Truth be told, I started reading this:
We could be talking about whether accessing and monitoring citizen information and communications is constitutional, or whether we should continue to allow a secret court to authorize secret warrants using secret legal opinions.Without reading the headline (I was on my phone, so I skipped to the story), and my first thought was "Wonder how long it's gonna take Greenwald to tweet about this."
But we’re not. We’re talking about you! And flight paths between Moscow and Venezuela, and how much of a jerk Glenn Greenwald is. We could at least be talking about whether the Obama administration is right that your leak jeopardized national security. But we’re not talking about that, Ed.
We’re talking about you. I can imagine you’d say, “Well, then stop! Just talk about something else.” But here’s the problem, even if your initial leak didn’t compromise national security, your new cloak-and-dagger game is having real and tangible geopolitical consequences. So, well, we have to talk about … you.
Then I read the rest of the story. Took Greenwald 4 tweets to express himself. Or maybe it was just one, with three updates. I've peeled peaches with thicker skins.
What's funny is Greenwald still wants to be an important part of this story:
"Snowden has enough information to cause harm to the U.S. government in a single minute than any other person has ever had," Greenwald said in an interview in Rio de Janeiro with the Argentinian daily La Nacion.Because if it isn't, then Greenwald backed the wrong horse; or failed to start the new American revolution; or just isn't nearly as important as his ego says he is. And despite both articles identifying Greenwald as the "Guardian journalist," he's no more a journalist than I am.
"The U.S. government should be on its knees every day begging that nothing happen to Snowden, because if something does happen to him, all the information will be revealed and it could be its worst nightmare."
Melissa Harris-Perry is right: he's a jerk.