Patterico's Pontifications

11/29/2010

Questions Asked

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:01 pm

Yeah, I learned my headline writing style from Tim Blair. What of it?

Sarah Palin:

First and foremost, what steps were taken to stop Wikileaks director Julian Assange from distributing this highly sensitive classified material especially after he had already published material not once but twice in the previous months? Assange is not a “journalist,” any more than the “editor” of al Qaeda’s new English-language magazine Inspire is a “journalist.” He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?

What if any diplomatic pressure was brought to bear on NATO, EU, and other allies to disrupt Wikileaks’ technical infrastructure? Did we use all the cyber tools at our disposal to permanently dismantle Wikileaks? Were individuals working for Wikileaks on these document leaks investigated? Shouldn’t they at least have had their financial assets frozen just as we do to individuals who provide material support for terrorist organizations?

So those are the questions she is asking.

112 Responses to “Questions Asked”

  1. Offered without comment.

    But that doesn’t mean you guys can’t comment.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  2. gawd she is SO stupid… its a good thing we have somebody smart in the White House.

    all the usual suspects (fb8750)

  3. I was under the impression that Wikileaks offered to work with the government to remove the most sensitive material from the document-wad, but the government refused.

    So, with that olive branch in mind: why is Palin, who made her reputation fighting for transparency in government, likening an organization with that exact goal to Al-Qaeda? That’s bothersome – even if Wikileaks has a flawed methodology, the tone of Palin’s comment doesn’t seem to acknowledge the importance whistleblowers play in government transparency.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  4. I think those are interesting questions, ones that will never be asked of Gibbs or Barcky.

    JD (ab60db)

  5. Leviticus,
    I must respectfully disagree. This was stolen classified material that harms our country and puts lives at risk. Would you call traitors like Hanson or Walker, “whistleblowers”?

    Machinist (74634b)

  6. “That’s bothersome – even if Wikileaks has a flawed methodology”

    The appropriate methodology would have been to have Manning’s body, impaled from its nether regions, appear in Assange’s hotel closet at check in.

    You are one sick little gerbil.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  7. As is pretty typical for Ms. Palin nice red meat for the base – but I don’t think she has thought this through much.
    Assange, despicable person certainly, is a far cry from Al Qaeda. Hell given the Pentagon Papers precedent he may not have even broken any US laws. (Pfc. Manning and whoever else gave him the various documents have and should do time). And as to the idea that he doesn’t get first amendment protections because he is not a “journalist” — well I think bloggers in particular should be wary of arguments that grant superior privileges to traditional press or press that one agrees with.
    As to preventing the distribution of the documents – I mean I guess that would be nice, but is probably pretty much impossible. While I am sure NSA/DOD could disrupt the wikileaks site itself – I doubt that we and our allies could disrupt all its proxy sites. And even if we could – Assange turned copies over to established foreign papers (who then passed it along to US papers). Does it really seem like a good idea for the US gov’t to be attempting to shut down El Pais, Der Spiegel, the Guardian, and the New York Times?
    So while the situation sucks – I would be a lot more reluctant than Ms. Palin has been to criticize the US response.

    TomO (72d137)

  8. What if any diplomatic pressure was brought to bear on NATO, EU, and other allies to disrupt Wikileaks’ technical infrastructure? Did we use all the cyber tools at our disposal to permanently dismantle Wikileaks? Were individuals working for Wikileaks on these document leaks investigated? Shouldn’t they at least have had their financial assets frozen just as we do to individuals who provide material support for terrorist organizations?

    Palin is not the only one at higher levels who does not understand the cyber threat and what can or cannot be done. It happened primarily because we had one traitorous military member who obtained the documents. The documents were more accessible due to increased sharing between agencies that was encouraged after 9-11.
    The US is struggling with the issue of “striking back in cyberspace” due to Title 10 and Title 50 concerns.

    GEN. ALEXANDER: Well, for the Title 10, they operate under the — Cyber Command operates under Title 10 authorities to this committee, the House Armed Services Committee.

    NSA — we operate under Title 50 intelligence authorities under the House Permanent Select Committee for Intelligence. And we have, in our staffs, the legal teams to ensure that we do these exactly right.

    And so any operations that Cyber Command does, defensively, we have the standing rules of engagement laid out there. And any other operations that we would do would have to be done under an execute order through the secretary of Defense and the president.

    http://www.stratcom.mil/speeches/52/House_Armed_Services_Committee_Cyberspace_Operations_Testimony

    What that alludes to is what is or is not considered an act of war against another country re cyber.

    Once again she strives to get attention while showing no real understanding of the underlying causes and challenges in responding. The scary part is that too few of our politicians/national leaders really do understand.

    As for disrupting the technical infrastructure she must not know what mirror sites are. The stuff has been released and unfortunately there is no way to put it back in the memory stick.

