Just the Facts on Wikileaks

Reading the many articles pertaining to the current Wikileak’s drama, one notices the overall feel that they have been copied and paste from a talking points memo. As for the facts surrounding the case, most are originating from an article published on Wired.com. This piece written by Kevin Poulsen started this whole ball of wax. The unsubstantiated hearsay that was reported as fact have been transformed and reported as facts, by almost every one of these propaganda copy and past stories.

Wikileaks.com is a site that utilizes several techniques that enable whistle-blowers an outlet to leak their information autonomously. Even the site themselves cannot identify who sends them information or where it originated.  Discrediting Wikileaks while discouraging others from thinking it’s safe, is discussed in a leaked Government report posted on the site. It goes on to lay out the operation and its objectives in great detail. Interesting how this Manning event follows these guidelines, coincidence?  

To say Manning is absolutely the person behind the Collateral Murder video leak is entirely the words of Adrian Lamo. In addition to this hearsay, he makes this statement without even knowing that the person on the other end of the text and email communications was in fact Manning. Lamo, who I tend to believe is telling us the truth as far as the events that transpired between him and that someone, could be unaware that he might be part of a larger conspiracy created by those in the report, attempting to permanently silence Wikileaks.com and its founder Julian Assang.  

I’ve stated previously in “Something Smell Funny and it’s Not Wikileaks”, published last week, the Wired.com story contains numerous holes as well as claims I find increasingly very hard to swallow. In direct contrast the piece by Glenn Greenwald, of Salon.com, The strange and consequential case of Bradley Manning, Adrian Lamo and WikiLeaks is by far the only one to exhibit real journalism. His information comes straight from Lamo himself. He even goes so far as to post the recordings of his interview on the site, so the reader can make their own conclusion. A practice I feel should be mandatory across the board as a way to eliminate bias and dishonesty that runs ramped in the media.  

Overall this smells increasingly foul. The relationship between Lamo and one the writers of the Wired.com article, Kevin Poulsen, along with Wired.com itself should be examined very closely. They want us to believe they communicated with someone, who, one would assume was under investigation, and was able to publish an article about it, without so much as the FBI issuing a statement, or gag order to preserve evidence needed to pursue criminal charges?

Wired.com even admits that government officials they spoke to, had no knowledge of Manning being detained.  

I personally attempted to verify Brads residence, but was only successful in finding his aunt and father, and located them along with other relatives residing at their respective addresses, but no listing of Brad. This all stinks to high heavens. It resembles more a PsyOp used to sway the public’s opinion and to discourage future whistle-blowers.  

Wikileaks has even paid for a legal team to represent Manning, but they have yet to be allowed see or talk to Manning. All very suspicions, casting serious doubt on the entire event. At the heart of the debate should be Wired.com’s Kevin Poulsen story. But until we are granted access to key individuals, the questions will remain unanswered and Manning will sit on my shelf right next to the “Underwear Bomber”, “Shoe Bomber”, “NY Times Square Bomber”, “Al-Qaeda” and the “Boogie Man” (who I almost caught the other night, but my camera batteries were dead).

The whole story is fiction, if you ask me.

DallasGoldBug