5 ms·
This sounds like a tantrum. Without knowing any of the facts (or being a US citizen, so not taking sides), Glenn's story seems more credible.
by llimos 6y ago
This sounds like a tantrum. Without knowing any of the facts (or being a US citizen, so not taking sides), Glenn's story seems more credible.
- notmyname9173 6y agoTantrums, rage-quitting, and playing the victim are pretty consistent with his schtick. It’s sad, really. I used to respect the guy and still follow his work, but I think spending all of his time on conspiracies and abuses of power has maybe warped his perception of reality.
- bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y agoyes, it's almost as if he sees conspiracies and abuses of power everywhere. preposterous.
- toyg 6y agoBeing paranoid does not mean they are not after you. Greenwald broke some of the biggest stories of the last 20 years. He’s seen the US government downing planes and trampling all over due process just to get hold of some of his sources. His partner was effectively detained and grilled in London for the sole crime of being his partner. He moved to a country that soon suffered a de-facto coup. I think his vision is actually less clouded than ours, to be honest.
- andrenth 6y ago> He moved to a country that soon suffered a de-facto coup No, it didn’t.
- DropkickM16 6y agoDid too, hurr
- andrenth 6y agoWow you’re so smart man. Congratulations.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- LiquidSky 6y agoWhy? The Intercept's point is that we indeed don't know the facts, that Greenwald's article contain allegations and innuendos that can't be substantiated with the information currently available, and that therefore they edited it as they would any article to remove what couldn't be currently proven. Even Greenwald himself acknowledges he doesn't have access to the relevant information. How does that make his claim of political censorship more credible?