    For anyone interested in the in depth look at our cyber challenges I’d recommend
    “Cyberpower and National Security (National Defense University) by Franklin D. Kramer, Stuart H. Starr, and Larry Wentz”

    It sounds as if the next release will be a lot of embarassing stuff from a major bank.

    VOR2 (c9795e)

  9. Those are some good points, TomO. Very good indeed. I disagree that she criticized too fast, and agree that once they were out there, it was going to become public anyway. However, criticizing the response is quite valid, as the feckless dirty little wannabe socialist in office spends more time shutting down websites for copyright infringements than on preventing this dump. Just my 2 cents.

    JD (ab60db)

  10. TomO

    Honestly, I dont care if someone gives me top secret documents then I will contact the authorities and return them. Also listened to Assange and Glenn Greenwald being interviewed over the chopper footage in Qatar and Dubai some years ago. Assange made it clear that he advocates the violent overthrow of our country, even Greenwald waffled at that.

    At that point he became an enemy of the United States.

    So I think Palin’s comments were on track but so are thousands of politicians on the subject.

    Its the actions people take, not the words they say….

    EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc)

  11. This is the fourth release, that I can recall of unauthorized data, from wikileaks, Pentagon files on Afghan, Iraq, CIA, and now State, NSA will be probably be next, although it likes they might hack
    a bank, first

    narciso (9d0688)

  12. This is the fourth release, that I can recall of unauthorized data, from wikileaks, Pentagon files on Afghan, Iraq, CIA, and now State, NSA will be probably be next, although it likes they might hack
    a bank
    , first

    Part of the problem is that not all of it is “hacking”. There are apps such as limewire that if you simply type in a search string you can see documents publicly shared on the internet. Usually that is because the user has some P2P software on their computer and don’t understand how to protect their files from being shared.
    It is just a matter of data mining at that point. The Dept of State releases were caused by an insider illegally copying the info and giving it to someone else.

    VOR2 (c9795e)

  13. Palin’s statements, while perhaps a bit hyperbolic, pose some good questions.

    My guess is that, regarding her point made in the first paragraph, there’s a strong possibility that the now-notorious assmunch Assange might simply disappear; especially after embarrassing King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz in such a public manner. One can only hope that it might be possible he undergo a sampling of “extraordianry rendition” techniques prior to allowing him any sweet release from the shackles of this life…

    Regarding the point of her second paragraph, well, perhaps they were too busy shutting down websites that were interfering with the profits of rap stars, game designers, and corporate entities. You know, instead of safeguarding our national security, they were looking out for corporate interests instead. All a prelude to the “net neutrality” connivance to come later this week…

    As Eric pointed out in #10, Assange has made it clear that he supports the violent overthrow of the US. That, in my opinion, was enough to justify the necessary wetworks…

    Bob Reed (5f2db5)

  14. One is reminded by Beck, yesterday that Wikileaks sought it’s first funding from Soros’s OSI, which
    has been at the forefront of the Marijuana campaign. the jihad against Israel, the Think Progress cribsheet et al, they all have the same goal, the destabilizing of society, he’s like a character out of one of the later Wiseguy arcs

    narciso (9d0688)

  15. I suspect that we will learn the answers to Palin’s questions eventually, as soon as Julian Assange gets around to releasing the relevant documents.

    Pious Agnostic (291f9a)

  16. I can’t imagine that Manning is the only player, as this fits the goals of the VIPers organization, that
    were behind the Plame debacle

    narciso (9d0688)

  17. ooh look… an opportunity for a failed governor to put the spotlight on herself!

    Now pout, baby. Work it for the camera.

    happyfeet (42fd61)

  18. Palin’s questions are good. We should know more about what capabilities the US has to squelch speech around the world; and the situations in which these capabilities are being deployed.

    imdw (05d749)

  19. “One can only hope that it might be possible he undergo a sampling of “extraordianry rendition” techniques prior to allowing him any sweet release from the shackles of this life…”

    Ah, veritable poetry, must be an interloper.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  20. The answer to her questions is easy: The leaker is a gay soldier and the Obama administration is determined to keep the narrative of “gays are great, normal people and not at all a threat to national security”.

    Dealing hard with this issue would involve dealing hard with why something as simple as a PFC. getting jilted by his lover could cause so much damage. They wanted to bury this as bad as they want to bury the Ft. Hood shooter’s identity and motive.

    Smarty (b78ca5)

  21. Failed Governor?

    To make such an argument is dishonest and plain bitchy. She did a better job as Governor than Barak did as President in two years by any possible measure.
    She had to quit because dishonest and nasty liberals tried to destroy her through lawfare, and tried to prevent her from defending herself.

    Liberals FEAR Sarah like they haven’t feared a GOP politician in recent memory.

