Major WikiLeaks press conference in Europe coming up.....

I think there possibly are valid explanations for one or more of the things or features you say are or may be flaws; or maybe it's just a question of lacking some elaboration. Your warning is based in a reality people need to keep in mind, however, and it's that the CIA, NED, as well as imperialist, economic and corporate elites have a history of setting up front groups used to try to pretend that they're honest on issues that are of importance and critical importance to most people when all it is is to deceive and mislead us. The government has a very well known front organization or agency used to deceptively cover up extreme crimes of the U.S. internationally while pretending to be good and it's called USAID.

But there are many front groups and organizations, as well as foundations; in all, many. There was an article by Kevin Zeese posted or cross-posted here over the past several days and he said that organizations with names beginning with "Citizens for ...", f.e., are actually fronts of the ruling elites and that these are for misleading citizens. I figure that he's surely right and while I don't know what most of their names are, I nevertheless had noticed that some of these organizations are the very least very peculiar, suspect.

People do need to be careful or wary about this type of reality.

You wrote:

Some of the evidence for this is the inconsistencies with which they've released information:
* Pre-releasing the "leaked material" to the White House and Pentagon to allow them to first vet/veto any material that may be damaging.

That might be rather necessary in order to make sure that the Wikileaks team does not reveal information that would or could definitely put people's lives in serious danger, but we could only know if we knew what's withheld from us. Daniel Ellsberg does briefly talk about this in the interview on Dem. Now! linked in one of my posts in this page and I'll recommend listening to what he says on this.

* Releasing the "leaked material" to the primary disseminators of official propaganda within the mainstream media--The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc..

Those media do disseminate propaganda "favorable" to the criminal government and elites; favorable to or for them if we're fooled by the propaganda, that is. But the NYT apparently has published some good, respectable articles and occasionally will continue to do so, I assume.

More importantly, however, Wikileaks has [not] released any highly incriminating information or leaks, not yet anyway. They've released nothing that could really be used to stop these wars and this is the kind of leakage that is [needed]. Daniel Ellsberg points this out in the Dem. Now! interview and he's right.

I have not yet read or heard of Wikileaks having published any bombshells and this has left me with the or an impression that what we're mostly getting is [sensationalism]. There was the "Collateral Murder" video-recording showing U.S. troops murdering around a dozen Iraqis, none of whom were seen carrying any weapons whatsoever, but this video definitely and clearly is not a war-stopping piece of information or revelation.

Dan Ellsberg says that what has been published through Wikileaks amounts to a lot more pages of government documents than the Pentagon Papers consisted of and that he certainly could not have ever produced a similar volume with the technological means available when he copied the Pentagon Papers. But, and unlike the latter papers, around 7,000 pages, what's been leaked through Wikileaks provides nothing to stop the wars. We need leaks of information that can be used to stop the wars; as the Pentagon Papers made it possible or certainly more possible to stop the Vietnam War.

The Pentagon Papers were around 7,000 pages and apparently did really help to end the war on Vietnam. Wikileaks' Afghanistan War logs number from 77,000 to (according to Dem. Now!) 91,000 pages without any war-stopping content at all. Of course Julian Assange, et al, aren't in any strategically important or sensitive positions like Daniel Ellsberg was before producing and when he produced the Pentagon Papers, and this can't be held against anyone who's not an inside member of the Washington elites or Administration. But with all of the pages that Wikileaks has produced, we evidently still have nothing strong.

* So far the "leaked material" has had the effect of justifying the U.S.'s expansion of its phony "war on terrorism" into Pakistan.
* So far the "leaked material" is nothing that journalists have not already reported on;

I wasn't aware of the first of those two points, but feared it might be what the Afghanistan War logs might have for effect. And I noticed nothing really newsworthy being reported about the Afghanistan War logs. Nearly everything I have read about what they contain for information was and remains old news to me.

* Julian Assange's dismissal of a need to look into the events of 9/11/01, despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary (such as there is not a single scientist or engineer who will publicly defend the destruction of WTC7 as possible by any cause other than controlled demolition, amongst other evidence).

Julian Assange's dismissal, and that's a nice way to put his actual view or treatment of the 9/11 truth research, has struck me as very suspect from the very second that I first learned of his absurd treatment or view of 9/11 Truth research of professional and fact-finding kind. He is by no measure qualified in professional terms. He is not a scientist, architect or engineer, but he pretends that he's better qualified than they are in their specialized areas of knowledge and professional experience. It's always absurd to dismiss facts, and the more important the facts are, the more absurd it is to dismiss them; and when a person is not even technically qualified, but still pretends to be able to competently dismiss facts, then it's extremely absurd. Julian Assange is in the latter category when it comes to real 9/11 research.

He definitely didn't help his reputation in treating 9/11 Truth research the way he did.

However, I believe that you're mistaken about there being no scientists and/or engineers "who will publicly defend the destruction of WTC7 as possible by any cause other than controlled demolition". A few have done that; well, a few have tried, that is. That's past tense and maybe they wouldn't care to try their little propaganda stunt again, but it also was not done anywhere near as publicly as we have with AE911Truth.org conferences and participation in public demonstrations, such as when AE911Truth joined the October 2nd demonstrations in Wa., DC, f.e. However, some have done a little of their balony debunking of 9/11 Truth research in public.

I believe to recall having read that when architect Richard Gage of AE911Truth and/or Professor David Ray Griffin have appeared on "msm" tv there were opponents of 9/11 Truth research who had also appeared and the views or reports of both parties were presented to tv viewers. The falsely based debunkers were used to try to discredit real 9/11 Truth research findings. It considerably failed, for the real research and findings there-from are fact-based; or much of it is fact-based, anyway.

AE911Truth is and has always been keenly focused on determining facts, instead of starting with and always sticking with only theory. It was essential to start with a theory; f.e., that the "official story" is highly bogus and that the 9/11 Commission's final report, which has been denounced by several of the people who had served on that Commission, including head members of it, clearly is about cover-up. But those were quickly proven facts and AE911Truth and related scientists have always been focused on determination of facts ever since. And they've determined [plenty].

Anyone who tries to prove that facts are not facts is a fool, so welcome to Julian Assange's world; about real 9/11 research anyway.

Re. draconian laws against whistleblowers:

Regarding the rest of your post, besides the understandable repetition about Julian Assange on 9/11, that is, listen to the Dem. Now! interview with Daniel Ellsberg. He speaks of the draconian, anti-truth, totalitarian, kind of laws you refer to.

Closing:

Daniel Ellsberg has clearly stated that he supports 9/11 Truth research and the demand or call for a new and real 9/11 investigation. So, if he is honest in his bs view of 9/11 Truth research or investigation, instead of wittingly participating in attempted cover-up, then maybe Julian Assange should give some careful thought to what Dan Ellsberg has said about this. If Assange also wants to brush off Dan Ellsberg, then it'll be great to know about this. It might not totally discredit Assange, but it would deservedly discredit him to some real, signicicant extent.

And it's "funny" how Wikileaks has come into the public spotlight, while everyone giving this a lot of sensationalistic attention never or else very barely paid attention to what Sibel Edmonds has said, and she's not even the most important of whistleblowers; according to what I've read and heard (in videos, probably interviews) about her being a real whistleblower, anyway. When the actual whistleblowers have spoken out, they've been mostly and widely ignored, but Wikileaks is turned into a national and international sensation in very short time without providing any strongly incriminating information against the political and military leadership of the U.S.

Sibel Edmonds has provided plenty and isn't even the most important of whistleblowers, from what I've read anyway; but she and the others are either wholly or else extremely ignored, [wittingly] ignored, by "msm" and many so-called alternative media.

