[Peace-discuss] Liberals Smear Wikileaks

[C. G. Estabrook]

	Liberals Smear Wikileaks
	Mother Jones and Colbert go after Wikileaks
	by Justin Raimondo, April 14, 2010

Activists intent on releasing evidence of crimes committed by a powerful 
government are harassed and followed by police and intelligence agents: 
a restaurant in which they are meeting comes under surveillance, and, 
subsequently, one of their number is detained by the police for 21 
hours. Their leader is followed on an international flight by two 
agents: and, in a parking lot of foreign soil, one of their number is 
accosted by a "James Bond character" and threatened. Computers are 
seized, and on the group’s Twitter account the following message appears:

"If anything happens to us, you know why … and you know who is responsible."

Well, then, who is responsible? Surely it must be some totalitarian 
regime – say, the Chinese, or one of the Arab autocracies – but no. The 
culprits are the Americans, and their target is Wikileaks – the web site 
of record for leaked government and other official documents, which has 
so far done more real investigative reporting in the last few years to 
unnerve and expose the Powers That Be than the New York Times and the 
Washington Post, combined.

 From the dicey activities of major banks, to the "Climate-gate" e-mails 
that revealed attempts by government scientists to falsify or "sex up" 
data to make the case for global warming, to the war crimes committed by 
US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, Wikileaks is fearlessly exposing the 
evil that stalks the world – and they, in turn, are being relentlessly 
stalked by the US government and its minions.

A US government document [.pdf] posted on Wikileaks, and authored by 
Michael D. Horvath, of something called the "Cyber Counterintelligence 
Assessments Branch," apparently a division of the Army 
Counterintelligence Center, declared Wikileaks to be a danger to 
national security. The report explored several ways to track the 
provenance of documents posted on the Wikileaks site, and take down the 
site itself. Horvath cites a supposed lack of "editorial review" which 
means "the Wikileaks.org Web site could be used to post fabricated 
information; to post misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda; or 
to conduct perception management and influence operations designed to 
convey a negative message to those who view or retrieve information from 
the Web site."

Oh no!

Furthermore, "it must be presumed that Wikileaks.org has or will receive 
sensitive or classified DoD documents in the future. This information 
will be published and analyzed over time by a variety of personnel and 
organizations with the goal of influencing US policy."

Shocking! Why, how dare these perfidious personnel and obviously 
subversive organizations presume to imagine they could possibly 
influence US policy! Horvath lists a number of "foreign" intelligence 
agencies – the Russians, the British, the Israelis – who have the 
technical capacity to shut Wikileaks down, and alludes to a more subtle 
effort by averring:

"Efforts by some domestic and foreign personnel and organizations to 
discredit the Wikileaks.org Web site include allegations that it 
wittingly allows the posting of uncorroborated information, serves as an 
instrument of propaganda, and is a front organization of the US Central 
Intelligence Agency (CIA)."

Horvath goes on to detail all the criticism of Wikileaks that have 
appeared in the general media, including the blogosphere, and now that 
the "Collateral Murder" video has been released – with another one, 
showing similar atrocities in Afghanistan, on the way – the techniques 
described by Horvath are being implemented by the Obama administration’s 
media shills to discredit and marginalize Wikileaks, particularly 
targeting its founder, Julian Assange.

First up is Mother Jones magazine, a citadel of Bay Area high liberalism 
and the left-wing of the Obama cult, with a long article by one David 
Kushner. The piece is essentially a critical profile of Assange, who is 
described as an egotist in the first few paragraphs, and it goes 
downhill from there. Most of the article is a collection of dishy quotes 
from various "experts" – including from the apparently quite jealous 
(and obviously demented) editor of Cryptome.org, a similar site, who 
says Wikileaks is CIA front. Steven Aftergood, author of the Federation 
of American Scientists’ Secrecy News blog, "says he wasn’t impressed 
with WikiLeaks’ ‘conveyor-belt approach’ to publishing anything it came 
across. ‘To me, transparency is a means to an end, and that end is an 
invigorated political life, accountable institutions, opportunities for 
public engagement. For them, transparency and exposure seem to be ends 
in themselves,’ says Aftergood. He declined to get involved."

