WHY DID SWEDEN NOT QUESTION ASSANGE AT THE ECUADOR EMBASSY?

If all Sweden wants to do is question Assange over allegations of rape then why did it not accept the offer of Ecuador and question Assange while he has been at the Ecuador Embassy in London claiming asylum?

This refusal could be because the whole idea is to get Assange on Swedish territory and extradite him to the USA, or for rendition (a fancy word for kidnap).

But there has been something not quite right about Wikileaks all along. It has been 'leaked' some questionable information at times that have been useful for some, in particular The Pentagon, while not publishing anything really that damaging for the likes of the USA and in particular the UK.

The 'leaks' that I question most occured in 2010 when Wikileaks hooked up with The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel and published a dump of leaks, called The Afghan War Diary, that implied that Osama bin Laden was alive and well and living it up in Iran, and that Iran was also running the Taliban in Afghanistan. During the first half of 2010 there was serious opposition in the USA to the USA staying in Afghanistan, and there was doubt that the US Congress would fund the 'surge' announced by Obama which would have meant cuts elsewhere in the Pentagon budget. But Wikileaks came to the rescue and on 25th July 2010 published The Afghan War Diary through The Guardian, the New York Times and Der Spiegel, which gave the impression that Iran was protecting Osama bin Laden and Iran was running the Taliban. This gave other highly influential media outlets such as The Washington Post the opportunity to print photos of Osama bin Laden on their front pages, to remind US Congress of what he was alleged to have done on 9/11. And lo and behold, on 27th July 2010 US Congress surprisingly voted for an extra $40 billion to fund the 'surge'. Not bad, eh? The whole psyop would have cost a few million, at most, and all to get $40 billion.

This does not prove without doubt that Wikileaks is a psyop, but shows how it can be used by those it is allegedly against. Other leaks have damaged or attempted to damage Russia, or Putin to be more precise, at curious times.

Is Assange being left out to whip up more media hysteria and give Wikileaks more street cred for later 'leaks' that will possibly attempt to show that it was Iran, not Iraq or Osama bin Laden, who did 9/11?

Stay tuned to your favourite NATO media outlet for further developments.