(Source: Wikileaks)
I love the rage against Julian Assange. It shows how effective the Wikileaks drop has been. Schumer: "This man has put his own ego above the safety of millions of innocents... He should be extradited, tried for espionage, and given the most severe penalty possible." And just now on WNYC, Massimo Calibresi of Time was saying that Assange doesn't really care about gov't transparency, he's just a grandiose showman/freak/autodidact from a nomadic background. And we have learned from this that the media shouldn't just be a firehose, but should make "appropriate" decisions about what to run, says Calibresi. Liberal Jamie Rubin formerly of the State Department was as angry as Schumer on Chris Matthews the other night, and Matthews seems to want Assange arrested. I'm told Richard Cohen was completely dismissive today. Quel surprise.
A few quick thoughts on the cables drop:
- It is a historic huge event. We will be figuring out what it means for years. It is like the Pentagon Papers in that respect, it will transform the terrain. Calibresi says it will result bureaucratically in more secrecy. Gosh, I don't care; it's the biggest breaking of secrecy I've ever seen.
- People are gaining enormous information about how government works. This is a phenomenological, objective truth. 250,000 cables. Wow. The cables will be studied and studied; and many people will learn from them.
- Despite the characterizations of Assange as a weirdo and anarchist, he's a leftwinger; and this is a huge power move for the Left. The Left is aided enormously by these cables, left wing discourse. The appropriate decisions that the media made for us gave us the destruction of Iraq. Assange is angry about that, enraged about the killing in the Middle East, that's my assessment of his statements. And he has taken bold action.
- Could this affect American status in the world? Knock it down. Yes, absolutely. Why are Schumer and Matthews so angry. They know.
- Everyone is telling us that Assange is a weird cat. OK, he's weird. I don't care. They went into Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office when that went down. I bet Dan Ellsberg was weird. A lot of people are weird. All the stuff about the sexual assault charges against Assange and his cult/theater/dropout background may be true (and let him be tried); but these matters are actually trivial next to his political motivation and action.
- Did you notice how familiar so many arguments in the cables were? That's because you heard them before; these State Department guys have been piping them to the NYT and other MSM voices for years. Assange is trying to break that daisy chain. No wonder Rubin is mad and the MSM is upset. This was their game, they got to make the decisions. And notice, they're madder than when Assange's Iraq information allegedly endangered soldiers and exposed soldiers' atrocities. Now it's journalistic/diplomat conspiring that's been exposed.
- Will the cable drop damage people, hurt relationships, even end some careers? Yes I'm sure it will. Gotta break some eggs to make an omelet.
- Susan Abulhawa notes that many of the cables seem to serve Israel's interests, and she wonders about the sources... She's not alone, other friends of mine wonder; Assange has actually praised Netanyahu in one statement or another. Myself, I don't buy it. I think the lobby spins everything all the time, and the cables will actually shed a lot of light on how the special relationship works, in the long run. Latest morsel: Jane Harman of California, jumping in on a congressional meeting with Mubarak to press him about cutting off supplies to the people of Gaza. Doesn't this woman have better things to do with her time?
But, Jonathan Pollard should be released especially after leaking information that resulted in the murder of hundreds of people.
The Ziocaine sees not it’s own hypocrisy.
Who are the millions of people whose safety Assange has endangered? I have no idea what Schumer is talking about.
And Chucky has the gall to criticize somebody for his ego?
I think he was referring to all the AIPAC lackeys, but I can’t say for sure.
The US should never discuss freeing Jonathan Pollard, except as part of a trade for Mordechai Vanunu.
Assange’s life is certainly in danger. Calls for his arrest, the death penalty, even assassination. How often have you heard even former advisors to a Canadian PM openly inciting murder?
“OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s spokesman says Tom Flanagan’s remarks that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be assassinated are “simply not acceptable,” even if they weren’t serious. Dimitri Soudas commented Friday after Assange said the prime minister’s former adviser and others “should be charged with incitement to commit murder.” Flanagan made this week what he called a “glib” comment on CBC-TV that Assange should be assassinated. Despite his subsequent regrets and explanations that he was not serious, he hasn’t yet been able to put that genie back in the bottle. [...] At least 35 alumni of the University of Calgary, where Flanagan teaches political science, signed a letter posted online asking university president Elizabeth Cannon to “condemn Dr. Flanagan in the harshest possible terms” and to censure him for damaging the reputation of the school and its alumni. The letter’s author is Kris Kotarski, a 29-year-old writer and editor who pens a biweekly column for the Calgary Herald. Harper represents a Calgary-based constituency.”
You gotta love it that they can’t put that genie Assange and his leaks back into the bottle either. Most people want the truth, and some serious change. What are they going to do? Put him on a Diet of Worms?
link to canada.com
footage of Flanagan’s outrageous comments:
link to youtube.com
Needless to say Aus. PM Julia Gillard, who represents the worst sort of Australian parochialism, hasn’t criticised this incitement, and has said what Assange has done is “illegal” (without specifying what laws he has broken) and promised a “whole of government” response to Assange & wikileaks. They’re also considering revoking his Australian passport – just unbelievable.
i’m so liking the idea of global citizens. heck, if we can have global non citizens (palestinians!) we could really throw a monkey wrench into the game and have people revoking citizenships along w/lands of people w/no citizenships. this kinda rings a bell. a land w/no citizenship for a people w/no citizenship! free palestine! assange would fit right in.
hostage ~ The US should never discuss freeing Jonathan Pollard,
except as part of a trade for Mordechai Vanunu. !!!Philip Giraldi’s most recent article on Pollard @ AntiWar:
Thirty-Nine Congressmen Can’t Be Wrong
And on a related note, updates from Grant Smith @ anitwar on the AIPAC/Rosen trial:
Nov 15 article, AIPAC Bares All to Quash Lawsuit
Nov 24 interview w/ Scott Horton
and IRMEP’s battle to have AIPAC tax-exampt charity status revoked:
link to irmep.org
Compare the US with its “free speech deficit” with Pakistan where, yesterday, its Supreme Court refused to allow the shutdown of Wikileaks. “We must bear the truth, no matter how harmful it is,” television reports quoted Justice Saeed.
link to dawn.com
To this, add Ron Paul’s comment, “In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble.”
link to politico.com
Ron Paul is earnestly wise, as usual. We are in a society where everything government does is increasingly classified so no sun shines. The Freedom Of Information Act is becoming a standing joke.
Assange is leading the charge on soft fascism, soft conspiracies, which he has defined and illustrated very well.
Orwell:
“In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
The real ziocane rush: Milton Friedman, the Shock Doctrine, Ayn Rand, Greenspan, Unive of Chicago, Russian mafia/oligarchs, US UK Israel banks. Biblical homeland meme is Straussian noble lie for the masses.
link to youtube.com
Wikileaks is a success because there’s ENOUGH smart people globally that reckon politicians are pathological lying scumbags that need exposure.
They see how their politicians’ lies are responsible for death and murder and wars, yet these same politicians remain unaccountable and free to steal by night and lie some more to their voters.
In other words, there’s a shortage of truth in these dark and confused times and the people NEED THE TRUTH for their survival – yes truth is that essential.
Netanyahu was bragging the other day saying that up to that point, the leaked documents were rather complimentary of Israel. Wikileaks responded by stating they had an additional 10,000 documents about Israel.
Could that be why the WikiWar really took off today?
Wikileaks responded by stating they had an additional 10,000 documents about Israel.
No kidding? Has anybody told NPR? To listen to NPR, of the 250,000 Wikileaks, half-a-million of them were about Iran and how much Arabs want to bomb Iran. The rest are about Afghanistan. Oh, and a couple about Russia.
Yeah, PG, I saw that NPR show–our tax dollars going for those NPR hacks: their take-away for the NPR audience: much ado about nothing except the Arab regimes want to bomb Iran too. Could Israel be any happier?
“Wikileaks responded by stating they had an additional 10,000 documents about Israel.”
From the research I’ve been doing, neither Assange nor anyone from Wikileaks has made such a statement. They did state they would post 10,000 “bank” documents.
Now either this is an innocent mistake or you’re lying.
PLEASE POST THE LINK WHERE YOU SAW THIS STATEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF EVERYONE HERE.
That’s how you talk to your friends? You call them liars?
Here’s one:
Lebanon defense minister ‘offered invasion advice for Israel’
This is still favorable to Israel, as it’s like a slap in the face of Hezbollah and similar to the other leaks that were favorable to Israel demonstrating that Israel has Arab sympathizers, collaborators or that Israel can count on the enemy of my enemy to be its friend.
In other words, this doesn’t count, and Avi mentioned 10,000 additional cables involving Israel.
