Wikileaks Documents

[7dogguy]

Folks:____________

OS hit a homerun right here. The administration, the bureauracy, the Pentagon, the State Department, and our allies are concerned that the "real truth" will come out about our involvement and mischief in bunches of places around the world. The truth is that we regularly do some pretty henious things, that the polititians and some of their accomplices in the military are, in fact, running a series of "political wars" in various places around the world; and doing exactly what the politicos did in vietnam.

As the great Smedley Butler said of World War I; "...War is a racket, and the cost is reckoned in innocent lives (...for the most part, American soldiers...) and the profits reckoned in (...mega...) dollars (...and influence...)".....

To pharaphrase OS's eloquent observation: "..the gubment is (...and has been...) lying about lots of things to lots of people...". Their political actions have made the middle east "Vietnam" and i believe that they are deathly afraid that some of these leaked cables will bear out that suspicion and give concrete proof to their involvement in this 'kabal".

I firmly believe the indignation and rage you see is the product of a real fear that the truth will come out and both sides of the aisle will be saddled with it (...and, by the way, i think both sides are guilty...). If these things come out; it will give the american people a shocking look at exactly how sorry our foreign policy is and how completely morally bankrupt the majority of politicos and bureaucrats who are calling the shots in this "theatre of operations" are at this juncture in our nation's history.

I predict that if this does come out, everybody will have the pitchforks out and will be calling for a clean sweep of many old time polititians and career bureaucrats that are currently residing inside the beltway. I say: "...let it happen..."

Food for thought

Leroy

Good food for thought, so a question I have is do you think all of these events will lead us to get back to the government that I think was the original intent, that is, not politics as a profession, but service? Things like term limits, etc, put in place, to avoid the path of temptation all of these guys and gals in DC fall into?

But I still think the way this is happening is as much of an issue as what it might or might not reveal. And although I am not a conspiracy theory type of guy, a part of me cannot but wonder if someone in DC is involved or wanted this to happen? Use these leaks as some kind of red herring, whilst being up to other mischief? Keep us regular folks from looking at the huge debt, bad economy, etc....who knows (maybe only the Shadow).

Cheers!

[wjh2657]

"2) Figure out how the heck to protect their sensitive documents. This isn't the first time classified documents have been leaked."

The summation of the whole problem. WikiLeaks publishing the data is not an American issue. But obtaining the data from classified sources is our problem. If the guilty party is an American, we have a traitor. If it is foreign agent or hacker, we have a spy (espionage.) We also have some government employees to be fired and some serious answers from our so-called security people.

Sounds too much like the classical closing the door after the horse got out.

[JAB]

Things like term limits, etc, put in place, to avoid the path of temptation all of these guys and gals in DC fall into?

Meh, term limits would just mean that the politicians would realize that they only had a limited amount of time to 'get theirs' rather than being able to stretch it out over a lifetime. The problem, again, is allowing politicians to do so much in secrecy and label it all as 'classified' in the first place.

Edited December 2, 2010 by JAB

[Oh Shoot]

Meh, term limits would just mean that the politicians would realize that they only had a limited amount of time to 'get theirs' rather than being able to stretch it out over a lifetime. The problem, again, is allowing politicians to do everything in secrecy and label it all as 'classified' in the first place.

I dunno.

Although outright payoff/graft happens, the main way elected officials make theirs is simply by having information to which the rest of us are not privy. If you knew which new drug was about to be approved or denied, which company was about to be awarded a huge military contract, etc, etc, it would be pretty darn easy to make plenty in the market.

Even on a local level, if you knew which properties were going to be rezoned to commercial, which big companies were interested in locating to a certain site if zoning were favorable, which public companies are going to be awarded a certain juicy contract, etc, again, pretty easy to know where to throw what money you have into a venture that doubles it, etc.

This is how so many elected officials seem to make very "shrewd" investments.

These "investment opportunities" happen over extended time, so term limits likely would cut down on members padding their pockets in just a term or two.

- OS

[JAB]

I dunno.

Although outright payoff/graft happens, the main way elected officials make theirs is simply by having information to which the rest of us are not privy. If you knew which new drug was about to be approved or denied, which company was about to be awarded a huge military contract, etc, etc, it would be pretty darn easy to make plenty in the market.

Even on a local level, if you knew which properties were going to be rezoned to commercial, which big companies were interested in locating to a certain site if zoning were favorable, which public companies are going to be awarded a certain juicy contract, etc, again, pretty easy to know where to throw what money you have into a venture that doubles it, etc.

