Former Bush Advisor on Wikileaks

[bloodyminded]

It's good to know that the entire political class isn't engaging in warfare against knowledge and accountability.

In Washington’s polarized political environment, Republicans and Democrats seem to agree on a few things: That the government, in the name of fighting terrorism, has the right to listen in on all of our phone conversations and read our e-mails, even if it has no compelling reason for doing so. That the government can use machines at the airport that basically conduct the equivalent of strip searches of every passenger. That the government, for as long as it wants, can withhold any information from the public that it decides is in the national interest and is classified. And that when someone reveals this information, they are reviled on all sides, with the press corps staying silent.

When did we decide that revealing the truth about the government is wrong? I recall during the Clinton administration when Republicans expressed outrage over a White House health care task force holding “secret” meetings and not releasing the names of attendees or the topics of discussion. And then not many years later, Democrats expressing similar outrage at the Bush administration’s secrecy when it held private meetings related to energy policy. Now both sides have gotten together to attack WikiLeaks over the opposite situation: They are criticizing the Internet watchdog for openly releasing information related to how our government conducts foreign policy.

.................

When did we decide that we trust the government more than its citizens? And that revealing the truth about the government is wrong? And why is the media complicit in this? Did we not learn anything from the run-up to the Iraq war when no one asked hard questions about the justifications for the war and when we accepted statements from government officials without proper pushback?

And shouldn’t news organizations be defending WikiLeaks and doing some soul-searching of their own about why they aren’t devoting more resources to the search for the truth?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/common-sense/maybe-the-government-would-earn-more-of-our-trust-if-it-invaded-our-privacy-less-20101202

[GostHacked]

I am way ahead of you on 'don't trust the government'.

[Shady]

And shouldn’t news organizations be defending WikiLeaks

No.

and doing some soul-searching of their own about why they aren’t devoting more resources to the search for the truth?

No. Because real news organizations also have certain responsibilities. Also, devoting more resources to breaking the law isn't my idea of a good idea.

But this whole discussion does beg the question. Why didn't the defenders of WikiLeaks also come to the defense of Scooter Libby and/or Richard Armitage? What about coming to the defense of those involved in Climategate? Er...sorry...Hackergate, which it was dubbed by many of the now defenders of WikiLeaks. It's interesting that to you colossal hypocrites, that your politics decides which leakers you champion. Pathetic as usual.

[BubberMiley]

Why didn't the defenders of WikiLeaks also come to the defense of Scooter Libby and/or Richard Armitage? What about coming to the defense of those involved in Climategate? Er...sorry...Hackergate, which it was dubbed by many of the now defenders of WikiLeaks.

They did. You just choose to believe they didn't because it suits the "us vs. them" talking points you've been fed.

[bloodyminded]

But this whole discussion does beg the question. Why didn't the defenders of WikiLeaks also come to the defense of Scooter Libby and/or Richard Armitage?

Good lord, do you really not understand the night-and-day distinctions here?

The "outing" you refer to was not some desire to expose the truth; it was an intimidation message to those who would oppose a controversial war prosecuted by the most powerful country on Earth.

It was a leak aimed against people who oppose the government.

So much for your "small government" conservatism. That claim is usually a fantasy anyway, as those who claim it are generally Big Government statists.

What about coming to the defense of those involved in Climategate?

Where have I criticized that situation?

Perhaps you could link to my objection for me?

It's interesting that to you colossal hypocrites, that your politics decides which leakers you champion. Pathetic as usual.

Now that's funny, Shady. See above.

And read carefully:

I do not object to the "climategate/hackergate" situation;

But you do object to the wikileaks situation.

Because of your politics.

In other words, exactly what you (falsely) accuse me of doing, is in fact exactly what you are doing.

Priceless.

Edited December 10, 2010 by bloodyminded

[GostHacked]

No.

Yes they should be defending things like Wikileaks. If they are not defending them, then they are nothing but a mouth piece for the government. These leaks have real issues and real consequences. Not like having a movie star on the front page of CNN or crap like that. To me this is the real stuff, and this really matters.

Whistle blowers need an avenue to call out the bad things that our governments are doing. This is how we gain accountability for it all. When their dirty laundry is exposed for all to see, you will see a huge change in how news is gathered and reported. And then you see a change in how government is operated. Remember Obama wanted more transparency for government. Resistance to the Wikileaks shows that Obama is not genuine in wanting open government. It's quite the opposite. Seeing the damage control Hillary and others are taking part in shows that they do not want open government as well.

No. Because real news organizations also have certain responsibilities. Also, devoting more resources to breaking the law isn't my idea of a good idea.

Real news organizations have a responsibility to bring us unbiased true investigative journalism. No matter what it is. We see NOTHING like that from the MSM, and it's been like that for about 20+ years now. So one can conclude that if the information is not government approved, then it's obviously not true and obviously won't get reported. Unless you are of the mind that the government should control all the information that is released to the public, and we know how that usually turns out.

But this whole discussion does beg the question. Why didn't the defenders of WikiLeaks also come to the defense of Scooter Libby and/or Richard Armitage? What about coming to the defense of those involved in Climategate? Er...sorry...Hackergate, which it was dubbed by many of the now defenders of WikiLeaks. It's interesting that to you colossal hypocrites, that your politics decides which leakers you champion. Pathetic as usual.

Because it was found that Libby was involved in shady stuff himself. He was tried and convicted. Or have you forgotten that already?

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

From 2001 to 2005, Libby held the titles of Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs and Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States and Assistant to the President during the administration of President George W. Bush.

