Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 23, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates






A Chronicle of Echoes


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Glenn Greenwald Objects to New York Times Review of ‘Nut Job’ Julian Assange (video)

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Apr 17, 2012
RT

The mainstream media was bound to gag on the WikiLeaks editor’s new talk show, which is taped under house arrest, airs on Vladimir Putin’s Russia TV and features Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah as its first guest. But the Times review in particular has Glenn Greenwald tweeting nonstop.

For one thing, there’s this line: “To some he was a hero, to others a spy, but nowadays [Assange] is most often portrayed as a nut job.” Greenwald’s reaction: “It would be fatal to hold your breath waiting for the NYT to ever use ‘nut job’ to describe anyone w/actual power in DC.”

Greenwald also objected to the paper’s characterization of Russia TV, the Russian government-funded network that carries Assange’s show. According to the Times, “It’s like the Voice of America, only with more money and a zesty anti-American slant. A few correspondents can sound at times like Boris and Natasha of ‘Rocky & Bullwinkle’ fame.” Greenwald isn’t having it: “It makes sense that the NYT scorns RT as a tawdry propaganda outlet because of all the falsehood-driven wars RT helped to start - oh, wait—” (In case you missed it, the Times helped promote Bush administration falsehoods during the campaign to sell the United States and its allies on the 2003 war with Iraq.)

But the paper of record was fair enough to point out that Assange challenged Nasrallah and what it characterized as the house line on Syria: “Unlike RT, Mr. Assange supports the opposition forces in Syria. He took Mr. Nasrallah to task for supporting every Arab Spring uprising except the one against Syria and asked why he wasn’t doing more to stop the bloodshed.” Put it another way, “Mr. Assange is in bed with the Kremlin, but on Tuesday’s show he didn’t put out.”

You can watch the show and judge for yourself below.  —PZS

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

americanme's avatar

By americanme, April 24, 2012 at 2:15 pm Link to this comment

That’s evidence of WHAT?

Not of my dishonesty.

And not that Hezbollah assassinated Hariri. 

Nor did the head of Hezbollah say that they were the assassins.

And the UN IS a tool of the West.  It was founded in San Francisco!  Its HQ is in NYC!  And the US decides which heads of state of UN member countries will be issued visas to go to the UN.

The dishonest poster has been clearly identified here.

And it is YOU.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 24, 2012 at 2:12 pm Link to this comment

tic,

Indictments are not convictions and in the case of the lebanese rolling up israels spy rings inside Lebanon new proof has emerged about israels complicity by exposing their penetration and manipulation of the phone systems, much like here in America.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/08/16/who-killed-hariri/

The evidence was frivilous and would not stand up in any court but the zionist megaphonies will swear on it.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=104920

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 24, 2012 at 2:07 pm Link to this comment

I N D I C T M E N T S…....

and Nasrallah swears that the indicted will be hidden and will not face trial even if
Hezbollah and it’s buddies have to hide the assassins for 30 years.

Hezbollah doesn’t recognize the sovereignty of Lebanon unless it suits
Hezbollah…..

and the UN, Nazzie sez, is a tool of the something-or-other…...

Report this
americanme's avatar

By americanme, April 24, 2012 at 1:48 pm Link to this comment

If you have EVIDENCE of my dishonesty, post it here.

It is clear to me that your grasp of the issues regarding this assassination and its follow-up posturing by the US government, as well as the changes of prosecutors due to their frustration with finding any evidence that the US government would accept, is not visible to the naked eye.

In fact, your posting template consists of calling other posters liars and making puerile speculations about their preferred animals for sexual partners.

I expect that The Rat is high on your list of preferred squeezes, but that is not relevant to the discussion at hand—which is that I believe that Mossad killed Hariri while you, along with the US government that you apparently work for, will only hear Hezbollah.

It is precisely that conflict that has brought the “investigation” to a statemate, and it will continue there.

meanwhile, Mossad prances off to murder a few more highly-placed or strategically important non-Jewish folks in the region.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 24, 2012 at 1:37 pm Link to this comment

I’m sure that you pretend to think that there’s a point to noting that the
investigation was lengthy ....but it’s just you being dishonest and pointless.

Report this
americanme's avatar

By americanme, April 24, 2012 at 1:21 pm Link to this comment

Heterochromatic troll:

Give us a break from your frivolous comments.

The first indictment was not even filed until 6 years after the assassination.

Nothing is going to happen, as pinning the operation on Hezbollah, which forms part of the Lebanese government, when the fingerprints of Mossad were and still are all over the operation, is simply silly.

It’s just the West (read, in this case Obama) marching to its macho music.  Same old same old.

Rather like your foolishness here.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 24, 2012 at 12:48 pm Link to this comment

I N D I C T M E N T S….....

Report this
americanme's avatar

By americanme, April 24, 2012 at 11:51 am Link to this comment

Heterochromatic troll:

If that is the case, why has it been 7 years and no conclusion has been made to the “investigation”?

Governments have risen and fallen more than once during that time, and the geopolitical map actually looks very different than it did in 2005.

What’s the reason for the delay—if this was such an urgent matter to be resolved?

I am willing to bet it’s because Hezbollah was right and that Mossad did the operation—just as it has done many similar ones.  Its fingerprints were all over it.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 24, 2012 at 11:21 am Link to this comment

Patsy—- it ain’t ME saying that it’s the Special Prosecutor appointed by the UN at
Lebanon’s request…they’ve put a heck of a lot of time and effort into
investigating….so take your crap about hIsrael and shove it somewhere else.

obsessive and ugly, PH…..you seem not to know where to draw the line

Report this
americanme's avatar

By americanme, April 24, 2012 at 9:53 am Link to this comment

Hetertochromatic troll:

It was NOT a spelling error.

It was a mis-indentification.

You may believe you have inside info because of your blind faith in zionism’s right to commit murder and mayhem all over the Middle East, but you don’t.

The only info you receive is from MSM in the US, and that all promotes zionism.

If there were a free press in the US, perhaps you would have a more balanced view of geopolitics, but there is no free press—Truthdig and the other “pretend progressive” sites are not free—in fact far from it.

