She's decided to do her Julian Assange defending today.
All she demonstrated was how truly ignorant she was.
For some, she might have shown how repulsive she is by racing to embrace the accused rapist but I think most of us caught on to her act some time ago.
Here's the Idiot Digby:
This is where the argument takes you folks, whether you like it or not. Toobin struggled mightily to figure out a way out of that without sounding like a total dolt and he was unable to. If you think that Assange is guilty of a crime then Bob Woodward (and countless other investigative reporters) are guilty too. There just isn't any way around it.
Yes, there are many ways around that, Idiot Digby. Bob Woodward is a journalist who writes and reports.
Julian Assange, at best, is a publisher. Some would even argue with that since he is not WikiLeaks but one part of it. Some might argue that, at best, Julian Assange works for a publisher.
WikiLeaks does not interpret, does not synthesize or analyze what they release. That is why they partner with newspapers.
Julian Assange is not Bob Woodward and to claim that he is (Naomi Wolf makes the claim and, like a good little self-hater, Digby repeats it).
If Digby truly can't grasp the difference, she's even worse than pill popping Naomi Wolf who does know the difference but lies.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):