In October 2005, Libby was indicted by a federal grand jury in connection with the investigation of the leak of the covert identity of Central Intelligence Agency officer Valerie Plame Wilson.[2][3][4] Plame's relationship with the CIA was formerly classified information.[2] Libby was indicted on five counts relating to the Plame affair: Two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements to federal investigators, and one count of obstruction of justice. Libby resigned all three government positions immediately after the indictment was announced.[5]

It exposed him because of his questionable activities with outing an operative which seemed to have information conflicting with the official story from the government about the question of 'Does Iraq have nuke and chem weapons?' just prior before the 2003 invasion. And I think we all know how that went down. Plame was outed because the information she had conflicted with what the Bush Admin wanted to do. Bush and Co were looking for any excuse to invade Iraq and wanted to silence all those who opposed. Outing an agent was the perfect way because that put a scare into the whole intelligence community. If you go against the government, you will be exposed.

[Oleg Bach]

Off topic for a bit but bare with me...Was it not one of Harpers former advisors that suggested that Obama get one of his drone killing machines and murder Julian Assange? It was slightly odd to say the least that a man of such authority showed such utter limpness and cowardly demeanor in regards to Wikileak's main guy.

When this former Harper advisor was mildly repremanded for such a suggestion in public - and asked why he would say such a thing...he said and I quote "I am feeling rather manly today"...

In point form..

Point one...this manly man does not want to do the killing with his own hand but at distance like an immoral impersonal video game nerd..not very becoming of a manly MAN.

Second Point... Not only does he want to use a remote control devise to dispose of another human being - but he wants to use SOMEONE ELSES KILLING MACHINE_ an American one.

This is double wammy cowardice. The blow back for such a statement is now evident..in the fact that some corporate ass hole in a suit wants to be an armchair warrior from the comfort of his den..Small wonder we are not doing well in Afghanistan when those in control don't want to get their hands dirty but still want a metal for MANLY heroism...worst part _ Assange is not a Muslim or classic terrorist _ He is fair faced man much like themselves..just shows you there is no loyality or honour amoungst those who carry the tile "the honourable">

[bloodyminded]

Off topic for a bit but bare with me...Was it not one of Harpers former advisors that suggested that Obama get one of his drone killing machines and murder Julian Assange? It was slightly odd to say the least that a man of such authority showed such utter limpness and cowardly demeanor in regards to Wikileak's main guy.

Yes, when Canadian ex-officials cavalierly promote first-degree murder, we know we've come to a pretty pass indeed.

[dre]

No.

No. Because real news organizations also have certain responsibilities. Also, devoting more resources to breaking the law isn't my idea of a good idea.

But this whole discussion does beg the question. Why didn't the defenders of WikiLeaks also come to the defense of Scooter Libby and/or Richard Armitage? What about coming to the defense of those involved in Climategate? Er...sorry...Hackergate, which it was dubbed by many of the now defenders of WikiLeaks. It's interesting that to you colossal hypocrites, that your politics decides which leakers you champion. Pathetic as usual.

But this whole discussion does beg the question. Why didn't the defenders of WikiLeaks also come to the defense of Scooter Libby and/or Richard Armitage?

Entirely different situation. Apples and oranges.

In one case a whistle blower uploads documents to the wikileaks service because they think the public should know about them. Wiki leaks then offers to all the US to make redactions to protect agents and sources in the field that could be put at risk.

In the other case the US government outted THEIR OWN OPERATIVE for POLITICAL REASONS.

Maybe next you could compare say... a toaster to a dead goat?

[August1991]

It's good to know that the entire political class isn't engaging in warfare against knowledge and accountability.

Would you say the same of Churchill or Eisenhower since they chose to keep the knowledge of D-Day secret and "unaccountable"?

[Rant ahead]

IMV, I have no objection to government or even government secrets. I object to government incompetency. And in the West, that is largely what we have. We have too many government bureaucrats, largely unionized, who work without any oversight. They have sinecures for life. They spend our tax money for themselves. (The wikileaks are ample evidence of this point.)

I can choose to boycott Walmart or any other corporation. But I am forced to pay taxes to this "public" bureaucracy. Is it any wonder that most unions now are public sector unions?

IOW, we choose our corporations everyday when we buy. We don't choose our bureaucrats.

Edited December 23, 2010 by August1991

[dre]

Would you say the same of Churchill or Eisenhower since they chose to keep the knowledge of D-Day secret and "unaccountable"?

[Rant ahead]

IMV, I have no objection to government or even government secrets. I object to government incompetency. And in the West, that is largely what we have. We have too many government bureaucrats, largely unionized, who work without any oversight. They have sinecures for life. They spend our tax money for themselves. (The wikileaks are ample evidence of this point.)

I can choose to boycott Walmart or any other corporation. But I am forced to pay taxes to this "public" bureaucracy. Is it any wonder that most unions now are public sector unions?

IOW, we choose our corporations everyday when we buy. We don't choose our bureaucrats.

IMV, I have no objection to government or even government secrets. I object to government incompetency.

Those are two things are really the same, because if they can abritrarily keep stuff secret they can hide most of their incompetency from you.

[August1991]

Those are two things are really the same, because if they can abritrarily keep stuff secret they can hide most of their incompetency from you.

Dre, I am astonished with your original thought.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[bloodyminded]

Would you say the same of Churchill or Eisenhower since they chose to keep the knowledge of D-Day secret and "unaccountable"?

Nope. Occasional...and temporary...secrets can be justified.

In any case that they can't be clearly and unambiguously justified, then the powers of secrecy are exposing their hatred for democratic principles.

Edited December 23, 2010 by bloodyminded