First, my first allegiance is with the truth always, no matter who it offends.
Second, you still didn’t provide us with a link for this, and your response kinda looks like an excuse. If you do provide me with the link, I’ll apologize for my curt response, but until then, I’m not buying your post.
frankly, suggesting someone is lying is insulting. can we inject some breathing room. people who frequent lots of sites (i do) don’t always remember every source. it may be true and maybe not but lets ratchet down the accusations and flush this out w/more grace, please?
Ok, but where is the link, Avi?
No need to buy. I wasn’t selling. Tell me honestly that you’re not playing a passive-aggressive game because of my calling citizen’s claim “propaganda” when he alleges that Native Americans were wiped by disease, and I’ll be more than happy to provide you with the information that you need. Until then, perhaps you could thump your chest elsewhere.
“No need to buy. I wasn’t selling.” You know what I meant when I said I’m not buying what you posted.
First, I didn’t even read that post. And if that’s what he said then he’s an idiot.
Second, I don’t play silly quid pro games or passive-aggressive games either.
Either you have the link or you don’t. You’re response is disappointing.
“Your” response…
Here’s something to explain my annoyance with you:
Oh, shut up Assange!
From Assange’s Time Mag interview:
“We can see the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu coming out with a very interesting statement that leaders should speak in public like they do in private whenever they can. He believes that the result of this publication, which makes the sentiments of many privately held beliefs public, are promising a pretty good [indecipherable] will lead to some kind of increase in the peace process in the Middle East and particularly in relation to Iran. I just noticed today Iran has agreed to nuclear talks. Maybe that’s coincidence or maybe it’s coming out of this process, but it’s certainly not being canceled by this process.”
M.J. Rosenberg:
“Julian Assange buys into Netanyahu line that by demonstrating anti-Iran sentiment is rampant in region, WikiLeaks will help Netanyahu achieve peace. Peace? Netanyahu? I guess Assange is no Commie, more like a Likudnik. One point worth noting, it is true that, so far, Israel is the only country mentioned in WikiLeaks that has been pleased by the revelations. Grassy knoll time?”
link to tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com
I’m all for transparency and accountability, but I’m starting to mistrust Assange big time.
You understand my frustration, now? If he’s holding on to 10,000 documents unfavorable for Israel, then why is he stroking Netanyahu’s ego and parroting Netanyahu’s words “If leaders start saying openly what they have long been saying behind closed doors, we can make a real breakthrough on the road to peace.”?
Mr. Transparency reaffirming the drivel of a war-mongering clown…and I’m suppose to believe what you wrote without a link.
Avi, please furnish your support for your statement about Wikileaks, as kalithea requested. Also, please support your statement that my comment you referenced about Native Americans was pr0paganda–as annie says, we don’t always remember our sources, but it won’t do to avoid responsibility for what we say. BTW, have you responded to the following link I gave you on the earlier thread? I will check it today–
“… the most important reason for the Indians’ catastrophic decline—namely, the spread of highly contagious diseases to which they had no immunity. This phenomenon is known by scholars as a “virgin-soil epidemic”; in North America, it was the norm.”
link to hnn.us
Kalithea,
I understand your frustration and now I see where you’re coming from.
What I wrote at the top of the thread was in reference to an article I read in the Hebrew Ha’aretz on December 1, 2010.
I have pored over the website in an attempt to find that article, but came up empty handed. First I tried searching through Google in Hebrew to no avail. Then I tried to use Google to search within Ha’aretz, nothing. And finally, I plugged search terms into Ha’aretz’s archives search, again, nothing.
Since you can’t/won’t take my word for it, then feel free to ignore my post above. I’m sorry, but I’m not sure what else I can do at this point.
Citizen,
To allege that disease wiped out the Native Americans is to ignore the hundreds of massacres that took place.
The claim that Native Americans were killed by disease was the hallmark of institutionalized American propaganda that was ingrained in the minds of many an elementary school student.
It’s time you put such government indoctrination to rest and accept the fact that the United States has done horrendous acts in the past (and continues to do so on a smaller scale these days).
To allege that disease wiped out the Native Americans is to ignore the hundreds of massacres that took place.
no it doesn’t, we massacred too. bigtime. do you have any supporting links avi? do you also disregard the effects of the plague in europe? what about aids in africa? disease has been a massive killer of humanity and europeans introduced certain diseases to this continent.
annie,
First, this whole “Do you have any links” is a bit silly. The world doesn’t exist 100% in digital form, yet.
Second, one should be more interested in reading a logical and convincing argument rather than appealing to authority every time.
And finally, even if there were disease, whatever its scope, it doesn’t absolve the “white man” of the massacres, nor does it absolve the “white man” of Manifest Destiny.
Ugh, Haartez search makes me want to tear my hair out! When they had their makeover a few months ago they did something to their archives and a lot of links to old articles went kaput. I’ve found their search function to be almost totally useless..
the way the sanctions killed over a million in iraq had to do w/disease entering the water system and the sanctions preventing the import of chemicals to fix it. i once read and exchange (st department i think) acknowledging we knew this was going to happen and then did happen. it’s still a form of genocide imho. it doesn’t lesson the tragedy or responsibility. rounding up native americans in camps and then not quarantining the diseased is still genocide.
it doesn’t mean we didn’t have intention, we’re still guilty
no, nothing absolves us. i totally agree. i just think there were upwards of 50 million people here and the majority of them were killed by disease. it still leaves millions we slaughtered. forced marches is still genocide just because each one of them wasn’t personally slaughtered in combat doesn’t lesson the fact we killed them. if you expose thousands of people to intolerable conditions and those conditions kill them it is still genocide. i don’t know of any modern historian who is taken seriously deny what we did. i was just wondering if you’d read this argument of a disease myth or assertion of propaganda somewhere because i haven’t heard of it before you introduced it here. it’s an interesting theory, i just haven’t heard it.
That’s the thrust of my comment. I mean, by dangling disease and Native Americans into the discussion concerning an entirely different subject matter, and then excluding the massacres by pointing to ‘natural causes’ as the culprit in the annihilation of the Native Americans gives one the impression that citizen was advancing propaganda. And that’s where my outrage stemmed. Still, citizen hasn’t acknowledged what you, annie, have acknowledged thus far, so perhaps he truly believes that. Time will tell.
Citizen and Avi,
That’s what I was taught in school, too. I’m not saying everything I was taught was right. It could be true, to a degree. That one of the main causes of the Native American population decline was disease. Also, If I remember correctly, when the whites figured out that the Indians were were receptive to the white man’s diseases, they purposefully spread the diseases amongst them. An example was giving blankets with germs on it.
Another was whites possessing better weapons and the destruction of the Native American way of life. If you think about it, destroying a people’s way of life can be considered ethnic cleansing if it leads to a massive population decline.
In any event, what happened to the Native Americans wasn’t right.
I don’t have books handy, but I’ve read a fair amount about the massive loss of life in the Western Hemisphere after the whites came and disease caused the overwhelming majority of them. At the same time, there were also genocides taking place and the extreme cruelty by the Europeans also contributed to the weakening of the Native Americans in some cases, making them more susceptible.
I remember a few books off the top of my head–Francis Jennings “The Cant of Conquest” or something like that, which is about the Puritans in Massachusetts, but also, iirc, mentions the disease factor. Jennings in invaluable in showing how Western invaders back then saw themselves as the victims and also the benefactors to the Indians, while massacring them and stealing their land. Sounds familiar (though in fairness I think the Israelis weren’t quite as brutal).
I’ve also got “American Indian Holocaust and Survival”, which talks about both disease and genocide. Then there was a book by Todorov (sp?), but I can’t find it. That was mostly about the Spanish. Disease did the bulk of the killing, but genocide and slave labor leading to mass death in some places contributed.
The book “The History and Sociology of Genocide” has a chapter on the Native Americans. Again, disease does the bulk of the killing, but genocide is involved. They also mention the fact that native Americans sometimes committed genocide against each other (hardly surprising, of course).
While this cable may seem to be favorable to Israel, I am sure that it is not the way it will be viewed in Lebanon with which I am somewhat familiar. A substantial segment of the Maronite Christians, most notably former general and president, Michel Aoun, and his Free Patriotic Movement and Suliman Franjieh of the Marada movement are in a political alliance with Hezbollah, a fact that is NEVER reported by the Western media.
In 2007, I interviewed Aoun and he said that were Hezbollah to be disarmed, Lebanon would fall under Israeli control and that it was the only force capable of preventing that from happening. I also met with members of the Marada movement who told me the same thing.
