The Tonka Report

November 30, 2010: Steve McIntyre / Climate Audit – November 30, 2010

Jeff Id links to a YouTube video of WikiLeaks’ Assange making a variety of untrue or inflated claims about Climategate and WikiLeaks’ role…

Assange falsely claimed that the Climategate emails were broken by WikiLeaks. This is obviously untrue as CA readers know. I can date WikiLeaks’ entry by contemporary comments.

The first notice of the emails at WikiLeaks was 2009/11/21 at 2.50 AM Eastern (12:50 AM blog time).

The emails had been downloaded by many people (including me) from a Russian server on November 19 [2009] and had been downloaded by WUWT moderators on November 17 [2009]. A contemporary comment in a CA thread says that WikiLeaks was down and refers people to megauploads. WikiLeaks has not even been a major reference for Climategate – that belongs to eastangliaemails.com (originally anelegantchaos.org) which was up on November 20 [2009] and provided a searchable database.

Assange adopted Gavin Schmidt’s disinformation about the “trick… to hide the decline”. While the term “trick” can be used to denote a sophisticated mathematical method, it can also denote something as simple and unscrupulous as deleting adverse data. It is necessary to investigate the facts of the matter and the context.

In the example of interest, the Climategate correspondents did not use a sophisticated mathematical method; they simply deleted data that didn’t accord with their expectations. The “investigations” ought to have denounced/renounced such methods and their failure to do so is to their shame.

Given the remarkable lack of speculation about foreign intelligence services hacking into the present WikiLeaks dossier, Assange made some remarkably unsubstantiated fantasies about Russian intelligence, that are almost wild enough for Raymond Pierre Humbert whose similar fantasies were reported on by the NY Times last year.

Assange asserted that UK newspapers had close involvement with UK intelligence, that he had supposedly been told by UK reporters that they had received the dossier from the FSB (presumably FSB, the Russian intelligence) just three days before the Copenhagen conference. Assange then proclaimed that the UK intelligence tried to “frame up as a conduit for the FSB – absolutely outrageous”.

The dates of the Copenhagen conference were December 7 to 18, 2009 (see here for example). Getting the Climategate emails three days before Copenhagen (Dec 4, 2009) was hardly a scoop. By that time, even Jon Stewart had done a comedy segment and Minnesotans for Global Warming had issued the Hide the Decline video…

Assange’s lieutenant then observed that the UEA had observed that the Climategate dossier had been selected and that statements had been taken out of context and that the university had promised to “publish the rest of the material to correct the full picture.” In fact, as CA readers know, Acton of the UEA intervened to prevent the panel charged with examining the rest of the material from doing so and the rest of the material remains unexamined and unavailable.

UPDATE: Ross writes in in his usual forceful style:

What a pair of blowhards. They were obviously unnerved by the question. They evidently like leaks that embarrass their political opponents, but in this case they found themselves tagged with a leak that had damaged the side they like; and since it seems to be more about political warfare against governments they dislike than some impartial ideal of transparency and freedom of information, they were stuck scrambling to make up a story about how it really served some nobler purpose.

Of course they should simply have said that they weren’t the source of the leak, that it was in full circulation long before anyone looked to them for a copy and they didn’t know much about the details of what followed. But that would have been too humble, especially in front of a room full of simpering hero-worshippers. So they pretended to be insiders and proceeded to deliver a few minutes of sheer drivel.

While I was in the UK last fall, there was brief interest by the UK tabloids in the Russian angle, and an article appeared in the Daily Mail speculating that Russian intelligence officials had hacked the UEA and stolen the emails. But nobody took that line seriously and the story died within 48 hours. If Assange has a shred of evidence to support his lunatic theory he should release it. What’s with these secret communications between him and UK intelligence: out with it, Mr Wikileaks! Bloody poser.

On this issue at least they are nothing but fakes and cretins. Saying that UEA released all the background emails and whatnot to provide the full context is beyond idiocy; and Assange’s discussion of the “trick” is just painful to watch…

Wikileaks On “Climategate”

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: Do you trust this obvious fraud and his Israeli Mossad surrogate? - SJH

 Link to original article below…

http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/30/assange-on-climategate/

November 30, 2010: Joe Quinn / Signs Of The Times (SOTT.net) – November 30, 2010

I obviously missed out on the momentous occasion when the mainstream media turned anti-war. But who can now deny that it is so when we see WikiLeaks and the mainstream media joining forces to expose the ugly truth of the US invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, and more recently, what the US State Department thinks of world leaders?

I mean, that is what is actually happening… right? 

Wrong!

What is happening is that WikiLeaks is being promoted by the media in order to sell the same old lies, except that now the lies are coming sugar-coated, with a ‘whistle-blower’ gloss to better enable digestion.

The lies themselves don’t frustrate me so much anymore, and I can understand why the general public are fooled, but I have to admit to being disappointed at how effortlessly the WikiLeaks poison is being swallowed by so many supposedly alternative news sites.

Sites like Counterpunch, Global Research, Citizens for a Legitimate Government and Information Clearing House, to name but a few, are all disseminating the WikiLeaks story without so much as a hint of critical thought it seems. From day one, the WikiLeaks Afghan – and then Iraq – ‘War Logs’ revealed little if anything that was not already publicly available:

That the US uses assassination squads in Iraq and Afghanistan? Old news. Seven years ago the Guardian informed us that not only were US ‘hit squads’ operating in Iraq, but that they were being trained by the Israelis! And in any case, is the idea that ‘hit squads’ are being used to track down the evil ‘Taliban’ in Afghanistan more appalling than the fact, splashed across American broadsheets earlier this year, that Obama signed a bill authorizing the assassination of American citizens by the CIA?!

That the US pays the Iraqi and Afghan media for positive coverage is not only old news, it’s only half the story! Have we already forgotten the Lincoln Group and the precocious Christian Bailey? In 2005 the Lincoln Group won (was awarded) a $100 million contract to essentially control the entire Iraqi media via its own ‘Iraqi’ publications and the monopolization of the Iraqi advertising industry on an ongoing basis. All of these details have been carried in the mainstream press, yet they have done nothing to stop the bogus endless ‘War on Terrorism.’ Why then are we being encouraged to expect that the WikiLeaks documents, which convey the same information, will fare any better? Is it because these details will soon be consigned to the memory hole (again) while other, more strategically important details, will be repeated ad nauseum? 

That the US has killed thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan? Old news. In fact, on this one, the WikiLeaks documents offered support for the much lower estimation of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan by the discredited ‘Iraq Body Count’ rather than the much more realistic estimation of almost 1.5 million (in Iraq) by Just Foreign Policy.

But quibbling over the number of dead Muslims is not important these days anyway, after all, they’re only Muslims, not real people, and the over-all exposure by the mainstream media of US misdeeds in Iraq and Afghanistan is, in itself, no bad thing. If WikiLeaks left it at that, I would be more than happy to applaud the mysterious Mr. Assange and the equally mysterious provenance of his documents. But the WikiLeaks documents tell much more than arbitrary killing in wars of conquest, they also provide support for the continuation and expansion of those wars, most notably to Iran and Pakistan.

For example, the Afghan ‘War Logs’ offered ‘evidence’ that Pakistan is helping the Taliban – that’s Pakistan, and not, as has been reported, the CIA:

Persistent accounts of western forces in Afghanistan using their helicopters to ferry Taleban fighters, strongly denied by the military, is feeding mistrust of the forces that are supposed to be bringing order to the country…

One such tale came from a soldier from the 209th Shahin Corps of the Afghan National Army, fighting against the growing insurgency in Kunduz province in northern Afghanistan. Over several months, he had taken part in several pitched battles against the armed opposition…

“Just when the police and army managed to surround the Taleban in a village of Qala-e-Zaal district, we saw helicopters land with support teams,” he said. “They managed to rescue their friends from our encirclement, and even to inflict defeat on the Afghan National Army.”

The UK Guardian’s summation of the Afghan ‘War Logs’ was this:

- How a secret “black” unit of special forces hunts down Taliban leaders for “kill or capture” without trial.

- How the US covered up evidence that the Taliban have acquired deadly surface-to-air missiles.

- How NATO commanders fear neighbouring Pakistan and Iran are fueling the insurgency.

- How the Taliban have caused growing carnage with a massive escalation of their roadside bombing campaign, which has killed more than 2,000 civilians to date.

Are these the type of revelations that are going to cause serious problems for the US government? Are they going to outrage the public? Having been conditioned for years to believe that the ‘Taliban’ are evil monsters, are people going to be angry or quietly proud that a ‘secret special forces unit’ is hunting the Taliban down ‘without trial?’

Does the ‘revelation’ that the Taliban acquired surface-to-air missiles damage or bolster the US government claim that they are fighting a war against a formidable foe in Afghanistan? Of what significance is it that the coalition covered up this alleged ‘fact?’

And the data that the Taliban ‘massively escalated their roadside bombing campaign, killing more than 2,000 civilians;’ is this damaging to the US government, or ‘evidence’ that the US is fighting the good fight in Afghanistan?

The other English paper that ran with the Afghan ‘War Logs’ was the NY Times. Their headline summation told us: Pakistan Spy Service Aids Insurgents, Reports Assert…

The fate of Combat Outpost Keating illustrates many of the frustrations of the allied effort: low troop levels, unreliable Afghan partners and a growing insurgency.

The military and intelligence reports provide a real-time history of the Afghan war from the vantage point of American troops actually doing the fighting and reconstruction.

So, thanks to WikiLeaks, the unlikely darling of the mainstream media, the world is being informed that the ‘enemy’ in Afghanistan is growing stronger, Pakistan and Iran are to blame, and brave US troops are engaged in ‘reconstruction’ there!

But Pakistan and the Taliban are not the main target of disinformation in these documents. As more documents are released, it becomes clear that, sitting square in the bulls-eye, is Iran. The initial round of leaks provided this sensational ‘revelation,’ reported here by the  UK Telegraph: Wiki-leaks: how Iran devised new suicide vest for al-Qaeda to use in Iraq …

Iranian-backed forces supplied insurgents attacking coalition troops and devised new forms of suicide vests for al-Qaeda, according to assessments released by Wiki-leaks.

Only in their wildest dreams could the war-mongers in Washington and Tel Aviv have wished for a more on-message leak of ‘secret information.’

And so to the latest raft of documents, partially released just a few days ago. When I read their contents, to say that I was shocked would be to grossly over-state my reaction. I could have written them myself: Wiki-leaks: Iran ‘obtains North Korea missiles which can strike Europe’

This one, I have to admit, is entirely believable because, after all, everyone knows Saddam had the same capability several years ago, remember? In fact, this ‘revelation’ about Iran’s capability to threaten Europe is even more believable than the ‘sexed-up’ Iraq dossier claim, because this revelation comes from WikiLeaks, an honest-to-god whistle blower organization, right? I mean, there’s just no way that agents working on behalf of the US and Israeli governments could possibly use such an organization to spread propaganda, right?

Is there no one in the alternative news community that can see this for what it is? North Korea supplying missiles to Iran to attack Europe?! Right when the US and Israel are involved in a protracted effort to demonize Iran to the world and the US has an aircraft carrier sitting off the Korean Coast!? Is all of this meant to be so obvious, or did my reading of ‘psychological operations for dummies’ gift me with amazing insight into how political propaganda really works?

Does anyone truly believe that the fact that someone in the US State Department thinks that Sarkozy is an ‘Emperor with no clothes’ will do any real damage? Is this meant to be a secret? It is certainly no secret to over 60% of the French public who, years ago, openly stated as much. Likewise the ‘revelation’ about Berlusconi; ‘feckless, vain and ineffective as a modern European leader?’ What about ‘senile, megalomaniac, psychopath, pedophile’ this is what the Italians and most Europeans are saying, does the US State Department not read the papers before compiling ‘secret dossiers’ on foreign leaders?

And what of the the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il? He’s a ‘flabby old chap’ according to these ‘damaging reports.’ Is this meant to cause some kind of diplomatic rift between North Korea and Washington before or after the USA and its client state of South Korea bombs Kim and a few million North Koreans back to the stone age?

And Iranian President Ahmadinejad – ‘Hitler??’ Does anyone expect the Obama government to want to retract that one or hide it from the public? More to the point, are we all suffering from collective amnesia? Who has repeatedly referred to Iran and it’s democratically-elected leader as Nazi Germany and a new Hitler? Anyone? Ok, here’s a hint…

So I mentioned Israel a couple of times. Why? Here’s one reason, from the horse’s mouth:

In Israel the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said that he felt vindicated by [Wiki-leaks] revelations about the extent of international and Arab concern about Iran and its nuclear programme. “Israel has not been damaged at all by the WikiLeaks publications,” Netayahu said.

“The documents show many sources backing Israel’s assessments, particularly of Iran. Our region has been hostage to a narrative that is the result of 60 years of propaganda, which paints Israel as the greatest threat. In reality leaders understand that that view is bankrupt. For the first time in history there is agreement that Iran is the threat,” he said.

There is also the fact that it is public knowledge that Israel operates an extensive and very well-entrenched network of spies in the US, including the infamous Israeli art students. In 2005 the FBI noted, for example, that Israel maintains “an active program to gather proprietary information within the United States.” A key Israeli method, said the FBI report, is computer intrusion.

And what are we to make of the strange coincidence where, on the very same day that WikiLeaks releases documents that contain key data about the Iranian nuclear program, the Israeli Mossad murders one Iranian nuclear scientist and injures another in Tehran?

In determining the origin of the WikiLeaks documents, we need ask ourselves but one question: In whose interest is it to put pressure on the US government through the release of documents to the press (via WikiLeaks) that force the US to do a certain amount of damage control, while simultaneously portraying Iran as the biggest threat to world peace?

Because that, in the final analysis, is the overall effect of the WikiLeaks documents. WikiLeaks performs so poorly in the ‘smell test’ that I feel confident in suggesting that the documents may not even be original documents; and if they are, they have very likely been amended in such a way that they ultimately serve the Israeli/Zionist agenda…

Press TV: WikiLeaks Aims To Boost Israel’s Image

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: More on WikiLeaks being an Israeli intelligence operation below… - SJH

WikiLeaks: A Touch Of Assange With The Stench Of Israel & AIPAC

http://stevenjohnhibbs.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/wikileaks-a-touch-of-assange-with-the-stench-of-israel-aipac/

Link to original article below…

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/218807-Wiki-Leaks-Serves-Israeli-Agenda-Of-Demonizing-Iran