They all receive money from the US government to keep them in business as a place to ventilate discontent.

And they are all populated with resident trolls like you, who are paid to derail meaningful discussions and any attempts to organize protests outside of the internet sites in question.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 23, 2012 at 4:59 pm Link to this comment

tic,

Harari was assassinated by Hezbollah and friends… patsy.

Maybe in your tinfoil hat hasbara world.

Israel and its media organs are renowned liars and BS artists spinning straw into gold.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 23, 2012 at 2:45 pm Link to this comment

Doug—-do you mean that you’re “with” the idea that the STL indictments and the
supporting evidence for them…is just some political finger-pointing of no more
worth than Nazrallah’s accusations?

Report this

By NZDoug, April 23, 2012 at 2:17 pm Link to this comment

Im with americanme.
Hetro , This stuff turns to crap when the name calling starts.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 23, 2012 at 1:35 pm Link to this comment

thank you for pointing out my spelling error…... you understand nothing about my
views of Zionism.

enjoy being an idiot troll.

Report this
americanme's avatar

By americanme, April 23, 2012 at 1:24 pm Link to this comment

Of course I have heard about the assassination in 2005 of Hariri.

But that’s not the name you posted.

You posted the notorious IDF guy, Harari.

Which did not surprise me at all, since from what I have seen here, you promote zionism.

Initially, regarding the assassination of Hariri, the West pointed its finger at Syria.  There was so much propaganda stirred up by that, that Syria withdrew the last of its military folks from Lebanon.

Then the West pointed its finger at Hezbollah.  Hezbollahg then pointed its finger at Israel, indicating that it was a Mossad operation designed to force the withdrawl of Syrian military from Lebanon.

The investigation, so far as this poster is aware, is still ongoing, as I have seen nothing about any closure.

If I were a betting man, which I am only very occasionally, I would point my finger and my money at Mossad.

But there may be other suspects of whom I am unaware who warrant analysis.

Especially since corruption was a Hariri specialty.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 23, 2012 at 1:02 pm Link to this comment

the real rich one, was working in some job in the Lebanese govt a while afore he
got all blowed up and such…


them lebanese asked the UN to look into it and four guys what is members of
Hezbollah got indicted…and Nasrallah sez that they ain’t ever gonna be caught
and tried…....


lotsa folks heard about it…surprised that you haven’t.

Report this
americanme's avatar

By americanme, April 23, 2012 at 11:22 am Link to this comment

Which Harari?

The IDF Harari was killed by LAF (Lebanese Armed Forces).

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 22, 2012 at 6:37 pm Link to this comment

Harari was assassinated by Hezbollah and friends… patsy.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 22, 2012 at 5:53 pm Link to this comment

2006 Hezbollah/Israel conflict precursor.

Hassan Nasrallah’s public pledges over the prior year and a half to seize Israeli soldiers and swap them for four Lebanese held by Israel:

Samir Kuntar (a Lebanese citizen captured during a terrorist attack in 1979, convicted of murdering civilians and a police officer); Nasim Nisr (an Israeli-Lebanese citizen tried and convicted for spying by Israel);
Yahya Skaf (a Lebanese citizen whom Hezbollah claims was arrested in Israel, Israel denies) Ali Faratan (another Lebanese citizen whom Hezbollah claims to be held in Israel). Nasrallah claimed that Israel had broken a previous deal to release these prisoners, and since diplomacy had failed, violence was the only remaining option

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War

Hariri assassination.

http://www.wrmea.org/component/content/article/358/10086-the-hariri-assassination-israels-fingerprints-surface-.html

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 21, 2012 at 10:19 pm Link to this comment

Hezbollah does indeed offer services that the Lebanese govt did not…....

they did certainly pass out plenty of $100 bills to people whose houses were
destroyed by the Israelis in the war that Hezbollah started. That money came
from their Iranian sponsors.


and yes, Lebanese politicians do tend to get blown up….the man Harari comes
to mind….Nasrallah might know quite a bit about that. and I also worry that
Nasrallah enjoys more health than is good for Lebanon…


thanks for the mention of Fisk’s book. he’s a very interesting guy.
———

“But the Middle East is not a football match, it’s a bloody tragedy,” Fisk said,
adding journalists had a “duty to be unbiased and neutral on the side of those
who suffer.”
Though he is best known for his reporting on Arab countries, Fisk avoided
discussing the problems faced by the region’s journalists or the political woes
of the Middle East, dedicating only a few closing lines to the subject.
But does Fisk, with over three decades of experience in the region tucked under
his belt, see any prospect for peace? “I have no optimism about the Middle East.
The chances of a Palestinian state are less by the day,” he said. And as for
Lebanon, where Fisk calls home, it is a “Rolls Royce with square wheels” that
won’t be a modern state until it has secular governance.


http://tinyurl.com/Fisking

Report this

By NZDoug, April 21, 2012 at 10:03 pm Link to this comment

Hey Hetro,
I went to the lebanon israeli war protests in 2006 and talked to a lot of Lebanese people
who set mt straight on hezbollah.
I was informed that Hezbollah did all the things that the the “real ” govt should havoe
been doing like, education. Sanitation and lots of basic things.
Robert Fisk, in his book “Lebanon, Pity the Nation” discusses Hezbollah in depth.
Lebanon is a difficult place to be a politician as the get blown up quite often.
I worry about Nasrallas health, as he is a target.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 21, 2012 at 9:11 pm Link to this comment

Lebanese Hezbollah is primarily a military movement aimed at subjugating the
Lebanese people, subverting Lebanese sovereignty and following the dictates of
their chief religious authority, the late and fucking unlamented Ruhollah
Khomeini.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 21, 2012 at 6:27 pm Link to this comment

Hezbollah, like the Likud and Hamas, is a political party with 11 of the 30 seats in the lebanese government. They are elected, like it or not.

