Devasting Wikileaks leads to loss of life and calls for Clinton to Resign!!!

Or not …

Here’s an example:

Addressing the Ambassador directly, Prince Andrew then turned to regional politics. He stated baldly that “the United Kingdom, Western Europe (and by extension you Americans too”) were now back in the thick of playing the Great Game. More animated than ever, he stated cockily: “And this time we aim to win!” Without contradicting him, the Ambassador gently reminded him that the United States does not see its presence in the region as a continuation of the Great Game. We support Kyrgyzstan’s independence and sovereignty but also welcome good relations between it and all of its neighbors, including Russia.
¶10. (C) The Prince pounced at the sound of that name. He told the Ambassador that he was a frequent visitor to Central Asia and the Caucasus and had noticed a marked increase in Russian pressure and concomitant anxiety among the locals post-August events in Georgia. He stated the following story related to him recently by Azerbaijan’s President Aliyev. Aliyev had received a letter from President Medvedev telling him that if Azerbaijan supported the designation of the Bolshevik artificial famine in Ukraine as “genocide” at the United Nations, “then you can forget about seeing Nagorno-Karabakh ever again.” Prince Andrew added that every single other regional President had told him of receiving similar “directive” letters from Medvedev except for Bakiyev. He asked the Ambassador if Bakiyev had received something similar as well. The Ambassador answered that she was not aware of any such letter.
¶11. (C) The Duke then stated that he was very worried about Russia’s resurgence in the region. As an example, he cited the recent Central Asian energy and water-sharing deal (septel), which he claimed to know had been “engineered by Russia, who finally pounded her fist on the table and everyone fell into line.” (NOTE: Interestingly, the Turkish Ambassador to the Kyrgyz Republic recently described her analysis of the deal to the Ambassador in strikingly similar language. END NOTE.)
¶12. (C) Showing that he is an equal-opportunity Great Game player, HRH then turned to the topic of China. He recounted that when he had recently asked the President of Tajikistan what he thought of growing Chinese influence in Central Asia, the President had responded “with language I won’t use in front of ladies.” His interlocutors told the Prince that while Russians are generally viewed sympathetically throughout the region, the Chinese are not. He nodded, terming Chinese economic and possibly other expansion in the region “probably inevitable, but a menace.”
RUDE LANGUAGE A LA BRITISH

I’m sure we should designate Wikileaks a terrorist organization over these terribly embarrassing diplomatic moments!!!!      Lives are undoubtedly being lost at this very minute due to the nature of these sensitive topics.  Hang them from the Treason Tree, I say!!!

Oh, and Jack Shafer needs to remember his monkeyfishing expedition and be relegated to writing obits for Salon.

I guess this is my way of saying a lot of people are going completely over the top about the Wikileaks drop including the next Congressman in charge of the Homeland Security Committe. A terrorist organization, Congressman King, really?  And what’s with the press? Is Wolf Blitzer pouting because he wasn’t included in the drop?

And my next question is this:  VP Cheney can get away with outing an undercover CIA agent and violating the Geneva Convention for all to see, why is this garnering more hand wringing and  more talks of treason than that?

Perspective any one?

Notable Tweets from Glenn Greenwald on the subject:

I’m keeping a running list of all the lives lost from the WikiLeaks disclosures – here are the names so far: http://is.gd/hXc0B

The Watchdogs: RT @digby56 “Right now, Wolf Blitzer is on TV acting very upset that the government was unable to keep its secrets from him.”

@erikkain That’s precisely the dynamic driving this. They’re guardians of power and the status quo. That’s what is threatened here.

and one from Jeremy Schahill via Empty Wheel!!!

RT @jeremyscahill: We do know this: Wikileaks didn’t leak the NY Times the bullshit about Iraqi WMDs or Bob Novak Valerie Plame’s identity

and one from Greg Mitchell via Eric Boehlert!


As palm hits forehead…..RT @GregMitch Jack Shafer: Hillary Clinton must quit after these WikiLeaks. http://www.slate.com/id/2276190/


67 Comments on “Devasting Wikileaks leads to loss of life and calls for Clinton to Resign!!!”

  1. Dario says:

    I’m not surprised about calls for her resignation. If she resigns, she can run in 2012.

