I hope that they'll let the material stand for itself rather than lying like politicians trying to score points.
The way they handled the last one was like some sort of Microsoft marketing exercise.
WTF? This is a video that Reuters has been trying to get released for over 2 years. The only reason that the video can no "speak for itself" as you say, is because wikileaks leaked it.
And good thing that the video can now speak for itself because it shows that the Pentagon lied about what happened to those reporters. I'd rather have the video speak for itself rather than have the pentagon lying to score points.
Not to mention, should it be assumed that a man with an RPG in a dangerous part of Baghdad is hostile? What if he's Iraqi military and the Apache shoots him, thereby robbing his squad of their light-artillery support and giving away their position?
The right way to patrol is to _patrol_, and that means dismounted infantry operating out of forward bases (which the US is now using) -- not convoys of roadbound IFVs, and certainly not heavy helicopters. Counterinsurgency is not war against poorer enemies, it's police work with heavier weapons; and it's taken five or six years (and a _lot_ of incidents like the previous video), but I think that lesson is slowly sinking in.
Wikileaks's goal is not neutral publishing of leaks- it's maximum political impact.[3]
As long as they continue to release the full video, I still think they do far more good than harm. The editorialization forces it into the public eye. Although I do think they were misleading, they're no worse than the MSM, and the full release allows it to be analyzed more objectively later.
"US covers up a video that should've been made public" is not as sexy as "Collateral Damage: US covers up the murder of two reporters." And when you're dealing with a public that seems more interested in Tiger's romantic escapades, perhaps that's what is necessary to seize their attention.
-----
[1] "there do appear to be two other—two people in that crowd having weapons" -Julian Assange[http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/6/massacre_caught_on_tape...]
[2] "The [army's] report claims that at least two members of the group which were first fired on were armed"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike...]
[3] Assange's interview with Colbert. http://gawker.com/5515720/stephen-colbert-grills-wikileaks-f...
Also the US mil report from the time (not a response to Wikileaks, from 17 July 2007, 5 days after the event) - They did have AKM/AK47 and loaded RPG + extra rounds and were hidden around the corner watching, one of their party took pics, http://www.scribd.com/doc/29487634/Centcom-FOIA?page=41 of an APC whilst their friends were apparently readying an RPG to blow them up with.
And though it's not proof of anything specific in this case the photog in question, who died, was known for getting "victory" shots of insurgents handiwork.
The reason the propaganda was inserted was because the US military explicitly stated that they did not know what happened to the reporters involved and were obviously too embarrassed to admit that they mistook their camera equipment for weapons and proactively engaged them.