To begin with, quite obviously Assange and the Wikileaks group have a 
political goal in, say, publishing the Iraq massacre video – which is to 
stop the war, end the atrocities, and expose the war crimes of this 
government to the light of day. Surely the video, and the ones to come, 
will continue to "invigorate" our political life – perhaps a bit more 
than the Aftergoods of this world would like.

Kushner contacted a few members of the Wikileaks advisory board who 
claim they never agreed to serve – and gets one of them, computer expert 
Ben Laurie, to call Assange "weird." Kushner adds his own description: 
"paranoid: – and yet Laurie’s own paranoia comes through loud and clear 
when he avers:

"WikiLeaks allegedly has an advisory board, and allegedly I’m a member 
of it. I don’t know who runs it. One of the things I’ve tried to avoid 
is knowing what’s going on there, because that’s probably safest for all 
concerned.”

This is really the goal of harassing and pursuing government critics: 
pure intimidation. With US government agents stalking Assange as he 
flies to a conference in Norway, and one attempted physical attack in 
Nairobi, Assange is hated by governments and their shills worldwide. And 
Mother Jones certainly is a shill for the Obama administration, a 
virtual house organ of the Obama cult designed specifically for Bay Area 
limousine liberals who’ll gladly turn a blind eye to their idol’s war 
crimes – and cheer on the Feds as they track Assange’s every move and 
plot to take him down.

Kushner asks "Can WikiLeaks be trusted with sensitive, and possibly 
life-threatening, documents when it is less than transparent itself?" 
Oh, what a good question: why shouldn’t Wikileaks make itself 
"transparent" to the US government, and all the other governments whose 
oxen have been viciously gored by documents posted on the site? Stop 
drinking the bong water, Kushner, and get a clue.

Kushner quotes one Kelly McBride, "the ethics group leader" at the 
Poynter Institute for Media Studies, as saying Wikileaks suffers from "a 
distorted sense of transparency.” This Orwellian turn of phrase is an 
indicator of how the mind of a government shill works. Says McBride: 
“They’re giving you everything they’ve got, but when journalists go 
through process of granting someone confidentiality, when they do it 
well, they determine that source has good information and that the 
source is somehow deserving of confidentiality.”

I want to ask this "ethics group leader" if someone who works for the US 
government and has evidence of war crimes committed by that government, 
"is somehow deserving of confidentiality?" Yes or no? If no, then you 
had better reexamine the "ethics" upheld by you and the Poynter 
Institute. By the way, nothing about McBride’s views are at all 
surprising, given that the Poynter Institute is promoting the idea of 
government subsidies to the American media. If McBride & Co. aren’t 
already on the government payroll, then they should be. Same goes for 
the ubiquitous Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters 
Committee for the Freedom of the Press, who "thinks WikiLeaks’ approach 
gives fresh ammunition to those who seek to pressure journalists to 
cough up the names of their unnamed sources. She forbids her staff from 
using the site as a source."

Ms. Dalglish has her head screwed on backwards: that’s the only possible 
explanation for an organization ostensibly devoted to press freedom 
joining the government’s pushback against Wikileaks. She should resign – 
or be impeached – forthwith. Far from pressuring journalists, Wikileaks 
is an essential asset to the profession: it provides them not only with 
more sources, but also with a convenient fallback: "I got it from 
Wikileaks." This decreases pressure on journalists pressed to identify 
their sources: they can always blame it on Assange and his fellow 
Scarlet Pimpernels of the Internet.

A child could understand this, but it’s way beyond the executive 
director of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, and 
also far beyond the comprehension of the "liberal" Mother Jones 
magazine, which ought to change its name to Encounter. Kushner "reports" 
this nonsense uncritically, and even cites the loony John Young, of 
Cryptome.org, who rants:

"’WikiLeaks is a fraud,’ [Young] wrote to Assange’s list, hinting that 
the new site was a CIA data mining operation. ‘Fuck your cute hustle and 
disinformation campaign against legitimate dissent. Same old shit, 
working for the enemy.’"

Kushner has all bases covered: the white-wine-and-brie liberals who 
would rather look the other way while their hero Obama slaughters 
children on the streets of Baghdad, and the tinfoil hat crowd who can be 
convinced Wikileaks is a "false flag" operation.

