unimportance. […]
Pingback by Mythusmage Opines » Blog Archive » A Blogger Take-Down — 7/27/2006 @ 2:12 am
My policy tends to be that, when I’m caught out in something embarrassing, the fastest way to get out from under it is to admit it–even if you were initially a coward and denied it.
Sockpuppetry is juvenile, and silly, and egotistical. That’s all. Ah but lying and denying… consistently, persistently… that’s another matter.
Thing is that people who don’t understand TCP/IP won’t quite grasp this. But honestly, you’ve demonostrated that it is not reasonable to believe that anyone other than Greenwald left these comments. But if any of them did, all they’d have to do is come forward, no?
Comment by Dean Esmay — 7/27/2006 @ 4:03 am
Very nicely done, Patterico. This will be the go to page for the history of Glenn Greenwald’s sock puppetry. What. A. Goon.
Special mention should be given to whoever the wiseass at Ace’s was who, posting as “Ellison’s Keyboard” 35 minutes after the Ellison post, quoted it and wrote:
Heh. Firsties.
Comment by Pablo — 7/27/2006 @ 4:30 am
I think the WuzzaDem sock puppets deserve, if not their own blog, at least a regular column/spot on one (or two, perhaps they could have an ongoing dialogue between WuzzaDem and Patterico). Perhaps the puppet ala Groucho could do a “Secret Word” segment as in “You Bet Your Life”.
Kilroy (was here)
(So was Jules Archer’s third cousin)
Comment by MD in Philly — 7/27/2006 @ 4:49 am
Exposing sock puppets — could this be your new full-time job?
Comment by aunursa — 7/27/2006 @ 5:45 am
Great job Patterico.
So do we get the open letter questions now? Y’know, either wrap it up with a non-response, or pave the way for another installment?
Comment by Gotta Know — 7/27/2006 @ 6:02 am
BTW what is that thingy on the Greenwald sockpuppy puppet’s right hand? It looks like a hospital wristband.
Comment by Gotta Know — 7/27/2006 @ 6:05 am
The Final Word on Sock-Puppetry?…
Patrick Frey has an incredibly long post, illustrated with actual puppets, dissecting every nook and cranny of the Glenn Greenwald sock puppertry blogstorm.
All I know is that, were I a criminal, I would ply my trade outside his jurisdiction. If he…
Trackback by Outside The Beltway | OTB — 7/27/2006 @ 6:16 am
Great investigation, and a good read (the sock puppet commentary was a great touch).
Well done!
Comment by Nate — 7/27/2006 @ 6:18 am
Wow, that’s thorough. Great job. You mentioned on HotAir a couple of days a go that this was coming, well worth the wait.
Comment by HD Wanderer — 7/27/2006 @ 6:21 am
Geez, I had no idea that a craniotomy could be so entertaining.
Comment by Dan Collins — 7/27/2006 @ 6:28 am
[…] Patterico: Annotated WuzzaDem: The Facts Behind the Greenwald Sock-Puppetry This post sets out the evidence suggesting that Glenn Greenwald has engaged in sock-puppetry. With the permission of John from WuzzaDem, I will be relying heavily on the WuzzaDem sock puppets. Consider it an annotated version of John’s recent Insta-linked post. […]
Pingback by FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog » Glenn Greenwald Watch: The Sock Puppet Story Part 2 — 7/27/2006 @ 6:37 am
All but proves the case. Very compelling circumstantial evidence of what’s going on.
Comment by Dwilkers — 7/27/2006 @ 6:42 am
BTW, where are “Ryan”, “Ellison”, “Thomas Ellers” and “Wilson” anyway?
Haven’t been around much last couple weeks have they.
Comment by Dwilkers — 7/27/2006 @ 6:45 am
Greenwald et al are probably trying to learn what a proxy server is……
Comment by Flap — 7/27/2006 @ 6:49 am
That was my question, Dwilkers, have there been ANY comment posts by ANY version of GG, including GG, on ANY of the sites he posted before?
If that isn’t consistent with guilt I don’t know what is.
Comment by Gotta Know — 7/27/2006 @ 7:08 am
I’m not sure that Patterico’s explained his own culpability for the sock puppetry. There was limited puppetry before Pat mocked Greenwald for cross-posting, but it metastatized thereafter. Patterico is guilty of pushing Greenwald into escalated puppetry, much as Israel is guilty for driving Hizbollah into abducting Israeli soldiers. Also, Karl Rove.
Comment by Dan Collins — 7/27/2006 @ 7:31 am
This has got to be the most amusing exposure piece on sockpuppetry ever written.
A++++++
Comment by Scott — 7/27/2006 @ 7:33 am
Where’s Actus to tell us that it’s only “probable” that Greenwald used sock puppets? Good job, Patterico. Makes me glad I only post under one name everywhere
Comment by sharon — 7/27/2006 @ 7:35 am
Uh Dan are you condemning without condemning?
