17 thoughts on “WikiLeaks is Part of the Solution, Not the Problem.

  1. Mike Kennedy says:

    The whole Wikileaks thing is a snoozerama.

    What a slow news day when this leads the leashed talking heads around sniffing each other’s arses as if they actually found something of value (or that smells good).

    The deficit commission would have been lucky to garner a quarter of the coverage. That kind of meaningful discussion of solutions to our out of control spending is…..well, too taxing.

    I’d frankly be more interested in the blonde’s photo than anything else in the whole high school drama gossip, most of which was either known or suspected by anyone with any functioning grey matter.

  2. Jim Leinfelder says:

    Oh, I think the Wikileaks stories are interesting enough. But all this theatrical dudgeon coming from the Depts. of State and Justice is, as Brian rightly points out, rather too much to stomach.

    These folks wildly overestimate their personal importance to the turning of events. But then I’m not a guy who looks at history through the “great man” prism. And who but someone as clueless about world events as Ms. Palin has not already formed essentially the same opinions of world leaders as those indelicately articulated by foreign service pros in the leaked “cables”?

    Ladies and Gentlemen, get over yourselves.

  3. Mike Kennedy says:

    All the chest thumping and hullabaloo is giving this WikiLeaks drip/hacker all the attention he so desperately craves……imagine if all this gossipy “news” came out and the media ignored it.

    This poor bastard would have to crawl back into cyberspace in search of something to make himself relevant. He seems like a smug self important and small man who fancies himself a “revolutionary.”

    I’d say he better keep moving, with rape allegations against him and several countries targeting him for arrest.

    1. Uh huh. You’re not big on the messenger. But Mike, where are your deep thoughts on the value of transparency? You know, one of the fundamentals of our Constitutional right to know?

      1. Jim Leinfelder says:

        What kills me is all the soaring dudgeon from the beltway apple polishers today over Assange’s failure to equally expose the hypocrisies of repressive regimes like, oh, I think they mentioned China, rather than picking on the good guys.

        Um, am I wrong that China’s been pretty up front all along about their brutality and repression of human rights over the decades. The only people pretending not to know about it are the folks in our government.

        What would they imagine he’d uncover that would leave us all disillusioned about China’s communist regime? What’s next, a hope that he’ll blow the lid off that phony baloney Myanmar?

      2. Thaaaaank you. And please people, Assange is only the conduit. He’s just the guy posting what hackers and whistleblowers are sending him. Sure, some of it is problematic. But in sum … I’ll take my chances with more transparency rather than less.

      3. Mike Kennedy says:

        You miss my point, Brian. I have no problem with this glory seeking guy — whatever trips your trigger. However, if he broke laws, like say, raping someone, then he ought to be caught.

        The idiot kid that faces life in prison or the death penalty will be the one who pays.

        There are some limits on our right to know — some involving national security. I don’t think the Founders would have encouraged everyone knowing Washington’s troop movement across the Delaware on Christmas Eve.

        But none of what I heard rises to this. So I really couldn’t care less. I think much of it again, is ho ho ho hum.

      4. Jim Leinfelder says:

        It may well be that Assange’s biggest concerns should be with the Russians. He might want to avoid the soup du jour and men with umbrellas.

  4. Newt says:

    What does it say about America when a lowly Army private in a desert tent can big the world’s Super Power to its knees with a fucking thumb drive?

    Our nation is a house of cards right now.

    I rather enjoy seeing the world’s ruling elite red faced and discredited.

    1. PM says:

      Do you think that kid really is responsible for ALL of this? supposedly, he copied all of this on a R/W DVD of his own music that he took into his work station and then copied all of this onto that DVD–and he had access to all of these State Dept cables in a tent in Afghanistan?

      Clearly we do not know all of the story, but it seems to me as if we are missing a lot at the moment.

      1. Newt says:

        There’s the question of the treasonous Army private and his access to a trove of “top secret” communiques.

        But then there’s the issue of why the government even archives all this shit (it should be automatically deleted upon receipt).

        Last, Americans have come to learn that international diplomacy is a damn joke, essentially adolescent games played by adults.(These State Department cables are no better than Facebook chatter between mischievous teens.)

        Again, I enjoy the embarrassment this has caused.

  5. john sherman says:

    All the cables really do is allow us to get behind all the diplomat-speak, wherein we all are good friends who respect and want to cooperate with each other, and see what the diplomats were actually saying with the hypocrisy filter off. If our diplomats didn’t know, for example, that Berlusconi is an asshole, they’re not smart enough to find their way to the bathroom. In general the diplomats came out of this looking okay or at least less idiotic than if we took their official pronouncements at face value.

    Still, there weren’t any actual revelations here: I wasn’t stunned to discover that Afghanistan is corrupt, that a nuclear armed Pakistan scares the crap out of about everyone, that the Saudis and just about everyone else in the mid-east hate Iran, that diplomats gather intelligence, etc. Most of the “secrets” were secret only in the sense that they weren’t officially admitted, but were nonetheless commonly known.

    The attempt to try to nuke Assange and Wikileaks strikes me as stupid. They aren’t the problem since it wouldn’t be hard to find someone willing and able to do the same thing from just about anywhere in the world. If he’s broken an Australian law, let the Aussies deal with him.

    The leaker, however, did break a law and ought to be punished; it’s not like he was motivated by anything but pique or at best a desire to stick it to the man. And, as Tom Maertens pointed out in Minnpost, he may have done some harm by imperiling sources in foreign lands as attested by the fact some human rights groups are pissed. Nor is there much good to be said for a system that (a) gives a delinquent pfc enough unsupervised time to download a quarter of a million communications and (b) leaves a half century of diplomatic junk laying around where the kid can steal it.

  6. Newt says:

    In addition to being a sexual deviant, Assange strikes me is a politically unprincipled opportunist who seems quite happy as long as he is agitating the power elite.

    I agree with Sherman. Apart from sex crimes, it’s probably not worth pursuing him.

  7. PM says:

    OK, maybe only in Sweden…

    Apparently, the “sex crime” that Assange is charged with is having consensual sex with 2 women (different times) without using a condom–“sex by surprise” it is called–and refusing to be tested for std’s afterwards. carries a $715.00 fine, if he is guilty. Police have confirmed that both women agree that the sex was consensual–NO rape here at all.

    And there is an Interpol warrant out for his international arrest because of this?


Comments are closed.