Sunday, July 25, 2010

Leaks -- Part Ia (Now with 2xUPDATE!!! )

Of course today, three publications -- Der Spiegel, the New York Times, and the Guardian UK -- put out stories on the 90,000 field reports from Afghanistan that detail what a cockup that little endeavor has been from the outset. These reports were delivered to these publications more than a month ago with the proviso that they not be reported on until WikiLeaks "officially" released them today.

What? How is it that these three prestigious publications would agree to such terms? Especially if, as was reported in the NYT, the entire document dump was delivered weeks ago, and the Times has spent the interim following up, doing additional investigation and reporting and getting confirmations? If the news was so important, wouldn't they have reported it -- even in truncated form -- many days or weeks ago? Instead, they were mediating conversations between the White House and Julian Assange.

Andrew Breitbart was able to paralyze and direct the media and the Government last week; this week it is Julian Assange's turn.

Something's not right.

Something is definitely not right.

Factions within Government is my suspicion, still. The amount of material in this "leak" is daunting, so daunting I doubt anyone will read it all. But no matter. The point is that things have never been what we were being told they were in Afghanistan. Things are worse. Much worse.

My impression is that this "leak" is intended to set the stage for withdrawal. But there are wheels within wheels. More than meets the eye.

Guardian UK

New York Times

Der Spiegel

UPDATE -- Interesting.

Julian says:

We have delayed the release of some 15,000 reports from total archive as part of a harm minimization process demanded by our source. After further review, these reports will be released, with occasional redactions, and eventually, in full, as the security situation in Afghanistan permits.

The New York Times says:

The Times and the other news organizations agreed at the outset that we would not disclose — either in our articles or any of our online supplementary material — anything that was likely to put lives at risk or jeopardize military or antiterrorist operations. We have, for example, withheld any names of operatives in the field and informants cited in the reports. We have avoided anything that might compromise American or allied intelligence-gathering methods such as communications intercepts. We have not linked to the archives of raw material. At the request of the White House, The Times also urged WikiLeaks to withhold any harmful material from its Web site.

Now I'm sure there is a perfectly acceptable rationalization for the remarkable similarity between what Julian says his source asked and what the White House asked of WikiLeaks through the New York Times.

Could someone in the White House be the source?



UPDATE -- And another thing.

It will be more than interesting to see if Julian is on all the shows again, and if this story is the lead story for the rest of the week, just as Andrew Breitbart was on all the shows and his smear of Shirley Sherrod was the lead story for most of last week.

In addition to which, I wonder if the same faction is behind both "whistle-blower" events.

No comments:

Post a Comment