03-01-2011, 06:35 PM
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
04-01-2011, 07:43 AM
Follow Up Letter to Glenn Greenwald on the Subject of Wikileaks: Who Are You Going to Believe? Me or Cass Sunstein?
Posted on January 3, 2011 by willyloman
by Scott Creighton
Glenn;
Again, I want to thank you for taking the time to address the Open Letter and my subsequent emails on the subject. I will address your statements and questions you sent in the three emails at this point.
In late 2006 when Wikileaks was formed, there was already a great deal of concern about the serious threat leaks may pose to the imperial agenda that the Bush regime was following. In 2004 the Abu Ghraib photos went public, becoming the biggest story since Shock And Awe began and Seymour Hersh was writing about them in the New Yorker. Then that same year, the torture memos came out and the shit really hit the fan. In May of 2005, the Downing Street Memos popped up. In the end, they probably set in motion the process that cost Tony Blair his job. In early 2007 Hersh wrote about how the General Taguba was forced into retirement for exposing the efforts of Rumsfeld to squash the Taguba Report and cover-up crimes of torture and abuse of detainees in his custody. It is not difficult to conclude that in the end Rumsfeld lost his job over leaks as well. There had been other damaging leaks as well at that point, but this list of some of the "biggies" should serve to make my point adequately.
The entire point of the Global War on Terror (Global Free Market Wars, as I call them) is to create an ever-changing, ever shifting, new global target as a pretext for invasion and occupation of foreign nations much like in previous decades when the "economic hitmen" would attempt to undermine the economies of targeted nations in order to allow the IMF and their Chicago School style "shock therapy" economic model to gain control.
Thanks to the Global War on Terror, these days all one has to do is claim there is a branch affiliate of al Qaeda operating in some country and off we go… examples… Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen… just to name a few.
There is a great deal of power and money at stake here and when you consider the fact that real leaks had already posed a serious problem and threat to that agenda before Wikileaks was even created, it only makes sense that someone would try to come up with a way to mitigate it.
In late 2006 Wikileaks was formed around the same time that intelligence agencies formed two other "Wikipedia" type systems for their own use. "Oogle" and "Intelipedia" were created in Sept. of 2006, about the same time Julian Assange was contacting people in the hacker world trying to put together a project he called "Wikileaks".
For more information on the roots of Wikileaks, try reading this.
Personally, given the history of Wikileaks, when someone like Cass Sunstein mentions the buzz words "conspiracy theory" I tend to take notice. Much like when Abe Foxman or George W. Bush use them. It's a cheap ploy to limit rational discourse and critical thinking.
There is a bit of the history of Wikileaks.
Let's take a look at your arguments now…
Back to your question. You link me to your article titled "What Wikileaks Revealed to the World in 2010″. This is a collection of articles you have put together which supposedly show the value of Wikileaks as a truth revealing site.
I won't bother linking to you the many articles you left out which Wikileaks has also offered up to the world presenting various discredited state department friendly "truths" like.. North Korea providing missiles to Iran, Iran aiding the attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq, Pakistan aiding the attacks on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, various implications that the people and leaders of the Arab world want the U.S. to "regime change" Iran… so forth and so on.
You left those particular gems out of the discussion and so will I.
But, I could in fact provide you with a list probably twice as long as yours with these discredited globalization friendly tidbits of misinformation.
The first one you list is the "Collateral Damage" video which shows a U.S. gunship firing on two journalists and their group. As I have already explained to you, that first big-time attention-getting "leak" is troubling in the sense that it does show civilians getting killed, but I think it was carefully chosen. That wasn't a rape or torture… it showed a group being fired upon, two members of which had Ak-47s, they were less than 6 blocks from a gunfight, and in the end it depicted U.S. soldiers saving the lives of two kids who were shot while they could not be seen inside the van. Why would they release that? Because it creates credibility for Wikileaks while it only really depicts something we already knew… civilians get killed in Iraq. And in that case, an ARMED group and the soldiers did what they could to save kids lives. Got it?
The next one you list is of soldiers gleefully talking about shooting those people. Do I really have to explain how pointless it is to say soldiers enjoy shooting "the terrorists"?
The next one is from Oct. 2010 and I suppose it ranks up there in your books because you skipped what looked like a developing chronological order.
This deals with the recent "leak" that claims that the U.S. looked the other way as Iraqis tortured civilians. Let's go back to all those real leaks and the Taguba Report. This "leak" claims that we aren't torturing folks, it's all those evil Iraqis doing it, the ones we have to get rid of. You know, I wrote about this "leak" and how it was being misrepresented all across the desperate liberal blog-o-sphere.
I showed that in those cables they clearly stated that investigations were ongoing and that the victims (of Iraqi on Iraqi abuse) were being given the proper medical treatment.
Now, I could go on and on with this. But let us just say for argument, that you are not deliberately trying to mislead anyone, you are just doing what Cass Sunstein and many others back in the day knew you would… you are seeing what you want to see in the Wikileaks and ignoring the rest.
This is done on an individual, leak by leak, basis and it is done (as exemplified by your list of only the "leaks" that you consider useful and respectable by those of us on the dissident mainstream) by your part, in your list of "What Wikileaks Revealed in 2010″
You are cherry-picking the leaks Glenn. Not only are you cherry-picking just the leaks you think do us some good, but you are also cherry-picking the context and even the text of those leaks themselves.