Their primary support is from those who wish israel to withdraw from the occupied territories and end the illegal embargo on Palestine.  As long as israel subjugates Palestine, the stronger hezbollah and hamas get and the more their moral stance strenghtens.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 21, 2012 at 7:53 am Link to this comment

PH—iving under military occupation ain’t something that most folks would opt for
, is it?

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 21, 2012 at 6:38 am Link to this comment

tic,

Living under hezbollah rule couldn’t be any worse than Palestinians living under israeli occupation.

One is a democracy and one isn’t.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 20, 2012 at 8:33 pm Link to this comment

would your admiration for Hezbollah lead you to think that you would enjoy living
under their rule, Doug?

Report this

By NZDoug, April 20, 2012 at 8:13 pm Link to this comment

Great that were getting Russian tv options.
Quite admire Hassan Nasrallah.
HEY HO, HISBOLLAH!

Report this

By gerard, April 20, 2012 at 3:05 pm Link to this comment

“Arrogance” describes one person’s emotional reaction to another person’s attitude and cannot be proven either true or false.  It is opinion.
  Opinion-words like “arrogance” are often related to “self-assurance”, “self-confidence”, “over-confidence”, “feelings of superiority”, “hautiness”,
“over-bearing attitude”.All are individual opinions, not facts.
  Assange arouses such opinionss in others because he is obviously determined, courageous,intelligent
and restrained—characteristics that often arouse envy.  He is proving admirable characterists over a long period of very difficult challenge—far beyond the limits of ordinary persons to persist, alone and relatively unprotected from adverse publicity and threat seemingly aimed at breaking his self-confidence.
  Why did he decide to risk putting himself in this position by releasing information that could possibly stop current wars (mainly sponsored by the U.S.) that were killing tens of thousands of innocent people? Because he thinks war is wrong, and the deceit and secrecy that promotes it should be public information so people can know what is happening to them and their families.  He thinks war is avoidable only if ordinary people get the information they need to come together and stop it.
  Millions of people worldwide see Assange as a
genius bent on a mission they approve.  I am one.

Report this

By jimmmmmy, April 20, 2012 at 2:01 pm Link to this comment

Sorry Rosemerry do you know there is a rosemary also posting to truth dig. I confused the two of you. You are right of course I started to veg out listening to the bomb thrower. Heard it so many times before. Murderous cleric calling for more murder. I agree wih Assange on his posting the illegal goings on in an illegal war. Redactions be damned. However I don’t think I could be in a room with him for more than a couple of minutes with out having to address his arrogance which as I said and sent to the wrong rosemary, does not serve him well.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 20, 2012 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment

rosemerry—-some people disagree with your claim that no lives were put at
risk…..


“In a Twitter message on Wednesday, WikiLeaks claimed that it “has not
released the names of any ‘informants.’” The website suggested that all the
material it was releasing was “unclassified and previously released by
mainstream media.”

A former WikiLeaks activist who reviewed the deluge of newly released material
said the vast proportion of it was labeled “Unclassified.” But two media sources
who reviewed the material said it also contained some unredacted classified
documents.

Reuters examined two such documents, posted on the WikiLeaks website,
where a US government source was identified; in one case the cable, classified
“Secret,” contained a clear notation: “protect source.”

US and Australian officials also condemned WikiLeaks for releasing a cable,
classified “Secret,” which identified by name 23 people in Australia whom US
and Australian authorities believed should be subjected to US air travel curbs
due to alleged contacts with Islamic militants in Yemen.

A US counter-terrorism official said the disclosure would have “real
consequences for counterterrorism activities around the globe. Giving our
adversaries any advantage by releasing this information is simply insane.”

Neither Assange nor his principal antagonist, Domscheit-Berg, could be
immediately reached for comment.

But Stephen Aftergood, an anti-secrecy activist at the Federation of American
Scientists, noted that WikiLeaks lately seemed to be surrounded by “a lot of
melodrama.” He added: “When criticized, the standard WL response is to deny
error, shift responsibility to someone else, and attack the critic. It does not
inspire much confidence.” “

http://tinyurl.com/7wwkkbw

Report this

By jimmmmmy, April 20, 2012 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment

Vector I thought it was a very poor choice. As an Atheist I find listening to people like him painfully boring . Their certainty about the righteousness of their cause irks me, Christian or Muslim.  I thought he should have done something on internet privacy or Brad Manning.

Report this

By jimmmmmy, April 20, 2012 at 12:37 pm Link to this comment

Roemerry I don’t recall disparaging Mr Assange for the content he published I didn’t like his choice of guest on RT. I think your mistaking me for another poster I’ve done that a few times. I admire Mr. Assange for his courage , but I fear his arrogance does not serve him well.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 20, 2012 at 5:47 am Link to this comment

PH—any US case against Assange is very dubious…. bet bet would be if Manning
testifies that Assange persuaded him to steal US secrets and then published.
other than that…..no much chance.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 20, 2012 at 3:35 am Link to this comment

Assange is merely an editor of facts which are presented to him by others.  If he is publishing them outside of the US I can’t see where the US has jurisdiction over him as he is not a citizen nor a resident.

He should be commended for bringing truth to light.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 19, 2012 at 1:33 pm Link to this comment

yes, gerard, do sign off and thank you for printing all the assertions from Assange
and his lawyers and supporters…if they allege it, that should be good enough for
everybody….and those women can just keep laughing it off.


I’m heartened that you remain convinced that Assange is a superior moral entity
and above the law….......and above having his own superior standards applied to
his own actions as well.

Report this

By gerard, April 19, 2012 at 1:08 pm Link to this comment

moonraven:  Thank you.

hetero:  Coupla more pieces of information (for people other than you who just might not know the truth and would be confused by your slanted views—then I’m done:

1.Assange’s personal “secrets” revealed by the Guardian embarrass a few people but do not kill anybody.  The secrets revealed in the Cable releases were released in order to try to stop the U.S. government from killing thousands more people (who are—not coincidentally—mostly less white and rich than white Americans who are, of course, paying the bills for mass murder year after year).

