GOOD GRIEF! GET REAL!

[Van Guard]

GOOD GRIEF: GET REAL

If North Korea had been the one that had obtained the Wikileak documents and released them to the world, do you really believe anyone would be questioning the NORK motives or clamoring about "Freedom of Speech?"

If Russia had been the one that obtained and released the Wikileak stolen documents, do you think the State Department would be patty-caking with threats of prosecution, and statements about "bringing them to justice?"

Better yet, what would happen if Iran had been the one who obtained those documents, and been responsible, not just for this leak, but several previous massive leaks of classified U.S. information?

It would be considered no less than an act of war. Care to wager what the response would have been to that one?

So who are we kidding here?

We are asked to believe that a government that takes drastic measures (along with the commensurate expense ... in the the thousands of dollars...) to run background checks and issue and assign security clearances for a variety of levels; takes extreme and severe precautions to hire security personnel, creates multiple levels of security, security systems, lock and key systems, encoded access electronic barriers, etc., was not able to keep secure thousands of documents and was hacked by a Private with nothing more than a laptop and a jump-flash-drive, and that this soldier had the connections to a dubious pseudo-journalist whose stated aim was to "leak" classified information?

Come on.

You cannot sneeze on the internet or in the halls and landscapes of spookdom without someone at the NSA, the CIA, the DIA, or any of the other alphabet soup agencies saying "gazundhiet" inadvertently in response to that sneeze, much less let someone into your super-secure classifed area with headphones, a lap top, jump drives, or whatever the perpetrator's instrument of choice was, and certainly not someone with any connection to anything resembling a Julian Assange.

And yet we hear, "Oh three-strikes and you're out, bucko, now we're really going to clamp down on security, just you wait."

I know parents that use near fool-proof computer security systems to protect their kids from internet predators, and who could tell you exactly how long their child was on the internet, who they communicated with, via which portals, what sites they visited, how many times they clicked on a certain photo, what they downloaded, etc. Get the picture?

The story, for those Liberals in namby-pamby land, is not WHAT was leaked, but THAT it was leaked, and by whom.

Is it a massive disinformation campaign and a complete ruse, with Julian Assange and Bradley Manning as patsies, or is the security of your government already in the hands of an enemy?

If it is the former, then the fiasco'd scenario will play itself out until the mission of such an operation is accomplished, whether it is to set-up someone or some entity (nation, state, agency, etc.) for exposure or embarrassment or simply to establish mis-trust and lack of confidence in your government. I doubt that it's about confidence in government, since it is inherent in American culture and politics to mistrust government. In fact, our Constitution was written to protect citizens from government itself, so you can nix that one.

(As a note, in parts of Texas, you can be shot for even suggesting that you trust government in any way.)

But let's say this operation leans more closely to "your government security is already in the hands of the enemy, " at least to a certain degree.

Let's see, how did the Chinese wind up with our advanced nuclear missile delivery systems information? Oh, and how was it that the world knew via the New York Times, the Washington Post, and others, what our strategy in Afghanistan was, BEFORE it was "approved" by the President?

Let's see another one: What international agency that is immune by Presidential Executive Order from U.S. agency scrutiny has access to U.S. intelligence agency files, and has an office in nearly every government that is hostile to the U.S.? Can you spell " I-N-T-E-R-P-O-L" ?

Let's ask an even more daring question: What branch of our government had as its head a member of the socialist/progressive caucus, an organization whose political leanings are antithetic to the American Constituion? Oh no! Are her initials "Nancy Pelosi" by chance? Horrors! Is her Senate counter-part and political ally still in office?

Can you guess this one? Which current President of the U.S. is so far to the Left politically that Jospeh Stalin would look "conservative" by comparison? Next you are going to tell me that he is a proponent of "big guv-ment."

And how about this one: Which former President of the U.S. ACTED to increase and expand government and its powers over the citizenry, rather than to increase the power of its citizens over government? (Do you need extra pens and paper to list these?)

Now we hear of back-room deals and dealings that are paving the way to give the Russians (i.e., the Soviet Union re-organized under chapter eleven by former KGB agents) access to U.S. missile defense technology in exchange for signing on to the bogus nuclear START treaty.

With our government securely in the hands of Big-Government-One-World, socialist-types, who needs spies? Who needs conspiracies?

We are on the third wave of Wikileaks "disclosures" and yet still we have the same government officials holding office, although some of them have "escaped" on to other projects recently. There is some babbling by our Secretary of State, objecting to the release of documents affecting diplomatic circles, a rare appearance by the U.S. Attorney General vaguely issuing a statement about bringing the culprits to justice, and pundits arguing the points for Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. When we should be having a purge all the way to the top in our government for such security lapses, we have token measures being taken, which smack of massive self-serving cover-ups and CYA's.

Contrast that with the case of Sibel Edmonds, who exposed spies who approached her, and who tried to recruit her while she was working as a translator for the FBI. She revealed that the FBI had been severly infiltrated by enemies of our nation. Edmonds was censured, black listed, and gagged, and threatened with legal action if she said anything about her "case."

For your reference, here is a documentary about the Edmonds case: X

Besides Sarah Palin advocating that Assange be hunted down like an al-Qaeda terrorist, we have the beginnings of the rumblings of some form of action being taken by our elected crusaders in Congress. New York Representative Peter King has urged the State Department to designate Wikileaks as a foreign terrorist organization. An Aide to Representative King confirmed that his office would begin an investigation.... right after they wrap-up their probe of the White House Party crashers. (There ARE priorities, after all, aren't there?)

I was not aware that before you treat someone as a terrorist, you have to officially designate them as a terrorist organization. At the moment of the first disclosure why were not the assets of Wikileaks frozen? Why weren't U.S. intelligence agency computer geeks immediately jamming the Wikileaks computers? Why was Assange and Co., not immediately indicted for espionage?

Who is in charge of our national security? Why are they still in charge?

Do you have answers to these questions? I do. What are yours?

VANGUARD OF FREEDOM PERSPECTIVES

VOF NEWS

FACEBOOK

FACEBOOK GROUP

[e-mail]