The Wikileaks Twist


Presented very genuinely with no implied support or belief, but just because I read Illuminatus! at a tender age and enjoy paranoid contemplations: Is Wikileaks not what it seems?

*Historian of the neocons Jacob Heilbrunn at the National Interest on cui bono? from the latest leaks? Obama bono! (Or Cui Obama!, I ain't no Roman, mea Americanus!)

the documents should create a comforting feeling among the American public that officials aren't asleep at the switch. President Obama may not be able to say that Karzai is a pathologically corrupt nutjob, but it's clearly what he and his emissaries think. Nor do they have any illusions about Iran. Or North Korea. So much for the myth that Obama is clueless. That would be one incentive for the administration to secretly welcome the release of the documents.

But there is more. Most of the foreign leaders quoted in the documents are stating the obvious. It's been clear for years that the Saudis and various other moderate Middle Eastern countries would like to see America and Israel deliver a knockout blow to the Iranian mullahs. But they were afraid to say so publicly. Now the WikiLeaks have done it for them. At the same time, the Obama administration has upped the psychological pressure on Iran, which has also just seen one of its top nuclear scientists assassinated. The message is clear: work for the regime and you will pay a price. Maybe there will even be a new WikiLeak about it in a year, showing that the Mossad arranged the hit.

The truth is that the American government engages in gross overclassification of documents, something that the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan inveighed against and that the redoubtable Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists continually battles. Maybe the WikiLeaks is a way of circumventing those restrictions. Getting American threats on record, while pretending to deplore the loss of secrecy, could be a potent weapon. If this is the case, then Obama may be craftier than anyone has assumed.

*Steve Clemons at Washington Note finds actual former national security insiders from Zbiggy Brzezinski to W. Bush's former national security advisor Steven Hadley suggesting some agenda-driven fishiness in what has been released:

As I get deeper into reading some of these cables, I increasingly realize that I and others are seeing the equivalent of raw intelligence, massive amounts of it. And some of it—even the statements by leaders in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the UAE about the Iran threat and what to do about it seems to be missing larger contextual framing.

I know personally that there is a diversity of views around the Saudi King and among his closest national security hands—and know that the same is true in the UAE. Those parts are missing from the Wikileaks material. And yet I know that there are cables about these views and statements as well—but they aren't part of the records in the dump.

Again, I'm intrigued by Brzezinski's query about covert ops—and have my doubts about his formulation, but it does provide a good cautionary warning not to just take everything in the Wikileaks material at total face value.

*The Daily Bell on how many "establishment narratives" can be supported by the leaks, from "we need tighter security against deranged perverts" to "mainstream gov't-ass-licking papers are really anti-establishment rebels" to "everyone realizes we gotta nail Iran" to "the Chicom are busting our security."

*And if the government was really mad at Assange….? Assange's lawyer insists that if governments want him, they totally know where to find him: somewhere in Britain.

Remember: Nothing is as it seems! Except for those times when it is.


NEXT: Fareed Zakaria's Right to Pay Higher Taxes Stops at My Right Not To.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Or maybe Bono bono because this is a big distraction from that potential Spiderman stinkaroo.

  2. Iran said this days ago. So Doherty has finally outed himself as an operative for the Islamic Republic.

    1. The Kochs run Iran, too? How deep does it go!?

      1. I C WUT U DID THAR.

  3. I said in another thread that if Assange didn’t exist, the neocons would have to invent them.

    The leaks don’t reveal anything embarrassing, in fact they tend to deflate conspiracy theories against the US while bolstering some US and neocon claims (Iran infiltrates Red Crescent, DPRK gives missiles to Iran, Arab governments want us to strike Iran more than we do despite public denials), etc., yet at the same time give them cover to demand tighter security restrictions that, perversely, actually would make real conspiracies more likely.

  4. I seriously, seriously doubt that the morons in this administration, or anywhere in the government, came up with an elaborate and subtle plan like that.

    It’s not as bad as believing in Trutherism, but it has the same roots: that the government is capable of concocting, establishing, and executing a plan like this without any leaks. Even on Wikileaks.

    It isn’t.

    1. Here’s what I have said. If I were president, I would personally leak to wikileaks, and then instruct my secretary of state to balls out and say, it’s not like you guys don’t do the same thing.

      Since Obama hasn’t done the latter, I refuse to believe he’s done the former.