2,The problems with the Swedish government are not asserted by Assange, though he may have similar opinions.  I first heard of said problems when I stumbled on an article by an attorney who pointed out several shortcomings plus several allegations from Swedish sitizens that the case we being politicized there, and wondering why.  Governments do have their legal blind spots, as we well know—and they are always unwilling to admit it.  That we know, too.  So not much use in arguing. As no one is paying me to look up chapter and verse, I will sign off now.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 19, 2012 at 12:06 pm Link to this comment

gerard—- Sweden get to set the terms of Assange’s questioning. Assanges’s
opinions about when and how and where he will oblige the Swedes are not
satisfactory to the Swedish authorities and eventually he’s gonna be sent
against his will.
Assange can claim almost anything about the integrity of the swedish
government and the entire world…but he may not be free to to do as he
pleases.

his secrets are no dearer than the secrets of the people he steals and
publicizes…....and he doesn’t get to defy the swedes because he makes
allegations about what he suspects they may do.

yes it was careless of Obama to call Manning guilty…. all that Obama is sure of
is that Manning committed the actions for which he is to be tried. Obama’s
training and position should have prevented him from offering the statement.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, April 19, 2012 at 11:55 am Link to this comment

gerard:  good posts, but hetero has essentially derailed this thread so that his employer can continue to make acusations against folks using its mouthpiece, the MSM.

That’s what trolls—otherwise nown as PUBLIC NUISANCES—do.

Hetero proudly identifies himself as a Certified Public Nuisance on his data page here on truthdig—where he has posted more than 3670 posts (sic for free of content and packed with personal attacks) in just over 7 months!

At his current rate he has billed less than a thousand bucks, and that’s all he does.

This parasite should be forced to get a job in a salt mine or someplace.

he’s rabidly anti-left, as Stalin would have known what to do with him.

(Disclaimer:  that statement in no wau indicates that I am a Stalinist, as I believe the totalitarian left is just as unacceptable as the totalitarian right—but I do believe in some cases a forced time out to do some productive work is appropriate.)

Report this

By gerard, April 19, 2012 at 11:46 am Link to this comment

hetero:  Assange has “refused to submit” to questioning?  That’s news to me!  He has offered to answer questions both in England and in Sweden, but the reasons he has not insisted but refuwd to back to Sweden to testify are two:  1. Before he left he was formally notified at the time that it was NOT NECESSARY for him to remain and testify. 2. At this point now he feels constrained about returning to Sweden to testify (once having been released from any obligation to do so) because, for some manipulative legal reason it is easier for the U.S. to extradute him from Sweden than from England.
  For obvious reasons, he does not want to be extradited to the U.S. if he can avoid it, because the “sedition laws” in the U.S. are so poorly conceived that their “legality” (compared with other U.S. laws) is ambiguous, not clear, and because of that factor, the “Justice” Department could lose face, should the charges by the government against Assange fail to be upheld in court.
  Such an outcome is a very serious matter to insecure politicians. Therefore the fight to “make the charges stick” will be tedious, expensive, complicated, divisive—and probably devious and vicious as well. It’s complicated, heavily threatening to all concerned (most of all to Assange) because his case challenges the inadequacies of U.S. policies both foreign and domestic.
  Obama made matters even worse by his careless pre-trial announcement that “Manning is guilty” which works to put the government even more on the defensive in order not to be “proven wrong”, thus casting a serious aspersion at the highest authority in the land (himself a Constitutional Lawyer by profession) who impulsively passed judgment before trial against an American citizen-soldier.
  The whole thing is a legal mare’s nest.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 19, 2012 at 10:45 am Link to this comment

moonie—- you get about 30 silvery drops a day, don’t ya, lying preening goatboy.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 19, 2012 at 10:43 am Link to this comment

gerard—- i have thought about it….and believe that the Swedish government
has cause to interrogate Assange.

whether he’s guilty of criminal conduct I don’t know, particularly as I know no
Swedish law, but there’s plenty of cause to question him….and just about zero
reason for Assange to refuse to submit.


transparency and truth and openness don’t apply to his own conduct?

I would rarely advise anybody that they have no reason to hide if their conduct
is innocent, but Assange claims to operate along different moral imperatives,
does he not?

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, April 19, 2012 at 10:23 am Link to this comment

I see this has now degenerated into counting semen drops in virtual space.

hetero has done it again—his employers should be proud of him and give him a raise to 30 cents a post:  He’s managed to take a serious issue of libel and slander on the part of the NYT and turn it into a locker room butt-pinching session with condoms as water balloons.

Report this

By gerard, April 19, 2012 at 9:31 am Link to this comment

hetero:

Think about this for a moment:

...“after several acts of consensual sexual intercourse, she fell half asleep and thinks that he ejaculated without using a condom – a possibility about which she says they joked afterwards.”

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 19, 2012 at 6:39 am Link to this comment

gerard——-”....were motivated by other matters including a desire for revenge.”
——-


think about that a minute.

Report this

By do over, April 19, 2012 at 3:13 am Link to this comment

What does one expect from the New York Slimes.

Report this

By gerard, April 18, 2012 at 11:39 pm Link to this comment

hetero:  Regarding the condom business and related matters, somewhere I read that legal procedures in Sweden regarding sex-related allegations are more than a little muddled. Quoting a Guardian account
(12/17/2010): 

—“She told the police that at some stage Assange had “done something” with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.
—“When he was later interviewed by police in Stockholm, Assange agreed that he had had sex with Miss A but said he did not tear the condom, and that he was not aware that it had been torn. He told police that he had continued to sleep in Miss A’s bed for the following week and she had never mentioned a torn condom.
—“Assange’s supporters point out that, despite her complaints against him, Miss A held a party for him on that evening and continued to allow him to stay in her flat+
—“We understand that both complainants admit to having initiated consensual sexual relations with Mr Assange. They do not complain of any physical injury. The first complainant did not make a complaint for six days (in which she hosted the respondent in her flat—actually her bed] and spoke in the warmest terms about him to her friends) until she discovered he had spent the night with the other complainant.
—“The second complainant, too, failed to complain for several days until she found out about the first complainant: she claimed that after several acts of consensual sexual intercourse, she fell half asleep and thinks that he ejaculated without using a condom – a possibility about which she says they joked afterwards.
—“Both complainants say they did not report him to the police for prosecution but only to require him to have an STD test. However, his Swedish lawyer has been shown evidence of their text messages which indicate that they were concerned to obtain money by going to a tabloid newspaper and were motivated by other matters including a desire for revenge.”

