European Newspapers Begin Publishing Wikileaks Docs

World • Views: 40,655

The Guardian has begun publishing Wikileaks’ latest batch of stolen diplomatic cables: US embassy cables leak sparks global diplomacy crisis.

I don’t recall voting for Julian Assange. As he sets himself up as the arbiter of government morality, and recklessly reveals secrets that will distort and vastly complicate international relations, and very probably cause innocent people to suffer and die, who will hold him accountable? Who does he answer to?

UPDATE at 11/28/10 10:40:48 am:

The New York Times has them too: WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy.

Jump to bottom

401 comments
1 RurouniKenshin  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:36:55am

Well, I don't think it's just him. If it wasn't him, someone else would be doing it.

In this age of free-flow of information, this sort of thing is inevitable.

2 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:37:41am

Not only Euro, NYT too.

3 blueraven  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:38:35am

re: #1 RurouniKenshin

Well, I don't think it's just him. If it wasn't him, someone else would be doing it.

In this age of free-flow of information, this sort of thing is inevitable.

So "everybodys doing it" so its ok? Bull!

4 Kronocide  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:38:37am

Not only that... but now governments are going to be even tighter with information, maybe too tight.

I don't know what kind of good can come of this.

5 Political Atheist  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:38:46am

re: #1 RurouniKenshin

Irresponsible is not inevitable. Not at this level.

6 Political Atheist  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:41:17am

From the Wikileak site


NOTE: At the moment WikiLeaks is not accepting new submissions due to re-engineering improvements the site to make it both more secure and more user-friendly. Since we are not currently accepting submissions during the re-engineering, we have also temporarily closed our online chat support for how to make a submission. We anticipate reopening the electronic drop box and live chat support in the near future.

Heh.
An assignment for our white hat hackers... Spike the Wikileaks servers as the go online.

7 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:41:54am
a profile of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who they say is accompanied everywhere by a "voluptuous blonde" Ukrainian nurse.


Heh.

8 Wozza Matter?  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:44:01am

re: #7 Killgore Trout

If you got it - flaunt it :p

9 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:44:25am

I agreed on the prev. thread with KT that most of this stuff seems pretty average. But now I think crying "Wolf" may have been deliberate. After such heightened expectations such pretty anti-climactic revelations, with mostly tabloid value - this works to dissipate the hit, "whew, could've been worse".

10 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:45:43am

re: #6 Rightwingconspirator

That's not a white hat activity. That's a black hat activity.

It's not 'white hat' because you agree with their motivations. "White Hat" means they do no harm at all to the systems that they are in.

11 Kronocide  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:46:52am

re: #9 Sergey Romanov

There's 250,000 docs, there's surely more to come.

Even if there doesn't seem to be anything earth shattering it will change the game and cause more secrecy, which works against what I perceive to be Assange's initial goal.

12 Charles Johnson  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:48:16am

So far I haven't seen any information that wasn't already either public knowledge, or could be easily inferred by anyone paying attention to the news. Saudi Arabia is the biggest funder of Al Qaeda? Imagine my shock.

13 jaunte  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:48:27am

re: #11 BigPapa

From the Guardian:

Washington now faces a difficult task in convincing contacts around the world that any future conversations will remain confidential.


The next logical step will be to increase the security of communications.

14 philosophus invidius  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:48:57am

Although I thought the previous leaks were irresponsible, one could at least make the argument that they were intended to hold the US accountable for its wartime actions.

But what is the possible value of undermining the ability of diplomats to do their work?

15 BishopX  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:49:34am

re: #11 BigPapa

I don't know, this is probably the best way to get the us government to take electronic security seriously. For all the talk of "cyber warfare" people need to realize that at the national level it's primal an information issue.

16 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:49:47am

re: #11 BigPapa

There's 250,000 docs, there's surely more to come.

Even if there doesn't seem to be anything earth shattering it will change the game and cause more secrecy, which works against what I perceive to be Assange's initial goal.

Not saying it's not serious, but doesn't seem to be very very very serious at the moment. But yes, let's wait, maybe there's more to come, though I would think the newspapers would try to comb it for the best parts and publish them first.

17 Political Atheist  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:50:18am

re: #10 Obdicut

True. I'll clarify.
White hats have motives I trust. The Black hats not so much. I also refer the task to our cyber war service professionals attached to US agencies. Whatever you call their hats. As much as we all get pinged by the Chinese hacks, etc, I think it's about time to get more active. The cyber war is simmering and we seem to be holding back.

18 lostlakehiker  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:51:33am

re: #13 jaunte

From the Guardian:


The next logical step will be to increase the security of communications.

That won't do the trick. Washington now faces the impossible task of convincing those it talks with that the content of those talks will remain confidential. Diplomacy will proceed, whether we like it or not, on the basis that anything they or we say can and will be held against us.

That's a sorry fix to be in.

19 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:51:36am

re: #12 Charles

So far I haven't seen any information that wasn't already either public knowledge, or could be easily inferred by anyone paying attention to the news. Saudi Arabia is the biggest funder of Al Qaeda? Imagine my shock.

Ahmadinejad is called Hitler! Oooh, that's it, he will surely show you! /

20 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:52:35am

re: #13 jaunte

The human links is the weakest, as always. I guess they will be going over screening procedures over and over.

21 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:54:08am

I've figured out Lord Assange's diabolical agenda: He's trying to bore us to death.

22 _RememberTonyC  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:54:18am

Assange is playing a dangerous game, but Charles said on a previous thread that Assange is messing with the US because he feels that there will be no price to pay for doing so. I believe our government needs to take some sort of action against Assange and his enablers to make a definitive statement to the contrary.

23 Wozza Matter?  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:56:54am

re: #22 _RememberTonyC

Assange is playing a dangerous game, but Charles said on a previous thread that Assange is messing with the US because he feels that there will be no price to pay for doing so. I believe our government needs to take some sort of action against Assange and his enablers to make a definitive statement to the contrary.

render him extraordinarily?

or try to launch a prosecution....?...(very, very difficult)

refudiate him, shut down his American financial contacts............? (already being done)

24 Political Atheist  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:57:48am

A leak of another kind-Deliberate?

But seems an odd story to run on Drudge, Prison Planet etc etc.
Poorly sourced maybe?
Why not the MSM?

No link of course, but a bare headline

Pentagon to test 2nd near-space strike craft
Weapon designed for urgent threats

25 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:57:49am

re: #22 _RememberTonyC

Assange is playing a dangerous game, but Charles said on a previous thread that Assange is messing with the US because he feels that there will be no price to pay for doing so. I believe our government needs to take some sort of action against Assange and his enablers to make a definitive statement to the contrary.

There is this appearance, but given JA's previous statements, he may be mad enough to go against Russia. And then, depending on what is revealed, the US may even need to protect him.

26 _RememberTonyC  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:58:58am

re: #23 wozzablog

render him extraordinarily?

or try to launch a prosecution...?...(very, very difficult)

refudiate him, shut down his American financial contacts...? (already being done)

i'm sure there are plenty of options for a government like ours ...

27 Kronocide  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 10:59:06am

re: #14 philosophus invidius

If Assange was trying to hold the US accountable for it's wartime actions he would have looked through the 250,000 cables and found something of serious merit and released it compartmentalized. He's had the time and staff to do it.

Don't forget he also released the "Collateral Murder" video purporting to show the 'murder of journalists by the US military' that was a horrific mistake during a helicopter gunship mission.

I don't know what Assange's goal is.

28 _RememberTonyC  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:00:10am

re: #25 Sergey Romanov

There is this appearance, but given JA's previous statements, he may be mad enough to go against Russia. And then, depending on what is revealed, the US may even need to protect him.


if he fucks with russia, i would expect him to meet a swift demise ... so i guess we'll see how big his balls are

29 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:00:29am

re: #28 _RememberTonyC

Exactly.

30 Amory Blaine  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:02:40am

re: #28 _RememberTonyC

He will need to add an official food tester to his staff.

31 Ojoe  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:03:05am

Julian Assange answers to Old Scratch.

32 _RememberTonyC  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:03:30am

re: #29 Sergey Romanov

Exactly.

in your christian science monitor link, assange said the US provided wikileaks with info on russia. that was noteworthy (if true)

33 _RememberTonyC  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:04:52am

re: #30 Amory Blaine

He will need to add an official food tester to his staff.

yeah ... or he could end up eating "Eggs Polonium" for breakfast

34 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:07:15am

If JA published info on Russia, it's not even necessarily FSB+SVR he has to worry about - if he touches the oligarchs, that is. And if something happens to him, it won't even be clear who did this - was this a CIA hit made to look like Russian Mafia or SVR hit, or vice versa?

35 Very Very Urban  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:08:21am

re: #27 BigPapa

Attention. Pure and Simple. In the new millennium it seems that attention is more valuable than money and power.

36 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:08:22am

re: #3 blueraven

So "everybodys doing it" so its ok? Bull!

Where did he say it was OK?

He said it was inevitable.

37 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:10:40am

re: #24 Rightwingconspirator

A leak of another kind-Deliberate?

But seems an odd story to run on Drudge, Prison Planet etc etc.
Poorly sourced maybe?
Why not the MSM?

No link of course, but a bare headline

Pentagon to test 2nd near-space strike craft
Weapon designed for urgent threats

That's an odd thing. The conspiracy industry, typified by Alex Jones, has routinely claimed to be revealing classified material for many years. It is their stock in trade. This is technically a prosecutable offense since it is illegal to publish such material on the one hand, and also illegal to falsely claim classified status on the other. Jones and his cultural forebears, the UFO and chemtrails businesses, have always claimed that the government refrains from prosecuting them solely because this would confirm the authenticity of the material. No such admission would be implied, of course, but the gullible public would not know that. The audience would indeed take a prosecution as proof of the legitimacy of conspiracist claims.

This does not apply directly to Assange because there is dispute about the authenticity of the documents. I wonder, though, about the extent to which conspiracist antics have enabled Assange by creating a routine precedent for the release of "stolen secrets," and confusing the audience about the legality of such revelations.

38 Ojoe  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:12:22am

re: #7 Killgore Trout

IT would be spectacular entrainment to swap Col. Gaddifi into Ban Ki-moon's place at the UN.

39 FreedomMoon  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:12:26am

What's even more damaging is his clear bias which underlines his motivation in disseminating this information. In an interview with Stephen Colbert when asked why he manipulated and edited the footage (of the clip titled Collateral Murder) he replied that he assures his confidants that they will procure maximum effect or damage when publishing their information (something along those lines) This puts him in the same element as a typical anarchist, like the buffoons that come out to riot, loot and destroy after the Lakers win a championship, they are driven because they delight in chaos with ZERO thought of what the repercussions might bring. These people are unstable, and so is Assange, and must be dealt with accordingly.

40 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:13:38am

re: #37 Shiplord Kirel

AAARRGGHHH

"....NO dispute about the authenticity of the documents.."
PIMF

41 McSpiff  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:13:59am

Has wikileaks managed to get its hands on anything about Secret material? From my experience, you're dealing with some seriously mundane shit at that level.

42 lostlakehiker  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:14:29am

re: #30 Amory Blaine

He will need to add an official food tester to his staff.

That doesn't suffice. Trotsky was dispatched with an ax. Alexander Litvinenko, with polonium. Georgi Markov, with ricin. Anna Politkovskaya, by hitmen "unknown". Any weapon, any time, any place. The killer can be openly an agent of the State, or wink-wink openly an agent, or it can be done in a manner that only statistics can unmask, and as with all statistics, no single killing out of a long list of suspicious killings can be attributed with absolute certainty to the State and its security apparatus.

The answer to this game is an answer well understood by fans of "the Godfather" movie series. If anything happens to anybody that this security apparatus has it in for, put it down to the security apparatus. If they fall down the stairs, or get hit by lightning, or ride in a plane that goes down. You may once in a while convict in your mind the organization, the Gestapo, the KGB, the NKVD, whatever name it now wears, unjustly, but you'll get the big picture right.

43 dragonfire1981  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:14:50am

I see this as little more than an extremely high stakes publicity stunt.

44 FreedomMoon  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:15:13am

re: #34 Sergey Romanov

If JA published info on Russia, it's not even necessarily FSB+SVR he has to worry about - if he touches the oligarchs, that is. And if something happens to him, it won't even be clear who did this - was this a CIA hit made to look like Russian Mafia or SVR hit, or vice versa?

Oh, it would be a nuclear bomb of political fallout, each trying to pin the tail on the donkey on the other. This guy has a sick ego, and clearly gets off on all this power.

45 Political Atheist  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:22:57am

re: #37 Shiplord Kirel

I happen to be a huge fan of the concept-Prompt Global Strike. I really want our President to have a weapon so fast and accurate it could be the best response to a rouge nation's nuclear missile being fueled or prepped. Beats us using a nuke. Makes some of our nuclear arsenal unnecessary.

I really hate to see the news from such crappy sources for my reading. Wash Times was the best of them on this one.

46 _RememberTonyC  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:23:02am

i wonder if assange has anything helpful on IRAN that we could get our hands on? he could go a long way towards repairing some of his damage if he hands over anything good on the mullahs.

a very legit question about this guy is this: "does the dude have a death wish?"

47 KayInMaine  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:25:37am

re: #27 BigPapa

If Assange was trying to hold the US accountable for it's wartime actions he would have looked through the 250,000 cables and found something of serious merit and released it compartmentalized. He's had the time and staff to do it.

Don't forget he also released the "Collateral Murder" video purporting to show the 'murder of journalists by the US military' that was a horrific mistake during a helicopter gunship mission.

I don't know what Assange's goal is.

Not sure what his goal is, but it makes me wonder if he has some kind of connection to either China or Russian and they're trying to take our nation down this way. Something is definitely going on.

48 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:31:46am

re: #45 Rightwingconspirator

I happen to be a huge fan of the concept-Prompt Global Strike. I really want our President to have a weapon so fast and accurate it could be the best response to a rouge nation's nuclear missile being fueled or prepped. Beats us using a nuke. Makes some of our nuclear arsenal unnecessary.

I really hate to see the news from such crappy sources for my reading. Wash Times was the best of them on this one.

Do you mean rouge as in political leaning (I assume rouge would mean quasi-communistic), or is rouge part of the flag?

Would you want the US having that kind of first strike ability if it were a theocracy?

49 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:31:48am

Fascinating.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emissaries also learn of a special "Iran observer" in the Azerbaijan capital of Baku who reports on a dispute that played out during a meeting of Iran's Supreme National Security Council. An enraged Revolutionary Guard Chief of Staff Mohammed Ali Jafari allegedly got into a heated argument with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and slapped him in the face because the generally conservative president had, surprisingly, advocated freedom of the press.
50 Feline Fearless Leader  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:33:35am

I wouldn't be surprised that Assange is simply anti-authoritarian, anti-secrecy, and not tied to or working for another country. No need to add that complication in order to explain his activities.

51 Linden Arden  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:35:37am

It appears to me that the biggest beneficiary of turmoil in the region is Saudi Arabia.

'King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has repeatedly urged the United States to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear programme, according to leaked US diplomatic cables that describe how other Arab allies have secretly agitated for military action against Tehran.'

(NY Times)

As Iran annexes Iraq and Kurdistan its the Saudis who will eventually suffer economically.

(key word = appears)

52 Kronocide  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:36:06am

re: #47 KayInMaine

Not sure what his goal is, but it makes me wonder if he has some kind of connection to either China or Russian and they're trying to take our nation down this way. Something is definitely going on.

No, I don't think it's that sinister. Quite simply he's merely a hack. I watched the Colbert/Assange video in it's entirety and think he's quite simply Code Pink activist in an intellectual's clothing. I clearly admitted that his issue with the Collateral Murder video was the 'corruption of the soldier's soul' in the radio transmissions.

53 Bob Dillon  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:36:39am

re: #12 Charles

So far I haven't seen any information that wasn't already either public knowledge, or could be easily inferred by anyone paying attention to the news. Saudi Arabia is the biggest funder of Al Qaeda? Imagine my shock.

That we have Americans funding weird stuff and ideas in the U.S. and around the world does not equate that the U.S. is funding it - only that we are its source.

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

" Mixed records against terrorism: Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda, and the tiny Persian Gulf state of Qatar, a generous host to the American military for years, was the “worst in the region” in counterterrorism efforts, according to a State Department cable last December. Qatar’s security service was “hesitant to act against known terrorists out of concern for appearing to be aligned with the U.S. and provoking reprisals,” the cable said."

BTW most Emirates (and others) have had the reprisal concern of Qatar and have been paying "blackmail" for decades (since the early 70s from my personal knowledge) because of fear and ignorance of how to specifically deal with the threat.

54 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:36:40am

re: #47 KayInMaine

Not sure what his goal is, but it makes me wonder if he has some kind of connection to either China or Russian and they're trying to take our nation down this way. Something is definitely going on.

How would this take your country down? Surely the US is strong enough to weather an inappropriate release of information.

Only thing better than a conspiracy theory is a paranoid conspiracy theory.

55 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:38:02am
America's ambassadors can be merciless in their assessments of the countries in which they are stationed. That's their job. Kenya? A swamp of flourishing corruption extending across the country. Fifteen high-ranking Kenyan officials are already banned from traveling to the United States, and almost every single sentence in the embassy reports speaks with disdain of the government of President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga.

Wait, wait, how is this possible, I thought dat Odinga was Obama's cousin, dat Obama campaigned for him!¡!¡!! DOES. NOT. COMPUTE.

/

56 researchok  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:39:29am

re: #13 jaunte

From the Guardian:


The next logical step will be to increase the security of communications.

Makes too much sense.
/

57 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:41:27am
Turkey hardly comes away any less scathed in the cables. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the cables allege, governs with the help of a cabal of incompetent advisors. Ankara Embassy officials depict a country on a path to an Islamist future -- a future that likely won't include European Union membership.

And I, for one, am relieved that the Americans diplomats get this obvious thing despite this formal "ally" thing.

58 Political Atheist  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:42:08am

re: #48 b_sharp

Rouge as in North Korea with a missile on the pad. Or Iran. We already have a nuclear first strike ability, so I see PGS as a sub-nuclear option for a nuclear crisis.

59 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:42:14am

Hillary Clinton ordered diplomats to spy on UN: WikiLeaks docs

A classified directive signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered US diplomats to spy on the highest-ranking officials in the United Nations, according to documents obtained from the latest WikiLeaks document dump.