This is how so many elected officials seem to make very "shrewd" investments.

These "investment opportunities" happen over extended time, so term limits likely would cut down on members padding their pockets in just a term or two.

- OS

You have a point. However, I think we would just see 'cooperatives' form, as in, "I'll help you get into office as my replacement if you'll scratch my back when you get there." Just look at even something so 'mundane' as the position of Knox County Sheriff. I don't live in Knox County, any more, but if I have it right, Hutchison finally got term limited out and more or less hand picked his replacement. The replacement then put Hutchison into a nice position within the department where the position (i.e., Hutchison) immediately got a raise. Hutchison then received a nice retirement package when he retired just a short time later. Again, the problem isn't the amount of time that individuals have to be corrupt but the amount of corruption in the system as a whole.

Now, as part of your post implies, if politicians had less information to which the rest of us aren't privy then there would be less opportunity for those 'investment opportunities', as you put it. Kind of all goes back to the idea that the less information is allowed to be kept 'privy', classified or whatever then the the more opportunities for corruption will be reduced. All that kind of goes back to the theme I have been talking about in this thread; that there is a difference between what needs to be secret and what politicians simply want to keep secret and, I believe, that the less the latter is allowed the better the former can be protected.

Edited December 2, 2010 by JAB

[Oh Shoot]

You have a point. However, I think we would just see 'cooperatives' form, as in, "I'll help you get into office as my replacement if you'll scratch my back when you get there." Just look at even something so 'mundane' as the position of Knox County Sheriff. Hutchison finally gets term limited out and more or less hand picks his replacement. The replacement then puts Hutchison into a nice position within the department and Hutchison immediately gets a raise and gets a nice pension when he retires. Again, the problem isn't the amount of time that individuals have to be corrupt but the amount of corruption in the system as a whole.

Yeah, your points are well taken, too.

No easy way to prevent power from corrupting the individual, for sure.

Besides term limits for elected officials, what's really troubling are all the lifetime judge appointments. Talk about having plenty of time for those "shrewd investments", wow. Not to mention legislating from the bench (which foments quid pro quo graft), rather than merely interpreting the law honestly.

- OS

[JAB]

Besides term limits for elected officials, what's really troubling are all the lifetime judge appointments. Talk about having plenty of time for those "shrewd investments", wow. Not to mention legislating from the bench (which foments quid pro quo graft), rather than merely interpreting the law honestly.

- OS

I'm afraid we're totally hijacking the thread, here, but I'm definitely with you on that. If folks from a certain area keep re-electing an elected official and that official does a bad job, is corrupt, etc. then those folks are getting what they voted for. Appointed judges, on the other hand, were never voted in and the public gets no chance to re-elect (rehire) or not (fire) based on their record on the bench.

Of course, there are actually those who believe we would be better off if our [likely corrupt] legislators at the state level appointed our representatives in D.C. rather than having the public vote for those positions. While I may not have the utmost confidence in the average member of the general public to make such decisions, I certainly have no confidence in politicians to do so.

[leroy]

7dog:_______________

Had to think about this one a bit; and still don’t know just how to give a real good answer; so I’ll hook it with a bit of political history to help explain my wishy-washy answer. After thinkin a bit; I think ya can boil this down to two issues:

1. Will this help government and will it push things back to ‘original intent” of politics as service?

2. Did someone want this to happen? Is it a “red herring” to take our minds off the real problems?

Will this help “clean up government”? If real bad things come out (…yet to be determined; the stuff so far aint incriminating --- just embarrassing…) the answer is “Yes”. If anyone is able to be handed good evidence of willful lying to congress or the American people; or “cooking or tailoring data” there will be trouble. This is the “bone” that politicians, pundits, and those who are suspicious of entrenched government (…think Libertarian here…) are looking for. It will lead to a purge of some folks that ought to go. It will re-remind people to be suspicious of government and career bureaucrats (…military as well as civilian…). I count that a good thing.

This sort of thing forced LBJ not to run for a second term in the 1968 presidential race. Nixon ® beat Hubert Humphrey (D) on the Vietnam issue (…Humphrey got 42.7% of the vote, Wallace got 13.5%, and Nixon got 43.4%...). That meant that the democrat popularity fell from a high of about 61% to 43% --- that’s pretty serious for one four year period.