Comment by Gotta Know — 7/27/2006 @ 7:37 am
Okay. NOW will someone be able to update Greenwald’s wiki?
Comment by Dan Collins — 7/27/2006 @ 7:38 am
You know what would be funny? If you published this as a series of novels and they all became NY Times bestsellers. People like pictures in books man, especially of puppets. Sock puppets wearing disguises? Doubley cool.
Comment by thelinyguy — 7/27/2006 @ 7:38 am
Gotta know–
Thus I condemn it (this is what the critics call performative speech)! It (vague antecedent) is condemned, though it was already pre-condemned by Patterico!
Comment by Dan Collins — 7/27/2006 @ 7:40 am
Roofles.
Wouldn’t it be great to put this into video format, with talking puppets and an Oliver Stone “JFK” feel to it.
Comment by Gabriel Chapman — 7/27/2006 @ 7:41 am
Read down to the first photo or two and then had a good time laughing as scrolled through the photos and captions to the end.
I disagree that sock puppets are venial, however. But not sure how mortal it is either. Certainly there are several kinds of sock puppets: the silly ones, on one hand, and the ones intent on deeper mischief, on the other hand (puns, yep).
Comment by JJ — 7/27/2006 @ 7:44 am
I would think that Glenn Greenwald’s
“boyfriend” must be named Onan.
Comment by Mike Myers — 7/27/2006 @ 7:50 am
While I sure enjoyed reading this (and some of your previous very detailed posts on Greenwald and Hiltzik), it sure makes me think that for a guy with a day job and a family, you have got to be one fast typist, going without sleep, or have a boss and wife very supportive of your little hobby. Whichever it is, nice job.
[I have rarely been so tired. — P]
Comment by steve sturm — 7/27/2006 @ 7:55 am
Dan, big relief. This was becoming a condemn-free zone, which I…whatever.
Comment by Gotta Know — 7/27/2006 @ 7:57 am
steve–
Jealous much?
Comment by Dan Collins — 7/27/2006 @ 8:00 am
Patterico:
As well, want to mention that I recognize your temporate treatment here of this.
Losing all levels of decorum just throws you into that crazy swimming hole that Howard Dean stays in. And when you’ve been in the pool, you is smelly thereafter.
Comment by JJ — 7/27/2006 @ 8:04 am
All I can say is, wow.
What a take down.
Couldn’t have happened to a nicer
Ellison,Ryan,Thomas Ellers,Rick Ellensburg,Wilson, guy!Comment by The Ace — 7/27/2006 @ 8:05 am
How do you the Jury find?
We find the Defendent Guilty as charged of Sock Puppetry your honor.
Awesome job Patterico.
Comment by Joel B. — 7/27/2006 @ 8:08 am
Dan Collins: big time.
Comment by steve sturm — 7/27/2006 @ 8:09 am
Oh btw…you might want to hide a good portion of this post under specific link, just, it’s a very long post, and if someone has already read it, or tired of the Greenwald item, they can skip over the bulk of it. Just a thought, feel free to delete this comment.
Comment by Joel B. — 7/27/2006 @ 8:10 am
Nicely done, Patterico
Three quick points:
1. Greenwald’s explanation is technically correct if Glenn either dictated his response and the boyfriend typed in the words or if Glenn wrote the response and the boyfriend hit ‘enter’.
You might want to ask the generalized question: Mister Greenwald, did you have any knowledge of or participate in the creation of the comments in question?
2. The Brazillian/English angle might be overplayed a tad. I posted the results of a google search at ace’s which showed a commenter at Greenwald’s who posted in fluent English and also had a portugese blog. That blogger shared the same first name as Glenn’s boyfriend.
The other coincidences you (and ace)use to illustrate the similiarities make it vanishingly unlikely that it’s not Greenwald’s language, if not his actual fingers, hence point 1.
3. If you go back and read the comments thread prior to Ryan emailing Glenn, you’d find that I was no ‘accusing’ Greenwald of anything.
I was trying to reconcile Glenn’s CV which said ‘Wachtell 94-95′ with the fact that Glenn passed the NY bar in 1995, probably in the Summer cycle. As one thing Greenwald’s supporters do is cite to the authority of Glenn’s CV, I thought it useful to look at it and think about it, even if Glenn’s supporters don’t.
At the very least Glenn’s wikipedia entry now gives a more complete description of Greenwald: The Early Days.
-
Comment by BumperStickerist — 7/27/2006 @ 8:12 am
Puppets! So many many puppets!…
And who doesn't love puppets!
…
Trackback by protein wisdom — 7/27/2006 @ 8:15 am
BTW, it isn’t hard for Greenwald to post from multiple IP address. All he needs to do is remote login to his computer in Brazil, and he can post.
Comment by BigFire — 7/27/2006 @ 8:38 am
Glenn Greenwald must be very effective to have merited such effort.
Comment by david — 7/27/2006 @ 8:40 am
If he was trying to flash his ass and make people laugh at him, he’s been highly effective.
