Wikileaks Propaganda Helps Build Case for Attacking Iran

Scott Creighton

Are people still buying that “Wikileaks as hero” bullshit?  Talk about re-branding old discredited intelligence, this psyop program is childishly stupid and painfully obvious. What’s next? Stories about Iranian speedboats attacking US destroyers? How about a nice weeping ambassador’s daughter recanting tales of Iranian soldiers tossing babies from their incubators?

Talk about cognitive infiltration.

The following quotes are from today’s Bloomberg article titled “Iran’s Training for Iraqi Militants Outlined in Leaked Pentagon Documents

… WikiLeaks receives confidential material that governments and businesses want to keep secret and posts the information on the Internet “so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth,” the group says on its website….

So what is “the truth“? “The truth” is that Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were actually correct! Iran WAS responsible for the deaths of US soldiers, so we had better invade Iran and right quick!

Iran provided extensive aid to Iraqi militias, such as training an operative who kidnapped American soldiers, according to classified U.S. military documents published yesterday.

(the bullshit propaganda from the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice days is LITERALLY being repackaged… this time as “leaked” intel...)

… The documents include field reports from 2004 through 2009 describing Iranian backing for Iraqi Shiite militia and provide details supporting warnings by U.S. officials of Iranian interference in Iraq.

In August 2005, for example, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that “weapons clearly, unambiguously from Iran” had been found in Iraq, and that Iran’s failure to prevent their transport across the border was “unhelpful.” In March 2006, Rumsfeld accused Iran of sending the Revolutionary Guards, an elite military unit, into Iraq to foment violence.

(do you remember that? They promised to lay out a bunch of weapons they claimed came from Iran and when they had the press conference, they laid out zero, goose egg, because they HADN’T come from Iran)

The documents indicate that as far back as 2005, Iran armed and trained squads to kill senior Iraqi politicians and to undermine U.S. and British military operations, the Guardian reported.

One document from December 2006, posted on the New York Times website, describes a plan by a Shiite militia commander to kidnap U.S. soldiers in Baghdad in late 2006 or early 2007. For the mission, the commander tapped a subordinate who had been trained by Lebanese Hezbollah operatives in Qom, Iran, under the supervision of the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards, according to the document.

The next month, four American soldiers were abducted and killed before the U.S. military could free them, and the subordinate’s fingerprints were found at the scene, the Times said. The U.S. tracked down and killed the subordinate four months later.

… The WikiLeaks documents also cite detainee testimony, a captured militant’s diary and discovered weapons caches in demonstrating how Iran provided Iraqi militias with weapons such as rockets and lethal roadside bombs, the Times said.

So not only is Iran guilty of attacking Americans and undermining all our “success” in Iraq, but apparently our torture, uh, enhanced interrogation…  isn’t as bad as we previously thought… it’s all that Iraqi torture that should be stopped. Yeah, yeah… that’s the ticket!

Mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by their own forces appeared to be even more extreme than the accounts of abuse by the U.S. military at the Abu Ghraib prison, the Times said.

19 Responses

  1. There was an AP article of couple of days ago quoting Iraqi officials as saying that US influence is becoming irrelevant since the troop decrease and they are now pursuing a policy of cooperation with neighboring countries including Iran. Several high level meetings have occurred between them apparently. Al Maliki’s recent endorsement by Muqtaddah Al Sadr is also an area of US concern.

    Now Al Maliki is stating that the wiki leak is politically timed to undermine his retention of power by alleging prisoner abuse without proof. The factors cited above are reminiscent of Saddam’s deviation from US allegience that led to the US assault on Iraq. The US gov’t needs a puppet in Iraq. Independent pursuit of their own interests is intolerable and that’s why it seems plausible that Al Maliki is not just paranoid. He knows the US is not happy with him and is fully aware of the demonstrated precedent of what happens when US is not happy.