The targets of the spying reportedly included UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, as well as the ambassadors of the permanent members of the UN Security Council -- China, Russia, France and the UK.

Even as its servers were under a denial-of-service attack Sunday, making it virtually impossible to reach its Web site, the whistleblower group WikiLeaks began releasing the first batch of US government documents -- many of them State Department cables -- expected to cause embarrassment or even a straining of relations among the US's diplomatic partners.

60 Political Atheist  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:42:35am

re: #58 Rightwingconspirator

Whoops Rogue...
LOL.

61 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:42:36am

re: #56 researchok

Makes too much sense.
/

Does the military not already have secure communications, or have they forgotten the old saw "Loose lips sink ships".

62 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:43:22am

OT: backlash attack...


Arsonist Sets Fire To Oregon Mosque Frequented By Mohamed Osman Mohamud
Regarding that whole Radical Islamic fundamentalism....


Yosof Wanly, imam at the Salman Alfarisi Islamic Center, said Mohamud was a normal student who went to athletic events, drank the occasional beer and was into rap music and culture.

Wanly said Mohamud was religious but didn't come to the mosque consistently.

The fire on Sunday was contained to one room, burning 80 percent of the center's office, Wanly said. The worship areas were untouched.


4 lions.

63 beepollen  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:43:25am

I can very easily hear President Palin saying:

I don’t recall voting for The New York Times. As it sets itself up as the arbiter of government morality, and recklessly reveals secrets that will distort and vastly complicate international relations, and very probably cause innocent people to suffer and die, who will hold it accountable? Who does it answer to?
64 blueraven  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:43:26am

re: #36 b_sharp

Where did he say it was OK?

He said it was inevitable.

I read it as excusing Mr Assange because someone was going to do it.

Well, I don't think it's just him. If it wasn't him, someone else would be doing it.

I could be mistaken. Perhaps he could clarify.

65 beepollen  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:45:10am

re: #59 NJDhockeyfan

Hillary Clinton ordered diplomats to spy on UN: WikiLeaks docs

It would be malpractice if America didn't spy on UN officials.

66 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:46:38am

WikiLeaks obtained cable saying U.S. dismissed Israel's warnings about Iran nukes

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's 2009 claims that Iran was months away from achieving military nuclear capability were dismissed by the Americans, according to classified U.S. documents released by the WikiLeaks website on Sunday.

...In one cable, dated June 2009, quoted Defense Minister Ehud Barak as telling visiting American officials that a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities was viable until the end of 2010, but after that "any military solution would result in unacceptable collateral damage."

"He also expressed concern that should Iran develop nuclear capabilities, other rogue states and/or terrorist groups would not be far behind," the U.S. diplomat said.

The cable also quoted Barak as describing the Iranian leadership "chess, not backgammon players," with the U.S. diplomat quoting the defense minister saying would "attempt to avoid any hook to hang accusations on, and look to Pakistan and North Korea as models to emulate in terms of acquiring nuclear weapons while defying the international community."

Another cable, from later 2009, the U.S.-Israel Joint Political Military Group, Mossad representatives said Iran was using repeated attempts to resolve the nuclear issue through diplomacy to "play for time" and evade sanctions, "while pursuing its strategic objective to obtain a military nuclear capability."

"From Mossad's perspective, there is no reason to believe Iran will do anything but use negotiations to stall for time so that by 2010-2011, Iran will have the technological capability to build a nuclear weapon -- essentially reducing the question of weaponizing to a political decision," the cable said.

The cable also quotes Mossad representatives as believing that Iran wanted "to become a regional hegemon, and is dictating its agenda by using Hamas and Hezbollah as force multipliers."

Regarding what he considered Iran's true nuclear capabilities, a 2007 cable quoted Mossad chief Meir Dagan as sating that Tehran was attempting to convey a "false presentation" that they have mastered the uranium enrichment process."

"The reality is," Dagan said, "that they are not there yet, said Dagan, and they are paying a heavy political price [sanctions] for something they have yet to achieve."

67 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:46:51am

re: #65 beepollen

It's about the diplomats doing the deed. But let's face it - what state doesn't do it? Meh.

68 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:47:44am
One cable from the Moscow Embassy on Russian first lady Svetlana Medvedev, for example, states that she is "generating tensions between the camps and remains the subject of avid gossip." It then goes on to report that President Medvedev's wife had already drawn up a list of officials who should be made to "suffer" in their careers because they had been disloyal to Medvedev.

My Personal Opinion: good. Why? Because disloyal to M. was likely because they were loyal to P. And I'll take M. over P. any day.

69 KayInMaine  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:48:47am

re: #54 b_sharp

I'm not paranoid at all. I've never been scared of al-Qaeda or any other wingnut that wants a jihad/revolution against our country. :D About taking our nation down, I don't mean it literally in the sense that every tree will be burned and singed. What I mean is....turning our allies against us. With China/Russia backed North Korea acting like a spoiled child, it makes me wonder if this latest leak will...

...okay! No way to end the sentence without sounding conspiratorial! LOL

70 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:48:48am

re: #58 Rightwingconspirator

Rouge as in North Korea with a missile on the pad. Or Iran. We already have a nuclear first strike ability, so I see PGS as a sub-nuclear option for a nuclear crisis.

Can NK attack any part of the US?

I really don't like the idea of any country using their power to preemptively attack another, even countries with violent histories. A small error in conclusion, and we've seen the propensity to jump to erroneous conclusions even here, could mean the needless deaths of a lot of people.

Am I missing a meaning of the word rouge or do you mean rogue?

71 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:49:27am

re: #60 Rightwingconspirator

Whoops Rogue...
LOL.

Gotcha.

72 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:50:08am

I haven't seen very much of what to expect from these leaked files but it isn't looking very good so far.

Obama’s arms cut deal with Russia shadowed by WikiLeaks

As if President Obama didn’t have enough trouble winning Senate ratification of an arms reduction treaty with Russia, he has to worry about a new release of classified documents by the controversial website WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks, which has released classified documents on the Afghanistan war, is preparing a document dump that reportedly includes papers on negotiations behind the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia.

73 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:50:17am

re: #62 Killgore Trout

OT: backlash attack...

Arsonist Sets Fire To Oregon Mosque Frequented By Mohamed Osman Mohamud
Regarding that whole Radical Islamic fundamentalism...


4 lions.

O4FS.

74 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:52:03am

re: #64 blueraven

I read it as excusing Mr Assange because someone was going to do it.

I could be mistaken. Perhaps he could clarify.

What I got was just a statement of the obvious. If he comes back we can ask him.

75 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:53:18am

From the leaks it seems that EVERYBODY hates Iran.

76 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:53:35am

Arab Leaders Urged U.S. to Stop Iran, NYT Says WikiLeaks Shows

Saudi Arabia and other Arab governments sided with Israel in urging the U.S. to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb, according to a New York Times account of 250,000 classified U.S. embassy cables released by WikiLeaks, the non-profit website.

The documents also show the U.S. has expanded the traditional role of the State Department to include intelligence and data gathering overseas, potentially blurring the distinction between statecraft and spying, the newspaper said in articles published online today.

...The documents also contain potentially embarrassing comments on world leaders, referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as "Hitler," and describing Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin as an "alpha male," the Telegraph said.

77 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:53:38am

re: #66 NJDhockeyfan

WikiLeaks obtained cable saying U.S. dismissed Israel's warnings about Iran nukes

Despite the title I don't see any evidence that the US dismissed Israel's concerns. Israel is a sovereign nation and could have struck Iran if they wanted to. Stuxnet seems to be working pretty nice so far.

78 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:55:42am

re: #75 Sergey Romanov

From the leaks it seems that EVERYBODY hates Iran.

How mortifying for Iran. It must be like when kids pass a slambook around, and you learn you're the least popular kid in class.

79 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:55:52am

Saudi king urged US to attack Iran: leaked US documents

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia urged the United States to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear programme, according to US documents leaked by WikiLeaks and published by Britain's Guardian newspaper on Sunday. Leaked memos from US embassies across the Middle East recorded the king's "frequent exhortations to the US to attack Iran and so put an end to its nuclear weapons program."

The memo showed that the king told the United States to "cut off the head of the snake," and said that working with Washington to roll back Iranian influence in Iraq was "a strategic priority for the king and his government."

80 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:56:50am

re: #78 SanFranciscoZionist

Given their hubris, this may give them impetus in that nuclear weapons program.

81 Political Atheist  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:57:11am

re: #70 b_sharp

I meant rogue. Dumb typo. Sometimes I think I need an RWC Can't Type sock account. (Hat tip Kilgore lol)

I do not limit our interests to just able to attack us. If North Korea was about to attack SK or Guam or Japan, it's on. Or Iran and Israel. Or as a response in lieu of a nuke. Or when we finally know where Osama is exactly and need to get him before he moves again. Avoids the need to fly a bomber through various national airspaces too. Plus the thing is small. Not going to blow up the whole area like a nuke, or even the whole neighborhood like a 2000 lb bomb does. This thing could hit a silo or SCUD truck and leave the nearby homes intact. And by nature it is an NCA weapon. Presidential directive only.

82 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:57:39am

re: #77 Killgore Trout

Despite the title I don't see any evidence that the US dismissed Israel's concerns. Israel is a sovereign nation and could have struck Iran if they wanted to. Stuxnet seems to be working pretty nice so far.

Stuxnet is what Wikileaks needs.

83 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:59:55am

re: #82 Gus 802

I strongly suspect most of wikilkeaks' computers are infected with spyware.

84 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:59:58am

In secret cables, US diplomats deride Germans, Wikileaks show

Berlin - US diplomats have made derisive remarks about leading German politicians in cables home to Washington, according to a flood of leaked US despatches made public Sunday by a media consortium.

The cables, obtained by the Wikileaks whistleblower website, quoted the current US ambassador, Philip Murphy, saying that the ideas of German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle had 'little substance.' Elsewhere the minister was described as 'aggressive.'

The score on Chancellor Angela Merkel was more positive but said, 'Avoids risk, not very creative.' Another cable called her Angela 'Teflon' Merkel because of her ability to ride out criticism.

Early running comments on Westerwelle, who is leader of Merkel's coalition partner, the Free Democrat Party (FDP), and took over the foreign portfolio a year ago, called him a 'riddle' and said he had very little foreign policy experience.

They implied he was incompetent, vain and tended to have a certain hostility to US interests. They also said he had difficulty accepting he was junior to Merkel who had 'more experience in government and foreign policy.'

The German news weekly Der Spiegel said the data suggested US diplomats had an extensive network of informants.

85 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:01:56pm

re: #69 KayInMaine

I'm not paranoid at all. I've never been scared of al-Qaeda or any other wingnut that wants a jihad/revolution against our country. :D About taking our nation down, I don't mean it literally in the sense that every tree will be burned and singed. What I mean is...turning our allies against us. With China/Russia backed North Korea acting like a spoiled child, it makes me wonder if this latest leak will...

...okay! No way to end the sentence without sounding conspiratorial! LOL

Any leak of important information is going to be a problem, and may result in people dying, so getting upset about it is quite appropriate. But even here, Occam's razor can be applied, there is no need to assume anything more than the attention seeking of a narcissistic personality, and his disregard or inability to understand unforeseen consequences.

86 Randall Gross  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:02:58pm

Does anyone else find it humorous that the Tyrant king of Saudi Arabia where women aren't allowed to drive or vote called Pakistan's leader a "rotten head"?

87 beepollen  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:03:33pm

OT: The Nation apologizes to John "Don't touch my junk" Tyner:

At TheNation.com we make it a point to practice fearless, bold, timely journalism that raises critical issues ignored by the mainstream press. On very rare occasions that ambition leads to mistakes, and when it does, we're committed to acknowledging them and setting the record straight. Unfortunately, a recent article by Mark Ames and Yasha Levine, "TSAstroturf: The Washington Lobbyists and Koch-Funded Libertarians Behind the TSA Scandal," was one such moment.

Glad to see it.
And it serves as a reminder we will never in eleventy zillion years read an apology from an right-wing rag, for anything.

88 Randall Gross  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:06:52pm

The Saleh section gives some serious recruiting ammo to the Islamist extremists rebelling in Yemen...

89 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:07:44pm

re: #81 Rightwingconspirator

I meant rogue. Dumb typo. Sometimes I think I need an RWC Can't Type sock account. (Hat tip Kilgore lol)

I do not limit our interests to just able to attack us. If North Korea was about to attack SK or Guam or Japan, it's on. Or Iran and Israel. Or as a response in lieu of a nuke. Or when we finally know where Osama is exactly and need to get him before he moves again. Avoids the need to fly a bomber through various national airspaces too. Plus the thing is small. Not going to blow up the whole area like a nuke, or even the whole neighborhood like a 2000 lb bomb does. This thing could hit a silo or SCUD truck and leave the nearby homes intact. And by nature it is an NCA weapon. Presidential directive only.

I can understand your desire, but the idea still leaves me feeling a bit icky. Right now I trust the US government to know when such a thing would be appropriate, but that hasn't always been the case, and who knows the American power structure in 10 years.

Technology is copyable so others would have the same options at some point. I would certainly not trust Somalia with it.

90 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:08:50pm

re: #86 Thanos

Does anyone else find it humorous that the Tyrant king of Saudi Arabia where women aren't allowed to drive or vote called Pakistan's leader a "rotten head"?

It's all relative.

91 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:15:17pm

Leaked cable: US spied on Hamas, PA

The US government in 2008 directed its personnel across the Middle East to gather meticulous intelligence on Hamas and Palestinian Authority officials, a leaked diplomatic cable reveals.

The cable, provided to The Guardian of Britain by the whistleblower group WikiLeaks, lays out a "national human intelligence collection directive" asking US personnel to obtain "Details of travel plans such as routes and vehicles used by Palestinian Authority leaders and HAMAS members."

The cable demands "iographical, financial and biometric information on key PA and HAMAS leaders and representatives, to include the young guard inside Gaza, the West Bank and outside."

The cable is one of an unprecedented trove of more than 100,000 formerly classified US Embassy cables obtained by WikiLeaks. The organization released the documents to several news organizations for publication Sunday.

The document, related from the State Department in Washington to the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, shows that the US sought extensive, detailed information on all aspects of governance, security, policies, attitudes and capabilities of both the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah and the Hamas government in Gaza.

A representative passage of the lengthy cable directs personnel to gather information on: "Plans, intentions, key focus and rivalries of senior PA security force officials, including the General Intelligence Organization (Mukhabarat), the Preventive Security Organization (PSO), Military Intelligence (Istikhbarat), the National Security Force (NSF), and the Civil Police, as well as HAMAS's Security Support Force in the Gaza strip."

92 APox  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:15:34pm

I just don't get it. It doesn't help anyone, it doesn't advance our individual liberties in anyway... These are things that just don't need to be known by people that are not in the correct government channels.

I'm all for government transparency, but this is just incredibly unnecessary and it's sickening to think that people could die or important government relationships could be damaged. With all the awful stuff going on in the world right now we need unity more than ever, and this is just pushing us apart.

93 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:17:21pm

re: #92 APox

I just don't get it. It doesn't help anyone, it doesn't advance our individual liberties in anyway... These are things that just don't need to be known by people that are not in the correct government channels.

I'm all for government transparency, but this is just incredibly unnecessary and it's sickening to think that people could die or important government relationships could be damaged. With all the awful stuff going on in the world right now we need unity more than ever, and this is just pushing us apart.

Exactly. Upding!

94 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:17:59pm

re: #92 APox

Basically agreed. It doesn't seem as if WL exposed human rights violations here, and any country is entitled to safe diplomacy.

95 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:19:04pm

WikiLeaks: Russia demanded technology for annulment of S-300 deal

A billion dollars and the cancelation of a missile deal with Iran – these were the things Russia promised Israel in return for advanced technology on drones, according to a secret cable leaked by WikiLeaks.

Under-Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher, whose name is signed on the cable, got the information from Amos Gilad, the head of the Defense Ministry's Policy and Political-Military Affairs, in 2009. The cable was sent a year before the Kremlin announced the deal would be annulled.

96 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:20:18pm

re: #95 NJDhockeyfan

They did cancel, soooo...

97 Blue Shark  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:21:29pm

Charles...

...Our own government lies to us regularly and needlessly, and without consequences.

...Why not have an independent auditor of the truth?

...We are all enriched when the truth is known, no matter how painful the telling.

...This transparency is a good thing.

98 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:22:00pm

re: #97 Blue Shark

Who audits the independent auditor?

99 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:22:20pm

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

DL all the cables.

100 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:23:13pm

‘Iran obtained missiles from N Korea’

WASHINGTON: US intelligence believes Iran has obtained advanced missiles from North Korea capable of striking Europe, according to US documents leaked by WikiLeaks and cited by the New York Times on Sunday.

The newspaper, in a diplomatic cable dated February 24, said "secret American intelligence assessments have concluded that Iran has obtained a cache of advanced missiles, based on a Russian design." Iran obtained 19 of the North Korean missiles, an improved version of Russia's R-27, from North Korea, the cable said, and was "taking pains to master the technology in an attempt to build a new generation of missiles."

"The North Korean version of the advanced missile, known as the BM-25, could carry a nuclear warhead," said the newspaper, adding it had a range of up to 2,000 miles (more than 3,000 kilometres). "If fired from Iran, that range, in theory, would let its warheads reach targets as far away as Western Europe, including Berlin. If fired northwestward, the warheads could reach Moscow," it said, referring to other dispatches.

"The cables say that Iran not only obtained the BM-25, but also saw the advanced technology as a way to learn how to design and build a new class of more powerful engines," said the Times.

Ugh!

101 CuriousLurker  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:23:16pm

re: #88 Thanos

The Saleh section gives some serious recruiting ammo to the Islamist extremists rebelling in Yemen...

I was just thinking that we may see this stuff and say, "Meh, so what? We already knew that," however that won't necessarily be the case in other countries, especially where there is government censorship, lack of access to the internet, etc. What seems inconsequential to us may be useful ammo for others, as you pointed out.

There's also the problem of "face" in many cultures. Perceived insults to or humiliation of leaders or other important people could be received very badly. When combined with the rather large egos most politicians have, that's not a good thing, IMO.

