Why Isn't Anyone Talking about Bradley Manning?

Let’s be frank: while I am no fan of the man, I thought the dramatic, solitary confinement incarceration of Julian Assange, prohibiting him any access to media or electronics, all on the suspicious accusation – not charges – of sexual molestation was a bit too much to justify. So he’s a self-infatuated whore, we know this. Forgive me if I’ve lingering questions about the two women who, according to news reports, threw themselves at him like groupies before realizing they’d both been had in the same week, especially as one of the women reportedly once blogged about using the court systems to get back at unfaithful lovers. We can all agree that some things present questions here, is all, and that people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

(By the way, it cracks me up how the left predictably won’t defend chicks who accuse the object of their fangirldom of sexual abuse – think Clinton, Edwards, et al – but instead have concocted elaborate schemes wherein the accusers work with the CIA. Are they also writing the story lines for the daytime soaps now, too?)

All of these seem like nothing more than smoke and mirrors to avoid discussing the obvious: our government sucks at keeping secrets and Bradley Manning had a tantrum because he felt identity was more important than service, and he’s also a traitor.

Manning posted online about his unhappiness at having to fetch coffee for his superior officers. Because no other person working their way up the ladder has had to undertake such a humiliating and discriminatory gopher task ever in the history of the workplace or military, I can see how this would motivate him to steal classified information and leak it to a guy looking for a follow up hit to last summer’s “Is That An RPG Or Are You Just Happy to See Me?”

Stories abound on whether Manning’s frustration at the military stemmed from his being an entitled brat or sexuality and anger at DADT. Don’t you think if the subject of a story railed on about gay issues and dissatisfaction with the military that it might be valid to ask without assuming whether or not his crime was related to DADT? For instance, his Facebook description reads:

“Take me for who I am, or face the consequences!”

I personally know people currently serving in the military both at home and overseas, straight and gay, various ranks, who are not allowed to write such things on social networking sites because their activity can be monitored. If that had written such things as the below, they most certainly would have found themselves before a commanding officer:

Mr Manning, who is openly homosexual, began his gloomy postings on January 12, saying: “Bradley Manning didn’t want this fight. Too much to lose, too fast.”

At the beginning of May, when he was serving at a US military base near Baghdad, he changed his status to: “Bradley Manning is now left with the sinking feeling that he doesn’t have anything left.”

Five days later he said he was “livid” after being “lectured by ex-boyfriend”, then later the same day said he was “not a piece of equipment” and was “beyond frustrated with people and society at large”.

No one in the media is asking how someone so publicly angry at the military and society was allowed to stew, undiscovered, and even access secure areas. Of course, over three million people had access to the same information that Manning did which highlights our lack of security, which is where the blame for all of this belongs.Why won’t the media explore this motivation? They indulge every conspiracy theory out there but ignore the possibility of Occam’s Razor. They’ve played wingman to the government, deflecting attention away from the start of this mess – the government’s inability to secure classified information, spot the red flags of disgruntled individuals within their ranks, and act at all when Assange promised six months ago that another leak was coming – to Assange alone. Granted, Assange acted with malicious intent, an intent to jeopardize the United States in some capacity, but the information released in this second batch has been rather un-noteworthy. The lie surrounding the first release falsely labeling our soldiers as killers was the biggest shock because the truth was so blatant on tape. If there exist criminal charges for which Assange can be brought up on I’m sure Eric Holder will get right on it and employ the same urgency with which he applied to the Black Panther voter intimidation case.

No, this is how the media handles Manning:

Bradley Manning’s health deteriorating in jail, supporters say

According to David House, a computer researcher from Boston who visits Manning twice a month, he is starting to deteriorate. “Over the last few weeks I have noticed a steady decline in his mental and physical wellbeing,” he said. “His prolonged confinement in a solitary holding cell is unquestionably taking its toll on his intellect; his inability to exercise due to [prison] regulations has affected his physical appearance in a manner that suggests physical weakness.”

Manning, House added, was no longer the characteristically brilliant man he had been, despite efforts to keep him intellectually engaged.

Of course this administration and media are unhappy with Assange; his leak in July reflected on Bush (even though it was later shown that those weren’t cameramen, those were insurgents with RPGs); this batch of leaks vindicated Bush and showed the Obama administration as hapless buffoons. The media doesn’t play the stock market, they play politics, and this move threatened their investment in this president, thus their motivation to carry water for the administration.

Elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans alike, called Assange a “terrorist.” (I myself questioned this weeks ago; I’ve since jumped off the fence.) He isn’t a terrorist; he’s a victim of his own hubris who had nothing to do with securing classified information (our government) or stealing it (Manning), he simply published it. There isn’t a single blogger, liberal or conservative, who, if handed information vindicating a GOP or Democratic administration from accusations of lying to start a war, wouldn’t publish it. I know people who’ve published private emails like journolist, people who dig into the divorce records of candidates (Jack and Jeri Ryan) so I call BS on any such denials. Again, Assange is different because he has malicious intent and published information within the scope of a invalid premise, something I know no conservative blogger would do, but you get my line of thought.

Even if DADT was Manning’s excuse: This isn’t about DADT – this is about an individual who was unfit for military service. Gays served before Clinton introduced DADT (is that what makes liberals so mad? That they have to address that their own party created this legislation therefor compromising their narrative about being so pro-gay rights?) and gays will still serve, regardless the outcome of the ruling. The emotion in the real world doesn’t match the perspective self-importance and no one cares about your sexual orientation. No one cares if you like punk or pop-punk. No one cares if you’ve never had a girlfriend, if you were emo in high school, none of the little things which may you you matter in the military. Individuality does not matter. It is a hindrance. The only thing that matters is whether or not you can be stripped down by your commanders, rebuilt, and operate as part of one cohesive unit is strictly prohibited. The military does one thing and they do it well: fight.

If you can’t, then don’t waste everyone’s time in using the military as a social experiment by forcing the military to focus on sexuality over missions. This isn’t a booster club.

In the meantime, the media ignores this truth, Manning sits in a jail cell, the government has said nothing to assure us that they’ll be more responsible (can Democrats secure anything? Clinton loses the nuke codes and now this?), and Assange is treated like a rockstar just because he posted what someone else gave him.