Let's move on…
What do we actually know about this story, Glenn? Assange has admitted that he doesn't know where these "leaks" came from… Manning has never admitted to sending anything… and all we have, the ENTIRE story, comes from a guy you yourself have concluded is an FBI informant and of highly suspicious character. Now, you are even engaged in a fight with Wired to get them to release all of the suspect instant messages between Manning and Lamo because they refuse to do it.
"big government plot"? Seems to me that is just Lamo, another guy from Wired who was also busted by the FBI, and possibly a group at the NSA… how "big" is that?
But to answer your question… do you support rapists? Do you think rapists should go to jail? So why do you support Assange? Answer: the first story that came out was that the condom broke… remember? The story that is coming out to people like you and Amy Goodman and Michael Moore is that the whole thing is a set-up, right?
Now another part of the story comes out. It wasn't a broken condom, it was Assange holding a woman down and forcing himself on her and then doing about the same thing to another woman days later while she was sleeping. Is that rape? I call that rape. Now THAT is the story they put out to discredit him and ultimately justify his prosecution. Of course, you ignore that story or discredit it.
The point is, without threat of prosecution, we wouldn't be discussing any of this… so that is why the "big government plot" needed to create that story. To get legitimate reporters like you to spend all of your time focusing on Julian Assange rather than all the other stuff going on right now.
That's why Glenn.
How many Iraqi union leaders are in black sites right now? How many opposition party members? How about resistance members in Afghanistan? How many journalists have been disappeared in Mexico?
Julian is living in a mansion owned by a guy who's business has ties to George Soros (a man who had made billions off the speculation trade in all these countries that have been invaded and occupied in the Global Free Market Wars). He is collecting money to help pay his legal fees, at this time he has collected 1.3 million dollars and only paid out 200,000 worth of fees. He is about to cash in to the tune of another 1.3 or so million bucks… and at this point he is releasing some "leaks" at the rate of about 20 a day. All this time he is claiming to have the goods on various dirty little secrets, but he won't release any of them as long as he stays a free man living in the lap of luxury.
Meanwhile, the Palestinians are being attacked (while Assange says he won't release embarrassing info about Israel for 6 months), Iraqis are still being put in black bags and renditioned, the war in Afghanistan has taken the lives of civilians at a record-setting pace, drones are killing more and more civilians in Pakistan, and the Global Free Market Wars are poised to spill over into still more nations.
You think putting Assange in jail proves one thing or the other?
You don't think patsy's get set up and imprisoned after their usefulness has come to an end? You should read a little bit about Manuel Noriega or Saddam Hussein before you try to make that claim to me.
Hell, even Pinochet eventually had to go.
Yes, they put their assets in prison from time to time. Doesn't mean they weren't assets.
Arundhati Roy is facing sedition charges in India. Why aren't you as concerned about her? She really is a journalist and there is absolutely no question about her legitimacy. Where are the endless articles about the injustice she faces on your website? How about Amy Goodman's?
In conclusion
Yes, I thank you for taking the time to answer my Open Letter, but I have to tell you, it is I who am not convinced. You avoided many of the issues that I brought up in our last communication dealing with just the most recent developments in the Wikileaks psyop. You simply said you weren't convinced.
Well, hopefully I have provided some more information for you to consider. Take a look at what Michel Chossudovsky put together just a little while ago.
I think you will find that there is more than ample reason to doubt Julian Assange's credibility when you look at the history of the organization, who supported it at first, what they have actually leaked (when you don't cherry-pick the articles and the texts of said same), and what Assange himself has been doing these last few months.
Fact is, Assange is hiding behind the leaks that he supposedly has. He is collecting large sums of money, and the Global Free Market Wars are still advancing… and whether you like to believe it or not, much of the old bullshit propaganda is being given a fresh coat of liberal appealing paint with this Wikileaks rebranding project.
I write this in the hope that you will take it into consideration. With a new congress coming into DC, the only way we can stop the passage of some draconian limitations on our internet freedoms is to expose what this Wikileaks project really is.
It won't matter whether or not you think Julian is a journalist. When he publishes something that ends up costing some CIA asset his life or freedom in Iran or Pakistan or India, the mood of the public will shift even farther to the right, and Joe Liebermann will be right there with another Patriot Act at the ready. And it won't be that long from now.
If you don't believe me, read Global Research's work on the matter… read writing from Pakistan, Iran, China, the UK, even Russia and the various other countries who have been saying Wikileaks is an operation for some time now.
The evidence is out there… Assange's recent behavior makes it clear. Now unless you would rather take Cass Sunstein's word on the matter, I hope this inspires a little further reading on the subject.
Sites like mine don't have long, so if you don't mind, I think I have given Julian's little psyop enough coverage for the day.
Posted on January 3, 2011 by willyloman
by Scott Creighton
Glenn;
Again, I want to thank you for taking the time to address the Open Letter and my subsequent emails on the subject. I will address your statements and questions you sent in the three emails at this point.
Hi Scott I read that and found it interesting, but honestly, unpersuasive. Are these really revelations that the U.S. Government wanted publicly disclosed? Could someone explain why they'd want this?