102 Political Atheist  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:24:56pm

re: #97 Blue Shark

Even if what you say were true, what we have is a very lopsided release.

Where are all the confidential cables etc from all the other nations? Still secure. What about that situation is so good?

103 TedStriker  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:25:08pm

re: #97 Blue Shark

Charles...

...Our own government lies to us regularly and needlessly, and without consequences.

...Why not have an independent auditor of the truth?

...We are all enriched when the truth is known, no matter how painful the telling.

...This transparency is a good thing.

Who watches the watchmen?

104 brookly red  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:25:52pm

re: #103 talon_262

Who watches the watchmen?

you? me? the other guy too?

105 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:26:04pm

re: #92 APox

I just don't get it. It doesn't help anyone, it doesn't advance our individual liberties in anyway... These are things that just don't need to be known by people that are not in the correct government channels.

I'm all for government transparency, but this is just incredibly unnecessary and it's sickening to think that people could die or important government relationships could be damaged. With all the awful stuff going on in the world right now we need unity more than ever, and this is just pushing us apart.

I think that's the whole point. There;s nothing groundbreaking or even newsworthy coming out of Wikileaks. He's just causing trouble. He found something he can get away with and generate publicity. That's about it.

106 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:27:28pm

re: #97 Blue Shark

Charles...

...Our own government lies to us regularly and needlessly, and without consequences.

...Why not have an independent auditor of the truth?

...We are all enriched when the truth is known, no matter how painful the telling.

...This transparency is a good thing.

I don't even know where to begin with this.

107 Kronocide  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:27:59pm

re: #97 Blue Shark

That's fanaticism: lack of critical thinking and context.

People lie as well and Assange has shown to play loose with facts and propagandize. I guess you don't seem to think that's a problem.

108 SpaceJesus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:29:37pm

re: #97 Blue Shark

Why hello there captain truth Ellipses

109 Steve Dutch  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:29:39pm

1. What makes anyone think something posted on Wikileaks is genuine?
2. Wouldn't Wikileaks be a fabulous way of spreading disinformation? (I've always wondered if the CIA was involved in leaking the Pentagon Papers, since they came out looking pretty good.)
3. 90% of intelligence is open and legal. Of course diplomats are sources of intelligence and everybody knows it.

110 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:30:45pm

re: #97 Blue Shark

Charles...

...Our own government lies to us regularly and needlessly, and without consequences.

...Why not have an independent auditor of the truth?

...We are all enriched when the truth is known, no matter how painful the telling.

...This transparency is a good thing.

Our government keep secrets to protect us. There is absolutely no reason our enemies need to read our secrets. I don't want to know what they are doing as long as we are safe.

111 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:30:59pm

re: #106 SanFranciscoZionist

I don't even know where to begin with this.

Well you know. Diplomatic anarchy has always worked so well in the past. /

112 CuriousLurker  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:30:59pm

re: #97 Blue Shark

Charles...

...Our own government lies to us regularly and needlessly, and without consequences.

...Why not have an independent auditor of the truth?

Independence guarantees neither objectivity or truth.

...We are all enriched when the truth is known, no matter how painful the telling.

...This transparency is a good thing.

Really? Would you be okay with everything you've ever said or done being an open book the the world, especially if your words & actions could be cherry-picked and published devoid of context (or if the context could be misrepresented)?

113 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:31:07pm

re: #97 Blue Shark

Charles...

...Our own government lies to us regularly and needlessly, and without consequences.

...Why not have an independent auditor of the truth?

...We are all enriched when the truth is known, no matter how painful the telling.

...This transparency is a good thing.

If it's so good:

1. Why isn't Assange going after "transparency" from other governments? Why just the U.S.?

2. What exactly do we tell the families and loved ones of people murdered as a result of this "transparency"?

3. Who elected Assange to be the god of all information, to determine what is revealed? His aim is not global transparency, IMO, since he seems to have such a narrow focus as to which government he will go after.

114 SpaceJesus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:31:35pm

re: #110 NJDhockeyfan


Eh. I would want to know if our government is breaking the law

115 beepollen  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:32:17pm

re: #103 talon_262

Who watches the watchmen?

Certainly shouldn't be the government.

116 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:33:39pm

re: #114 SpaceJesus

Eh. I would want to know if our government is breaking the law

Wikileaks is not exposing law breaking documents. This is much more serious.

117 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:34:19pm

re: #115 beepollen

Certainly shouldn't be the government.

eh?
We want the government watching offshore drilling, don't we?
We want the government regulating (watching) what goes on the financial world, don't we?
We want the government ensuring our food is safe to eat, don't we?
I can think of a hundred things we ask the government to "watch" for us, every day.

118 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:34:25pm

re: #110 NJDhockeyfan

Our government keep secrets to protect us. There is absolutely no reason our enemies need to read our secrets. I don't want to know what they are doing as long as we are safe.

True. Also nobody goes through life being completely honest. Basic manners and common decency means not telling everybody you meet what you think of them. Some conversations are private for a reason. Businesses also operate with a certain amount of discretion. No company is going to broadcast its business plans to the competition.
It's silly and childish to think that everything should e made public.

119 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:34:53pm

I have no hard and fast rules for this sort of thing, except that everyone seek to do no harm. There are times when a leak may be moral, may be needed.

But the idea that absolutely anything can and should be acquired and sent out into the world, let the chips fall where they may...not so much.

120 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:35:03pm

WikiLeaks: Iran used ambulances to run arms into Lebanon during 2006 war

Iran used the neutrality of the Iranian Red Crescent to smuggle agents and weapons into Lebanon during Israel's 2006 with Hezbollah, U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks revealed on Sunday.

According to an Iranian sources mentioned in the cables, which were made available by the U.K. newspaper the Guardian, the IRC provided a cover for Iranian Revolutionary Guards members

"The only true Iranian Red Crescent officers dispatched to Lebanon were the doctors and drivers. Shipments of medical supplies served also to facilitate weapons shipments," the Guardian quotes the source as saying.

The IRC source added that medical staff in Iran had seen missiles on a plane destined for Lebanon while delivering medical supplies to the airport, and that the "plane was allegedly 'half full' prior to the arrival of any medical supplies."

In addition, the source revealed that an IRC hospital in southern Lebanon was handed over to Hezbollah control, alleging that "Hassan Nasrallah had asked Supreme Leader Khamenei to allow Hezbollah to run the hospital during Dr. [Mohammad Reza] Noorbala's tenure as IRC president."

121 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:35:06pm

re: #113 reine.de.tout

If it's so good:

1. Why isn't Assange going after "transparency" from other governments? Why just the U.S.?

2. What exactly do we tell the families and loved ones of people murdered as a result of this "transparency"?

3. Who elected Assange to be the god of all information, to determine what is revealed? His aim is not global transparency, IMO, since he seems to have such a narrow focus as to which government he will go after.

Does he only release information about the US, or is it that the US information is highly publicized, or is it simply that the interactions between countries are so interconnected that the US comes up in information about every other country.

122 SpaceJesus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:35:19pm

re: #116 NJDhockeyfan


And your comment I was replying to looked broader in scope than just the wikileaks thing

123 elizajane  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:35:42pm

From looking at what the Guardian and the NYT have up so far, there is a lot that is very interesting (Putin & Berlusconi!), a few things that are frightening (Pakistan), many that are unsurprising (spies! in the UN!), and several that are actually kind of comforting.

Isn't it nice to know that everybody in the Middle East finds Iran to be a nuisance and a bully. It's not just Israel, it's the Arab states too, but they've been too afraid to say so lest they appear to be on the side of the Jooz. Isn't it actually kind of nice to have this in the open? Maybe it will help in putting pressure on Iran.

Overall impression: a lot of our diplomats are actually very smart and observant, and this Assange is a dangerous idiot.

124 beepollen  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:35:51pm

re: #117 reine.de.tout

Yet we don't allow government oversight of the press.

125 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:35:53pm

re: #113 reine.de.tout

1. Why isn't Assange going after "transparency" from other governments? Why just the U.S.?

He has plans to do it. We'll see how that works out.

2. What exactly do we tell the families and loved ones of people murdered as a result of this "transparency"?

To date it hasn't been shown that anybody was killed due to WL.

126 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:35:55pm

re: #121 b_sharp

Does he only release information about the US, or is it that the US information is highly publicized, or is it simply that the interactions between countries are so interconnected that the US comes up in information about every other country.

Far as I know, he basically wants US information.
Other countries -not so much.

Anyone else know for sure?

127 brookly red  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:36:08pm

re: #113 reine.de.tout

well I guess if I was leaking oh I don't know, let's say Russian or Chinese secrets, I probably wouldn't make dinner plans more than 24 hours in advance, if you know what I mean.

128 elizajane  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:37:09pm

re: #125 Sergey Romanov

He has plans to do it. We'll see how that works out.

To date it hasn't been shown that anybody was killed due to WL.

The day Assange decides to do "transparency" on Russia will be the day before his funeral.

129 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:37:50pm

re: #126 reine.de.tout

Far as I know, he basically wants US information.
Other countries -not so much.

Anyone else know for sure?

He only deals with leaks from the US. There are rumors that he might branch out and start releasing stuff from the Russians and Chinese but I don't think that will ever happen. They'll kill him.

130 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:37:53pm

re: #124 beepollen

Yet we don't allow government oversight of the press.

Correct.
I can still think of hundreds of things we want the government to watch for us.

Our safety and security being #1, in my book.
I never voted for Julian Assange to take over that particular duty.

131 brookly red  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:37:54pm

re: #128 elizajane

The day Assange decides to do "transparency" on Russia will be the day before his funeral.

you need to find a body to have a funeral...

132 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:38:11pm

re: #127 brookly red

well I guess if I was leaking oh I don't know, let's say Russian or Chinese secrets, I probably wouldn't make dinner plans more than 24 hours in advance, if you know what I mean.

How about European countries such as the UK, Germany or France?

Is their material leaked?

133 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:38:32pm

re: #128 elizajane

The day Assange decides to do "transparency" on Russia will be the day before his funeral.

Hey, give some time for decontamination ;-)

We've discussed this above, starting with #25.

134 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:38:35pm

re: #132 b_sharp

How about European countries such as the UK, Germany or France?

Is their material leaked?

I haven't seen any.
Have you?

135 BishopX  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:39:59pm

re: #132 b_sharp

I seem to recall some of their marked up treaty drafts and commentary from the ACTA negotiations making onto WL.

136 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:40:24pm

re: #129 Killgore Trout

He only deals with leaks from the US. There are rumors that he might branch out and start releasing stuff from the Russians and Chinese but I don't think that will ever happen. They'll kill him.

Where the hell does he get this stuff? Is there a mole high up in the government handing him info, or is he, or an agent of his, hacking into servers somewhere?

137 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:40:45pm

re: #129 Killgore Trout

He only deals with leaks from the US. There are rumors that he might branch out and start releasing stuff from the Russians and Chinese but I don't think that will ever happen. They'll kill him.

Hmmmm... that gives me an idea. Suppose somebody wanted to get rid of him. Suppose that somebody also had a bunch of Russian intelligence secrets lying around. They could hack Wikileaks, upload a bunch of Russian documents and let the Russians deal with him.
Just an idea.

138 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:41:23pm

re: #110 NJDhockeyfan

Our government keep secrets to protect us. There is absolutely no reason our enemies need to read our secrets. I don't want to know what they are doing as long as we are safe.

re: #118 Killgore Trout

True. Also nobody goes through life being completely honest. Basic manners and common decency means not telling everybody you meet what you think of them. Some conversations are private for a reason. Businesses also operate with a certain amount of discretion. No company is going to broadcast its business plans to the competition.
It's silly and childish to think that everything should e made public.

re: #119 SanFranciscoZionist

I have no hard and fast rules for this sort of thing, except that everyone seek to do no harm. There are times when a leak may be moral, may be needed.

But the idea that absolutely anything can and should be acquired and sent out into the world, let the chips fall where they may...not so much.

I agree with all the above.


re: #136 b_sharp

Where the hell does he get this stuff? Is there a mole high up in the government handing him info, or is he, or an agent of his, hacking into servers somewhere?

He has someone leaking the information to him. The latest is in custody, as I understand it.

139 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:41:26pm

re: #129 Killgore Trout

He only deals with leaks from the US. There are rumors that he might branch out and start releasing stuff from the Russians and Chinese but I don't think that will ever happen. They'll kill him.

He deals with these leaks because that's who leaks to him. If no one in France leaks anything significant, but someone in the US does, who is to blame?

140 brookly red  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:41:38pm

re: #132 b_sharp

How about European countries such as the UK, Germany or France?

Is their material leaked?

I don't know... but I would assume they all have highly trained professionals to see that those kind of things don't ever happen, well at least not twice anyway.

141 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:41:42pm

re: #129 Killgore Trout

He only deals with leaks from the US. There are rumors that he might branch out and start releasing stuff from the Russians and Chinese but I don't think that will ever happen. They'll kill him.

Or, they'll feed him crap, and let him release their disinformation for him. I don't actually think this guy is all that sophisticated.

142 nhand42  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:41:47pm

Charles

I don’t recall voting for Julian Assange.

You don't vote for newspapers either. Wikileaks is filling the void left behind by our craven journalists, who have for decades neglected their role as the fourth branch of government.

If the government isn't afraid of their "secrets" being exposed then they will simply abuse their power. They will then wrap their crimes in the patriotic flag, and claim that anybody who peaks behind the flag is a traitor.

I would have less sympathy for Wikileaks if journalism was doing its job. But they aren't, so we need Wikileaks, and I will give them a long leash.

143 beepollen  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:41:54pm

re: #136 b_sharp

Where the hell does he get this stuff? Is there a mole high up in the government handing him info, or is he, or an agent of his, hacking into servers somewhere?

The former, I'd guess.

144 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:41:59pm

re: #136 b_sharp

Where the hell does he get this stuff? Is there a mole high up in the government handing him info, or is he, or an agent of his, hacking into servers somewhere?

Manning.

145 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:42:15pm

re: #132 b_sharp

How about European countries such as the UK, Germany or France?

Is their material leaked?

Don't know yet. Cables from New Zealand & Canada have been posted.

146 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:42:23pm

re: #132 b_sharp

How about European countries such as the UK, Germany or France?

Is their material leaked?

Nope. If he started messing with the Europeans he'd have to live in South America, Africa or Asia. He depends on the Europeans to keep him safe and comfortable.

147 Political Atheist  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:43:02pm

re: #120 NJDhockeyfan

More old news. Unfortunately.

148 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:43:24pm

re: #134 reine.de.tout

I haven't seen any.
Have you?

That's the problem reine, my memory isn't good, but I seem to remember Germany being upset a while back. I haven't really looked into this too deeply, because what I noticed a couple of years ago was the information was old.

149 TedStriker  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:43:46pm

re: #112 CuriousLurker

Independence guarantees neither objectivity or truth.

Really? Would you be okay with everything you've ever said or done being an open book the the world, especially if your words & actions could be cherry-picked and published devoid of context (or if the context could be misrepresented)?

I'm sure Blue Shark is one of those "if they didn't do anything wrong, then they have nothing to hide" kind of folks...

150 lawhawk  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:43:53pm

Treason. These document releases are treasonous and all those involved must be accountable - both the individuals in the US government who are leaking the documents to Wikileaks and those working for the entity who transmit and release this information.

Julian Assange and the other people working for Wikileaks must be held to account for their supernational effort to undermine US national security. Their actions are fully within the scope of Their actions are fully within the scope of 18 USC 794 and 18 USC 798, which relates to the disclosure of classified information. Further, Congress should undertake a review of those relevant statutes to specifically include leaks of information that can benefit terror regimes and foreign governments when not specifically and directly transmitted - that Internet posting is sufficient such that any regime seeking to obtain an advantage of the classified documents can view these documents online.

After all, these documents can aid enemies of the US counter US diplomatic and military efforts around the world. That falls within the definition of treason.

151 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:44:00pm

re: #142 nhand42

There is a huge difference between revealing human rights abuses, crimes by the government, and other crap like that, and revealing the intricacies of diplomatic negotiations.

Do you disagree?

152 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:44:54pm

re: #148 b_sharp

That's the problem reine, my memory isn't good, but I seem to remember Germany being upset a while back. I haven't really looked into this too deeply, because what I noticed a couple of years ago was the information was old.

Ah.
My brain doesn't retain much that isn't important right now, but I don't recall seeing anything from other countries, just the US.

Gotta run.

153 Kronocide  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:45:07pm

re: #142 nhand42

Charles

You don't vote for newspapers either. Wikileaks is filling the void left behind by our craven journalists, who have for decades neglected their role as the fourth branch of government.

That you don't find what Assange is doing is craven speaks volumes. It's information mob rule, anarchy.

154 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:45:12pm

re: #97 Blue Shark

Charles...

...Our own government lies to us regularly and needlessly, and without consequences.


Really? The noted liar GW Bush was soundly defeated in the 2006 election largely because of his falsehoods about Iraq. His more reputable successor, John McCain, could not overcome that legacy and went down to defeat in 2008. If there are no consequences for a politician's lies, it is our own fault.

...Why not have an independent auditor of the truth?

You truly have no problem with assigning the unelected, unaccountable Assange the same status and POWER as a sovereign state? Is he alone in this unique status or does everyone have it? If the former, what is special about Assange? Does Rush Limbaugh have the same status? David Duke?

...We are all enriched when the truth is known, no matter how painful the telling.


Check out a book called Bodyguard of Lies, about allied deception operations before D-Day. Only Hitler would have been enriched by the truth in that case. This is by no means unique or confined to wartime either. The Mexican drug cartel and its gunmen would no doubt appreciate a look at the DEA's confidential files. Don't imagine for an instant that nobody is trying. Ever read High Times magazine? For that matter, what is to keep some other "independent arbiter," say, a Paulian nutcase, from trying to destroy the system by releasing your social security number along with everyone else's? If murder, torture, and higher military casualties are of no consequence in these releases, how much less would theft and fraud serve as a deter?

...This transparency is a good thing.

Spoken like a true cultist. I can almost see the vacant ecstasy in your eyes when you mouth this ridiculous platitude.

155 brookly red  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:45:25pm

re: #145 NJDhockeyfan

Don't know yet. Cables from New Zealand & Canada have been posted.

