WikiLeaks, WikiDrama and WikiGossip

George Washington's picture

Washington’s Blog

What should we make of the Wikileaks story?

Obviously, the
Swedish "sex crime" charges are ridiculous, as are the death threats
against Wikileaks founds Julian Assange. See this, this and this.

leading first amendment advocates support Wikileaks as a vital
resource. For example, John Perry Barlow - founder of the Electronic
Frontier Foundation (a great organization with a long and proven track
record in fighting censorship) says:

The first serious infowar is now engaged. The field of battle is WikiLeaks. You are the troops.

Likewise, the ACLU has been fighting for Wikileaks for years.

And Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky think Wikileaks is the real deal.

However, many savvy observers argue that that Wikileaks is not what it seems.

example, former U.S. National Security Adviser under President Carter
(and top foreign policy advisor) Zbigniew Brzezinski doesn’t think all
the leaked information coming out of Wikileaks is a result of Army PFC
Bradley Manning, and suspects a foreign intelligence service may be
providing the more embarrassing leaks for their own political reasons.

As Brzezinski told PBS:

The real issue is, who is feeding Wikipedia
on this issue — Wiki — Wiki — WikiLeaks on this issue? They’re getting
a lot of information which seems trivial, inconsequential, but some of
it seems surprisingly pointed.


For example, there
are references to a report by our officials that some Chinese leaders
favor a reunified Korea under South Korea.


This is clearly designed
to embarrass the Chinese and our relationship with them. The very
pointed references to Arab leaders could have as their objective
undermining their political credibility at home, because this kind of
public identification of their hostility towards Iran could actually
play against them at home…




It’s, rather, a question of whether
WikiLeaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to
either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to
undermine some governments
, because some of these items that are being emphasized and have surfaced are very pointed.


I wonder whether, in fact, there aren’t some operations
internationally, intelligence services, that are feeding stuff to
, because it is a unique opportunity to embarrass us, to
embarrass our position, but also to undermine our relations with
particular governments.


For example, leaving aside the personal
gossip about Sarkozy or Berlusconi or Putin, the business about the
Turks is clearly calculated in terms of its potential impact on
disrupting the American-Turkish relationship.




Seeding — seeding it is very easy.


have no doubt that WikiLeaks is getting a lot of the stuff from sort
of relatively unimportant sources, like the one that perhaps is
identified on the air. But it may be getting stuff at the same time
from interested intelligence parties who want to manipulate the process and achieve certain very specific objectives.

Other smart people point out that - while there is pointed information challenging the actions of other countries
- the information coming from Wikileaks about the U.S. is more of the
nature of gossip, and doesn't actually challenge U.S. foreign or
domestic policy is a direct manner. For example, the information
disclosed to date doesn't challenge the narrative of the "War on Terror"
itself, the government's handling of the economic crisis, or any other
central American policy.

So whether Wikileaks is a first
amendment champion or an intelligence service psychological operation
aiming to persuade and embarrass, so far it has mainly been a bunch of
gossip in terms of leaks about America.

If you don't believe me,
read some of the actual cables which have been released. While there
have been some stunners about foreign countries, the ones regarding U.S.
actions have been nothing but idle chatter about well-known people or
events, providing interesting but wholly irrelevant details about what
people were wearing or who they slept with. No breakthrough
revelations which actually challenge core U.S. policy.

(Many people are saying that the disclosure that the U.S. has spied on
the United Nations shows the value of Wikileaks. But it has been known
for years that the U.S. spies on the U.N. See this, this and this.)

As the very mainstream, Murdoch-owned Herald Sun notes:

We're told the leaks are "explosive" and "sensational", revealing America's "dark face".

In fact, the WikiLeaks dump of more than 250,000 classified cables
from US diplomats reveals little more than gossip on the embassy


These leaks expose no crime and nail no US lie.




Assange may also have done the US an inadvertent favour, just as he
did with his earlier dump of documents on Iraq, which showed there was
actually no conspiracy and no war crimes being hushed up.




[It] all confirms the world is as menacing as the US grimly says.




Overall, then, there is more in these leaks to confirm the US view of this world than there is to comfort its critics.

