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.