/beware the dreaded Canadian death squads...

156 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:46:50pm

re: #150 lawhawk

The source of the cables is Manning, who is in custody. Has he been charged with treason or some lower offense?

157 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:47:35pm

re: #155 brookly red

/beware the dreaded Canadian death squads...

Walk softly and carry a big hockey stick!

158 CuriousLurker  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:48:57pm

re: #149 talon_262

I'm sure Blue Shark is one of those "if they didn't do anything wrong, then they have nothing to hide" kind of folks...

To repeat a quote I've seen here on many occasions:

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. —Cardinal Richelieu

159 beepollen  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:49:28pm

Quick show of hands: If WL had been active in 2002-03, would anyone here have been outraged by the exposure of the deception and misinformation the Bush Administration used to justify invading Iraq?

Or, to put it another way: Would you rather have Assange or Judith Miller?

160 Kronocide  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:49:46pm

Wingnuts have been taking all the press lately. I guess the anarchists are getting jealous.

I wonder how many broke windows at the last G20 rally.

161 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:50:19pm

re: #155 brookly red

/beware the dreaded Canadian death squads...

One of my moonbattier friends once got hysterical because her Canadian friend was going to be deported for having overstayed her student visa.

There were a lot of jokes for the next few weeks about the death squads of British Columbia.

162 lawhawk  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:50:47pm

re: #151 Obdicut

There is a huge difference between revealing human rights abuses, crimes by the government, and other crap like that, and revealing the intricacies of diplomatic negotiations.

Do you disagree?

250,000 diplomatic cables and documents and analysis from flashpoints around the world. That's stagginering to contemplate and deals with everything from the Middle East to North Korea. Secret communiques and analysis are critical to ongoing diplomatic efforts worldwide - by all nations.

Many diplomatic breakthroughs are only possible by secret diplomacy. Everything from the Cuban Missile Crisis to the Oslo Accord were done via secret communications and diplomatic efforts - to avoid dire consequences.

Efforts in the ME are now undermined because our efforts to line up support for dealing with Iran and its nuclear ambitions have been included in the document dump. While some of the documents point to things that are pretty much common knowledge - like Iran and North Korea working together on nuclear ambitions, these documents shed light also on the inner workings of the State Department and its information gathering capabilities - that itself goes to a breach of national security.

163 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:50:51pm

re: #159 beepollen

Quick show of hands: If WL had been active in 2002-03, would anyone here have been outraged by the exposure of the deception and misinformation the Bush Administration used to justify invading Iraq?

Or, to put it another way: Would you rather have Assange or Judith Miller?

I would applaud him, of course, since this would prevent a needless war and subsequent needless deaths. So this is akin to prevention of human rights violations. What I've seen in these leaks doesn't come close.

164 brookly red  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:50:55pm

re: #157 NJDhockeyfan

Walk softly and carry a big hockey stick!

/... security cameras placed 2 men wearing plaid flannel shirts near the location where the victim was found chocking on a hockey puck...

165 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:51:01pm

re: #154 Shiplord Kirel


Spoken like a true cultist. I can almost see the vacant ecstasy in your eyes when you mouth this ridiculous platitude.

Attack the argument not the man.

166 lawhawk  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:52:33pm

re: #159 beepollen

An action of treason and violation of federal law on the release of classified information is a violation no matter the intentions. It put lives in danger - and potentially an even greater number of lives than you think that it could save.

167 Kronocide  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:54:23pm

re: #159 beepollen

Quick show of hands: If WL had been active in 2002-03, would anyone here have been outraged by the exposure of the deception and misinformation the Bush Administration used to justify invading Iraq?

Or, to put it another way: Would you rather have Assange or Judith Miller?

That's a problematic moral equivalence. You are comparing outcomes and not the process where the process is part of the problem here. The deception and misinformation was known without the incredibly careless release of mass amounts of information with long running consequences that we cannot know at this time.

Even the MSM that Assange assails for not doing their job shows more effort to protect sources and names.

168 nhand42  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:54:29pm

re: #153 BigPapa

That you don't find what Assange is doing is craven speaks volumes. It's information mob rule, anarchy.

That you think the government should be able to operate in secret, working not for the people but above them, speaks volumes about you.

169 brookly red  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:54:51pm

re: #166 lawhawk

An action of treason and violation of federal law on the release of classified information is a violation no matter the intentions. It put lives in danger - and potentially an even greater number of lives than you think that it could save.


yet no "official" attempt to stop him... something is just plain weird about all this.

170 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:55:47pm

re: #168 nhand42

That you think the government should be able to operate in secret, working not for the people but above them, speaks volumes about you.

Tell me, when in the history of the world this was not so.

171 brookly red  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:56:39pm

re: #170 Sergey Romanov

Tell me, when in the history of the world this was not so.

right f'en on...

172 Kronocide  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:56:58pm

re: #165 b_sharp

Attack the argument ridiculous platitude not the man.

FIFY!

173 lawhawk  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:57:09pm

re: #168 nhand42

The Manhattan Project comes to mind. Or do you think that secret projects and classified information is an outdated concept and everyone should know what our government is doing?

After all, other governments - like totalitarian regimes like North Korea or Iran aren't going to release this information about their intentions, weapons programs, and will most certainly use every scrap of information they gather from sources like the Wiki leaks that will directly affect US national security.

174 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:58:08pm

re: #168 nhand42

That you think the government should be able to operate in secret, working not for the people but above them, speaks volumes about you.

You really think that diplomacy should be conducted in full view of the world?

175 lawhawk  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 12:58:23pm

re: #169 brookly red

Incompetence could play a role. Or that efforts done in secret failed. Or that they didn't think that the scope of the documents was as vast or as damaging as they may turn out to be...

176 Kronocide  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:00:27pm

re: #168 nhand42

That you think the government should be able to operate in secret, working not for the people but above them, speaks volumes about you.

The government should have some secrets, not all things shall be known by all. To speak in such black/white and absolutist terms is incredibly simplistic. Harboring some secrets can be for the good of the people, or can you not tell the difference?

The amount of information about this government that is known is staggering, the is a very un-secretive government.... unless there's something you're not telling me that you know and I don't.

It sounds like you're saying there should be no secrets.

177 brookly red  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:00:43pm

re: #175 lawhawk

Incompetence could play a role. Or that efforts done in secret failed. Or that they didn't think that the scope of the documents was as vast or as damaging as they may turn out to be...

It is a puzzelment... I make no claims, but something here just doesn't seem right.

178 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:01:26pm

re: #173 lawhawk

The Manhattan Project comes to mind. Or do you think that secret projects and classified information is an outdated concept and everyone should know what our government is doing?

After all, other governments - like totalitarian regimes like North Korea or Iran aren't going to release this information about their intentions, weapons programs, and will most certainly use every scrap of information they gather from sources like the Wiki leaks that will directly affect US national security.

ENIGMA. There are countless military secrets that are kept secret for a reason. But I guess that won't stop the naive fantasists from dreaming of Unicorns. Using this logic we should have been "transparent" regarding the Normandy invasion of 1944. We should have told the Soviets about the F-117. Or even now we should reveal the exact location of CVN-73.

179 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:01:30pm

Far too hungover to make an intelligent comment, so I'll simply say of Julian: Fuck him right in his ear-hole, the slimy bastard.

180 elizajane  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:04:11pm

Der Spiegel's International edition now has their overview article out on the Wikileaks. Much more critical of the USA than was the Guardian, positively gloating about the coming "meltdown" of US foreign policy. For an ally, even one whose chancellor got dissed by some ambassadors, it's really a very nasty piece of hostile journalism.

181 lawhawk  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:05:11pm

re: #178 Gus 802

Or the capabilities of a given munition - say a bunker busting weapon - so that our enemies know exactly how much protection they have to give so that they can carry out their nefarious actions.

These releases are akin to giving our enemies the Ultra/Enigma-like results without having to crack any codes or take any actions other than logging into wikileaks to peruse information useful to them.

182 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:06:39pm

re: #159 beepollen

Quick show of hands: If WL had been active in 2002-03, would anyone here have been outraged by the exposure of the deception and misinformation the Bush Administration used to justify invading Iraq?

Or, to put it another way: Would you rather have Assange or Judith Miller?

That brings up an interesting point that the lefties here on LGF should take note of. These leaked documents go back to the 70's so 2002-2003 is covered. What's one thing not included in these documents? Evidence that Bush lied to push the Iraq war. He was wrong but he had the same intelligence that Clinton had before him.

183 brookly red  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:06:45pm

re: #181 lawhawk

well we could just use 2 of em?

184 nhand42  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:07:23pm

re: #176 BigPapa

The government should have some secrets, not all things shall be known by all. To speak in such black/white and absolutist terms is incredibly simplistic. Harboring some secrets can be for the good of the people, or can you not tell the difference?

The amount of information about this government that is known is staggering, the is a very un-secretive government... unless there's something you're not telling me that you know and I don't.

It sounds like you're saying there should be no secrets.

It sounds like you're making a strawman, which is why I didn't bother discussing this last night, and I can see there's no point doing it today either. If all you're going to do is put false words in my mouth then you are not interested in a discussion, you just want a pinata to beat.

I will point out that yesterday there were cries for JA to be assassinated, that he had a "God complex", that he was trying to be a "sovereign state", etc... and today the information is "already well known" and "average". It's amusing for its obvious defensive posture.

But I won't engage in discussion, because all that will mean is more insults and false motivations levelled against me.

185 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:07:59pm

re: #174 SanFranciscoZionist

You really think that diplomacy should be conducted in full view of the world?

I think that diplomacy should be conducted transparently.

I don't think it can be.

Because this is not the ideal world.

The world where the truth was always a good would be a world where diplomacy was unnecessary.

186 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:08:59pm

re: #184 nhand42

It sounds like you're making a strawman,


Like this?


That you think the government should be able to operate in secret, working not for the people but above them, speaks volumes about you.

That sort of strawman?

187 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:08:59pm

re: #181 lawhawk

Or the capabilities of a given munition - say a bunker busting weapon - so that our enemies know exactly how much protection they have to give so that they can carry out their nefarious actions.

These releases are akin to giving our enemies the Ultra/Enigma-like results without having to crack any codes or take any actions other than logging into wikileaks to peruse information useful to them.

On a diplomatic level it's like going to court and knowing everything the opposing attorney plans regarding your case. It gives them an unfair advantage.

188 lawhawk  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:09:57pm

re: #185 Obdicut

There is public diplomacy. There is private diplomacy. Both have their place. Often, you need the private (secret) diplomacy to achieve a public diplomacy breakthrough. Secrecy often gives the parties to the diplomatic efforts space to operate in that allows the sides to bargain and negotiate in a way that is far more difficult when every aspect of negotiating is done in full view.

189 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:10:26pm

re: #182 Killgore Trout

That brings up an interesting point that the lefties here on LGF should take note of. These leaked documents go back to the 70's so 2002-2003 is covered. What's one thing not included in these documents? Evidence that Bush lied to push the Iraq war. He was wrong but he had the same intelligence that Clinton had before him.

Would these particular cables contain such evidence if one assumes that he did lie?

(For the record, I don't think he "lied" when he was saying that Iraq has WMDs, in the sense that he surely believed it himself. How this influenced the "gathering of evidence" is another matter.)

190 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:10:40pm

re: #182 Killgore Trout

That brings up an interesting point that the lefties here on LGF should take note of. These leaked documents go back to the 70's so 2002-2003 is covered. What's one thing not included in these documents? Evidence that Bush lied to push the Iraq war. He was wrong but he had the same intelligence that Clinton had before him.


Actually, I think that's the big story in all of this. Between this leak and the Iraq document dump there were about a half million documents leaked. None of them indicate Bush fabricated evidence.

191 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:12:16pm

re: #189 Sergey Romanov

Would these particular cables contain such evidence if one assumes that he did lie?

(For the record, I don't think he "lied" when he was saying that Iraq has WMDs, in the sense that he surely believed it himself. How this influenced the "gathering of evidence" is another matter.)

Possibly. But if it was a serious issue it would have come out in either this leak of the Iraq document dump from a few months ago.

192 Kronocide  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:12:40pm

re: #184 nhand42

It sounds like you're making a strawman, which is why I didn't bother discussing this last night, and I can see there's no point doing it today either. If all you're going to do is put false words in my mouth then you are not interested in a discussion, you just want a pinata to beat.

I will point out that yesterday there were cries for JA to be assassinated, that he had a "God complex", that he was trying to be a "sovereign state", etc... and today the information is "already well known" and "average". It's amusing for its obvious defensive posture.

But I won't engage in discussion, because all that will mean is more insults and false motivations levelled against me.

Don't follow a false equivalence with victimhood followed by a rhetorical 'talk to the palm' on top. Make your point and carry on through or... as you said..don't engage in the discussion. But you already engaged so have the gravitas to see through your argument.

You seem to have no problem with what Assange is doing and are quick to point out that anybody who has a problem with it 'believes that the government should be above us with secrets.' That's false equivalence in none other than the clearest definition.

193 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:12:47pm

re: #190 Killgore Trout

Actually, I think that's the big story in all of this. Between this leak and the Iraq document dump there were about a half million documents leaked. None of them indicate Bush fabricated evidence.

That should enrage the moonbats. Another thing these documents prove is that North Korea and Iran are indeed two remaining nations of what Bush once called "the axis of evil."

194 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:13:10pm

re: #191 Killgore Trout

this leak of or the Iraq document dump
/ugh, i stink.

195 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:13:14pm

re: #191 Killgore Trout

I don't think he lied. I just think he had mad confirmation bias. But that's neither here nor there-- unless the brand new GOP House decides to investigate him for it.

196 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:13:36pm

re: #193 Gus 802

That should enrage the moonbats. Another thing these documents prove is that North Korea and Iran are indeed two remaining nations of what Bush once called "the axis of evil."

Good point.

197 jaunte  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:14:10pm

re: #180 elizajane

Der Spiegel provides some interesting questions about the completeness or truth of the materials, in their FAQ piece:

One of the central attractions of the documents is that they allow us to hear many diplomats and politicians speaking the truth -- as they saw it, at least -- because they believed their comments would be kept secret. However, it should be noted that it is not always possible to unequivocally tell which sources are telling the truth, who is merely relaying hearsay and what might even be purposeful misleading or lying.

HAS A COMPLETE RECORD BEEN PROVIDED?

It is unclear whether a complete set of documents was provided. It is entirely possible that an overly large or small number of reports from a particular country or region made its way into the data collection. It is also theoretically possible that there has been some falsification within the documents when it comes to the times or the issues they discuss.

Although we do know the establishment where the material was taken out of the American system, we do not know the exact circumstances under which the WikiLeaks source copied the material. For example, he or she could have been under extreme time pressure or interrupted during the process. He or she could have made a point of selecting particular material or done so at random, or he or she might also have copied all that there was available to copy. This batch could have also been a selection made according to unknown criteria. The source or other individuals could have also filtered the material at a later point in time. The lack of documents classified as "top secret" is solely due to the fact that they were distributed in a different way and that the source possibly did not have access to them or even chose not to try to access them. [Link: www.spiegel.de...]

198 nhand42  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:14:35pm

re: #186 Obdicut

Like this?

That sort of strawman?

You mean where I used his exact false argument against him, changing only the object of the false argument, as a demonstration of what a ridiculous argument he was making?

Interesting that he got voted up and I got voted down, when we both said exactly the same thing using the exact same tone, the only difference being the object of the false argument.

199 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:14:49pm

You know who the people claiming that the release of these documents is an absolute good remind me of?

Christine O'Donnell, saying that she wouldn't lie to the Nazis about Jews in her house.

I'm not saying it's a moral equivalent, at all-- but it is a logical one.

200 BishopX  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:15:04pm

re: #190 Killgore Trout

How would they? I haven't seen any draft correspondence. If bush did lie it was on the order of deleting qualifications rather than fabricating evidence.

201 Political Atheist  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:15:20pm

re: #199 Obdicut

Excellent point.

202 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:16:07pm

re: #191 Killgore Trout

Possibly. But if it was a serious issue it would have come out in either this leak of the Iraq document dump from a few months ago.

Not necessarily. Top Secret cables weren't released. So in this case absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. Not that I believe that if anybody was out to fabricate evidence they would mention it in official cables.

203 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:16:12pm

re: #198 nhand42

You mean where I used his exact false argument against him, changing only the object of the false argument, as a demonstration of what a ridiculous argument he was making?

So you did not, in fact, mean that accusation?

Interesting that he got voted up and I got voted down, when we both said exactly the same thing using the exact same tone, the only difference being the object of the false argument.

You didn't say the exact same thing. How on earth can you think that you did? He said that was JA was doing is craven. You said that he believes that government should rule above the people. How are those two statements 'the exact same thing' to you?

204 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:16:30pm

re: #189 Sergey Romanov

Would these particular cables contain such evidence if one assumes that he did lie?

(For the record, I don't think he "lied" when he was saying that Iraq has WMDs, in the sense that he surely believed it himself. How this influenced the "gathering of evidence" is another matter.)

He may well have convinced himself of his own lies. However therre is the very direct physical point that a nuclear fuel cycle - needed to make bombs is an enormous industrial undertaking that costs billions of dollars. You simply can not hid all of the tens of thousands of centrifuges and other large sale industrial operations from satellites when you live in the desert.

These things are plainly visible - just like they are in Iran.

205 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:16:39pm

re: #189 Sergey Romanov

Would these particular cables contain such evidence if one assumes that he did lie?

(For the record, I don't think he "lied" when he was saying that Iraq has WMDs, in the sense that he surely believed it himself. How this influenced the "gathering of evidence" is another matter.)

For one to believe he had lied, one would have to at least admit he was not the only liar.

Clearly a partisan video, but there it is.

206 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:17:14pm

re: #189 Sergey Romanov

So re #204 he had to know on some level he was lying. Certainly the rest of the world did.

207 Kronocide  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:17:33pm

re: #198 nhand42

You lost me... but you could get back to your argument and clarify where I misinterpreted it.

Or we can play fallacy fu. That will surely get you voted down more.

208 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:17:54pm

re: #199 Obdicut

That's the original definition of moonbat, I believe - the person who extends his premises through inflexible logic to conclusions not really compatible with the real world.