If anyone should be scared it is Elias Murr who may at this very moment be on his way to Washington DC because if he hangs around Beirut any longer there will no doubt be calls for his arrest for what he is, a traitor. Whoever thinks that this cable benefits Israel,has another think coming,
Jeffrey, the Murr cable isn’t anything too serious because it was about his giving advice on hypothetical situations and in the land of Ali Baba and conspiracies, these are a dime a dozen. The telling cables that should be coming out unless someone pulls the cord on Assange, should be about what actually happened in the 2006 war and which parties will be quoted as having participated in the American-Israeli offensive on Lebanon. Signals were being sent from Beirut on Nasrallah’s possible whereabouts and when one such call was made, Israel to ensure it didn’t miss its man pulverized something like 30 buildings in the space of 4 minutes. There was the other incident at Marjeyoun when the military barracks containing 350 armed soldiers received orders from Beirut to surrender their arms and IDs to the 15 soldiers in the 2 tanks that were outside the gate and to serve them tea. Meetings held at the American embassy while the war was in progress should also be very interesting. At oine point during the height of the massive bombing of Lebanon and the US airlift of arms was in progress, Condy Rice, the midwife, landed in Beirut and ordered sandwiches for a working lunch with the Lebanese government at the US embassy and it was at the time she was explaining that the bombings were the birthpangs of a new Middle East being born and that Israel should refuse any discussion on a ceasefire. It’s cables on such stuff that would create a stir and not one about Murr giving out free advice.
Avi,
Here’s a link for you. link to thefurtrapper.com
Scroll down and read about Professor Ward Churchill getting fired for the false smallpox blanket story.
The Indians also massacred back. Depended on the tribe. Indians weren’t all poor and put upon, neither were they defined by the US and Canada. They were North and Central American.
It wasn’t the massacres that have really destroyed the Native Americans, although that’s certainly true. It was the US Govt not honoring the Treaties, stealing their land a la I/P, and declaring them POWs in their own country. They took their money and their dignity. And that was done mostly in the last 150 years. THEN, the ‘historians’ took over.
yup.
That’s no reason to conflate citizen’s point with propaganda. There is no question that both disease and massacres were responsible for the massive population decline of Native Americans. Either factor can be used for the purpose of propaganda, magnifying or denying the guilt of Europeans. Native Americans also massacred European invaders and settlers in a hopeless effort to defend their lands. And the so-called ‘Columbian exchange’ spread new diseases to the indigenous populations of both the New and the Old World. The disease factor was of course interpreted along the lines of ‘manifest destiny’. The term ‘plague’ refers to divine punishment, and all epidemics tended to be understood as such, no matter where they occurred. It took humanity about 1000 years to figure out what caused the bubonic plague, how it was transmitted, and how it could be prevented and cured. It took only a few years before infected fleas were turned into a biological weapon. But that was in the early 20th c, when the ‘Indian problem’ had long been solved. The Japanese tested their plague bombs on the ‘Chinese monkeys’.
I didn’t conflate, nor did I actually have to conflate. citizen put disease and Native Americans in one sentence without mentioning any of the other factors that contributed to the destruction of the Native American population. So, the way it stands, that sentence is propaganda because — whether intentionally or not — it omitted important facts in regard to the actual course of events.
And you can certainly empathize with my view — you don’t have to, but I assume you’re a reasonable person — when just a few weeks ago, citizen claimed that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to spare the lives of 1 million American soldiers.
Yes. That I do know. That’s the information with which I’m familiar and it’s precisely why I objected to the propping up of disease as though — as though — it was the sole cause.
there are only about 3, 000 cables on Israel in the entire dump
link to spiegel.de
“And you can certainly empathize with my view — you don’t have to, but I assume you’re a reasonable person — when just a few weeks ago, citizen claimed that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to spare the lives of 1 million American soldiers.”
I didn’t see that post by citizen, but I certainly empathize with your rejecting the view that Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to spare the lives of a million American soldiers.
but wait a minute, and correct me if I’m wrong: I thought ALL cables were handed over to the NYT, Guardian, Spiegel, whose teams have studied, edited (names and such) them for the past several months, publishing their select highlights and insights during the past week, with more coming. If there was some big bombshell re Israel, do you think they are just building up to it, none of them trying to be first?
I just read that only something like 667 cables have been released. Not the whole 250,000.
BTW, the NYT did not get the Assange leak. Wikileaks refused to give it to them. The NYT get the cables from The Guardian.
As of *now* a little over 700 cables have been released by wikileaks but I’m pretty sure the media orgs were given preview access to the entire archive..
FYI all a searchable archive of the cables is here:
link to cablesearch.org
The ‘Zeitgeist’ tab is interesting, it shows the people’s searches in real-time..
NYTimes got the previous lot but – I pointed this out somewhere – what did you get if you queried for wikileaks on the NYT site?
Lots of links to the Assange character assassination bit and links to the faulty Iran meddling in Iraq piece of Sanger.
Now they didn’t get the cables archive directly but got it from the Guardian , and Sanger was involved in the new Iran piece, this time about them getting BM25 missiles from North Korea. People pounced on that because it was another scare piece and there was no mention at all of another cable where the russians said they didn’t even think the BM25 existed. Gareth Porter wrote a scathing piece about that, taking on the Washington Post at the same time. And the Guardian since added an article quoting Porter. What’s not in the Porter piece, because of timing or sloppiness, is that Walter Pincus wrote an excellent piece on the russian cable in the WP.
Sure enough, the chief foreign editor of my home newspaper(De Morgen) was already worrying about what evil plans Ahmadinejad had with the world.
“I just read that only something like 667 cables have been released. Not the whole 250,000.”
It’s interesting that only now are we seeing serious efforts to take attack the Wikileaks web site and domain names, and to have Assange arrested.
Maybe the jucier stuff is on it’s way?
The NYTimes now published an article including the reasons for doubting link to nytimes.com
In the clip shown during the Chomsky interview on DN, H. Clinton refers to the “alleged cables”. She may well have reasons to suggest they are a fraud even if she knows differently. Not all individual cables have been released yet, but Spiegel appears to have received in advance the entire dump of documents to be released eventually (which may or may not be a ‘complete set of documents’ with regard to the source/US government database):
“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 to spiegel.de
The German language Spiegel site (Wikileaks Q&A) clarifies that Spiegel has received and researched (with a team of 50) all documents, and further filtered them according to security and privacy directives received from the US government – some but not all of which they adopted.
link to spiegel.de
The bottom line with regard to the cables related to Israel, according to Spiegel researchers, concerns two messages: basically, Turkey and Iran are ruled by crazy Islamists and thugs and pose a major threat to Israel and the entire world. See here:
link to spiegel.de
This, of course, is what Israel has been saying in public and behind closed doors (according to the cables). That Assange is repeating Netanyahu’s claim that Israeli officials are more honest than others I would not ascribe to the whistle-blower siding with Israel for whatever reason. He may just be naive and not aware of the fact that Netanyahu himself revealed (quoted in Haaretz immediately after the first cables went online) that Israeli officials had seen this leak coming for years and adjusted their diplomatic communications accordingly. What’s his point? We are smarter than everybody else, and certainly smarter than the Americans? Or: We haven’t said what we really think for years, so all you find about us in the cables is at best the partial truth, or what we would like everybody to believe to be the truth. Chomsky points out (DN interview) that some cables show American diplomats simply repeating what Israeli officials tell them, without questioning or checking the facts (i.e. Hamas allegedly broke the ceasefire in Gaza, Israel had to self-defend with Cast Lead). I’ve seen one cable in which a US diplomat questions the urgency of bombing Iran, citing the fact that Israel has pressured the US to do so repeatedly, with none of their predictions and timeframes ever panning out.
Two articles on how the cables blow the horn of Israel’s right wing by shifting the focus from peace to war, from solving the Palestinian problem to solving the Iran/Turkey problem, i.e. to attacking the two countries that openly side with the Palestinians against the ‘evil Zionist regime’.
link to huffingtonpost.com
Also of note are the effects of such leaks a century ago. Netanyahu may hope that cablegate will get the US to declare war, as they did after the leak of the Zimmermann-cable, while Assange hopes for results that did not materialize for the Russian revolutionaries when they blew the whistle on the diplomats of the Czar:
___________
Bolshevikileaks
At the height of World War I, in early 1917, the British cryptography unit (“Room 40″ ) decoded a telegram from German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmermann to his country’s embassy in Mexico City, proposing the Mexicans launch a war against the United States and retake Texas. The British showed the telegram to American diplomats. The publication of the document helped induce Congress and U.S. President Woodrow Wilson to declare war on Germany; the Americans’ decision to join the Allies contributed to Germany’s defeat at the end of 1918.
A few months after the episode of the “Zimmermann Telegram,” the Bolshevik Revolution took place in Russia. One of the new leaders’ first decisions was to declassify the documents of the czar’s Foreign Ministry. The new people’s commissar for foreign affairs, Leon Trotsky, asserted that secret diplomacy serves the minority in its desire to impose its will on the majority. “Imperialism,” he added, “with its dark plans of conquest and its robber alliances and deals, developed the system of secret diplomacy to the highest level.”
The most famous document revealed by the Bolsheviks was the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, in which Britain and France planned how they would carve up the Ottoman Empire and also promised a hefty slice to Russia, which coveted Istanbul and the Black Sea straits. The exposure of secrets can influence events, if it is focused and comes at the right moment, as in the case of the Zimmermann telegram. The publication of thousands of documents in order “to denounce imperialism” changed nothing.”
link to haaretz.com
When was the Balfour Declaration issued, and why? Many questions.
Diplomatic cables do not reveal the TRUTH. They reveal what’s being said and heard by diplomats in not-so-secret cables to various recipients. Does anybody believe the Mexicans would have attacked the US? And how about the Iranian threat? Does the head of the Iranian snake need to be cut off to save the world, as Arab leaders (but not their people) apparently believe? And let’s keep in mind that this dump is like a book with many pages and whole chapters missing, including the final chapters. It does have a very focussed message, though (bomb Iran). Whether Israel is capable of dealing with Iran on her own is another question. At this point, it looks like they can’t even put out a forest fire without the entire world sending planes and firefighters helping them. Including Turkey. Erdogan emerges as a dangerous Islamist and corrupt politician in the cables. The Israelis are quoted as describing him as an irrational and implacable Israel-hater. If nothing in the cables shows them up as being paranoid or liars, Erdogan’s reaction to the fire should put the blush of embarrassment onto their faces.
A lot of Muslim/Arab sources are saying the leaks were orchestrated by Israel.
I just can’t see this being the case. But if it is, it’s going to backfire badly because the US’ ability to project power in the world will be further reduced, and a weaker US mean a weaker Israel…
Check out Brzezinski on PBS talking to Judy Woodruff. He suggested there might be an intelligence angle to the cables.
I saw that interview, MRW. Found Brezezinki’s comment interesting – he mention that intelligence service(s) could have “seeded” the cables, putting in a slant, so to speak.
Of course, none of us know whether the entire cache came from one source (Manning) in one release, or whether it consisted of several turned in succession over time. If the later is true, I could go with the seeding theory.
Bibi’s boasts are so hollow. Israel is so shoddy.
“Israel is so shoddy” – ah, that explains it – is actually an Ikea flatpack that comes partially assembled, with indecipherable instructions and an ill-fitting allen key.
The long-term effect of Assange and WikeLeaks is it exposes the lie of “open government”
… it gets people in “free” societies thinking – why should anything my tax money pays for that my government does be secret?
Exposing the lies gives the scumbags fewer places to hide – and that is a good thing
slightly OT:
I hope the WikiLeaks drama is diverting attention from Rosen’s threat of a tell-all document dump on 2 December and that AIPAC didn’t successfully buy him off with the $20 million for which he sued them. I hope he has extended his deadline waiting for a time more conducive to media attention.
You have to tip your hat to Assange. He has put his life on the line in order to expose the gap between what politicians, diplomats and lobbyists say in public and what they do in private. It is a historic blow for the public versus the slimers who think they alone should be allowed to control decisions on peace, war and politics. It is not surprising that they are having an apoplexy and I hope there will be more to come. It demonstrates very clearly how arrogant are the power mongers who think the public should be fed a mixture of minimal information and outright deceit. And of course the MSM collaboration in the whole charade.
Interesting how a blast of true democracy, which is absolutely dependent on truth and transparency, is sending them into a panic. It hasn’t put anyone’s life in danger, just the reputations of all the charlatans and bloodsuckers who live lavishly off the taxpayer and do nothing except act in the interests of corporate power and undemocratic ideologies.
“All the stuff about the sexual assault charges against Assange and his cult/theater/dropout background may be true (and let him be tried); but these matters are actually trivial next to his political motivation and action.”
No. Rape isn’t trivial. Of course it might very well be a frameup, a way of shutting up someone who takes on the system, but if he really did do what he is accused of, he’s yet another man who thinks he doesn’t have to listen to that word “no”. (Rather like Israel with the Palestinians).
Other than that, I agree and no matter what the truth of the rape charge, what wikileaks has done is historic. Or anyway, I hope so.
It appears that the most Assange can be accused of is consensual sex without a condom, which is considered a crime in Sweden. Certainly nothing as heinous as rape:
link to crikey.com.au
And see here for the dubious past of one of his accusers:
link to counterpunch.com
memories of lewinsky: different definitions of sexual crimes or ‘sexual relations’
“consensual sex without a condom, which is considered a crime in Sweden”
so how do the Swedes go about making legal little Swedes? Do they buy them from Ikea as a partially assembled platpack … and an ill-fitting allen key?
Otherwise, boy, the Swedes are gonna have a serious demographic problem with all those illegal little swedes taking over.
there is nothing more galling than hypocrisy, the arrogant mix of dishonesty and condescension. and just for the record, senator schumer, has your office ever leaked confidential information before? no, no, of course not.
Why say that like “anarchist” and “left” are mutually exclusive when it’s just the opposite? The only difference is that the non-anarchist has yet to truly understand the state.
an older version of the tale:
link to marxist.com
i’m weird too!
I’d call myself a ‘curious’ creature.
curiosity killed the cat;)
Phil,
Lets also remember that Wikileaks has been a worldwide organization, exposing corruption in Australia, Peru, Spain, Iceland etc. The Manning leak was an enormous coup for transparency advocates, personally I’d like to see sites like yours doing more for that young man. Assange has also said that the next leak was going to involve a very large bank. It seems he is an equal opportuniy exposer.
I think what is most telling about the political and media establishments reaction to Wikileaks is that they just assume that what they do should be secret. 99% of those documents are blather, the just reflexively think it should be secret for the public. Its really quite remarkable, that even when the SECRETARY OF DEFENSE is saying that there has been no evidence of harm to US troops, guys like Chuck Schumer, Joe Lieberman and Chris Matthews are free to basically call the guy a murderer.
Also, I think that maybe the most important, but largely overlooked revelation in the new leaks is that the Spanish government agreed to let the torture of its citizens slide, under pressure from the US. Its provoked widespread protest and is all over the papers in Spain.
I personally think what Assange and Co. is doing transcends any sort of “agenda” in specific terms; I don’t get the sense that he is out to stop any one injustice in particular. And that’s what makes him so dangerous.
He’s selling truth, documented truth, untouched by uncle Sam and his mainstream town-criers.
Apparently the global market place has gone wild for this new brand, new form of information: The Unadulterated Truth (TUT).
I’m really seeing Julian as a businessman here – he sells news and his specialty is extreme news – extreme politics most definitely not fit for the faint-hearted politician.
Seems very fitting for our day and age.
We can now truly call our age the age of extremism.
Taxi,
To the extent that Assange and Co. have so far provided a somewhat effective counterweight to the extremist “secrecy regime” they can be viewed as “extremists.” But that, it seems, has more to do with the nature of the states they are exposing.
Israel first Schumer does not want the truth out about anything. He clearly believes he is one of the elite, knows better etc. This guy voted for the Iraq war resolution, and every anti Palestinian and Iran piece of legislation that he and the I lobby can come up with. Voted for Mukasey all ready.
Down deep Chris Matthews know if he and the other MSMer’s had been doing their jobs and providing the public with accurate, in depth information before the war and on so many other critical issues there would be no need for Wikileaks. The MSM’s failure to do their jobs created the need for Assange, Bradley and Wikileaks
This so true: “The MSM’s failure to do their jobs created the need for Assange, Bradley and Wikileaks.” All government leaders prefer that
nobody knows the truth but them and what they are really doing, and they like the usual classified insurance that the truth will not be revealed until it’s ancient history (and they are dead). Israel is an outstanding example of this; you can watch as it periodically extends the period of no document disclosure related to its own early founding years. Imagine if there was a Wikileaks while Wilson brought us WW1, the Fed, the IRS. Or while Truman’s office door was being battered by the Zionists, or while Hitler and Stalin drew up their pact… Or, more recently, while Bush Jr (now peddling his arrogant, stupid book) was deciding (the Decider) to attack Iraq?
“All the stuff about the sexual assault charges against Assange and his cult/theater/dropout background may be true (and let him be tried); but these matters are actually trivial next to his political motivation and action.”
ok, this is a little alarming. phil, i love your analysis, as always, but sexual assault is never, ever trivial. hopefully the charges are unfounded, and assange shouldn’t be treated as guilty until he’s proven so, and yes, that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the tremendous service provided by the wikileaks drop, but for real: sexual assault is always serious.
this actually points to a trend i noticed on another thread, where folks were defending the us’ discrimination against black folks, indigenous folks, japanese victims of internment, etc, in order to argue that israel is less of a democracy than the us.
israel is obv not a democracy. it’s an apartheid state. but in order to defend that arg, there’s ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to minimize the apartheid practices we see here in the us, and have seen here historically. when a defender of israel cites us examples in their arg, what’s wrong with acknowledging the truth in those arguments?? when we don’t acknowledge the painfully obvious flaws within our own governing system, we’re being hypocritical.
hopefully folks who work toward/support justice in palestine are working toward/supporting justice for all oppressed people, right?
Of course sexual assault is serious. But the when, where, what, when of the alleged assault sure conveniently lined up with these releases. One would have to question the timing and the claims.
“sexual assault is always serious”
Yes, but accusation of rape are not always serious or justified. In this particular case, it’s not just or primarily the victim of the alleged rape, but powerful people trying to get this guy arrested and locked up by whatever means they can find. Especially since it is doubtful that Assange has broken any laws with the leaks that have upset the people in power. Also: mass rapes are fairly common during war, so I think Phil makes a valid point. But I agree with the rest of your comment.
One of the accusers has someting interesting to say in this area. Google for “Sjustegsmodell for legal revenge” (posted Jan 19, 2010) and translate Swedish to English (or whatever)
Any potential legal case against Assange, even if valid, is thoroughly tainted. Could he get a fair trial after this trial-by-media? No, and that is the whole point.
The only good news about this absurd focus on Assange is that it allows his other colleagues to continue their work out of the limelight. Anyone interested in real analysis of this episode should go to Arthur Silber:
link to powerofnarrative.blogspot.com
Some say Assange is CIA. But the way the wingies are foaming over him, I doubt it. Read Fenton over at thisislondon.co.uk. He nails it.
So Bush and Cheney launched a war based on lies and killed hundreds of thousands. But Schumer thinks that’s okay. Obama continues those wars. But that’s okay. Sharon and Netanyahu have orchestrated the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese. That’s okay.
But Julian Assange must be tried (and found guilty — no question about that) and punished.
Some standard, Chuck Schumer.
from 09TELAVIV936:
“Netanyahu said that learning to live with a nuclear
Iran would be a big mistake which would lead to a different,
more dangerous world. While he noted that he could not say
for certain that Iran would use a nuclear weapon against
Israel, if Iran had a bomb Israelis would have to ask that
question every day. This is a historic moment, and leaders
have a responsibility to make decisions.”
If Israelis had to ask that question every day, it would make them think twice about playing God with the untermenschen like they do every day. If Israelis had to ask that question every day, it would lead to a balance of force and MAD otherwise known as “peace”. And it will be a good thing for world peace for Iran and Israel to get rid of both Ahmadinejad and Netanyahu, and elect responsible leaders who can skillfully make peace, instead of cave-man yahoos shaking shin-bones and hurling insults at one another across the Jordan river.
09TELAVIV1098
¶1. (SBU) Organized crime (OC) has longstanding roots in Israel, but
in recent years there has been a sharp increase in the reach and
impact of OC networks. In seeking a competitive advantage in such
lucrative trades as narcotics and prostitution, Israeli crime groups
have demonstrated their ability and willingness to engage in violent
attacks on each other with little regard for innocent bystanders.
The Israeli National Police (INP) and the courts have engaged in a
vigorous campaign against organized crime leaders, including the
creation of a new specialized anti-OC unit, but they remain unable
to cope with the full scope of the problem. Organized crime in
Israel now has global reach, with direct impact inside the United
States. Post is currently utilizing all available tools to deny
Israeli OC figures access to the United States in order to prevent
them from furthering their criminal activities on U.S. soil. End
Summary.
Crime War Hits the Streets of Israel
————————————-
¶2. (SBU) In November 2008, Israeli crime boss Yaakov Alperon was
assassinated in broad daylight in a gruesome attack on the streets
of Tel Aviv, only about a mile away from the Embassy. According to
several media accounts, a motor scooter pulled up alongside
Alperon’s car and the rider attached a sophisticated explosive
device with a remote detonator to the car door. The bomb killed
Alperon and his driver, and injured two innocent pedestrians. The
hit was the latest in a series of violent attacks and reprisals, and
indicated a widening crime war in Israel.
=====================================================
“a motor scooter pulled up alongside car and the rider attached a sophisticated explosive device with a remote detonator to the car door.”
keep moving, nothing to see here
Anyone know if this is a common method of assassination? I hadn’t heard of it until I read that cable on organised crime in Israel, then just a day or so later I read the 2 Iranian nuclear scientists were killed in the same way..
Israeli agents have been using adhesive car bombs since forever; it’s quicker to kill someone and perhaps a few others than to go through all that painful business of capture and trial. Let’s accept it; they’re just basic thugs.
In the Guardian today :
and :
link to guardian.co.uk
As for the “thug” epithet :
link to original.antiwar.com
Now, it seems to me that there is little difference between :
1 : setting up a highly sophisticated car window bomb plot
2 : any mafia-style assassination
3 : terrorist activities
In other words, I fail to see the distinction between any secret service targeted assassination activities, mafia targeted assassination activities, and terrorism. It’s all birds of the same feather.
I didn’t know anything about attachable bombs, so I googled it, and found:
link to gatekeepersecurity.com
It’s fun to read; especially the bit where they detail the facilities they propose to protect: royal palaces, embassies, petroleum facilities, nuclear stations and 5-star hotels (just to name a few).
Fun? Ugh.
Can whoever posted that Juan Cole link that allows you to search the leaks database post it again? Please? My computer is in the shop, I’m using my iPad, and I can’t search the pages here.
MRW ~ I didn’t post that link but this is a searchable database of the wikileaks cables:
link to cablesearch.org
here’s another wiki access out of switzerland.
WHOA! only 874 cables released? So says cableserch.org. Thanks guys for the links, BTW.
This leaking could go on for years at this rate.
What is the criteria for release? Who is doing it? The papers or Wikileaks?
I don’t know what the criteria is, but I’d like to know. At the moment it seems random, there’s probably some logic but I can’t pick it. I think the most compelling way to release them would probably be in chronological batches..
It’s now wikileaks doing the releasing.
I don’t see this document drop as being a big game changer(except perhaps to stiffen the penalties on whistle blowers). Here’s why:
1. Too much unsorted data at once. The impact of any one piece of information will be lessened because it will be sharing the spotlight with everything else: i.e. revelations about Korea will have to share news time with revelations about the Mideast. But just in general, it’s too much to process.
2. No one really cares about diplomats being insulted. Remember when Biden was insulted by the Israelis? It didn’t change anything.
3. How much of this stuff can really be considered a surprise? All the stuff talked about in the cables is happening in the real world. And if the content of these documents is a surprise to the public, it can’t be a surprise to the diplomats involved-these guys spy on each other all the time.
A more likely scenario for a game changer is that people will get tired of having to wait two hours to get their penises x rayed at the airport and will want to do whatever it takes to stop having to go through it-even if it means making peace in the Mideast.
Wikileaks IS TOTALLY banal – there’s no ‘there’ there.
Nothing that Assange has ever released has ever been a threat to the US/Isreali/War-on-Terra narrative. Nothing. Even the Helicopter Video was just old material in a new format, repackaged if you will – there were many such videos available on the net as far back as 2003. Assange hasn’t told anyone anything new – nothing that people paying attention didn’t already know or could not have easily guessed for themselves.
So the hulla-balloo is just media-generated hype over nothing. Hence I conclude that he’s either
OR
Either way it’s all a smokescreen –
Zbigniew Brzezinski doesn’t think all the leaked information coming out of Wikileaks is a result of Army PFC Bradley Manning, as a matter of fact he suspects a foreign intelligence service may be providing the more embarrassing leaks. In a PBS interview with Judy Woodruff, ZB lays out his thinking
Ooh, ze big new. I admire your patient typing. Could you, perhaps find someone less shady to buttress your argument?
Rubbish! There’s plenty of new stuff, or formal confirmation.
If it was banal, do you think US Gov would react like it has?
The latest doc-dump is just gossip – nothing of any value to anyone.
Ooh, ze big new. I admire your patient typing. Could you, perhaps find someone less shady to buttress your argument?