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 18, 2012 at 9:40 pm Link to this comment

gerard—- the “sedition-related” charges aren’t what he’s fighting ....and might
not even be more than legendary to date.


if manning cuts a deal….then you might see some serious charges brought…till
then, he’s been hiring teams of lawyers with $200,000 in donated money to
keep him from dealing with the sexual misconduct (or whatever it might be) in
Sweden….


and neither one of us can, in good conscience, call that stuff trumped-up ....if it
were safe to say that, a famous person might have taken the lawyers and the
$200,000 and gone there and spent the money answering the questions and
beating back the accusations instead of spending it and a couple of years
fighting to avoid it…..

or maybe not. we don’t much know.

Report this

By gerard, April 18, 2012 at 9:12 pm Link to this comment

hetero:  What’s “trumped up” are the “sedition-related” charges.  Assange is quite probably a genius who is trying to save the United States and other nations from the logical results of misconceived and out-moded antics that pass as “foreign policy.”  The real crimes are short-sightedness, ignorance, arrogance and organized mass murder.  A certain bullish cowardice goes with those characteristics, the evidence of same being:  So many educated politicians (who smart enough to misrepresent, push around, gain unfair advantages, and neglect wise policies and actions) and yet can be dumb enough not to realize the huge potentials of the internet, but instead try to punish people who know more than they do about its possibilities for honesty and openness, and the relation of those two moral qualities to the future of world peace.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 18, 2012 at 8:53 pm Link to this comment

gerard—- I have not even a tiny objection to your harping on non-violence. I think
that it has its limitations, but is always the starting point of the discussion.

Assange has questions to answer and if you wish to assert that it’s all trumped-
up, I’ll be glad to hear your explanation of how you came to know all the facts.

Report this

By gerard, April 18, 2012 at 8:40 pm Link to this comment

hetero:  Coming from you to me, what was your reason for inserting the “if you don’t mind ...”?  Perhaps I misunderstood.  I had thought you were referring, snidely, to the matter of the accusation of Assange having “broken the condom”, which matter didn’t seem to me to have much importance, considering other unjust and prejudicial accusations being used in this case. I thought it only indicated your personal meanness in referring to that unproven accusation.  Am I wrong? 
  At my rare old age I am a bit out of touch with broken condom jokes—if it was a joke. Sorry to be so out-dated. It must seem quite intolerable to you that I keep yammering on about things so inconsequential and chronologically off base as “alternatives to violence” and “government being too stupid to self-correct” and the obvious evidences worldwide that wars must be ended in favor of people settling differences without continuously insulting each other until rage boils over and the one with the most weapons technology, kills the most old men and helpless women and children. 
  And as you know from some of my previous comments, I consider the scatalogical language which often appears here as a mark of cheap jest and offensively adolescent insult.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 18, 2012 at 7:18 pm Link to this comment

gerard———prosecutors do not go traveling to question suspects. suspects
come to the “office’, they don’t grant audiences at their leisure.

and if you can’t bear mention of broken condoms, you’ve no business
discussing the accusations at all as you’ve not the humanity to understand why
it’s offensive to continue sexual relations without one when one of the parties is
not willing to continue.


again, you’re talking about trumped up charges without offering the slightest
evidence….which some people might deem ....unwise.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, April 18, 2012 at 5:57 pm Link to this comment

Emile:  Your post made no sense at all.

I guess not making sense is a gringo thing?

Report this

By gerard, April 18, 2012 at 5:47 pm Link to this comment

hetero—please have the human sensibility not to favor me with your crude sentiments.  The “broken condom” remark is nothing more than gutter-sniping. The fact that it occurred to you as an after-thought is a signal that you mercifully hesitated to include it out of your own sense of common decency. The fact that you were unable to censor it out, indicates that my just-previous comment really upset you.

From the beginning, soon after he first arrived in England, Assange offered several times to go back to Sweden to testify (answer questions) , and I believe I remember that his lawyers also asked the Swedish prosecutor to come to Britain and meet and talk with Assange.  They refused.  Am I wrong?

And no,it’s this way:  I feel he should not be accused of trumped-up charges involving rape, condoms and possible “honey traps” as a devise to extradite him and charge him with “sedition” when as a matter of actual fact the government here is too dull-witted to realize that, rather than doing them harm he offered them a golden opportunity just at the right time to clean up their insane “war games” and stop the cold-blooded murder of tens of thousands of innocent bystanders halfway around the world in order to dominate what is left of a planet that is already half-dead due to U.S. (and other) military, industrial and economic assaults,

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 18, 2012 at 5:11 pm Link to this comment

gerard——-you know anything about Swedish law or the particulars of the
charges that may or may not ever be brought if Assange ever goes to Sweden and
answers the questions ....or do you just feel that he shouldn’t have to be subject to
any laws at all…. because he’s so special?


(I’ll give a break if you don’t mind it being a broken condom.)

Report this

By gerard, April 18, 2012 at 4:51 pm Link to this comment

hetero, what was all that legal stuff in England about?  Why did they first throw him in a prison comparable to the Tower?  What was he being defended about for weeks in London?  The ankle monitor?  The isolation? That stuff those Swedish nut-cases were and are so excited about—the two “nut-case” women who “didn’t particularly want to charge him” and the “nut-case” laws in Sweden and that Swedish “nut-case” prosecutor who refused to listen to his side of things but let him out of Sweden so he could go to England where a number of famous “nut-cases” tried to follow him everywhere he went, in order to support him publicly.  Then there’s those “nut-cases” like Daniel Elsberg and John Pilger and Ron Paul and a few other “nut-case whistle-blowers.”
  Not counting, of course, all those millions of intelligent, computer-savvy and freedom-loving
patriots who have not yet come forward publicly, and even if they did, aren’t “important enough” to get noticed. Plus possibly 1/4 to 1/3 of the populations of the “freedom-loving” world, mostly under the ages of 40, who know the difference between a hawk and a handsaw. Give me a break!

