Why do you think

[butterfly77]

wiki didn't leak during the bush years?

[texastoast]

1. Veddy interesting question

:popcorn:

[blondeatlast]

18. Co'Cola? nt

[abelenkpe]

2. Site launched in 2006. nt

[Scurrilous]

3. Maybe he was too busy getting laid. n/t

[babylonsister]

14. Bwhahaha! Equal opportunities! nt

[blondeatlast]

19. Sans condom. "Just this once, mon cherie--just this once,

nothing will happen--I'll be there for you..."

[ZombieHorde]

4. They did. nt

[virgogal]

5. Isn't it only about 3 years old? Maybe they just weren't ready.

[zigzagzed]

6. Not old enough

Probably because WikiLeaks wasn't online until 2007 and didn't really get big until 2009. But it seems they have a fair amount of material from the Bush years (plus some Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, and Carter).

[Mimosa]

7. They did. Gitmo.

Here's a link from November 2007, about Wikileaks exposing abuses at GITMO:

http://vincentandmorticiasspeakeasy14846.yuku.com/topic/988

[butterfly77]

8. Why do you think..

it wasn't a big deal then?

[Mimosa]

11. It sort of was.

Not as big as this because the scope of info was more limited and Wikileaks was new. Now the mainstream press has heard of it. So instead of finding news on their own they get paid to fill bandwidth with commentary on Assange, who is now well known.

[laughingliberal]

9. 2006 and 2007:

WikiLeaks posted its first document in December 2006, a decision to assassinate government officials signed by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys.<20> The New Yorker has reported that
Assange and the others were uncertain of its authenticity, but they thought that readers, using Wikipedia-like features of the site, would help analyze it. They published the decision with a lengthy commentary, which asked, “Is it a bold manifesto by a flamboyant Islamic militant with links to Bin Laden? Or is it a clever smear by US intelligence, designed to discredit the Union, fracture Somali alliances and manipulate China?” ... The document’s authenticity was never determined, and news about WikiLeaks quickly superseded the leak itself.<20>

Daniel arap Moi family corruption

On 31 August 2007, The Guardian (Britain) featured on its front page a story about corruption by the family of the former Kenyan leader Daniel arap Moi. The newspaper stated that the source of the information was WikiLeaks.<116>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks

[mmonk]

10. The things being leaked cover a long span.

Wikileaks is probably a result of lack of an inquisitive press and government oversight.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

12. The press or government won't bite the hand of their

corporate masters. Wikileaks is the new muckraker.

[mmonk]

13. Yep.

[butterfly77]

17. Because they believed..

everything Bush/Cheney told them because Bush said, he was protecting them and everything needed to be top secret...

[HEyHEY]

15. Could they have?

[butterfly77]

16. Could they have what?