No, – my argument is just fine as it is, thanks anyway –
Zbig may be a psychopath, just like the Zionists, but UNLIKE the Zionists he’s not a particularly Racist Psychopath, which is probably why the Zionists dislike him so much. Zibg hates the Russkies, I’ll grant that, so he’s prepared to work with anyone, including Arabs, Iranians etc. This annoys the Zionists immensely, which is why they hate him. Unlike them he doesn’t allow the dictates of a group of Tribalist racist fascists to dictate his actions/alliances in the course of what he perceives as ‘serving US interests’
If it was banal, do you think US Gov would react like it has?
In order to give the man credibility for when he later starts releasing the real poisonous dis-information. – as I already said in the post above, so you could possibly benefit re-reading it, this time with the blinkers set to ‘off’
Assange claimed, many months ago, that the US Military wants to assassinate him – yet he has swaned around for months now, making pre-publicised public appearance after pre-publicised public appearance. Not exactly the actions of a man in fear for his life from the world’s most vicious military machine
Here’s a truism for ya to chew on: If the US Military wanted to assassinate some individual, without the benefit of a state-security apparatus to protect them (and often in spite of having the benefit of state security apparatus to protect them) then they WOULD assassinate them, and pretty quickly at that. No question about it. Only a fool would argue against the proposition.
BUT despite claiming months ago that the US Military wants to assassinate him, Julian Assange is not dead.
Ergo the US military does not really want to assassinate him
Q.E.D.
Deploying hard power has its drawbacks. Che lives on. Best to deprive someone of his livelihood and bribe, or extort, your “friends” to give him up. Remember Honduras? The squeezing continues, out of sight.
OMFG Did someone just really compare Julian Assange with Che??
Wow – the deification is complete – and it didn’t take long, did it?
Ladies and Gentlemen, I can assure you all that Julian Assange is NO Che Guevara
The media and US spin, and indeed that of Assange himself, is that these Wikileak-non-events are seriously damaging to US National security..
If so then that really would need to be dealt with in the most severe fashion, forthwith.
the fact that it has not, tells an intelligent person all they really need to know.
You keep on worshiping at the ‘Altar of Assange’, and I’ll keep on laughing at ya
@Kapok : a massive flaw in your curt rebuttal, has just occurred to me, Kapok
It was Assange himself who started spreading the lie that the US military had put out hit on him
Hu Bris ~ Glenn Greenwald has a challenge for you (each of his points is hyperlinked so go to the article for more info):
If there’s Nothing New in these documents, can Jonathan Capehart (or any other “journalist” claiming this) please point to where The Washington Post previously reported on these facts, all revealed by the WikiLeaks disclosures:
(1) the U.S. military formally adopted a policy of turning a blind eye to systematic, pervasive torture and other abuses by Iraqi forces;
(2) the State Department threatened Germany not to criminally investigate the CIA’s kidnapping of one of its citizens who turned out to be completely innocent;
(3) the State Department under Bush and Obama applied continuous pressure on the Spanish Government to suppress investigations of the CIA’s torture of its citizens and the 2003 killing of a Spanish photojournalist when the U.S. military fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (see The Philadelphia Inquirer’s Will Bunch today about this: “The day Barack Obama Lied to me”);
(4) the British Government privately promised to shield Bush officials from embarrassment as part of its Iraq War “investigation”;
(5) there were at least 15,000 people killed in Iraq that were previously uncounted;
(6) “American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world” about the Iraq war as it was prosecuted, a conclusion the Post’s own former Baghdad Bureau Chief wrote was proven by the WikiLeaks documents;
(7) the U.S.’s own Ambassador concluded that the July, 2009 removal of the Honduran President was illegal — a coup — but the State Department did not want to conclude that and thus ignored it until it was too late to matter;
(8) U.S. and British officials colluded to allow the U.S. to keep cluster bombs on British soil even though Britain had signed the treaty banning such weapons, and,
(9) Hillary Clinton’s State Department ordered diplomats to collect passwords, emails, and biometric data on U.N. and other foreign officials, almost certainly in violation of the Vienna Treaty of 1961.
That’s just a sampling.
This is what Joe Lieberman and his comrades are desperately trying to suppress — literally prevent it from being accessible on the Internet. And “journalists” like Capehart play along by continuing to insist there’s “nothing new” being revealed by WikiLeaks despite their never having reported any of this.
Sorry, nothing personal, BUT I don’t hold Glen Greenwald in quite the high regard which you appear to obviously do, so his questions don’t really impress me in quite the way they appear to so obviously impress others.
But you may have noticed, or YOU may not, but I certainly did from only reading the little excerpt which you quoted above – that Mr Greenwald has attempted to frame this latest Wikileaks-non-event in terms of Washington Post reportage of these issues.
I’m not at all interested in what the WaPo did or did not report, and I honestly cannot remember when I last read ANY so-called ‘News’ report from that ever-so esteemed organ.
My only thought, upon reading only the excerpt you posted above, was that the very FACT that Mr Greenwald has tried to ‘sex-up’ these Wikileaks-non-events by trying to spin this as ‘What the WaPo did or did not report’ is in itself a little ‘iffy’, IMHO.
If Mr Greenwald wants to frame yet ANOTHER Wikileaks-non-event in those terms, then he’s perfectly welcome to do so. I have no wish to waste my time by participating in that Mr Greenwald’s particular little circus.
From quickly scanning the little bit you excerpted (I didn’t bother to click the link and actually waste my time reading the rest of whatever Mr Greenwald considers to be important, I’m really not interested in his obfucationary ‘challanges’) I can see that I have already provided an argument which more than adequately covers each and every point raised by Mr Greenwald in the excerpt you quoted:
the only thing I would add to that statement is the phrase [anything of substance] as in:
If you yourself have any particular arguments against what I have already said, then I’d be more than happy to at least consider formulating a reply, but I really have no interest in indulging in some sort of ‘hyperlinking-tag-game’ wherein I’m expected to reply to each and every scribbling on this subject, by so-called ‘leading-lights’ of US-progressive Journalism [such as it is ;-)]
‘obfucationary’ = obfuscatory
&
“I have no wish to waste my time by participating in that Mr Greenwald’s particular little circus.” should read as: “I have no wish to waste my time by participating in Mr Greenwald’s particular little circus.”
You’re being evasive Hu Bris.
This isn’t about Glenn Greenwald, or the Washington Post (in particular). If you’d gone to the link you’d have discovered the context in which Greenwald mentions Wa Po: he was responding to Jonathon Capeheart (of Wa Po) who had asserted in an MSNBC panel, that Greenwald was also on, that there was nothing new and all the info in these cables was already out there. Greenwald’s overarching point is that, Washington Post or otherwise, there is info in these cables that hasn’t previously been reported. You haven’t responded to that, just slagged off on
1. Greenwald
2. people who respect Greenwald (we’re “easily impressed”)
3. Wa Po.
What you haven’t done is tried to address the substance of Greenwald’s argument, which is that the cables contain previously unreported revelations. Why don’t you address some of the points on the list? I get that “people paying attention” will not be surprised by much in the cables, but that’s irrelevant. The mainstream media hasn’t reported on this stuff before and there’s an awful lot of people not paying attention that the media has failed to inform.
Jay Rosen on wikileaks: The watchdog press died; we have this instead.
Your original post consisted of two points:
1. no new info
2. wikileaks is an intel op, and Assange is either a willing or unwilling participant.
The first bears an uncanny resemblance to the line the media and political establishment has used to try and downplay each of wikileaks big three leaks of 2010. The second is more conspiratorial. What I’m trying to work out is which message is more important to you. Are you carrying water for the establishment or genuinely questioning wikileaks?
I’m naturally sceptical, I’m open the second point of view, but your argument rests on the first point which I think is obviously false. That you haven’t responded to the thrust of Greenwald’s argument suggests to me you that you know that too. The cables do contain new info – some of it is substantial – but that doesn’t necessarily mean wikileaks isn’t an intel op..
You’re still pimping Glenn Greenwald? I already told you I’m not interested in Glenn Greenwald and what he considers to be important.
If YOU have something to say about what I have written here, then say it.
But I already told you that I’m not going to play some hyperlinking-tag-game’ wherein I’m expected to reply to each and every scribbling on this subject, by so-called ‘leading-lights’ of US-progressive Journalism [such as it is ;-)]
“The first bears an uncanny resemblance to the line the media and political establishment has used to try and downplay each of wikileaks big three leaks of 2010″
YOU appear to be claiming that ‘the media’ is trying to downplay these Wikileak-non-events, but that’s not true at all – who the hell is giving them so much publicity then, if not ‘the media’? Who are Le Monde, El Pais in Spain, The Guardian in Britain and Der Spiegel in Germany if not members of what you call ‘the media’?
