WikiLeaks Update: How the Leftist Media Massacres Truth and Helps America's Enemies

Doug Ross and Rusty Shackleford are my heroes.

In just two separate blog posts, Doug and Rusty have put the left's media-industrial-complext to brutal shame, they've exposed for all to see the alliance between America's MSM and the enemies of freedom across the globe.

Spend a couple of minutes with Doug's post, "Cleverly-Eited Video Becomes Anti-Military Infomercial for World's Dumbest Blogger and His Traditional Posse of Useful Idiots." The evidence is right before your eyes. No murder. Nothing to cover up. (The "dumbest blogger" is Matthew Yglesias, but he's joined by Glenn Greenwald as perfect representatives of the mindless anti-Americanism that's encroaching deeper into what were once great national institutions.) And see also Rusty Shackleford's post, "Case Closed: Weapons Clearly Seen on Video of Reuters Reporters Killed in Iraq." Plus, in a follow up, "MSM Continues False Reporting of Reuters 'Murder' in Iraq," Rusty explains simply:

My biggest problem with this whole story is that it's a story at all. It took me no more than two minutes of watching Wiki Leak's video to realize that not only was their nothing to the accusations, but also that the video did exactly the opposite of what the Left Wing conspiracy theorists over at Wiki Leak claimed it did: fully exonerated those involved, proved that the investigation into the matter was spot on, and that there was no "cover up" as they alleged.

Seriously, this whole thing didn't even deserve a "debunking" story. The evidence that the US soldiers acted well within the rules of engagement and that Reuters stringers were embedded with enemy combatants is that overwhelming.

But we have to debunk, because with the exception of Fox News I've yet to yet a MSM report that's genuinely critical of WikiLeaks' jihad against America and our military in Iraq. See Fox News, the single source pushing back, "Military Raises Questions About Credibility of Leaked Iraq Shooting Video":

WikiLeaks, the self-proclaimed "whistle-blowing" investigative Web site, released a classified military video Monday that it says shows the "indiscriminate slaying" of innocent Iraqis. Two days later, questions linger about just how much of the story WikiLeaks decided to tell.

At a press conference in Washington, D.C., WikiLeaks accused U.S. soldiers of killing 25 civilians, including two Reuters journalists, during a July 12, 2007, attack in New Baghdad. The Web site titled the video "Collateral Murder," and said the killings represented "another day at the office" for the U.S. Army.

The military has always maintained the attacks near Baghdad were justified, saying investigations conducted after the incident showed 11 people were killed during a "continuation of hostile activity." The military also admits two misidentified Reuters cameramen were among the dead.

WikiLeaks said on Monday the video taken from an Army helicopter shows the men were walking through a courtyard and did nothing to provoke the attack. Their representatives said when the military mistook cameras for weapons, U.S. personnel killed everyone in sight and have attempted to cover up the murders ever since.

The problem, according to many who have viewed the video, is that WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying.

All I can say is DAMN! It's about time someone's shifting the MSM meme. (And RTWT at the link.)

And I'm surprised at this, but in an otherwise fawning report, "Inside WikiLeaks’ Leak Factory," the far-left Mother Jones dishes some pretty damaging dirt. Apparently Julian Assange lists bigshot names as members of WikiLeaks' "advisory board," but then Noam Chomsky, who's cited as a member, says he's never heard of the joint. And then there's this:

Digital security expert Ben Laurie laughs when I ask why he's named on the site. "WikiLeaks allegedly has an advisory board, and allegedly I'm a member of it," he says. "I don't know who runs it. One of the things I've tried to avoid is knowing what's going on there, because that's probably safest for all concerned" ....

John Young, founder of the pioneering whistleblower site, Cryptome.org, is skeptical. Assange reverently describes Cryptome as WikiLeaks' "spiritual godfather." But Young claims he was conned into registering the WikiLeaks domain when Assange's team first launched (the site is no longer under his name). He fought back by leaking his correspondence with WikiLeaks. "WikiLeaks is a fraud," he wrote to Assange's list, hinting that the new site was a CIA data mining operation. "Fuck your cute hustle and disinformation campaign against legitimate dissent. Same old shit, working for the enemy."

Amazing that a far-left journal of opinion provides more balance than a typical report at the New York Times, although they could have gone a lot further by linking Jawa Report and others who're uncovering the scam. Still, Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' founder, left an angry comment at the thread there:

I am Julian Assange, and the subject of this article, which is full of errors and was not shown to me, even in part, prior to publication.

The article is full of extremely irritating tabloid insinuations of the type that might be expected from a poor quality magazine which is unsurprising, since the content is recycled from an old article that even Wired refused to publish.

My interview with the author was 12 months ago. I have not spoken to him since.

There plenty of gutter journalism insituations [sic], some examples:

1. The article very irritatingly goes for the "fear" angle, but contains not a single example of any of our publications causing harm related to their content. Not a single example! The whole thesis is pure invention. There is a reason no example was given. No one knows of any case where this has occurred and we have a 4 year publishing record.

2. The article, despite the insituations [sic], does not mention a single example of us ever having released a misattributed document. There is a reason no example was given. It has, as far as can be determined, never happened. Compare our record unblemished record to, say, the New York Times.

3. The article outrageously tries to insinuate that the tragic death of two very public human rights lawyers in Nairobi is related to some failing of WikiLeaks. The insinuation deplorable and it is false. The men were not confidential sources. They were public sources and very brave ones at that.

4. The article states that I believe all leaks are good. I have never stated this. The claim is an idiotic and false.

There are many others, but Mother Jones can do its own damn research.

Assange protests too much:

(Image Source.)

The media's toally enabling WikiLeaks' domestic and global propaganda efforts. Below, the first video shows hack Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responding to questions on the non-murders and non-cover up, and second is Al Jazeera's video showing family members of the Reuters journalists, where one of the sons pledges to "take up the camera" in his father's name (and thus embed with terrorists).

Also, Atlantic does a roundup, but excludes sources debunking the murder/cover-up myth: "The Focus Falls on WikiLeaks." And I e-mailed leftist gossip rag Gawker after seeing this story, which offers the appearance of objectivity but omits the key details as well: "Wikileaks Video Demonstrates Conclusively That Innocent People Get Killed in Wars." Haven't heard back yet ...

Finally, scum Glenn Greenwald continues his push for war crimes trials, "Follow-Up Points on the WikiLeaks Video." And communist Laura Flanders at AlterNet, "The Wikileaks Tape — How War Poisons the Soul."