WikiLeak Revelations You Might Not Have Heard

THERE'S NOTHING LIKE A FREE PRESS to finally realize that you get what you pay for. That is to say, a propped up state-run press, an "abominable thing" feeding our mainstream media no longer the people's voice but who seem entirely content to merely corrupt the people. Gone are the days of discover, parse, print, and serve. Now they spin, spaz, and punt, and then complain about an unlevel playing field of their own creation. We don't even need to read or hear the news anymore, because the bias is so ingrained, so ubiquitous, we can already furnish the story ourselves. Yes, the story has already been told. There is nothing new here to consume in the name of all the news that's fit to print. Here's a clue for those who have been paying attention. Just connect the GODDAMNED DOTS! For those who haven't been paying attention, and yes, these minions are restless, it appears your time is about up. You will be strategized, and you won't even recognize the sound of your own voice.

WikiLeaks' latest publication of Iraq war documents contains a lot of information that most reasonable people would prefer remained unknown, such as the names of Iraqi informants who will now be hunted for helping the U.S.

And although the anti-war left welcomed the release of the documents, they would probably cringe at one of the most significant finds of this latest crop of reports: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

"By late 2003, even the Bush White House's staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," Wired magazine's Danger Room reports. "But WikiLeaks' newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction."

That is, there definitively were weapons of mass destruction and elements of a WMD program in Saddam Hussein's Iraq when U.S.-led coalition troops entered the country to depose Hussein.

Predictably, the liberal media did their best to either ignore the story—like the New York Times and Washington Post did—or spin it. It's not an easy choice to make, since ignoring the story makes you look out of the loop and hurts your reputation as an informative publication, yet spinning the story means actively attempting to confuse and mislead your readers. CBS News chose the latter.

Read it all.

Be the first to comment on "WikiLeak Revelations You Might Not Have Heard"

Leave a Reply