Then again, Andrea Yates was very effective. Not sure that’s the marker you want to be measuring by.
Comment by Pablo — 7/27/2006 @ 8:50 am
[…] Well, he did it. And not just by a preponderance of the evidence, either. […]
Pingback by Hot Air » Blog Archive » Patterico demolishes Greenwald — 7/27/2006 @ 8:54 am
yes “there is an element of dishonesty to” sock puppetry. and then he lies about it to his readers on top of that.
Comment by M — 7/27/2006 @ 8:55 am
“Mike Meyer” suggests that Glenn’s boyfriends name is Onan. Is that because the puppets are onanistic or just another hand job?
Comment by tom scott — 7/27/2006 @ 9:10 am
Now can someone get to the bottom of how this major-league doofus gamed Amazon. Bonus points if you can find out how many tens of thousands of this mook’s “best-seller” are gathering dust on George Soros’ garage.
Comment by Jim in Chicago — 7/27/2006 @ 9:24 am
How in the world can you people say such things about Glenn Greenwald? How would he possibly have time to make sock puppets? The man is the foremost constitutional lawyer on two continents, wrote the most important book ever, and gets more hits on his fabulous website–in existence only 9 months, 16 days, and two hours, mind you–than all you Chicken Hawks combined!
Comment by Ryan Ellensburg Wilson — 7/27/2006 @ 9:40 am
Big news re Greenwald screenplay:
Schwartzenegger to come out of retirement to reprise role as Onan the ‘Libertarian’
Comment by Dan Collins — 7/27/2006 @ 9:47 am
I love how you took the pompous one down
Great job!!!!!!!
Comment by mm17 — 7/27/2006 @ 9:48 am
Thursday Wingnut Roundup…
Feeling inspired this morning - wonder if the wingnuts are up to anything new? All Things Beautiful - Ralph Nader now works for Hezbollah, and the deaths of the U.N. observers are Kofi Annan’s fault because, like, why do they…
Trackback by AGITPROP: Version 3.0, Featuring Blogenfreude — 7/27/2006 @ 9:55 am
Proud to Be a Chickenhawk …
Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe attacked the use of the epithet “chicken hawk.” But is it really an insult?…
Trackback by Jon Swift — 7/27/2006 @ 10:00 am
Wouldn’t it just be easier to accuse Greenwald of plagiarizing the sock puppets?
Comment by Josh Poulson — 7/27/2006 @ 10:04 am
[…] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. […]
Pingback by Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » The Great Sock-Puppet Scandal Of 2006: The Final Word(?) — 7/27/2006 @ 10:15 am
Re: #43–just like Onan was careless about where he scattered his seed, Glenn Greenwald and his sock puppets were careless about where they scattered their wisdom–or maybe it was just a strictly solitary “intellectual effort” in Brazil. Key thing was that it was all done by one guy.
Comment by Mike Myers — 7/27/2006 @ 10:28 am
If this boyfriend is so obsessive about protecting his boyfriend Greenwald from personal attacks, why is he letting him twist in the wind now?
He’s off with O.J. searching for the real commenters.
Great job, Patrick.
Comment by Brian O'Connell — 7/27/2006 @ 10:53 am
[…] If there’s a better, more comprehensive, more concise summary of just why Queen Douchewad is guilty of sock puppetry than this post by LC & IB Patterico’s, we haven’t heard about it. […]
Pingback by Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Blog Archive » Glenn Greenwad and the Case of the Sock Puppets, the Last Word — 7/27/2006 @ 10:55 am
“Sock-puppetry is… a “venial sin” as opposed to a mortal sin.”
Patterico, I respectfully disagree.
Sock puppetry is counterfeiting. The blog world’s “money”, so to speak, is personal credibility. Sock puppetry intentionally tries to counterfeit that money.
Is counterfeiting a venial sin, or a mortal sin? While the Catholic Church may consider it venial, I’m pretty sure the Secret Service considers it criminal.
Following the counterfeiting analogy: Sock puppetry should be viewed, in the blogging world, as essentially criminal.
(Note that my sock puppet here counterfeits nothing, as it is a sarcastic identity, meant to be seen through… Like Monopoly’s play money.)
Comment by Ellerburgwhoresonellis — 7/27/2006 @ 11:24 am
Sock it to ‘em….
When I go into Baby See-Dubya’s room and there’s a funny smell and the covers are wet, and Baby See-Dubya solemnly points a finger at a sodden teddy bear in the corner of the crib, I usually don’t waste time……
Trackback by JunkYardBlog — 7/27/2006 @ 11:30 am
And P, by the way - AWESOME post! 2 thumbs up!
