UPDATED: Assange partying at state department's embassy in Iceland with Sam Watson, the embassys deputy chief of mission
by Scott Creighton
There's a Little Parsons in All of Us
Michel Chossudovsky over at Global Research has put up an interesting NPR transcript with some rather revealing statements about Wikileaks that were made by the New York Times chief Washington correspondent, David Sanger. Sanger is one of the New York Times reporters who have been reading and writing about the different state department memos leaked by Wikileaks. He was also involved in meetings with the Obama administration and others which selected and redacted the cables that would be published.
Go here to listen to the audio file of the Dec. 8th 2010 Fresh Air interview. Go here to read the entire transcript at Global Research.
Its important at first to understand briefly who David Sanger is. Sanger is a Washington insider with a great deal of access to the White House under both the Bush and Obama regimes. He even speaks in his book about being in the White House Situation Room. He wrote a book called The Inheritance: The World Obama Confronts and the Challenges to American Power in which basically he supports the need to attack Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and even Iran. Pretty much the entire Global War on Terror is just fine with David Sanger and he spends most of his life doing his best to drum-up support for it on the left.
The following is a part of the Amazon Product Description of Sanger's book:
Sanger takes readers into the White House Situation Room to reveal how Washington penetrated Tehran’s nuclear secrets, leading President Bush, in his last year, to secretly step up covert actions in a desperate effort to delay an Iranian bomb. Meanwhile, his intelligence chiefs made repeated secret missions to Pakistan as they tried to stem a growing insurgency and cope with an ally who was also aiding the enemy–while receiving billions in American military aid. Now the new president faces critical choices: Is it better to learn to live with a nuclear Iran or risk overt or covert confrontation? Is it worth sending U.S. forces deep into Pakistani territory at the risk of undermining an unstable Pakistani government sitting on a nuclear arsenal? It is a race against time and against a new effort by Islamic extremists–never before disclosed–to quietly infiltrate Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program.
It examines the chilling calculus of North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il, who built actual weapons of mass destruction in the same months that the Bush administration pursued phantoms in Iraq, then sold his nuclear technology in the Middle East in an operation the American intelligence apparatus missed. Amazon product description of "The Inheritance":
Each and every globalist agenda is parroted and supported by Sanger in his book. Its all given a liberal veneer and a bipartisan seal of approval. Thats the role that Sanger fills. And he gets paid well for it. This should not shock any readers here. What Sanger is, is clear to anyone who cares to look.
Sanger is member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Aspen Strategy Group together with Madeleine K. Albright, Richard Hass, R Talbott, Robert.B. Zoellick (president of the World Bank), and Philip Zelikow (formerly executive director of the 9/11 Commission) Chossudovsky
The globalist agenda pushed by institutions like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Aspen Strategy Group is clear at this point, or it should be as that it is nearly complete. For those of you who don't understand it yet, let me offer this little tidbit from David Rockefeller
We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time
Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended
our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost
forty years.
It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world
if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.
But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a
world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite
and world bankers is surely preferable to the national
auto-determination practiced in past centuries. Rockefeller, 1991
David Sanger's agenda is pretty obvious and has been well established over the years. Certainly this is why he was hand selected to head up the New York Times part of this PR program.
Now lets take a look at some of the important revelations that were made in the NPR interview.
David Sanger likes Joe Lieberman and respects his work on national security
I've covered Senator Lieberman for a long time, and learned a lot from him about national security. Sanger
That statement pretty much stands for itself. I don't think there is a more fascist authoritarian in congress than Joe Lieberman now that Hillary Clinton has a new business address.
Another statement is interesting because it shows that the New York Times didn't get their leaks from Wikileaks, but instead they got them from The Guardian, another globalist controlled publication. You would think that something as big as the Wikileaks, the Guardian might want to keep the exclusive for themselves. Imagine all that money they gave up handing over these leaks to the New York Times. Makes one think that there was a larger agenda at work. Now remember, Wikileaks didn't just publish these things themselves, instead, for some reason, they handed them over (supposedly) to the Guardian and let them edit them and select them as they saw fit. If Assange didn't see that coming, if he didn't KNOW that the globalist institutions would use these documents in this way prior to his handing them over, he's an idiot.
"We didn't get the initial leak. It came to us through whoever gave it to WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks gave it to The Guardian in London. The Guardian gave it to us. It was out there, and the question was not whether the world would learn about it."
The following set of quotes tells you everything you need to know about how institutionalized the globalist mindset is in David Sanger:
"The question was whether it would be released in a responsible manner and whether it would be interpreted in a way that readers around the world have expected the New York Times to deal with major news events, that is put it in perspective and explain it and explain what it means to the United States and to citizens around the world."
If you think he is hinting at the fact that he actually thinks reporting at the Times is nothing more than serving a larger agenda, you ain't heard nothing yet. He was asked if he thought Assange was a journalist here is his reply:
"I don't, and the reason is that I believe what journalists do is not only dig out information but filter it, explain it, put it in context, do those things that you've come to expect of the New York Times and other great American newspapers and other media organizations for many decades."
I refer you back to the quote from David Rockefeller:It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world
if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. As Sanger says filter it put it in context?
Sanger goes on with his explanation (which gives us a glimpse not only into the twisted Orwellian mind of a leading Washington globalist correspondent, but it also gives us a better understanding of the entire Wikileaks project as a whole):
"He's (Assange) coming to this with a political motivation. As journalists at the Times and elsewhere, we are not. We are coming at this to explain the world. He was trying, as just to use his own words, to embarrass the United States and make clear that America's actions are different than its rhetoric.
Well, in fact when you look through these documents, America's actions are pretty consistent with its rhetoric."
The globalist agenda does not exist in polite, public conversations. Certainly not for leading Washington correspondents like David Sanger. But if you look at his track record, if you look at his book, there isn't a single globalist lie this man won't parrot right up until the very moment they are exposed as lies. Then he will simply wait a year or two and quietly try to build up fraudulent support for those lies all over again letting history decide the rightness of our cause. If that sounds like the Ministry of Truth rewriting history to serve their non-existent agenda, you're not alone. Lies to go to war, lies to impose cruel sanctions that kill half a million kids, lies to justify CIA death squads in nations that we have no business in, all for the Global War on Terror, and all for what Rockefeller called
"The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite
and world bankers."
Decades ago Daniel Ellsberg chose Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky to edit his leaks, the Pentagon Papers, and now Jullian Assange, by forfeit, selects the likes of David Sanger? But did he really select anyone or has this been such an important project that Jullian Assange has had little to nothing to do with it?
Have a look at this obvious contradiction of Sanger's
"If we had done nothing, if we had ignored it, I think it would have looked strange. I think that also would have been irresponsible. It is the responsibility of American journalism, back to the founding of this country, to get out and try to grapple with the hardest issues of the day and to do it independently of the government."
And then just a few minutes later
"We're explaining what's important here and what's not. And we're filtering it out to try to avoid the greatest harm to individuals (like Israel, India?), ongoing operations and so forth.
you know, had we waited until this all just appeared on the Internet and then tried to catch up with it but we would not have had any real time to digest it or certainly to think as hard as we did about what should and shouldn't be redacted.
But we were concerned at the Times, and it's one of the reasons that we went through so carefully to try to redact material that we thought could be damaging to individuals or undercut ongoing operations. And we even took the very unusual step of showing the 100 cables or so that we were writing from to the U.S. government and asking them if they had additional redactions to suggest."
Now how is that independent of the government as Sanger has already claimed is the responsibility and tradition of American journalism?
He goes on:
As I stated before, there isn't a single American/British/Israeli globalist agenda that isn't strongly supported by the Wikileaks leaks. Sanger goes on to talk about the alleged 19 missiles that were supposed to have been sent by North Korea (Axis of Evil) to Iran (Axis of Evil). Since it's appearance, to my knowledge, the cable is still not published and it will continue to get press and be referenced over and over again til the facts about this claim are lost in a myriad of cross references from one globalist publication to the next. An example of this process goes back to the lead-up to the Iraq war when Cheney fed lies about WMDs to New York Times reporters who then wrote about them so that Cheney could go on Meet The Press and validate his lies by claiming the New York Times wrote about them. That's how this works. That is part of the point of Wikileaks.
The New York Times chose to write about these 19 missiles (that have never been tested in either North Korea or Iran) in such a way as to be seriously condemning to both countries, yet they provided absolutely no proof, as if some state department internal memo would serve as proof anyway. But clearly the agenda here is being created by the state department.
GROSS: So were you at those meetings with members of the Obama administration, going over documents, deciding what to publish and what not to?
"Mr. SANGER: I was at
GROSS: Hearing the Obama administration arguments about what not to publish?
Mr. SANGER: I was at some of the meetings at which the Obama administration made some requests. There were no decisions made there. The Times took the requests back and considered them and Bill Keller, our executive editor, and a number of other editors, made the decisions in the end about where they would draw the line. I did hear some of the administration's concerns along with several of my colleagues and with Dean Baquet, who is our bureau chief here in Washington, and we asked a number of questions so that we understood the nature of the State Department57;s concerns, but the decisions were not ours."
And then:
Mr. SANGER: But we've known for years that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, many other countries deeply fear that an Iran with a nuclear weapon even if Iran didn't use that weapon would become the most powerful state within the region. And what became clear from the WikiLeaks documents and what really jumped out at us was how explicit they were about those concerns when speaking in confidence to American officials. And in some cases, how explicit they were that the United States should step in with military action if Israel did not, and that was implicit in many of those quotations that you read.
GROSS: Oh, that's interesting. And so that's an example of what you mean by about how it might actually be helpful in some ways to American interests to have disclosed these documents?
Mr. SANGER: It could turn out that way.
So here we have a globalist PR agent working for the New York Times who admits that the Times' agenda is clearly to help foster our leader's globalist agenda around the world and he states without reservation that the Obama administration is using Wikileaks to further that agenda through them.
He's so brainwashed that this doesn't even strike him as propaganda but instead he simply sees this as his job, his mission, to explain the world to Americans and others. Of at least, that is how brainwashed he expects the American people to be at this point.
Wikileaks was always a psyop program from day one. John Young knew that as they were creating it, that's why he got out and published the emails, so that people would not be suckered in by it.
Wikileaks is serving the greater good of the globalist's empire interests. Do yourself a favor don't download this crap, don't mirror it. You want real leaks? Go to Cryptome go to What Really Happened go to Information Clearinghouse go to Global Research or go to any other legitimate dissent news sites and leave this Rockefeller/NSA creation alone.
This is their effort to try to legitimize their criminal behavior through a source that the liberal dissenters will trust. This is their effort to explain the world through their perverted perspective in such a way that those of us who reject their complicit mouthpieces will believe and accept the core precepts of their Global War on Terror and all the suffering they are creating in our names. Its obvious and its flawed. You have to be smarter than this, people. You are smarter than this ham-handed sophomoric propaganda.
I am reminded of a section of Orwell's 1984 (which is not taught in public schools down here in Florida, by the way) in which Winston Smith meets his neighbor, Parsons, while waiting for the broken elevator in their apartment building. Parsons tells Winston how happy he is that the chocolate rations just went up and of course Winston remembers that he just re-wrote the history of chocolate rations setting them lower than they were so that the news of an increase in rations would actually mask a decline.
Chocolate ration. The chocolate ration in 1983 was 30 grams per week. (For comparison, a standard Hershey's Chocolate Bar is 43 grams) In the year 1984, the chocolate ration went up to 25 grams per week. Winston himself is charged with the task of re-writing history to make this little feat possible. Newspeak Dictionary
That moment is interesting because even though Smith's neighbor is seemingly excited about this new ration upgrade, behind his eyes you could see a sadness. It was as if Parsons was in mourning for his own fading reason. His eyes betrayed the lies he wanted so desperately to believe.
Assange is not a hero, Wikileaks is not dissent. And in your mind, you know it, you just don't want to. If you don't believe me, just look in the mirror. There is a little Parsons in all of us.
Parsons — Winston's naïve neighbour and an ideal member of the Outer Party: an un-educated, suggestible man. He is utterly loyal to the Party and believes fully in its image of perfection. He is in a way like the proles, unable to see the bigger aspects of the world. He is active and participates in hikes and leads community group and fundraisers. Despite being a fool, Parsons does possess some good traits. He is a very friendly man and seems to believe in a basic form of decency despite his political views. He punishes his son for firing a catapult at Winston and shows fondness for his children despite his belief that the end of family life is a good idea. He is captured when his children claim that he repeatedly and unknowingly spoke against the Party in his sleep and he is last seen in the Ministry of Love, proud of having been betrayed by his orthodox children.
UPDATE:
But less than a year ago, the founder of WikiLeaks was officially entertained at a US Embassy cocktail party by one of the very diplomats whose secrets he would soon spill to the world.
At the reception, held at the US ambassador's residence in Reykjavik, Iceland, Mr Assange chatted with Sam Watson, the embassy's deputy chief of mission.
By the time of the party WikiLeaks had also already taken delivery of around 600,000 classified US Army logs from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, released earlier this year, plus the 250,000 secret US embassy cables which it is releasing now.
I thought it would be a bit boring to go on my own, said Ms Jonsdottir. But the irony was that I went to collect him from his guesthouse and couldn't find him, so just went back to work and didn't even go myself. I found out later he'd just decided to go on his own and got in by saying he was my guest. He said he'd spent a long time talking to Mr Watson. The Telegraph