I've also wondered about why, if the leadership of the U.S., really wants to stop Wikileaks, they have not done so. The CIA and other American "intelligence" agencies surely could track him down and do like they did when they secretly abducted alleged terrorists or terrorism supporters in Italy and Germany. The CIA secretly found, abducted and renditioned or extraordinarily renditioned these people. They travel the world, have "eyes everywhere", yet are unable to track down Julian Assange, who they supposedly want stopped (?).

It's just a thought or question that has crossed my mind.

Lastly, and regarding "gatekeepers of the left", aka "left gatekeepers" I believe, you're evidently right according to some articles (by different people) that I've read, and they used concrete examples, aka facts, to illustrate their point. Noam Chomsky long dismissed and ridiculed or mocked real 9/11 Truth research, but if recalling correctly, then he has considerably lightened up on this topic. He might have ridiculed real 9/11 Truth research because of either having only known of the invalid and debunked 9/11 "theories", or due to not having been able to accept to carefully consider that the darkest possibilities about 9/11 might indeed be what really happened. The latter is about the human tendency to repress thoughts that frighten us too much; but there's also been plenty of popularization of disproven and also nonsensical 9/11 "theories", which became a lot more publicly known than the real 9/11 research and the findings there-from had.

Some of the "theories" actually appeared to be plants to try to discredit the real 9/11 truthers and these "theories" were very promptly debunked by the real and competent 9/11 researchers and speakers.

Huff. Post blatantly contributes to the 9/11 cover-up, and Dem. Now! has given some coverage, but still too little.

As people who've written about the "left-gatekeeping" media have pointed out, look at who provides the most funding for these media, and as others have often said, "follow the money" to determine whether a source, say, warrants being wary. Dem. Now! has been among the many "left" media that have produced a lot of awful reporting on the crises in some African countries, definitely including the Congo (Zaire), but many "left" media in the U.S. warrant being wary about what they publish. Sometimes they publish entirely recommendable content, but definitely not always. Sometimes it smells of participating in criminal cover-up.

I've noticed the Washington Post (WP) publishing some articles that appearantly contained some valid information, but while also containing Washington propaganda. And on the topic of this news or "news" media, which many people have called the CIA's favorite, readers here might do well to read the following article.

""Obama's Wars": The Real Story Bob Woodward Won't Tell"
by Russ Baker, WhoWhatWhy.com, Sept. 30th, 2010

www.truth-out.org/russ-baker-%E2%80%9Cobama%E2%80%99s-wars%E2%80%9D-the-...

He is founder and editor-in-chief of WhoWhatWhy.com, where Robert Dreyfuss, Daniel Ellsberg, and several other people make up the board and staff.

In the above article, he provides certainly interesting as well as clearly important information about Woodward's relationship or partnership with the military, and while I had not previously known the latter about Woodward and have not read his book, I nevertheless suspected from the start that the book would warrant that readers be wary or very wary with some of the things reported in the text. A little of what I've read about some of its contents, so far, has risen the alert or alarm for me. People should not naively treat the book as truth, only truth, and the whole truth; that is for most definitely sure.

And the same definitely is true about the Wa. Post and other "msm" news media, but then also "alternative" news media, as well. Being wary and very wary is often warranted, so we must be ready to make use of Web search engines; as well as making use of non-American or non-Anglo American and other non-Anglo western Web sites. Being critical about what "news" pundits, left, right, center, msm, alternative, about what they report and about their commentaries is important. We must avoid naively believing what we read and hear; when the topics are important anyway.

Update:

Also see his October 18th, 2010 update article, which is entitled, "Woodward Update: The Post and the Generals", available at his website, www.WhoWhatWhy.com. It's a short article, but it provides some additional important information about Woodward and his relationship with the military, including what the Wa. Post apparently never mentions and which is that he once was in the military. There's also important information to learn about the real Nixon and Watergate history that probably few people have ever read or heard about.

And he actually also wrote an article for August 5th, 2010, that people keen about Wikileaks or its latest information dump consisting of tens of thousands of pages should read. The piece is entitled, "The Old Media, Wikileaks, Or A Third Way?", and can be found at least through the Digest at www.whowhatwhy.com.