Just because some guy from the WaPo has tried to play this down does not negate the fact that the media-orgs I just listed – , big ones with big budgets and with lot’s of influence – are milking this whole Wikileaks-non-event.
Der Speigel is part of the Axel Springer Group, a massive German Media Org and SERIOUSLY Pro-Israel*, NYTimes is a major Paper of Record in the US and SERIOUSLY Pro-Israel, and the Guardian is a major paper of record in the UK, and LeMonde and EL Pais too in their respective countries – all 5 are Internationally recognised as Major influence peddlers in the Media World. So what ‘the media’ are you talking about? ‘
The Media’ which pays no attention to 5 of the biggest Papers of Record in the Western World, THAT media? What planet does your ‘the media’ exist on, because it certainly ain’t Planet Earth.
“Are you carrying water for the establishment or genuinely questioning wikileaks?”
Are you serious? -
Have you ever read anything I’ve ever written here? If you are in any doubt as to whether or not I’m genuinely questioning wikileaks, then you really have a serious problem with basic English comprehension, my friend.
“I’m open the second point of view, but your argument rests on the first point which I think is obviously false.”
My argument does not rest on the first point at all. The first point is only part of the argument, and despite your thoughts on the subject, the previous 2 Data-dumps had nothing new in them, nothing which was not already known and nothing that a reasonably well-read individual, with a working knowledge of the subject-matter, and with a basic knowledge of how the world REALLY works (as opposed to what people are told in school and college, or on TV, about how the world works) could not have guessed for themselves.
Assange himself started a rumour (he is the sole source for this) that the US Military planned to assassinate him.
So far Assange is alive and kicking.
I notice you have completely ignored that part of the argument.
If the US Military wanted him dead, then he WOULD be dead.
He’s Not, though is he?
So it should by now be obvious, even to people who like to think that Glenn Greenwald is, like, ‘Da Bomb!!, that the US Military does NOT want to assassinate Julian Assange.
So either YOU are claiming that the US Military is soooooooooo utterly incompetent that it cannot even manage to find Julian Assange, even though he has until recently been advertising his whereabouts by calling press conferences, attending many interviews etc
OR
any reasonably observant and reasonably intelligent person, with an objective view, would have to now admit that there is a very high degree of likelihood that Julian Assange was lying when he made the claim that the US Military was trying to assassinate him.
If you’re prepared to admit that you are willing to put your faith in a man that in all likelihood appears to be quite happy to make-up lies in order to make himself seem more credible, then so be it
* BTW: YOU may not be aware of this but Axel Springer Verlag, publishers of Der Speigel actually have a clause in their employment contracts that journalists who write for Axel Springer publications MUST support the Zionist state.
“So either YOU are claiming that the US Military is soooooooooo utterly incompetent…..” should read: “So either YOU are prepared to claim that the US Military is soooooooooo utterly incompetent…”
Well that was the whole kitchen sink.
I’ve said it. You’re making the assertion there’s no new information. So scroll back a bit and there’s a list of disclosures from the cables. Show me where they’ve been reported before. All I’m asking is that you demonstrate why this is old news. “Because I said so” isn’t convincing.
Til then we’re at an impasse.
Ah, so what you are demanding from me is that I respond to every point made in every lazy copy&paste job which you post here, putting a LOT of work into reading and the responding to every little point which SOME OTHER person made, unconnected to either of us and not a participant in this conversation between us, somewhere else on the internet, while all YOU have to do is copy and paste some small excerpt and link and then petulantly DEMAND, while stamping your little foot, and that I deal with all the issues raised therein, otherwise you will claim that I am being ‘evasive’?
That seems a little bit of an unfair division of labour to me – are you prepared to pay me for my labours? I’m not prepared to put all that work in when all YOU have to do is just copy and paste SOMEONE ELSE’s work at your leisure.
What did your last slave die of?
As I already told YOU twice now, I’m not prepared to play some hyperlinking-tag-game’ wherein I’m expected to reply to each and every scribbling on this subject, by so-called ‘leading-lights’, and all-round “Assange Fan-boi’s”, of US-progressive Journalism [such as it is ;-)]
If you had at any point shown that you were prepared to get off yer ass and do some of the heavy lifting here, by actually being prepared to use YOUR OWN WORDS in your replies to me, rather than very lazily copy&pasting SOMEONE ELSE’s work, then I might, just MIGHT mind you, be prepared to reply on a case-by-case basis.
But since you seem only prepared to lazily sit on your ass and simply C&P SOMEONE ELSE’s work, while petulantly demanding that I do a LOT of WORK to rebut, point-by-point, whatever it is that you have simply lazily just C&Ped into a ‘reply’ box on Mondoweiss, I’m just going to continue to ignore your childish and selfish demands, and treat them with the contempt the so richly deserve, mKay?
And speaking of ‘evasive’ – you STILL have not addressed the very salient point that there is a high probability that Julian Assange was most likely lying when he claimed a few months back that the US Military wanted to assassinate him.
That’s 3 replies from you now in which you have utterly failed to respond to the salient points – and you call ME ‘evasive’?
YOU also have ignored the point that it is also very unlikely that Julian Assange got any of these cables from Bradley Manning, since it is unlikely that Manning would not have been in a position to access any of this sort of material. Yet another evasion on your part.
So who did Assange get this info from?
The most logical conclusion is that either some foreign intelligence service, OR someone ‘rogue’ in some US intelligence service, supplied him with this information
One thing which we can be certain of is that no one in ANY intelligence services, ‘foreign’ or otherwise, is the least bit interested in providing either you or any of the rest of us with ‘The Truth™’
Therefore it is safe to assume that at the very least Assange is being used as part of some intelligence-service based ‘perception management’ exercise, . . . . at the very least. And that’s me being kind to him and giving the dodgy, probable liar, the benefit of the doubt.
And given that virtually everything he has so far released has helped mainly to further the US/Isreali/War-on-Terra narrative, it is not at all irrational to suspect that he himself is fully aware of his role and is quite happy to play this role.
“since it is unlikely that Manning would not have been in a position to access any of this sort of material” should read: “since it is unlikely that Manning would have been in a position to access any of this sort of material”
I’m done here. We have different ideas of what passes as evidence so conversation is pointless.
Hu Bris, mondoweiss in place of manning – nice psychological slip?
Hmmm….wheels turning
oh I see, couldn’t persuade Glen Greenwald to write your replies for ya?
@ Danaa since you do not quote what it is you are referring to, I cannot parse your silly statement.
But like Sumud you appear to have problems with basic English comprehension.
I’m not going to argue for arguments sake.
@ journalists who write for Axel Springer publications MUST support the Zionist state.
If that’s not an example of Zionist ‘control’ over the media, I don’t know what is.
Thanks for that shocking link, HuBris.
Hu Bris,
I understand your point of view, but you — hear me out here — you fall into the trap of suspecting dis-disinformation to the point where you’re confused as to what constitutes reliable information and what constitutes unreliable information.
OK. Let me clarify; the best thing to do is to put all these small pieces of data into the larger picture and see if they fit. If they don’t, then chances are they’re not accurate.
So, I’ll just leave you with a cryptic It takes practice.
Glen asked for too much money, did he?
Why is that? From what I understand, it is fairly easy to access this information (most of it low-level) for a private in the Armed forces. They simply take an oath to not disseminate it.
This is a total misconception. Are you speaking about the NYT picking up on Saudi Arabian leaders supporting action against Iran? If so, you are falling into the trap of accepting the fact that some corrupt leaders would like to see Iran weakened is somehow an ARGUMENT supporting military action. It is an authoritarian argument. The simple fact is that diplomats are in the corridors of power, and their views do not necessarily represent those of the general population. Do you accept the view that if a diplomat says something, it must be true?
The release of these cables are invaluable, not necessarily for the information they all contain, but as an insight into how the diplomatic process operates. The fact that some are implying that strikes on Iran would be a good idea are precisely proof of that.
Keep in mind also that the majority of the documents has not been released yet, so there will be a lot more to say.
@ Avi – like all the others you simply refuse to address anything written so far
Unlike any of you guys, it seems, there were no surprises for me in any of the data-dumps so far. This latest one is mostly just a collection of diplomatic gossip. Me, I don’t have much time for gossip, but judging by the reactions here, some people seem to think it’s vitally important and Assange’s gossiping is somehow gonna damage the US.
for example, I used my brain and that long ago concluded that it was extremely unlikely that Iran had received any missiles from N. Korea – Personally I didn’t need the MSM nor Saint Julian Assange, nor Glen Greenwald to tell me that. I just used my own brain and applied a little logic – you lot should try it sometime, it DOES take practice but if you keep at it you might just manage it in the end.