The positive impact of Wikileaks is "debatable," avers Kushner – 
especially if you’re an Obamaite intent on covering up the fact of US 
war crimes, because of the political damage it might inflict on your 
"progressive" coalition. As evidence of this "debatability," Kushner 
tries to blame the assassination of two Kenyan dissidents on the 
publication of documents on Wikileaks exposing Kenyan corruption – which 
seems a blatant case of diverting the real blame from where it really 
belongs, and that is on the Kenyan government and its death squads. No, 
it just won’t wash – and this is certainly a curious argument for an 
ostensibly liberal magazine, supposedly devoted to human rights, to 
make. But then again, anything is possible if you’ve decided to become a 
government apologist and errand boy.

Speaking of government apologists and errand boys, Steven Colbert of The 
Colbert Report on Comedy Central had Assange on Monday night, and it was 
the Mother Jones piece with a snarky grin and a laugh track. Colbert 
dropped the comic mask, and let his true face as a loyal Obamaite shine 
through, reciting Pentagon lies and attacking Assange for having edited 
"Collateral Murder," and even for giving it that title. He then opined 
Assange was "emotionally manipulating" people – an echo of Horvath’s 
analysis, which denounced Wikileaks as "disinformation" and 
"propaganda." "Collateral Murder" was "an editorial," not real 
reporting, said Colbert, but looked a bit surprised when Assange calmly 
pointed out that the assertion of a nearby firefight is "a lie." "We 
have classified information" to the contrary, Assange said, with calm 
assurance. You could hear a pin drop when he said that the report of 
"some gunfire" preceded the killings by twenty minutes and miles away 
from the reported location.

What was supposed to have been a "gotcha" interview turned into a 
triumph for Wikileaks. Colbert, the court jester in King Obama’s court, 
missed his target by a country mile. This failed ambush, coupled with 
the Mother Jones hit piece, tell us all we need to know about what 
political discourse in Obama’s America is going to be like. Obama’s 
political police are after Wikileaks, and specifically Assange, and the 
liberal smear brigade is going to go after him hammer and tongs. The 
Obamaites know that a great chunk of their liberal base opposes the wars 
in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their Dear Leader could easily find himself 
in the same position as Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1968. No wonder there 
were two US State Department officials following Assange on that 
international flight: will Hillary Clinton, their boss, tell us what 
they were doing, and on what authority?

The spying on Wikileaks, and attempts by the US government to take down 
and/or discredit this valuable Internet resource, is taking place on 
Obama’s watch, and under the direction of his appointed officials. The 
entire apparatus of surveillance and repression developed under the Bush 
administration has been adopted by and expanded on by the Obamaites This 
is a regime that has now decided it’s okay to assassinate American 
citizens, but foreign-born terrorists plotting to kill Americans must be 
tried in a US court and given free lawyers.

And if that doesn’t prove we’ve entered Bizarro World, via the Twilight 
Zone, then I don’t know how else to explain it.

While Assange is being tailed by Hillary’s gendarmes, and a brazen 
campaign of intimidation is being carried out by government agencies 
against a legal organization and web site, the "liberals" over at Mother 
Jones are doing their bit by trying to discredit Assange, and Wikileaks, 
in progressive circles. Judging from the comments attached to Kushner’s 
piece, it isn’t working all that well.

When are conservatives going to wake up and smell the coffee? Probably 
when Obama’s thugs come after them and their dinky little web sites, if 
ever they become a threat to the regime. This is blowback, guys: the 
very spying and surveillance you wanted as weapons in the "war on 
terrorism" are now being turned on critics of a liberal Democratic 
administration. They’re going after the web site that published the 
"Climate-gate" emails — and you’re next!

And when are liberals going to wake up and smell the fact that their 
Dear Leader has betrayed the Revolution, and is in many ways worse than 
his predecessor? At least you knew Bush was an authoritarian. Obama puts 
a "reasonable" and even "liberal" face on what is, essentially, the same 
doctrine of executive and governmental supremacism. What’s interesting 
is to listen to liberals now sounding like the once-hated neocons, 
smearing anyone who stands in their way and justifying an increasingly 
unpopular and costly war. The real Mother Jones must be spinning in her 
grave.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/04/13/liberals-smear-wikileaks/

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.