Friday Reads
Posted: December 3, 2010 Filed under: morning reads | Tags: Barack Obama, Bush tax cuts, Charlie Rangel, Dick Cheney, Julian Assange, Republicans, Wikileaks 52 Comments
Good Morning!! TGIF! It sure has been a busy week for news. Yesterday, the House passed a bill to extend the Bush tax cuts for people who earn less than $250,000.
Using a wily procedural maneuver to tie Republican hands, House Democrats managed to pass, by a vote of 234-188, legislation that will allow the Bush tax cuts benefiting only the wealthiest Americans to expire.
Democrats were not united on the issue. Twenty voted with Republicans to kill the tax cut bill, as they hold out for extending additional cuts to wealthy Americans — though 3 Republicans, including Reps. Ron Paul (TX) and Walter Jones (NC) voted for the tax cut extensions. However the outcome will (and was designed to) allow Democrats to draw distinctions between themselves and Republicans during the 2012 election cycle.
Of course the chances of this bill passing the Senate are slim to none, since it will take 60 votes to get by a Republican filibuster. I hate to be completely cynical, but do you suppose the House Dems did this just for PR, knowing the bill would never become law?
At Huffpo, Howard Fineman, Ryan Grim, and Sam Stein (it took three people?) report that Democrats are afraid that Obama will “cave” and give the Republicans an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts. Now where would they get that idea? Oh yeah, because Obama caves on everything. It’s what he does.
I can’t figure out a way to excerpt this article. It’s a long treatise on process, and it’s just plain crazy-making. After reading it, I understand why it took three people to report it. Read the whole thing if you dare.
Republicans keep claiming over and over again that Americans voted for them in order to get more tax cuts for the rich. But according to a CBS News Poll, that just isn’t true:
“The American people want us to stop all the looming tax hikes and to cut spending, and that should be the priority of the remaining days that we have in this Congress,” incoming House Speaker Rep. John Boehner said Thursday. Boehner added that a House vote Thursday to extend the cuts for all but the highest-earning Americans amounted to “chicken crap.”
According to a new CBS News poll, however, Boehner is off-base in his claim that Americans “want us to stop all the looming tax hikes.”
The poll finds that 53 percent of Americans want the Bush-era tax cuts extended only for households earning less than $250,000 per year. That roughly matches the proposal put forth by the White House, which wants to extend the cuts only for incomes less than $250,000 for families and $200,000 for individuals.
Just 26 percent of Americans say they support extending the cuts for all Americans, even those earning above the $250,000 level, which is the GOP proposal.
The House also chose to publicly humiliate one of their oldest and most popular members yesterday. Charlie Rangel had to stand in the well of the House and listen to Nancy Pelosi censure him for some financial misdeeds.
As Representative Charles B. Rangel’s awkward day unspooled, the jammed House floor was buzzing for this once-in-decades happening. The press rows were busy. Traffic, though, was light in the high-up visitors’ gallery, grade school classes here earlier having left too soon to watch history.
Mr. Rangel entered alone, dressed well for the event in a buttoned dark suit, light blue tie and matching pocket handkerchief. Half his years had been spent in this workplace.
He sat among some of his keenest allies, Representative Robert C. Scott from Virginia and three members of the New York delegation, Representatives Joseph Crowley, Jerrold Nadler and Anthony D. Weiner.
All real liberals, you’ll notice… After the dirty deed was done,
A chastened Mr. Rangel asked for one more minute to speak. He called what had happened to him a “new criteria” and said there was more politics than justice on display. Then he finished by saying, “At the end of the day, compared to where I’ve been, I haven’t had a bad day since.”
As Dakinikat pointed out today, Tom DeLay was never censured. Neither were any of the other Congressmen who were involved with lobbyist Jack Abramoff. What is the real reason for the treatment given to Charlie Rangel? Did Obama want him off the Ways and Means Committee as punishment for supporting Hillary?
Is Julian Assange on the Obama assassination list? The U.S. wants him very badly, and Sweden wants to talk to him about sexual assault charges that according to his lawyer consist of having sex with two different women without using condoms.
James D. Catlin, a lawyer in Melbourne, Australia, says in an article published Thursday that Sweden’s justice system is destined to become “the laughingstock of the world” for investigating rape charges in two cases where women complained that Assange had had sex with them without using a condom.