209 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:18:19pm

re: #198 nhand42

To make my point clearer: He said that you don't believe that what JA is doing is craven-- which you don't, right?

You, on the other hand, asserted that he believes that the "government should be able to operate in secret, working not for the people but above them,".

So he asserted something true about you, and you asserted something false about him-- and you're claiming they're the 'exact same thing.'

210 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:19:31pm

re: #206 LudwigVanQuixote

I certainly didn't buy Powell's evidence. That said, Bush does seem unintelligent enough to have believed it. (And yeah, I know about all the Dems buying it. Some of the afflicted by the same condition.)

211 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:19:42pm

re: #208 Sergey Romanov

I used to be an absolute pacifist. Then I realized that such a position, while it made me feel really good inside, was completely incompatible with the real world.

That period of time helped me stop being a violent asshole, though. It's all a rich tapestry.

212 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:20:07pm

re: #173 lawhawk

The Manhattan Project comes to mind. Or do you think that secret projects and classified information is an outdated concept and everyone should know what our government is doing?

After all, other governments - like totalitarian regimes like North Korea or Iran aren't going to release this information about their intentions, weapons programs, and will most certainly use every scrap of information they gather from sources like the Wiki leaks that will directly affect US national security.

For a couple of years now, investigative journalist Bob Woodward has been making veiled allusions to a new development of some kind that would be this war's equivalent of the Manhattan Project. He is otherwise sitting on the story because, in his words, it would people at serious risk to reveal it.

The program -- which Woodward compares to the World War II era Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb -- must remain secret for now or it would "get people killed," Woodward said Monday on CNN's Larry King Live.

"It is a wonderful example of American ingenuity solving a problem in war, as we often have," Woodward said.

In "The War Within: Secret White House History 2006-2008," Woodward disclosed the existence of secret operational capabilities developed by the military to locate, target and kill leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgent leaders.

213 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:20:45pm

re: #168 nhand42

That you think the government should be able to operate in secret, working not for the people but above them, speaks volumes about you.

There is a difference between keeping government secrets from an outside power and keeping secrets from the common population.

Not letting external forces know military and political intentions is ultimately done to safeguard the members of the country so extreme measures, including keeping secrets from the populace, are a necessity. If the safety of the country's members does not rely on how closely information is held then the government should not be allowed to restrict the release of that information.

You can't indiscriminately throw all information into the same basket.

214 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:20:58pm

re: #210 Sergey Romanov

You don't have to be unintelligent to have confirmation bias.

215 BishopX  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:21:54pm

re: #209 Obdicut

I don't think JA is craven either, he's not a coward, he's not doing this out of fear. I think there is a lot of hostility which is interfering people understanding each other here.

216 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:22:05pm

re: #205 Slumbering Behemoth

For one to believe he had lied, one would have to at least admit he was not the only liar.

Clearly a partisan video, but there it is.

He was surely not the only liar. In fact the WH of that time was well known for silencing dissent and pressuring people to make the case.

In the end, I know as a physicist that he and many others had to be lying (in the sense of saying something that was not true) because of the scale involved in the claim.

Look at Powell's UN address with the trucks moving centrifuges around... OK... Lets assume that would be stable enough (by some miracle of engineering) that the centrifuges didn't explode from any slight misalignments or jostlings. They spin incredibly fast. Lets grant by some miracle they could do that.

We are talking at most, 2 centrifuges per truck (they are the size of refrigerators and require a lot of power) and at most 100 trucks.

If nothing went wrong, that could conceivably produce enough fissile material to build a bomb in just over 100 years.

Yet Powell was in front of the UN selling this fantasy.

217 researchok  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:22:43pm

WikiLeaks: US referred to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as 'Hitler'

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is referred to as "Hitler" while President Nicolas Sarkozy of France is called a "naked emperor" in US documents released by Wikilieaks on Sunday.

218 Usually refered to as anyways  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:23:10pm

re: #113 reine.de.tout

If it's so good:

1. Why isn't Assange going after "transparency" from other governments? Why just the U.S.?

2. What exactly do we tell the families and loved ones of people murdered as a result of this "transparency"?

3. Who elected Assange to be the god of all information, to determine what is revealed? His aim is not global transparency, IMO, since he seems to have such a narrow focus as to which government he will go after.

1. Because he has sources that leak US info, do you have any evidence he has info on other countries that he is suppressing?

2. Can you point me to any evidence that any one has died from the leaking of any cables leaked by him?

3. Why do you think he was elected?
3b. see answer number 1.

219 jaunte  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:23:15pm

re: #215 BishopX

I don't understand his explanations of the usefulness of this leak.

220 Kronocide  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:23:57pm

re: #212 Shiplord Kirel

It seems some can't understand the difference between Woodward and Assange, in process or in results.

221 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:24:03pm

re: #214 Obdicut

You don't have to be unintelligent to have confirmation bias.

In everyday life, yes. When it concerns the life-and-death (many deaths) decisions, and one has some time, one usually examines one's assumptions more closely - if one is intelligent enough. And while there still is a probability of a mistake...

222 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:24:14pm

re: #215 BishopX

It's fine to not think that JA is craven. It's fine to disagree that not thinking JA is craven 'speaks volumes.' But that underscores my point:

BigPapa expressed his opinion about a fact: that nhand42 doesn't think JA is craven.

In return nhand42 made an unsubstantiated assertion about BigPapa-- that he thinks government should 'rule above people'-- and then expressed his opinion about that.

If it was 'exactly the same' it would have simply been "That you think JA is craven speaks volumes about you.", and minus the specious, assholic accusation of subservience to the gubmint.

223 Intenzity  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:25:05pm

Wait...I don't get it.

You all want our government to keep making stuff up, lying about torture, the level at which it kills innocent people everyday with no one calling them on the truth? So what, we should just wait for Gibbs to tells us how it is going and be totally cool with that?

This is a very very good thing. Having a way to see the huge gap between what the group in power that seeks to perpetuate war tells us how things are vs. how things actually are is incredibly valuable. It will let us all see how much b.s. is being crammed down our throat about the completely fake "war on terror" and how we are barely any safer than we were a decade before constant war against an almost pretend enemy.

The entire "war on terror" concept is baloney and any and everything that can be used to expose it and the lies used to perpetuate it is welcomed and necessary.

A lot of folks right wing roots are showing on this topic, I hate to tell you.

Hey, US. Government, you don't want people talking about what you do, well then - GO CATCH OSAMMA BIN LADEN AFTER 10 YEARS - and maybe we won't all wonder start wondering what the hell you are doing all this time and what this entire thing is really about.

224 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:25:12pm

re: #218 ozbloke

1. Because he has sources that leak US info, do you have any evidence he has info on other countries that he is suppressing?

He has info on Russia, said so himself (see my #25). So in the coming months we'll see how consistent he is.

225 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:26:17pm

re: #223 Intenzity


You all want our government to keep making stuff up, lying about torture, the level at which it kills innocent people everyday with no one calling them on the truth?

Please find anyone's statements that in any way backs up this contention of yours.

226 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:26:17pm

Repost of Hitchens on Assange. Two quotes from:

Iraq Through Night-Vision Goggles
As we digest the WikiLeaks revelations, a new book offers the soldiers' perspective.
By Christopher HitchensPosted Monday, Oct. 25, 2010, at 11:34 AM ET

Objective is not the word one would select for either the aims or methods of WikiLeaks. I was interested to read that one of Julian Assange's deputies recently resigned over his decision to give the crass title "Collateral Murder" to a video from Baghdad. But no careful reading of the latest blizzard of documents could support any conclusion except that the verdict on responsibility for the murder of innocents is the same for Iraq as the United Nations' conclusion about Afghanistan.

and

Not long ago, I read an interview with Julian Assange in which he declared his ostensibly journalistic objective to be that of "ending" the war. Most edifying. The easiest way of ending it would be for one side to cease fighting it. (That almost happened in Iraq before the surge, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and al-Qaida claimed control of a province or two.) I have an intuition that I know which side Assange wishes would capitulate. Call it an instinct if you like.

227 RoboCopNixon  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:26:38pm

In reading comments on this and other blogs made by supporters of wikileaks, I'm floored by how often their arguments stop at "Information should be free" or "transparency is always good." It seems like these must all be aspergers types who don't interact with people IRL. I surely wouldn't want every thought about even my closest friends revealed to them, much less unpleasant coworkers I might think are idiots but have to work with.

Its not that I'm a bubbling cauldron of duplicity, but self-editing depending on the situation I thought was a mark of maturity.

228 lawhawk  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:26:48pm

re: #216 LudwigVanQuixote

I think you're misremembering about the trucks - Powell said that they were being used in chemical weapons production, but critics pointed out that they could have been fire trucks or other non-WMD efforts.

229 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:27:36pm

re: #216 LudwigVanQuixote

A lot of people were squawking about Iraqi WMDs for a lot of years, including many prominent democrats. I'm not sure if they were lying, or just wrong.

Yet when a dictatorship uses chemical weapons on it's enemies and it's own people, I can see why folks might believe said dictatorship is developing WMDs.

230 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:27:37pm

re: #223 Intenzity

Cool down. It's not a black-and-white issue, unlike what extreme partisans might tell you.

231 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:28:11pm

re: #223 Intenzity

Right wing roots? National security is not a right wing concept.

232 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:29:28pm

It is precisely the volume of information being leaked that convinces me it is not being done with any sort of real caution or care, or even purpose. There is no story being pursued, there is nothing in particular that Assange is trying to expose or reveal. I can't respect something so arbitrary.

233 engineer cat  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:30:06pm

freeper thread about wikileaks

freepers have definitely determined that the leaks happened because

1. obama wanted them to happen
2. obama was too incompetent to keep them from happening

wanted:
Is it just me, or does anyone else suspect that either people Obama has put in place, or long-term leftist-moles who have been waiting for their savior (someone who won’t go after his friends - the leakers) as two of the possible types of sources for these leaks.
...
A real president (Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Truman) would’ve “eliminated” this problem in it’s crib. The fact that this guy hasn’t tells me he wants it to weaken the United States and is secretly happy about it, if not complicit
...
If the White House's motive were to protect America against all enemies, they would have dealt with this very quickly quite some time ago. But we have a sitting President that shares the goals of our enemies. The deaths of our operatives are looked upon with favor by this regime.
...
couldn't stop them
And all Obama could do was beg that it not be released.

Now that’s Chicago street politics!
...
Did he try bowing and ring kissing?

3. Obama allows all this boring crap but what about important things like my favorite porn sites!!!

Hold on for a tick.

The DHS had no problem shutting down movie and porno sharing websites. They did this going entirely outside the rule of law, without due process. They did 70+ websites in 72 hours.

But somehow, this ONE website, they JUST COULDN'T DO A THING ABOUT.

Whatever.

4. al gore is fat. and michelle has a big butt

All we need is a few more dollars printed, a bit more respect shown overseas, an electric moped with air conditioning, higher definition scanners in the airports, and a wider throne in the White House for the first lady.

We see definite improvement nationally.

234 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:30:19pm

re: #232 Obdicut

It is precisely the volume of information being leaked that convinces me it is not being done with any sort of real caution or care, or even purpose. There is no story being pursued, there is nothing in particular that Assange is trying to expose or reveal. I can't respect something so arbitrary.

The story seems to be Assange, more than anything.

235 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:30:49pm

re: #228 lawhawk

I think you're misremembering about the trucks - Powell said that they were being used in chemical weapons production, but critics pointed out that they could have been fire trucks or other non-WMD efforts.

I am not misremembering. I heard the address at the time and listened carefully. Powell was going on about tubes for missiles and how they were specified to tolerances similar to centrifuges when he was talking about the trucks as mobile enrichment facilities. You don't enrich chemical weapons.

236 lawhawk  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:30:55pm

re: #218 ozbloke

There are concerns that the names released by Wiki in connection with the Afghan document dump will enable the Taliban to hunt down those who worked with the US and their families.

It's also resulted in the US efforts to gain confidences of those Afghans who might want to assist in rebuilding Afghanistan and fighting the Taliban efforts much more difficult - and that puts US and NATO (ISAF) forces in greater danger.

237 Usually refered to as anyways  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:30:58pm

re: #224 Sergey Romanov

He has info on Russia, said so himself (see my #25). So in the coming months we'll see how consistent he is.

Do you think that info came from the USA or Russia?

If it is sourced from the USA, would that make it less spectacular, than if it was leaked by Russia?

238 Ojoe  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:31:21pm

re: #229 Slumbering Behemoth

Hussein knew we were coming for 6 months or more. He wasn't stupid; he got his WMD out of the country, so the story goes. They're reputed to be stashed in the Bekka valley.

Very probable if you ask me.

239 Kronocide  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:31:26pm

re: #215 BishopX

I don't think JA is craven either, he's not a coward, he's not doing this out of fear. I think there is a lot of hostility which is interfering people understanding each other here.

I think Assange has some hostility as well.

240 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:31:47pm

re: #193 Gus 802

That should enrage the moonbats. Another thing these documents prove is that North Korea and Iran are indeed two remaining nations of what Bush once called "the axis of evil."


re: #190 Killgore Trout

Actually, I think that's the big story in all of this. Between this leak and the Iraq document dump there were about a half million documents leaked. None of them indicate Bush fabricated evidence.


Bush didn't manufacture evidence, but he did accept and act on incorrect information which brings his ability to make rational decisions into question. That he did attack Iraq while still operating in Afghanistan based on questionable information indicates the decision was an emotional one, which tends to present things in black and white. The Axis of Evil label is also an emotional, black and white, view of the world and is ultimately useless if not dangerous.

241 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:31:59pm

oh brother

242 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:32:08pm

re: #233 engineer dog

Ah yes. The "blame Obama first" crowd. ODS is a terrible disease. I would like to remind them that Daniel Ellsberg was never "eliminated".

243 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:32:23pm

re: #237 ozbloke

You know, despite possible consequences, I would imagine Russia to be more leaky. Because there certainly is more discontent.

244 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:32:31pm

re: #231 Gus 802

Right wing roots? National security is not a right wing concept.

Yeah, Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, Jughead Napolitano etc. are all very big on maintaining government secrecy. So much so in fact that when they can't steal a secret they make one up and peddle it anyway.

245 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:33:36pm

re: #240 b_sharp

re: #190 Killgore Trout


Bush didn't manufacture evidence, but he did accept and act on incorrect information which brings his ability to make rational decisions into question. That he did attack Iraq while still operating in Afghanistan based on questionable information indicates the decision was an emotional one, which tends to present things in black and white. The Axis of Evil label is also an emotional, black and white, view of the world and is ultimately useless if not dangerous.

Why? The Iranian and North Korean regimes are evil. In simple terms it's just like that.

246 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:34:20pm

re: #238 Ojoe

Why would a dictator who was about to be defeated not use WMD if he had them?

247 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:35:13pm

re: #229 Slumbering Behemoth

A lot of people were squawking about Iraqi WMDs for a lot of years, including many prominent democrats. I'm not sure if they were lying, or just wrong.

Yet when a dictatorship uses chemical weapons on it's enemies and it's own people, I can see why folks might believe said dictatorship is developing WMDs.

Look, I am not not addressing the wider issues of Saddam's many evils. As far as taking him out goes, I lose little sleep over that. Couldn't have happened to a nicer fellow. If it was in our best interest to do so, is another debate. I don't think it was, but I am not getting into any of that.

I am specifically talking about the charge that he was developing atomic weapons. It was physically impossible based on what the administration was saying.

248 BishopX  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:35:22pm

re: #219 jaunte

He isn't saying that it is useful, merely that it WL seems to be doing something good and he is willing to tolerate the occasional leak this this.

nhandi, please correct me if I'm putting the wrong words in your mouth.

249 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:35:36pm

re: #238 Ojoe

Hussein knew we were coming for 6 months or more. He wasn't stupid; he got his WMD out of the country, so the story goes. They're reputed to be stashed in the Bekka valley.

Very probable if you ask me.

Seems plausible. I mean, the dude gassed civilians, both Iranian and Iraqi. I wouldn't put anything past him.

250 Killgore Trout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:36:08pm

re: #202 Sergey Romanov

Not necessarily. Top Secret cables weren't released. So in this case absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. Not that I believe that if anybody was out to fabricate evidence they would mention it in official cables.

I wouldn't expect to see top secret memos of officials plotting to fabricate WMD evidence but I would expect to see memos of foreign governments contacting American embassies and requesting confirming intelligence for American official's statements about Iraqi WMDs. If our intel contradicted theirs they would want to know why.

251 Kronocide  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:36:51pm

It seems that success is at hand: the discussion has returned to Bush/Iraq War. We've pretty much beat it to death here without the help of Assange and probably know 95% of what there is to know about it.

So what did Assange accomplish? To poke his finger into the US war effort because 'war is bad.'

252 Ojoe  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:36:53pm

re: #246 Obdicut

I recall the US making some dire military threats against Saddam & his generals should they use the stuff.

253 jaunte  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:36:57pm

re: #248 BishopX

Sorry, I was unclear. I mean I don't understand Assange's explanations of how Wikileaks leaking is useful.

254 Usually refered to as anyways  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:37:05pm

re: #236 lawhawk

There are concerns that the names released by Wiki in connection with the Afghan document dump will enable the Taliban to hunt down those who worked with the US and their families.

It's also resulted in the US efforts to gain confidences of those Afghans who might want to assist in rebuilding Afghanistan and fighting the Taliban efforts much more difficult - and that puts US and NATO (ISAF) forces in greater danger.

Thank you lawhawk.

Are you suggesting that Mr (X) was killed two years after the release of a document, directly because of that document?

And is this your only evidence?

255 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:37:10pm

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

The infamous tubes as one example. I'm ready to believe that Bush and the rest so believed in WMDs that they cherry-picked evidence, and thus Bush personally did not "lie". But that's criminal negligence as far as I'm concerned. Yes, they should have gotten such an issue right.

256 brookly red  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:37:52pm

re: #235 LudwigVanQuixote

I am not misremembering. I heard the address at the time and listened carefully. Powell was going on about tubes for missiles and how they were specified to tolerances similar to centrifuges when he was talking about the trucks as mobile enrichment facilities. You don't enrich chemical weapons.


OK so I haven't cleaned out the fridge in a while...