    • dakinikat says:

      Doesn’t the SOS basically just carry out the orders from the POTUS or am I mistake on that assumption?

      • Dario says:

        Hillary has to follow the president’s policy, but within certain limitations set by laws and rules, cabinet members have lots of freedom to accomplish policy. But even if she was told to do something, she’ll never admit it. If the calls for her resignation are too much, she might have to fall on her sword.

        Hillary is overworked, and if she’s going to work that hard, she might as well be president. Maybe she can run in 2012. Maybe the gods are saying: “Run Hillary, run”

      • Minkoff Minx says:

        Yes, Obama should be held accountable for the State Dept policy…

        • dakinikat says:

          Well, the NYT’s certainly putting a nice spin on that via writing on Hillary.

          Mrs. Clinton indirectly rejected comparisons of the leaked documents to the Pentagon Papers, saying that the latest leak of documents was not intended to highlight or prevent wrongdoing, as the leak of the Pentagon Papers was.

          In a reference to the news organizations that published excerpts of the WikiLeaks material, she said that confidentiality was a necessary element in many fields beyond government, including journalism.

          If this is so devastating, where’s the POTUS presser?

          • paper doll says:

            If this is so devastating, where’s the POTUS presser?

            Indeed…I wasn’t surprised Hill had to be the grown up and do the
            presser.

      • cwaltz says:

        It all strikes me as rather stupid. You’d think diplomats would have to have thicker skin and would already be jaded on “trusting” someone who might have different self interests then their own. And jiminy our country is spying on it’s own citizens why in the world would other countries figure they’d be exempt from attempts at data collection?

        I figure it’s a given that other countries have tried to collect intel on our government and it’s officials.

        • dakinikat says:

          Don’t we throw out spies residing in the ambassadors’ offices all the time? I don’t see that spying via diplomats is anything weird or unique at all. I thought it was just the MO since the Cold War.

          • cwaltz says:

            If you are going to be meeting with people it’s always in your best interest to know as much as possible about them.

      • Woman Voter says:

        You get a STAR! Yes, it is our Nobel Peace Prize President Obama that ORDERED the continuation of BUSH II policies and enhanced them. WHERE ARE THE HEARINGS? Did he stop FISA….NOOOOO!

        Funny that no one is calling for his resignation, or at least ground him from GOLF AND BASKETBALL for TWO YEARS!

    • newdealdem1 says:

      Neither am I, Dario.

      But, we need to keep in mind who these two sources are who are either calling for HRC’s resignation (Shafer) and supporting it (Mitchell).

      Greg Mitchell has been a huge supporter of Mr. O since he ran against HRC and has suffered from one of the worst cases of CDS over at the Nation.

      If you read his tweets today and taken as a whole, they are not so subtle attempts to try to slap her down. He even quotes of all people, Christine O’Donnel’s “you go girl” tweet about HRC and to prove what? That HRC is supported by political nutjobs so she must be destroyed? Or, resign? Or, both? His subsequent tweet as you posted above referencing the Libertarian nut, Jack Shafer’s absurd and hyperbolic column today justs adds to Greg Mitchell’s long time agenda when it comes to HRC. And, yet he is silent about Mr. O. Quel surprise!

      As you can see, Dak posted Eric Boehlert’s retweet with his succinct and very appropriate reaction to Mitchell’s tweet. If Mitchell was any more transparent, he’d be invisible. Blech.

  2. cwaltz says:

    The thickness in which they are laying on these big secrets amuse me. Apparently even though we’ve been in Iraq and know that the Saudis and Iran can’t stand each other and are pretty much fighting each other by proxy it’s such a HUGE surprise that the Saudis would be encouraging us to attack Iran.

    Why it’s almost as astounding as the pronouncement that Karzai isn’t overly competent or some other such blather!

