Aletho News


Daniel Ellsberg Exposed Along with the Real Purpose of the Wikileaks Psyop

By Scott Creighton | 5 December 2010

Daniel Ellsberg has been running around singing the praises of Julian Assange ever since his first big-time leak, the Collateral Damage video, which showed a U.S. gunship killing various unarmed civilians in Iraq two of whom happened to be reporters. With the recent pile of “leaked” state department memos, Ellsberg can’t hardly take a breath between interviews and round table discussions, where he is the primary focus and a staunch supporter of everything Wikileaks.

But there is something rotten in Denmark, folks.

It’s not a stretch to say that most Americans don’t believe a thing that comes out of the state department or the government in general for that matter. Confidence in the word of our elected (and unelected) leaders must be at or near an all-time low. If you think this fact is lost on the PR (propaganda) experts working on contracts for the various branches of government, guess again. Mark Penn of Burson-Marsteller gained all of his access to power (and considerable wealth) by being a gifted and relentless pollster. He was able to put his finger directly on the pulse of the public at large and this made him invaluable to corrupt politicians and corporations everywhere. Penn is still deeply connected with the Clinton regime having run her campaign in 2008.

So what do you do when you want to feed the generally left-leaning public a pack of lies given that you know most of them are extremely skeptical about everything you tell them? Well, if “you” are the problem, then you take the “you” out of the equation.

Get someone else to tell them the lies. Someone they are conditioned to trust.

It’s a pretty simple plan: give the leaker something dramatic (but already well-known) to get attention and build his credibility, prime the pot with promises of massive amounts of ”secret” documents that will reveal “the truth”, see to it that they are published in the biggest newspapers on the planet, put on a big show about how much you don’t want him to reveal “the truth”, and make damn sure you have enough “progressive” figures to run around doing interviews praising the leaker for his courage and commitment to getting “the truth” out there no matter how grave the threat to his personal safety.

If you really examine the meat of the “leaked” documents, it doesn’t take long to notice that generally speaking they strongly support every single state department agenda, from invading Pakistan, regime change in North Korea, regime change in Iran, and supporting the role that Israel is playing in destabilizing the Middle East [a long known Israeli objective in the effort to weaken its foes and establish ‘greater Israel’]. And what have we learned that harms the state department? That Obama gave the orders to fire missiles into Yemen that killed 21 kids? We knew that the day it happened and we certainly knew that after the recent UN report came out which clearly identified the parts of those rockets as ours. We learned that the state department works closely with the CIA, but we knew that already as well. We learned that Hillary Clinton gave the order to spy on people, as if that is news of any kind. In short, we didn’t learn anything new that harms the state department, with the possible exception that Hillary wanted someone to steal the head of the U.N.’s credit card numbers.

In the near future, these “leaked’ documents will help build the pretext for the narrative that we have to force regime change on various targeted nations. They will be referenced in articles written by war mongers in the same MSM news papers who were fed the “leaks” in the first place. When that happens, and it will [it HAS already happenned], we won’t be able to question their validity, because frankly, we don’t question them now. Imagine Dick Cheney’s forged “Yellow Cake from Niger” document being ”leaked” by Wikileaks and praised by the likes of Daniel Ellsberg, Amy Goodman, and Glenn Greenwald… imagine that and you start to get the picture.

You see, it doesn’t work without the amen chorus.  Just like 9/11 would never have worked without all the media talking heads reading from the exact same script and endlessly repeating “bin Laden” and “al Qaeda” as the buildings were demolished, the same principle holds true here. It’s so obvious that these “leaks” do nothing more than support the Obama regime’s imperial [and Zionist] agenda, if given half a minute to step back and consider their merit on mere fact alone, the truth is pretty obvious. It’s as obvious as Building 7.

But the amen chorus is out there singing the praises of Wikileaks just as fast and as hard as they can, hoping to create an emotional connection between Assange and the anti-war left. And Daniel Ellsberg is key to that. Whether he actually knows it or not.

In a recent interview with Brad Friedman or Bradblog, Ellsberg tipped his hand and from this moment, the truth of Ellsberg’s role in the Wikileaks psyop can easily be exposed for all to see.  All who want to that is.

Friedman was talking with Ellsberg about the Wikileaks disclosures and specifically he came to start talking about what Assange had said about firing Hillary Clinton for ordering her staff in the state department to spy on the United Nations. Ellsberg’s comments are quite remarkable and I will let them speak for themselves…

But, as Ellsberg revealed during my interview with him on Wednesday, he disagrees with Assange on at least one point in regard to the latest round of documents released by the controversial organization. Unlike Assange, Ellsberg does not believe Hillary Clinton needs to resign.

… During my on-air interview with him Wednesday, when I asked about that point and whether he agrees with Assange’s assessment, he was direct in his response: “In a word, no,” he told me.

… “In a way, I would have to say as a former insider here, he has far too idealistic and romantic a notion of what it means to be Secretary of State or a high official in the U.S. Government — and really any government. Among the various illegalities, the various recklessness and so forth, shown by our policies, this one is indeed illegal, but it’s not high on the list. Probably all countries do it to a large extent.”

… While Ellsberg strongly condemns the Obama Administration for its failure to hold members of the Bush Administration accountable for “war crimes” and “torture” and for escalating a number of “aggressive wars” the U.S. continues to pursue, he reiterated that he doesn’t believe the disclosures to date rise to serious enough crimes to merit Clinton’s resignation.

… “Everybody involved in aggressive war in Iraq should be prosecuted as a war criminal,” he said. “Obama didn’t get us into Iraq or Aghanistan, though he certainly escalated it. But I’m not sure if it’s criminal.” Brad Friedman

So not only does our respected ”progressive” hero, Daniel Ellsberg, breathlessly support the “truthiness” of the Wikileaks psyops, he is also promoting the idea that Hillary Clinton’s crimes don’t rise to the level of something that she should be held accountable for. After all, all politicians commit crimes and certain ones just have to be accepted as par for the course. Personally, I don’t buy Ellsberg’s argument that since former Secretaries of State committed crimes and got away with it, so too should we afford the same luxury to Hillary Clinton.

Remarkably, Ellsberg also asserts that Obama is probably not guilty of war crimes in the continuation and escalation of the obviously criminal occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Currently anti-war sites are taking up a collection for Assange  (just like last time when he came out with the Collateral Damage video) in order to get his site back up and running. The way I see it, that would be like seeing a donations button for Scooter Libby on World Can’t Wait’s website.

You have to give it to the Clinton regime at the state department. It’s a pretty slick PR campaign and it appears, at least for the time being, to be working.  Ironically, the man who helped bring an end to the Vietnam war is inadvertently helping set the stage for the next one while the antiwar activist websites are steadily promoting the propaganda.  Gotta hand it to Clinton and her PR team; that’s slick.

Of course, it could never work without the amen chorus and their featured soloist, Daniel Ellsberg.

I just want you all too remember that in 6 months when they are using Wikileaks disclosures to help justify the invasion of Iran and the deaths of thousands more of our service men and women and perhaps a million more civilians in the Middle East.


If you want a clear cut example of what I am talking about, go here to a CNN video of Fareed Zakaria explaining how the Wikileaks documents actually makes him feel better about the state department.

1. The leaks don’t show the state department doing anything nafarious.

“In these cables there are no stories of coups or attempted assasinations or secret deals.”

2. A transparent U.S. diplomacy

3. Astue American Envoys

“I have to confess that the level and quality of analysis in these cables is a lot better than I would have guessed.

4. Arab Leaders Fear Iran

“They have been urging Washington to do something about Iran including using military force.”

“The cables make clear that far from being loved in the region as he claims, he is feared and despised.”

“But reading through the sum total of this data dump, I came away more impressed and reasured by the way Washington works, or at least the state department, then I was before.”  Fareed Zakaria, CNN

December 8, 2010 - Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering


  1. Altheo,

    This is the best contextual analysis I have read on this subject.
    I hope you are flexible enough to adjust your views accordingly.



    Comment by hybridrogue1 | December 8, 2010

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.