Comment by Ellersburgwhoresonellis — 7/27/2006 @ 11:56 am
Spotted a small typo:
“If that’s really true, then the boyfriend’s fetish about protecting Greenwald’s reputation appears to [have] landed Greenwald in hot water…”
i.e., add the indicated [have]
Comment by Ellersburgwhoresonellis — 7/27/2006 @ 11:58 am
[…] Patterico’s Pontifications » Annotated WuzzaDem This post sets out the evidence suggesting that Glenn Greenwald has engaged in sock-puppetry. With the permission of John from WuzzaDem, I will be relying heavily on the WuzzaDem sock puppets. Consider it an annotated version of John’s recent post. […]
Pingback by The Facts Behind the Greenwald Sock-Puppetry at The Politburo Diktat — 7/27/2006 @ 12:01 pm
Thousands of words about a “venial’ sock puppetry sin but not a single word about Ankle Biting Pundits “mortal” blogola sin.
Oh hypocrisy, Patterico be thy name!
[The Something-Biting What now? No idea what you’re talking about. — P]
Comment by Ed — 7/27/2006 @ 12:35 pm
So … has Greenwald commented?
As improbable as it sounds, I’m one of those apparently very rare people who’d never heard of this immensely famous and important chump before the current brouhaha erupted.
And based on what I’ve seen, there doesn’t seem to be much reason to visit his blog. I prefer writers who can … well, write.
So - any word from the Puppet Master himself? Or he just ignoring this in hopes it vanishes?
How truly, deeply embarrassing. The man has shit himself in public and is standing their in a cloud of his own stench … we’re all pointing and laughing at the brown stain … and he’s insisting our eyes are lying?
I feel bad for the chump.
Then again, he’s an excellent cautionary tale for all of us. It sure would have been smarter to just come clean from the start, huh?
Do liberals actually believe him? Really? Or are they just forced to defend him, knowing the truth is a little painful?
Just curious. Not very. Fascinating read, Patterico … even if I don’t know or care about the principals involved.
To recap: I love what a chump this guy is.
Comment by Professor Blather — 7/27/2006 @ 12:40 pm
The Greenwald Controversy: The Final Blow…
I hope Greenwald and his sock puppets have a good time down there in Brazil….
Trackback by Liberty and Justice — 7/27/2006 @ 1:02 pm
It was nice of him though to use names so similar.
Talking about helping the prosecutors make their case…
Comment by Michael van der Galien — 7/27/2006 @ 1:03 pm
I’ve just added a link to this post into the Wikipedia article on Glenn Greenwald, which leads me to a heartfelt plea to this site’s webmaster: please, please, please could we have shorter URLs!
Comment by Chris[topher] Chittleborough — 7/27/2006 @ 1:04 pm
I commented a while back on Ace’s site that the way Disingenuous Disgrace works is with half-truths. If it is the boyfriend, as he implied, the other half of the truth is that Disingenuous Disgrace was standing over his shoulder telling him what to type.
Comment by nk — 7/27/2006 @ 1:15 pm
Good job, Patrick.
Comment by Laddy — 7/27/2006 @ 1:21 pm
Wilson!! WILLLLLSSSSON!!
(sob)
Comment by TomHanks — 7/27/2006 @ 1:22 pm
I love how you’ve managed to overlook the most important piece of evidence in the case: where are the actual socks used in the alleged deception?
If you lack the apparel, your case is in the barrel.
If the feet aren’t bare, not guilty you must declare.
And I also love the fact that you Rethuglicans, when faced with the task of creating sock puppets, made them all white males - why are there no people of color in Rethuglican land (outside of the Bushitler cabinet)?
Comment by For the Defense — 7/27/2006 @ 1:49 pm
If I ever to decide to pursue a life of crime, I will stay away from the Airport and its immediate vicinity.
Out of curiosity, did any of the other commenters use sockpuppets?
Comment by Steve Smith — 7/27/2006 @ 2:21 pm
Damnit Steve, that’s another excellent question.
Comment by Sumoboy — 7/27/2006 @ 2:23 pm
That sock’s so dirty it could stand on it’s own if leaned against a wall. Blown full of holes too. Jeez, that guys a real fruitcake.
Comment by Skul — 7/27/2006 @ 2:26 pm
Patterico joining forces with Wuzzadem? I hope the use their power for good…
Comment by Tom — 7/27/2006 @ 2:37 pm
Patterico:
Masterfully done.
“The Four Pillars of Glenn Greenwalds’ Greatness”
near had me soiling myself with laughter.
I’ve fired a few torpedoes at the pompous buffoon’s blog a few months back over the NSA “Wiretap” thingie.
Who knew that I might have been jousting with the many facets of GG himself?
Boy, after this, if I were he I’d change my name and move to another country…
…oh, wait…uhhh, never mind.
High Regards;
Comment by OnlyBilgeman(since 1994) — 7/27/2006 @ 2:55 pm
Patterico tell all: HAS GG SEEN THIS POST?
Comment by Gotta Know — 7/27/2006 @ 2:59 pm
A thorough and well done post, which could have benefitted rom only one slight improvement: the use of the “more” feature, following the paragraph immediately after the “Boys from Brazil” poster.
Comment by Dana — 7/27/2006 @ 3:27 pm
Words words words words words. blah.
I like your site. You right good stuff. But here we have a huge ass rambling diatribe about someone who made fun of you over the internet. Right…
It’s the internet. Get over it.
Comment by Andrew — 7/27/2006 @ 4:19 pm
PS- I meant “write”..
Comment by Andrew — 7/27/2006 @ 4:20 pm
Serious question:
It has been common knowledge thta Mr Greenwald is homosexual. That being the case, what is the purpose of the sentence:
Obviously, the sentence would have been relevant if it had read:
My first impression was that our esteemed host specified that Mr Greenwald was living with his boyfriend as a way of discrediting Mr Greenwald’s arguments. I’m not certain how that would be the case, unless it is assumed that “sock puppetry” is somehow more acceptable among heterosexuals, or that the political positions of homosexuals are of less credibility or logic because they are homosexual.
I’m certain that my first impression was incorrect; I’m just not certain why it is incorrect.
[This is a rather bizarre comment. I am simply setting out the facts. If I didn’t note that Greenwald lives with his boyfriend in Brazil for much of the year, the pro-Greenwald forces would claim I’m hiding that arguably exculpatory fact. — P]
Comment by Dana — 7/27/2006 @ 4:46 pm
“My first impression was that our esteemed host specified that Mr Greenwald was living with his boyfriend as a way of discrediting Mr Greenwalds arguments.”
Umm… In normal life, I am an out and proud gay man, and I have to say I did not get that impression from Patterico’s words AT ALL.
I think the relevance of “boyfriend” would be that:
(1) Greenwald himself insinuated that the sock puppets were written by someone in his Brazilian household;
(2) Such a person, if they are the true author, would clearly have to be extremely devoted to Mr. Greenwald;
(3) Saying “his girlfriend” would obviously be incorrect, or obviously unnecessarily disrespectful to who Mr. Greenwald is.
[For what it’s worth, I am a strong supporter of gay rights. I’m baffled by Dana’s comment. — P]
Comment by Ellersburgwhoresonellis — 7/27/2006 @ 4:52 pm
So let me get this straight … if I post disparaging remarks that ignore the four pilars about the idjit lying moonbat Glenn Greenwald on my moderately unsuccessful and often ignored blog, The Squiggler, then all kinds of sock puppets and trolls will come and jack up my counter and make me one of the biggies? Hmmmmm.
Comment by Sara (Squiggler) — 7/27/2006 @ 5:29 pm
Perfect.
Comment by mary — 7/27/2006 @ 5:35 pm
All your puppets are belong to
usPatterico.Comment by Monkeyfan — 7/27/2006 @ 5:45 pm
Dana,
I responded to your comment above, as an edit to your comment.
Comment by Patterico — 7/27/2006 @ 6:06 pm
Gotta Know: The sockpuppet is holding a microphone with one of those boxes for logos/call letters that reporters use. I just saw the puppet in a TV commercial interviewing happy customers. Also, his collar is a wristwatch band.
Comment by Brian O'Connell — 7/27/2006 @ 6:09 pm
Hey! Great, tks Brian.
Comment by Gotta Know — 7/27/2006 @ 6:10 pm
yw. Here’s more than you’ll ever want to know about it.
Comment by Brian O'Connell — 7/27/2006 @ 6:17 pm
# 64 — I note that your link has been removed from the Wikipedia article, which now seems to contain no criticism of Greenwald whatsoever.
Seems those puppets are busy over there.
Comment by Evil Pundit — 7/27/2006 @ 6:23 pm
Glenn’s middle initial is E., and while I’ve tried to find out what his middle name actually is, I have failed.
However, if we start a pool, I would like to put five bucks on the name “Ellis.”
Comment by ace — 7/27/2006 @ 6:26 pm
Dana,
You, Madame, are a goof, and is typical among liberals when they have no other ground to stand upon, you cry “homophobia.”
In fact, Glenn has proudly announced he has a boyfriend and that he is openly gay. Furthermore, he has said that “someone else within his household” wrote these sock-puppet messages.
The clear insinuation is that it is the Magic Boyfriend, as I have dubbed him, both in honor of the Magic Bullet as well as for the fact that he is magically able to write Glenn Greenwald posts the day BEFORE Glenn Greenwald himself does.
It is the man’s claim that his Magic Boyfriend wrote these posts. It’s not a slur; it’s his stated defense.
Deal with it.
And, again:
You, Madame, are a goof.
Comment by ace — 7/27/2006 @ 6:30 pm
I think it’s a guy, ace.
And I think he’s just confused.
Comment by Patterico — 7/27/2006 @ 6:48 pm
Remind me never to cross Patterico and Ace! Well done gentlemen. I think Mr. Greenwald is credibility toast.
Comment by MikeD — 7/27/2006 @ 7:13 pm
I love…er, I mean, I like how Greenwald now ignores his sock puppetry like it never happened.
