You say "THEY are out to get" Assange then you join the hunt. You say "the tone of this accidental memoir speaks volumes about the personality of the man" and yet the tone of this article speaks volumes about yourself. You say the latest book "should be treated with caution as evidence" but then you use it as evidence for your character assassination of Assange.
You say this book "gives us the voice of the man" without mentioning that Assange himself did not want it published. In fact he was so unhappy with it that he walked away from the deal, declaring: "All memoir is prostitution".
You say Assange's "world-view is extremely simplistic" and "he has no sense of how people or institutions actually work". You do not even bother trying to justify such a shallow ad hominem attack.
What's strange is that your Slideshare praises WikiLeaks for "exposing the extent to which the western democratic system has been hollowed out". How's that possible without understanding "how people or institutions actually work"? Assange just got lucky, did he?
You say Assange has "no room left for moral scruples, tactical considerations or accountability". In fact, Assange's commitment to Truth is more moral than any successful modern journalist's realpolitik, his tactical considerations have brought WikiLeaks to where it is today, and he faces accountability on all sides - from ankle bracelet checks at the local police station to ridicule in the court of public opinion - every day.
You say he "blunders into Africa, then the Middle East with limited knowledge and almost no self-awareness". Did you know he once lived in Cairo at the house of a former Miss Egypt? Are you going to deny the influence of WikiLeaks on the Arab Spring revolutions? Even those who have complained that WikiLeaks was given too much credit do not pretend that it was not a powerful motivating force.
ENOUGH! I am only halfway through destroying your article. Why should I bother with the rest?
The real question here is Charlie Beckett's agenda.
What's especially pathetic is that Beckett published his nonsense on HuffPo but then posted a different version of his article (on the POLIS site, where I left my comment) after criticism from The Guardian's David Leigh.
And this is a guy who pretends to be a WikiLeaks supporter? Hmmnn.
Seems to me a lot of similar people are suddenly changing their tunes. I cant help wondering if a fair bit of money is not being thrown around, ahead of the UK extradition decision, with a US Grand Jury still on Julian Assange's case.