    I’m super surprised these revelations were only “confidential” or “secret” and not “top secret” (rolling eyes)

    Frankly I almost wish this kind of stuff was routinely released. Ambassador such and such believes so and so is a boob. Oh and he also says that so and so is incompetent and having an affair.

    We could make a soap opera out of the crap.

  3. Zaladonis says:

    Glad I’m not alone thinking this!

    It all seems like a lot of hand wringing over nothing. So much drama over what reads like silly notes about teachers passed in class.

    I miss Walter Cronkite.

  4. Dario says:

    Maybe I wear my tinfoil hat too much. But I’m of the opinion that we’re witnessing a play. It’s better to look at the theme and who comes out a winner and a loser.

    • cwaltz says:

      I find it incredibly suspect that an E3 had access to both the DOD and State Departments files in routine commission of carrying out his job and that there was so little oversight that he was able to copy and pass on thousands of pieces of info on his own. The way clearance works is that you only have access to material that you have a need to know. How in the world does that translate to having access to not 1 but 2 departments that are compartmentalized and bypassing any flags for long enough to access thousands of files?

      Something stinks IMO

      • bostonboomer says:

        Manning was an intelligence analyst, and it has been reported that more than 3 million military people had access to Siprnet.

        Those with the appropriate level of security clearance could be upwards of 3 million people, according to figures from the GAO, although a far smaller number would actually be in the position to access Siprnet. And while there are some safeguards to the system, the Guardian suggests that many of these features “were relaxed to make the system as easy to use as possible.”

        But now that Manning is locked away, we have no idea if words attributed to him really came from him. The guy who turned Manning in, Adrian Lamo, is highly suspect in my book.

        • dakinikat says:

          Just the fact that 3 million people have access to that makes the entire thing highly suspect. Manning was supposedly able to download that much stuff? Seems weird.

    • paper doll says:

      yup…

  5. Dario says:

    There was a lot of cherry picking to leak out so much garbage.

  6. dakinikat says:

    and this should be interesting if the DB is right.

    thedailybeast The Daily Beast

    WikiLeaks’ next target is a U.S. bank … Assange promises “megaleak” http://thebea.st/fhPlTZ #cheatsheet via @france_presse

  7. dakinikat says:

    Okay, I’m going to mutter the P word here … this came from her face book … please forgive me but stupid is as stupid writes …

    Serious Questions about the Obama Administration’s Incompetence in the Wikileaks Fiasco
    by Sarah Palin on Monday, November 29, 2010 at 2:17pm

    Dear P: You mean Competence, I think, because you’re implying the opposite of your text with this headline. Return to Grade School Grammar please for a refresher!! (Palm 2 forehead)

  8. Joanelle says:

    Dak said: and this should be interesting if the DB is right.

    Yowzer – that would really be a good one – it’s about time that all got exposed.

  9. dakinikat says:

    Ecuador just offered Assange safe haven.

    “We are ready to give him residence in Ecuador, with no problems and no conditions,” Deputy Foreign Minister Kintto Lucas told the Internet site Ecuadorinmediato.

    “We are going to invite him to come to Ecuador so he can freely present the information he possesses and all the documentation, not just over the Internet but in a variety of public forums,” he said.

    • Sima says:

      Might be too close to the USA and the, what is it, ‘college of the Americas’?

      I don’t know what is driving Assange. I have an inkling of what drives some of the computer geeks who are helping him, and even maybe Manning. Those of us in the free software movement can be mighty strange with unusual, to say the least, ideals. Libertarian do-gooders, most of them (at least in the USA) with a real belief in the ‘information wants to be free’ tag.

      It’s weird, because in Europe the free software people are often Socialist do-gooders. That’s where I fit.

  10. I haven’t even read anything yet, but I am so happy to be where Bostonboomer and dakinikat are in the middle of a wikileaks document dump. Hooray for issues-oriented discussion.

  11. NW Luna says:

    The leaks of American diplomatic communications are certainly revealing and occasionally startling – but are they damaging?

    Do they threaten US national security or are they simply a US national embarrassment?

