The mainstream media in USA has had this buried so deep they thought it would never see the light of day. The treasonous soldier who leaked a quarter million secret documents to the internet is a gay activist who is angry with the US military for proscribing overt homosexual behavior. To vent his anger it appears he conspired with Julian Assange to destroy the entire United States of America at worst or severely impair its ability to navigate the present minefield of world politics at the least. In any event it is likely that his fit of picque will likely cause US service members death and dismemberment. Prior to this event I had no particular strong opinions one way or the other regarding DADT. I certainly do now.
Another example of what the media doesn’t report… the story, behind the story. And again, the government got it wrong...What the media leaves out: Army staffer who leaked thousands of documents to WikiLeaks website is homosexual activist - angry at ban on gays in military.
The US Army intelligence analyst who has been arrested for disclosing more than more than 90,000 intelligence reports and more than 150,000 diplomatic cables to the Wikileaks website is a homosexual activist enraged at the military's "anti-gay" policies.
The massive publication of top-secret documents has been called one of the greatest security breeches in US history and has reportedly endangered the lives of US personnel around the world.
Bradley Manning, who is now awaiting court-marshal at a military stockade in Quantico, VA, was arrested last May for giving a classified video to the Wikileaks website, and later it became clear that he had given them thousands of other military documents. He is an open homosexual, and his anger at the military's rejection of homosexuality appears to be the major reason for his actions.
While in the Army, Manning has openly participated in gay rights marches, even publicly demonstrating against the military. In addition:
His Facebook page reportedly included a photo of him marching in a gay pride parade. His big interest was to "Repeal the Ban" on homosexuals serving openly in the military. He proclaimed his support for the National Center for Transgender Equality. He also talked about going to gay bars.
According to newspaper reports, he was prone to fits of rage. At one point Manning was demoted for assaulting an officer. He also wore custom dog tags labeling himself as "Humanist" (as his religious affiliation). And like many male homosexuals, Manning reportedly had a terrible relationship with his father, who had also been in the military and was divorced from his mother.
Manning was very upset over a breakup earlier this year with his homosexual lover, a student at Brandeis University who according to the New York Times described himself on his blog as a "drag queen."
The Montreal Gazette reported that "Manning could 'identify' with Iraqis and Afghans who he believed had suffered as a result of U.S. policies, especially because he himself was a "a member of a minority" treated unfairly by the military."
Manning said he spent 14-hour days copying the classified documents to send to the Wikileaks website.
As the Montreal Gazette reported,
Private Manning described how he downloaded the video and lip-synched to Lady Gaga as he copied hundreds of thousand of diplomatic cables.
"Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack," he boasted. But even as he professed a perhaps inflated sense of purpose, he called himself "emotionally fractured" and a "wreck" and said he was "self-medicating like crazy."
Not surprisingly, Manning has since been applauded on homosexual blogs and websites across the country.
General media blackout on Manning's "gay" issue
Except for a few newspaper accounts, the mainstream media in the US has completely ignored any "gay" aspect to this story, and especially his anti-military homosexual activism. To our knowledge, none of the major TV or cable network news programs have discussed it. Though Glen Beck did mention that "he was jilted by a boyfriend or something." (That's the same Glenn Beck who doesn't have a problem with homosexuality.)
For example, on Monday The Atlantic posted an article, "WikiLeaks: One Analyst, So Many Documents". It discusses Manning in some detail, but simply describes him as "a disaffected young man".
It's pretty strange, to say the least. One wonders what else the media refuse to report.
Army ignored its own policy…
Ironically, a major issue with the Manning case is that the Army was ignoring its own policy on homosexuals serving openly.
Jonah Knox (a pseudonym used by a US Army analyst) points this out in a great article on the Accuracy in Media website this week:
Army regulation restricts leaders from determining (officially) if a soldier is a homosexual and therefore someone who should be discharged. For instance, AR 600-20, Paragraph 4-19, Subparagraph d(3) ("Noncredible information") details instances that are not considered grounds for Army leaders to open an inquiry to determine whether someone is a homosexual and therefore should be discharged. The Army regulation states that "noncredible information" includes, "The only information known is an associational activity, such as going to a gay bar, possessing or reading homosexual publications, associating with known homosexuals, or marching in a gay rights rally in civilian clothes."