    Smarty (b78ca5)

  22. liberals don’t fear Palin… she’s their absolute best shot at holding the presidency in 2012 because independents think she’s stupid and annoying – that’s why her negatives are so high

    happyfeet (42fd61)

  23. One hopes that our government has already addressed these questions. One fears that they have not. One wonders why outside pundits (Mrs Palin) are needed to remind our government to do their jobs.

    thomas (80504e)

  24. I think it’s cool that Palin thinks being President means being a superhero…it’s also sad, of course, but still cool that she aspirations to be a superhero.

    I also think it’s just neato that all Sarah knows about Wikileaks is about America. Must be our exceptionalism and all that she is unaware that many of the leaks are about international governments and institutions

    # 8.1 Pre-2009

    * 8.1.1 Apparent Somali assassination order
    * 8.1.2 Daniel arap Moi family corruption
    * 8.1.3 Bank Julius Baer lawsuit
    * 8.1.4 Guantánamo Bay procedures
    * 8.1.5 Scientology
    * 8.1.6 Sarah Palin’s Yahoo email account contents
    * 8.1.7 BNP membership list

    Then again, even I forgot about Palin’s email account, so maybe this is just revenge

    timb (449046)

  25. It happened primarily because we had one traitorous military member who obtained the documents. The documents were more accessible due to increased sharing between agencies that was encouraged after 9-11.

    I keep hearing that last bit from (mostly left) commentators, and it leads me to believe that out of this mess, they hope to get less sharing between agencies.
    Because it simply makes no sense that more sharing had to lead to sloppy, free-for-all documentation.

    MayBee (138edc)

  26. It still doesn’t make any sense, you just log in from COSH, and you pull down all the files, who was manning the servers at Foggy Bottom, and the Pentagon

    narciso (9d0688)

  27. You’re right, narciso. Sharing information between agencies shouldn’t mean being able to pull every last bit of information from every agency in huge batches.

    Compare Manning’s gold mine to the inability of the state department to find internal information about the Christmas Day bomber.

    MayBee (138edc)

  28. Mr Reed wrote:

    My guess is that, regarding her point made in the first paragraph, there’s a strong possibility that the now-notorious assmunch Assange might simply disappear; especially after embarrassing King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz in such a public manner. One can only hope that it might be possible he undergo a sampling of “extraordianry rendition” techniques prior to allowing him any sweet release from the shackles of this life…

    Former Governor Palin’s question was: why hadn’t this already been done? It’s not like Mr Assange wasn’t a previous malefactor, and it’s not like we didn’t know he’d do it again if he could.

    Mrs Palin isn’t my preferred Republican presidential candidate, primarily because I’m worried taht she’s too damaged goods, and just can’t win. But with Barack Hussein Obama as President, nothing was done; had Sarah Palin been President, it is quite possible that Mr Assange would have been stone-cold graveyard dead after the first Wiki leak.

    We have all of these rocket scientists in the present Administration, but what is missing is plain, ordinary common sense.

    She has it, while Presidenmt Obama does not; no wonder the left hates her so much!

    The realistic Dana (3e4784)

  29. I keep hearing that last bit from (mostly left) commentators, and it leads me to believe that out of this mess, they hope to get less sharing between agencies.
    Because it simply makes no sense that more sharing had to lead to sloppy, free-for-all documentation.

    Maybee, It has nothing to do with the commentators being leftist. It is the reality of the current situation.
    The problem is that on the cyber side we haven’t cracked the nut on how to outline effective Role Based Access Control requirements so that the right positions have the right access to specific information.
    It is not about less sharing between agencies but rather about not having all info open to all users.

    VOR2 (c9795e)

  30. Victor Davis Hanson nails it again:

    Yet, in cowardly fashion, [Julian Assange] stays clear of getting involved with dissident leakers from those governments and groups — e.g., China, Iran, North Korea, Hezbollah, Russia, Syria — that (1) do far more damage to the global body politic than the United States, and (2) might well do bodily harm to Mr. Assange should he do to them what he does to Western interests.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  31. Maybee, It has nothing to do with the commentators being leftist. It is the reality of the current situation.
    The problem is that on the cyber side we haven’t cracked the nut on how to outline effective Role Based Access Control requirements so that the right positions have the right access to specific information.
    It is not about less sharing between agencies but rather about not having all info open to all users.

    Ok, but that isn’t a result of sharing information post 9/11. That’s a result of sharing information in a really stupid, sloppy way.
    Who would have thought having info open to all users was the right way to do it?
    That people are trying to tie a really horribly planned information sharing system to the fact that information is shared between agencies seems very agenda-driven.

    MayBee (138edc)

  32. his pc had a cd-rw

    that’s just inappropriate

    happyfeet (42fd61)

  33. “It is not about less sharing between agencies but rather about not having all info open to all users.”

    One of the critiques of wider information sharing is that it could lead to more information misuse. Like this leak.

    imdw (3ac9fb)

  34. Why, Sarah? Because our incredibly weak regime allows it.

    I watched the Fox program on Reagan and was shocked to learn that the moment with the highest amount of diplomatic cable activity then was after Reagan fired the air traffic controllers. The tyrants watch these things. They learned he was strong. Of course, this was a pro-Reagan show, but they do watch. And now they know we have Carter II, not Reagan II.