As the head of long-time whistleblower Cryptome (and former Wikileaks supporter - John Young - argues, Wikileaks has been more hype than substance:

does not seek publicity or media coverage. Wikileaks does by
issuing press releases, taunting the media, orchestrating bombshell
releases, glamourizing Julian Assange, behaving mysteriously, ...
exaggerating the value of what it publishes, editorializes about
its publications excessively -- all the methods used by those who
believe excessive valuation is a good thing.

So far - despite the media frenzy - it's more like WikiGossip than WikiLeaks.

Don't get distracted by the WikiDrama ... Unless WikiLeaks releases something which discloses criminal behavior by a large American bank, more damning information about the government's actions than the Fed's own data release, or facts which undermine the false war on terror narrative - Brzezinski himself told the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative" - such as previously unknown false flags, then it's mainly a publicity-seeking melodrama more than an authentic challenge to American power.

Remember that the corporate press tends to be pro-war.
The more cynical might argue that the fact that the corporate press is
publishing all of the cables released by Wikileaks could imply that the
material is not fundamentally of an anti-war nature.

The more cynical also point out that many
credible whistleblowers - including former high-level government
officials - have been ignored over the last 10 years by the corporate
media when they have disclosed facts which challenged core U.S. policy.
But Wikileaks is getting 24/7 coverage. I'm
strongly for whistleblowers ... I'm just not convinced that WikiLeaks
is as hard-hitting as other whistleblower groups out there.

All people of good faith agree that freedom
of information and freedom of speech are vital in a free society. The
real question is whether this particular organization is made up of
WikiHeroes, WikiPublicityHounds,
WikiDupes, or WikiDisinfoAgents. 

Only time will tell.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
destiny's picture

Every now and then, the people who make it their priority to keep their fingers on the pulse of public sentiment vis a vis the increasingly flagrant crimes of public officials, deem it necessary to introduce a faux people’s hero. Someone who, apparently, has the balls and the gall to ‘stick it to the man’ and be the voice of the silent majority. The goal, and the effect, is to provide a vessel to suck up all that latent and growing public anger and outrage that is presumed to exist and disperse it in much the same way that Corexit was used to disperse the oil industry’s mess in the Gulf of Mexico. I submit that Assange is just such a ‘vessel’, and I have to admit to wondering if this pallid and laconic man was chosen deliberately to represent the voice of the people – is that a true estimation by the powers that be of the potency of the potential threat from an irate population, or is that simply what they would like us believe…

In any case, the point is this; now that Assange has taken up the cause for the rest of us, we can turn off, tune back in (to Lindsay Lohan etc) and drop out of the running that will determine if we still have a planet to live on this time next decade.

RecoveringDebtJunkie's picture

"In any case, the point is this; now that Assange has taken up the cause for the rest of us, we can turn off, tune back in (to Lindsay Lohan etc) and drop out of the running that will determine if we still have a planet to live on this time next decade."

No, the point is this: now that you and others have written off WikiLeaks and Assange as intelligence assets running a psyop, we will assume that there is no hope for communication outside the grasp of power elites and, therefore, we can tune out and go about pretending like we are headed for a new world order, regardless of what happens between now and then.

Miss Expectations's picture

RE: WikiLeaks...

This has been a test of the emergency internet shutdown system.  This was only a test.  Had it been an actual emergency, Zero Hedge would have been shut down and you would not have known where to tune in for news and important information. 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast.

Ace's picture

From what I've read, I think the cables are authentic.

It also seems clear that the US intelliengce agencies are trying to spin this as though some foreign governments may have inserted forged cables into the release, or that the USG is somehow not fully responsible for their content. The idea that the cables aren't fully authentic IS the counter-play.

As far as not having seen much regarding other governments yet, don't forget that the order of the releases is being driven by the press, not by WikiLeaks itself. The press is digging through the whole 250K cables, finding stuff that looks interesting and current, writing it up and providing redacted cables back to WL, who then publishes them. They are still less than 1% of the way through -- who knows what bombshells are yet to drop?

Seer's picture

Leaks, condoms, and the Catholic Church... something big is about to happen!

Kina's picture
Rudd fires back at US over WikiLeaks: it's your fault

Foreign minister Kevin Rudd today blamed the United States, not the WikiLeaks founder, for the unauthorised release of about 250,000 secret US diplomatic cables - some of which reflected badly on him.


"Mr Assange is not himself responsible for the unauthorised release of 250,000 documents from the US diplomatic communications network," Mr Rudd told Reuters in an interview

williambanzai7's picture

See you all there. Bring your Banzai7 Goretex trading briefs ;-)

DavidPierre's picture

You got to be shitting us Willy!

No way!

You just made this up!

What a joker you is!

"Now that's Funny!  I don't care who you are."

Miles Kendig's picture

Don't forget the Dragon skin corsets for men and women .. perfect for tazer protection.  Battle tested at Toronto G-20.

palmereldritch's picture

Ikileaks: Where a broken Trojan provides a trojan protection.

Malcolm Tucker's picture

Even the Canadians want Assange's head on a platter. See:

This guy used to be the most senior advisor to the prime minister, Harper. That
should tell us lots about how he thinks.

A Nanny Moose's picture

Get the Wiki outta dodge

gwar5's picture

It's OK to leak, as long as the leak is consensual.

tip e. canoe's picture

a lengthy & excellent article on the deeper correlation btw Herr Brzezinski & WL:

"If Wikileaks is a psy-op, it is either the stupidest or most intelligent psychological operation ever undertaken. But one thing is for sure: systems and structures of power are in the process of being exposed to a much wider audience than ever before. The question for the alternative media and critical researchers, alike, is what will they do with this information and this opportunity?"

RecoveringDebtJunkie's picture

Another good passage from the article:

"Further, for those who posit that Wikileaks is a psy-op or propaganda operation or that Wikileaks is a “CIA front”, Murray had this to say:


Of course the documents reflect the US view – they are official US government communications. What they show is something I witnessed personally, that diplomats as a class very seldom tell unpalatable truths to politicians, but rather report and reinforce what their masters want to hear, in the hope of receiving preferment.


There is therefore a huge amount about Iran's putative nuclear arsenal and an exaggeration of Iran's warhead delivery capability. But there is nothing about Israel's massive nuclear arsenal. That is not because wikileaks have censored criticism of Israel. It is because any US diplomat who made an honest and open assessment of Israeli crimes would very quickly be an unemployed ex-diplomat.[12]"

RecoveringDebtJunkie's picture

I find it telling that all of the posters who are convinced that WikiLeaks is a government psyop have failed to read, or have read and failed to respond, to your linked article. Marshall's comprehensive analysis simply does not square with their dogmatic, flawed views on how complex systems of political organization operate.

GW - Please read the Global Research article. That is how you properly and responsibly analyze the complex issues surrounding WikiLeaks.

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

I am not pro wikileaks until the Bank release, and only if it is groundbreaking.  Even then, do we not know how corrupt and bankrupt the banks are?  Do we need a Bank release to make the trouble known? 

Otherwise wiki is pure gossip (although I do like to watch the politicians squirm).

plocequ1's picture

I say, Who gives a flying WikiFuck? I got more important things to worry about such as itchy Wikihemorrhoidal tissues.

Aristarchan's picture

In my mind there is no conspiracy theory here. A guy who had some initial insight (from individuals - Americans) set up a website to make them public. Soon, other disaffected Americans followed suit in providing information. I am not a US Gov fan by any means, but tax-payed employees of this country are providing information to a foreigner on the inner workings of how we fight wars and how we deal with foreign policy. Now, is what he doing right or wrong? I don't know yet. Only history will tell. But, if this guy is above board and wanting to help society by outing evil policies of national governments, why is the USA the main source of all his leaks? It is because he is getting clandestine information from Americans? why is he getting that info from Americans? Because it seems, at first glance, he is taking advantage of a generation of American soldiers who have lost faith in this country - no, this countries government - by their experiences in war. Is this right? probably not. Is it a CIA operation? Very unlikely.To be a CIA op, one would have to see the value of disinformation provided as oppossed to actual information. I do not see that. Is it a person funded by enemies of the US? maybe...but I doubt it. We do not need to see Zebras here when there are only horses at play. Will governments try to stop him? hell yes! Nobody wants their dirty laundry exposed through any source, US or otherwise. Any organization that has criminal enforcement powers will use every means at their disposal to "bust" anyone. That is why they exist. But I think it is a fallacy to read anything into it beyond what I have mentioned above. But, I am often wrong, so just throwing an alternative opinion out there.

CD's picture

FWIW, the Guardian is having a ball with the blow-by-blow, "liveblogging" of the current WL happenings. There is plenty of humor sprinkled throughout:

I particularly liked the comments by the pres. advisor from Tehran, he was curiously stating WL is US .gov misinformation -- yet also claimed that WL is freely accessible from within his country. This is getting to be quite the hall of mirrors:,1518,733060,00.html

Some details on the elaborate and very extensive collaboration by WL with MSM -- perhaps obvious to others, but it was good to see it spelled out:

Jim in MN's picture

Here, digest this:

U.S. may seek extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange,0,2435271.story


windcatcher's picture

Anyone who knows the reach and history of the CIA and the technology they have  is cautious that any “intelligence” leaks, especially electronic information that they specialize in; could be a false flag disinformation campaign (that they are also masters of) designed by the CIA to further a hidden agenda.


If that is the case, then they will have to divulge some creditable information to give the leak credibility. That information has value even if it is a repeat of information that is already known and there may be gems released that were not known before. Mr. Assange may be a patsy and not know it. The hidden agenda will become more apparent as more information is released.

digalert's picture

I want some bankster stuff! Most of this wikiweewee is known anyway. The Saudi's don't like the US, Hillary is a back stabbing bitch, so and so thinks so and so is an idiot...yada yada

Break out the un-redacted stuff.

palmereldritch's picture

The redaction will not be televised.

tony bonn's picture

there is no doubt that much of the information is inconsequential but clearly some of it is much more than that. how else explain the death threats against assange?

and yes this could be reverse psychological warfare in which the cia is attempting to highlight the dangers of the internet and thus justify shutting it down.

it is certainly within the realm of possibility that assange is being manipulated. however i think that there is a bit more to the story than passing idle gossip.

greenewave's picture

To find out more about the Imminent Collapse of the Global Economy, watch this video "Get the NEW SCREW BRICK for 5 Easy Payments of $19.99 !! (30-day free trial)" at (

by Anonymous

So ridiculously funny, you can’t even make this sh$t up!! Awesome video!

williambanzai7's picture

Did anonymous really say that?

High Plains Drifter's picture

Just as an aside, Rush Limbaugh is talking a lot about the national debt now and how he is extremely worried about it, and how it can never be repaid. So the subject of debt now as reached neocon radio. I can remember a time in the late 80's when Limbaugh would not even consider allowing any callers to call in and discuss debt issues. At that time, he thought it was a non issue. My, my , how times change.

gwar5's picture

Rush has been talking about it for a long time now.

He's regularly using ZH material and giving proper credit.

He loves ZH, especially for the Fed's POMOs activity.

High Plains Drifter's picture

they could use the wikileaks nonsense as a excuse to clamp down on the internet and stop the flow of information , for national security reasons, doncha know.

High Plains Drifter's picture

Any website with  wiki in front of it, is probably some kind of intelligence asset.

Max Hunter's picture

At the very least, grossly infiltrated..

High Plains Drifter's picture

Well my question is, where is all the money coming from and also who is feeding him information?  There are not too many nations that can get this kind of info, and I am thinking of one in particular who would do this, and the name starts with I (since they, yes they control our telecom here in the states) Our telecom systems have more back doors than a new orleans whore house. and guess who put them there and why? And we sit here discussing these matters, while we have one thumb stuck up our asses and sucking on the other one, and these bastards rob us blind and we just can't seem to figure it all out. It is a tragedy of epic proportions.

Milestones's picture

I would have to agree with you. Who has more high placed operatives, most up to date info, and now having sucked its current host nearly dry is shopping for a new mate now that it's old one has been robbed blind and is now broke.

Got a hell of a dowery.

Their loyality is a mile wide and an inch deep.   Milestones

Übermensch's picture

Cui bono... ?

Arkadaba's picture


GW, I'm disappointed. I posted this in another thread:

Regardless of the debate on whether or not Assange is the real deal or a willing asset or an unwilling one, he has succeeded in bringing into the open the gulf that currently exists between most governments and the people they say they represent. And the fact that so many global corporations are joining the fight ... is a telling as well.

As to the charge that Wikileaks hasn't released anything that people didn't know about before ... well, most cables haven't contained anything that surprised me. But I read foreign news and even sometimes some foreign policy mags. Most people do not. For example, did the cable regarding Saudi funding for extremist groups surprise me - Not! But, it may be news for a wider swath of people and they may start connecting the dots. Hmm, how many of the 911 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia? I forget the actual number but it was fairly h

I think what is scaring most of the elite is that this data is being dumped and not contextualized. People can come to their own conclusions.

And it is a two way street - who benefits if Wikileaks is described as a covert operation? The meme that Wikileaks is disinfo may be disinfo. 


High Plains Drifter's picture

Ok , then  perhaps you can tell me , just who it is that is feeding this man information and why?  Who is this man?  Who is he really?  Do we know?  I never even heard of him before a few months ago, yet we have so many who are willing to jump on the bandwagon and declare this guy as doing God's work. I think not. This whole episode is just some silly theatrics that mean nothing. Do you know when he slipped up? When he discussed 911 and his unwillingness to consider it to be a conspiracy. Now why would he do that?  Also he has one million euros in the bank and a budget of 200,000 euros a month? Sounds to me, like he is being funded by someone. Now I wonder who that can be? Even that retard , Glenn Beck, has busted this bubble since day one.

Thanatos's picture

Poor Glenn.

I tend to think he's really quite smart and brings all kinds of information to light that would never see the MSM otherwise.

He is just such a gomer that he is hard to watch.

High Plains Drifter's picture

Have you ever heard of the relationship between the CIA and the Mormon church?  Glenn became a Mormon , back when, a little after he hit bottom as he always is fond of saying. Gads, I get sick of his stupid heart rending personal sob and pitty party stories about himself. Ha, ha. I guess what I am saying is that, the CIA perhaps, have picked up another useful idiot in their efforts to control the American people ,for national security, doncha know.

CH1's picture

Methinks you give the CIA too much credit. They have flashes of competence, but they are surrounded by far more stupid oafishness. They ain't that great.

Bring the Gold's picture

Methinks you have bought into the incompetence theory and aren't aware of the Church Committee and other examples of the CIA doing incredibly complicated things right on US soil which is illegal per their charter. Just one example.

For myself, after reading tales of an economic hitman I would think twice about assuming the CIA are a bunch of chumps. That said they aren't omnipotent either. Folks who buy into the incompetence theory though are just reassuring themselves that there's nothing to worry about. This is as limiting and dangerous as those who see conspiracies everywhere. 

Arkadaba's picture

Great questions! Except for..

911: I do lean towards the coverup theory but keep an open mind. Who benefits from keepin peeps from looking at the evidence and making their own decisions


DavidPierre's picture

Jesus H. Christ... Arkadaba!

9/11 IS the pivot point of all this.

Just do a simple and easily +million hit search on google ...

Cui Bono, 9/11

Shit or just get off the pot.

Arkadaba's picture

just cause more sheeple buy into it - no

High Plains Drifter's picture

Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel

it was a pivot point. now they need another to keep this party going. what will that be is anyone's guess at this point. However, whatever it is, it won't be pretty.

Helen Thomas interview , interesting.

on the issue of qui bono on the 911 attacks, surely anyone with half a brain can see that the Muslims/Arabs did not benefit from this attack. They are systematically being eliminated by the zionist mercenary army of the United States. The idiotic Christian right continues to support this insanity and pray for our beloved troops while they kill the innocents. As Bush said one time, either you support us or you support the terrorist. What if the terrorist are our own governments?

Rick64's picture

OT but as long as were talking about Israel.

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – The United States on Tuesday abandoned its effort to persuade Israel to freeze construction of Jewish settlements, officials said, dealing a blow to efforts to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

DavidPierre's picture

"Hmm, how many of the 911 hijackers came from WHITE HOUSE? I forget the actual number but it was fairly h..."