And we are supposed to believe that a buck private in the Army (E-3) easily removed these thousands of documents off the most secure computers in the world with nothing more than a Lady Gaga CD? Does the United States government really want us to buy this load of crap.
Could it be, that some of these documents were carefully selected without major intelligence being sacrificed to make the case to push these cyber security acts through Congress without any hesitation? After all, it wouldn't be the first time the United States government staged something to increase their power or move the country in a direction unpopular with the people of the United States. America's involvement in the war of Vietnam officially began in a false-flag terrorist event at the Gulf of Tonkin.
With the country already angry at the increase of federal powers, could you orchestrate a better plan--the compromise of thousands of documents essential for national security dumped on the Internet for our enemies and allies to see--to garner up support for the cyber security bill that is under debate in Congress?
Let's not rush to the conclusion and automatically assume Private First Class Bradley Manning successfully pulled this off on his own. Do you mean to tell me the United States government doesn't monitor the use of its national security secure network--like who is accessing the files, how many files the are accessing, how often they are accessing, and if any of these files are being transferred? This may be something much bigger, and Manning may be nothing more than a patsy.
And why is it an E-3 has so much trust and power for that matter to get this deep into the computers that house National Security secrets. I mean I guess it is possible, but why weren't there any safeguards in place. This really opens up a lot of questions, questions that even Sarah Palin is asking now as she scolds the Obama administration.
Palin asks, "How was it possible that a 22-year-old Private First Class could get unrestricted access to so much highly sensitive information? And how was it possible that he could copy and distribute these files without anyone noticing that security was compromised?"
I would like to know the same thing. You see, when you study American history at a very close level, you being to realize how situations in which the government hopes to acquire more power of the people are manipulated through manufactured conflict. This is how the Federal Reserve Act, income tax passed, and the 17th Amendment in 1913. They created a conflict to push the legislation through. Corruption was the plot in 1913.
So now we have this single buck private the center of the controversy at a time where it seems the Federal Government is stomping on every right. Let's not be quick to buy into this story that Manning acted alone. This required connections beyond what an average private in the Army has.
With the Manning story comes the familiar victimization card that often comes with these stories. Far too often, these stories read like they are straight out of a play book. Today we learn Manning was a "teased and harassed victim of the military, which is one of their story lines they hope we will buy into. It always seems like these stories follow.
Even as a kid, friends describe Bradley Manning as a computer geek who held strong opinions and wasn't afraid to express them. But at first glance, he appears the most unlikely suspect. With a youthful smile looking barely old enough to even be in the military, 23-year-old Army PFC Bradley Manning is at the center of the worldwide WikiLeaks storm. He's in military custody charged with providing WikiLeaks with this classified gun camera video - a U.S. helicopter gunship attack in Baghdad that killed a number of Iraqi civilians. But the more serious charges accuse Manning of leaking tens of thousands of State Department cables. But how is that possible?
Military officials tell NBC News that as an intelligence analyst in Baghdad, Manning had allegedly downloaded the files from classified computers onto CDs, while apparently pretending to be listening to Lady Gaga. The charges against Manning claim he then uploaded the material "onto his personal computer" then passed it "to a person not entitled to receive it." But why would he possibly do it? Ginger Thompson, of the New York Times, profiled Manning and found that as a young man he was an outcast who tried desperately to fit in.
So those working with Manning knew he was listening to Lady Gaga but they didn't know anything else about what the guy was doing at his computer workstation? Does this seem odd to anyone else, especially in a department that has access to this much national security?
I expect huge push and passage of the cyber security bill now. I think this is what is being set up here. I hope I am wrong, but I think Manning may be a patsy in order to give the federal government ultimate control the Internet. Remember what Glenn Beck has been warning of, we lose the Internet, we lose the information battle. We lose the information battle, we will lose our country. I am very worried there is something much larger in all of this, and that of course why many people are observing Obama's lackadaisical reaction that one Army general described as a gutless wonder and Palin goes on to write, "why did the White House not publish these orders after the first leak back in July? What explains this strange lack of urgency on their part?"
My guess, it all comes down to creating the perfect environment for the cyber security bill.