Report this

By gerard, April 18, 2012 at 4:47 pm Link to this comment

hetero, what was all that legal stuff in England about?  Why did they first throw in a prison comoparable to the Tower?  What was he being defended about for weeks in London?  That stuff those Swedish nut-cases were and are so excited about—the two “nut-case” women who “didn’t particularly want to charge him” and the “nut-case” laws in Sweden and that Swedish “nut-case” prosecutor who refused to listen to his side of things and let him out of Sweden so he could go to England where a number of famous “nut-cases” tried to follow him everywhere he went, in order to support him publicly.  Then there’s those “nut-cases"like Daniel Elsberg and John Pilger and Ron Paul and a few other “nut-case whistle-blowers.”
  Not counting, of course, all those millions of intelligent, computer-savvy and freedom-loving
patriots who have not yet come forward publicly, and even if they did, aren’t “important enough” to get noticed. Plus possibly 1/4 to 1/3 of the populations of the “freedom-loving” world, mostly under the ages of 40, who know the difference between a hawk and a handsaw. Give me a break!

Report this

By Wilma Masters, April 18, 2012 at 3:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The mainstream media is intent on hammering away at what it perceives as Julian Assange’s personality.  Read what he says, and what the released Wikileaks cables say, and then judge him.  Don’t denigrate the messenger.

Report this

By rosemerry, April 18, 2012 at 3:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

jimmmmmy obviously did not even watch the video.
“Most news organizations edited and redacted the papers to protect lives. Mr. Assange put everything on his Web site. “
Lies from Stanley at NYT. Lives were never put at risk by Assange’s carefully redacted posts. This is UNLIKE the US war crimes.
good interviuew. Very self-indulgent repetitive comments.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 18, 2012 at 3:39 pm Link to this comment

Togrl—- it’s hard to argue with anyone so brilliant as to decide that New Yorkers
care only for money and are much addicted to calling people unbalanced…..
because of the way their brains are wired.

it’s much easy just to roll one’s eyes and move on toward the contemplation of
how some brains are miswired and sputtering.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 18, 2012 at 3:32 pm Link to this comment

gerard—- what Assange case are you talking about?  has he been indicted for
anything? last I heard, he was accused of some stuff and refusing to go and
answer questions.

Report this

By Tobysgirl, April 18, 2012 at 3:26 pm Link to this comment

A lot of people, especially New Yorkers, call anyone “unbalanced” who possesses any passion about anything other than making money. It is inconceivable to people whose brains function in this way that a person could actually be committed to something idealistic. They only see the world in terms of what they can grab, people they can screw (in all senses of the word), power they can accumulate.

Perhaps it is time we call such people “unbalanced”—psychopathic might be more fitting—and a danger to any society in which they exist, let alone dominate.

Report this

By gerard, April 18, 2012 at 3:22 pm Link to this comment

hetero:  The German guy with whom Assange had a spat—Dombscheit—started up a company to rival WikiLeaks.  I understand he was kicked out of a hackers’ club—in Germany, I believe.  What that means I have no idea.  Perhaps they thought he was “unbalanced.”  Or a nut job?

Report this

By gerard, April 18, 2012 at 3:17 pm Link to this comment

hetero, for the love of truth and sanity—just because he is “perceived to be unbalanced by people who have associated with him,” that doesn’t mean he is “unbalanced” or that many other people who have associated with him have also “perceived him as unbalanced.” Some of them just may have “perceived
him as being balanced.
  What IS really “unbalanced” is the amount of attention devoted to portraying him as unbalanced. Might that perhaps strenthen or weaken his case in any way, do you suppose?  Or do you consider it reliable and justifiable criticism of his motives and actions?  Does it have any influence, do you suppose, on others’ opinions? And how many possible “nut-cases” might be involved in trying to “bring him down,” do you suppose?  And are they happy or sad when other people (who never spoke to him, or even understand what he is doing?) are convinced by 100,000 or a million “other people” that he is a “nut-case”?
  If I remember correctly, you have said, or sort of said, that a number of people on line here are the equivalent of “unbalanced” or worse, and some of them have reported back in kind.  As none of us here are at present subject to high-profile governmental legal suits, it makes little difference, so I doubt very much if calling you a derogatory name has made much difference in your self-respect or your future. 
  If push comes to shove, and either the Manning case or the Assange case are decided on their lack of “balance”, I will know without a shadow of a doubt that there were no solid grounds whatsoever for conviction, that the trials were total miscarriages of justice, and that we had all better move to the other side of the moon as quickly as possible.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 18, 2012 at 3:14 pm Link to this comment

dr wu——- don’t bet your last piaster on that.  fucked up as Limbaugh is,
Hezbollah are, at bottom,  knuckle-dragging goons.

Report this

By dr wu, April 18, 2012 at 3:00 pm Link to this comment

Hail to Russian TV! Better Assange and Hezbollah than Rush Limbaugh and Paul Ryan

Report this

By dr wu, April 18, 2012 at 3:00 pm Link to this comment

Hail to Russian TV! Better Assange and Hezbollah than Rush Limbaugh and Paul Ryan

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 18, 2012 at 1:56 pm Link to this comment

I don’t know enough about him to judge, but am saying that the NYT was accurate
in saying that he’s perceived to be unbalanced by people who have associated with
him.

http://tinyurl.com/cgtgse7

Report this

By Jeff N., April 18, 2012 at 1:50 pm Link to this comment

hetero - Are you saying you think he is nutty or are you saying that he strikes other people as nutty..  Because I don’t really understand the reasoning behind this.  I don’t know if I’d say he is a hero, but he is certainly at the forefront of a very good initiative.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 18, 2012 at 1:36 pm Link to this comment

no, gerard, he’s pretty far from heroic…....and while the NYT description of the
descriptions of him is impolite, it ain’t really inaccurate. he strikes many people as
a little nutty…including folks who were working with him in Wikileaks…


if you agree with the idea that secrecy is excessive and sinister in its implications,
that still doesn’t get you to Assange’s position and even if you’re there that does
nothing to make a grand figure of his person rather than his mission.

http://youtu.be/NzdUy90vTuk

Report this

By gerard, April 18, 2012 at 1:23 pm Link to this comment

It begins to appear that “they” are more interested in prosecuting Assange for his personality than for
any leaks of “non-secret” cables.  Ditto for Bradley Manning.  Why is that, do you suppose?