    Gird your loins.

    Patricia (3aa1fd)

  35. The Russians knew this was some one they had to reckon with, after that instance, and they are smart enough to know who would be a tough negotiating partner for the future,

    narciso (9d0688)

  36. “The Russians knew this was some one they had to reckon with, after that instance, and they are smart enough to know who would be a tough negotiating partner for the future,”

    And now we wait on the senate GOP to ratify START.

    imdw (7b0243)

  37. Who would have thought having info open to all users was the right way to do it?
    That people are trying to tie a really horribly planned information sharing system to the fact that information is shared between agencies seems very agenda-driven.

    Maybee,
    After 9-11 one of the main goals was to make sure it didn’t happen again. No one wanted to be the person who let something slip and we went from a pretty compartmentalized setup to the other extreme using roughly the same number of networks and databases. If there was an agenda it was too much cya concerns at all upper levels.
    There is a balance and it has not been struck to date.

    VOR2 (c9795e)

  38. Ridiculing Palin for calling for some action regarding this Wikileaks is what all the smart people are doing, right? I mean, you’d have to be a right wing authoritarian to call for a criminal investigation of the leaks.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  39. even if Wikileaks has a flawed methodology, the tone of Palin’s comment doesn’t seem to acknowledge the importance whistleblowers play in government transparency

    Whistleblowers are people who disclose illegal activity, not thousands of documents just because they’re classified. I thought everyone knew that…

    Gerald A (a8f004)

  40. Interesting take on cablegate at American Thinker–

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/cablegate_obamas_katrina_times.html

    elissa (f0ac9d)

  41. it is quite possible that Mr Assange would have been stone-cold graveyard dead after the first Wiki leak.

    hey, realistic Dana, who else is on your hit list? I mean, since we’re ignoring due process and all, who else do you want your President to kill with no hearing and no proof of violence?

    It amazes me that crap like this can be said and no one says anything. Assange has NOT been even charged with a crime, let alone convicted. The DOJ is looking into whether they can prosecute him re-publishing material provided to him (hint: ask Sullivan v New York Times) and several commenters here are in favor of murdering him on foreign soil.

    Just what kind of empire is the realistic Dana advocating?

    timb (449046)

  42. “you’d have to be a right wing authoritarian to call for a criminal investigation of the leaks”

    Just Ogabe going thru the motions. Not that he gives a rip about what Amerikkka thinks-his base is captive anyway.

    Assagne and Beelzebub are committed to a common cause.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  43. timb, haven’t you noticed that Obama already has a list of people to kill with no hearing? Including an American citizen?

    timb, do you have any clue what you are writing? I mean, do you have the excuse of some condition that prevents you from thinking before typing?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  44. “Just what kind of empire is the realistic Dana advocating?”

    One that identifies babies named Tim and dashes their brains in?

    Doubt it.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  45. “Ridiculing Palin for calling for some action regarding this Wikileaks is what all the smart people are doing, right? I mean, you’d have to be a right wing authoritarian to call for a criminal investigation of the leaks.”

    It would appear is if you are unfamiliar with Palin’s comments.

    imdw (3bf1a8)

  46. “I was under the impression that Wikileaks offered to work with the government to remove the most sensitive material from the document-wad, but the government refused.”

    How considerate of Wikileaks to offer the US an opportunity to hilite the good bits.

    Davod (bce08f)

  47. Gird your loins.

    Comment by Patricia

    I think that sums it up.

    One of the only things I like about Nixon was that he was willing to intimidate enemies. That’s an essential element to diplomacy.

    Do I want the president sending goons into Europe to kill wikileaks staffers? Not necessarily. But I do want people to be afraid of doing this kind of damage to my country.

    Obama keeps trading valuable things for bills of goods and never retaliates when screwed. We will be paying for that for the rest of our lives. It means more suffering all around the world. Just as Carter’s very public impotence helped the ayatollahs, Mugabe, the Norks, and more, Obama’s will usher in a new era of misery.

    The USA has to talk the talk. Walking the walk is not always necessary if you scare some of these bastards.

    Palin’s clumsy to compare Assange to Al Qaida and she should be more specific about what she things we can do about this problem. But I’m glad someone’s asking about this.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  48. The answer to her questions is easy: The leaker is a gay soldier and the Obama administration is determined to keep the narrative of “gays are great, normal people and not at all a threat to national security”.

    I have recently been edified on the proper term in academia for the administration’s endeavor; Ho-YAY!

    Illuminating, especially for someone who attended, but is decidedly not a tenured memeber of, the academy…

    Perhaps Dr.Willie the wanker, that notorious racists hilljack skin-flute serenader can go into more, er, explicit detail on such policy; having most certainly benefitted from it so himself…

    Bob Reed (5f2db5)

  49. had Sarah Palin been President, it is quite possible that Mr Assange would have been stone-cold graveyard dead after the first Wiki leak.

    While that is an absolutely delightful occurrance to ponder for a moment, Dana, regrettably it seems the CIA by-and-large has gotten out of the “wetworks” business.

    Of course, we could always lean on our friends who have no such reservations…

    Bob Reed (5f2db5)

  50. Well we would use contractors for that kind of work,

    narciso (9d0688)

  51. “regrettably it seems the CIA by-and-large has gotten out of the “wetworks” business.”

    The CIA is broken and full of democrat loyalists who play awful games. I guess that’s the nature of any bureaucracy.

    Most of the people we really need are loyal and could simply be transferred to a new agency (which should be in the military). The Air Force and Army could easily handle their missions. The rest of the organization is unreliable and missed every major development in world affairs I’m aware of.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  52. Hey Welcome back Dustin!

    EricPWJohnson (d84fb0)

  53. A man who reveals that police are taking money from gangs to look the other way is a whistle blower.

    A man who exposes police who are working under cover in gangs is not.

    A person that publishes that information is little better.

    Machinist (74634b)

  54. Mr. VDH has it right. There are no leakers in China, Iran, North Korea because everybody in those countries are super patriotic and wouldn’t think of harming their government’s foreign policy. That, and because if they did they’d get shot in the eye.

    Birdbath (8501d4)

  55. Thanks, EPWJ!

    “A person that publishes that information is little better.”

    Agreed. We’ve got a fundamental problem when our own newspapers are proudly betraying national security.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  56. Mr. VDH has it right. There are no leakers in China, Iran, North Korea because everybody in those countries is super patriotic and wouldn’t think of harming their government’s foreign policy. That, and because if they did they’d get shot in the eye.

    Birdbath (8501d4)

  57. Sorry about the double.

    Birdbath (8501d4)

  58. “The appropriate methodology would have been to have Manning’s body, impaled from its nether regions, appear in Assange’s hotel closet at check in.

    You are one sick little gerbil.”

    – gary gulrud

    I’m not the one barfing impalement fantasies all over an otherwise respectable blog, Cpt. Unintentional Irony.

    What rock did you crawl out from under, anyway?

    Leviticus (b6f9db)

  59. “What rock did you crawl out from under, anyway”

    Moral relativism has limits?

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  60. timb wrote:

    hey, realistic Dana, who else is on your hit list? I mean, since we’re ignoring due process and all, who else do you want your President to kill with no hearing and no proof of violence?

    It amazes me that crap like this can be said and no one says anything. Assange has NOT been even charged with a crime, let alone convicted. The DOJ is looking into whether they can prosecute him re-publishing material provided to him (hint: ask Sullivan v New York Times) and several commenters here are in favor of murdering him on foreign soil.

    We have no proof that Osama bin Laden is personally guilty of violence, either, but, then again, you’re probably one of those guys who would like to see him arrested and then put on trial in Federal District Court.

    President Obama, for all of his faults, has learned the difference between advocating oh-so-nice legalistic positions when he wasn’t actually responsible for anything, to being responsible for the safety of the United States and fighting the war against Islamism. Senator Obama, in 2007, could probably never have imagined that President Obama, in 2010, would approve the targeted assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Islamist cleric who is also an American citizen, but that’s what having actual responsibility will do to you.

    Our noble, liberal President wanted to try Khalid Sheikh Muhammad in Federal District Court in new York, just what the this-is-a-law-enforcement-problem type liberals advocated, but now that he has real responsibility, he has backed off of that idiocy. He was going to close our absolutely horrid and illegal detention center at Guantanamo within a year of taking office; he’s been President for 22 months now, and the place is still open for business, because the terrorists held there are too dangerous to release and often couldn’t be put on trial. Heck, the Administration has already let it be known that for some of the prisoners there, if they were tried and acquitted, they still wouldn’t be released.

    Our esteemed President learned something conservatives already knew: that we are fighting a war, and the “rules” of war are not the dotted j’s and crossed t’s of legal prosecution; the number one rule of war is that you have to kill your enemies.

    I doubt that he liked having to learn that lesson; I’d imagine that it goes against everything he ever believed. But that’s what having actual responsibility will do to you.

    The very realistic Dana (3e4784)

  61. “the number one rule of war is that you have to kill your enemies.”

    Are we at “war” with julian assange, the rest of the wikileaks crew, and the newspapers publishing this stuff?

    imdw (3ac9fb)

  62. “Are we at “war” with julian assange, the rest of the wikileaks crew, and the newspapers publishing this stuff?”

    Why the “and”? Why not an “or”?

    It wouldn’t be because you want to conflate, would it?

    I think it’s worth asking what level of exposure of our secrets and blood spilling leads to warmaking. Assange does have blood on his hands, after all. We would be safer if we blew him up. That doesn’t mean we should, but if we did it wouldn’t be necessary to blow up those who merely repeat his points.

