WaPo Misread Powerpoint- Story on Feds tapping directly into internet companies was wrong & rushed

[MADem]

140. Greenwald is a lawyer, and, FYI, I posted the link to the Guardian article on the source of his

story shortly after it was posted. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022976974#post23

I don't see any "completely accurate" support for what GG said in his comments. The guy makes some claims, but he spends most of the time talking about how he's right and everyone else is wrong. He plays the "I don't want to live in a world where...." card, and I have to wonder if he's either a double agent or thinking this will produce an international version of "suicide by cop." He's self-destructing, when he didn't have to go that way. He could have gone to the chair/ranking at either one of the Intel Committees, and aired his gripes. If there were any surprises, his concerns would have been addressed.

Since when is suggesting that lawyers make a living out of being careful and accurate with words an attack? Greenwald is a lawyer, he wants to be regarded as a journalist--he has an obligation to be careful and accurate when he writes something.

And since when is it an "attack" to note that someone who WAS sloppy with their words was indeed sloppy with their words? What? Should I call him precise with his terms when he wasn't, to not hurt his--or your--feelings?

That's like saying I insult the sky if I call it grey on a rainy day, and I should lie about it, and call it blue, so as not to be accused of "attacking" or "undercutting" it.

By his sloppy words we know him--and that's not an insult, that's just fact.