Catlin, who confirmed to Raw Story that Assange retained his services for a “limited duration” in October but did not provide details, also said both of the accusers “boast[ed] of their respective conquests” after the alleged crimes had been committed. “The Swedes are making it up as they go along,” he wrote.
Catlin’s claims are likely to add fuel to speculation that Sweden’s investigation of Assange is politically motivated.
Raw Story links to this article by Catlin: When it comes to Assange rape case, the Swedes are making it up as they go along. Catlin writes:
Apparently having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape. That is the basis for a reinstitution of rape charges against WikiLeaks figurehead Julian Assange that is destined to make Sweden and its justice system the laughing stock of the world and dramatically damage its reputation as a model of modernity.
Sweden’s Public Prosecutor’s Office was embarrassed in August this year when it leaked to the media that it was seeking to arrest Assange for rape, then on the same day withdrew the arrest warrant because in its own words there was “no evidence”. The damage to Assange’s reputation is incalculable. More than three quarters of internet references to his name refer to rape. Now, three months on and three prosecutors later, the Swedes seem to be clear on their basis to proceed. Consensual sex that started out with a condom ended up without one, ergo, the sex was not consensual.
He also writes that
Both women boasted of their celebrity connection to Assange after the events that they would now see him destroyed for.
In the case of Ardin it is clear that she has thrown a party in Assange’s honour at her flat after the “crime” and tweeted to her followers that she is with the “the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!”. Go on the internet and see for yourself. That Ardin has sought unsuccessfully to delete these exculpatory tweets from the public record should be a matter of grave concern. That she has published on the internet a guide on how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends ever graver. The exact content of Wilén’s mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Niether Wilén’s nor Ardin’s texts complain of rape.
The Christian Science Monitor wonders if Assange has already been indicted by the U.S.
US officials publicly will only say that they are investigating the matter and that no legal options have been ruled out. But an indictment in such an important federal matter would be handed down by a grand jury, and grand jury proceedings are secret, notes Stephen Vladeck, an expert in national security law at American University. There may be an empaneled grand jury considering the Assange case right now.
“We wouldn’t know what they’re doing until the whole thing is concluded,” he says.
A judge could order an indictment of Assange sealed until such time as the US is able to apprehend him, or until he is in custody in a nation from which he is likely to be extradited. The purpose of such secrecy would be to keep the WikiLeaks chief from going even further underground.
At least one prominent US legal analyst thinks this is just the sort of thing that is going on.
“I would not be at all surprised if there was a sealed arrest warrant currently in existence against [Assange],” said CNN legal expert Jeffrey Toobin on Wednesday. “That question is whether the American authorities can find him and bring him back to the United States for trial.”
On the other hand, it might be faster and easier for President Obama to just have Assange killed. Obama has claimed the right to assassinate anyone on just his say-so. If Assange turns up dead, I for one won’t have any doubt who order the hit.
Obama and his “Justice Department” are pulling out all the stops to capture Julian Assange, but they aren’t at all interested in holding anyone in the Bush administration accountable for torture, for outing a CIA agent, or for starting two war based on lies.
Nigeria appears to have more cajones than Dear Leader: they are planning to charge Dick Cheney with bribery and ask Interpol to arrest the former VP.
The indictments will be handed up within three days, said Godwin Obla, prosecuting counsel at the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, speaking Wednesday. An arrest warrant for Cheney will be transmitted through Interpol, he said.
Cheney was the chief executive of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000, when he left to become then-Gov. George W. Bush’s running presidential mate, eventually winning the election.
“As the [former] CEO of Halliburton, he has the responsibility for acts that occurred during that period,” Obla later told AFP.
How will Obama handle this one? Will he try to strong-arm Nigeria like he did Spain? Andrew Belonsky speculates about this at Death and Taxes Magazine:
The idea [of] Cheney being arrested sounds absurd, and the Nigerian news has been received by many with an amused shrug, and no small amount of dismissal. ‘Washington Post’ reporter Al Kamen, for example, wrote, “It’s not as if Cheney, now suffering from some very serious heart problems, was planning to take the family on a cruise up the Niger Delta any time soon. The odds of his showing up in Africa – except maybe for a hunting trip – are zero.” I doubt the Obama administration’s taking this as lightly.
Despite what you may think about Interpol, the group does not command an international army of coppers and flatfoots. Its more of an information-sharing agency, one that helps coordinate information and efforts among its 188 member countries, whose own governments are meant to enforce potential warrants. It’s not Interpol‘s responsibility to arrest Cheney. That honor goes to the associated government, which puts Obama’s Department of Justice in a compromising position.
Political implications of arresting a former vice president aside, Obama and company are presented with two choices.
First, it can ignore the warrant, thereby straining relations with resource-rich Nigeria, and also undercut its current leadership role in Interpol, which is currently headed by American Ronald Noble, who worked for the Treasury Department during Bill Clinton’s presidential tenure.
The second option: move forward and nab Cheney.
Not bloody likely. Our Reagan-wannabe President is too afraid of angering Republicans.
Finally, Paul Krugman has taken the final step and accepted that Obama is really being Obama:
It’s hard to escape the impression that Republicans have taken Mr. Obama’s measure — that they’re calling his bluff in the belief that he can be counted on to fold. And it’s also hard to escape the impression that they’re right.
The real question is what Mr. Obama and his inner circle are thinking. Do they really believe, after all this time, that gestures of appeasement to the G.O.P. will elicit a good-faith response?
What’s even more puzzling is the apparent indifference of the Obama team to the effect of such gestures on their supporters. One would have expected a candidate who rode the enthusiasm of activists to an upset victory in the Democratic primary to realize that this enthusiasm was an important asset. Instead, however, Mr. Obama almost seems as if he’s trying, systematically, to disappoint his once-fervent supporters, to convince the people who put him where he is that they made an embarrassing mistake.
Whatever is going on inside the White House, from the outside it looks like moral collapse — a complete failure of purpose and loss of direction.
That’s right, Paul. We’re on our own, with zero leadership from the WH!
That’s all I’ve got. What are you reading today?
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
ecocatwoman
mablue2
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Of course Obama will cave. The only question is will he even get anything substantive from Republicans in return. I bet not.
There’s so much on the table right now – imagine what a real negotiator with principles and a spine could get done.
He’ll get what he wants, which is Republican policies. He’ll pretend he doesn’t like them and blame the Republicans, but he’ll tell his wealthy donors privately that he did it for them.
When you’re right, you’re right.
Once victorious, a psychopath believes it is his greatness that delivered his success. While he may recognize the asset of “the enthusiasm of activists,” he would feel no obligation, this point, to nourish it; if fact he would feel that’s beneath him. What he feels is that he deserves their support and if they withdraw it he’s a superior victim of their ingratitude and failure to support his greatness.
Krugman is beginning to get what Obama in the White House means but he doesn’t understand who Barack Obama is.
You’re right. Krugman may never comprehend the depth of Obama’s corruption. Despite his liberal views, Krugman is still part of the elite class who will continue to do well regardless of what the government does. He doesn’t really have skin in the game.
The Economist still thinks it’s possible Obama has what it takes to get the job done, though clearly they’re beginning to realize he might not.
Better late than never? I don’t really see how.
It really is hard to believe that so many “journalists” still don’t get it. The problem is that “reporters” aren’t working class anymore.
I agree BB, and many are also so young, they have not had the real life experiences that most of their readers have had. It is like they are writing and reporting on things in terms for the same sort of elitist class they come from. They are not writing for those of us in the working class, who are a little more aware of the “goings on” and realize he problem with Obama, and the direction this Democrat Party is going in. Then you have the right wingers, I will lump the conservative talk show people in this group too, i.e. Rush and Palin, who talk/write in ways that gives their target audience what they want. The bottom line is there are few (if any) journalist in the media now who speak for people like us. We have been left out of the discussion.
“what’s needed is political courage”
Exactly. We are in this mess because the alleged Democrats don’t have any political courage.
BB, your Raw Story link that begins with “When it comes to Assange rape case…” leads to a 404 error.
I can’t help being cynical about the Swedish authorities in the rape case. Most of the time you can’t get the authorities to take even the most egregious rape cases seriously, much less prosecute and convict them, but suddenly even having sex without a condom is rape? Why? Because the suspect’s name is Assange?
OTOH, I read that it was consensual sex that started out with a condom and ended without one. If they only agreed to have it with a condom, what a f*cker he was to then remove it.
Why did the brag about their conquests if it was rape? And why should I believe anything they say after they tweeted about their conquests and then one of the women held a party for Assange AFTER the supposed rapes? The women also got together and compared notes before going to police. None of that would pass muster in any normal criminal prosecution.
Where did I say it was rape? I said he was a f***** if he took the condom off mid act. Not a nice thing to do, but not necessarily rape either.
I have no idea why they bragged about their conquest. I would have to get into those women’s heads to answer that. Off the top of my head, maybe it’s because Assange is famous as the founder of Wikileaks. Some people like to impress others with the famous people they’ve been with. Also not wholesome behavior.
I don’t know what happened, wasn’t there, but my gut feels like yours apparently does. Something’s not right with Assange; he sends my gut-meter way into the warning zone.
Yep, I wasn’t there either, don’t know what happened. I am very surprised that the Swedish authorities are even pursuing these charges and think that quite possibly they would not if the person wasn’t Julian Assange.
It still doesn’t mean that Wikileaks may not be very valuable. You know, “our heroes have feet of clay” and all that. I still think time will tell the good or the harm Wikileaks does. I think transparency is a good thing, and as long as it’s just leaders being embarrassed, not innocent people being killed, I am all for it.
I agree.
Further, I think transparency’s a good thing as well, but frankly I’m not all that impressed with Wikileaks. Seems to me more like gossip to embarrass people than anything that’ll really make a difference.
Daniel Ellsberg he is not.
I didn’t say you said it was rape. I asked why I should believe anything they say, e.g., the condom story.
Oh. Well, I don’t know. I would have to read more on it to get a sense of what I think may or may not be true.
BB, you may very well be right.
I fixed the link, thanks.
You’re welcome.
BB, I think you are a little oversensitive when it comes to anything I might say on the subject of rape/male abuse of women, and inclined to discredit me. What you thought you saw in my comment wasn’t there.
What you thought I thought I saw in your comment wasn’t there. I didn’t say what you accused me of.
Frankly, I really dislike the term “oversensitive.” It implies that the person using it has a right to judge and evalutate another person’s internal psychological processes.
Particularly when your only source is words written on the internet by people you don’t know and you can’t even hear their tone of voice or see their facial expressions, it is quite difficult to evaluate another person’s emotional reactions.
IMHO, it is much better to assume the best of people and *ask* them first before assuming you can read their minds.
OK. We seem to be having a major communication problem here and I’m inclined to think now that we should stop this right here and try to process a little later when our heads (at least mine!) are clearer.
The word “hypersensitive” would have conveyed my meaning better. Actually, it was the first word I thought of, don’t know why i didn’t stay with it. Sometimes, when I am involved in sensitive communication, I get awkward and make mistakes. “Oversensitive” was one of them.
None of my business and I have no right speaking for bostonboomer but I read this exchange earlier and I hope you don’t my two cents here. For me, being called oversensitive or hypersensitive in the context you did feels like an attack. I know you didn’t mean it that way, you were just trying to explain the reason you think your point was misunderstood, but I’m just saying that’s how it feels on the receiving end if, in fact, one is hypersensitive.
Being uncommonly sensitive is something that’s born into one (some are called empaths) and is actually a valuable trait, but it’s also a tough one in today’s harsh American society. I think you’re right about bostonboomer that she’s hypersensitive and I think her hypersensitivity is the reason her observations are so remarkably spot-on, even prescient, and she can get to the authentic heart of something by intuition. But it comes at a cost. Hypersensitive people see more and understand more from what they observe, but some of what they see is painful and they carry that; also we all get hurt by others but hypersensitive people obviously feel hurt more intensely and intimately.
I’m realizing, writing this, I think I told bostonboomer she was oversensitive once, too, and I shouldn’t have. I’m sorry for that, bb. I was so focused on wanting to express my opinion and be understood that I wasn’t thinking about how a very sensitive person hears being told they’re oversensitive. And I should’ve known because it happens to me.
Anyway, for whatever it’s worth I think it’s a good idea to steer away from telling sensitive people that they’re over- or hypersensitive unless it’s intended as a nice thing. Just doesn’t get received the way you intend. Now for myself I just have to remember to do unto others as I want them to … 😉
Thank you so much for this. And, I absolutely relish every word you write.
Zaladonis, I do mind your $0.02 on this. I have nothing against sensitivity, I am sensitive myself, even hypersensitive at times. I was thinking that BB may be hypersensitive to me in particular for reasons that are between her and me.
Senator Hendon shows us how it’s done.
Oh and BB, great cartoon!
I am so sick to death of listening to Boehner and McConnell insist that they are doing what the “American people want”. Most reasonable, clear thinking, semi intelligent people do not want this crap under any circumstances.
Am I going to feel better if the millionaire/billionaire corporate class does not get stuck with a higher tax rate? The same bunch who are not asked to sacrifice while I sit here watching so many suffer even greater hardships while they play Nero and fiddle as we slip even further into poverty?
Am I going to feel better if fewer people go uninsured, lose their homes and jobs, have kids drop out of college, face even more desperate times so that Sarah Jessica Parker can buy a 21 million dollar home and pay less taxes?
This is not what the “American public wants”; would be much better, much simplified, much easier to say that “this is what our donor masters want” than to hide behind untruths that in no way reflect the needs, wants, and desires of the American public.
Unemployment figures are out and it’s HIGHER.
So Republicans say, “See! The rich need tax cuts or else they’ll cut even more jobs.”
And I don’t hear from the WH or Congressional Dems or media Dems: “NO! They will still hire folks to renovate their mansions and clean their yachts and deliver their wine if their taxes go up.”
Jobless rate hits 9.8%.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-03/clinton-says-cabinet-post-will-be-last-public-job-won-t-seek-presidency.html
Real unemployment….25%? I’m unemployed and not eligible for unemployment benefits. How many others are there like me?
Ding Ding Ding, me! What do I win Johnny?
Pouting Baby Doesn’t Understand Why Turtle Mitch is Allowed to Throw Tantrums
Due to the failings of Obama, the GOP will only make it worse. That is a promise.
We are going to find ourselves at the mercy of the fundies who have made huge inroads into the legislation of this nation along with the corporations who are essentially underwriting these politicians and calling the shots.
With those at the bottom finding it harder and harder to find work, look for an increase in domestic violence within the home, fewer children getting the nutrition benefits needed to grow, less healthcare available, along with an uptick of crime as a means to survive.
These “compassionate conservatives” who lack even the fundamental ingredients for calling themselves “Christian” are unable to look beyond their own comfort zone since they are satisfied with what represents their interests in the GOP leadership bent on destruction. And this is what most of the policies they carry will succeed in doing.
The destruction of the family values that they base their crapola agenda on and the overall destruction of the American Dream which is slowly evaporating under these policies which will do more harm than good.
Hillary says she won’t take another public job after Secretary of State.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-03/clinton-says-cabinet-post-will-be-last-public-job-won-t-seek-presidency.html
Jan Schakowsky for President?
‘Morning, BB. Great round-up, as usual, and thanks for posting early. I’m an early bird, myself.
Unfortunately, Jan Schakowsky’s husband is a convicted felon. The voters around here haven’t held that against her, but I doubt it would play well on the national scene. She’s also turned into a complete Obot since O was elected, whereas she used to be one of the most reliable liberal voices in the House. Even Durbin has turned into an Obot. I emailed him last night that if he voted “yes” to the Catfood Commission’s recommendations (which he has said he will do), that he has crossed a line in the sand and that I will do everything in my power to see that he is not re-elected, and that he can expect other Dems and Indies to do the same.
Good news from Illinois, in case you all haven’t heard: Civil Unions passed the full legislature and Gov. Quinn will be signing the bill into law. Even Chicago’s outgoing mayor, Richie Daley, came out in support of gay marriage the other day. (Oops, Richie, you’re about to be ex-communicated, I expect!) One interesting aspect of our new law is that it seems it will allow civil unions for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. (Go Illinois! Let’s set the standard for the rest of the country.) Seems older people who don’t want to lose their pension or SS benefits have also been pleading for civil unions. Best of all, the law doesn’t require that the two people have to live in the same residence in order to qualify as a civil union.
Yay! I’m glad to hear that civil unions will be for all.
My partner and I are heterosexual and in a civil union and want to remain so. I fully support civil unions and marriage for homosexuals, and am very glad that WA state allows such civil unions, and is working towards allowing marriage. But they left out those of us who don’t want to marry and are heterosexual. Heh.
I guess we’ll get married when we get to 60 or so. I can’t imagine not being able to be in the hospital at his side, or vice versa, if needed.
bb: I’ve got a feeling that we will not be looking at another Dem president in my lifetime. Probably not for another 20 years.
Obama has ruined what was once a viable alternative to the corporate structure which has only gained more ground over the last 30 years. We will be looking at the social conservatives weaving their “magic” throughout the electorate and will be those “values” that people will look for to judge their elected officials for time to come.
The policies of FDR are about to be dissolved. We are heading backward in our thinking and those who vote are actually shrinking in number. The Christian Right has seized upon this opening and one need look no further than the insane preachings of Glenn Beck to validate that opinion.
The pendulum may swing back in time, it usually does, but it will be long after I am gone from the scene because there is little “hope” out there to stir the masses who are at the mercy of the GOP, the fundies, and the corporate interest who hold us hostage.
I suspect you are right, but I’m more hopeful, in a very depressing way.
I think things are going to get so bad that change, real change, will have to happen. I don’t know if the Repubs will change to fit what is needed, or the Dems, but somehow it’ll have to happen. I think one’s going to morph into something completely different. There’ll probably be splinter parties and unrest, bonus armies and riots.
Bad news in America? Obama leaves town, again.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-makes-surprise-trip-afghanistan/story?id=12303710
He probably went there to apologize to Al Qaeda and Kharzai for the harsh words coming out of the US for the corruption these two factions have benefited from with US taxpayer money.
And to avoid the fallout that is sure to come when he once more bends over to the GOP and gives them exactly what they want.
What a guy!
Apparently he was going to meet with Kharzai, after the troops but something about the “weather” being bad and decided not to, or something. I swear these guys don’t even care how bad things look until someone has to point it out to them.
We are so F’d:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2013581435.html
Aren’t we glad the catfood commission plan failed today? Though I suspect it could come back like a hydra-headed monster.
I think it’s served its purpose in the shell game anyway, though I wouldn’t put an encore past the Caviar Commission creeps.
BB, I am amazed at your resilience. You and Dak despite being beset by the most terrible of unsettling conditions vis a vis work and future prospects just keep posting your misgivings about the issues that affect those most affected by the catfood commission etc. I would have given up long ago and retired to a peaceful pastime of tending to my garden, but you folks just keep trooping. For that I thank you – Although I contribute to the food banks and volunteer periodically, with what is happening I suspect that periodically is not enough. Time for me to get my Boadice out of mothballs. I thought, mistakenly, that this fight was past, that there was a leveler that was coming (not Obama) Today is no different than the Romans against the Celts – the monied class against the working class. History repeats itself because those who refuse to learn about history are doomed to repeat it.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana
Money just doesn’t talk these days. It’s screams! I don’t think the powers that be hear a syllabus we utter.
Yea, you have to watch those things. They’re like zombies. They never really die.
….One would have expected a candidate who rode the enthusiasm of activists to an upset victory in the Democratic primary…..
Oh Paul is FUNNY!!!!Upset victory!!?? Bought and paid for strong arm tactics
you mean .
Whatever is going on inside the White House, from the outside it looks like moral collapse — a complete failure of purpose and loss of direction
Paul, those Greek pillars were always styrofoam ! Obama was created to do just as he’s doing. He’s a rip roaring success!… AND ahead of schedule! Leave Barack alone! snark
Assange is on Time Magazine in a staged photo ..I’m sorry but when MS media pushes someone… I smell a rat. To me, all he’s let out was themes and “intelligence” the upper crust wants out there and stuff to embarrass Hill . Oh and piss off our allies on a supposedly Dem watch …how is this in any way rogue?
Well, I would not take those cables too seriously. I have heard that the cables about the Russian/Georgian fight were not all that truthful…