On 2010-11-29, at 10:24 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:
> The gambit of 'leaking' disinformation is a very ancient one. It is one of
> the reasons, in fact, that espionage has always, even when successful, been
> of doubtful use in warfare.
> [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Ferenc Molnar
> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 10:14 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: [lbo-talk] Wikileaks according to The Guardian
>
>
> Some of these leaks might very well bolster the U.S.'s military case against
> Iran, particularly the memos stating that North Korea has sold arms to Iran.
> The memos that show Arab leaders expressing support for the U.S.'s line on
> Iran might also prove useful in gathering an international consensus against
> Iran and for a U.S./Israeli/NATO coalition. One memo feels queasily similar
> to the smoking gun defense of the Bush administration, "Nuclear warheads in
> Iran are pointed at European cities and Moscow as we speak." The problem
> with wikileaks is that the information leaked could just as easily be
> disinformation.
==================== When the US decides to leak documents about NK arms sales to Iran or other meaterial, it does so selectively rather than through through a batch dump of a quarter million disconnected documents , and directly to trusted journalists rather than through a suspect third party like wikileaks.
How does catty gossip about foreign leaders and further details of the scope of US diplomatic espionage and Arab regimes' collusion with the US and Israel constitute "disinformation" which advances American foreign policy interests?