@ Danaa – “Hu Bris, mondoweiss in place of manning – nice psychological slip? . . . . . . . .Hmmm….wheels turning”,/i>
????
Seriously, Danaa – that’s just gibberish
@ lareineblanche – YOU mean to tell me that the Saudi despots disliking the Iranians some form of ‘News’ to you? Because it wasn’t to me.
There’s plenty of evidence available to anyone that cares to look, that the Saudi’s dislike the Iranians and would like to see them brought low. The Saudis are jealous of anyone else in the region, any other Muslim power, having any influence at all.
again, in what way is this ‘News’?
@ lareineblanche “Keep in mind also that the majority of the documents has not been released yet, so there will be a lot more to say.”
keep in mind that the cables released seemed to have been cherry-picked, by either Assange, or any possible ‘handlers/suppliers’ he may have, or the media groups chosen by him as his cohorts in leaking this info, so for all we know there could be an enormous amount of cable-traffic reporting other gulf-leaders saying the exact opposite, which either Assange has no access to, or for reasons of his own devising, Assange has as yet decided not to release.
Also keep in mind that many of these Diplomatic cables may only contain what the diplomats might think that their political masters want to hear.
You seem a bit confused, and I don’t think you got the gist of my comment. No problem.
You implied that the cables that have so far been leaked, and the order in which they have been leaked, reinforce the neoconservative calls for war against Iran (“the ridiculous US Military/Zionist/War-on-Terra narrative”) in the press. Is this correct? If so, my point stands. The fact that you interpret this as “support” for it (strikes on Iran) is proof that you accept the words of these diplomats and the dutiful reporters’ stories on it as some kind of “argument”. It isn’t. No matter how many diplomats and op-ed propagandists scream on the front pages, or advocate something, it doesn’t give their arguments any more weight, and it doesn’t mean that most people support it.
I don’t think the folks at Wikileaks have much control over how the leaks are presented in the press (although it stands to reason that the Guardian and der Speigel will be more objective than the NYT, and they surely know this), and they can’t dictate to propagandists how the material will be spun.
Plus, some of the cables seem to contradict what you were implying, namely, from Turkey, Syria and China :
link to lobelog.com
Secondly, the fact that Saudi rulers don’t like Iranian power is not news necessarily to everyone, but that was not the point. The fact is that there IS some new information in these cables, but you have to dig through it to get to it. Some has already been given to you, and there will be more.
link to pulsemedia.org
Thirdly, You seem to be waiting for a magic bullet to reveal some ultimate secrets (maybe there are?), and all with the world will be right again, with the dragons slain. I’m afraid you’re going to be disappointed. Those in power have almost unlimited means at their disposal, and they’ll use it to keep that power. The diplomats and others contained in these cables are PART of that power, so why are you surprised that all of them don’t speak out against that very power that sustains them and provides them their livelihoods?
“Thirdly, You seem to be waiting for a magic bullet to reveal some ultimate secrets (maybe there are?), and all with the world will be right again, with the dragons slain.”
It appears everyone arguing against me seems to have problems with basic English comprehension – so I’ll make it clear – I am waiting for nothing of the sort because, given what I’ve seen so far, it is pretty clear to me that this is an intelligence-service perception-management exercise.
That this is not clear to any of you, is obvious.
Your collective inability to see this is not really something I can do anything about, since it seems you are all so convinced of little Julian’s bona fides, despite there being no evidence to support such a supposition regarding Mr Julian Assange.
The fact that you are all so willing to ignore the implications of:
is again not something I can do anything about.
But then what would one expect from a group of people who, given the evidence of the latest replies to my comments, appear to have such a poor grasp of basic English comprehension?
“Plus, some of the cables seem to contradict what you were implying, namely, from Turkey, Syria and China :
Again I make the point that if anyone needed Wikileaks to confirm this then they have not been paying attention – All 3 countries have already indicated, more than once, that they would not support an attack on Iran.
So it is no seekrit that they would not support an attack on Iran, and the real surprise, and something which would seriously discredit Wikileaks, possibly even in your collective view (though given the blinkers displayed so far, even that is not certain) , would be if they reported that there were cables from those 3 which said otherwise.
How you came to the conclusion that such cables contradict anything I have said on the matter is quite puzzling. You appear to be making this up as you go along. I really question your ability to understand basic English, since I have made no statement regarding the thoughts of any of those countries.
“The diplomats and others contained in these cables are PART of that power, so why are you surprised that all of them don’t speak out against that very power that sustains them and provides them their livelihoods?”
again your apparent lack of basic English comprehension seems to be causing you some confusion- the only comment of mine which a rational person could reasonably suppose that you are actually referring to, is:
Now anyone can see that that statement contains no hint of surprise on MY part. Other than a basic lack of honesty and a subsequent desire to deliberately misunderstand my words, I can think of nothing else but lack of Basic comprehension skills which could cause such apparent inability on your part to coherently parse the meaning of my statements so far.
“so for all we know there could be an enormous amount of cable-traffic reporting other gulf-leaders saying the exact opposite”
perhaps you were referring to the above statement when you made the mistake of saying
Please note: none of the leaders or representatives of any of the 3 countries you have named would in anyway qualify under the heading “gulf-leaders”
Something Stinks about Wikileaks By F. William Engdahl, 3 August 2010
All Assange’s ‘leaks’ [which look damaging but aren't because virtually everything from his last 2 data dumps was already known] help re-enforce the ridiculous US Military/Zionist/War-on-Terra narrative
Wikileaks: a political diversion
Never mind that banker and Politician over there with their pockets full of YOUR money, Oh look over here: juicy gossip!!!!
Wikileaks claim they have info on a major US bank to be released in the next few months. Will be interesting to see how that plays out..
“Will be interesting to see how that plays out..
there’s an old adage goes something like:
fool me once – shame on you
fool me twice – shame on me”
you appear to want to be fooled a FOURTH time.
Oh well , takes all sorts, don’t it?
Well Hu Bris, I just love it how you already know the contents of a future leak and what will happen when they’re released. Absolute confidence that you’ll be right (and I’ll be wrong, despite my not making any claims about what the outcome of the bank leak will be), without a shred of evidence! You’re either psychic, or someone who expects everything they say to be taken as gospel. Not my thing.
Yes –
Once may be happenstance,
Twice is definitely suspect,
but
Thrice is clear confirmation.
And for some strange reason you apparently desire to be fooled a FOURTH time.
Like I said – “It takes all sorts, don’t it?”
I’m not the one claiming to have infallible knowledge of future events HuBris.
you don’t appear to have any knowledge, or even be able think for yourself, nor make a coherent argument using your own words, from what I’ve seen so far.
Copy&Pasting seems to be about your limit.
From the evidence above, from your complete inability to address specific points made by me, it appears that if Glen Greenwald has not already published a post addressing some specific aspect of this Wikileaks farce, you seem completely unable to formulate any reply at all, as witnessed on 3 or four occasions above.
That’s why I’m pretty sure of my conclusions. and why you are avoiding discussion on so many points: I think for myself, rather than allow the likes of Glen Greenwald or Jay Rosen to do my thinking for me
Again Hubris, I’m not interested in arguments for arguments sake. You are it seems, and when someone doesn’t want to play your silly game you resort to ad hominem attacks. If you expect to be taken seriously try dialling back the belligerence.
whatever . . . I thought you’d finished with this – you already said so twice now, and here you are back to tell me for a third time how you don’t want to talk to me any more – this is very strange behaviour Sumud, IMHO – some might even call it obsessive. ‘SEND’ ain’t always your friend, Sumud
Everything you wanted to know
about Wikileaks but didn’t know to ask
As if on que, my html-editing conspires to prove my point – See hitting ‘send’ ain’t always the correct thing to do, Sumud – now my previous post is chock-full of ‘bold’ when all I meant to do, Sumud, was bold just one word. Irony, huh? S’bitch ain’t it?
Making a Mockery of the Real Crime of Rape
Assange Beseiged
By ISRAEL SHAMIR and PAUL BENNETT
link to counterpunch.com
Does anyone know if all 250,000 cables have been released to the selected newspapers, or are they being released one-by-one, or in a grouping, by Wikileaks?
If the dates of these cables go from 1966 to February 2010, why are they not being released in order starting in 1966?
(1) the earlier dates are out of the secret time limit.
(2) starting at the beginning provides context and a narrative.
(3) the public wouldn’t stand for the government stopping their release as it got closer to today.
Netanyahu: Wikileaks revelations were good for Israel
The fallout begins. No Security Clearance for bloggers
Have to read the whole post to fully appreciate it. This site has a number of other interesting posts on the wikileaks drop as well.