'Hatred for Democracy' is right.

The one thing authoritarians fear more than anything else is democracy. Not just in the United States, mind you, but anywhere on this planet.

When people get to decide what to do with their own resources, they tend to serve their own interests. Not ours. Go figure.

One of the things Daniel Ellsberg's book taught me was that the U.S. intelligence community worked very hard to discourage democracy in Vietnam. Just the opposite of what I had previously come to "understand."

The problem in Vietnam, like the problem in Chile, was that the people wanted to vote for the wrong leaders. If you don't vote for the CIA's hand-picked leaders, you're not allowed to practice democracy. You may not even be worthy of living.

What does it mean if "al Qaeda" is part of the "Big Lie" and doesn't actually exist ?

@mick: Al Qu'eda never DID exist. It was fully acknowledged in 2006 on the BBC that Al Qu'eda was just an imaginary construct designed by the CIA to provide a pretext for neverending 'wars' on 'enemies'. A significanrt number of the 'hijackers' whose passports were miraculously located in the rubble of the Twin Towers (remember: SUPPOSEDLY Saudi Arabians were our attackers, and yet we invaded IRAQ!) Were later found to be still alive and having no connection with the 9/11 events. If you recall, there was a recent brou ha ha over falsified use of Australian passports? Geez-so much keeps happening-who can keep it all straight in our dazzled, overwrought minds? Anyway, Mick, and everyone-go to the Building What? Website. Look up hijacker passports. Look up the 2006 BBC articles. War is a Lie! And our country is being run by money-hungry, power-mad despots, the dollar is gonna go DOWN, and we've gotta prepare and make plans and begin to speak up & out. It really is almost too late, but, if now now, when? If not us, then who?

And Wikileaks is being destroyed, not so much because they are revealing the State Department cables (which only policy wonks and those of us who still READ will see or care about) but because they were getting ready to reveal some REALLY juicy stuff.

The Bank Rape of America. That might actually get the sheeple to notice, as it would resonate with their foreclosures, credit card bills, mounting debt, and general financial slavery.

Wikileaks HAD to be destroyed before that bombshell could drop, because even all the power of the corporate-controlled media might not have been able to dampen the mass anger that would have resulted.

They were really scared that their French Revolution might actually come and that the blood might flow in the streets. Instead of watching the limos and town cars roll past and wondering who was inside, the American People, realizing they were being destroyed by the Oligarchy, might have started dragging the enemy out of their limos and doing them damage.

Even ANTS can take down a Hippo if there are enough of them. No amount of Xi Corporate Protection forces can save them corporate bosses if the masses get mad enough. At least, that's their fear.

But don't worry, Wikileaks will be killed and there will be a new episode of Dancing with the Stars or something equally dumb to keep everybody quiet.

@sophia I was being "rhetorical"...911 IS the "Big Lie" as Hitler would have said.

You can donate to Wikileaks without paypal as below.

Support freedom and free speech.

To donate please do an electronic bank transfer (EFT) to:

PostFinance
SWISS POST
Account number: 91-765019-6
IBAN:CH55 0900 0000 9176 5019 6
BIC:POFICHBEXXX
Account name:Assange Julian Paul, Geneve
Address::Swiss Post
PostFinance
Engehaldenstrasse, 37
3030
Bern, Switzerland

2. Online Transfer via Credit Card
Using our friendly credit card processing partner Datacell Switzerland.

3. Bank Transfer - Option 1: via Sunshine Press Productions ehf:
Klapparhlid 30, 270 Mosfellsbaer, Iceland
Landsbanki Islands Account number 0111-26-611010
BANK/SWIFT:NBIIISREXXX
ACCOUNT/IBAN:IS97 0111 2661 1010 6110 1002 80

4. Bank Transfer - Option 2: via the not-for-profit Wau Holland Stiftung Foundation:
This support is tax deductible in Germany
Bank Account: 2772812-04
IBAN: DE46 5204 0021 0277 2812 04
BIC Code: COBADEFFXXX
Bank: Commerzbank Kassel
German BLZ: 52040021
Subject: WIKILEAKS / WHS Projekt 04

5. Via Postal Mail
You can post a donation via good old fashion postal mail to:

WikiLeaks
(or any suitable name likely to avoid interception in your country)
BOX 4080
Australia Post Office - University of Melbourne Branch
Victoria 3052
Australia

Soul Rebel do you think donating is the way to go ?
Wikileaks is looking very Mossad at the moment.

Really Mick? Where do you get that from?

WikiLeaks is WickedLeaks,

This is so harmful towards global stability. I can understand the need for an open government, but this is ridiculous!

