Notice how the U.S. gov't media claims WikiLeaks is being attacked by hackers:
Joni Simonshvilihttp://www.voanews.com/english/news/WikiLeaks-Site-Under-Attack-Again-Promises-Major-Release-on-US-Bank--111049494.html The thing is, "hackers", as in "computer hackers" that target major corporations and governments, would be *on* the side of WikiLeaks, not the other way around, as the VOA claims. The only side that would be "hacking" wikileaks is the gov't. If "hackers" are doing it, then they are employed by the U.S. gov't. Oh, by the way, wasn't the "U.S. government" [supposed] to have been governed by 'the people'? When, why, and how did it become the enemy of 'the people'?
This all reminds me of Goldstein and 1984 - the present system of siddemination of information to the public not only in the US but internationally more closely resembles the Orewellian state, where misinformation and disinformation are deliberately broadcasted in the former of a "Newspeak" language, which has been stripped bare of any political content.
In many parts of the world, as in Egypt, Georgia and Azerbaijan (to name just a few) many media outlets operate out of fear if they are now operating at all under the former business model. Take for instance in Georgia with Georgian Public TV and Rustavi2, both considered as official mouthpieces of the state. They are actively involved in conveying the government's official perspective devoid of actual news and commentary.
Even the recent WikliLeak story is not totally understood - as thus far, extensive redaction and blanking out the names of State Dep's informants in Tbilisi, on the grounds that it would endanger the lives of their assets, is commonplace and without more openness the impact in actually being able to change US foreign policy will be limited.
Wikileaks hasn't really started publishing yet. From what I've heard of interviews with editors of the NYT and others, there is a dialogue process where Assange & co gets advice from newspapers about how much to redact. The Times advised Wikleaks to redact the names of informants from NGOs and media. Therefore, nobody should expect who to know who the spies and murderers of PM are in Tbilisi and other places in the world.
cablegate.wikileaks.org georgiaChina's ambassador to Kazakhstan, Cheng Guoping, thought in June last year that Russia will use military force to overthrow Saakashvili, and that Burjanadze will become next president. He says Condi Rice encouraged Saakashvili to attack: http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10MOSCOW392.html
Some things just don't add up, and as one American shared recently, "come on man, these are little bon bons that were combed over by intel before being released by intel to their little monkey op, Julian Assange.
There are many reasons to conclude that WikiLeaks is a CIA/NSA controlled leak operation. Here are just a few:1. WikiLeaks curator Assange is a free man. The U.S. black-bags people around the country with no evidence whatsoever on some vague suspicions of anti-U.S. behavior or sentiments. Revokes passports of US citizens, Yet, while claiming Assange has leaked classified military information, Assange has not even been indicted by a Federal Grand Jury. 2. The U.S. could easily seize Assange's computers and also has the technical ability to shut off access to his sites, but that hasn't happened. 3. The U.S. has the ability to track every breath Assange takes, but has not definitively discovered Assange's sources. 4. It is VERY unlikely that a PFC (or any other single individual) would have access to the wide variety of data attributed to one individual source in each of these major leaks, let alone the ability to remove that data from military computer systems. 5. The WikiLeaks disclosures are obviously "cleaned" -- they lack anything truly sensational, including the types of sensational information that close observers know to exist.