  2. […] but for those who think Wikileaks is working for the CIA or the Mossad, what is planned is that the Wikileaks Propaganda Helps Build A Case for Attacking Iran. With reports like “how Iran devised new suicide vest for al-Qaeda to use in Iraq,” war […]

  3. You have to be pretty far detached from reallity to believe Iran does NOT meddle in Iraq.

    Its their neighbor with whom they share their largest border, its their biggest trade partner as well as historical enemy. And its in turmoil. So of course they exercise influence there, they would be nuts not to. And sure they support Shia militia’s, and it would be naive to think they dont arm and train them on some level at least, just like they train and arm Hezbollah and other fractions friendly to them .

    But thats not a casus belli. Thats *exactly* what the US does there and just about everywhere else in the world. They just do it with other fractions and puppet regimes.

    This whole notion that wikileaks is a US “psyops” is slightly absurd by itself, but this is certainly no proof for it.

  4. Perhaps the C.I.A. is generating on a regular basis, misleading or outright fraudulent inter-agency memos,documents,e-mails,etc. These would all go into the archives to be “found” by some historian, or “leaked” by a whistleblower. Through the magic of selective interpretation, almost any claim could be justified, citing “official sources”.

  5. P4man, Do you really interpret my post as being skeptical of Iranian influence in Iraq? Your interpretive capacity seems impaired. I also do not assert that it is proof of anything. It only demonstrates a motive.

    And the nature of wikileaks is not beyond question. Its use, whether knowingly or not, as a psyops tool is not outside the realm of possiblility (absurd). Blind faith in exalted heroes is never wise. Example: Obama

  6. P4man;

    again, like Shawn has pointed out, this is not “proof” that Wikileaks is a psyops programs, but rather, this is just another example of how they are being used by the establishment to generate yet another illegal war and occupation. Notice how the “left” or the dissent news providers focus on just one aspect of these leaks, while completely ignoring what I am talking about here. Yet, the MSM is focused entirely on that supposed Iran/Iraq connection as if there is nothing else.

    In a month, when it’s all about attacking Iran for this reason or that, how are you going to raise any doubt about the need to do it if you have already raved on and on about the “truth” of the Wikileaks memos? You can’t, and you won’t…

    just look at what you are doing now. They have already proved this VERY SAME INTEL was fraudulent back in 2005 and 2006 back when Cheney and company wanted a war with Iran.

    So now, all of a sudden, here you are saying Iran is arming Iraq SIMPLY BECAUSE THE MEMOS CAME FROM WIKILEAKS…

    there is no new proof.. there is no new evidence… these are “memos” from Condi Rice’s state department…

    and you are now accepting them without any question.

    If you want some evidence of Wikileaks as a CIA psyop, then click on the first link I provided in the article above. Plenty of proof including one of the founders of the group who left and later claimed that Wikileaks is a psyop.

  7. […] Creighton på Are people still buying that “Wikileaks as hero” bullshit? Talk about re-branding old […]

  8. […] Scott Creighton på […]

  9. Here Wikileaks provides 400.000 raw intelligence reports from people on the ground. *Of course* some media can cherry pick among those to make whatever case. Just like Cheney/Rumsfeld and Co did to build their case for war against Iraq. So what?

    The fact that wikileaks appears reliable doesnt mean every single out of context unverified field report it publishes suddenly becomes a national intelligence estimate. Nor does it mean that US intelligence is feeding wikileaks or anything else. All it means is that some media will cherry pick and misrepresent unprocessed information. what else is new?

  10. P4man;

    Well, if you are talking about cherry picking, doesn’t that work both ways? Besides, you have already commented that you now believe it just makes sense that Iran is arming and training Iraqi insurgents. They are not. If they were, the Cheney administration would have produced the evidence. Now all we have are these state department “memos” and all of a sudden, we take that act of war on Iran’s part as a given?

    besides, look at the payoff we got… 15k additional dead civilians… what does that bring their “official” body count up to? 110k? I’m sorry, but I thought the Pew survey was up over a million at this point.

    So even THAT minor concession serves their purposes.

    What’s the other big revelation? The Iraqis tortured people more than the Americans did?

    Who does THAT help?