I well remember LBJ’s televised announcement that he would not seek the Democrat Nomination for this second full term (…remember, he served out Kennedy’s term, and was elected to a first term in one of the greatest races of modern times in a real “landslide” (…468 electoral votes to 52 for Goldwater. Johnson won with a 61% popular vote!!...). LBJ looked like a man who had been told he had terminal cancer or had just been told that a loved one had died – it was a sad sight for television. LBJ was a great politician (…although a crook and “dealmaker”…); but you couldn’t help but like him on a personal basis. He was kind of like your “no count uncle” that you dearly loved because he was so outlandish and winsome --- not at all like this current crop of overbearing, unlikeable trash we have today. LBJ later said that he had been systematically lied to by the old “holdovers” from the Kennedy Camp (…chief among them was Robert McNamara…) over the “progress” in Vietnam.

Remember, the main problem in Vietnam was a combination of supporting a bunch of thugs and incompetents in South Vietnam and civilian political “meddling” in military affairs that destroyed any hope of finishing Vietnam in a timely way. The United States Military did not lose Vietnam; political wrangling and mis-reading of foreign leaders lead to us simply pulling out and letting the country fall into communist hands.

The conclusion that I draw from the LBJ, Nixon, Vietnam thing is that people got mad when they found out what was going on in Vietnam and they took it out on the sitting politicians; and that could well happen again this time around. I will grant that things were much different then (…everybody was touched by Vietnam and the draft was on…).

Today, we have a volunteer army and a much smaller fraction of the population affected by these “wars”; but there are folks still dying. I think that could easily happen again, if incriminating evidence comes out of any of this Wikileaks thing.

As to the question of “…will things turn back to “original intent”…?” The answer is a quick “NO”. It never will, because (…I think…) the Founding Fathers never envisioned the idea of political interests being able to use military means effect political change somewhere else in the world.

The Founding Fathers were “Isolationists” (…and I think that is a good thing…). This stupid meddling in foreign affairs started around WW1.

The second question is pretty quick for me to; the answer is “No”. Politicians aint smart enough to orchestrate this sort of thing (…in my opinion…). They have been “bushwhacked” by it. That’s why I think it’s great.

The sobering fact is that the future of this country lies in the hands of the voter. Let’s hope and pray that folks hold this entire sorry bunch accountable for the things they do. I believe that you may see the greatest shakeup in American politics since the Civil War over the Tea Party thing. You may see the Democrat and Republican party morph into a new party kind of like the European socialist party and the Tea Party become the new conservative party that stands for strict constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, capitalism, and smaller government. I certainly hope so.

Clear as mud and ambiguous enough?

Leroy

Edited December 2, 2010 by leroy
formatting

[mikegideon]

That one made my head hurt, and not because of what you said

[Oh Shoot]

That one made my head hurt, and not because of what you said

Use <Control +> Mikey.

- OS

[DavidD]

Use <Control +> Mikey.

- OS

Nice trick OS, learned something new

[Oh Shoot]

Nice trick OS, learned something new

Works in IE and FireFox. <Control -> (minus) to go smaller <Control 0> (zero) to reset to normal.

Same as using menu to zoom, but quicker.

Back to topic, sorry.

- OS

Edited December 3, 2010 by OhShoot

[Guest 1010011010]

By my understanding the "rape" charge is something to do with Assange having consensual sex with a woman without wearing a condom. Some strange law unique to Sweden. The woman filing the charges apparently has ties to the CIA, so that would be interesting.

As for the "putting our soldiers at risk" schtick. Wikileaks has invited the US to identify data that would endanger personnel so it can be redacted. Possibly so they can have a nice loose-lips-sink-ships type narrative, the US has not taken them up on this offer.

Wikileaks is doing the job the press should be doing.

[mikegideon]

Use <Control +> Mikey.

- OS

I was just razzin' him a little

[7dogguy]

Beck is a story teller. How are you going to prove him wrong? Has anybody proved him right either? Soros being an active progressive doesn't really set him apart. Beck infuriates me because he takes his listeners' eyes off the ball. Soros ain't our problem. Progressives are certainly part of the problem, but Soros isn't as powerful as some of the others. He's just a Beck trademark.

We can't get to the real solutions because of the Becks of the world. I've given up on solutions, but I'll continue to take stabs at radical whack jobs like Beck, even if there is a smattering of truth in SOME of his crap. I only have to be lied to once to consider somebody a liar. I just hope Beck KNOWS he's lying, because the other possibility is even scarier.

Beck is good at promoting Beck and making a butt-load of money - like many "pundits" and as you note, radicals from both sides are making a lot of noise - like a horse farting. Funny, these guys reinvent themselves to be "experts". Oh well, PT Barnum was right in many ways.