In Manning's case, he had a Facebook page devoted to homosexual causes that included a photo of him marching in a gay pride parade. His associates said he went to gay bars and he talked openly about his homosexuality to others. Several have said that he was angry with the military because of the failure to repeal the homosexual exclusion policy. Incredibly, however, the Army may not have considered any of the credible evidence that he was a homosexual.
It is true that Army regulations on homosexuality create a lot of confusion. And that may be intentional based on current Department of Defense policy. The Center for Military Readiness (CMR) says this in its analysis of current Department of Defense policy.
In other words, had the Army been following the law (rather than the Clinton "Don't Ask" policy regulations), this would not have happened.
Incident reiterates reasons for excluding homosexuals from military
Most public health organizations (including the Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health) have observed that homosexuals are far more susceptible to mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse, and violence than the general population.
The inherent emotional weakness and moral instability of people involved in homosexual behaviors and its resulting possible damage to the military have been documented going back over 100 years.
For further reading: This week Dr. Scott Lively published a fascinating article which discusses this, "The Wikileaks 'Gay' Connection." We recommend it. http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/newsarchives.php?id=7661895
(Just like the Fort Hood massacre, ignoring and not enforcing the military’s/ government’s own policy creates more (emboldened) breeches , abuses and violations. This guy is a traitor, just like the Muslim major that cost American lives.)
Showing posts with label Wikileaks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wikileaks. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Larry Elder
The WikiLeaks Vindication of George W. Bush
The WikiLeaks de facto declassification of privileged material makes it case closed: Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction -- and intended to restart his program once the heat was off.
President George W. Bush, in the 2003 State of the Union address, uttered the infamous "16 words": "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Former Ambassador Joe Wilson sprang into action and, in an op-ed piece, in effect wrote, "No, the Cheney administration sent me to investigate the allegation -- and I found it without merit."
Put aside that Wilson's CIA-employed wife, not the evil Vice President Dick Cheney -- as Wilson implied -- sent him on the African errand. Put aside that the British still stand by the intelligence on which Bush made the claim. And put aside that the anti-Bush Washington Post, in an editorial, concluded that Wilson had lied about not finding evidence to support the Iraq-in-Africa-for-uranium claim, since he told the CIA the opposite when he reported back from Africa.
Bush claimed that Iraq sought uranium, specifically "yellowcake." What is yellowcake, and why would its presence or attempted acquisition corroborate the nearly unanimous assumption that Saddam possessed WMD?
The Associated Press called yellowcake "the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment" and said that it "also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment."
"Bush and Iraq: Follow the Yellow Cake Road" headlined a euphoric Time magazine July 2003 piece -- written when the Bush administration began backtracking from the Iraq-sought-uranium-from-Africa claim. Time said no yellowcake equals no WMD equals bogus basis for war.
The article led with this ripper: "Is a fib really a fib if the teller is unaware that he is uttering an untruth? That question appears to be the basis of the White House defense, having now admitted a falsehood in President Bush's claim, in his State of the Union address, that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa."
Time hoisted (the now discredited) Joe Wilson on its shoulders as The Man Who Told the Truth to Power: "Just last weekend, the man sent by the CIA to check out the Niger story broke cover and revealed that he had thoroughly debunked the allegation many months before President Bush repeated it." Never mind that the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Wilson's report "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal" sought by Iraq in Niger.
Let's recap.
Bush, in building the case for war against Iraq, lied to the nation. He falsely claimed that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellowcake from Africa. Time magazine specifically referred to the yellowcake "lie" in accusing Bush of fabricating the case for war. Therefore, were Iraq to have had yellowcake -- an assertion called a "lie" -- it would have confirmed the presence of WMD, giving credence to Bush's declaration of Iraq as a "grave and gathering threat."
But ... there ... was ... yellowcake. This brings us back to WikiLeaks.
Wired magazine's contributing editor Noah Shachtman -- a nonresident fellow at the liberal Brookings Institution -- researched the 400,000 WikiLeaked documents released in October. Here's what he found: "By late 2003, even the Bush White House's staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But WikiLeaks' newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction (emphasis added). ... Chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam's toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict -- and may have brewed up their own deadly agents."
In 2008, our military shipped out of Iraq -- on 37 flights in 3,500 barrels -- what even The Associated Press called "the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program": 550 metric tons of the supposedly nonexistent yellowcake. The New York Sun editorialized: "The uranium issue is not a trivial one, because Iraq, sitting on vast oil reserves, has no peaceful need for nuclear power. ... To leave this nuclear material sitting around the Middle East in the hands of Saddam ... would have been too big a risk."
