William Engdahl provides, perhaps, the best summation of America's plight in a recent article and podcast. In last month's article, "Wikileaks--a Big Dangerous US Government Con Job," Engdahl's observations are chillingly apt. Wikileaks is too well-scripted to be true. Bradley Manning, the alleged leaker, had impossible access and his leaked material's content is not "top secret". Manning is, now, incarcerated and incommunicado - all too convenient. Once, the 250,000 leaked pages reached Julian Assange and Wikileaks, "Assange decides to selectively choose several of the world’s most ultra-establishment news media to exclusively handle the leaking job for him...The New York Times even assigned one of its top people, David E. Sanger to control the release of the Wikileaks material... sits as a member of the elite Council on Foreign Relations as well as the Aspen Institute Strategy Group..." observes Engdahl.The clear conclusion of the article is, "but for anyone who has studied the craft of intelligence and of disinformation, a clear pattern emerges in the Wikileaks drama. The focus is put on selected US geopolitical targets...". F William Engdahl sees right through the entire operation. "The Wikileaks is a big and dangerous US intelligence Con Job which will likely be used to police the Internet." You may catch today's Deadline Live interview of Engdahl here, which makes a great audio companion to the article!
Im not really sure why this website is promoting the article in question, without breaking down what it actually says.
ReplyDeleteWe have a terrible collection of media outlets in the western world, those chosen are the best of a bad bunch. I would exclude the Guardian from that, I buy it most days, and find it (by far) the most honest and brave of those available daily in Ireland/UK.
To call THE GUARDIAN an 'establishment' media outlet just shows a lack of knowledge of the UK/Western press, and of the Guardian itself (go find out how that paper is run, who owns it, and read a copy, instead of copying and pasting what the original article states).
Plus, the NYT had the power to use anyone they wanted - it was not Wikileaks who chose Sanger (although reading Engdahl's article would make one assume that was the case!)
Nobody can say for certain that Wikileaks is not part of the US propaganda machine, but one could easily state that this website, and Mr. Engdahl, are either surprisingly non-educated, or peddling US Empirical propaganda.