Interesting point, Hetero—People from the NYT and
the Guardian have spoken with Assange and Greenwald has not. So what? At least 2/3 of the capacious
accounts of those “conversations” (“confrontations?”)
seem to have been devoted to defending themselves against a guy a bit smarter and more unorthodox than they, and much of the resulting verbiage I have waded through was devoted—literally devoted!—to personal digs, as I remember.
  At first I thought the tone might be due to the fact that they felt gyped, somehow.  Come to find out, as nearly as I could narrow the point down, Assange DONATED the “trove” of information to them aS well as to other similar “news outlets”,
  Ultimately the result of his generosity was that “the heavy hitters” all joined together to permit his entire organization to be financially
“busted”. Judicial “busting” was apparently not enough revenge.  More later.
  P.S.  The guy’s a hero, actually, along with Manning, who doesn’t like war either.

Report this

By Archie1954, April 18, 2012 at 11:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s amazing how a gentleman who is under house arrest for no valid reason as he has not been charged with a crime and who is characterized as a “nutjob” can frighten a nation of over 300 million people until it is quaking in its proverbial boots. Imagine the Justice Department combing through reams of old laws attempting to find some ancient treatise that they can charge Mr. Assange under. Shows some amount of desperation to me I must say.

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, April 18, 2012 at 11:49 am Link to this comment

@ heterochromatic

I cannot let the posting of “Big Bottom” go without acknowlegement.

Nice!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W9gBFhhGas

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, April 18, 2012 at 11:39 am Link to this comment

@ heterochromatic

It wasn’t posting A link, it was THE link that I found troubling especially combined with your previous comments on this thread.

There was also a larger point to my comment having to do with foreign policy from the point of view of those who make it in this country, which I admit was a bit abstract, but only a bit.

@ Moonraven

Sorry about that, but I had to get some of that gringo shit out of my system.

Hope you understand.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 18, 2012 at 11:31 am Link to this comment

no moonie, the problem that several newspaper in more than 1 country had with
Julie baby was about things entirely other than exclusivity….


moonie, some days you blow the goat and other days you blow the goat more.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 18, 2012 at 11:28 am Link to this comment

EZ—- yup, if I post a link to Foreign Policy that means that I’m an avid follower
and blind devotee of the mag and all within it.


and equally, Assange is entirely wonderful and rational and there’s reason to think
him really well-bananced and nothing butt.

http://youtu.be/7qDgCmzh5ao

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, April 18, 2012 at 11:17 am Link to this comment

@ Moonraven

I hope I am understanding you correctly (gringo that I am), when I have the nerve to possibly correct one of your previous comments.

As a gringo, I realize I may have easily misread you, but just in case I did not, and for the sake of other gringos, I was hoping that you wouldn’t mind if I said that it was a journalist from The Guardian who originally published the password to the whole bundle of U.S. cables and such.

Without going into too much detail, it was in a book he published. After that, anyone could access them.

Anyhow, if that is not what you were writing about…

Well, I guess I am just another stupid gringo etc.

Please forgive me for all the harm I have inflicted towards you and your people by being a gringo.

I hate myself and you are right to call me a gringo even though I am not really a gringo, but that is another story which I do not intend to tell in the presence of gringos like myself who are not really gringos or maybe they are.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, April 18, 2012 at 10:54 am Link to this comment

I guess you clowns would have preferred he interview a bomb-throwing jew, or a bomb-dropping gringo?

Go Assange!

Go Hezbollah!

Israel OFF the planet now!

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, April 18, 2012 at 10:51 am Link to this comment

Hetero is being deceptive again.

The NYT was the original discloser of the Wikileaks big dump of US embassy correspondence.

Apparently a conflict ensued when Assange decided to let some other newpapers, including the one I read daily, La Jornada, have the correspondence to publish.

It appears that the NYT has the same attitude as hetero—sour grapes.

Report this

By jimmmmmy, April 18, 2012 at 10:46 am Link to this comment

I watched the Assange program on RT .I thought his choice of a bomb throwing muslim fanatic as his first guest was unfortunate. I admire Mr. Assanges courage but I find his arrogance annoying. I liked Adam and The Man much better, but he cruised to near the truth and was taken off.

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, April 18, 2012 at 9:38 am Link to this comment

@ heterochromatic

Humble yourself if you can my friend before you make such posts.

Foreign Policy would love to shit in your (and my) face (or brain) ((or soul)).

If you really want the full treatment, the least you can do is assume the divine position of receptivity with mouth and nostrils open, head turned upwards.

Alas, I can not be with you on this journey, but know that I will be carefully observing and rubbing my hands together and such while you are provided with the nourishment you so crave. The nourishment that auto-excludes all others and their irrelevant points-of-view.

The pink slime excrement that proves you are a true American.

It is by a british ensemble, but I don’t care.

I want to puke my guts out every time I hear it.

Woe to he or she who listens to this smelly crap…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZZSpkbKii4&feature=related

Report this

By bpawk, April 18, 2012 at 9:32 am Link to this comment

You can feel both the envy as well as the dyed-in-the-wool right wing slant from the new york times writer in that Assange is “a radical left-wing whistleblower and free-speech frondeur battling the superpowers that be ...”  You see how far right the new york times appears when being a whistleblower and free speech advocate are something to sneer about.  Their writing has also been below par for quite some time so I don’t know why they are lauded as the apogee of the journalistic world.

Report this

By Roger Lafontaine, April 18, 2012 at 9:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Give RT the Pulitzer!