Comment by mh — 7/27/2006 @ 7:24 pm
In my humble and objective opinion, Patterico is brilliant. Utterly brilliant. In fact, it is unlikely that I will ever read, or hear about other people reading, something as utterly brilliant as this post. By Patterico, who is brilliant. To recap: Patterico is a genius — a super-genius. And anybody who says otherwise is a liar, and a fool, and I pity and despise them. But mostly despise. And I say this as an uninterested third person. Who is inescapably caught in the orbit of Patterico’s brilliance, blazing like a thousand suns. Of brilliance.
Comment by Patteruku, the Brazilian Pool Boy — 7/27/2006 @ 7:55 pm
Yes, Patteruku, I concur. Because I, too, am caught by Patterico’s brilliance, as by the gravitational force of perhaps 10,000 suns. But I disagree with your main pint: I mainly pity any fool who defies him.
Comment by Pattereekough — 7/27/2006 @ 7:57 pm
Logical, yet passionate. Brilliant! I think that Patteruku and Pattereekough completely understate your brilliance, though. Brilliant!
Comment by P'ater E. Keaux — 7/27/2006 @ 8:00 pm
Good one, Pat. Like some other commenters, I’ve marked it in my book to stay out of trouble when in your territory.
Geez, this Glenn character really is a douchebag! Somehow, I bet most of his support was really him patting himself on the back. I wonder how many of the reviews of his book on Amazon can be tracked back to a certain IP address in Brazil?
And don’t you just love (to coin a phrase) how none of these alleged defenders of GiGi (Ellis, Ellensburg, the Magic Boyfriend, et al.) have shown up to defend their boy? Makes me wonder — maybe he can be embarrassed after all! Or maybe he’s just trying to figure out how to post without making it obvious that he’s the one manipulating the puppets.
Comment by Bill M — 7/27/2006 @ 8:10 pm
Nah, Greenwald cannot be embarrassed.
Comment by mh — 7/27/2006 @ 8:13 pm
Hey, I got my name in the sock puppet story! I did not realize when I got that snarky comment from Greenwald that I actually should have felt honored to have been graced by the original Greenwald, rather than a sock puppet version.
This is hilarious, and really thorough, too.
Comment by Lorie Byrd — 7/27/2006 @ 8:19 pm
To recap: I love how Glenn Greenwald — who is a New York Times bestselling author — is so super-important that he has five or six obsessive attack poodles scouring the internet to defend his honor whenever a rightwing blogger so much as inadvertantly types the letter “G.”
Comment by ace — 7/27/2006 @ 8:29 pm
weird, how long did that take you to write?
Comment by Webster Hubble Telescope — 7/27/2006 @ 8:34 pm
“weird, how long did that take you to write?”
Well, the issue first came up a week ago. I’ve spent many, many hours since then on it, often working past midnight. Ask Allah or Ace how tired I’ve been lately.
Comment by Patterico — 7/27/2006 @ 8:37 pm
I’ll tell you what would help get a response: watch Greenwald’s blog, and post a link to this post high up in the comment thread when a post hits.
His readers need to see the evidence.
Comment by Patterico — 7/27/2006 @ 8:58 pm
Do You Know Me?…
Do you know me? Even though I am a NY Times best selling author, and a Constitutional scholar who practiced law for …, well, in New York, people often confuse me with someone else. Okay, actually, most people have never…
Trackback by Riehl World View — 7/27/2006 @ 8:58 pm
Wow! I just got in from a long day in offline-land and saw this post. One word, Patterico:
Bravo!!!
Hands-down, the best recap (re-cap?) of Greenwald’s asininery to date.
Oh, and a question for the GG apologists (and I’m sure it’s already been asked, but I haven’t read every post or comment on this):
Where are the Puppet People now? If they were so anxious to defend their idol, why have they deserted him when he seemingly needs them most? F’ing fickle Puppets.
Comment by John from WuzzaDem — 7/27/2006 @ 9:17 pm
Oh, one more thing:
Good DAY, sir.
Comment by John from WuzzaDem — 7/27/2006 @ 9:18 pm
The Greenwald Saga…
Nine days ago I made a modest effort to address one of Glenn Greenwald’s many polemical effusions. But Greenwald has been up to a lot more than Left-wing propagandizing. Patterico has the full story, here. That’s all I’ll say. Go…
Trackback by Liberty Corner — 7/27/2006 @ 9:19 pm
Almost forgot:
Hi, Glenn!
Heh.
Comment by John from WuzzaDem — 7/27/2006 @ 9:19 pm
Patterico Has The Last Word!…
If you haven’t yet seen Patterico’s masterful takedown of Glenn “Look At Me! I Mean, Er…Look At Him!” Greenwald, then by all means CLICK HERE….
Trackback by WuzzaDem — 7/27/2006 @ 9:27 pm
Almost forgot:
Hi, Glenn!
Heh.
Yeah. I said “hi” to him the other day on Q&O, but I really should remember to be a hospitable host and greet him here as well.