    -snip-

    The only unusual thing is that this kind of stuff has been made public now instead of everyone having to wait years before the cables are formally released. Putin as an “alpha-dog”? Sarkozy as the “emperor with no clothes”? Embarrassing? Maybe. Damaging? Hardly.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11861458

    • dakinikat says:

      interesting quote from that article:

      Here, the case of Iran is important. What the documents show in fact is not that the US secretly wants to go to war with Iran but that it has resisted pressure to do so from Israel and Arab leaders acting out of a coincidental common interest.

      • NW Luna says:

        Saw that; not sure if it’s due to Hill’s good sense — or to the fact that the US is too poor to fight 3 wars at the same time.

  12. newdealdem1 says:

    The only revelation that struck me as new and bothersome was the Yemen reveal. Although, I think it will have more repercussions in Yemen than here.

    As for the rest of the leaks, as others have said, we spy, they spy, we all spy. We talk behind the backs in a not so kind way about other diplomats and heads of state, and they speak behind our backs in a not so kind way back at us. A big yawn in terms of the leaks themselves. However, lot’s of these guys/gals have huge ego’s so what was personally revealed needs to be smoothed over by HRC and others so it doesn’t ruin their being open with us in the future. I do think there will be some short term blowback here and that whatever open conversations do take place, emails will not be the tool used to relay those private chats. lol.

    I guess like others before me, I’m skeptical of the leaks. Not the content but who is really behind it. Are things as they seem or is there something or some others behind these leaks. The only good thing to come out of the Reagan years (in addition to the jelly beans, lol) was the phrase “trust but verify”. Very good advice for anyone.

    So, I’m really curious about Julian Assange and Wikileaks and Manning. Who is Assange and why is he popping up all of a sudden this year? I don’t know, but there is more to this guy and his setup than meets the eye. I could be wrong but I just think we need to verify who he is than we already have. For instance, who is financing his operation? When did Assange start up his outing business? Who are his associates? And, so on. There are too many blanks here.

    If there are all these holes in the Pentagon and State Department Computer Systems, and with so many Americans having security clearances (2.5 million!), it makes no sense that Manning was a lone wolf. There had to be others doing what he did and willing to go public. Why hasn’t this happened before during the last 10 years?

    Also, how did Manning hook up with Assange? Was there a third, forth or more than that who were involved? There are so many unanswered questions needing answers.

    Also, I’m not sure I see the Wikileaks in the same way I see the Pentagon Papers. But, I’ll leave that comment for another post.

    WIRED has some interesting articles. Like this one—->that contains this reporter’s observation and then comment from Manning: http://tinyurl.com/23qb3ly

    The release has been anticipated since the arrest last spring of Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning. In online chats with the ex-hacker who ultimately turned him in, Manning described providing WikiLeaks with a massive cache of diplomatic cables. Manning said the cables documented years of secret foreign policy and “almost-criminal political back dealings.”

    “Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning, and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format, to the public,” Manning told former-hacker Adrian Lamo.

    Maybe it’s me, but Manning’s comment is almost gleefully childish in it’s “look at me mom” tone and attitude. Perhaps that shouldn’t matter and all that should matter is that someone like Manning was willing to jeopardize himself for the greater good? But, is that what he is all about? Did he think he wouldn’t get caught? I’m even suspicious of the person who turned him in. Nothing is ever that black and white.

    For what it’s worth, I found these semi-autobiographical columns about Manning. Makes you understand a bit more what makes someone like him tick which I think is important to understand. http://tinyurl.com/2etfbsg http://tinyurl.com/37ugd77

    It’s not everyday that someone would take the chance he did to steal what he stole and then to share it with the public via a go between.

    And, like others, I don’t think he was alone in this reveal (outside of Assange). And, why this is happening now instead of when the Bush Crime Family was in office? And, did I miss something (sans the reveal about the Bush Admin Executive Order to have State Dept personnel spy check off a laundry list of things about their UN counterparts which was continued by Mr. O’s Admin) or have none of these leaks been a direct hit on Bush & Co I haven’t read all of it but does anyone recall any of these that prove that Bush Co committed Impeachable Crimes (which they did by lying us into a War, first-off) as the Pentagon Papers did when it revealed the secret bombings of Laos and Cambodia?