Contemporary governments collectively and actively deceive EVERYONE. I am for GOOD government, and there is precious little of that anywhere in the world. Government should exist to protect the weak from the powerful - Code of Hammurabi, been around for quite a while. Does the US Government, or take your pick of any other, exist currently to do anything other than enrich a small and powerful minority on the backs of the masses, keeping them in the dark and in fear? If we had a government that existed to serve and uplift the public instead of to beat it down and empty its wallet, then I would feel differently about WikiLeaks. However, we have been in such darkness for so long we don't know which way is up. Who says the game can't be changed? I mean really, if the game doesn't change, our goose is cooked. Fucked. Whatever. I voted for a guy who tortures. Who drops bombs on children. Empty rhetoric from all of them.

Anyway, I'm an American, and I ain't one of the 2%, so it's not like I have money to throw their way. Just posting info, and I didn't research or verify it, so anyone considering it should look closer into it.

This post by DUer PeacePatriot was rapidly moving to the top of the DU "Greatest" list. It picked up over 30 Recommendations in just 30 minutes. Apparently the PTB felt it contained too much truth so it was moved to the 9/11 Conspiracy Forum (the post said zip about 9/11) The number of Recs was changed to ZERO. The Thought Police are at it again.

http://www.democraticund...;address=125×302923

You want my theory? Here it is...

Circa 2006: Constant talk of a possible U.S. nuclear strike on Iran. But also serious rumblings in the military brass opposing it. (Too dangerous--Iran no pushover like Iraq was; and nuke powers China and Russia threatening to come into it, on Iran's side--potential Armageddon). Junior in deep doo-doo with the CIA over the outing of its entire WMD counter-proliferation project--not just Valerie Plame--they outed the whole network run under the Brewster-Jennings front company, endangering CIA agents/contacts throughout the world and probably getting some of them killed.** Rumsfeld and Cheney did it, but Junior signed off/went along. Fitzgerald puts Libby behind bars, says he was obstructed, points at Cheney (but says it's a political problem). 2005 had been all about this--who would take the fall? And Iraq is a mess--bloody, corrupt, chaotic. Early 2006, Daddy Bush forms his Iraq Study Group (ISG) to rescue Junior from CIA retribution and forms a coalition with military brass and others to stop the nuking of Iran, which Rumsfeld/Cheney are determined to do, and save Junior's skin. Take note: Leon Panetta (old CIA) is a member of Daddy Bush's ISG. They put a deal to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld: No nuking of Iran. Rumsfeld has to resign. And Junior and Cheney will go quietly when the time comes. In exchange for, no impeachment or further investigation/prosecution for their many, many crimes.

The Democrats are permitted to win the 2006 Congressional elections (with lots of "Blue Dogs"). Nancy Pelosi announces that "Impeachment is off the table." (WHAT "table"?) Rumsfeld resigns, apropos of nothing (to appearances). (The "Blue Dog" Congress almost immediately funds the "surge" he wanted.) All talk of nuking Iran goes away. Pelosi travels to the Middle East to give the news to Israel and other allies. In the pre-arranged 'Gulf of Tonkin'-type incident to trigger the strike on Iran--British sailers caught in Iranian waters--Iran smilingly gives the sailors back.

The next problem is vetting the 2008 presidential candidates to insure that whoever enters the White House agrees to "the Deal." It is also decided that a weak "liberal" would be a good idea, to start taking the blame for the Bush Junta horrors and induced Depression. (The Bush Cartel and the far right billionaires running things have the power to do this. See below--my evaluation of Obama.) Ultimately, Obama passes the vetting (agrees to "the Deal") and gets elected--which I think he really was--and is also permitted to be elected, and very nearly the first thing out of his mouth is "we need to look forward not backward" on Bush Junta crimes. (They teach that at Harvard Law School?) And nobody gets prosecuted, or even investigated. Nada. Nothing.

more at the link....

Since the link in comment #11 does not work, here is the remainder of the PeacePatriot post:

Obama appoints ISG member Leon Panetta as CIA Director. There is a brief flutter of 'he ain't qualified/he's a civilian.' That goes away very quickly and he sails through Congress without another peep. One of his jobs was to stop the war between the Pentagon and the CIA--to heal the wounds that Rumsfeld (and Cheney) had inflicted--and another is to clean up after Junior. I could tell you a whole story about what I think the Bush Junta was doing in Colombia and why the Obama administration/Panetta are coddling and protecting the spying-connected, death-squad-connected, drug trafficking-connected recently ex-pResident of Colombia, Bush Jr pal Alvaro Uribe, but I won't go into it here, and you get the idea. Any loose ends around the world, that might attach to Junior, are being taken care of, with the Obama administration aiding and abetting Panetta (in the case of Colombia, involving serious sabotage of the Colombian justice system).