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_.../wikileaks
But first, a little relevant history…http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_.../wikileaks
In late 2006 when Wikileaks was formed, there was already a great deal of concern about the serious threat leaks may pose to the imperial agenda that the Bush regime was following. In 2004 the Abu Ghraib photos went public, becoming the biggest story since Shock And Awe began and Seymour Hersh was writing about them in the New Yorker. Then that same year, the torture memos came out and the shit really hit the fan. In May of 2005, the Downing Street Memos popped up. In the end, they probably set in motion the process that cost Tony Blair his job. In early 2007 Hersh wrote about how the General Taguba was forced into retirement for exposing the efforts of Rumsfeld to squash the Taguba Report and cover-up crimes of torture and abuse of detainees in his custody. It is not difficult to conclude that in the end Rumsfeld lost his job over leaks as well. There had been other damaging leaks as well at that point, but this list of some of the "biggies" should serve to make my point adequately.
The entire point of the Global War on Terror (Global Free Market Wars, as I call them) is to create an ever-changing, ever shifting, new global target as a pretext for invasion and occupation of foreign nations much like in previous decades when the "economic hitmen" would attempt to undermine the economies of targeted nations in order to allow the IMF and their Chicago School style "shock therapy" economic model to gain control.
Thanks to the Global War on Terror, these days all one has to do is claim there is a branch affiliate of al Qaeda operating in some country and off we go… examples… Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen… just to name a few.
There is a great deal of power and money at stake here and when you consider the fact that real leaks had already posed a serious problem and threat to that agenda before Wikileaks was even created, it only makes sense that someone would try to come up with a way to mitigate it.
In late 2006 Wikileaks was formed around the same time that intelligence agencies formed two other "Wikipedia" type systems for their own use. "Oogle" and "Intelipedia" were created in Sept. of 2006, about the same time Julian Assange was contacting people in the hacker world trying to put together a project he called "Wikileaks".
"The new tools include a federated search engine called Oogle and Intellipedia, a controversial intelligence data-sharing tool based on Wiki social software technology.
The intelligence community's use of social software has attracted a group of users and advocates known as the Intellipedians. Wiki allows users to post information and continually update it in response to events in a collective and collaborative fashion." GCN
When first contacted by Assange to help with the project, John Young, already providing an established internet site for leakers with Cryptome, agreed to help out. But soon after Young began to suspect something was wrong with what Assange was trying to create. He pulled out and published the email chains.The intelligence community's use of social software has attracted a group of users and advocates known as the Intellipedians. Wiki allows users to post information and continually update it in response to events in a collective and collaborative fashion." GCN
"All the messages received were published. My objections had been building, shown in later messages, after initial support. The finally fed-up turnaround occurred with the publication today of the $5 million dollar by July fund-raising goal see messages at the tail-end. I called that along with a delay in offering a public discussion and critique forum and failure to provide a credible batch of leaked documents for public scrutiny a surefire indication of a scam. This is the exact technique used by snake oilers, pols and spies. Requests to Cryptome to keep stuff quiet are regular fare and they always get published. Next up, the names and affiliations of the perps if they don't reveal themselves in an open forum." John Young, Dec. 2006
As Young's suspicions began to reverberate through the hacker community, a funny thing happened… suddenly Wikileaks started getting positive press… in the main stream media. This of course is before they "leaked' anything. The purpose of that is clear… they were attempting to "control the narrative" about their start-up project."Instead of a couple of academic specialists, Wikileaks will provide a forum for the entire global community to examine any document relentlessly for credibility, plausibility, veracity and falsifiability," its organizers write on the site's FAQ page. "They will be able to interpret documents and explain their relevance to the public. If a document is leaked from the Chinese government, the entire Chinese dissident community can freely scrutinize and discuss it…" TIME Jan. 2007
Even Cass Sunstein, a man who would later write about the need for "cognitive infiltration" of dissident groups and movements, would get into the act in Feb. of 2007… this while the MSM was already telling the people that they shouldn't believe the "conspiracy theories" that Wikileaks (which still had not published ANYTHING) was a CIA operation…"By March, more than one million leaked documents from governments and corporations in Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and the former Soviet Bloc will be available online in a bold new collective experiment in whistle-blowing. That is, of course, as long as you don't accept any of the conspiracy theories brewing that Wikileaks.org could be a front for the CIA or some other intelligence agency." TIME Jan. 2007
Isn't it odd Glenn, that a man who would later boast about the process of cognitive infiltration of dissident movements ,would be coming out in favor of a leak site prior to Wikileaks' first publication and even going so far as to attempt to dispel the growing concern that it might just be a CIA Honey Pot? Especially after the intelligence agencies had just launched their own Intellipedia?For more information on the roots of Wikileaks, try reading this.
Personally, given the history of Wikileaks, when someone like Cass Sunstein mentions the buzz words "conspiracy theory" I tend to take notice. Much like when Abe Foxman or George W. Bush use them. It's a cheap ploy to limit rational discourse and critical thinking.
There is a bit of the history of Wikileaks.
Let's take a look at your arguments now…
Back to your question. You link me to your article titled "What Wikileaks Revealed to the World in 2010″. This is a collection of articles you have put together which supposedly show the value of Wikileaks as a truth revealing site.
