[Gobitron]

Sorry, but that statement about Greenwald is basically true. People are multi-faceted, and Greenwald is by no means perfect. IMHO, he says a lot of extremely stupid, barely defensible things. It doesn't take away from the work he's done exposing the NSA spying. But his success there doesn't make him a saint either.

[aqme28]

What are some of the barely defensible things he's argued for?

[ixnu]

Sam Harris has impugned his character on twitter and his blog.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/dear-fellow-liberal2

[aqme28]

I don't see how that's really relevant to literally anything.

The crux of Greenwald's response:

"Given that I had never written about Sam Harris, I found it odd that I had become the symbol of Harris-bashing for some of his faithful followers. Tweeting a link to an Al Jazeera column about Harris and saying I find one of his quotes revealing does not make me responsible for every claim in that column...That said, what I did say in my emails with Harris - and what I unequivocally affirm again now - is not that Harris is a "racist", but rather that he and others like him spout and promote Islamophobia under the guise of rational atheism."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harr...

edit: by not relevant, I mean that Sam Harris's opinion of Greenwald doesn't mean that Greenwald has indefensible opinions.

[ixnu]

More to the point of your response to; "Greenwald is by no means perfect."

I agree that he is by no means perfect and can hold views that can be seen as the parent's point.

[aqme28]

I was asking for clarification on Greenwald's "barely defensible" positions. Sam Harris's gripe with him isn't really about that.