You gonna come clean on this, Glenn? I have a few questions to ask . . . I can put them in an open letter, if you like. But you know what they are.
Comment by Patterico — 7/27/2006 @ 9:30 pm
Whoever whacked the sockpuppet section of Greenwald’s article on Wikipedia (an anonymous editor at 71.154.212.136) also managed to take out an entire section about his blog
Talk about a ‘disproportionate response’ causing ‘collateral damage’!
Comment by The Monster — 7/27/2006 @ 10:12 pm
And since nobody has done this is a little bit –
I condemn anything that needs condemning unless it’s already been condemned, in which case I condemn the condemning of that which is/was condemned. Unless it’s the second Tuesday after the first Monday, in which case all non-condemning is equally condemned.
I think that about covers it.
————–
I notice still no response from Glenn’s sock puppet minions. Quel surprise!
Comment by Bill M — 7/27/2006 @ 11:39 pm
Post of the year.
I laughed and laughed and laughed. This pompous asshat Greenwald just got PWNED!
Comment by o connuh' j — 7/27/2006 @ 11:47 pm
The term “psycho” is bandied about so much it has almost lost meaning, but this kind of behaviour, while maybe considered a ‘venial sin’ by some, seems to smack of sociopathic behaviour, extreme paranoia and obsession. Look, the guy has a blog, he can respond to people all day thru that, he doesn’t even need to go comment, either as himself or as someone else. The fact he does speaks loads about his mental state.
The other reason this is a big deal is because Matt Stoller, Kos, Atrios et all tout Greenwald as a big new star on the left, articulate, brilliant, insightful, etc. etc. This pretty much calls into question all that.
And lastly, having a best seller on the NYT bestseller list is hardly a mark of genius. Take a gander of some of the people who have had them. Ditto for causing a story to be written in the NYT or having your tripe read in congress- I’d take it as a mark of shame if anything.
Comment by docweasel — 7/28/2006 @ 12:14 am
[…] But in honor of Patterico’s definitive history of Greenwald’s sock puppets and the hard work of Ace of Spades and others in bringing it to light, I will unfold the tale, garnered from the pages of David McCullough’s John Adams. […]
Pingback by Anwyn’s Notes in the Margin » Great Sock Puppets in History — 7/28/2006 @ 12:36 am
Oh and by the way, some time ago I was closely following the debate on the legality of NSA surveillance on the Volokh Conspiracy. There was this user named “minnie” who kept shilling for Glenn Greenwald’s blog in post after post, going as far as to beg Orin Kerr for a link in the blogroll. See the comments here. He did this a few more times in other related threads, and I recall this only because of how annoyed I was by that user’s persistent Greenwald spamming (at that time I had no idea who this Greenwald chump was). I remember thinking how very strange and over-the-top his praise of Greenwald is. And how odd that he would grovel for Greenwald’s inclusion on Volokh’s blogroll.
Now that Greenwald’s sockpuppetry has come to light, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was Greenwald himself shilling on VC. And there was me wondering why “minnie” was so obsequious towards Orin Kerr when he wrote a series of critically acclaimed posts on NSA surveillance and presidential art ii powers.
Comment by o connuh' j — 7/28/2006 @ 12:37 am
o connuh’j, from that link:
haha come on
Look, look I, umh I mean Glenn will be on C-SPAN!
Can’t jump to conclusions of course, but it is hilarious.
Comment by Michael van der Galien — 7/28/2006 @ 3:33 am
Dana–
The reason GG’s boyfriend is relevant is because GG claims that someone in his household wrote the posts. Since the boyfriend is the only candidate in that regard, GG is claiming that his boyfriend is the one committing the fraud.
Comment by Federal Dog — 7/28/2006 @ 4:08 am
Great post. I’ve followed this saga since it broke. Ace and Shawn laid out an airtight case for sock-puppetry almost immediately, yet certain bloggers on the right later deemed it “more likely” that the boyfriend posted all the defensive comments from GG’s computer. This is ludicrous. It strikes me that the people that grasp for such improbable defenses of this childish behavior have probably engaged in a bit of sock-puppetry themselves. If you don’t believe me, just read what the next commenter says!
Comment by GGkoshi — 7/28/2006 @ 4:27 am
GGkoshi hit the nail on the head. Great, superb comment!
Comment by GGrecapper — 7/28/2006 @ 4:28 am
Btw, I think that these four points should not be referred to as ‘Pillars’, but instead…
The Four Crutches of Glenn Greenwald.
As people make up for inadequacies with accomplishments and posessions (sometimes they are one and the same…) they become crutches instead of pillars eventually.
Could you imagine Glenn defending himself without leaning on his crutches? Maybe there is a fifth one too–
5. “Other” people defend Glenn!
And if they don’t, he makes sure it looks like they do. Just like the communist party gets ’supporters’ at their ‘events’ by forcing a bunch of poor, helpless folks into buses, Glenn uses a load of hapless puppets for this task.
Because, you know, people cost MONEY.