    I also think when you publish someone’s address to terrorists, you’re trying to help them. You’re not the same, but you’re bad.

    We need a real leader, unlike Obama, to make the distinctions. imdw’s simplistic black and white methodology is cute, but useless. Of course, I could conveniently apply it to his own behavior.

    Palin is showing she’s a better leader than Obama is. That’s no surprise, but I think she needs to answer her own question more clearly, take a stand, and let Obama respond.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  63. I don’t think Sarah Palin is the only person asking these questions right now. In fact, I think most people want to know how something like this could happen.

    I think some of it is just plain incompetence, but I also think a lot of it is the same sort of bureaucratic inertia that takes hold of so many large institutions.

    One thing I have wondered, there is word that Assange might have secrets on the Russians as well that he will release..well, how did that happen? I would think the Russians would be far more secretive. My guess is corruption might play a part in that if it is true.

    Terrye (7c855d)

  64. That would be fatally stupid on his part, opposition leaders from Qatar to Austria, have met with worse fates, for much less provocation.

    narciso (9d0688)

  65. It’s no secret that Polonium 10 is pronounced Pu-ten (like Putin). Assange is not going to see the same murky reaction from the former Soviets he’s getting from Obama.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  66. Palin is showing she’s a better leader than Obama is. That’s no surprise, but I think she needs to answer her own question more clearly, take a stand, and let Obama respond

    Not sure how opining shows leadership.

    I think Moran has nailed it with his opinion as to why many have reservations about Palin.

    http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2010/11/30/the-gops-palin-problem-isnt-going-away/

    vor2 (f96c85)

  67. She has been interviewed by Charlie Rose, once in tandem with Napolitano,a year before she was picked, and once during the campaign, ignorance doesn’t become you Rick, or maybe it does

    narciso (9d0688)

  68. She had to quit because dishonest and nasty liberals tried to destroy her through lawfare…

    Lawfare: the enforcement of laws that you don’t like.

    libarbarian (90bd00)

  69. If we can kill a foreign citizen who acted on foreign soil, then China and Russia can do it too. Obviously this includes American citizens who broke Chinese or Russian laws on American soil.

    libarbarian (90bd00)

  70. A 4 minute Green Room interview wasn’t what I had in mind as far as stretching herself.

    http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/6186

    Buckley would have had her quivering like a hunk of jello in 5 minutes.

    rick moran (7fc363)

  71. Last week the feds shut down 75 sites for music and movie sharing violations and yet they won’t shut down Wikileaks? Forewarned is supposed to be forearmed.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  72. “Buckley would have had her quivering like a hunk of jello in 5 minutes.”

    A dead person?

    daleyrocks (df87cd)

  73. Lawfare: the enforcement of laws that you don’t like.

    Comment by libarbarian

    False.

    It was an abuse of the process meant to overwhelm any politician standing for reform against the hyper wealthy corrupt Alaskan political establishment.

    Palin was clean and that’s well proven. Your insinuation that she’s a criminal is a load of crap. They weren’t enforcing laws she was breaking, they were constantly suing over things that were petty and frivolous or untrue.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  74. Not sure how opining shows leadership.

    I think Moran has nailed it with his opinion as to why many have reservations about Palin.

    http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2010/11/30/the-gops-palin-problem-isnt-going-away/

    Comment by vor2

    I have no disagreement with you there. I said better than Obama, though. That’s not much in this case.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  75. She’s a reform politician, but a pragmatist, who came up against an entrenched party machine, Dyer
    was my initial guide into who she was, now tell me where she’s been wrong about something substancial

    narciso (9d0688)

  76. “Buckley would have had her quivering like a hunk of jello in 5 minutes.”

    Back in his day. And that didn’t mean he was a good interviewer-his extreme affectations made him unwatchable.

    Dredging up 2 year old interviews not particularly timely either.

    What’s wrong with your candidates, palinhaters, why are you all so skeered to pimp your midgets.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  77. Interesting how he closed the comment section, except for one track back to Mataconis, I like the Blog Talk Radio program he’s a part of

    narciso (9d0688)

  78. Narciso,

    He has had his comments on his threads closed for several months now. I think he just didn’t have the time to engage some of the commenters.

    vor2 (f96c85)

  79. Back in his day. And that didn’t mean he was a good interviewer-his extreme affectations made him unwatchable.>

    Back in the day, the best reason to watch Firing Line was never the guests, but the host. Those extreme affectations made Buckley one of the best performers on television.

    The answer to her questions is easy: The leaker is a gay soldier and the Obama administration is determined to keep the narrative of “gays are great, normal people and not at all a threat to national security”.

    I see. Straight people never ever betray their country.

    kishnevi (6233f4)

  80. Homosexuality has ALWAYS been considered a risk factor for security clearances, at least until the Clinton administration. Here it proved itself. And the media and the dems (are they different?) are dead set on preserving the narrative that gays are just harmless normal healthy people, despite all the evidence to the contrary. And PFC Manning is most certainly evidence to the contrary.