What do I think of Obama, if this scenario is true? He was probably well-intended and thought that he could do more good in the White House, even with very limited powers, than not in the White House. And "the Deal" and his agreement to it, if these things are true, would be no surprise to me at all. This is what we are now, not a democracy but the highly controlled and propagandized peons of an Empire over which we have no control. My investigations into our election system--how our votes are counted and by whom--were very shocking to me, especially that the Democratic Party leadership let it happen. Basically, one, private, far rightwing corporation--ES&S, which just bought out Diebold--owns and controls 80% of the voting machines in the country, which are run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY code, with virtually no audit/controls. This ultimate control mechanism makes it possible--makes it EASY--for the far rightwing and their allies to play our system like a piano. I think Obama actually won, by a bigger margin than we know, on the hopes of the American people for peace and social justice but he has no power to deliver either. And until we rectify this situation--get rid of these machines and restore vote counting to the PUBLIC VENUE--there will not be, and cannot be, any serious reform.

What do I think of Obama now? I think he's going to have bad dreams in his retirement. A good man, sucked in by "the Powers," with terrible things being laid on his conscience.

Items like U.S. interference in Spain's justice system (the Wikileak OP) are best understood, in my opinion, as the inevitable result of "the Deal" that I have described or some similar Deal. Our candidates--besides being pre-selected by corporate money and corporate media--are NOT FREE to say what they think and do what is best. No free agent--a real representative of the People--will ever make it to the White House. No FDR, for instance, could ever be elected now. Things are VERY controlled, and if you want power within this Imperial system, you MUST agree to the controls. That is the price. You have to put a lid on your mind and your heart.

It doesn't do to just rail against Obama or Clinton or the Bushites. We need to understand what is going on. We must open our eyes and look for the strategies by which we can get our power back, as a People. I offer this theory--this scenario--in that spirit. It may be true. It may not be. It may be partly true. But it tries to go deep and also to come up with solutions.

And you WILL find me voting for Obama in 2012! I will never, ever, ever give up my right to vote. But I don't have the power to make them count it in public view. Only the collective will of all of us can accomplish that. And only when we accomplish that, as a People, will we begin to have real choices and real debate again and the chance at real reform.

-----

**(Sub-theory. Rumsfeld/Cheney's plan was to seque the Iraq War into Iran, then and there, soon after the invasion, and they had nukes in route to be planted in Iraq that were traceable to Iran or would be put in route to Iran. SOMEBODY foiled this plan--stopped the shipment. Rumsfeld/Cheney were furious. They were counting on the planted WMDs in Iraq for so many things (political narrative, expanded war). They suspected the CIA's counter-proliferation network. They suspected UN weapons expert David Kelly. They had Kelly offed and outed the entire CIA c/p network. Those two events--Kelly's murder and the CIA outings--happened within four days of each other in July 2003.)

------------------------------------

I discuss our vote counting system and explain my reference to Colombia in further comments at Grassy Knoll's thread.

I think Cheney-Rumsfeld were frustrated as to expanding the war into Iran in 2003, and it's fairly obvious that they continued with that goal through 2006, until Rumsfeld resigned in late 2006. After that, all talk of nuking Iran went way, and Cheney's power seemed considerably curtailed. Bush Sr convened his ISG in March 2006 and delivered its report just after Rumsfeld resigned.

I cannot possibly provide all the links necessary to back up individual points in this "theory of everything," but I assure you that the theory is based on a lot of years of careful reading of both corpo-fascist and alternative news sources and considerable thought. I think we do need thoughtful theories about the power structure in our country just to stay sane amidst its 'Alice in Wonderland' aspects, but, more than this, to be able to identify specific areas of vital importance to our power as a People--such as the corporate takeover of our vote counting system.

As to that, here are two good sources: www.bradblog.com, and www.richardcharnin.com . I recommend Stephen Freeman's book, Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count and Charnin's book, Proving Election Fraud, for those who want to get into the details.

http://www.amazon.com/Wa...ntial-Election-St...
http://www.amazon.com/s/...?url=search-alias...

But really all you have to do is ask your local election officials to prove to you that your vote was counted in public view and made it all the way to CNN's election "results" as one of many provable, verified, concrete actions by you and others on Election Day. They can't do it. And that's where we should start. We must make them prove it to us.

That proof is precisely what ES&S/Diebold will not yield up and does not want you to have. Corporations have no rightful place between you and that proof. They need to be ousted from that position, and replaced by the old-fashioned paper ballot count or by OPEN SOURCE electronics with the code owned and controlled by the public and with a very substantial audit (hand-count of ballots vs machine totals).
Bottom-line. It's that or it isn't democracy.

Truth is All ~ !

I caught this shockingly plausible and well written hypothesis from Peace Patriot ("Theory of Everything") yesterday on your Facebook Wall and ever since I can't stop it from pinging 'round my brain. Wowie. Thanks so much for posting it.

What sets this comment / article apart from most and makes it an EXCELLENT post for us all to get behind and circulate as much as we can, imho, is that it establishes a strong basic synopsis of the political events of the last decade within the context of stolen US elections. And it does so *after* establishing itself as a think piece.

