So little Liz Cheney would like to argue that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange "clearly has blood on his hands." It's a lot clearer to me that Daddy Dick has blood on his hands.
Did Assange knowingly lie to millions of people to drum up support for a military invasion? Did Assange promote and defend the use of brutal acts of torture? How about the slaughter of defenseless people as collateral damage in that invasion?
What's really clear is that Assange's "crime" consists in shining the light of truth on the blood that Cheney & Co. have on their hands. Seriously, what is clear about Julian Assange having blood on his hands? The fact that he exposed the truth and evidence of war crimes? The fact that he wants to see an end to these crimes?
In what way does the witness to a murder become a guilty party? By NOT telling about what he saw, right?
No comments:
Post a Comment