Yes, Assange has an agenda. But given the fact that government officials ‘spin’ their version of the truth to the public on a daily basis (WMD in Iraq, hmmm right) this does not make him any more or less reliable than those government officials themselves. It is a nice spin trying to discredit Assange because he has been a hacker but in a thorough intel evaluation that could even add to the credibility of his material.

And yes, apparently WikiLeaks does not publish everything it has. But again, what’s the difference with many governments that classify whatever does not suit them and stall FOIA requests wherever and as much as they can?

In my opinion WikiLeaks provides just another perspective on reality, a perspective which is not complete and possibly biased (as any perspective) but as yet there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the available Afghan Diary material on WikiLeaks.

I see insufficient reason to qualify WikiLeaks as an untrustworthy source, at least not more or less untrustworthy that the average government source in this type of cases.

The presidential administration displayed blinding, knee-slapping amateurism. Surely there was a lawyer laying around they could have consulted prior to opening themselves up to legal jeopardy. And Assange has zero credibility. WikiLeaks is, on its face, untrustworthy. Fun to peruse, but unpersuasive in its goals.