WikiLeaks' Useful Idiots: the Incurious Media and the Enemy Within by Susan Swift 3 Dec 2010 post a comment Share This: Folks, it's not called WikiHacks. Nowhere in the news have I seen reports of hack attacks into CIA or State Department files. Last time WikiLeaks well, uh, leaked, it had lots of help from an insider -allegedly the low level (read low life) intel flunkie Bradley Manning who described the prospect of disclosing vast amounts of state secrets as "beautiful and horrifying." Obvious conclusion that you won't see in the Make-Believe Media: This isn't diplomatic rape -- it's incest. America's enemies are attacking from within. And the Media is running a screen. Time magazine can Skype with WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange. And a private computer hacker can shut down WikiLeaks' site for several hours, something the global governments just can't seem to do. Lots to learn there. But hey, Interpol has just placed Assange on its worldwide wanted list for "sex crimes." Yes, it takes an international government village to fail where the private sector suceeds. All this may beg the question: Does the U.S. government really want to shut WikiLeaks down? What useful purpose does WikiLeaks serve? Time's lede may contain the answer. WikiLeaks' Founder Julian Assange thinks U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should leave and never come back, a sentiment Bloomberg says Hugo Chavez shares. Apparently, the Make-Believe Media think we should care what an America-loathing InfoWeasel and a clown dictator think about our former First Lady. I'd say that was a pretty strong tell about who the liberals fear might end Obama's second term chances in the 2012 primaries. The media had info from Manning way back in June that WikiLeaks was targeting Hillary Clinton via a massive foreign policy leak. So why single out Hillary for the media attack now? To whom does Hillary pose a threat? Is it a coincidence that we are 13 months away from the 2012 Iowa Caucus and that this WikiLeaks dump - and the well-timed call for Hillary's resignation - occurs just four weeks after the incumbent President suffered a major political defeat? And, why only call for Hillary's resignation? She doesn't make the foreign policy that Assange/Chavez condemns, she merely implements the policy set by the President. Why then are some in the media floating Hillary as the fall guy now? Before the second WikiLeaks' data dump, I connected some dots and raised some questions regarding the White House's relationship with The New York Times, its WikiLeaks' go-to reporter Eric Schmitt, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and WikiLeaks. The muddled AP reporting surrounding negotiations with WikiLeaks appeared to provide coordinated cover for the White House's impotent dawdling. Had these leaks occurred during the Bush Administration, you can bet Senate hearings would have already wrapped up with indictments issued right up Private Manning's chain of command and including any Republican who ever used a computer. Now with this third round of leaks giving us an inside tour of the diplomatic sausage factory, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is finally no longer "saber rattling" and has solemnly threatened to find the WikiLeaks' spring. Hmmm. But that would take work and might expose all sorts of people up the chain of command. Much easier and more politically expediant for the White House to simply to play the blame game. Besides, what's to investigate? I thought we had plugged the low life leaker Manning. Case solved. Still, does anyone really believe that a low level nobody can access and download 600+ super secret State department files without red flags popping up on some one's laptop somewhere? And if so, if US government cyber security is as vulnerable as Private Manning boasts, it's really way past time to privatize the system. Why not contract the entire U.S. security to Steve Jobs instead of the bureaucratic Marx Brothers? Back to the point: Someone inside the federal government does not like America keeping secrets. Someone is helping WikiLeaks. Someone is pleased by weakening American power abroad. Someone also has plenty of motive to ruin Hillary Clinton's chance for a presidential run in 2012. Shouldn't someone in the Make-Believe Media start asking more questions?