257 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:39:27pm

re: #240 b_sharp

re: #190 Killgore Trout


Bush didn't manufacture evidence, but he did accept and act on incorrect information which brings his ability to make rational decisions into question. That he did attack Iraq while still operating in Afghanistan based on questionable information indicates the decision was an emotional one, which tends to present things in black and white. The Axis of Evil label is also an emotional, black and white, view of the world and is ultimately useless if not dangerous.

Again, Bush wasn't the only one squawking about WMDs. Many US politicians were, including many democrats, for a quite some time. Also, the decision to attack the Ba'athist regime was not his alone. Our elected representatives had to vote on it, and voted in favor of it.

258 Usually refered to as anyways  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:40:03pm

re: #243 Sergey Romanov

You know, despite possible consequences, I would imagine Russia to be more leaky. Because there certainly is more discontent.

You would have much more idea than me, but I would say that if the leak came from within Russia, it would have more weight within Russia, and be perceived as more credible.

If it comes from the USA, then motivations may be questioned, lessening there worth.

259 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:40:15pm

re: #223 Intenzity

Wait...I don't get it.

You all want our government to keep making stuff up, lying about torture, the level at which it kills innocent people everyday with no one calling them on the truth? So what, we should just wait for Gibbs to tells us how it is going and be totally cool with that?

This is a very very good thing. Having a way to see the huge gap between what the group in power that seeks to perpetuate war tells us how things are vs. how things actually are is incredibly valuable. It will let us all see how much b.s. is being crammed down our throat about the completely fake "war on terror" and how we are barely any safer than we were a decade before constant war against an almost pretend enemy.

The entire "war on terror" concept is baloney and any and everything that can be used to expose it and the lies used to perpetuate it is welcomed and necessary.

A lot of folks right wing roots are showing on this topic, I hate to tell you.

Hey, US. Government, you don't want people talking about what you do, well then - GO CATCH OSAMMA BIN LADEN AFTER 10 YEARS - and maybe we won't all wonder start wondering what the hell you are doing all this time and what this entire thing is really about.

Another conspiracy hypothesis, complete with paranoia.
Another lumping of all information into the same shit pile.

260 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:40:41pm

re: #252 Ojoe

I recall the US making some dire military threats against Saddam & his generals should they use the stuff.

Yes, if they'd used it, we might have invaded the whole country and let the new government hang Saddam.

261 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:41:15pm

re: #256 brookly red

OK so I haven't cleaned out the fridge in a while...

You mean this?

Youtube Video
262 Ojoe  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:41:49pm

re: #260 SanFranciscoZionist

Hung he was.

263 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:41:57pm

re: #257 Slumbering Behemoth

Again, Bush wasn't the only one squawking about WMDs. Many US politicians were, including many democrats, for a quite some time. Also, the decision to attack the Ba'athist regime was not his alone. Our elected representatives had to vote on it, and voted in favor of it.

Quiz time. Who said this?

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm’s way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we’re acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America’s vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we’re leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we’ll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

264 Ojoe  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:42:50pm

re: #263 Gus 802

Clinton ?

266 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:44:11pm

Yes, yes, we all know about The WMD Quotes.

[Link: www.snopes.com...]

267 brookly red  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:44:14pm

re: #238 Ojoe

Hussein knew we were coming for 6 months or more. He wasn't stupid; he got his WMD out of the country, so the story goes. They're reputed to be stashed in the Bekka valley.

Very probable if you ask me.

well let's go back to 2004... [Link: articles.cnn.com...]

they never did really explain this one...

268 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:44:41pm

re: #263 Gus 802

That one's too easy, so I'll step back. But tell me, who said this?

269 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:45:45pm

re: #233 engineer dog

freeper thread about wikileaks

freepers have definitely determined that the leaks happened because

Most freepers are idiots.

That's my own bit of leaked information.

270 Ojoe  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:46:04pm

re: #251 BigPapa

"War is bad" LOL there are worse things.

271 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:46:32pm

re: #268 Slumbering Behemoth

That one's too easy, so I'll step back. But tell me, who said this?

You know I had unicorns on my mind reading some of the defense of Assange. I think we should call it the Magical Balance Unicorn Fairy.

272 brookly red  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:47:06pm

re: #270 Ojoe

"War is bad" LOL there are worse things.

I am trying to think of one... well OK giant meteors.

273 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:47:13pm

re: #266 Sergey Romanov

Yes, yes, we all know about The WMD Quotes.

[Link: www.snopes.com...]

Yeah, it's a bummer isn't it.

/

274 What, me worry?  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:47:30pm

You all seem to forget we had inspectors in Iraq for 12 years. Sadaam kicked them out shortly after the Bush election.

All those years, they couldn't confirm what he had. Mostly because Sadaam ran them around, chasing their tails. David Kay, head of U.N. Inspections (and a Class A Slimeball), repeatedly said they didn't know what he had or didn't have. What mostly concerned them is that they couldn't locate any of the waste. We know now it's because there wasn't any.

If Sadaam had shuttled all the WMDs out of Iraq before the war, there still would have been nuclear waste and none of that has been found either.

Anyway, when Bush wanted to go into Iraq, all of a sudden Kay changed his story. He spoke to Salon about it years later. I'll try to find the article.

275 Ojoe  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:47:39pm

re: #267 brookly red

I do remember that. What bunker did they purloin & how recently was it stocked? Never explained.

276 Ojoe  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:48:14pm

re: #272 brookly red

Living as slaves for one.

277 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:48:45pm

re: #273 Gus 802

No, not really. People say all kind of crap, esp. politicians. It matters what they do. If Clinton would start this pointless war, he would be to blame. It so happens Bush did it.

278 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:48:54pm

re: #246 Obdicut

Why would a dictator who was about to be defeated not use WMD if he had them?

Hussein is just waiting for the opportunity to use those hidden WMD. Oh, wait he can't. He's dead.

279 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:49:00pm

re: #271 Gus 802

I was on a ukulele kick the other day, and stumbled upon that.

280 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:49:28pm

re: #261 Sergey Romanov

You mean this?


[Video]

Knew I liked you!

IMHO best anime moment to date:

Youtube Video
281 brookly red  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:49:58pm

re: #276 Ojoe

Living as slaves for one.

well the solution to that is, war I guess... still not big on my to do list.

282 researchok  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:50:08pm

Another reason we went to war in Iraq:

Bill Clinton

...And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological andnuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community led by the United States has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild hisarsenal of destruction, and someday make no mistake he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddama chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance,the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter theinspection system that controls his weapons of mass destructionprogram; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team including the vice president, the secretary ofdefense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, thesecretary of state and the national security adviser I haveordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddams capacity to develop anddeliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his abilityto threaten his neighbors.

George Bush wasn't the only president who believed Saddam had WMD's or the potential to build the.

283 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:50:27pm

re: #233 engineer dog

freeper thread about wikileaks

We can't expect much help from the right on national security issues.

The right-wing is little more than a pack of mad dogs these days. In truth, and I say this as someone who self-identified as conservative until pretty recently, the right-wing base has been a pack of mad dogs for quite a while now, probably since the Civil Rights movement of the 60s.

Fortunately, they were kept on a short leash by a much more educated and benign party hierarchy and their impulses were often turned to good purpose. Recently though, this guiding elite, reviled as "country-club RINOs" and the like, has been removed by a "popular" uprising, the astroturfed phenomenon of the so-called tea party. Most of the howling and barking TP base do not realize that this is simply a different and less principled elite taking control. For now they can run wild and give vent to all their many prejudices and that is all they care about.

284 Ojoe  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:50:29pm

BBL

285 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:50:38pm

re: #218 ozbloke

1. Because he has sources that leak US info, do you have any evidence he has info on other countries that he is suppressing?

2. Can you point me to any evidence that any one has died from the leaking of any cables leaked by him?

3. Why do you think he was elected?
3b. see answer number 1.

1. No, but the "transparency is a good thing" argument I was responding to ONLY works if there have been similar leaks from other governments to ensure their transparency. If Assange can find someone to give him US info, he can find someone in other countries to get info, UNLESS you wish to argue that EVERYBODY other government in the world EXCEPT the US government is clean as a whistle and has no one willing to pass along information.

2. No. It is speculation. As is the contention that NO ONE has died as result of the information being leaked.

3. He wasn't. Which is exactly why I do not want him in charge of information my government needs to keep secure.

286 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:51:00pm

re: #282 researchok

He is, however, the only president who occupied Iraq.

287 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:51:18pm

re: #277 Sergey Romanov

No, not really. People say all kind of crap, esp. politicians. It matters what they do. If Clinton would start this pointless war, he would be to blame. It so happens Bush did it.

Well, Bush and about 374 other elected politicians.

288 researchok  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:52:08pm

re: #286 Obdicut

He is, however, the only president who occupied Iraq.

Clearly, true- but not germane to the WMD issues.

289 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:52:12pm

re: #280 LudwigVanQuixote

Knew I liked you!

IMHO best anime moment to date:


[Video]

Yeah, it's something, ain't it. Also luved Samurai Champloo and (by another artist) Afro-Samurai.

290 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:53:42pm

re: #287 Slumbering Behemoth

Well, Bush and about 374 other elected politicians.

Them too.

291 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:54:02pm

re: #287 Slumbering Behemoth

Well, Bush and about 374 other elected politicians.

That reminds me of when the wingnuts talk as if though Obama acts alone. The same applied with Bush who went through the typical process of the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch.

292 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:54:25pm

re: #288 researchok

Very germane, actually. Clinton believed Saddam sought WMDs, so he aggressively applied sanctions, diplomatic pressure, air strokes, a no-fly zone, etc. in order to contain him.

Bush believed Saddam sought WMDs, so he invaded.

293 KayInMaine  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:55:27pm

I thought most of the Senate Dems who were on the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time the Iraq authorization was being voted on did NOT vote in favor of it, because the documents they saw as the "evidence" that Saddam Hussein was trying to purchase yellowcake uranium was so badly forged, they refused to vote for it? Only a few Dems voted in favor of using force against Iraq as a last resort?

Niger forgery: [Link: www.theleftcoaster.com...]

Rocco Martino was an ex-Italian Intelligence officer who broke into the Niger Embassy in Rome, Italy and stole the letterhead for these fake documents that "proved Saddam was trying to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger".

An interesting read too: [Link: democrats.senate.gov...]

"Today’s reports are the culmination of efforts that began in March 2003, when, as Vice Chairman, Senator Rockefeller initially requested an investigation into the origin of the fraudulent Niger documents. In June 2003, he was joined by all Democrats on the Committee in pushing for a full investigation into prewar intelligence, which was eventually expanded by the Committee in February 2004 to include the five phase II tasks."

You can say this is conspiratorial rhetoric, but it seems to be in line with the Bush Admin exposing Valerie Plame and her CIA front group after her husband wrote publicly about what he didn't find in Africa. [Link: www.nytimes.com...]

294 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:55:31pm

re: #291 Gus 802

That reminds me of when the wingnuts talk as if though Obama acts alone. The same applied with Bush who went through the typical process of the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch.

Of course, they all are culpable, just with a different degree. Bush and his inner circle were the prime movers behind this policy.

295 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:55:32pm

Oh well. The Iraq War is over. We won.

296 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:56:07pm

re: #223 Intenzity

Wait...I don't get it.

You all want our government to keep making stuff up, lying about torture, the level at which it kills innocent people everyday with no one calling them on the truth? So what, we should just wait for Gibbs to tells us how it is going and be totally cool with that?

Bullshit.

This is a very very good thing. Having a way to see the huge gap between what the group in power that seeks to perpetuate war tells us how things are vs. how things actually are is incredibly valuable. It will let us all see how much b.s. is being crammed down our throat about the completely fake "war on terror" and how we are barely any safer than we were a decade before constant war against an almost pretend enemy.

The entire "war on terror" concept is baloney and any and everything that can be used to expose it and the lies used to perpetuate it is welcomed and necessary.

A lot of folks right wing roots are showing on this topic, I hate to tell you.

Yes, some of us are more to the right. You say that as if it's an insult.
You find that a bad thing? You want us gone? What?

Hey, US. Government, you don't want people talking about what you do, well then - GO CATCH OSAMMA BIN LADEN AFTER 10 YEARS - and maybe we won't all wonder start wondering what the hell you are doing all this time and what this entire thing is really about.

If the US Govt. catches Osama Bin Laden, you will quit wondering what they're doing?
C'mon . . .

297 researchok  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:56:31pm

re: #292 Obdicut

Very germane, actually. Clinton believed Saddam sought WMDs, so he aggressively applied sanctions, diplomatic pressure, air strokes, a no-fly zone, etc. in order to contain him.

Bush believed Saddam sought WMDs, so he invaded.

No, Clinton believed Saddam had and used WMD's.

From the transcript:

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of massdestruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is onebig difference He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly.Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during adecadelong war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy,but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians inNorthern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I haveno doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again

298 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:56:33pm

re: #295 Gus 802

Oh well. The Iraq War is over. We won.

It's over? We won?

299 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:56:36pm

re: #295 Gus 802

At least 100,000 Iraqis lost, but who counts.

300 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:57:26pm

re: #297 researchok

OKay. However you phrase it, you have got to be able to understand the point I just made. It wasn't very subtle.

301 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:57:51pm

re: #295 Gus 802

Oh well. The Iraq War is over. We won.

And what did you win?

302 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:58:13pm

re: #301 b_sharp

And what did you win?

Lollipop.

//

303 researchok  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:58:17pm

re: #300 Obdicut

OKay. However you phrase it, you have got to be able to understand the point I just made. It wasn't very subtle.

And it was post 9/11.

304 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:58:54pm

re: #291 Gus 802

That reminds me of when the wingnuts talk as if though Obama acts alone. The same applied with Bush who went through the typical process of the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch.

Sadly, a whole lot of people think the Oval Office is the seat of an all powerful emperor. Take any single issue that a person is for or against, and you will find many people who think getting "their guy" elected POTUS will decide that issue in their favor once "their guy" is in office.

LGF is probably one of the few places where people understand how the gov't actually works. I love you guys.

/aw, screw you guys :cartman:

305 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:59:05pm

re: #303 researchok

There is no link between Saddam and 9/11, so I fail to see any point to that comment.

306 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:00:22pm

re: #291 Gus 802

That reminds me of when the wingnuts talk as if though Obama acts alone. The same applied with Bush who went through the typical process of the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch.

The buck stops here.

307 researchok  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:00:31pm

re: #301 b_sharp

And what did you win?

An Iraq without Saddam, an Iraq that will not repeatedly use WMD's and an Iraq that is far less of a threat to her citizens and neighbors.

For starters.

308 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:00:55pm

re: #295 Gus 802

Oh well. The Iraq War is over. We won.

And the Iraqi people now have a say in how their gov't represents them. What a total quagmire-fuck-up that was.
/

309 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:01:08pm

re: #307 researchok

An Iraq without Saddam, an Iraq that will not repeatedly use WMD's and an Iraq that is far less of a threat to her citizens and neighbors.

For starters.

Saddam was certainly less of a threat to Iraq's citizens than the war.

310 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:02:02pm

re: #308 Slumbering Behemoth

And the Iraqi people now have a say in how their gov't represents them. What a total quagmire-fuck-up that was.
/

That remains to be seen but knowing that culture it won't be long before they're being governed by followers of the Desert Spaghetti Monster cult.

311 KayInMaine  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:02:25pm

re: #293 KayInMaine

And this is why I believe someone in the Bush Admin ordered forged documents to be produced to lie our nation into Iraq, because that's where they wanted to go on 9/11/01 originally (it was Colin Powell who had to tell President Bush that the American would never believe it was Saddam who attacked us on 9/11 and to refocus on Osama bin Laden).

312 researchok  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:02:25pm

re: #305 Obdicut

There is no link between Saddam and 9/11, so I fail to see any point to that comment.

I never said there was a link between Saddam and 9/11. There was none.

All I said was that in a post 9/11 world, unstable players that have a history of using WMD's and threatening American allies was bound to be dealt with differently that prior to 9/11.

313 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:03:12pm

re: #310 Gus 802

That remains to be seen but knowing that culture it won't be long before they're being governed by followers of the Desert Spaghetti Monster cult.

Well, at least they'll get to vote for that DSM. For now, anyway.

314 researchok  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:03:31pm

re: #309 Sergey Romanov

Saddam was certainly less of a threat to Iraq's citizens than the war.

Well, Bill Clinton didn't think so.

After all, he used WMD's repeatedly against his own citizens.

315 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:03:56pm

re: #312 researchok

All I said was that in a post 9/11 world, unstable players that have a history of using WMD's and threatening American allies was bound to be dealt with differently that prior to 9/11.

Why? I don't see any connection whatsoever.

Saddam wasn't really that unstable, either.

316 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:04:10pm

re: #309 Sergey Romanov

Saddam was certainly less of a threat to Iraq's citizens than the war.

Right. Uh huh.

Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq

* Al-Anfal Campaign: In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern Iraq. This is known as the Anfal campaign. The campaign was mostly directed at Shiite kurds (Faili Kurds) who sided with Iranians during the Iraq-Iran War. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children. A team of Human Rights Watch investigators determined, after analyzing eighteen tons of captured Iraqi documents, testing soil samples and carrying out interviews with more than 350 witnesses, that the attacks on the Kurdish people were characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, widespread use of chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands, the arbitrary imprisoning of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people for months in conditions of extreme deprivation, forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers after the demolition of their homes, and the wholesale destruction of nearly two thousand villages along with their schools, mosques, farms, and power stations.

* In April 1991, after Saddam lost control of Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War, he cracked down ruthlessly against several uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south. His forces committed wholesale massacres and other gross human rights violations against both groups similar to the violations mentioned before. Estimates of deaths during that time range from 20,000 to 100,000 for Kurds, and 60,000 to 130,000 for Shi'ites.

There's more. Want me to total them up? It's well over those that were killed in the Iraq War.

317 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:05:34pm

re: #316 Gus 802

Right. Uh huh.

Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq

There's more. Want me to total them up? It's well over those that were killed in the Iraq War.

Number of Victims

According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule". Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war. Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000 to over 600,000, estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000, and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[ to 200,000. Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.

318 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:06:00pm

re: #307 researchok

An Iraq without Saddam, an Iraq that will not repeatedly use WMD's and an Iraq that is far less of a threat to her citizens and neighbors.

For starters.

I like you a lot man but you need to look into the cost benefit analysis a bit more.

We also won the largest inflation of our deficit since Reagan, the massive loss of international esteem and influence, a massively weakened economy, a destabilized region, room for Iran to counter us directly, the inability to credibly threaten Iran's very real and actual nuclear program on our own, polarized our nation and cost many thousands of American lives killed or wounded for that "win."

Further, the gains you have listed are hardly set in stone. The odds of Iraq going full bore Islamist and ousting the "democratic" government we put in place are very far from zero. In fact, once we pull out the most like scenario is that it becomes a puppet regime of Iran and the Russians.

319 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:06:23pm

re: #314 researchok

Well, Bill Clinton didn't think so.

After all, he used WMD's repeatedly against his own citizens.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results, as they say. Whatever happened in the past would not necessarily happen in the future. War, on the other hand, had very predictable consequences.

Not to mention that you had a somewhat predictable socialist semi-secular dictatorship on your hands, and now you're likely to have just another chaotic Islamist regime once you leave. Yeah, that sure was a good idea.

320 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:07:44pm

re: #317 Gus 802

Number of Victims

You've missed the point badly. There was no evidence whatsoever that Saddam would add to those victims in any significant way. The US-caused war did.

321 KayInMaine  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:07:45pm

re: #314 researchok


Bill Clinton REFUSED to start a full fledged war in Iraq and rightfully so. He bombed an empty building instead. So what! When George Bush was chosen as president in 2001, our nation's military was doing flyovers over Iraq. Saddam couldn't even go to his mailbox without someone in our military/intelligence seeing him! We had him cornered, but one of the things George did was stop the flyovers. *shaking head*

322 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:08:11pm

re: #307 researchok

An Iraq without Saddam,

True.

an Iraq that will not repeatedly use WMD's

Maybe true.

and an Iraq that is far less of a threat to her citizens and neighbors.

For starters.

An Iraq that is on the edge between civil war and an active democracy. Which way will it go? If it goes toward civil war, your last statement is wrong.

Is Iraq more or less secular than it was? Is the violence level higher or lower? How about average education level? Economic level?

What does any of this do for the US. What has the US won?

323 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:08:58pm

Heh.

324 researchok  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:09:15pm

re: #319 Sergey Romanov

Past performance is no guarantee of future results, as they say. Whatever happened in the past would not necessarily happen in the future. War, on the other hand, had very predictable consequences.

Not to mention that you had a somewhat predictable socialist semi-secular dictatorship on your hands, and now you're likely to have just another chaotic Islamist regime once you leave. Yeah, that sure was a good idea.

Yes- and that is totally worse than Saddmam's murderous regime.

And his use of WMD's and gas weapons (see Gus 802's posts above)

And his threatening his neighbors.

Oh yeah, Saddam's Iraq was a model for other Mideast regimes.

Yup- a real paradise.

325 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:10:02pm

re: #324 researchok

But how much has really changed about the nature of the government in Iraq?

326 researchok  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:10:26pm

re: #322 b_sharp

True.

Maybe true.

An Iraq that is on the edge between civil war and an active democracy. Which way will it go? If it goes toward civil war, your last statement is wrong.

Is Iraq more or less secular than it was? Is the violence level higher or lower? How about average education level? Economic level?

What does any of this do for the US. What has the US won?

Are you saying there are now WMD's in Iraq??

You can speculate all you want but for I prefer dealing with what is on the table.

327 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:10:26pm

re: #320 Sergey Romanov

You've missed the point badly. There was no evidence whatsoever that Saddam would add to those victims in any significant way. The US-caused war did.

That's because he was removed from power. Hussein had already exceed the number of casualties of the Iraq War by a significant number. You're ignoring his history and then claiming that we have no evidence that he would have continued. That's because he went into hiding as Hussein's regime evaporated.

328 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:12:05pm

re: #324 researchok

Yes- and that is totally worse than Saddmam's murderous regime.

And his use of WMD's and gas weapons (see Gus 802's posts above)

And his threatening his neighbors.

Oh yeah, Saddam's Iraq was a model for other Mideast regimes.

Yup- a real paradise.

There is zero indication that Saddam's murderous regime would've killed as many people as the war did. And yes, his regime was much more stable and politically desirable - comparatively speaking - than the regime that will probably be instated in the not-so-distant future. Unless you believe in fairies and Iraqi democracy.

329 APox  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:12:15pm

How many American lives and funds did we lose when we had Iraq contained and sanctioned?

What threat did we minimize by invading?

I don't believe we gained anything close to what we lost to claim Iraq was some type of "victory". Would have been much better off, if we were going to spend the money in a war, in Afghanistan.

330 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:12:30pm

re: #324 researchok

Yes- and that is totally worse than Saddmam's murderous regime.

And his use of WMD's and gas weapons (see Gus 802's posts above)

And his threatening his neighbors.

Oh yeah, Saddam's Iraq was a model for other Mideast regimes.

Yup- a real paradise.

The Iraq-Iran War.

Then the scud missile attack on Israel.

But hey, let's ignore all of that and hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

331 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:13:09pm

re: #316 Gus 802

re: #317 Gus 802

Bah! What's a few million of his own citizens?

Besides, I'm sure he would have started playing nice if we just gave him a few Abba Zabbas or something.

332 researchok  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:13:12pm

re: #325 Obdicut

But how much has really changed about the nature of the government in Iraq?

You see any WMD's used lately?

Sectarian strife? Hey That's not unique to a post war Iraq.

As for the government, let's wait and see. The jury is still out. It isn't as if government isn't a messy business.

No one said it would be easy, but as a friend (Arab colleague) noted, 'At least Bush believed in us enough to give us a chance at democracy'.

333 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:13:37pm

re: #314 researchok

Well, Bill Clinton didn't think so.

After all, he used WMD's repeatedly against his own citizens.

Why Iraq? Why not North Korea, China, Iran, Uganda, etc.? There have been and are governments who kill their own citizens all over the world. What made Iraq special?

334 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:14:13pm

re: #327 Gus 802

That's because he was removed from power. Hussein had already exceed the number of casualties of the Iraq War by a significant number. You're ignoring his history and then claiming that we have no evidence that he would have continued. That's because he went into hiding as Hussein's regime evaporated.

LOL, no. His killing was not continuous, like say Auschwitz. You have not stopped mass-scale killing by invading and there were zero indications that there would be mass-scale killing in the future. Past victims are irrelevant - you don't cause the deaths of at least 100,000 more people to punish the dictator for his past murders.

335 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:14:29pm

re: #331 Slumbering Behemoth

re: #317 Gus 802

Bah! What's a few million of his own citizens?

Besides, I'm sure he would have started playing nice if we just gave him a few Abba Zabbas or something.

Sure. Just like playing nice with Iran and North Korea is going to work.

336 researchok  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:15:25pm

re: #333 b_sharp

Why Iraq? Why not North Korea, China, Iran, Uganda, etc.? There have been and are governments who kill their own citizens all over the world. What made Iraq special?

Have they repeatedly used WMD's?

As for why Iraq, it might have something to do with their sponsorship of global terror and the fact they threatened American allies in the region.

337 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:15:47pm

re: #334 Sergey Romanov

LOL, no. His killing was not continuous, like say Auschwitz. You have not stopped mass-scale killing by invading and there were zero indications that there would be mass-scale killing in the future. Past victims are irrelevant - you don't cause the deaths of at least 100,000 more people to punish the dictator for his past murders.

The 100,000 deaths wasn't done "to punish the dictator for past murders."

338 KayInMaine  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:16:06pm

re: #327 Gus 802

That's because he was removed from power. Hussein had already exceed the number of casualties of the Iraq War by a significant number. You're ignoring his history and then claiming that we have no evidence that he would have continued. That's because he went into hiding as Hussein's regime evaporated.

Do we really know for a fact those mass graves are from those Saddam killed himself with chemicals (that we gave him?) or could they have been from the Iran/Iraq 10 year war that resulted in a tons of Iraqis dying? I've never seen any evidence of the former. Just the pointing of fingers by the republicans.

339 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:16:44pm

re: #335 Gus 802

They just need a hug, bro, that will make things all better.

Or did you the moral of the story of "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas"?
/

340 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:16:59pm

re: #337 Gus 802

The 100,000 deaths wasn't done "to punish the dictator for past murders."

Then why do you bring up those past deaths?

I gather you don't have objections to the rest.

341 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:17:04pm

re: #332 researchok

You see any WMD's used lately?

You make it sound like he used them every weekend. He gassed the Kurds. While we were semi-allies.

Sectarian strife? Hey That's not unique to a post war Iraq.

Nor did I say it was.

As for the government, let's wait and see. The jury is still out. It isn't as if government isn't a messy business.

What I mean is that they're still torturing, their justice system is corrupt, and the government is still corrupt. Democracy isn't a panacea.

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

The soldiers yanked Arkan Subhi Ahmed al-Habshi out of bed shortly before dawn, screaming and striking him with their guns, a scene that has become routine in Sunni districts of Baghdad.

His family's futile attempts to navigate the criminal justice system into which he disappeared after his detention in July fit a pattern that has left Sunnis across the country feeling bereft and indignant.

"There is no evidence against him," said his wife, Besma Ali, 22. "This government wants to take revenge on the people."

Habshi is among the countless Sunni men who are ensnarled in Iraq's backlogged and corruption-plagued court system. In a country that is slowly coming to terms with a vicious sectarian war, their treatment has become among the most combustible flash points.

342 APox  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:17:15pm

re: #332 researchok

You see any WMD's used lately?

Sectarian strife? Hey That's not unique to a post war Iraq.

As for the government, let's wait and see. The jury is still out. It isn't as if government isn't a messy business.

No one said it would be easy, but as a friend (Arab colleague) noted, 'At least Bush believed in us enough to give us a chance at democracy'.

Oh please. We were demonized as invaders when we were there, and are demonized now for leaving. The only theme at work there is a dislike for America. We emboldened Iran and through our heavy use of funding and loss of life made them stronger.

You act as though Iraq was some super power that was capable of crushing us at any moment. Last I checked it took around a week to get into Baghdad and crush any military resistance. Then we got pulled down in some bullshit policing for the sake of a "democracy" after the WMD reasoning for the war went out the window.

343 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:17:44pm

Cripes.

344 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:17:44pm

re: #326 researchok

Are you saying there are now WMD's in Iraq??

You can speculate all you want but for I prefer dealing with what is on the table.

There were no WMD left in Iraq in March of 2003.

345 Usually refered to as anyways  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:18:02pm

re: #285 reine.de.tout

1. No, but the "transparency is a good thing" argument I was responding to ONLY works if there have been similar leaks from other governments to ensure their transparency. If Assange can find someone to give him US info, he can find someone in other countries to get info, UNLESS you wish to argue that EVERYBODY other government in the world EXCEPT the US government is clean as a whistle and has no one willing to pass along information.

2. No. It is speculation. As is the contention that NO ONE has died as result of the information being leaked.

3. He wasn't. Which is exactly why I do not want him in charge of information my government needs to keep secure.

Thank you Reine.

1. Is it your contention then that Assange 'found' the leaker as opposed to 'was contacted' by the leaker?

2. Thanks so we can just disregard this then.
What exactly do we tell the families and loved ones of people murdered as a result of this "transparency"?

3. I'm getting from you that if your government says 'something' can't be released for the reason 'a, b or c' then that is the end of it, am I hearing you right?

I wonder how many governments reject info passed secretly, because its the 'wrong' way to get information.

346 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:18:46pm

re: #338 KayInMaine

Just the pointing of fingers by the republicans.

Republicans, democrats... same thing, right?
/

347 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:18:54pm

re: #339 Slumbering Behemoth

They just need a hug, bro, that will make things all better.

Or did you the moral of the story of "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas"?
/

Getting some serious sand in my shorts here.

348 researchok  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:19:04pm

re: #338 KayInMaine

Do we really know for a fact those mass graves are from those Saddam killed himself with chemicals (that we gave him?) or could they have been from the Iran/Iraq 10 year war that resulted in a tons of Iraqis dying? I've never seen any evidence of the former. Just the pointing of fingers by the republicans.

We did not give Saddam chemical weapons. EVER.

We gave Saddam and whole bunch of other nations chemical precursors- qnd actually, we gave them to universities to do research on pesticides.

Saddam made the decision to use those precursors to develop WMD's.

Our mistake was in believing engaging a beast like Saddam might be a good idea.

349 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:20:26pm

Don't say this...

re: #340 Sergey Romanov

Then why do you bring up those past deaths?

I gather you don't have objections to the rest.

... after saying this...

re: #334 Sergey Romanov

Past victims are irrelevant

It just don't sound right.

350 APox  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:21:05pm

re: #348 researchok

"On May 25, 1994, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[30]

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."[31]

Donald Riegle, Chairman of the Senate committee that authored the aforementioned Riegle Report, said:

U.N. inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs. ... The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control sent Iraq 14 separate agents "with biological warfare significance," according to Riegle's investigators."

351 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:21:07pm

re: #348 researchok

That whitewashes our involvement with his regime in a large way. For example, we gave huge amounts of support to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. If we're talking about those casualties as Saddam's responsibility, they should be our responsibility too.

352 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:21:13pm

re: #340 Sergey Romanov

Then why do you bring up those past deaths?

I gather you don't have objections to the rest.

There's a big difference between willful and wanton killing of civilians as Hussein carried out and the deaths that resulted from the invasion. There is no moral equivalence here. If that's the way you feel then we should end this conversation right here and now.

353 researchok  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:21:29pm

re: #341 Obdicut

You make it sound like he used them every weekend. He gassed the Kurds. While we were semi-allies.

Nor did I say it was.

What I mean is that they're still torturing, their justice system is corrupt, and the government is still corrupt. Democracy isn't a panacea.

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

It may not be perfect but it ain't Saddam's regime.

Or even close.

I have faith in the Iraqis. It may not be clean, neat or fast but I believe sooner or later one form of or another of democracy will take hold

354 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:22:08pm

BDS

355 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:22:58pm

re: #353 researchok

It may not be perfect but it ain't Saddam's regime.

Truism.

Or even close.

Why do you say that? Police are dragging people out of their beds and disappearing them. Local government is corrupt, pocketing money, nepotism is rampant. What is the huge difference that's occurred?

I have faith in the Iraqis. It may not be clean, neat or fast but I believe sooner or later one form of or another of democracy will take hold

Why?

356 researchok  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:23:03pm

re: #350 APox

"On May 25, 1994, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[30]

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."[31]

Donald Riegle, Chairman of the Senate committee that authored the aforementioned Riegle Report, said:

U.N. inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs. ... The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control sent Iraq 14 separate agents "with biological warfare significance," according to Riegle's investigators."

Yes, as I noted, they were chemical precursors.

We did not ship them weapons.

Saddam chose to make those weapons himself.

357 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:23:09pm

re: #349 Slumbering Behemoth

Don't say this...

... after saying this...

re: #334 Sergey Romanov

It just don't sound right.

Yes, it doesn't sound right when one takes it out of context. They're "irrelevant" in the Talmudic sense - when Talmud says "it is nothing", it means that it doesn't mean anything in the context of current discussion. The question is only why anyone would take these words out of context.

358 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:23:30pm

re: #347 Gus 802

Getting some serious sand in my shorts here.

Gotta come drinking with me, bro. We'll get that sand worked right out.

359 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:24:29pm

re: #352 Gus 802

There's a big difference between willful and wanton killing of civilians as Hussein carried out and the deaths that resulted from the invasion. There is no moral equivalence here. If that's the way you feel then we should end this conversation right here and now.

Of course, I neither wrote nor implied such a thing.

360 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:24:37pm

re: #358 Slumbering Behemoth

Gotta come drinking with me, bro. We'll get that sand worked right out.

I'm boozeless today. I have enough money for another pack of cigs tomorrow. Maybe I should go out and get me a Happy Meal.

361 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:25:35pm

re: #357 Sergey Romanov

Yes, it doesn't sound right when one takes it out of context. They're "irrelevant" in the Talmudic sense - when Talmud says "it is nothing", it means that it doesn't mean anything in the context of current discussion. The question is only why anyone would take these words out of context.

Sorry dude. I wasn't trying to present your words out of context, just shortening for brevity. Apologies.

Still "Past victims are irrelevant" seems kinda cold. Just sayin'.

362 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:25:56pm

re: #354 Gus 802

No, Gus. Really not. I mean, you're talking about Saddam's culpability in the Iran-Iraq war-- when we supported Iraq during that war. That's a really weird thing to me.

The Cold War was a fucked up time, and we supported a lot of assholes that we shouldn't have. Saddam was one of them. It doesn't mean I'm crying that he's dead, but saying I'm suffering from BDS because I'm questioning whether the expenditure of the lives of American troops and Iraqi civilians in order to achieve what is a very corrupt and very unjust new government is unfair.

363 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:25:57pm

re: #330 Gus 802

The Iraq-Iran War.

Then the scud missile attack on Israel.

But hey, let's ignore all of that and hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

Come back to reality Gus. No one here has suggested holding hands and singing.

The US did not go in to Iraq to save the Iraqis, they went in to putatively reduce the probability of another attack on American soil. Getting rid of a malicious tyrant bent on keeping his power by killing those around him was a secondary effect.

Going in to Iraq has not changed the probability of another attack on American soil, but it has increased the probability of another point of instability in the ME that could in the future increase the potential for an attack. Where Iraq goes is yet to be seen.

364 APox  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:26:01pm

re: #356 researchok

Yes, as I noted, they were chemical precursors.

We did not ship them weapons.

Saddam chose to make those weapons himself.

that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs. ...

Their sole purpose was to give Iraq an edge in the Iraq-Iran war because, I'm not sure if you remember, we weren't exactly friendly with Iran. Destabilizing that country was in our interest.

What was Sadaam supposed to use all those chemical agents for exactly? You think they were just shipped from the United States with a message,
"Anthrax from the United States, with love! Hope your research works well, but do NOT use this against Iran."

Your forced naivety to prove a point is painful. Again, we lost nothing by CONTAINING Iraq prior to this stupid war.

365 researchok  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:26:04pm

re: #355 Obdicut

Truism.

Why do you say that? Police are dragging people out of their beds and disappearing them. Local government is corrupt, pocketing money, nepotism is rampant. What is the huge difference that's occurred?

