Can, you aren't going to get a Pulitzer for this, sorry

than some Alex Jones-worshipping teabaggers I work with. And they are foaming at the mouth at being "vindicated" for calling the president a "tyrant" who's out to "shred the Constitution."

activities of a power-hungry Executive office.

Sickens me how several years ago everyone up here was railing against Bush and the PATRIOT Act and the warrantless domestic spying but now will bend over backwards to defend Obama (who's doing WORSE than Bush) simply because there's a (D) after his name.

If there was even a WHIFF of suggestion that the President was doing anything worse than Bush, the insanely hypocritical RW would try to run him out of the White House on a rail.

Where is this "worse than Bush" behavior?

Whoever sits in the Oval Office is an end user of information from the security state. How much they tell him is at their discretion. I think there are degrees of knowing. I think Cheney knew more than Bush. I think Bush knew more than Reagan. It's how close you are to TPTB. Obama's not close. Jimmy Carter wasn't close. Bill Clinton wasn't close. Notice a pattern?

at this 2-week-old story which has been posted now for no apparent reason.

Greenwald has been criticizing Obama's use of the Espionage Act ever since he started using it, years ago, why would anyone not expect him to criticize him for charging Snowden?

But my question assumes something that is questionable: that the attacks on Greenwald are about what he's saying. It is pretty clear that the attacks on Greenwald are about support for Obama. The only thing that matters about Greenwald is that he is criticizing Obama.

it's like trying to have a serious discussion while a group of 5 yr olds are in the room

"disruptive"

Obama himself would find these devotees silly and insulting

while letting the people off the hook who caused this economic collapse. He still is much better than than the alternative.