Assange is holding dirt on Israel because western newspapers didn’t want to publish it

on 80 Comments

This is what Walt and Mearsheimer said about the Israel lobby, it acts to protect Israel in the press. I am guessing Assange is referring to the New York Times, among other publications. Al Jazeera:

DOHA: WikiLeaks will release top secret American files concerning Israel in the next six months, its founder Julian Assange disclosed yesterday.

In an excusive interview with Al Jazeera, Assange said only a meagre number of files related to Israel had been published so far, because the newspapers in the West that were given exclusive rights to publish the secret documents were reluctant to publish many sensitive information about Israel.

“There are 3,700 files related to Israel and the source of 2,700 files is Israel. In the next six months we intend to publish more files depending on our sources,” said Assange in the nearly one-hour interview telecast live from the UK.

80 Responses

  1. Citizen
    December 23, 2010, 10:35 pm

    Is he saying more files were already published concerning Israel somewhere outside the West? Has Al Jazeera published them? Where else? How did he decide who to give exclusive rights to publish to?

    • DICKERSON3870
      December 24, 2010, 9:16 pm

      RE: “Is he saying more files were already published concerning Israel somewhere outside the West?” – Citizen
      SEE: Lebanese Newspaper Publishes U.S. Cables Not Found on WikiLeaks, The Atlantic, 12/03/10
      How did Al Akhbar get 183 cables from the Middle East and North Africa?

      (excerpt) Nearly 200 previously unreported U.S. diplomatic cables were posted on Thursday to the website of Lebanese newspaper Al Akhbar. The cables, from eight U.S. embassies across the Middle East and North Africa, have not appeared on Wikileaks’ official website or in the Western media outlets working with Wikileaks. Al Akhbar, which defines itself as an “opposition” newspaper, is published in Arabic. It has posted all 183 cables in their original English but promises readers a forthcoming Arabic translation.
      It’s unclear how Al Akhbar got the cables, which they say are “exclusive,” and whether they posted them with the permission of Wikileaks, which has tightly controlled who publishes which of its cables and when…

      ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to

      A POTENTIALLY RELEVANT ARTICLE: Norwegian Newpaper gets its hands on WikiLeaks cables, Melbourne Herald Sun, Dec 23 2010

      (excerpt) A Norwegian newspaper confirmed today that it had gotten hold of the entire file of more than 250,000 secret US embassy cables first leaked to WikiLeaks. Norway’s main business newspaper Dagens Naerings reported that Oslo-based Aftenposten became the only media organization in the world to gain direct access to all the documents. It allows them to dodge WikiLeaks’ current strategy of drip-feeding the cables to preferred partners

      ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to

  2. annie
    December 23, 2010, 10:37 pm

    This is what Walt and Mearsheimer said about the Israel lobby, it acts to protect Israel in the press.

    and on the side of buses

  3. Citizen
    December 23, 2010, 10:44 pm

    Thanks for the link Phil. So even if all the stuff to be published in 6 months is published, how will Americans get to read it if the news organizations picked to publish it have exclusive right to decide what parts to publish here? Something doesn’t make sense about it. Awful lot of stuff concerning Israel is being held up. Funniest thing yet to be published here: “There are files about a TV channel in Dubai which the Americans said can be used against Al Jazeera and when this channel tried to move in the American direction, people stopped watching it.”

    • VR
      December 24, 2010, 1:54 am

      My guess is there is quite a bit of reference to people in communities in the USA, that is, it may reveal sources working for Israel in the US.

      بلاحدود – جوليان أسانج – مؤسس موقع ويكيليكس

      “Even New York Times could not publish more due to the sensitivities related to the Jewish community in the US…”

      • VR
        December 24, 2010, 2:38 am

        I may not be right in my guess, but one thing is for sure, if it disturbs the Jewish community in the US at this juncture it would be good to unveil. It may clear up some heavily shrouded activity which needs to be exposed. Perhaps Mondoweiss could apply for the material?

  4. Shingo
    December 23, 2010, 11:03 pm

    It sounds like a pretty lame excuse from Assange, but let’s wait and see if he comes through.

    There’s nothing stopping from releasing them. Why did Wikileaks grant Western papers exclusive rights to publish the secret documents ? Isn’t that contradicting the prinsipals of Wikileaks?

    Give them to RT, Pravda, Al Jazeera. Who cares where they come from?

  5. Jeffrey Blankfort
    December 23, 2010, 11:06 pm

    If you read what Gordon Duff, a former Marine Corps officer, has had to say about Julian Assange you would be forgiven for thinking that he is another Hitler (Duff earlier published a photo of Assange with his hand stretched out with a caption recalling Berlin in 1932!),but at the very least an Israeli agent, an “avid Zionist” (who will soon be made an Israeli citizen). But that’s not all. Assange is a “serial rapist” and Bradley Manning is or was his “gay lover.”

    The answer as to why Duff is doing this can be found in his first article on the subject, “SELLING WIKILEAKS, SELLING HATE FOR AMERICA,” link to

    Gordon, ever the loyal Marine, Semper Fi and all that, is out to protect American imperialism from its exposure by Wikileaks

    It seems Duff comes out with a new blast on Wikileaks/Assange every day all of which have been consistent for their lack of what journalists might call hard evidence but that does not seem to be a problem for the bloggers who pick them up and pass the poison on to their readers.

    Duff is not a journalist, he’s a polemicist, a Glenn Beck of the internet with the same respect or disrespect for any facts that get in his way. Notice in his latest screed that there is not a single link to any of his back alley allegations: link to

    In the beginning, when I first read his articles critical of Israel I welcomed him as an important addition to the anti-Zionist communications front. But no more. We have more than enough factual material on our side without needing to throw into the mix deliberate falsehoods, and what he puts out are nothing less than that. Moreover, when people use and pass on his bullshit without doing their own fact checking, it threatens to do damage the genuine anti-Zionist struggle.

    • whimsical dog
      December 25, 2010, 1:23 pm

      C’mon, Gordon Duff is a Truther. A full on whack job. Brain dead. Leave him to jibber jabber in peace. He has no place as a participant or a reference in any discussion outside the tin foil hat crowd.

      Don’t embarrass yourself.

  6. Jeffrey Blankfort
    December 24, 2010, 1:48 am

    I suspect that Assange gave the cables to four Western papers, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El Pais, and the Guardian, which gave them to the NY Times, because he believed that it was people in the West who most needed to see them. Moreover, they are all print journals which Al-Jazeera, Russia Today are not. What should not be forgotten is that he is also putting a number of the cables up each day on the Wikileaks site,, which, even reading them casually, I have found to contain a number of pearls.

    Two of them, the one that revealed that Lebanese defense minister, Elias Murr, told the US he wanted to see Israel wipe out Hezbollah and that he would show them the appropriate targets, if Israel let the Christian areas alone, and the one that had the Australian Intelligence Agency argue against Iran being considered a rogue state and defending its quest to go nuclear as a deterrent while warning of the need to prevent an Israeli attack on Tehran, were certainly not releases that helped Israel, but in all the hullabaloo about Assange they have been largely ignored.

    • kalithea
      December 24, 2010, 3:19 am

      I find none of those leaks unfavorable to Israel. Israel is only too glad to let the region know that it has collaborators and Israel is of a Bush mindset on Iran: if you’re not with us then your with the terrorists, enemy whatever. This is embarrassing for Australia not Israel.

      I still don’t trust Assange and I’m not buying this excuse one iota.

    • Les
      December 24, 2010, 4:21 pm

      While there may be some truth in the notion that Arab dictators side with Israel when it comes to Iran, but for the most part I suspect that they say this because this is what they believe the US needs to hear if their regimes hope to remain in good stead with the US.

      Incidentally, thanks for having Gareth Porter on your program Wednesday.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        December 24, 2010, 6:28 pm

        Thanks, Les, Gareth Porter is one of the more knowledgeable individuals writing about the Middle East, and particularly, the push to attack Iran. While he has had some questions about Wikileaks he explains, in the interview, why logistically the notion that it is a Mossad or other foreign intelligence operation is unrealistic.

        He also notes at the end of the program that the oil companies preferred dealing with Saddam, not attacking him, and that they would also be eager to do business with Iran which they have been blocked from doing by the sanctions. The entire program with my 16 minutes of opinion and news can be found on:
        link to
        My previous program, an interview with Omar Barghouti regarding BDS can be heard here: link to

      • MRW
        December 25, 2010, 5:46 pm

        Jeffrey, I read Lila Rajiva’s Part II piece on Wikileaks last night, which I would like your thoughts on. (The bee up my bonnet is about WL, not Assange, although I find his anti-911 comments stupid.)

        The last half of her article contains some really interesting food for thought about the timing of Wikileaks back in 2007/8 claiming it had a million docs and the discovery by a Swedish security consultant — at the same time but under-reported — that he could siphon off massive amounts of overseas embassy and military emails and exchanges, which he did, by positioning himself at the exit points of the anonymizer Tor where encryption ended on its way to the end point.

        Rajiva provides links to over 200 pages of backup material, one-half of which I’ve gone through. It is cross-posted at VT, but you can read her article here (the video at the top of her piece is not on VT, and frankly, I dont know who the hell the guy narrating the video is. Her article is more thought-provoking:
        link to

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        December 26, 2010, 12:57 am

        I’ll check it out. I’ve interviewed Lila before and I very much respect her. I’m away at the moment and realized I forgot my AC cord so it won’t be for a couple of days.

      • occupyresist
        December 24, 2010, 6:49 pm


        I agree. One part of it is about remaining in bed with the US so that the US can also fight their wars for them. And it’s also about not being overthrown. Irrespective of the Arab public opinion, in the end it’s not up to the people to decide what they want their governments to do. The people are irrelevant.

        If the US tomorrow was able to stop relying on oil, the people would be better able to overthrow their dictatorships. Yes, China’s consumption is growing at an increasing rate, but still the US has a good piece of the pie.

        If these dictators do not curry favors with the US, they run the risk of not being able to guarantee that the US won’t help incite elements of rebellion within their societies.

        They also run the risk of the US sicking Israel on them, but that’s a different story. I think in terms of ‘deterrence’, Israel has shown itself to be largely ineffective.

        But you’re still not taking one element into account: The hate towards Iran in many parts of Saudi Arabia is ingrained and unshakeable. Whether it’s because they’re Shia, and the perception is they are not to be trusted, or because they are another competitor, perceived as an abomination of sorts, in the Islamic world, I see it ingrained in the older generation.

        Just the other day someone was talking about the Ashura celebrations in Qatif, and I was listening to their conversation quietly at first:

        Person A: “Those Shia are a major problem”
        Person B: “Yeah, they really deserve what they are getting”
        …blah blah blah

        Of course, here I naively jump in and say no, that’s not true, they don’t deserve what they get.

        then Person A asks: Wait, why do you say that? (stunned and offended)

        I go: Well, I don’t think this is a good topic to discuss.

        Person A: Yes, but why are you saying this, tell us so we know if your views have merit.

        I say: Why? So you can ‘correct’ my views?

        Being at a dinner table, though I kind of let it go. But it struck me how much, even those in elite circles, abhor the Shia-collective. They feel like it is an abomination on their own midst, using the name of their religion.

        I worry about this a lot, so when I saw those Arab leaders spout that s**t, I was extremely angry. Even if they are doing it to be on the ‘States good side, those are extremely irresponsible and dangerous words. This could instigate so many problems between the Shia and Sunni sects in countries like Saudi, Bahrain, etc…

        It gives the Sunnis a sense of entitlement and vindication against their fellow Shias (i.e. even our leaders think you are a worse problem than Israel), and gives the Shia more reason to feel victimized and vulnerable.

        Of course, it leaves those of us who are tired of this whole sectarian sh*t with further reasons to be depressed.

  7. ElSaltador
    December 24, 2010, 3:40 am

    Ahmed Mansour of Al Jazeera Arabic interviews Julian Assange :

    link to

    They need to put out a full English transcript of this interview. ASAP.

  8. Chaos4700
    December 24, 2010, 4:06 am

    As has been said before: there’s nothing groundbreaking in the WikiLeaks, really. It’s only an affirmation of what was pretty much known to be true, but couldn’t be proven until the leak.

    • MRW
      December 24, 2010, 7:03 am

      And. It’s still not proven. It’s still State Department opinion written by a hireling unless I read ‘the official US position is’, or something similar. In the meantime, it has the same weight as all other internet or MSM surmisings, which I readily admit I quote as reported statements. Just because it’s written in a leak doesn’t make it so; a cloak does not guarantee a proof.

      But we are one step further.

  9. Richard Parker
    December 24, 2010, 8:40 am

    Don’t forget that the first publishers of Wikileaks documents were the establishment newspapers that Assange chose: El País (Spain), Le Monde (France), Der Spiegel (Germany), The Guardian (United Kingdom), and The New York Times (United States).

    The cherries; just the first 220 of the 251,287 documents were published on 28 November, and only about 1700 have been published so far. The NYT, a notably pro-Israel rag, is the only one read in the US, and could be expected to be biased.

    However, many more cables are coming out, day by day, and are being picked up by local newspapers in the Middle East and elsewhere. The shenanigans going on with the Hariri assassination ‘investigation’ in Lebanon have only been taken up by the Daily Star and a few other Arab papers. This is important; it is the set-up for Israel’s next out-of-territory attack.
    link to

    “STL prosecutor Daniel Bellemare last year complained to then US ambassador Michele Sison that Syria, initially accused of Hariri’s murder, was treating his investigators as “school kids in short pants.” -and such like.”

    The Hariri investigation is closely run by the US

  10. Jeffrey Blankfort
    December 24, 2010, 12:38 pm

    It has been suggested here and elsewhere that Assange should have chosen to release the cables to alternative media sites. With all do respect to alternative media sites, none of the capability of reaching wide audiences and from what I have seen of much of the internet traffic about them, people are spending more time psychoanalyzing Assange and speculating on his motivations than actually reading the cables which have been made available in a steady flow on a day to day basis. Going through all of them in a reasonable time frame is beyond the capability of most inidviduals as well as media outlets, but it seems not that many of Wikileaks critics have bothered looking at them at all, relying, ironically, on what is published in the NY Times for their information about them. The Times, BTW, was excluded from Wikileaks distribution this time and received its copies of the cables from the Guardian.

    If one would like to see what happens when important information on the Israel-Palestine conflict is produced by an alternative media source and how it gets ignored by the alternative media, one just needs to go to the Israel Lobby Archive, run by Grant Smith, of IRmep, which has been putting out on a regular basis critical information relating to AIPAC which has recently been declassified and other material he has obtained under the Freedom of Information Act

    Some of the information has been on Mondoweiss and his articles have appeared on, but I wonder how many of those questioning Assange’s motivations and wondering what he is hiding, have bothered to check out the Israel Lobby Archive? link to

    • Egbert
      December 25, 2010, 5:45 am

      In my view, WikiLeaks decision to use conventional MSM to redact, publish and release then to WikiLeaks site is a wise decision. These conventional ‘respectable’ MSM outlets are now tied into the publication of the information. An attack on WIkiLeaks is an attack on them as well. If the information had solely been released to bloggers, then, as far as the general public are concerent, the bloggers could be targeted as ‘anti-American’ or ‘terrorists’ as is Assange, and dealt with in the same way.

      A quote from Pepe Escobar may help:

      “The emperor badly needs to set an example: see what happens when you defy my will. Yet the US Department of Justice’s strategy doesn’t exactly embody Kant’s categorical imperative. They will try by all means necessary to force Manning to testify against Assange – and then charge Assange as a conspirator in “cablegate” and the Iraq and Afghan file leaks.”

    • MRW
      December 25, 2010, 5:55 pm

      Grant Smith is light-years ahead of Wikileaks because Grant Smith publishes actual documents secured under the FOIA. In my view, there is no comparison between WL and IRMEP. One is a diary, the other is history.

      • MichaelRivero
        December 25, 2010, 7:36 pm

        You hit the nail on the head.

        There are dozens of blogs that have been leaking real government source documents for years. My own site launched with the FBI 302 documents that proved fraud in the manufacture of testimony in the murder of White House Deputy Council Vincent Foster. That was in 1994.

        Wikileaks was started in December 2006. In March 2007, both the Washington Post and the New York Times hailed Wikileaks and Julian Assange as THE place to go for inside government information. Yet Wikileaks hadn’t issued anything other than press releases at that time. There was nothing newsworthy whatsoever about Wikileaks. They had not done anything, certainly not in comparison to other website with well-established track records, yet Assange was promoted by the corporate meDia as if he were a rock star!

        In hindsight, the objective Is obvious. People Are distrustful of the media which had helped lie the nation into the war with Iraq. More and more they are turning to the blogs for their news and analysis. The governments of the US and Israel are losing the war for the minds of America. The millions Israel spends to bribe US media to report the news there way is rapidly becoming an investment with no return.

        link to

        As soon as one blog is bought up and compromised, five more independent sites take its place.