    I’m sorry… if you look at the history, if you look at the other writing that I have done and even what people like Glenn Greenwald has done on this subject, then you look at this new “leak” objectively, I’m afraid you probably will come to a much different conclusion about Wikileaks.

    I mean, after all, you have already come to a different conclusion about Iran arming Iraqi insurgents haven’t you?

  11. It seems like another Bush trick that was found weak and fraudulent is now being treated as ‘truth’ because it is being shown now during the Obama adm. Amazing……
    like Bush telling people the tooth-fairy was real and everyone knowing Bush was full of BS, but let Obama-adm tell people the tooth-fairy is real and people start thinking that maybe it is.
    What kind of thinking is that?

  12. “I mean, after all, you have already come to a different conclusion about Iran arming Iraqi insurgents haven’t you?”

    Who you want to call “insurgent” in iraq is at least as important as who they get support from, but those wikileaks didnt change my opinion on Iran supporting shia militia’s like the Mahdi Army (and the Maliki government and its militia, ironically). What makes you think that?

    Back in, 2006? 2007? I dont remember, the Mahdi Army has pledged to defend Iran if the US would attack it, (and with an estimated 660.000 fighters, that is indeed a serious deterrent). The Mahdi Army has time and again laid down their arms in their fight against the Maliki government and the US occupiers *only* because Iran asked them to. Is it so unthinkable they would get something in return? Even if not sanctioned by the highest government levels in Iran, then surely from lower ups or perhaps local revolutionary guard commanders. Look at the map. How can one think no arms would cross that border?

    Now is that significant or in any way a valid reason to bomb Iran? Of course not. On the opposite, if you look at the complete picture the US have every reason to be grateful to Iran for meddling in Iraq. They have done far more good than harm, even to US interests.

    So the problem here is not wikileaks releasing tons of information, its some media “analysing” that. You cant blame wikileaks for that when they do provide the full picture.

  13. Willy – trust you to see the pattern early and then be proved right by the unfolding evidence. Thanks for helping us keep an eye on the news.

  14. P4man:

    Wikileaks is providing “the full picture” huh? And you come to this conclusion because…

    1. the Mahdi Army, who was fighting the invading Americans, said they would help defend Iran if America invaded them as well…

    2. “Look at the map. How can one think no arms would cross that border?”

    uh… well… if you are going to cite all that proof, then what can I say.

    But I’m not the only one who has noticed this little discrepancy:

    “The documents seem to paint a picture that very much favours official U.S. positions on the Iraq war. For example, the American media, which has a well documented history of shilling for the U.S. government highlighted two stories that it supposedly extrapolated from these documents. The first was the fact that the majority of civilian casualties in the Iraq war were caused by Iraqis. This directly contradicts a comprehensive study conducted by John Hopkins University in 2004. It found that “coalition” forces killed over 600,000 Iraqis, the majority of them killed in airstrikes. The leaked documents conveniently contradict this information. The second major story emanating from the “leaks” is that Iran was actively destabilizing Iraq by funding militants who were assassinating Iraqi officials. One AFP story even highlights the accusation that Iran tried to launch a poison gas attack on the “green zone,” an area where Iraqi and American officials are based. Another factor that makes this “leak” highly suspect is that the Times, a newspaper that played a leading role in validating the illegal invasion of Iraq and is well known for its pro Zionist policy, was one of “few” media outlets that was given “early” access to these “leaked” documents. This meant that the Times was able to weave a narrative around the leaked documents that was then picked up by all the major networks.

    The fact that the supposedly damaging leaks are in fact bolstering American accusations against Iran while minimizing American complicity in Iraqi deaths leads some to believe that the leaks are in fact engineered by the Pentagon to either discredit Wikileaks, or are in conjunction with Wikileaks which is a U.S. government outfit.” Prison Planet

  15. SO whats going on with Wikileaks?

    Consider the following:
    Hikers not in Iran when nabbed: WikiLeaks
    October 23, 2010

    The three American hikers arrested by Iran last year were on the Iraqi side of the border, according to US military documents released on Friday by WikiLeaks, reported the New York Times.
    The internal US document highlights military grids where the group was detained, which the Times said were on the Iraqi side of the border.