It cites recent events, specifically some WIKILEAKS revelations, to support it's thrust clearly and succinctly, without any confusing words or concepts or math; makes plainly visible to the layman what a banana-Republican, Corpor-o-faschist, Oligar'c'ical, Pluto-cratical, Klepto-cracy we really are. And at it's core is the author's first hand account of observing ES&S counting (and not counting) our votes. Perfect.
That's the familiar, horrifying core of it for us, too.

I'm very sorry to hear that when this smart-icle started to move up the ranks of "upvotes" or whatever it is they do over at DU to support real news, it was suddenly "squelched" or whatever it is they do over there at DU to crush real news. (I'm so sick of these circular firing squads I could just shoot my best friend in the face!)

I know this might ruffle some feathers, but re: DU / Daily Kos and some unnamed others - everyone's time and cause would be better served if they just drop 'em. Seriously. They do nothing to advance progressive causes, and do everything to suck your time and keep the infighting and distractions in the spotlight. It's a constant circle-jerk of counter-productive, ego-flogging.

I've been off BOTH those sites for several years and I can't tell you one thing I've missed except
constant aggravation. You can get better, real news (mostly opinion anyway over there anyway) at www.realnews.com.
And here at Bradblog.
And Russia Today.
And sometimes HUFFPO.

I'm sure I've missed some other good ones, but you all get the idea. While our electoral votes may not be counted, we can still 'vote' with our mouse and our collective, invested, (and far more focused), precious time.

Oh! Amazing job, as usual, Ernest~! Thanks to both you and Amy Goodman for this analysis. I've been captivated by her coverage of how these cables have directly impacted the lives and deaths of innocents all over the world, all in our name.

Thank you for highlighting the video, and writing so eloquently about the gross failures of this Constitutional Scholar of a president to abide by Constitutional Law.

Tepid Correction @ #13:
"While our electoral electronic votes may not be counted..."

Though both aren't, really, much.
Moot.

Truth is All have you seen this ...it seems to fit your hypotheses...
“AIPAC ORDERED BUSH TO ATTACK IRAN”

A highly placed source within the White House and CIA confirmed, in an interview, that the invasion of Iran was sheduled for 2006 but planned in 1999. We have heard some of this before but not with so many pieces and, I am told, more to

http://www.veteranstoday...red-bush-to-attack-iran/

Critical Thinker!

Why is Wiki-leaks supporting the US_Israel Agenda!?

http://globalresearch.ca...context=va&aid=22275

The suggestion by Brian & Mick that WikiLeaks is "supporting" the US/Israel agenda is absurd.

All that WikiLeaks did was release cables which expose the thought processes of members of the U.S. state department; their knowledge of evidence that contradicts the "public" statements of multiple regimes.

The fact that these previously classified cables contain statements supporting the US/Israel agenda does not mean that WikiLeaks "supports" that agenda.

WikiLeaks merely opened a window that allowed the press and the public access to inside information. WikiLeaks did not offer up an independent analysis of that inside information.

It is up to the press and the public to analyze this new information in light of what is already available in order to reach a conclusion as to whether the US/Israel agenda is something that should be opposed or supported.

Can someone please tell me when exactly will the rest of America "wake up" and see what is going on here? It is stories like this that really have me seriously thinking about running for public office so i can make a change.

Wleaks is a Mossad operation. Just like 9/11. I could give u links for proof or u could do ur own research. Start with Gordon Duff. Google is your friend.

Daniel Ellsberg is no hero. He is CIA. look it up. the PPapers was a diversion from CIA drug running and tied into framing Nixon in the Watergate mess because he was demanding answers aboutn JFK. it's all related.

this site has been great on election stealing machines,but as far as anything Zionista related or 9/11 truth........well, lets just say there are some questions as to how far they are willing to go.

The whole Wleaks scam has many motives and goals: promoting war on iran, getting "allies" like germany, SArabia, turkey, pak, to distrust each other and the US. Not a word in 260,000 cables is critical of genocide in Gaza? Nuclear games in Tel Aviv? Nothing about the five "dancing israelis" who were arrested after filming the the attacks on WTC FROM BEFORE THE FIRST PLANE HIT?

They were busted in a van with explosive residue.

But no diplomats have any concern about that or any of the hundreds of other smoking guns proving 9/11 was mossad/cia through and through? ok............right. Guess there cant be anything to it then. Guess Assclown was right to denigrate and rudely dismiss truth seekers.

Another result from this op will be massive clampdowns and restrictions on the internet so do your own research NOW. Print out or save all you can. Think for yourself.

Lately i been spending 4 hours every saturday out in the streets of DC with a Truth group(DC911Truth and WeAreChangedc) spreading the word. We are going to win this thing. Join us and be on the right side of history. Join a group in your area or start one. The time is NOW!

Critical Vs 'Black and White' Thinking

The Wiki-leaks documents that provide evidence for what is already understood should be accepted, the documents that echo what we already know to be US and Israeli propaganda should be understood as just that - US and Israeli propaganda. Is that so hard?

What about 9/11? "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud." What about the Bilderberg conference? "That is vaguely conspiratorial, in a networking sense. We have published their meeting notes."

Okay, so now Camusrebel has weighed in on the unfounded claim that the WikiLeaks release of secret state department cables, which expose many "official lies," is "a Mossad plot" with the equally absurd and unfounded claim that Dan Ellsberg's release of the Pentagon Papers, which exposed the lies of the CIA & Executive branch behind Vietnam, was actually a CIA plot.

Proof? Certainly not the weak, speculations provided by the piece Brian and Mick both link to under the name of "critical thinking."

The author of that piece wrote:

The Wiki-leaks documents need to be considered in a broader context. By all means, alternative news sites should continue to expose American, British and any another government inequity that the documents reveal. But where is the criticism of the rest of the documents that confirm the standard Israeli/American narrative - that Iran poses 'an existentialist threat' to Israel and to 'moderate' Arab states?

Does anyone care that these documents clearly support US and Israeli war-mongering? Does anyone else find that to be astonishing? Where is the critical thought?

But WikiLeaks has not offered a critical analysis with respect to any of the cables. It didn't say, for example, that documents confirming that the U.S. lied about its secret wars in Pakistan and Yemen were good or bad. It simply released previously classified documents. How we, as citizens of the world, analyze those documents is up to us.

The author of the linked critique, in asking "where is the critical thought?" obviously was unaware of the critical analysis that Noam Chomsky applied to the WikiLeaks cables during his 11/30 appearance on Democracy Now, which segment was provided by this piece. Perhaps one of you three can actually listen to what Chomsky had to say and then explain to me how Chomsky "confirm[ed] the standard Israeli/American narrative."

The term "critical thinking" must be applied to your own theories, your preference for conspiracies notwithstanding, as well as to theories advanced by others. In a fact-based world, it is "evidence" that is required to support a theory, and, so far, none of you have advanced any evidence to support your claim that WikiLeaks is a "Mossad plot."

What's next? Are you now going to tell me that Noam Chomsky is a Mossad agent?

Oh, one other point regarding the "critical thinking" piece. The State Department cables do not "confirm" that Iran is an existentialist threat. They merely establish that American and Israeli officials are making the same "claim" in private that they do publicly.

They also reveal that dictatorial Middle East leaders say one thing to Washington in private and another to their peoples. And, as Chomsky so forcefully argues, the effort by the U.S. State Department to parlay these private statements into Arab support for an attack on Iran displays a hatred for democracy, for those same State Department officials know that such an attack is overwhelming opposed by the vast majority of all people of Arabic descent.

CamusRebel @ 20 said:

Not a word in 260,000 cables is critical of genocide in Gaza?

Who knows? Only about 900 of them have been released. Anybody who tells you differently doesn't know what the hell they're talking about, and certainly doesn't know what's in the 259,000 that have yet to see the light of day.

Brad @25 is correct that only 900 of 260,000 cables have been released, but the gaping hole in CamusRebel's reasoning lies in the fact that WikiLeaks did not draft a single word in any of the 260,000 cables. WikiLeaks merely made public 900 state department cables that were previously obscured by a veil of secrecy.

If there is no mention of Israeli atrocities in the 900 cables, it is merely a reflection of the thought processes of individuals operating inside the U.S. State Department.

What would CamusRebel, Mick and Brian have WikiLeaks do? Alter the cables? Keep them secret because they don't say what these self-described "truthers" want them to say?

All that CamusRebel, Mick and Brian have proven is that some individual operate in a fact-free environment on the Left just as there are many who do so on the Right.

Time will tell .
We all know who's the "tail" and who's the " dog" .
We are all entitled to an "opinion" and that's all any of us have at this point.

"WHY WIKILEAKS DOESN’T ADD UP"

"One out of seven news outlets have noticed, thus far, that Wikileaks seems to have a “soft heart” when it comes to Israel and India. Zbigniew Brzezinski caught on, finally, declaring that Wikileaks is an “intelligence operation” using “pointed” information carefully “seeded” into a combination of minor scandals and chickenfeed.

There is absolutely no question for the press that Wikileaks is totally phony, we all know it, it is blatantly slanted, clearly not only anti-American but aimed at Islam, the easy target of all time. Wikileaks is also trying to be more and more clever about seeming less the Mossad “game theory” construct that we all know it is. The “clever” is fun to watch, more “ham handed” than esoteric."

http://www.veteranstoday...wikileaks-doesnt-add-up/

Mick, With all due respect your link to the Gordon Duff piece reflects that you do not understand the vital distinction between fact and opinion.