[7dogguy]

Meh, term limits would just mean that the politicians would realize that they only had a limited amount of time to 'get theirs' rather than being able to stretch it out over a lifetime. The problem, again, is allowing politicians to do so much in secrecy and label it all as 'classified' in the first place.

Yeah, you could have a point there. They would become like bank robbers on a clock, filling the sacks then hitting the door running. So our option is to keep voting the ones out who betray common sense. I don't expect any politician to be 100% aligned with me, anymore than I think any of us could be 100% aligned on things. But we should all be able to find a middle ground, each give a bit, and work to a common good for all citizens.

Anway, getting off topic. J Assange is an azzhat and chicken to boot, as he is hiding out. If his work is so noble, why is he hiding like a chicken thief (and alledged rapist, etc)?

[Oh Shoot]

By my understanding the "rape" charge is something to do with Assange having consensual sex with a woman without wearing a condom. Some strange law unique to Sweden. The woman filing the charges apparently has ties to the CIA, so that would be interesting.....

Two women, actually. Maybe during same sexual fray? Go Julian!

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

,,,If his work is so noble, why is he hiding like a chicken thief ...

Oh, about same reason Salman Rushdie had to?

- OS

[7dogguy]

Oh, about same reason Salman Rushdie had to?

- OS

Loons hunting loons? :-)

[Oh Shoot]

Loons hunting loons? :-)

Good enough, I reckon.

I don't think the Mossad is after him, or the FSB (KGB), since he hasn't bared any of their secrets, or he'd probably already been zapped.

Of course, we don't do that sort of thing any more (and I guess we really don't, unfortunately -- sure would save a lot of tax money).

So that just leaves the various Arab nations who are chagrined over one release or the other. After all, etymology of "assassin" IS Arabic.

- OS

[Guest mosinon]

the single best thing about wikileaks is the revelation that a lot of really smart people aren't. The notion that the government has secret information that justifies their actions on your behalf should now be shattered.

I find this entire rape thing inconsequential. I'll allow (for the sake of argument) that Assange raped four hundred nuns, three priests, and two children. At gun point. While screaming passages from the communist manifesto while kicking puppies. He, I will allow, is the single worst person ever.

And all that changes the content of the leaks how?

[leroy]

Mosinon is exactly right. The truth is always the truth. The howling about Assange's character is just that; "...howling...". It's a desperate attempt to take the public's focus off the content of the messages and focus on discrediting the messenger. Dont allow yourself to be dragged of into the bushes about Assange's character; that aint the problem here, and those doing the howling well know that.

If folks want to be mad about all this, the anger should be directed toward the overbearing insiders who are doing the wrong thing and being embarrased by all this, and the system that allowed a gay PFC to download it. How's that for '...dont ask -- dont tell?... .

For additional reading on this subject; i would recommend this article by my genius heartthrob Ann Coulter's article at Townhall.

Link here: Bradley Manning: Poster Boy for 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' - Ann Coulter - Townhall Conservative

Highly recommended. Great read.

leroy

Edited December 3, 2010 by leroy
spelling!!!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

She does do a good job, doesn't she?

I wouldn't cut Assange any slack, any time soon, but I agree with your point, Leroy.

It isn't the puppet that bothers me as much as it is the puppet master. The secrets

that are still not known are the ones that may commit our country to doom. I doubt

Assange and his geeks will get there.

I would rather take the new blood approach. We already know what's going on in our

government by the laws they pass. It's a big enough of an indicator on it's own, and

the rats in the government have their own leakers.Too many rats still in the sewer

and the secrets they hold are their power. It will come out with more Rubios in the

senate and more Wests in the house.

[JAB]

By my understanding the "rape" charge is something to do with Assange having consensual sex with a woman without wearing a condom. Some strange law unique to Sweden.

I hadn't heard that but was actually wondering about the 'charge' from the moment I first heard about it. After all, aren't men in Sweden expected to sit down when they pee because peeing while standing up is sexist? (No, I am not making this up)

Absolutely potty | Spectator, The | Find Articles at BNET

An excerpted line, for educational/illustrative purposes:

Young Swedish women now demand that their men use the lavatory in a strictly sedentary posture - partly, I am told, for reasons of hygiene, but, more crucially, because a man standing up to urinate is deemed to be triumphing in his masculinity and, by extension, degrading women.

Unless I am mistaken, there were actually attempts a few years back to pass a law which would legally require men to sit while urinating. So, while I place rape amongst the most dispicable of crimes, I would also have to hear exactly what this guy supposedly did before being ready to break out the rope. Heck, for all I know the rape charge comes from breaking some Swedish law requiring him to clean the woman's apartment and bake her a cake after engaging in consensual sex.

[7dogguy]

7dog:_______________

Had to think about this one a bit; and still don’t know just how to give a real good answer; so I’ll hook it with a bit of political history to help explain my wishy-washy answer. After thinkin a bit; I think ya can boil this down to two issues:

1. Will this help government and will it push things back to ‘original intent†of politics as service?

2. Did someone want this to happen? Is it a “red herring†to take our minds off the real problems?

Will this help “clean up governmentâ€? If real bad things come out (…yet to be determined; the stuff so far aint incriminating --- just embarrassing…) the answer is “Yesâ€. If anyone is able to be handed good evidence of willful lying to congress or the American people; or “cooking or tailoring data†there will be trouble. This is the “bone†that politicians, pundits, and those who are suspicious of entrenched government (…think Libertarian here…) are looking for. It will lead to a purge of some folks that ought to go. It will re-remind people to be suspicious of government and career bureaucrats (…military as well as civilian…). I count that a good thing.

This sort of thing forced LBJ not to run for a second term in the 1968 presidential race. Nixon ® beat Hubert Humphrey (D) on the Vietnam issue (…Humphrey got 42.7% of the vote, Wallace got 13.5%, and Nixon got 43.4%...). That meant that the democrat popularity fell from a high of about 61% to 43% --- that’s pretty serious for one four year period.

I well remember LBJ’s televised announcement that he would not seek the Democrat Nomination for this second full term (…remember, he served out Kennedy’s term, and was elected to a first term in one of the greatest races of modern times in a real “landslide†(…468 electoral votes to 52 for Goldwater. Johnson won with a 61% popular vote!!...). LBJ looked like a man who had been told he had terminal cancer or had just been told that a loved one had died – it was a sad sight for television. LBJ was a great politician (…although a crook and “dealmakerâ€â€¦); but you couldn’t help but like him on a personal basis. He was kind of like your “no count uncle†that you dearly loved because he was so outlandish and winsome --- not at all like this current crop of overbearing, unlikeable trash we have today. LBJ later said that he had been systematically lied to by the old “holdovers†from the Kennedy Camp (…chief among them was Robert McNamara…) over the “progress†in Vietnam.

Remember, the main problem in Vietnam was a combination of supporting a bunch of thugs and incompetents in South Vietnam and civilian political “meddling†in military affairs that destroyed any hope of finishing Vietnam in a timely way. The United States Military did not lose Vietnam; political wrangling and mis-reading of foreign leaders lead to us simply pulling out and letting the country fall into communist hands.

The conclusion that I draw from the LBJ, Nixon, Vietnam thing is that people got mad when they found out what was going on in Vietnam and they took it out on the sitting politicians; and that could well happen again this time around. I will grant that things were much different then (…everybody was touched by Vietnam and the draft was on…).

Today, we have a volunteer army and a much smaller fraction of the population affected by these “warsâ€; but there are folks still dying. I think that could easily happen again, if incriminating evidence comes out of any of this Wikileaks thing.

As to the question of “…will things turn back to “original intentâ€â€¦?†The answer is a quick “NOâ€. It never will, because (…I think…) the Founding Fathers never envisioned the idea of political interests being able to use military means effect political change somewhere else in the world.

The Founding Fathers were “Isolationists†(…and I think that is a good thing…). This stupid meddling in foreign affairs started around WW1.

The second question is pretty quick for me to; the answer is “Noâ€. Politicians aint smart enough to orchestrate this sort of thing (…in my opinion…). They have been “bushwhacked†by it. That’s why I think it’s great.

The sobering fact is that the future of this country lies in the hands of the voter. Let’s hope and pray that folks hold this entire sorry bunch accountable for the things they do. I believe that you may see the greatest shakeup in American politics since the Civil War over the Tea Party thing. You may see the Democrat and Republican party morph into a new party kind of like the European socialist party and the Tea Party become the new conservative party that stands for strict constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, capitalism, and smaller government. I certainly hope so.

Clear as mud and ambiguous enough?

Leroy

LOL. No, it makes sense as I think along the same lines - which might be why I enjoy your posts. I especially like the analgous comparison of LBJ to that no account Uncle so many families have - but we always want to spend time with "Uncle X", cause he is entertaining as all get out - at least to a kid.

Thanks for the reply! And I am with you in hoping we the people take back the political discourse. Although I think Beck is a great self-promoter, he is effective at getting people fired up and may be on to something.

Cheers,

Barry