    Smarty (8a60ad)

  81. Well besides the Cambridge spies, and those two NSA
    agents who defected to Russia in the 60s, that’s
    generally true, Hanson had other interesting (ahem)
    hangups, the Myers who spied for the Cuban govt for 30 years, were rather conventional in this regard,
    same for the Ames, the Howards, et al

    narciso (9d0688)

  82. plus jews you can’t trust them either

    but gay jews are the worst

    happyfeet (42fd61)

  83. Wasn’t Wikileaks considered by liberals as a valued whistleblower during the Bush Administration? How times change, although I suspect it did cause problems for the political gurus in the Obama Administration. They don’t want Obama to be known as the President who arrested Julian Assange for treason, which is no doubt why he’s being sought by Sweden on sex charges. Too bad we can’t see the cables between Sweden and the US on that.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  84. but gay jews are the worst

    Comment by happyfeet

    lol

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  85. Assange should be tracked down and killed. He’s a spy, pure and simple.

    Palin, as usual, makes sense.

    Dave Surls (8c139e)

  86. Mr. Feets – I have friends who have friends who are gay jews.

    daleyrocks (df87cd)

  87. I can only ask that you ask that they ask their friends to be vigilant.

    happyfeet (42fd61)

  88. Homosexuality has ALWAYS been considered a risk factor for security clearances,

    Well, yes. Because if they stay in the closet, they are more susceptible to being blackmailed. But if they are allowed to server openly, no one will be able to blackmail them. So they won’t be a bigger security risk.

    lol

    Comment by Dustin

    I’ll double that :)

    kishnevi (6233f4)

  89. Except that Manning wasn’t blackmailed, and that being exposed as closeted isn’t itself a violation of DADT …

    SPQR (26be8b)

  90. – I don’t think treason could be applied to a non-US citizen irt potential charges.
    – There have been more straight spies than gay ones. Manning’s orientation had nothing to do with his betrayal any more than Aldrich Ames or the Walkers straight orientation.
    – The feds don’t have jurisdiction over the Wiki servers. They had jurisdiction over the file sharing sites. The MPAA and music industry have been lobbying for enforcement for years.

    vor2 (f96c85)

  91. “I think it’s worth asking what level of exposure of our secrets and blood spilling leads to warmaking.”

    I agree, I also agree with SPQR’s comment #30. It’s the mostly USA leaks that make it obvious that he is picking on us.

    Having said that I also think Assange and his supporters turn the question above around. To what degree do our secretive methods in making war and in enacting diplomacy/spying lead to more blood spilling and war making?

    Maybe showing the world some of the non-sanitized, non-MSM, not on-message, non Fox-speak, version of how that process plays out is a good thing.

    That’s why I don’t agree with Ms Palin’s statements about harassing Wikileaks employees, or the follow up “We would be safer if we blew him up” (or better, why blow him up if we could just get him arrested and jailed for, oh, say, rape?) All those methods are really just about shutting Wikileaks and people like him up, and you up, and me up, and everyone up.

    I’ve never been much of a fan of the whole idea that all us little people should just shut our collective hole and go shopping while our big brothers go about the business of running the world. Sarah Palin seems to be, which is one of the several reasons I don’t trust her.

    EdWood (0e954a)

  92. Or…… His dislike of Amerikkka etc. is a perfect front for him to be a conduit of certain information that our government would like to be known, like the apparent fact that Iran has no friends.

    It’s the olf “pretend to hate the woman/man you are actually having an affair with” con.

    EdWood (0e954a)

  93. #7, TomO, what exactly do you imagine was the ruling in the Pentagon Papers case? Were you somehow under the impression that it gave the NYT the right to print national secrets without fear of the consequences?!

    And what has the first amendment got to do with who is a journalist? Surely you don’t imagine that “freedom of the press” refers to some subset of people who are called “presses”? It says freedom of the press, not freedom of printers or publishers. Do you also think freedom of speech refers only to people who are “the speech”? Palin says Assange isn’t a journalist because she was one, and he pretends to share that profession with her. It’s got nothing to do with the first amendment, which doesn’t apply to foreigners on foreign soil anyway.

    Speaking of which, #41, timb, what due process? Assange is a foreigner on foreign soil; he’s not protected by the constitution. The president’s job is to protect the national interest, and if that means killing people then it’s his job to kill them. If he didn’t like it he shouldn’t have run for the office.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  94. #84, “but gay jews are the worst”.

    I resemble that remark.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  95. “TomO, what exactly do you imagine was the ruling in the Pentagon Papers case?”

    The same courts that allowed the Rosenbergs to be executed for engaging in espionage while a liberal Democrat administration was in office decided that it was perfectly o.k. (for liberals like Danny Ellsberg and the scum at the NYT) to engage in espionage when a Republican administration was in office.

    The usual.