Duff states:

There is absolutely no question for the press that Wikileaks is totally phony, we all know it...

Saying there is "no question" proves nothing but that in Duff's mind he has accepted an unsubstantiated claim that "WikiLeaks is...phony." Duff does not offer one single fact to substantiate his unverified opinion. Instead, he relies upon the opinion of Zbigniew Brzezinsky, a former National Security Advisor whom Chalmers Johnson in Sorrows of Empire alleges "helped instigate the Afghan-Soviet war of the 1980s" and whom Professors Edward Herman & Noam Chomsky refer to in Manufacturing Consent not only as an old CIA hand but whom they link to the Mossad and CIA-connected Michael Ledeen.

WikiLeaks is the victim of a cyber attack and a smear campaign unmatched since the days of Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Did it ever occur to you that various intelligence agencies like the CIA and the Mossad would like nothing better than to discredit WikiLeaks and separate them from likely progressive support by planting spurious allegations of a Mossad connection to WikiLeaks, knowing that there are individuals like yourself who would buy into such rubbish without examining the facts?

Mick said:

We are all entitled to an "opinion" and that's all any of us have at this point.

Right. And I might suggest you inform your "opinion" with actual evidence. There seems to be none to back up your theory, or Gordon's, as far as I can tell. Yet he (and others here) seem to deliever it as if it's fact. As in the sections u quoted from his latest entirely-speculative piece, which reads (as you quoted it)...

One out of seven news outlets have noticed, thus far, that Wikileaks seems to have a "soft heart" when it comes to Israel and India.

That math is based on what? And, what does it mean to say that "Wikileaks seems to have a "soft heart" when it comes to Israel and India"? They have released documents by the U.S. State Dept which, therefore, reflect the "heart" of U.S. State Dept. positions. Is the U.S. "soft" for Israel and India? Obviously. Therefore, there communiques would reflect that. Duh. But, of course, it's all an Israeli conspiracy, as far as those who are inclined to believe that everything is such a conspiracy.

Zbigniew Brzezinski caught on, finally, declaring that Wikileaks is an "intelligence operation" using "pointed" information carefully "seeded" into a combination of minor scandals and chickenfeed.

No clue what the actual context is for Brzezinski's out-of-context comments because Gordon didn't feel it necessary to link to them, apparently. So we'll just take his word for that it he "caught on"? Okay. You'll pardon me if I prefer a bit more hard, independently verifiable evidence with my reporting.

There is absolutely no question for the press that Wikileaks is totally phony, we all know it,

"We" do? Who is "we", Kemosabe? Oh, you mean Gordon and the only other person he actually quotes who believes that, Wayne Madsen? If you put stock in the reportage of Wayne, then I've got a 3 million dollar check from the Saudis I'd be happy to sign over to ya.

Wikileaks is also trying to be more and more clever about seeming less the Mossad "game theory" construct that we all know it is. The "clever" is fun to watch, more "ham handed" than esoteric."

Who is being quoted there? Dunno. But I guess we should simply believe it as fact, of course. And what is the evidence for this "clever...Mossad 'game theory'"? Oh, um, none required I guess.

Yes. We're all entitled to our opinions, as you suggest. But might I suggest you go out and base yours on more than just one such "opinion". Actual evidence is always nice. Unless all you're looking to do is justify your own opinions with any sort of cherry-picked "opinion" you're able to find. That sort of thing seems to work well for Republicans, in support of their imaginery agenda on any particular thing ("global warming is a hoax", "tax cuts increase jobs and do not add to the deficit", "Obama is a Muslim from Kenya", "health care bill features death panels", ad nauseum).

Good luck with that. I'll be back here in the reality- and evidence-based world if you need me.

Time will tell .

If Daniel Ellsberg is CIA, Glenn Beck is a Harlem Globetrotter.

another angle ...

WikiLeaks 'struck a deal with Israel' over diplomatic cables leaks.

We should obviously all support WikiLeaks and its founder and spokesperson, Julian Assange, who has just been arrested in Britain, in this dirty war by states around the globe against transparency and openness. But in the world of politics, sadly, things are never as innocent as they appear. According to new revelations, Assange had allegedly struck a deal with Israel before the recent 'cable gate', which may explain why the leaks “were good for Israel,” as the Israeli prime minister put it.

A number of commentators, particularly in Turkey and Russia, have been wondering why the hundreds of thousands of American classified documents leaked by the website last month did not contain anything that may embarrass the Israeli government, like just about every other state referred to in the documents. The answer appears to be a secret deal struck between the WikiLeaks “heart and soul”, as Assange humbly described himself once [1], with Israeli officials, which ensured that all such documents were 'removed' before the rest were made public.

According to an Arabic investigative journalism website [2], Assange had received money from semi-official Israeli sources and promised them, in a “secret, video-recorded agreement,” not to publish any document that may harm Israeli security or diplomatic interests.

Link to original article...

http://www.indybay.org/n.../2010/12/07/18665978.php

[Ed Note: Article truncated. Mick, you should be well aware of our rules for commenting at The BRAD BLOG by now, which disallow the copy and pasting of complete articles published elsewhere. - BF]

"Your comment is awaiting moderation. "

mmmmmmmm ?

Mick said @ 33:

"Your comment is awaiting moderation. "

mmmmmmmm ?

As I'm fairly sure you know by now, there are certain things that trigger our spam filter that result in comments being put into "moderation" for review by an admin before they are published. Among those triggers are certain keywords, excessive number of URL's, etc. in the never-ending fight against comment spammers here. No way of knowing for certain, but as your original comment included a fully re-posted article with about 10 different URLs, that was most likely the reason it was put into the moderation queue. I've now liberated it (though truncated it, as noted there, since it was in violation of our rule disallowing copy/paste of complete articles into comments.)

As to the substance of the article you quoted, I very quickly looked at the key claims made by the pseudonymous author at IndyMedia to check the veracity of its sourcing, etc. in its main charge that "a secret deal [was] struck between ... Assange [and] Israeli officials, which ensured that all such documents [pertaining to Israel's Gaza incursion] were 'removed' before the rest were made public."

The support for this argument is weak tea, indeed, undermined by both the article itself and the original source material.

I have no particular disposition to defend Israel, but I do have a disposition towards defending both the truth and the veracity of journalism. So, to that end, even just a cursory examination of the claims reveals fairly serious concerns about the report you quoted.

Just by way of a few of those concerns, the article reports:

The sources of the Al-Haqiqa report are said to be former WikiLeaks volunteers who have left the organisation in the last few months over Assange's “autocratic leadership” and “lack of transparency.”

While the Al-Haqiqa report linked in the article is in Arabic, (so impossible at least for me to confirm directly), using AppliedLanguage.com's translator, it seems that there are not "sources" in that report, but rather a single source. That source, Daniel Domkhitt Berg, said to have been, at one time, Assange's second in command as a director at WikiLeaks, left the organization based on a dispute with Assange (in as much as the Arabic-to-English translation is understandable).

The IndyMedia article claims Al-Haqiqa says, based on their source, Berg, that "Assange had received money from semi-official Israeli sources and promised them, in a 'secret, video-recorded agreement,' not to publish any document that may harm Israeli security or diplomatic interests."

The article, however, does not either post that "video-recorded agreement" or even the actual email they claim they received from Berg that explains all of this.

So while the claim may be accurate, it comes from a single source (not multiple "sources" as claimed by IndyMedia), one with a grudge against Assange, in a Syrian newspaper with a grudge against Israel concerning documents that make many in the Arab world look very bad (by revealing they allegedly were saying one thing in public, that Israel is the greatest threat to the region, while conceding privately that a fellow Islamic nation, Iran, was actually the greatest threat in the region.) That alone doesn't make Al-Haqiqa inaccurate, but it should be well-noted (and it certainly casts doubts on the pseudonymous report from IndyMedia which seems to have misreported what was in the actual article.)

Moreover, the IndyMedia article goes on to make a number of claims which seem to be completely without merit, which, in my mind, seriously undermines the credibility of the entirety of their article. Example:

Following the leak (and even before), Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a press conference that Israel had “worked in advance” to limit any damage from leaks, adding that “no classified Israeli material was exposed by WikiLeaks.” [6]

That [6] footnote is a link to this report from Israel's Haaretz newspaper. The characterization by the IndyMedia reporter, however, that somehow Netanyahu was claiming there was some secret deal to "work in advance" with Wikileaks to avoid exposure of "clasified Israeli material" is not supported by the article, which offers the full quote from Netanyahu as such:

"Every Israeli leader has known for years that that dispatches are likely to leak out, so we adapted ourselves to the reality of leaks," he said. "That has a bearing on who I invite to meetings. No classified Israeli material was exposed by WikiLeaks."

In other words, Netanyahu seems to be saying that Israel knows that diplomatic opinions and communiques may well leak out, so they are careful not to say anything in private that they would not want to be exposed in public. That's a far cry from the thrust of the IndyMedia writer's general assertion.

Furthermore, while the (seemingly) damning, out of context quote from Netanyahu saying "no classified Israeli material was exposed by WikiLeaks" is clearly in support of IndyMedia's suggestion that WikiLeaks struck some deal with Assange, the fact is that no classified material from any country other than U.S. has yet to be leaked to my knowledge. All of the diplomatic cables so far released (appx 1000 of the 250,000 said to have been leaked to WL, reportedly by a U.S. Army Private with access to classified U.S. docs, as opposed to docs classified by other countries) are "classified" by the U.S., not by Israel or anybody else. So the use of Netanyahu's comment there would also seem to be inappropriate to the seemingly-nefarious case the IndyMedia writer was clearly trying to make.