    So many questions.

    • Woman Voter says:

      So, many questions and the media is asleep and asking about the first dog. 😦

    • dakinikat says:

      yeah, the Yemen reveal was creepy … if there is a third front to this war mess, it will be Yemen and I’m hoping this kind of heads that off

    • bostonboomer says:

      That’s if you believe Manning actually made that comment. I don’t. The only “witness” is the guy who ratted out Manning, Adrian Lamo (good name). I don’t believe one word from Lamo. I agree with Glenn Greenwald, Lamo can’t be trusted.

      • newdealdem1 says:

        BB, thanks for that link to GG. Very informative read. I said in my post that I didn’t trust the person who turned Manning in. After reading GG and listening to his interview with Lamo (yes, a very appropriate name for this guy), it just confirms my mistrust of him or anyone who does what he did.

        Nevertheless, for me, I’m still unsure of this whole business as I still haven’t been made comfortable regarding Manning but especially Assange. And, frankly, I don’t like the way in which Assange just dumps everything into the ether wily nily without a clear plan of what he is trying to accomplish and this is very different from what Ellsberg did with the Pentagon Papers which was telling a story about the checkered history of how we got ourselves into Vietnam and all the lies told to keep us there and then the unconstitutionality of the secret bombings by Nixon and Kissinger of Loas and Cambodia.

        From what I’ve seen in what has been released by Wikileaks about the wars, for example, doesn’t seem to call into question the official public statements and Administration policies of Bush or Obama, as the Pentagon Papers did. It doesn’t catch them in a lie unlike the PP’s did with Johnson and Nixon. And, the substance of the leaks differ as well.
        I think the gossipy stuff that was released (which was mostly what this recent dump was all about) takes away from the seriousness of what was released about Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pentagon Papers had no such Page Six New York Post type of content. For that reason alone, right now, I don’t respect these people as I still respect Ellsberg.

        Also, I’m just too suspicious of who else may be behind the leak. There are unanswered questions that need answering as I indicated in my earlier post.

        So, that’s my current take on this. My mind is open, however, to changing it at least in terms of having it confirmed or not if there is anyone else behind these leaks.

        I just need some more to go on with these people and the leaks to make me gung ho on what has happened. Until then, I remain skeptical. But, that’s me.

    • littleisis says:

      I have been reading everywhere and I still can’t piece together this story. :/ I know how you feel.

      • newdealdem1 says:

        I love your screen name, littleisis. 🙂 Yes, it’s not easy piecing it all together and coming to a clear conclusion about the players and what has been revealed in the leaks or their impact. Or, if there is something here that doesn’t meet the eye as in: are there other players involved in the leak who want to take the country in a direction most of us don’t want to go, like the neocons, for example.

    • Sima says:

      THanks for the links to the stories about Manning. Reading them only confirms my suspicions about him, not that they hold much value.

      I know a lot of geeks. Heck I was VP and President of my local Linux geek club for 6 years total, and involved longer than that. A lot of geeks are isolated, super smart but think they are smarter than they really are (in social instances particularly), fascinated with small details and unable to see the wider picture. Heck, I think I just described myself to a T.

      I don’t think Manning had the maturity to see the consequences for himself, personally, of his actions. I think he, rather rightfully if you look at the reactions of those he admires, thinks of himself as a hero taking one for the cause.

      I suspect Assange is much the same. Wikileaks was around for a while before these big breaks. He just grabbed the thing and ran with it. And he’s got tons of help from cyber geeks the world ’round.

      • newdealdem1 says:

        You’re welcome, Sima. You’re comments are very informative for me I agree with you about Manning and Assange. For me, they are no Daniel Ellsberg’s. And, again, perhaps they don’t have to be in today’s world but it sure as heck would help if they were.

        I didn’t know that Wikileaks was around prior to this year until you mentioned it in your comment. I looked around a bit more and it looks like they have been around since 2008 or so.