I won't bother linking to you the many articles you left out which Wikileaks has also offered up to the world presenting various discredited state department friendly "truths" like.. North Korea providing missiles to Iran, Iran aiding the attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq, Pakistan aiding the attacks on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, various implications that the people and leaders of the Arab world want the U.S. to "regime change" Iran… so forth and so on.
You left those particular gems out of the discussion and so will I.
But, I could in fact provide you with a list probably twice as long as yours with these discredited globalization friendly tidbits of misinformation.
The first one you list is the "Collateral Damage" video which shows a U.S. gunship firing on two journalists and their group. As I have already explained to you, that first big-time attention-getting "leak" is troubling in the sense that it does show civilians getting killed, but I think it was carefully chosen. That wasn't a rape or torture… it showed a group being fired upon, two members of which had Ak-47s, they were less than 6 blocks from a gunfight, and in the end it depicted U.S. soldiers saving the lives of two kids who were shot while they could not be seen inside the van. Why would they release that? Because it creates credibility for Wikileaks while it only really depicts something we already knew… civilians get killed in Iraq. And in that case, an ARMED group and the soldiers did what they could to save kids lives. Got it?
The next one you list is of soldiers gleefully talking about shooting those people. Do I really have to explain how pointless it is to say soldiers enjoy shooting "the terrorists"?
The next one is from Oct. 2010 and I suppose it ranks up there in your books because you skipped what looked like a developing chronological order.
This deals with the recent "leak" that claims that the U.S. looked the other way as Iraqis tortured civilians. Let's go back to all those real leaks and the Taguba Report. This "leak" claims that we aren't torturing folks, it's all those evil Iraqis doing it, the ones we have to get rid of. You know, I wrote about this "leak" and how it was being misrepresented all across the desperate liberal blog-o-sphere.
I showed that in those cables they clearly stated that investigations were ongoing and that the victims (of Iraqi on Iraqi abuse) were being given the proper medical treatment.
Now, I could go on and on with this. But let us just say for argument, that you are not deliberately trying to mislead anyone, you are just doing what Cass Sunstein and many others back in the day knew you would… you are seeing what you want to see in the Wikileaks and ignoring the rest.
This is done on an individual, leak by leak, basis and it is done (as exemplified by your list of only the "leaks" that you consider useful and respectable by those of us on the dissident mainstream) by your part, in your list of "What Wikileaks Revealed in 2010″
You are cherry-picking the leaks Glenn. Not only are you cherry-picking just the leaks you think do us some good, but you are also cherry-picking the context and even the text of those leaks themselves.
Let's move on…
"Also, is depicting Julian Assange as a rapist and terrorist part of the big government plot to vest him with credibility?" Glenn Greenwald
"big government plot"? Starting to sound like we are moving toward using that "conspiracy theory" label, aren't we?What do we actually know about this story, Glenn? Assange has admitted that he doesn't know where these "leaks" came from… Manning has never admitted to sending anything… and all we have, the ENTIRE story, comes from a guy you yourself have concluded is an FBI informant and of highly suspicious character. Now, you are even engaged in a fight with Wired to get them to release all of the suspect instant messages between Manning and Lamo because they refuse to do it.
"big government plot"? Seems to me that is just Lamo, another guy from Wired who was also busted by the FBI, and possibly a group at the NSA… how "big" is that?
But to answer your question… do you support rapists? Do you think rapists should go to jail? So why do you support Assange? Answer: the first story that came out was that the condom broke… remember? The story that is coming out to people like you and Amy Goodman and Michael Moore is that the whole thing is a set-up, right?
Now another part of the story comes out. It wasn't a broken condom, it was Assange holding a woman down and forcing himself on her and then doing about the same thing to another woman days later while she was sleeping. Is that rape? I call that rape. Now THAT is the story they put out to discredit him and ultimately justify his prosecution. Of course, you ignore that story or discredit it.
The point is, without threat of prosecution, we wouldn't be discussing any of this… so that is why the "big government plot" needed to create that story. To get legitimate reporters like you to spend all of your time focusing on Julian Assange rather than all the other stuff going on right now.
That's why Glenn.
"I think Julian is going to end up in prison, and I'll be interested in what you have to say then." Glenn Greenwald
Oh you haven't got to wait. I'll tell you right now… who cares?How many Iraqi union leaders are in black sites right now? How many opposition party members? How about resistance members in Afghanistan? How many journalists have been disappeared in Mexico?
Julian is living in a mansion owned by a guy who's business has ties to George Soros (a man who had made billions off the speculation trade in all these countries that have been invaded and occupied in the Global Free Market Wars). He is collecting money to help pay his legal fees, at this time he has collected 1.3 million dollars and only paid out 200,000 worth of fees. He is about to cash in to the tune of another 1.3 or so million bucks… and at this point he is releasing some "leaks" at the rate of about 20 a day. All this time he is claiming to have the goods on various dirty little secrets, but he won't release any of them as long as he stays a free man living in the lap of luxury.
Meanwhile, the Palestinians are being attacked (while Assange says he won't release embarrassing info about Israel for 6 months), Iraqis are still being put in black bags and renditioned, the war in Afghanistan has taken the lives of civilians at a record-setting pace, drones are killing more and more civilians in Pakistan, and the Global Free Market Wars are poised to spill over into still more nations.
You think putting Assange in jail proves one thing or the other?
You don't think patsy's get set up and imprisoned after their usefulness has come to an end? You should read a little bit about Manuel Noriega or Saddam Hussein before you try to make that claim to me.
Hell, even Pinochet eventually had to go.
Yes, they put their assets in prison from time to time. Doesn't mean they weren't assets.
Arundhati Roy is facing sedition charges in India. Why aren't you as concerned about her? She really is a journalist and there is absolutely no question about her legitimacy. Where are the endless articles about the injustice she faces on your website? How about Amy Goodman's?
In conclusion
Yes, I thank you for taking the time to answer my Open Letter, but I have to tell you, it is I who am not convinced. You avoided many of the issues that I brought up in our last communication dealing with just the most recent developments in the Wikileaks psyop. You simply said you weren't convinced.
Well, hopefully I have provided some more information for you to consider. Take a look at what Michel Chossudovsky put together just a little while ago.
I think you will find that there is more than ample reason to doubt Julian Assange's credibility when you look at the history of the organization, who supported it at first, what they have actually leaked (when you don't cherry-pick the articles and the texts of said same), and what Assange himself has been doing these last few months.
Fact is, Assange is hiding behind the leaks that he supposedly has. He is collecting large sums of money, and the Global Free Market Wars are still advancing… and whether you like to believe it or not, much of the old bullshit propaganda is being given a fresh coat of liberal appealing paint with this Wikileaks rebranding project.
I write this in the hope that you will take it into consideration. With a new congress coming into DC, the only way we can stop the passage of some draconian limitations on our internet freedoms is to expose what this Wikileaks project really is.
It won't matter whether or not you think Julian is a journalist. When he publishes something that ends up costing some CIA asset his life or freedom in Iran or Pakistan or India, the mood of the public will shift even farther to the right, and Joe Liebermann will be right there with another Patriot Act at the ready. And it won't be that long from now.
If you don't believe me, read Global Research's work on the matter… read writing from Pakistan, Iran, China, the UK, even Russia and the various other countries who have been saying Wikileaks is an operation for some time now.
The evidence is out there… Assange's recent behavior makes it clear. Now unless you would rather take Cass Sunstein's word on the matter, I hope this inspires a little further reading on the subject.
Sites like mine don't have long, so if you don't mind, I think I have given Julian's little psyop enough coverage for the day.
04-01-2011, 07:52 PM
Wayne Madsen: Sweden co-opted by CIA/Pentagon to launder Wikileaks cables
January 3, 2011 posted by Veterans Today · 10 Comments
WMR has learned from a long-time Republican Party consultant that the CIA used Sweden to launder the transfer to Wikileaks of carefully screened and redacted State Department cables and the subsequent release of the cables to pre-selected corporate news media entities. Sweden was chosen because of its so-called "press freedom and freedom of expression" traditions in an effort to make the release of the cables by Wikileaks appear to be unconnected to a covert CIA and Pentagon psychological operations program designed to place further controls on the Internet.
The Wikileaks operation was conducted with the help of two leading Swedish political leaders, both of whom have maintained a long association with the CIA and associated U.S. government entities. One of the conspirators is Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt who was discovered in high school in Sweden by U.S. Republican Party operative Karl Rove. Rove, a former executive director of the College Republicans, was, in the early 1980s, a GOP campaign consultant who also began conducting overseas operations for the International Republican Institute (IRI) after its founding in 1983 as an overseas outreach branch of the Republicans thanks to funding from the CIA-connected US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy, as well as the State Department.
In 1983, the same year the IRI was founded, Reinfeldt joined the Moderate Youth League, the youth wing of the Swedish Moderate Party, with Rove's encouragement. Just as Rove had used political chicanery in 1973 to defeat two opponents Robert Edgeworth and Terry Dolan to be elected chairman of the College Republicans, Reinfeldt ousted Moderate Youth League chairman Ulf Kristersson at the league's convention in Lycksele in 1992. Reinfeldt, the leader of conservative insurgents, garnered 58 votes to 55 for Kristersson, who represented the party's libertarian wing.
After the defeat of the Moderate Party government of Prime Minister Carl Bildt in 1994, Reinfeldt, in Rovian fashion, began to criticize the party leader. Reinfeldlt was also a strong critic of the modern Swedish welfare state. In 2003, Reinfeldt became Moderate Party leader and in 2006 his right-of-center coalition defeated the Social Democrats making Reinfeldt the Prime Minister.
One of Reinfeldt's closest advisers is Moderate Party member of parliament and avid anti-communist Council of Europe parliamentary official Goran Lindblad. Lindblad has been fond of offering political asylum and sanctuary in Sweden to dissidents, but not just any dissidents, only those that support an agenda in concert with the agenda pushed by the likes of Freedom House of New York and George Soros's Open Society Institute, neo-con contrivances that oppose any form of communism, whether in China or Cuba, or any left-wing socialist governments for that matter the very same agenda promoted by Wikileaks.
Although it is not certain that Lindblad helped lay the groundwork for the invitation to Wikileaks's founder Julian Assange to move his operations and his quarter million State Department cable cache to Sweden, there is yet another connection between a Swedish politician involved in the Assange criminal investigation for sex crimes in Sweden and the CIA.
Assange's two female accusers' legal representation in Sweden is being handled by the law firm Borgström & Bodstrom. The Bodstrom on the law office shingle hanging in Stockholm is Thomas Bodstrom, the Swedish Justice Minister from 2000 to 2006 in the Social Democratic government of Prime Minister Goran Persson. From 2006 to October 2010, Bodstrom was chairman of the Swedish parliament's Justice committee. After losing his chairmanship, Bodstrom moved in November 2010, along with his family, to northern Virginia just as the Wikileaks "story" unfolded. The Social Democrats refused to grant Bodstrom a leave of absence while maintaining his parliamentary seat. Bodstrom resigned his seat. WMR has learned from the Republican Party source that Bodstrom, upset over the decision of the Social Democrats, is now in negotiations with Reinfeldt and the Moderates to switch parties. And, we have learned, the CIA is quietly grooming Bodstrom, a former Swedish soccer star, to be a future Prime Minister of Sweden for the conservative Moderate Party.
Bodstrom's colleague in the Persson cabinet was Par Nuder, the Minister of Finance, who also spent a large part of his youth in Israel. At the same time the Bodstrom family moved to Virginia, Nuder joined the consultant-lobbying firm of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Albright Stonebridge Group, which she heads along with former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger and former Senator Warren Rudman (R-NH). Another executive at Albright Stonebridge is former Bill Clinton foreign policy adviser Wendy Sherman, who also serves on the Defense Policy Board under Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
Bodstrom is also an author of legal thriller novels and he has been called the "John Grisham of Sweden."
Bodstrom's father is Lennart Bodstrom, the Foreign Minister in the Social Democratic government of Prime Minister Olof Palme from 1982 to 1985. The elder Bodstrom was criticized for not heeding warnings that Soviet submarines were operating in Swedish waters and he survived a rare no-confidence motion against him in the parliament. However, WMR has learned that it was the CIA, which had arranged for U.S.-supplied Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) technology to be transferred to neutral Sweden and Langley did not want details of the system's capabilities to be tipped off to the Soviets. Lennart Bodstrom's ploy was to suppress the story of Soviet submarine activity to protect CIA and Swedish intelligence "sources and methods." WMR has learned that Lennart Bodstrom's policy of non-engagement on Soviet submarines in Swedish waters was the result of a personal request by then-Vice President George H. W. Bush.
Bodstrom's law partner is Claes Borgstrom, Sweden's former Equal Opportunities Ombudsman and an avid, some would call it extremist, supporter of feminist causes. Borgstrom has been representing the two women who have accused Assange of sex crimes while he was in Sweden. One of the women, Anna Ardin, described as a "Christian feminist" has apparently left the country for the Palestinian West Bank and there are reports that she is no longer cooperating with the Swedish deputy prosecutor for Gothenburg, Marianne Ny. WMR has also learned that Bodstrom has had a close relationship with Ny.
The other woman who charged Assange is Sofia Wilen. It has been charged by some in Sweden that both women accusers were part of a carefully-arranged plot to bring sex charges against Assange in order to discontinue the Wikileaks Swedish asylum operation after the ultimate purpose was served: a major international news event designed to provide increased support for governments around the world, including Sweden, the United Kingdom where Assange is now free on restricted bail and the United States, to place draconian curbs on the Internet.
Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. He has written
for several renowned papers and blogs.
Madsen is a regular contributor on Russia Today. He has been a frequent political and national security commentator on Fox News and has also appeared on ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, and MS-NBC. Madsen has taken on Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity on their television shows. He has been invited to testifty as a witness before the US House of Representatives, the UN Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and an terrorism investigation panel of the French government.
As a U.S. Naval Officer, he managed one of the first computer security programs for the U.S. Navy. He subsequently worked for the National Security Agency, the Naval Data Automation Command, Department of State, RCA Corporation, and Computer Sciences Corporation.
Madsen is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), Association for Intelligence Officers (AFIO), and the National Press Club. He is a regular contributor to Opinion Maker.
January 3, 2011 posted by Veterans Today · 10 Comments
WMR has learned from a long-time Republican Party consultant that the CIA used Sweden to launder the transfer to Wikileaks of carefully screened and redacted State Department cables and the subsequent release of the cables to pre-selected corporate news media entities. Sweden was chosen because of its so-called "press freedom and freedom of expression" traditions in an effort to make the release of the cables by Wikileaks appear to be unconnected to a covert CIA and Pentagon psychological operations program designed to place further controls on the Internet.
The Wikileaks operation was conducted with the help of two leading Swedish political leaders, both of whom have maintained a long association with the CIA and associated U.S. government entities. One of the conspirators is Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt who was discovered in high school in Sweden by U.S. Republican Party operative Karl Rove. Rove, a former executive director of the College Republicans, was, in the early 1980s, a GOP campaign consultant who also began conducting overseas operations for the International Republican Institute (IRI) after its founding in 1983 as an overseas outreach branch of the Republicans thanks to funding from the CIA-connected US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy, as well as the State Department.
