And here's Jake Tapper's report, "Gates on Wikileaks Video: 'Not Helpful' but 'Should not Have Lasting Consequences'."
And, linking once more, in an evasive, bloviating essay, LAT calls for an investigation, "Bringing War Home":
Videos such as these are extremely valuable for the public to see. We must understand what is being done in our name when the United States is at war. But we also must know that pictures may not tell the full story. WikiLeaks, which is more an advocacy group than a journalism site, titled the video "Collateral Murder." The military had investigated this case and absolved the soldiers of any wrongdoing; for three years, Reuters was denied a copy of the video. It does not answer all our questions, but it certainly raises enough of them to warrant further investigation. Now that we have a close-up look at the ugliness of battle, we have a right to know what it means. The key is not just what happens in the video, but what happened before, and what happens after.
Clearly, if you oppose wars, you support WikiLeaks, no matter what the facts show.
See my post from last night, "UPDATE! WikiLeaks' Julian Assange Claims CIA Threats on Eve of Afghan Video Release; Communist/MSM Alliance Launches Stage II of DISINFO Campaign."
Donald,
ReplyDeleteI suppose it may have been mentioned here prior to this, but shouldn't someone be asking an important question.
The journalists were evidently from Reuters, and that media outlet took special interest in leading with the story on this matter, and naturally, you might think, because it was their journalists who were killed.
However, should not someone be asking why a major news media outlet has journalists actually embedded with what was a known terrorist outfit.