Report this

By Roger Lafontaine, April 18, 2012 at 9:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Great interview. Well done. Nothing like this on CNN, FOX, MSNBC etc. RT is simply the best. Alyonna is way better than Erin Burnett or Anderson Cooper et al. Crosstalk is excellent, Thom Hartmann, Keiser - love them all. If this is propaganda then it’s propaganda we need because the other stuff is junk, deception and or avoidance.

Report this

By gerard, April 18, 2012 at 9:28 am Link to this comment

The question has come up:  “Who would you like Julian Assange to interview next?  My suggestion would be the editors of Foreign Policy.  Ask them some searching questions about what they are doing for international understanding to help the U.S. get a more sophisticated view of world affairs. That ought to work wonders for all of us out here, waiting for the other another “diplomatic shoe” to fall out of Washington. Like “bomb Iran” or “stop sending food to North Korea” or “donate ten or fifteen more drones to Israel.”

Report this

By bpawk, April 18, 2012 at 9:08 am Link to this comment

I wish there were more julian assanges and less new york times - the nyt likes to talk progressive, but like obama, when push comes to shove, they are all for upholding the status quo.

Report this

By Bjorn Toulouse, April 18, 2012 at 6:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Russia Today regularly features suspicious ‘researchers’ the likes of Alex Jones and Webster Tarpley, which unfortunately puts them pretty much where the NYT is (i.e. Gatekeepers)

No serious news organizations would give camera time to such notorious propagandists.

Report this

By Jeff N., April 18, 2012 at 6:22 am Link to this comment

It’s funny if you watch the interview with Assange about the show, he makes the comment that this will assuredly be the reaction from the mainstream western media.  Not sure exactly what the basis for the “nutjob” comment is, always been a big fan of this guy.  It’s too bad he hasn’t been able to land any interviews with the Washington elite, that would have been amazing.

Report this

By SoTexGuy, April 18, 2012 at 4:45 am Link to this comment

I started watching RT, Al Jazeera and more mostly when the LA Times, NYT and others here cut me off from reading too much of their content without paying! .. Mind you, even as a paid subscriber you still have to endure their ad-storms. There’s something appalling about having the latest Hollywood gossip and an animated ad for premium cat-food juxtaposed or even intermingled with the latest news from the war front.

And I had never even heard of Press TV until the Brits kicked them out.. It’s all been a good experience, seeing more than one side of an issue and reading more than just one small part of the story.. rehashed and regurgitated over and over and over.

Kudos to RT for giving Assange a voice.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 18, 2012 at 3:35 am Link to this comment

There’s more than one Judith Miller out there, weapons of media distraction.

Report this
Robespierre115's avatar

By Robespierre115, April 18, 2012 at 1:37 am Link to this comment

The NY Times, MSNBC, CNN etc. should all be shamed by RT’s programming. Assange actually TALKS with a major figure in the Arab world while the NY Times only quotes Israeli officials, White House officials and eveyone else approved by the Dear Leader. The same attacks were launched at Oliver Stone in 2010 when he released his documentary “South Of The Border.”

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, April 17, 2012 at 9:52 pm Link to this comment

@ heterochromatic

I apologize if I have been neglecting you lately.

Thank you for “caring enough to send the very best”.

Know that you are in my thoughts and prayers always.

-EmileZ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1RpjIJ8S34

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 17, 2012 at 8:39 pm Link to this comment

here- EZ—- get one

http://tinyurl.com/mediaterror

Report this
vector56's avatar

By vector56, April 17, 2012 at 8:14 pm Link to this comment

I love it!


I watch Alyona Minkovski (the Alyona Show) regularly and find it to be a cut above the propaganda our Corporate media feeds us.

The New York Times after leading us into the War in Iraq should shut the fuck up and get into another line of work. Personally, I think Judith Miller and her bosses should be held responsible (along with Bush, the Troops and his thug) responsible for the deaths of a million Iraqis who never attacked us.

I think it was great for Julian to have Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah as his first guess. Even the NAZIS were allowed to tell their side of the story before we killed them. For some reason people we label “Terrorist” are not allowed to even have any “last words”; they are just suppose to die quietly without telling their side of the story. I say, “Bravo” to Julian and RT for allowing the “doomed” to at least have a voice!

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, April 17, 2012 at 7:34 pm Link to this comment

The NYT’s Alessandra Stanley dismissing an interview with the leader of Hezbollah as akin to Anderson Cooper interviewing Amy Winehouse’s dad, and later on the Kardashians (I still have no idea who the Kardashians are, but I gather they are celebrities of some sort) should tell you everything you need to know about where they are coming from.

I suppose the NYT, like the US government doesn’t want anyone to hear what Hezbollah is really about. They would prefer everyone just consider them to be radical Islamic terrorists, end of story.

Anything more would not be “fit to print”.

Report this

By gerard, April 17, 2012 at 7:03 pm Link to this comment

We all have to talk to and listen to, more people who are different from ourselves.  Why?  Because if we can find things in common to help keep people from killing each other, those of us who manage to stay alive can help our children eventually stop killing each other.  I congratulate Assange on arranging these unorthodox programs which may cause some of us to stop believing propaganda and start searching for truth, and hopefully becoming wiser.
  Because of the long history of habituated inter-national, inter-cultural ignorance and beliefs in our own supremacy, this will take time.  But even though participants are not yet able to “talk turkey” to opposing political and cultural forces, they are a step in the right direction, IMO.

Report this

By heterochromatic, April 17, 2012 at 6:54 pm Link to this comment

People at the NYT have met and spoken w/Assange at some
length…...has Greenwald?

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, April 17, 2012 at 6:44 pm Link to this comment

The NYT is owned and operated and written by nut-less jobs.

All promoters of genocide against non-whites for their land and rsources—and the NYT is THE gringo mouthpiece for genocide promotion—are cowards.

Report this

By Big B, April 17, 2012 at 6:11 pm Link to this comment

American Pravda (the NYT) doesn’t like it when anybody points out their incompetance.

The NYT fails to realize that once you become somebodys whore, well, everybody treats you accordingly.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.