In the light of the Reuters misquoting and subsequent reply by Greenwald yesterday (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6040182 https://news.ycombinator.co

In the light of the Reuters misquoting and subsequent reply by Greenwald yesterday (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6040182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6040182), I would be extremely extremely skeptical about any secondary interpretations of Glen Greenwald's own words. It seriously sounds more like the writer of this article has nothing better to do than grossly extrapolate a few words into a whole fucking fantasy conjecture. I mean, come on, the ENTIRE article consists of editorialising about someone else's own words, and padding it out with old facts.