Most damning of all, perhaps, (at least in my very cursory examination of the claims being made in the article you quoted), is this:

In an interview with the Time magazine around the same time, Assange praised Netanyahu as a hero of transparency and openness! [7]

That claim (including exclamation point!) certainly sounds damning in support of the writer's case. Unfortunately, it's a complete misrepresentation of what Assange actually said in that TIME interview and seems to be a simple parroting of what was claimed in the original Al-Haqiqa article, both points which serve to further damage credibility for the original Syrian source material and the IndyMedia report.

Here's the complete TIME interview as linked by IndyMedia. If you can point out to me where Assange "praised Netanyahu as a hero of transperancy and openness!", I'd be happy to see it. The authors (both in IndyMedia and Al-Haqiqa) completely warped Assange's comments on Netanyahu, apparently, to make them out to be what they wanted them to be in support of what they wanted readers to believe about the case both article are (poorly) making.

Again, I point all of this out not by way of defending Israel, who I have no interest in defending (except against unmerited attacks, as I'd defend anyone against), and certainly not in the hopes of defending Netanyahu who I really really have no interest in defending, but rather to point out that you have a predisposition to hate/attack Israel, as proven here over many years of commenting. Your disposition against Israel may be for good reason, I wouldn't begin to guess its motivation, but your assertions here about them are often without any actual merit, at least based on the claims you frequently make and the evidence (or lack thereof) you provide in support of it.

You are as predisposed to blame Israel for all things wrong in the world, if not more so, than U.S. media generally are to uncritically support them. That greatly weakens your case and your credibility in these matters.

The basic claim made by the single source in the Al-Haqiqa paper may well be true. I do not know at this point. But the evidence offered in support of that claim is very very weak. You'd be well-advised to be as critical of the material you offer in support of your pre-conceived beliefs as you are against those who you believe are a part of the conspiracy you allege to be behind so much of the evil in this world.

You're not a journalist, so you have no requirement to do so. But real journalists do, as far as I'm concerned. And they, like you, also have a moral imperative to try and verify the legitimacy of extraordinary claims before passing them on as if they are fact, simply because they fit with your preconceived notions of "the truth".

Frankly, I think responding to the baseless "WikiLeaks/Mossad" connection claim has already consumed far too much of our time, except with regard to the always relevant question of shoddy journalism which is the topic of Brad's comment @34.

I'll hone in on one specific allegation contained in Mick's Indybay link:

In an interview with the Time magazine around the same time, Assange praised Netanyahu as a hero of transparency and openness!

Unfortunately for the writer of the Indybay piece, examination of the Time interview reflects that Assange did not cite Netanyahu as a "hero of transparency and openness." Instead, he cited Netanyahu's remarks to counter the suggestion that Assange was being naïve to suggest that world leaders should say the same thing in private that they say in public.

RS: We talked a little bit about this earlier, your desired outcome from the leaking of this information is presumably, as you said, that world leaders and officials would say the same things in public that they say in private. Um, lots...of people would regard that as naive...

JA: Well, I was quoting Netanyahu, who [is] certainly not a naive man.

RS: But the effect, by the way, Mr. Assange, for Netanyahu, is that what he's been saying publicly — i.e., Arab leaders have privately been saying that Iran is the greatest threat, and they want Israel and the U.S. to do something — the revelations have been in his interest.

JA: Of course. We're talking about a sophisticated politician who is of that sentiment he's on the side of, in this issue….I think this disclosure of diplomatic information, which is often third-hand, will allow people to understand more clearly these sort of broad activities of the U.S. State Department, which acts not, of course, in the interest of the U.S. people but in the interest of the State Department...

Instead of praising "Netanyahu as as a hero of transparency and openness," Assange is asserting that Netanyahu is a "sophisticated politician" who extols the virtue of saying publicly what he says privately where it is in what Netanyahu believes is Israel's interest. Assange's addition that the U.S. Diplomatic cables contain third hand information separates the pro-Israeli content of those cables from the interests of the American people.

From everything I've seen to date, it appears that Indybay et al. have erected claims of an Israel/WikiLeaks connection from careless reading, unconfirmed allegations from someone who could well have an alternative agenda, and outright speculation.

How convenient for those whose lies are exposed by the WikiLeaks cables. Every moment we spend focusing on these questionable efforts to discredit WikiLeaks is time we are not focusing on the substance of the released cables.

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." Franklin D. Roosevelt ...

"Only time will tell".

From Dimona to the "five dancing Israeli's" Israel deserves to be kept under the microscope.
Thank you both for your analysis of the linked articles.

"Israel deserves to be kept under the microscope."

Everyone deserves to be kept under the microsope. That's our job.

In regard those "five dancing Israeli's", if you haven't seen the discussion about that over in this thread, please do. You probably already have, but just mentioning it in case you haven't.