I don’t like Julian Assange. Sometime ago I became estranged from two friends for saying that, so let
me be clear. He makes my skin crawl. Every time I see his anemic face staring
out of a dark room, through a dingy window, I want to spray Raid on my T.V.
screen. Call it my Witch’s gut. Call it a woman’s intuition. Hell, you can
even call me stupid –someone did once in the 3rd grade. I didn’t give a damn then, and I’ll care a
lot less now. I can’t stand the sight of
the man.
Having said all of this, Glenn Greenwald, a real honest to
the Goddess journalist, writing for “The Intercept” argues that whether you
like him or not Assange does not deserve to be misquoted, misrepresented and in
general trashed by a publication pushing a political agenda; particularly, when
that publication, in this case the Guardian, smugly prides itself on being part
of the movement to expose fake news.
Political agendas are always to be considered suspect, and post election
agendas are especially irksome because they are often empty of purpose other
than blame. Since November 8th the blame game has been on, and the
MSM has fed it red meat by the pound for fun and profit.
With growing waves of nausea I hear the Clinton people
blaming anyone they can for her loss in November. On Monday it is Bernie, on Tuesday it is the
Russians/Assange, on Wednesday it is Bernie, on Thursday it is protest voters/diet
coke, fast food and high cholesterol, on Friday and through the weekend they
are back to Bernie again. In my not
uninformed or uneducated opinion, if the bulk of the blame is to be laid
anywhere outside of the campaign it would be with the MSM, FBI and DNC. I realize that our intelligence people are convinced
the Russians interfered in some way with our elections, and while I am not willing
to discredit them out of hand, like Fox Mulder I am usually unwilling to take
what my government tells me to the band and start writing checks. But let all
of that go.
The article that has Greenwald in a flap was written by someone
he feels was a pro-Clinton journalist, one Ben Jacobs, with the approval of his
editorial board; thus, making the “Guardian” culpable in his journalistic
recklessness. I have read Jacobs, and
concur he was pro-Clinton as was his rag.
Much of the media was pro-Clinton. The fact that from print journalism to network and cable T.V. the MSM
can’t resist peddling their opinions as factual news is bad enough. In the following article Greenwald
demonstrates that Jacobs out and out misrepresented statements made by Assange
in an interview with an Italian journalist. This is totally unacceptable; it
does not serve the American people, the Republic or the truth. I don’t like
Assange, but I like this crap a hell of a lot less.