Now the mainscream media no longer deem yellowcake -- the WMD Bush supposedly lied about -- a WMD. It was, well, old. It was degraded. It was not what we think of when we think of WMD. Really? Square that with what former Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean said in April 2004: "There were no weapons of mass destruction." MSNBC's Rachel Maddow goes even further, insisting, against the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that "Saddam Hussein was not pursuing weapons of mass destruction"!
Bush, hammered by the insidious "Bush Lied, People Died" mantra, endured one of the most vicious smears against any president in history. He is owed an apology.
When Hollywood makes "The Vindication of George W. Bush," maybe Sean Penn can play the lead.
The WikiLeaks de facto declassification of privileged material makes it case closed: Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction -- and intended to restart his program once the heat was off.
President George W. Bush, in the 2003 State of the Union address, uttered the infamous "16 words": "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Former Ambassador Joe Wilson sprang into action and, in an op-ed piece, in effect wrote, "No, the Cheney administration sent me to investigate the allegation -- and I found it without merit."
Put aside that Wilson's CIA-employed wife, not the evil Vice President Dick Cheney -- as Wilson implied -- sent him on the African errand. Put aside that the British still stand by the intelligence on which Bush made the claim. And put aside that the anti-Bush Washington Post, in an editorial, concluded that Wilson had lied about not finding evidence to support the Iraq-in-Africa-for-uranium claim, since he told the CIA the opposite when he reported back from Africa.
Bush claimed that Iraq sought uranium, specifically "yellowcake." What is yellowcake, and why would its presence or attempted acquisition corroborate the nearly unanimous assumption that Saddam possessed WMD?
The Associated Press called yellowcake "the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment" and said that it "also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment."
"Bush and Iraq: Follow the Yellow Cake Road" headlined a euphoric Time magazine July 2003 piece -- written when the Bush administration began backtracking from the Iraq-sought-uranium-from-Africa claim. Time said no yellowcake equals no WMD equals bogus basis for war.
The article led with this ripper: "Is a fib really a fib if the teller is unaware that he is uttering an untruth? That question appears to be the basis of the White House defense, having now admitted a falsehood in President Bush's claim, in his State of the Union address, that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa."
Time hoisted (the now discredited) Joe Wilson on its shoulders as The Man Who Told the Truth to Power: "Just last weekend, the man sent by the CIA to check out the Niger story broke cover and revealed that he had thoroughly debunked the allegation many months before President Bush repeated it." Never mind that the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Wilson's report "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal" sought by Iraq in Niger.
Let's recap.
Bush, in building the case for war against Iraq, lied to the nation. He falsely claimed that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellowcake from Africa. Time magazine specifically referred to the yellowcake "lie" in accusing Bush of fabricating the case for war. Therefore, were Iraq to have had yellowcake -- an assertion called a "lie" -- it would have confirmed the presence of WMD, giving credence to Bush's declaration of Iraq as a "grave and gathering threat."
But ... there ... was ... yellowcake. This brings us back to WikiLeaks.
Wired magazine's contributing editor Noah Shachtman -- a nonresident fellow at the liberal Brookings Institution -- researched the 400,000 WikiLeaked documents released in October. Here's what he found: "By late 2003, even the Bush White House's staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But WikiLeaks' newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction (emphasis added). ... Chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam's toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict -- and may have brewed up their own deadly agents."
In 2008, our military shipped out of Iraq -- on 37 flights in 3,500 barrels -- what even The Associated Press called "the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program": 550 metric tons of the supposedly nonexistent yellowcake. The New York Sun editorialized: "The uranium issue is not a trivial one, because Iraq, sitting on vast oil reserves, has no peaceful need for nuclear power. ... To leave this nuclear material sitting around the Middle East in the hands of Saddam ... would have been too big a risk."
Now the mainscream media no longer deem yellowcake -- the WMD Bush supposedly lied about -- a WMD. It was, well, old. It was degraded. It was not what we think of when we think of WMD. Really? Square that with what former Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean said in April 2004: "There were no weapons of mass destruction." MSNBC's Rachel Maddow goes even further, insisting, against the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that "Saddam Hussein was not pursuing weapons of mass destruction"!
Bush, hammered by the insidious "Bush Lied, People Died" mantra, endured one of the most vicious smears against any president in history. He is owed an apology.
When Hollywood makes "The Vindication of George W. Bush," maybe Sean Penn can play the lead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