In 1983, the same year the IRI was founded, Reinfeldt joined the Moderate Youth League, the youth wing of the Swedish Moderate Party, with Rove's encouragement. Just as Rove had used political chicanery in 1973 to defeat two opponents Robert Edgeworth and Terry Dolan to be elected chairman of the College Republicans, Reinfeldt ousted Moderate Youth League chairman Ulf Kristersson at the league's convention in Lycksele in 1992. Reinfeldt, the leader of conservative insurgents, garnered 58 votes to 55 for Kristersson, who represented the party's libertarian wing.
After the defeat of the Moderate Party government of Prime Minister Carl Bildt in 1994, Reinfeldt, in Rovian fashion, began to criticize the party leader. Reinfeldlt was also a strong critic of the modern Swedish welfare state. In 2003, Reinfeldt became Moderate Party leader and in 2006 his right-of-center coalition defeated the Social Democrats making Reinfeldt the Prime Minister.
One of Reinfeldt's closest advisers is Moderate Party member of parliament and avid anti-communist Council of Europe parliamentary official Goran Lindblad. Lindblad has been fond of offering political asylum and sanctuary in Sweden to dissidents, but not just any dissidents, only those that support an agenda in concert with the agenda pushed by the likes of Freedom House of New York and George Soros's Open Society Institute, neo-con contrivances that oppose any form of communism, whether in China or Cuba, or any left-wing socialist governments for that matter the very same agenda promoted by Wikileaks.
Although it is not certain that Lindblad helped lay the groundwork for the invitation to Wikileaks's founder Julian Assange to move his operations and his quarter million State Department cable cache to Sweden, there is yet another connection between a Swedish politician involved in the Assange criminal investigation for sex crimes in Sweden and the CIA.
Assange's two female accusers' legal representation in Sweden is being handled by the law firm Borgström & Bodstrom. The Bodstrom on the law office shingle hanging in Stockholm is Thomas Bodstrom, the Swedish Justice Minister from 2000 to 2006 in the Social Democratic government of Prime Minister Goran Persson. From 2006 to October 2010, Bodstrom was chairman of the Swedish parliament's Justice committee. After losing his chairmanship, Bodstrom moved in November 2010, along with his family, to northern Virginia just as the Wikileaks "story" unfolded. The Social Democrats refused to grant Bodstrom a leave of absence while maintaining his parliamentary seat. Bodstrom resigned his seat. WMR has learned from the Republican Party source that Bodstrom, upset over the decision of the Social Democrats, is now in negotiations with Reinfeldt and the Moderates to switch parties. And, we have learned, the CIA is quietly grooming Bodstrom, a former Swedish soccer star, to be a future Prime Minister of Sweden for the conservative Moderate Party.
Bodstrom's colleague in the Persson cabinet was Par Nuder, the Minister of Finance, who also spent a large part of his youth in Israel. At the same time the Bodstrom family moved to Virginia, Nuder joined the consultant-lobbying firm of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Albright Stonebridge Group, which she heads along with former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger and former Senator Warren Rudman (R-NH). Another executive at Albright Stonebridge is former Bill Clinton foreign policy adviser Wendy Sherman, who also serves on the Defense Policy Board under Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
Bodstrom is also an author of legal thriller novels and he has been called the "John Grisham of Sweden."
Bodstrom's father is Lennart Bodstrom, the Foreign Minister in the Social Democratic government of Prime Minister Olof Palme from 1982 to 1985. The elder Bodstrom was criticized for not heeding warnings that Soviet submarines were operating in Swedish waters and he survived a rare no-confidence motion against him in the parliament. However, WMR has learned that it was the CIA, which had arranged for U.S.-supplied Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) technology to be transferred to neutral Sweden and Langley did not want details of the system's capabilities to be tipped off to the Soviets. Lennart Bodstrom's ploy was to suppress the story of Soviet submarine activity to protect CIA and Swedish intelligence "sources and methods." WMR has learned that Lennart Bodstrom's policy of non-engagement on Soviet submarines in Swedish waters was the result of a personal request by then-Vice President George H. W. Bush.
Bodstrom's law partner is Claes Borgstrom, Sweden's former Equal Opportunities Ombudsman and an avid, some would call it extremist, supporter of feminist causes. Borgstrom has been representing the two women who have accused Assange of sex crimes while he was in Sweden. One of the women, Anna Ardin, described as a "Christian feminist" has apparently left the country for the Palestinian West Bank and there are reports that she is no longer cooperating with the Swedish deputy prosecutor for Gothenburg, Marianne Ny. WMR has also learned that Bodstrom has had a close relationship with Ny.
The other woman who charged Assange is Sofia Wilen. It has been charged by some in Sweden that both women accusers were part of a carefully-arranged plot to bring sex charges against Assange in order to discontinue the Wikileaks Swedish asylum operation after the ultimate purpose was served: a major international news event designed to provide increased support for governments around the world, including Sweden, the United Kingdom where Assange is now free on restricted bail and the United States, to place draconian curbs on the Internet.
Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. He has written
for several renowned papers and blogs.
Madsen is a regular contributor on Russia Today. He has been a frequent political and national security commentator on Fox News and has also appeared on ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, and MS-NBC. Madsen has taken on Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity on their television shows. He has been invited to testifty as a witness before the US House of Representatives, the UN Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and an terrorism investigation panel of the French government.