        Clearly, a blog had to be created which was as controlled as the corporate media, and promoted the way one would create and promote a TV network or a new newspaper, to draw readers away from the established uncontrolled blogs while creating the illusion of trustworthiness. This is the reason the Washington Post and New York Times gave Assange the front page treatment even before he had actually done anything; he is one of their own, just as bought, just as controlled, just as mendacious.

        The propagandists have invested three years and millions of dollars in the hoax. The objective of all the media coverage was not those people still watching corporate media, for they are still trusting of the official story. The promotion of Wikileaks was intended to hijack the blog-o-sphere by creating a controlled blogger superstar that would draw attention away from the older and more established blogs that refused to be controlled. Assange was supposed to become the embodiment of the blogger, and Wikileaks the new covert gatekeeper of information flow.

        But the very means used to promote Assange as a superstar is what undermined his credibility. Webmasters and readers of blogs that had been around for ten years or more noticed that Wikileaks was getting all this major press promotion at its launch without having actually done anything at the time. That the TV networks ignored long-established blogs to heap adoration on Wikileaks made it clear from the start that Wikileaks is a manufactured media outlet in bloggers’ clothing.

        That Assange ONLY sends his “leaked” documents through corporate media, allowing them final control over what gets published, only reinforced the impression of a very cozy relationship between them.

        The fastest way to spot a propaganda deception is to look for what should be there and is not. In this case, had Wikileaks been just another whistle-blowing blog, hurrying to join an already decades-long social phenomenon, one would have expected the corporate media to treat Wikileaks the same way they treat every other blog; with mild derision if they deign to notice at all. The corporate media treated Assange as something different. Hence, he IS something different; something the corporate media WANT you to pay attention to!

        But all that time and all that money has not achieved the desired result. The public sees Wikileaks for the deception it is. The propagandists are trying to find some way to prop the hoax back up, and while one may admire their dedication to the fraud in the face of the facts, on a scale to match that of the global warming cult, the hard reality is that Wikileaks credibility is shattered and all the shrill cries of “whackjob” cannot put it back together again!

  11. yonira
    December 25, 2010, 1:44 am

    If this were the case, Adam Ermash, would be the first to have it published.

    link to

    After reading this do you guys still buy Gordon Duff’s story that Wikileaks is a Mossad front?

    Never would have though Wikileaks and Human Rights Watch had the same headhunters.

  12. Saleema
    December 25, 2010, 4:12 am

    Hey, is linking to this post!

  13. MichaelRivero
    December 25, 2010, 10:02 am

    Assange is trying to cover his rear end. His own former volunteers blew the whistle on him that he took money from Israel not to release documents damaging to Israel. Now Assange wants to shift the blame to the media by claiming they have an exclusive right to his documents (which are not really his to start with) and they are the ones protesting Israel. Even if that were true, does not such an arrangement allowing the media to remain in control of what the public sees undermine the whole concept behind being a whistleblower?

    • whimsical dog
      December 25, 2010, 1:31 pm

      “His own former volunteers blew the whistle on him that he took money from Israel not to release documents damaging to Israel.”

      You better have some credible info to back this up. And it better not be that tinfoil hat whack job Gordon Duff.

      Show me some proof.

  14. MichaelRivero
    December 25, 2010, 2:36 pm

    The clearest proof that Assange is a manufactured propaganda asset is that the only defenders he has scream “whack job” like that is actually a compelling argument.

    The source for the report that Assange took money from Israel is NOT Gordon Duff, which w you would know if you were actually checking the facts. The source for the story are two of Asaange’s own volunteers who, tired of his autocratic rule on his extortion racket.
    Why do you think Assange is announcing today that he will release documents damaging to Israel in 6 months? So Israel has 6 months to meet Assange’s price?

    And why does Assange try to place the blame for the lack of documents damaging to Israel by claiming the controlled media simply won’t publish what he gives them? Does it make sense for a supposed whjistle-blower site to allow the mainsytream media to control what is allowed out in public? Of course not. If Wikileaks were legitimate, and Assange really did have documents harmful to Israel, he would respond to the corporate media’s refusal to publish said documunents by releasing them from other websites not cowed by Israel, such as

    But he doesn’t.

    And Assange himself admits that both the New York Times and Washington Post (both of which heaped praises on him and his website when it was just 2 months old and before it has actually leaked anything) cooperated with the US State Department in choosing which documents should be released.

    It is all a propaganda setup to take the same old lies people reject from ABCNNBBCBSFOX and wrap them in a new sugar coating called Wikileaks in the hope people will swallow them.

    And it did not work.

  15. Jeffrey Blankfort
    December 25, 2010, 2:52 pm

    You were asked for your sources re the alleged payoff by Israel to Assange, Rivero, and simply writing, “The source for the story are two of Assange’s own volunteers..” doesn’t cut it. Where’s the link?

    The fact of the matter is that Assange did not give these cables to either the NY Times or the Washington Post. The Times got theirs from the Guardian which ,may or may not have been by prearrangement.

    I do see believe Assange is playing this situation as if it was a chess game, trying to think one move ahead of those who seriously want to corral him and the project. BTW, Wikileaks apparently is more than Assange or handful of disgruntled former colleagues since the leaks keep on coming. There are pearls for those with open minds (and admittedly a lot of time on their hands).

  16. peters
    December 25, 2010, 3:03 pm

    i read a comment on zerohedge saying that he suspected assange from the start BECAUSE he categorically denied there was any need for a 9/11 review. i thought it was a good point.

    • MichaelRivero
      December 25, 2010, 3:16 pm

      You are correct. Assange is on the record saying “I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11…”

      That alone proves Assange protects Israel.

      Here is the link to the original interview so that Blankfort can scream “whackjob” one more time.

      link to

      • MRW
        December 25, 2010, 6:02 pm

        “I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11…”

        Does not equal this:
        That alone proves Assange protects Israel.

        I don’t buy the official 9/11 story one iota. (You’d have to be brain-dead to believe it, or profoundly unaware of even basic physics. Three skyscrapers taken down at the speed of gravity by a kerosene fire? Please.) But I don’t know who did it. I want a real investigation. We didn’t get one. The 9/11 Commission was not allowed to. The commissioners are speaking out now saying they were prevented from getting to the truth of it, and important documents and witnesses were denied them.

      • MichaelRivero
        December 25, 2010, 7:04 pm

        The only people actually arrested on 9-11 turned out to be Mossad agents. The alleged hijackers all departed from airport security gates where security was handled by ICTSm an Israeli-owned security company managed by ex Mossad and IDF security experts.

        IN any event, you stu[u,.ate you do not beliecve th eoffiical story of 9-11. Assange thinks you are “annoying.” Yet you still defend him by screaming “whackjob, whackjob, whackjob!” (PLease someone, buy this man a thesaurus for Christmas!

      • whimsical dog
        December 26, 2010, 2:50 pm

        I didn’t realize when I came here that Mondoweiss is Truther Central. “The sky is blue! Oh my God it must be a conspiracy!” “Water runs downhill! Oh my god it must be a conspiracy!” “The Sun comes up in the morning, and — check it out — it comes up in THE EAST!!!!! What more proof do you need? It’s a conspiracy!”

        Things fall “at the speed of gravity” (stupid stupid ignorant clueless phrase — it is the ACCELERATION of gravity, and the velocity, as a function of time, due to that acceleration) because that is what happens when something falls. Anything that falls, at the earth’s surface and in the earth’s gravitational field, falls at that rate. It’s not a conspiracy, not an accident, not subject to variation, it’s a fundamental truth, a fundamental law of nature.

        No, I’m sorry, you guys are too far gone: The whack job tabernacle choir screaming their stupidity in the Echo Chamber of Ignorance.

        I’m outta here.

      • MRW
        December 26, 2010, 3:05 pm

        “I’m outta here.”

        Good. We prefer people who have passed Grade 12, or A Levels.

      • Kolokol
        December 26, 2010, 3:38 pm

        Things accelerate at gravity only when there is no resistance, presumably a building with massive amounts of columns, supports and various supporting structure would provide some resistance, no? So, using the fundamental law of nature the question that you have overlooked in your rant is –>what happened to the supports? If a parachutist falls to earth at the same speed as a stone, don’t you think it’s worthy to figure out what happened to the parachute.

  17. MichaelRivero
    December 25, 2010, 3:12 pm

    I know your kind. You sit there demanding “show me the proof” like some imperial potentate, then when the proof is provided you scream “whackjob”. If you were truly interested in the facts rather than just wasting everyone’s time you could have found these in just a few moments.

    link to

    link to

    link to

    link to

    link to

    link to

    Know any other webmaster making 100,000 pounds a year, mostly from “anonymous” supporters?

    link to

    • Jeffrey Blankfort
      December 25, 2010, 4:31 pm

      Speaking of ‘Whackjobs,” Michael, you certainly have an affinity for finding them. I happen to have seen these articles before. Three are the same article from the Whacko Duff, who is clearly, in a misguided sense of patriotism, perhaps, doing damage control for Washington,
      See “GORDON DUFF: SELLING WIKILEAKS, SELLING HATE FOR AMERICA”…/gordon-duff-selling-wikileaks-selling-hate-for-america/ – which has been the main loser from the leaks, and the two that refer to a secret meeting in Geneva provide no reliable sources on which to base those allegations.

      Moreover, you have provided no reference for the two ex-Wikileakers who claim that he made a deal with Israel. Back under your rock.

      • MRW
        December 25, 2010, 6:03 pm

        Jeffrey, the initial story is rivero’s first link, the indybay one.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        December 26, 2010, 12:50 am

        I saw the IndyBay article and found it peculiar that this unsigned post (a false name) referred to an Arabic news service that I have never heard, and I think by now I have heard of all the reliable and some unreliable ones, of as the source of this secret meeting in Geneva. I’m simply not it since it seems like a classic disinformation attempt. Why, I would also ask would it be only published on IndyBay where anything goes?

      • annie
        December 26, 2010, 1:52 am

        IndyBay is a compromised website. fbi imho.

      • annie
        December 26, 2010, 2:20 am

        MRW, indybay is massively (uber massively) compromised. nobody (iow NOBODY) takes that site seriously. it’s a false flag dump. sure there maybe be a few non compromised articles there but that is a place they infiltrate. really, it is a cess pool.

      • MichaelRivero
        December 26, 2010, 10:40 am

        It appears the only tactic Assange’s supporters have is to scream that anyone criticizing Assange must be “compromised”. They are sounding like the catholics insisting there cannot possibly be any molestation in the church and that anyone who says there is is in league with the devil! Or Al Gore’s fans who are still claiming that anyone who dares notice the record cold winters is in the pay of the oil companies! It is an old and worn out tactic that convinces nobody any more.

        Remember that Assange not only disdains the 9-11 truth movement, but his latest document dump claimes Osama bin Laden is still alive and that WMDs were actually found in Iraq! And today we learn that Assange, former hacker and rape suspect turned media superstar, has landed a million dollar deal for his autobiography! Know any other webmaster getting such spotlight treatment? Not since Sarah Palin have we seen such an obvious manufactured celebrity.

      • Kolokol
        December 26, 2010, 12:43 pm

        I haven’t seen Assange do that, I’ve seen plenty of the opposite though, that anyone who doesn’t think Assange is Mossad is surely compromised!

        A lot of Catholics think the church has been infested with the “smoke of Satan” and are glad to see it exposed as a much needed thing even if some detractors have other agendas. I mean, there are two sides even within one side. Sure, you’ll find factions within ideologies, religions, parties that are nothing more than acolytes, but you’ll also find people who have a deeper grasp, Look: Ron Paul is a Republican and probably one of the few that actually represents what so many claim to represent. Yes there are those in the climate debate that shriek about oil financing while totally ignoring UN and government financing of their side, as if that didn’t matter! So, you’ve got a point, Michael, but with your approach there is no room for people with honest disagreements. Without allowing for that the focus on the personality of Assange merely leads to factionalism.

        Re Osama video, did Assange write that cable? About 9-11, I’ve called myself a Truther but I’m also annoyed by some factions of that movement, as you yourself are!

      • MRW
        December 26, 2010, 3:22 pm

        Jeffrey and Annie,

        The indybay article was the source. I recall that the German guy who defected WL issued some kind of rebuttal to the article in the past week or so.

        As for who is a cesspool and who isn’t, I no longer honor any of these labels. After watching what Trish Schuh had to go through three years ago (2007) to get her report about the supposed Deir Al-Zur/Dayr az Zawr/Deir Ez-Zor bombing out to the public, and her lament that no one — no one — in DC when she came home would even listen to what she saw in Syria, I now sometimes think that it’s good that pearls are scattered in protected swamps that others decry. (Although Joshua Landis’ blog is not a swamp.)

        I read everything, annie. Everything enters my brain as ‘duly noted’. But if you want to identify cesspools, consider the NYT and WaPo circa 2002-2004. Of course, those pools have gilded seats and eunuchs to fan the fumes away, and most people like, and extol, the warmth of their ooze.

      • annie
        December 26, 2010, 3:44 pm

        It appears the only tactic Assange’s supporters have is to scream

        source? i’m not hearing any screams here but i sure hear lots of bloviations from you. also, the rape charge has been toned down. something about not using a condom but i guess that is rather par for the course for your accusations/exaggerations. whatever michael.

      • annie
        December 26, 2010, 3:59 pm

        mrw, i am not recalling calling it a cess pool (but maybe i am mistaken), i said it was compromised.

        i don’t get that impacted by people claiming he’s some mossad tool, it’s just not my hunch in the least. it reeks of false flag stuff to me that’s all. i read lots of stuff too and believe me i won’t hold it against you and trust it’s just your instincts. you’ve been around here a long time and we just part ways over this particular assessment.

        however, spanking new posters who show up here claiming his supporters consider him a ‘deity’, claim we are ‘screaming’, use bloviating claims re the alleged rape and use statements like “I know your kind” yada yada …not so much. too crutchy for my taste. it turns the place into a dkos personalized shitfest and drags down the site. that’s just my opinion (and not of you), if the shoe fits, etc.

      • MRW
        December 26, 2010, 4:09 pm


        yeah, I agree with you except for visiting ‘compromised’ sites. I visit them. I read them. I still can’t eat breakfast without reading the back of the cereal box. Now that I have an iPad….

      • annie
        December 26, 2010, 4:43 pm

        oh i definitely ‘visit’ lots of places. you can’t get a perspective on branding unless you do. it’s just the nature of the beast. i look at a variety of sites and observe the urgency factor of the messaging.

      • whimsical dog
        December 26, 2010, 3:10 pm

        Thanks, Jeff. I checked the first three out before concluding it’s all Echo Chamber of Ignorance self-reinforcement. Are you the only sane person here? Whatever. Good luck to you. I have enough difficulty extracting truth from garbage on websites with quality information and clear-headed reality-based participants, without subjecting myself to the tsunami of brain-destroying hoo hah that I find in this thread on this site.

        Can’t do it. Now I’m outta here.

      • annie
        December 26, 2010, 4:02 pm

        this thread is ‘special’, we have some new participants. something tells me the branding of assange is high on some peoples’ priority list.

      • MRW
        December 26, 2010, 4:07 pm


        I thought you were leaving.

    • annie
      December 26, 2010, 2:15 am

      Know any other webmaster making 100,000 pounds a year, mostly from “anonymous” supporters?

      you’re so full of sh*t. your ‘supporting’ evidence (that link) claims assange made 66,000 euros last year. maybe you didn’t know 10 euros only equals 8.5 lbs.

      iow, assange made about 56,ooo lbs.


      btw, thanks for linking to all these ‘challenged’ websites. i’ll be sure to remember them in the future as being…bogus (along w/you).

  18. Jeffrey Blankfort
    December 25, 2010, 3:48 pm

    I am also troubled by Assange’s cavalier attitude toward critics of the official 9-11 narrative as I am by some others who I personally know and whose credentials and track record on every other issue are impeccable.
    It may well be that he, like those I am referring to, has been besieged by elements of the 9/11 Truth Movement that tend to be fanatic when it comes to arguing their points and are ready to instantly condemn and denounce anyone who does not totally agree with them over every point. Some of these folks, I suspect, have infiltrated the movement on orders from Washington in order to give it a “whacko” reputation and keep others from investigating it as suggested by Cass Sunnstein: link to
    While Sunnstein did not exactly suggest that infiltrators do what I have described, which would have been dicey as a government employee, he called for infiltrators to join 9/11 discussion groups to tear down their arguments against the official narrative. It would seem more likely that the former approach, infiltrate fanatic 9/11 truthers, would be more effective.

    • MRW
      December 25, 2010, 6:06 pm

      I agree. I read Sunstein’s whole paper when it was first published. The British expression “gobsmacked” came to mind. The profound arrogance of it and his grandiose idea of his own intellectual importance were breath-taking.

  19. Antidote
    December 25, 2010, 4:27 pm

    Dissatisfaction with Assange

    link to

    • Jeffrey Blankfort
      December 26, 2010, 12:45 am

      There is no question but that Assange has an enormous ego which has been built up by his supporters but I find it curious that his critics are upset because he has paid so much attention to the US. Other than the fact that the US was the source of these cables, is Daniel Schmitt trying to protect the US although somewhat more subtletly than Gordon Duff?

    • annie
      December 26, 2010, 4:06 pm

      “There is some indication that Daniel and some others are setting up a similar venue, and we wish them luck,” said Kristinn Hrafnsson, a WikiLeaks spokesman, in an interview quoted by the Wall Street Journal in early November. “It would be good to have more organizations like WikiLeaks.”

      maybe somebody just resents assange getting all the attention. anyway, i too am glad there’s another company exposing leaks, the more the merrier.

  20. MRW
    December 25, 2010, 6:08 pm published this Wikileaks hogwash from Agence France-Presse in Jerusalem on Friday, Christmas Eve, yesterday…interesting timing:
    link to

    Israel destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor in an air raid just weeks before it went online in 2007, said a US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks and published on Friday in an Israeli daily. “On September 6, 2007, Israel destroyed the nuclear reactor built by Syria secretly, apparently with North Korea’s help,” then US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice wrote in the cable published in Yediot Aharonot newspaper.

    “Our intelligence experts are convinced that the attack targeted by the Israelis is in fact an atomic reactor of the same type built by North Korea in Yongbyon,” she wrote in the message dated April 2008.
    “We have good reason to believe that the reactor was not built for peaceful purposes,” she said, adding the attack came only weeks before the reactor was to become operational.

    Rice also noted the secrecy surrounding the construction of the nuclear facility, with the Syrian authorities refusing to invite the International Atomic Energy Agency or any media to inspect the site.
    The rest: link to

    This unvetted horseshit — IAEA head El Baradei denounced the Israeli claims at the time as completely untrue — is the same crap that Israel tried to peddle back then in anticipation of going after Syria, post bombing Iran. [Remember this was three months before the US NIE came out in Dec 2007 that effectively stopped the Bomb Iran Plan in its tracks.]

    The excellent reporter Trish Schuh actually hoofed it to Deir al-Zur (Dayr az Zawr, Deir Ez Zor) in Syria on September 17, 2007 where this great derring-do by Israeli pilots was to have occurred 11 days earlier. She couldn’t get any stateside news orgs in DC to publish it — she’s a member of Military Reporters & Editors, based in the ME — not even Esquire, one of the publications she was writing for regularly from the Middle East. So it was published on Joshua Landis’ blog “Syria Comment”. Here’s what she wrote (emphasis mine):

    DEIR EZ ZOR, Syria-   […] This destitute, ramshackle oil town on Iraq’s desert frontier seems calm, despite Israel’s recent raid on a military base outside the city to destroy “Syria’s nuclear program.

    The Qamishli-Deir Ez Zor highway, alleged by Israel to be a weapons route for Iraqi insurgents, was also quiet, and there were no heavy construction machinery or building cranes visible in the opposite direction on the road from Deir Ez Zor to Iraq.
    At the Syria-Qusayba checkpoint near the Iraq border, I was stopped by the Syrian military.  Across the road on the Iraqi side, sounds of American military operations puttered as blackhawk helicopters flew overhead. “No photos,” said the Syrian military captain. Cameras could draw US sniper fire. 
    The surrounding terrain is flat barren desert, with visibility extending for miles. It is difficult to see how smugglers, insurgents or anything that moves could penetrate here. This is also where CNN claimed Israel punched “a big hole in the desert” by attacking North Korean nuclear materials. But the big hole could be in CNN’s story
    Several days ago, after the attack on Syria’s “nuclear program”, I spoke to western oil company officials in Deir Ez Zor.  One technician told me they routinely monitor radiation as part of the refining process. They registered no heightened levels of nuclear residue in the area as there would have been if the Israelis had hit a North Korean atomic stockpile. Operations and technical foremen put it this way: “The nuclear claims against Syria are pure bullsh*t.” 
    The Syrian smoking gun is the complete lack of any mushroom cloud.
    link to

    I don’t recall that Agence France-Presse was one of the chosen vetting news orgs, and certainly not out of Jerusalem. [Trish Schuh is an Orthodox Jewish journalist who learned Arabic, and about Islam, in Palestine.]

    If this is an example of Wikileaks’ releases re: Israel, I’m unimpressed — it’s not a wiki (user edits and commentary are not allowed), it’s a controlled pipeline. I commented on Schuh’s reporting on this blog in the fourth quarter of 2007. That was three years ago.

    • TWCDE
      October 13, 2014, 6:00 pm

      Trish Schuh is NOT Jewish. She is NOT French. She is AMERICAN, descended from generations of ROMAN CATHOLIC GERMAN ancestry with a ton of nuns & priests in the lineage. Its public record.

  21. Kolokol
    December 26, 2010, 11:01 am

    The source, AFAIK, for the story that Assange took money or made an agreement is a site called Syriatruth, reportedly run by one “Abramovich”. Furthermore, the former colleague of Assange’s, Domscheit-Berg, said to have accused Assange of making the deal has said that he never said that: “I have never spoken to anyone at syriatruth or that reporter that is making these claims, nor do I know anything about any deals JA has allegedly made with Israelis.”

    See here: link to

    Syriatruth now calls Berg a liar. True? How should I know.

    Google up Syriatruth and click around. My spidey sense thinks “disinfo”.

    I know people of good will on both sides of this particular aspect of Wikileaks.

    • MichaelRivero
      December 26, 2010, 11:31 am

      You know, if the Assange cheerleaders were as critical and skeptical with their deity as they are with us “heretics”, we would not even need to have this debate at all!

      • MichaelRivero
        December 26, 2010, 11:49 am

        P.S. “Spidey Sense?”

      • Kolokol
        December 26, 2010, 12:53 pm

        Intuition. What’s your take on Syriatruth?

      • annie
        December 26, 2010, 11:52 am

        i am not understanding you michael. can you make your point without the ad hominem crutch. assange is not a deity. if he is a heretic to you so be it. there is no need for a debate except in your own mind. most of us are here for information, it is you who feel this need to debate using extremely challenged sources i might add.

      • Kolokol
        December 26, 2010, 12:12 pm

        Cryptome is an Assange cheerleader?! I’m not an Assange cheerleader, I don’t consider him a deity. I’ve withheld my judgement on this for the very sensible reason that only a small portion of the cables have been released. Because of this I mostly focus on the reactions to Wikileaks from all corners which I find most interesting. For instance, why do people think that cables from US diplomats pushing the US point of view (actually, that’s a job description for a US official) are truth and not simply the US view given from an appointed official, and that it doesn’t need further context or analysis? Would one seriously expect a rant from a US Ambassador about Israel? Why do people go to the NYT et al to read the cables, these are the same MSM outfits who gleefully pushed the public into war. Would one expect these outfits to not cover for Israel or would one expect them to focus on items that they can spin, as Gareth pointed out in a case where the story was the opposite of what the headline said.
        I’ve read Assange’s reasons for going to the MSM, I don’t entirely agree, but upthread we have examples that illustrate his point, also, maybe, for people following closely Assange is also exposing the MSM spinning machine. My understanding is the some future releases will be to Brazilian media. I’ll wait and see.

      • annie
        December 26, 2010, 12:21 pm

        all excellent pts kolokol

      • MRW
        December 26, 2010, 3:29 pm

        I agree, Kolokol.

  22. MichaelRivero
    December 26, 2010, 11:49 am

    Julian Assange Gets Another Payday

    link to

    What a reluctant hero that Julian Assange is, huh? How noble of him to make the ultimate sacrifice by allowing a globalist publication firm to pay him 1.5 million dollars for attaching his name to a ghost written biography. Will this guy’s heroic actions never cease?

    Here’s a partial list of other authors that Julian’s publishing house has deals with..

    Thomas Kean co-chair 9/11 Commision Report

    Lee H. Hamilton co-chair 9/11 Commision Report

    Bill Clinton

    • Kolokol
      December 26, 2010, 1:07 pm

      Oh c’mon, let’s see, James Douglass has published “JFK the Unspeakable” from Orbis Press, a known publisher of religious viewpoints. Therefore Douglass is clearly in league with pedophiles. See how easy that is? Assange has probably got an inflated ego, but you know, every radio host, artist and edgy journo I’ve ever met has one too. You might be right about your take, Michael, but I do not see compelling evidence yet, all I see is correlation= confirmation.

      • MRW
        December 26, 2010, 3:30 pm

        So? It’s called the publishing biz, and he’s a hot commodity. Two separate things.

  23. peters
    December 26, 2010, 12:04 pm

    michael, you made a good point there. i do feel people want a hero so much, and understandably. i do. assange seemed to fit the bill.
    even though michael’s sources may be lousy, you have to concede a decent point. and annie, though i normally agree with you, debate is often how you acquire information. it seems obvious much this website is debate , and why not? the only debate i hate , is the faux debate with witty.

    • annie
      December 26, 2010, 12:32 pm

      you have to concede a decent point

      ahhh…not really. if it were decent it would be sourced decently.

      peter, i am not knocking debate per se. i’m just not seeing the logic of michael blaming this debate based on some crutch alleging others consider assange a diety. that is how his statement (“we would not even need to have this debate at all! “) read to me.

      this is just one old thread, i could care less if anyone wants to debate assange, i’m just not into these challenged websites.

  24. Jeffrey Blankfort
    December 26, 2010, 11:49 pm

    Making Assange the subject of the story and not the cables themselves, in which he has participated willy-nilly, (probably more willy than nilly), and stating, without the slightest shred of hard evidence, that he/Wikileaks is a Mossad operation, I will say, with some confidence, is a deliberate disinformation program, similar to COINTEL, on the part of the US governments whose agents, we all know, are out there in the blogosphere. When it all comes out, as I am sure it will, there will be or rather should be some very embarrassed folks who have fallen for the government line and are doing its work for nothing.

    • annie
      December 27, 2010, 2:21 am

      my sentiments exactly jeffrey.

      Making Assange the subject of the story and not the cables themselves


  25. MichaelRivero
    December 27, 2010, 5:15 pm

    Well, this may explain why there is so much screaming of “whackjob” around here!

    link to

    • Kolokol
      December 27, 2010, 8:10 pm

      “If we had Wikileaks up to speed, the Goldstone Report would never have been heard of at all. There isn’t anything that can’t be covered up by a Julian Assange scandal. I just hope something doesn’t come up where it gets so serious that Assange will have to be assassinated. He is really a loveable dupe.” (ADL source)”

      Really? The Goldstone Report was posted by the UN.
      Duff is being played by his “ADL source”.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        December 28, 2010, 12:28 am

        Duff is not being played by his so-called “ADL source” The ADL, with the death of its chief spymaster, Irwin Suall, has become largely a one man operation and that man is Abe Foxman who, if Israel was involved with 9/11, would not have been informed of the plot. Foxman has become so unpopular within the ranks of ADL members and lower ranking officers that they have been leaving the organization in protest.

        This is just another pure fabrication by a this “former” US government operative who is engaged in an obvious COINTEL operation to destroy Wikileaks. He is not a “whackjob” or “wacko.” That description better fits Rivero and those who peddle his poison. Duff knows exactly what he is doing which is why he will not post any of the comments I have, and I assume others, have attempted to post on his site calling his integrity and agenda into question.

Leave a Reply