The Wikileaks story is all about revelations. But very few news stories covering that controversy have covered the fuller story. What don’t they want to reveal?

The UK Telegraph shows the clues were there. Right upfront, the Telegraph notes that the prime suspect in the leaks, Pfc Bradley Manning, ‘raged against the US Army and society at large in the days before he allegedly downloaded thousands of secret military documents.’ The logical question ‘what did they know and when did they know it?’ applies.

The Pentagon, which is investigating the source of the leak, is expected to study Mr Manning’s background to ascertain if they missed any warnings when he applied to join the US Army. The postings on his Facebook page are also likely to form part of the inquiry.

That’s more than British understatement. It’s the assumption that information well known in Mr. Manning’s world and publicly available to anyone of interest is finally going to figure into an investigation that should have started many months ago and might have prevented the damage.

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.”

Then he was left by his boyfriend, the article notes, and Manning was “livid.”

His tagline on his personal page reads: “Take me for who I am, or face the consequences!” …

Pictures on Mr Manning’s Facebook page include photos of him on school trips during his time in Wales and at a gay rights rally, where he is holding up a placard demanding equality on “the battlefield”.

Now why is this important? Because his potent anger was turned on the military for its policy on homosexuals.

While the President Barack Obama and his administration are calling for an end to the Bill Clinton-initiated “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for gays and lesbians in the U.S. military, most Americans are being told only half the story.

Contrary to the news media’s applause for so-called military leaders who support allowing openly gay soldiers, sailors and Marines, there are several top commanders who oppose rescinding the current policy.

During the debate, several senior military leaders came forward to oppose repealing the ban on homosexuals serving in the military until a one-year study can be completed.

And that delay only added fuel to the fire evidently brewing in Manning’s emotions. This has largely gone unreported. Accuracy in Media picked it up.

It is apparent that Manning, based on published reports, was a public homosexual activist for at least over a year. During this time he apparently came up with the idea of downloading and releasing the classified information to WikiLeaks as a way to get back at the United States military over its policy regarding homosexuality.

Was this preventable? Consider…

It may be the case that Manning was anxious about the failure of Congress to pass the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” anti-gay military policy.

President Obama had promised during the 2008 campaign to repeal the policy and in office has championed the “rights” of homosexual and “transgendered” people to high-level federal positions.

The riveting Telegraph account of Manning’s growing rage and anger raises serious questions of how the soldier was able to flaunt his homosexuality despite the fact that the Pentagon still officially has a policy in place of excluding open homosexuals from military service.

In a clear indication that the law was being ignored by the Obama Administration, the evidence demonstrates that Manning was continuing to serve after openly flaunting his homosexuality, including on Facebook.

Who in the Obama Administration—and the Department of Defense—was aware of his conduct and looked the other way? Was Manning given a pass because his “lifestyle” was considered to be in favor and acceptable under the Obama Administration?

Now, because of the obvious mishandling of this homosexual ticking time bomb, it appears that the United States, its soldiers, and relations with countries in the region will pay the price.

So far, few media have called for this kind of accountability.

The AIM article refers to a Manning friend known to be active in the gay rights movement. He also happens to be the person who turned to a military intelligence specialist with vital information about Manning. That tip led to a chain of events that have only partially been covered. And questions that remain unanswered.

Adrian Lamo, the hacker who tipped off the feds to WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning, claims that two men helped Manning. When asked by CNN about this allegation, WikiLeaks said, “As a matter of policy, we do not discuss any matters to do with allegations relating to the identity of sources.”

So transparency is totally important… until it exposes you. In the end, the only identities important enough to protect, in WikiLeak’s opinion, are their own.

Sheila Liaugminas

Sheila Liaugminas is an Emmy award-winning Chicago-based journalist in print and broadcast media. Her writing and broadcasting covers matters of faith, culture, politics and the media....