      1. One has to also consider Obama’s arrogance and image issues, as well as Hillary’s and any person in a position of power; this makes them look bad. Sure, it’d be a brilliant move–if they were willing to look bad.

        I can almost guarantee you they’re not. They are all ego.

    2. Ah but maybe they WANT you to think they’re that stupid.

    3. I’ve suspected Julian Assange was a CIA asset since the Afghanistan doc dump.

      Just another chapter in the cold war between the CIA/State Dept. and the Pentagon. Nothing the rabble needs to concern itself with.

  5. How embarrassing for America to be Dustin Hoffman getting a drink splashed in his face by Jessica Lange in Tootsie: “You know, I could lay a big line on you and we could do a lot of role playing, but the simple truth is, is that I find you very interesting and I’d really like to make love to you.”

  6. And, all of these years I though that John Dillinger was dead. Here he has been hacking government computers from his underwater hash palace.

  7. Threadjack: Tiririca won! And just made it past the literacy test!

      1. So Brazil has one clown in their Congress. We have hundreds.

        1. The article says Brazil’s clown has some minimal understanding of written text. Our clowns have told us they don’t bother to read the text their staffs write and tell them to vote for.

  8. hail eris.

    1. Hail, yes!

  9. Wikileaks is not a wiki, which is defined as a collaborative document. Rather, it is a centralized data-release conduit. If the goal was to become an unstoppable whistleblowing service, distinguishable from anonymous postings by its curating and vetting services, the data delivery would be decentralized (eg, through bit torrent). Instead, its figurehead purposefully attracts publicity and conspiracy.

    Wag the dog, gentlemen, because the bark bites.

    1. “(eg, through bit torrent)”

      You mean, eg, the way wikileaks’ data delivery is decentralized through bit torrent:…..0,400,600/ ?

      You mean like that?

      1. That’s only what’s been released to the public. Anybody can create those torrents.

        They could instead torrent everything they have, but encrypted, and release the keys as needed — or all at once. If you trust their organization to have vetted the encrypted data, releasing keys can be done without requiring trust. That is, one can separate distribution from curation, which makes the project harder to destroy.

        But if your goal instead is to manipulate public opinion, even as an arm of one or more governments, you couldn’t do it more effectively than they do it now.

        1. “They could instead torrent everything they have, but encrypted, and release the keys as needed”

          You mean like this, the encrypted wikileaks “insurance.aes256” torrent:


          Like that?

          (Maybe not “everything”, but it’s big, and no one knows what it is… They’re tryin’ to work with ya here… and if it wasn’t for the publicity he attracts, he wouldn’t have much of an operation, would he?)

          1. Yes, exactly like that.

            Except, in order to encourage confidence, releasing keys to piecemeal-encrypted documents makes more sense, if the goal is to encourage distribution and instill confidence in the act of curation. A (distributed) denial of service attack should not be an issue; the fact that it is points to extreme incompetence or malice. I highly doubt nobody has suggested encrypted release, so I presume that courting bad publicity about Wikileaks is more important to them than guarding the information they claim to find important.

            (Oh, also, the Tor hidden service pointing to the site is years gone. I don’t think it was run by a third party. Unless they know something about Tor that they aren’t telling, it should have been the last incarnation of the site to die, not the first.)

  10. “If this is the case, then Obama may be craftier than anyone has assumed”

    About 300 sextillion times craftier.

    1. You better believe he is. (that does mean like super-sexy, right?)

      1. I’m surprised you’re not down with what the kids are saying these days. I guess vacations and picking on fat kids keeps you busy.

        1. How can we NOT be united against OBESITY?


          1. Fart

  11. close your eyse, little sheeps. wikileiks is obviously working for the BILDERBERGS and the CFR. The purpose should be as obvlivious as the nose on your own face: to simultaniously de-stabilize the governments of the world and then to step up to the plate with the ultimate solution: ONE WORLD GOVERNMENTS.

    1. Stoopid recantlibagger, you’re sure dim. By his own admission, ASS-ange is one of these fucking libertoids, or an anarchist more like. But what’s the difference, you wouldn’t be able to process it anyway, with your fucking sub-human IQ. Pro tip: follow the money trail, you’ll find Koch fingerprints all over it.

      1. Yeah, you think you’re pretty smart, but it’s not that simple, bro, and it’s definitely not the small-L libertarians. I got three words for you: Peak. Fucking. Oil. It all ties together: Wikileaks, Shrub, Cheney, 9/11, Iraq, the Kochs, Freemasons, Billary, Condi, Haliburton & Blackwater, and…the mother-fucking Illuminati. That’s right. Just connect the dots: you’re being sold out on all sides.