As a U.S. Naval Officer, he managed one of the first computer security programs for the U.S. Navy. He subsequently worked for the National Security Agency, the Naval Data Automation Command, Department of State, RCA Corporation, and Computer Sciences Corporation.
Madsen is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), Association for Intelligence Officers (AFIO), and the National Press Club. He is a regular contributor to Opinion Maker.
04-01-2011, 08:00 PM
Madsen's line throughout has been that wikileaks is an American intelligence psyop. His article above does put some fresh flesh on the bones of his working hypothesis, and names names.
If true, those Swedish knickers must honk real bad.... :mistress:
Quote:WMR has learned from a long-time Republican Party consultant that the CIA used Sweden to launder the transfer to Wikileaks of carefully screened and redacted State Department cables and the subsequent release of the cables to pre-selected corporate news media entities.
If true, those Swedish knickers must honk real bad.... :mistress:
04-01-2011, 08:24 PM
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Madsen's line throughout has been that wikileaks is an American intelligence psyop. His article above does put some fresh flesh on the bones of his working hypothesis, and names names.
If true, those Swedish knickers must honk real bad.... :mistress:
...and I thought I knew most American and UK slang...but 'must honk real bad' [knickers I know...intimately!] has me stumped...but get the negative connotations. Yeah, Madsen names names...lets see if anyone can rebut what he says.....:popcorn:
04-01-2011, 08:49 PM
honk = smell.
Back to the knicker enterprise, Pete. How are the doormats coming along? :lol:
Back to the knicker enterprise, Pete. How are the doormats coming along? :lol:
06-01-2011, 08:01 AM
FRANCE is the country that conducts the most industrial espionage on other European countries, even ahead of China and Russia, said leaked US diplomatic cables quoted today by Norway's Aftenposten.
"French espionage is so widespread that the damages (it causes) the German economy are larger as a whole than those caused by China or Russia," an undated note from the US embassy in Berlin said, according to a Norwegian translation by Aftenposten.
The Norwegian daily of reference said last month it had obtained all the 250,000 US diplomatic cables WikiLeaks had accessed and would publish stories based on them independently of the whistleblowing website's own releases.
Its article based on leaked cables included an October 2009 comment from Berry Smutny, the head of German satellite company OHB Technology, quoted in the diplomatic note.
"France is the Empire of Evil in terms of technology theft, and Germany knows it," a Norwegian translation of Smutny's comment in the cable read.
OHB Technology became known to the general public in January 2010 when it obtained a contract for the construction of several satellites for the Galileo satellite navigation system, a much-delayed European challenger to the American-developed Global Positioning System (GPS).
The small German firm won the bid for the contract over Astrium, a subsidiary of pan-European giant EADS.
A leaked US cable posted yesterday by Aftenposten described Franco-German competition in terms of spy satellite development.
The cable said Germany was developing, with the help of the US, its own High Resolution Optical Satellite System (HiROS), despite the objections of France, which is leading pan-European efforts in the field with its Helios satellites.
"French espionage is so widespread that the damages (it causes) the German economy are larger as a whole than those caused by China or Russia," an undated note from the US embassy in Berlin said, according to a Norwegian translation by Aftenposten.
The Norwegian daily of reference said last month it had obtained all the 250,000 US diplomatic cables WikiLeaks had accessed and would publish stories based on them independently of the whistleblowing website's own releases.
Its article based on leaked cables included an October 2009 comment from Berry Smutny, the head of German satellite company OHB Technology, quoted in the diplomatic note.
"France is the Empire of Evil in terms of technology theft, and Germany knows it," a Norwegian translation of Smutny's comment in the cable read.
OHB Technology became known to the general public in January 2010 when it obtained a contract for the construction of several satellites for the Galileo satellite navigation system, a much-delayed European challenger to the American-developed Global Positioning System (GPS).
The small German firm won the bid for the contract over Astrium, a subsidiary of pan-European giant EADS.
A leaked US cable posted yesterday by Aftenposten described Franco-German competition in terms of spy satellite development.
The cable said Germany was developing, with the help of the US, its own High Resolution Optical Satellite System (HiROS), despite the objections of France, which is leading pan-European efforts in the field with its Helios satellites.
06-01-2011, 03:05 PM
Mon Dieu!
Perfidious Albion has a Gallic rival....
But I suppose if you care to go back about 1000 years, we Brits largely are French - well Normans anyway.
Blowback!
hock:
Perfidious Albion has a Gallic rival....
But I suppose if you care to go back about 1000 years, we Brits largely are French - well Normans anyway.
Blowback!
hock:07-01-2011, 04:55 PM
The last wikileaks cable to be published was on 4th January 2011.
That was just one cable.
That was just one cable.
07-01-2011, 05:46 PM
David Guyatt Wrote:The last wikileaks cable to be published was on 4th January 2011.
That was just one cable.
Yes, the 'old' leakers are not lackers....but not Aftenposten. I've been checking each day. Posted one from them today....there were others, but of Norwegian interest mainly. Will keep watching. I would imagine when they come across something good, it will get around the 'block'....:curtain: