source: 9/11 Blogger July 23, 2010
In this interview, Belfast Telegraph reporter Matthew Bell asks Wikileaks founder Julian Assange about “conspiracy theories”. Assange subsequently explains his position.
His obsession with secrecy, both in others and maintaining his own, lends him the air of a conspiracy theorist. Is he one? “I believe in facts about conspiracies,” he says, choosing his words slowly. “Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It’s important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there’s enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news.” What about 9/11? “I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.” What about the Bilderberg conference? “That is vaguely conspiratorial, in a networking sense. We have published their meeting notes.”
Mr. Assange seems to have conveniently forgotten that 9/11 may be, in a very concrete sense, a ‘conspiracy for war’, leading directly to the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and the permanent “War on Terror”.
In November 2009, Wikileaks released “half a million US national text pager intercepts” covering a “24 hour period surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington.” This is all commendable. However, given Mr. Assange’s rather curious disposition towards 9/11 truth, how much effort can we really expect from Wikileaks in the future?
Perhaps it should be pointed out to Mr. Assange that former senator Bob Graham, who chaired the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence when it performed its Joint Inquiry into 9/11, gave an interview to the BBC in which Graham said the following:
Bob Graham: “I can just state that within 9/11 there are too many secrets, that is information that has not been made available to the public for which there are specific tangible credible answers and that withholding of those secrets has eroded public confidence in their government as it relates to their own security.”
Narrator: “Senator Graham found that the cover-up led to the heart of the administration.“
Bob Graham: “I called the White House and talked with Ms. Rice and said: “Look, we’ve been told we’re gonna get cooperation in this inquiry and she said she’d look into it and nothing happened.”
Interviewer: “Was there any sort of sense of embarrassment or apology or…?”
Bob Graham: “No. Embarrassment, apology, regret, those are not characteristics associated with the current White House.”
Narrator: “So it was a conspiracy to cover-up the fact that blunders had been made in the lead up to 9/11?”
Bob Graham: “If by conspiracy you mean, more than one person involved, yes, there was more than one person and there was some … collaboration of efforts among agencies and the administration to keep information out of the public’s hands.“
The BBC then concludes their documentary with a reassuring, paternalistic commentary explaining why this isn’t something we should all be furious about. Furthermore, in 2009, 9/11 commissioner Bob Kerrey said, in a candid dialogue with We Are Change LA:
Bob Kerrey: “It’s a problem… it’s a 30-year-old conspiracy“
Jeremy Rothe-Kushel: “No.. I’m talking about 9/11”
Bob Kerrey: “That’s what I’m talking about”
Many interpretations could be given as to what sort of conspiracy these two former senators are referring to. The BBC documentary “Conspiracy Files: 9-11” was an obvious hit piece against 9/11 truth, in which the BBC went out of their way to handwave all abnormalities as ‘blunders’, ‘failures’, ‘mistakes’ and ‘cock ups’. This angle is not new, in fact, it’s part of a long BBC tradition of ‘limited hangouts’. Nor is it any less outrageous if it were true that these ‘blunders’ and ‘gaffes’ were deliberately covered up, as the BBC and Bob Graham allege. A criminal cover-up alone warrants criminal prosecution of the conspirators involved, and most 9/11 researchers know this is merely the tip of the iceberg. Bob Kerrey’s remark could be taken to mean the covert funding and training of the Mujahideen, initiated in 1979.
Nobody is asking Mr. Assange to depart from his objective role, but now that he has spoken out, he deserves a reply. In both cases, clearly the terminology used is “conspiracy” or “cover-up”. Bob Graham doesn’t hold back and mentions “withholding of (..) secrets”, chastising the Bush administration for being unapologetic, self-serving and obstructive. So it seems that Julian Assange, as the founder and director of an organization supposedly dedicated to supporting whistleblowers who expose government wrongdoing, has his work cut out for him, unless he is determined to be part of the problem. The perception management and misguided credibility building Mr. Assange seems so concerned with conflict with the stated mission of Wikleaks:
“WikiLeaks is a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public.”
I bet whistleblowers Sibel Edmonds and certainly Daniel Ellsberg, who is mentioned several times in the mission statement, approve. Surely, a 9/11 cover-up that “led to the heart of the administration” is worthy of Wikileaks’ attention. Or is it?