        Think about it, man. Just think about it.

    2. CFR? The C?ile Ferate Rom?ne???

      Christ! We are down the rabbit hole now. Wake up sheeple!

    3. The CFR? Not the Center for Forest Research!?

      I knew the Canadians were at the bottom of this. Wak up sheeple!

    4. The CFR? Not the Center for Forest Research!?

      I knew the Canadians were at the bottom of this.

  12. Blue Light Special!
    Tin-foil lids, aisle 6!

  13. Never prescribe conspiracy to a phenomena when incompetence can explain it.

  14. I’m surprised no one has mentioned the irony of leftists (rightly) decrying Liberman’s pressure tactics to infringe upon an organizations freedom of speech, while (wrongly) decrying the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United that such organizations are protected by the First Amendment.

  15. I agree that the wrong people will benefit from this, and freedom and openness will not be among the spoils of this action, but I think Mr. Assange is just too fanatical to see that.

    1. i agree with tony.


  16. There’s no way they could pull this off. Think I honestly would want to believe this spin on the leaks. Instead I’ll have to agree with Thacker. Obama’s just lucky our diplomacy still makes us look ballsy because he sure as hell isn’t.

  17. I was wondering the same thing. A lot of the cables seem extremely fortuitous. And spies have never been shy about giving the other side ‘chicken feed’.

  18. The Wikileaks Twist

    Is that the one where you spin the chick around until the condom breaks?

  19. Nothing is as it seems!

    Nothing is as nothing does.

  20. I’m Illuminati!
    Yes I’m Illuminati!
    I can be nice or naughty!
    Cause I’m Illuminati!

  21. “It’s been clear for years that the Saudis and various other moderate Middle Eastern countries”

    Moderate? Iran is moderate next to the Saudis…

  22. President Obama may not be able to say that Karzai is a pathologically corrupt nutjob, but it’s clearly what he and his emissaries think.

    I’m confused – is “Wikileaks” just a word the kids made up for stories that showed up in the Telegraph and the NYT in November of last year?

  23. Simpler argument. Wikileaks is obviously a CIA operation, otherwise the NYT wouldn’t publish them.

  24. There are 250,000 documents involved, and as earlier stated, the US government is pretty incompetent when it comes to this sort of trickery. Even when governments do commit false flag attacks (e.g., any terrorist attack that’s occured in Russia since the fall of communism), there are at least some very public figures telling the truth. They (i.e., Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litvinenko) eventually get killed, but at least they say it. When someone defects and claims that Obama made the whole thing up and then said person ends up dead, then maybe we can discuss inside jobs and false flag attacks (which is what this amounts to).

  25. I would say if Obama is a masculine first declension noun (like Cataline: Catalina, Catalinae), you would say bono Obamae. And it would be Americanus sum, not mea Americanus.

    1. Very interesting. So then how would you say “Obama is an American anus”?

      1. Literally, “Obama anus Americanus est.”

  26. Boy RM really loves Wikileaks. Too bad it was founded by a rapist.

    1. I don’t buy the rape allegations against Assange. He just doesn’t strike me as a guy who would sexually assault a woman. A little boy maybe, but a woman?

      1. Touche.

        (Accented es not allowed. Note to post filter: fuck you)

        1. I would also invite the filter to go fuck itself. It’s blocking me out of some bizarre grudge at this point.

      2. Apparently, the accusations are as follows:

        1. He had consenual sex with two different women in Sweden.
        2. In both cases, the condom they were using supposedly broke.
        3. In both cases, the woman supposedly asked him to stop but he didn’t.
        4. One of the women previously wrote on her blog on how to falsely call rape in order to trash the reputation of somebody.

        So, yeah, this looks like BS to me.

  27. If anything, the latest WikiLeaks dump underscores just how irrelevant the US diplomatic corps is. Anyone who’s read a newspaper knows most of what these documents are purported to reveal.

    My guess it’s mid- to low-level bureaucrats in State trying to justify themselves and impress their bosses by generating a crap-load of worthless “intelligence”.

  28. maybe your words are right IFDFBEBUD

  29. i’m a girl RGEY343DS

  30. arly what he and his emissaries think. Nor do they have any illusions about Iran. Or

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.