Why?

Why? Because I believe the Arabs are not a hopeless case.

If I did, I would not support a Palestinian state.

366 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:26:18pm

re: #361 Slumbering Behemoth

Sorry dude. I wasn't trying to present your words out of context, just shortening for brevity. Apologies.

Still "Past victims are irrelevant" seems kinda cold. Just sayin'.

I know.

367 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:27:08pm

re: #360 Gus 802

I'm boozeless today. I have enough money for another pack of cigs tomorrow. Maybe I should go out and get me a Happy Meal.

Skip the Happy Meal and get you a forty!

368 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:27:16pm

re: #363 b_sharp

Come back to reality Gus. No one here has suggested holding hands and singing.

The US did not go in to Iraq to save the Iraqis, they went in to putatively reduce the probability of another attack on American soil. Getting rid of a malicious tyrant bent on keeping his power by killing those around him was a secondary effect.

Going in to Iraq has not changed the probability of another attack on American soil, but it has increased the probability of another point of instability in the ME that could in the future increase the potential for an attack. Where Iraq goes is yet to be seen.

That works.

369 APox  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:27:47pm

re: #363 b_sharp

Come back to reality Gus. No one here has suggested holding hands and singing.

The US did not go in to Iraq to save the Iraqis, they went in to putatively reduce the probability of another attack on American soil. Getting rid of a malicious tyrant bent on keeping his power by killing those around him was a secondary effect.

Going in to Iraq has not changed the probability of another attack on American soil, but it has increased the probability of another point of instability in the ME that could in the future increase the potential for an attack. Where Iraq goes is yet to be seen.

Well, and I'd say the high loss of life and financial loss of the war has done more than simply cost us some instability in the Middle East.

I think it'd be a whole lot better if we didn't blow our load in Iraq with North Korea looming on the horizon.

370 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:29:05pm

re: #365 researchok

Why? Because I believe the Arabs are not a hopeless case.

If I did, I would not support a Palestinian state.

I don't think 'the arabs are a hopless case'. That doesn't mean I believe Democracy is a magic seed that will take root wherever it is planted. Especially in the face of the huge amount of opposition that it has in Iraq. I hope they succeed, but given the amount of corruption present in the government, it doesn't seem likely to me.

371 researchok  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:29:30pm

re: #364 APox

that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs. ...

Their sole purpose was to give Iraq an edge in the Iraq-Iran war because, I'm not sure if you remember, we weren't exactly friendly with Iran. Destabilizing that country was in our interest.

What was Sadaam supposed to use all those chemical agents for exactly? You think they were just shipped from the United States with a message,
"Anthrax from the United States, with love! Hope your research works well, but do NOT use this against Iran."

Your forced naivety to prove a point is painful. Again, we lost nothing by CONTAINING Iraq prior to this stupid war.

Saddam was already producing mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun and VX gas.

Yeah, he was pretty harmless.

372 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:29:38pm

re: #336 researchok

Have they repeatedly used WMD's?

As for why Iraq, it might have something to do with their sponsorship of global terror and the fact they threatened American allies in the region.

What sponsorship of global terror?

In 1990, they threatened, invaded, and were subsequently soundly defeated. In 2003 they did not have the military might to threaten any allies.

373 APox  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:29:50pm

re: #365 researchok

Why? Because I believe the Arabs are not a hopeless case.

If I did, I would not support a Palestinian state.

It's fine to believe Arabs are not a hopeless case.

Not rooting for the Iraq war is not equal to not believing in Arabs (that's a lot of nots).

If they want democracy so bad, then let them fucking bleed for it themselves. Last I checked we weren't cheered into Iraq as the freedom bringers. We were viewed as some imperialistic invading force.

374 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:31:20pm

re: #339 Slumbering Behemoth

They just need a hug, bro, that will make things all better.

Or did you the moral of the story of "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas"?
/

Is your argument so weak you need to ridicule us?

375 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:31:57pm

re: #369 APox

I think it'd be a whole lot better if we didn't blow our load in Iraq with North Korea looming on the horizon.

In the words of John Paul Jones, we have not yet begun to blow our loads.
/or something

376 APox  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:32:16pm

re: #371 researchok

Saddam was already producing mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun and VX gas.

Yeah, he was pretty harmless.

I'm not saying he wasn't harmless to Iran, or to those around him. I'm still failing to see where you show me how many American lives or dollars were lost by containing Iraq, instead of spending.. what... Around 2 trillion dollars?

And we weren't even succesful in installing a Democracy, the most optimistic view is to say.. "Hey... Let's wait and see.... The Iraqis can pull together"

In which case I'd say, it's time for you to hold hands and sing kumbaya.

377 goddamnedfrank  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:32:17pm

re: #301 b_sharp

And what did you win?

A lifetime obligation to purchase replacement prosthetics for these people.

re: #330 Gus 802

The Iraq-Iran War.

We supported Iraq during that war. The USCDC sent live samples of biological warfare agents to Iraq. We supplied Iraq with US military training, on US soil. We sent experts and satellite intelligence on Iranian troop movements, thus facilitating Saddam's gas attacks against Iranian human wave infantry assaults. We ran interferrance for these Iraqi gas attacks in the UN, blocking investigations and resolutions against Iraq. We even gave Saddam an official pass for murdering 37 sailors aboard the USS Stark during that war.

378 researchok  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:32:23pm

re: #372 b_sharp

What sponsorship of global terror?

In 1990, they threatened, invaded, and were subsequently soundly defeated. In 2003 they did not have the military might to threaten any allies.

Start here for Saddam's sponsorship of terror.

Be sure to scroll down before responding.

379 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:33:44pm

re: #374 b_sharp

Is your argument so weak you need to ridicule us?

I'm just cracking wise, bro. No ridicule intended.

380 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:33:48pm

A propos the justifications for going into war it is instructive to compare the 2003 situation with the 1999 NATO bombings of Yugoslavia. There was clear case of on-going genocide. This is the kind of thing that fully justifies military invasion. What some dictator did a decade ago and the calmed down - doesn't. Were some democracy invade USSR in 1937 - that would've been justified. 1950? Not so much.

381 researchok  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:34:28pm

BBIAB

382 APox  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:35:55pm

It's just fucking ludicrous to talk about invading any country because of humanitarian issues. If that was the fucking basis for going to war, then I'm pretty sure we should be sending our 100,000 troops into the heart of Africa to clear things up a bit.

There were and are a lot worse threats to the United States, namely Iran and North Korea, that are stronger today than they were before we invaded Iraq.

383 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:38:57pm

Sooo anyway...

Julian Assange is a slimy POS. May he be infested with the fleas of a thousand camels.

384 APox  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:40:37pm

re: #383 Slumbering Behemoth

Sooo anyway...

Julian Assange is a slimy POS. May he be infested with the fleas of a thousand camels.

Yep, it'd be nice to find the leakers and hold them up for some treason hearings. Jesus, my liberal side is showing. :P

385 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:40:59pm

re: #352 Gus 802

There's a big difference between willful and wanton killing of civilians as Hussein carried out and the deaths that resulted from the invasion. There is no moral equivalence here. If that's the way you feel then we should end this conversation right here and now.

If you want to play the moving moral game, then Hussein was fighting against revolutionaries and insurgents within his own country who were intent on tearing Iraq apart, an argument many countries use as justification for suppressing a portion of their population with violence.

Again I ask, why Iraq?

386 Gus  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:43:34pm

re: #385 b_sharp

If you want to play the moving moral game, then Hussein was fighting against revolutionaries and insurgents within his own country who were intent on tearing Iraq apart, an argument many countries use as justification for suppressing a portion of their population with violence.

Again I ask, why Iraq?

I don't want to talk about it anymore. We're obviously outnumbered in here right now. You guys can keep reliving the Iraq War all you want.

387 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:47:08pm

re: #386 Gus 802

I don't ever have any particular desire to re-live the Iraq War. However, it was a major event in US history and we're not going to get away from it shadow anytime soon.

I think the war was a huge mistake. I also think that as soon as we invaded, those protesting against the war were idiots, since the die was cast and at that point we should have fully supported the effort to make Iraq a stable Democracy. The anti-war folk should have been lobbying for more soldiers, a larger commitment, because that was the quickest path to peace.

388 KayInMaine  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 2:51:02pm

re: #348 researchok

We did not give Saddam chemical weapons. EVER.

We gave Saddam and whole bunch of other nations chemical precursors- qnd actually, we gave them to universities to do research on pesticides.

Saddam made the decision to use those precursors to develop WMD's.

Our mistake was in believing engaging a beast like Saddam might be a good idea.

Okay. We gave Saddam and Iran chemicals that they could do whatever they want to with along with a wink and a nod. :D However it's phrased, our nation during the Reagan Years was arming and financing those we shouldn't have been. As you pointed out, we thought at the time it was a good idea (to engage Saddam this way), but funny how years later the son of one of these presidents went back into Iraq with forged documents as his proof that we as a nation should be scared of Saddam! Seriously, if Obama said tomorrow that he wants all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan he would get a standing ovation from me. Both of these wars were needless....even the one in Afghanistan. We should have used our CIA to go after Osama, well that is, if he was alive when our nation was looking for him. *wink*

389 b_sharp  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 3:03:50pm

re: #378 researchok

Start here for Saddam's sponsorship of terror.

Be sure to scroll down before responding.

[Link: articles.cnn.com...]

390 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 3:33:00pm

re: #345 ozbloke

Thank you Reine.

1. Is it your contention then that Assange 'found' the leaker as opposed to 'was contacted' by the leaker?

2. Thanks so we can just disregard this then.
What exactly do we tell the families and loved ones of people murdered as a result of this "transparency"?

3. I'm getting from you that if your government says 'something' can't be released for the reason 'a, b or c' then that is the end of it, am I hearing you right?

I wonder how many governments reject info passed secretly, because its the 'wrong' way to get information.

1. I have no clue. Assange has the means to get the information out, and has been more than delighted to do it. The person who leaked it is in custody. I don't know what to do about Assange, but I personally think he's a complete asshole.

2. No, we cannot disregard it. The gov't has said that information puts people in danger. The government doesn't want the identities of these people known. So, yes, if my goverment, the duly elected (and appointed) officials of this country tell me that leaked information has the potential to put people in danger, I believe them. If I thought the processes of this country were in such a mess that they would lie about the need to keep some information secret (as ALL GOVERNMENTS DO), I would find a private island somewhere where I could live.

3. Yes. And that applies to any administration. Which isn't one person. It's a whole mess of folks, who review information and meet and discuss. I know how this process works. It isn't ONE person making the decisions as to what needs to be kept confidential and what doesn't. There are cases where one (or two or maybe three) people know something and keep it quiet, to our detriment. For the big ticket items - I will trust the elected and appointed officials to make the best possible decisions as to what should or should not be done with information. I for sure don't trust Julian Assange to make those decisions for my government officials.

I'm taking it that the government of wherever it is you live right now is so shady you've come to have a super suspicious mind.

391 researchok  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 3:49:39pm

re: #389 b_sharp

[Link: articles.cnn.com...]

And a court said they were.

That said, no one said Saddam and 9/11 were related.

392 Usually refered to as anyways  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 4:07:57pm

re: #390 reine.de.tout

1. I have no clue. Assange has the means to get the information out, and has been more than delighted to do it. The person who leaked it is in custody. I don't know what to do about Assange, but I personally think he's a complete asshole.

2. No, we cannot disregard it. The gov't has said that information puts people in danger. The government doesn't want the identities of these people known. So, yes, if my goverment, the duly elected (and appointed) officials of this country tell me that leaked information has the potential to put people in danger, I believe them. If I thought the processes of this country were in such a mess that they would lie about the need to keep some information secret (as ALL GOVERNMENTS DO), I would find a private island somewhere where I could live.

3. Yes. And that applies to any administration. Which isn't one person. It's a whole mess of folks, who review information and meet and discuss. I know how this process works. It isn't ONE person making the decisions as to what needs to be kept confidential and what doesn't. There are cases where one (or two or maybe three) people know something and keep it quiet, to our detriment. For the big ticket items - I will trust the elected and appointed officials to make the best possible decisions as to what should or should not be done with information. I for sure don't trust Julian Assange to make those decisions for my government officials.

I'm taking it that the government of wherever it is you live right now is so shady you've come to have a super suspicious mind.

Thank you Reine for your detailed response, its appreciated.

1. Somehow I think we seem to have shifted this question now, however, if he was 'contacted'and he hasn't been contacted by people in other countries, I don't see how we can get pissed of at him for not 'exposing' other countries.

2. If we are not aware of any direct deaths, then we have no families to tell.

3. I'm not suspicious, just old, I'll go with history, countries are not always honest with their people, particularly in times of war. Currently, the US is at war with two countries.

393 reine.de.tout  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 4:21:17pm

re: #392 ozbloke

Thank you Reine for your detailed response, its appreciated.

1. Somehow I think we seem to have shifted this question now, however, if he was 'contacted'and he hasn't been contacted by people in other countries, I don't see how we can get pissed of at him for not 'exposing' other countries.

2. If we are not aware of any direct deaths, then we have no families to tell.

3. I'm not suspicious, just old, I'll go with history, countries are not always honest with their people, particularly in times of war. Currently, the US is at war with two countries.

I think it's clear, from wikileaks's history, that they desire and are actively looking for information. It doesn't matter who contacted who, IMO. Assange has made his market known; people will provide.

And Assange doesn't seem to have made a market known for the secret documents of other countries. I don't believe other countries have better more loyal employees than the US. I think Assange isn't interested in what they have to offer or isn't AS interested as what they have to offer.

We don't know if any deaths have occurred. I believe the potential is there, and that there are real people whose lives are in danger from Assange's release of this information. I don't believe the gov't would lie to the US public about that, it just wouldn't make any sense.

Yes, the US is at war with two countries, with help from some allies, n'est-ce pas? And in cases like the Abu Ghraib horror, one or two folks knew and tried to keep it quiet, and it eventually came out, as these things do. As I said earlier though, for the big-ticket items, the general security of our armed forces and those who our armed forces must deal with - these things are dealt with not by one person, or two, or three, but by roomsful of people, reviewing, discussing, making decisions, ultimately making recommendations to the President - who is the elected Commander in Chief of this country. Not Julian Assange.

394 Usually refered to as anyways  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 4:33:13pm

re: #393 reine.de.tout

I think it's clear, from wikileaks's history, that they desire and are actively looking for information. It doesn't matter who contacted who, IMO. Assange has made his market known; people will provide.

And Assange doesn't seem to have made a market known for the secret documents of other countries. I don't believe other countries have better more loyal employees than the US. I think Assange isn't interested in what they have to offer or isn't AS interested as what they have to offer.

We don't know if any deaths have occurred. I believe the potential is there, and that there are real people whose lives are in danger from Assange's release of this information. I don't believe the gov't would lie to the US public about that, it just wouldn't make any sense.

Yes, the US is at war with two countries, with help from some allies, n'est-ce pas? And in cases like the Abu Ghraib horror, one or two folks knew and tried to keep it quiet, and it eventually came out, as these things do. As I said earlier though, for the big-ticket items, the general security of our armed forces and those who our armed forces must deal with - these things are dealt with not by one person, or two, or three, but by roomsful of people, reviewing, discussing, making decisions, ultimately making recommendations to the President - who is the elected Commander in Chief of this country. Not Julian Assange.

I understand that this is a very emotive issue, however I am interested in what we know that is factual. You have been patient and polite with me.

We don't know that Assange has any info supplied by people within other countries.

Frankly I believe Americans would be more likely to 'blow the whistle' than Iranians, Chinese or North Koreans, frankly for good reasons.

As to governments protecting people, well they do if it suits them, they also out people when it suits them. Government purposes are greater than any individual, lets not kid ourselves. Tillman comes to mind, G-d bless his soul.

I have no confidence the 'truth' came out re Abu Ghraib, I have no confidence the right questions were asked, or the right people were held accountable.

I'm from Australia, we fight alongside you in both wars.

395 laZardo  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 7:51:04pm

I believe in accountability and transparency. I also do not believe it should have come to this. The United States had several years to admit its abuse early on and risk a smaller global backlash than it did early on.

What makes the United States stand out amidst other countries committing graver human rights abuses (e.g. Russia and China) is that they also pride themselves as a role model of human rights. As such, it is especially hypocritical of them to go to such lengths to cover it up or distract from them.

If there is anyone to be held accountable, it is those members of the United States government that actively engaged in these cover-ups. Julian Assange is the messenger, and should not be proverbially (or literally) shot for it.

396 Charles Johnson  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 8:56:51pm

re: #395 laZardo

I believe in accountability and transparency. I also do not believe it should have come to this. The United States had several years to admit its abuse early on and risk a smaller global backlash than it did early on.

What makes the United States stand out amidst other countries committing graver human rights abuses (e.g. Russia and China) is that they also pride themselves as a role model of human rights. As such, it is especially hypocritical of them to go to such lengths to cover it up or distract from them.

If there is anyone to be held accountable, it is those members of the United States government that actively engaged in these cover-ups. Julian Assange is the messenger, and should not be proverbially (or literally) shot for it.

What cover-ups are you talking about, exactly?

Because from what I've seen so far, there's not much covering up being exposed.

397 laZardo  Sun, Nov 28, 2010 11:56:19pm

re: #396 Charles

A cover-up where the CIA told Germany not to arrest the agents that abducted Khaled El-Masri (who had the same surname as a suspected militant) and held him in Afghanistan, subjecting him to who-knows-what.

Of course, this isn't even a fraction of 1% of what's to come...

398 Mark Winter  Mon, Nov 29, 2010 12:03:51am

What's the point of Wikileaks without a picture of the "voluptuous blonde" Ukrainian nurse?

399 Leo3  Mon, Nov 29, 2010 11:07:27pm

I kind of hate to say it, but I don't remember voting for (or against) Darwin or Galileo, either.

The truth will out.

400 Charles Johnson  Tue, Nov 30, 2010 8:52:00am

re: #399 Leo3

You're going to equate Julian Assange with Charles Darwin and Galileo? On one hand, you have two of the greatest scientists in human history, and on the other you have an anarchist who pimps stolen documents.

You've got to be kidding.

401 Beany  Tue, Nov 30, 2010 9:55:43am

re: #400 Charles

Amen.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 119 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 280 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1