Comment by RiverCocytus — 7/28/2006 @ 6:24 am
[…] Ever get invited somewhere only to find out your there to make it easier on the inviter? Tracey has. We’ve all been there, she reflects on it. There are so many great things to link to, but I’m getting really tired and can’t do all the nice chit-chatty-lead-in stuff right now, and while I know I am missing many important bloggers, I hope they’ll forgive it. Meanwhile, just trust me when I say that if you go to any of these following links, you will be reading something good, thoughtful and important! Gerald on Baby Boomers, Alexandra’s Voice from the Grave, Victor Davis Hanson’s Vocabulary of Untruth, Blue Crab’s Acts of Barbarism and his defense of Condi against unconscionable condescension, Siggy’s Future Written Yesterday, Shrinkwrapped’s futher thoughts on strategy and on narcissism. Patterico has everything you ever wanted to know about sockpuppetry. […]
Pingback by The Anchoress » A Quick Look-Around from the Sickbed! — 7/28/2006 @ 9:42 am
great job, but you missed one comic riff. since greenwald is apparently openly gay, you could have had a pic of the “groucho” puppet having sexual intercourse with the non-groucho, non-mustachioed puppet.
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 7/28/2006 @ 9:45 am
Truly great post, Patterico.
As others, I’d not heard of this putz until his adventures in sock puppet grabassing went awry. “Douchebag” is too easy. This ass is nothing more than a sanctimonious, petulant drama queen. “Misha wants to hang Supreme Court justices by the neck until they are dead!” Oh my! Good riddence.
That must have been one crowded hacienda down in Brazil. “Sock puppets to the left of me, sock puppets to the right, stuck in the middle with … me.”
Comment by Monsoon — 7/28/2006 @ 9:48 am
How long did it take you to make this post? A real testament to obsession, man, and it really points up the fact that Greenwald’s adversaries are absolutely incapable of addressing any of the host of substantive charges he makes against them.
Can’t really blame you guys for getting busy elsewhere…
Comment by Mark — 7/28/2006 @ 9:58 am
Thanks Mark. Hey how’s the weather in Brazil, precious?
Comment by Freedom Fan — 7/28/2006 @ 10:00 am
Perhaps a very deep breath is in order…
Over the past five years, I’ve seen a blog spat or two get a little out of control, but two situations that have occurred over the past few weeks have gone way too far, and are starting to make the blogosphere look like, in one instance, nothing more …
Trackback by Overtaken by Events — 7/28/2006 @ 10:00 am
It does no such thing, Glenn. There is no such fact. You make as much sense there as saying that you’re bring picked on because you look like a pussy. Except that you actually do look like a pussy.
Denying that your twaddle has been thoroughly ventilated doesn’t change the fact that it has been, repeatedly.
Comment by Pablo — 7/28/2006 @ 10:30 am
I just love how sock puppets, I mean people, stick up for Glenn without addressing the actual point.
To recap
Patterico makes strong case GG sock puppetry, Glenn(’s fans?) change the subject.
Although we should remember of course that Greenwald wrote a New York Times bestseller and that Senators read (from) his blog (in Congressional hearings)!
Comment by Michael van der Galien — 7/28/2006 @ 10:35 am
Darn I forgot to mention that Greenwald has become one of the best read bloggers (umh) withing 9 months time!
Comment by Michael van der Galien — 7/28/2006 @ 10:36 am
Excellent job.
How long did it take you to make this post? A real testament to obsession, man,
A real testament to setting the record straight and documenting the facts.
Comment by liontooth — 7/28/2006 @ 10:58 am
Wow. Had no idea you guys were really this obsessed with the guy.
Let me sincerely apologize as I …
[moonwalk outa here without making eye contact]
Comment by Mark — 7/28/2006 @ 11:02 am
[…] 1. Alleged sock puppetry by prominent liberal blogger Glenn Greenwald. (Details Here, Here, and Here) […]
Pingback by Independent Sources » Blog Archive » The Blogosphere is going insane — 7/28/2006 @ 11:52 am
I just want to add my congratulations for a job well done. While it’s easy to argue that sock puppetry does not merit this amount of work and attention, I think it was worth it. Too many lies and distortions get spread by the MSM and the left side of the blogosphere. It would be impossible to rebut them all, but it’s gratifying when someone takes the time to examine all the evidence on a particular point and draw the logical conclusion.
While sock puppetry is a “venial” sin, it is indicative (to me at least) of a serious character flaw. And in the blogosphere, if you can’t be trusted as a straight shooter, then you’ve lost a lot of credibility. We shouldn’t fall into the ad hominem trap of discrediting ideas because of who is making the argument, but you can’t completely divorce the two. Political arguments are full of factual background and assumptions, sometimes stated and sometimes not. I’m happy to read any analyst, left or right, who I can trust not to hide or distort the facts or arguments that run counter to his own views. Mr. Greenwald is obviously not such a person.
Comment by Tim K — 7/28/2006 @ 12:13 pm