    On Tuesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton renewed appeals for the release of the two men still in custody on “humanitarian” grounds, adding that the United States did not believe there was any basis “whatsoever” for them to be put on trial.

    The headline makes it seem Wikileaks is the source: BUT The source for this claim is the Pentagon, which would normally be dismissed as US propaganda…BUT since it came thru wikileaks, its being taken as true! Are the fans of wikileaks paying attention?!

    How easy is it for the US to slip in propaganda in ‘leaks’? There are such things as DELIBERATE leaks. Can Wikleaks be sure its not being used to get around peoples suspicions?

  16. prof mark Lynch back in july said this:
    WikiLeaks and the Iran-AQ Connection
    Posted By Marc Lynch Tuesday, July 27, 2010 – 2:25
    Most of the response to the WikiLeaks Afghanistan document release thus far has focused on the absence of major revelations, with most of the details reinforcing existing analysis rather than undermining official discourse about the war. A similar response is appropriate to a story making the rounds that the documents bolster the case for significant connections between Iran and al-Qaeda. Information in the documents, according to the Wall Street Journal, “appear to give new evidence of direct contacts between Iranian officials and the Taliban’s and al Qaeda’s senior leadership.” What’s more important in these stories than the details found in the documents about Iran’s activities in Afghanistan is the attempt to spin them into a narrative of “Iranian ties to al-Qaeda” to bolster the weak case for an American attack on Iran.
    There’s no secret about Iran’s role in Afghanistan, of course — this has long been a staple of the debate over Afghan policy, and has also long been pointed out as an area of potential cooperation or conflict between Washington and Tehran. As with much of the rest of the WikiLeaks documents, much of what has been found about Iran’s role in Afghanistan is already generally known, while other information in them is of dubious provenance. It’s not like we didn’t know about Iran and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. These new details do add to the case for taking Iran into account more effectively when designing Afghanistan policy, on both the military and political dimensions. But they don’t add up to some kind of smoking gun demonstrating an Iranian alliance with al-Qaeda.
    This use of the WikiLeaks documents brings back some old memories, of a long time ago (March 2006) in a galaxy far far away when the Pentagon posted a massive set of captured Iraqi documents on the internet without context. Analysts dived into them, mostly searching for a smoking gun on Iraqi WMD or ties to al-Qaeda. The right-wing blogs and magazines ran with a series of breathless announcements that something had been found proving one case or another. Each finding would dissolve when put into context or subjected to scrutiny, and at the end it only further confirmed the consensus (outside of the fever swamps, at least) that there had been no significant ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda. But the cumulative effect of each “revelation”, even if subsequently discredited, probably fueled the conviction that such ties had existed and did help maintain support for the Iraq war among the faithful. The parallel isn’t exact — in this case, there actually is something real there, and these documents were released against the government’s will — but it does raise some flags about how such documents can be used and misused in the public debate.

  17. Willy,

    Do you think Sahar Issa or The real news is also a US black op? Listen to this interview:

    (relevant part starts around 9 minutes) Thats not the first Iraqi person I hear that from, if you listen to them. The shoe thrower says the same, is he a US operative too?
    you hear that all the time. Ive never heard a single iraqi claim Iran plays no role in that regard. Should we really believe the US provides ammo labeled with “made in Iran” to insurgents who use it blow their own soldiers up (and that I *might* even consider believing, at least on a small scale) but then for some reason doesnt actually use that planted evidence, but relies on wikileaks to get that message out?

    Anyway, you seem to think at the very least its a shame Wikileaks is being abused by US media to further US agenda by cherry picking some minor elements (even though they are probably true), I personally think its a shame you are trying to discredit wikileaks and the global picture those disclosures provide just because it also contains some minor elements that can be cherry picked and misrepresented in the media.

  18. actually, I’ve had my suspicions about Real News for some time now. I think I even wrote about it once.

    Iran DOES play a role in what is happening in Iraq. Of course they do…

    … but that is a LONG way from arming and training Iraq insurgents…. which they are NOT doing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: