Interesting insight, I like that.

 

I need some socks to keep my toes toasty.

 

and all this time I thought you were a sock....

 

That's because the documents weren't anything new. People were more upset that someone had gone to the trouble of leaking classified documents than they were with the documents themselves, and only because there's a general trust to the relationship the government has with the media, in so far as while the media is allowed to leak things they are given from a source, in return the media acknowledges that secret means secret. They don't, for example, go around announcing when that Delta squad is preparing to pick up a major terrorist head. In that case, one pissed off solider stole several gigs of data from a secure database and simply gave it away.

 

And here's that database or at least the gateway to it if I'm on the right site.

http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/

Plus I think the guy that gave all this away also gave about 15 or 20 years of his life away in the process.

And I'm beginning to wonder what the real benefit is going to be myself. Most of what I've seen amounts to little more than inner-office gossip and speculation.

Ok, I have to admit, I did not know the Libyan Leader takes a big breasted blond haired nurse with him everywhere he goes. And he's scared to fly over water. But earth shattering it ain't.

 

I keep saying,They are going to have to do something about this pesky internet!

 

I swear I think they really fucked themselves on that one. If they could have done something to censor the internet they would have when all these wonderful porn sites sprang up.

I think they've got something too vast, too essential, and too technologically accessible to control it. Hell, not even places like China and Iran can to it effectively.

 

All those Wikileaks actions got me dreaming...

What if some day because of all that continuous disclosure of their dirty secrets, the governments would finally have to become transparent organisations with the sole purpose of organising complex social structures, but no dirty games could be played under the table anymore?

Because the voters would simply not support the liars and opportunists anymore?

And everything would have to be public, no more "top secrets", no closed sessions, diplomatic secrets, etc. - democracy in the real meaning of the word - rule of the people for the people - not some elite supposedly "representing" the people and hiding vital information from them?

I know... Dreeeeeam, dream, dream, dream...

 

I'm a little frustrated at not finding more on the leaks and don't want to have to download them on my computer.

But so far I think the New York Times has a little more in depth look at the leaks and a broader variety of the different kinds of communications.

Here's a few I don't think I knew about:

¶ A dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful, to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device. In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.”

¶ Suspicions of corruption in the Afghan government: When Afghanistan’s vice president visited the United Arab Emirates last year, local authorities working with the Drug Enforcement Administration discovered that he was carrying $52 million in cash. With wry understatement, a cable from the American Embassy in Kabul called the money “a significant amount” that the official, Ahmed Zia Massoud, “was ultimately allowed to keep without revealing the money’s origin or destination.” (Mr. Massoud denies taking any money out of Afghanistan.)

¶ Clashes with Europe over human rights: American officials sharply warned Germany in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in a bungled operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was mistakenly kidnapped and held for months in Afghanistan. A senior American diplomat told a German official “that our intention was not to threaten Germany, but rather to urge that the German government weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

 

Gulf countries and Israel sought to influence US action on Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Al Jazeera 28 Nov 2010

From US Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia -- April 4, 2008
The King, Foreign Minister, Prince Muqrin, and Prince Nayif all agreed that the Kingdom needs to cooperate with the US on resisting and rolling back Iranian influence and subversion in Iraq. The King was particularly adamant on this point, and it was echoed by the senior princes as well. Al-Jubeir recalled the King's frequent exhortations to the US to attack Iran and so put an end to its nuclear weapons program. "He told you to cut off the head of the snake," he recalled to the Charge', adding that working with the US to roll back Iranian influence in Iraq is a strategic priority for the King and his government.
[Adel al-Jubeir is Saudi ambassador to the US]

From US embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel -- June 2, 2010
When asked if the USG and GOI have fundamental differences of opinion when assessing Iran's nuclear program, Barak said we share the same intelligence, but acknowledged differences in analysis. He suggested that the USG view is similar to presenting evidence in a criminal court case in which a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. As such, USG standards are tougher -- especially following the failure to find WMD in Iraq -- while end-products such as the 2007 NIE unintentionally take on a softer tone as a result. Barak said the fate of the region and the world rests on our ability to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons -- as such, the standards for determining guilt should be lower as the costs are higher.
[Ehud Barak is Israel's defence minister]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/11/20101128185255622300.html

 

Well there's one country claiming the release of diplomatic cables is actually nothing more than one vast conspiracy on the part of the US to disseminate propaganda.

And that country is Iran which is trying to claim the cables must be lies because Iran's Arab neighbors really love them and would never approach Israel and the US asking them to wipe Iran's nuclear program off the face of the earth.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/11/20101129131235776706.html

 

Oh dear, this may deem to be controversial for many weeks

 

I don't know how bad this is actually going to be but I've just watched Secretary of State Hillary Clinton respond to the Wikileaks in a press conference and have to wonder how much worse it could be with out her at the helm.

Its no secret that I believe Hillary Clinton is the most intelligent, most effective and most courageous Secretary of States in our history, but watching her press conference just further confirmed that for me.

Clinton was very effective at both defusing the crisis and also speaking the truth that no one should be very surprised. In one instance when asked about Iran she said exactly that; "no one should be surprised to find the actions and statements from Iran are of grave concern to their neighbors as well as the rest of the world."

No shit, since when haven't the Arab states been concerned about Iran becoming THE Middle East power. They actually prefer Israel in that capacity which is why none of them ever complain about Israel's nuclear arms program, which is their best defense against a dictatorial Iran.

 

Vast Conspiracy?

I think it is not a vast conspiracy, just a half-vast conspiracy.

 

According to Wikileaks document, US Ambassador in France think that Sarkozy is a stupid little boy without any power...

So I like them

 

I thought it was kind of interesting that several Arab states have been urging the U.S. to start a war with Iran. Thanks for your input, guys....

 

Urging on your most hated enemy, to attack your beloved neighbor, tsk, tsk.

 

I think I saw approach in action while playing Risk recently.

 

I actually considered Kissinger but I'll stand by what I said. Henry was good in secret, which is bad for open government. And even though he opened what he called detente its not like it took a genius to know the US was bogged down in Vietnam and vulnerable and the Cold War had been a total disaster. So its not like there were a lot of other policy options.

But other than cutting deals in secret Kissinger was a two faced public disaster that bombed Cambodia and approved other interventions while he claimed to try to be ending the Cold War.

No, I'll still take Clinton. She gets out there and gets things done and doesn't take seven years to do it. And its all right out there in public. Especially now.

Here's one of her off handed comments during the question period when Clinton was asked how some of the leaders and countries she's had to have reacted.

"A lot of them said don't worry about it. You ought to see what we say about you guys."

Now that's the human truth right there and I think we can all recognize that.