    Dave Surls (8c139e)

  96. “A man who reveals that police are taking money from gangs to look the other way is a whistle blower.

    A man who exposes police who are working under cover in gangs is not.

    A person that publishes that information is little better.”

    – Machinist

    What, then, is a man who publishes emails wherein US diplomats are told to spy on Kofi Annan? And where is the value in that sort of transparency?

    I certainly agree with you that Assange was wrong to leak any document that would endanger any human life – and that may be a significant portion of the leaked material, and he should be punished for that. But I will not go so far as to say that he was wrong to leak material that is merely embarrassing or damaging to US “interests” (with the qualification detailed above). That is the proper transparency function in all of this. If we are embarrassed by leaked remarks, it probably means that we acknowledge that there is something wrong with them.

    All told, though, there are much better, more appropriate ways to promote or assure transparency. Assange seems to be just another dude with an axe to grind, and doesn’t seem particularly concerned with who has to suffer for him to grind it.

    Leviticus (68eff1)

  97. Leviticus,
    I would respectfully point out that embarrassing and illegal are not the same. Would someone be justified in tapping your phone and publishing embarrassing conversations if you were not breaking the law?
    “What, then, is a man who publishes emails wherein US diplomats are told to spy on Kofi Annan?”
    –An enemy of the American people. Were these crimes? The purpose of diplomacy is to avoid war. If all diplomatic exchanges with or about our allies and sort of allies is public and open, won’t this decrease the chances of avoiding war? Should all communications between government officials and other governments or or own people be open in real time?

    There has to be oversight and accountability but how can any official of any government trust us if we expose confidential discussions. If such talk is impossible with American officials, military, and diplomats, what will we lose?

    How can the military be accountable to the civil government if any information they reveal will be made public. Could we have won any major war we fought under such conditions?

    I am not trying to be argumentative. I respect your integrity so I am interested in your views on these issues.

    Machinist (74634b)

  98. Leviticus- I actually thought it was more justifiable that Wikileaks released documents describing civilian executions/casualties etc. than the documents saying that the Prez of Turkey was a pee pee head and all the other diplomatic private-talk. People should see and know what happens on the ground during wars but the pundito-spinocracy doesn’t necessarily need to be handed a bunch of private comment molehills that they can use to make more money mountains from.

    As for endangering lives, well if you work hard enough you could probably spin out a scenario where lives are endangered by anything any politician, diplomat/spy, or military person says, private or public. I take that endangering lives excuse for keeping things quiet seriously but with a grain of salt. “In the interests of national security” can be used to justify anything if people aren’t paying attention.

    EdWood (c2268a)

  99. “I take that endangering lives excuse for keeping things quiet seriously but with a grain of salt. “In the interests of national security” can be used to justify anything if people aren’t paying attention.”

    – EdWood

    That’s the key thing, I think. After the warrant-less wiretapping debacle, I tend to think that the more we know about our government’s behind-closed-doors shenanigans the better.

    Machinist,

    The purpose of diplomacy is not solely to avoid war, though, is it? There are many other functions of diplomacy – facilitation of trade, dialogue re: human rights/the environment, development… all these things are discussed between diplomats. How much should be off the record, in these manners? And how can we expect to hold unelected diplomats accountable, and ensure that they act only in the public interest, without some transparency as to the content of their dialogue? To unilaterally condemn leaks like this – which are, at some level, our only means of insight into the actions of our representatives in the realm of foreign policy – gives too much power to an unelected sub-branch of an already overpowered Executive.

    Again: I admit that information regarding national security is another matter – but like I said before, I agree with EdWood that there’s a danger in allowing our government to put over a bag over our heads whenever it claims that something is a matter of national security. So I don’t know what to do there, exactly.

    I do know this – I don’t trust our government to keep to the straight and narrow unless we keep a close eye on it. And, if nothing else, a leak like this is sure to lead to better security for more sensitive information in the future.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  100. And, if nothing else, a leak like this is sure to lead to better security for more sensitive information in the future.

    Let’s hope so. We need urgent reform. Manning was far too low level to have the wide ranging access he had. Only a handful of people need that.

    Whistle blowers should be blowing the whistle at something worth calling attention to, rather than simply exposing secrets like Perez Hilton with pics of children. What happened here was simply all encompassing exposure of as many secrets as possible, rather than an effort to bring injustice to light. It was warfare against the USA.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  101. No I dont think those are Sarah Palin’s words.

    Palin2012
    YES SHE CAN!!

    The Emperor (46d825)

  102. That’s a pretty smart little column you linked there.

    It’s true, the comparison between Palin and Reagan leaves Palin sorely lacking. In some cases it’s helpful to see just how people wrote Reagan off as unelectable (and your column is careful not to pretend Palin is unelectable… just facing a very uphill battle). Reagan fixed what Nixon broke and we need something like that again.

    We’ll see if these primary competitors to Palin turn out to be as formidable as predicted.

    I hope for an intense primary.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  103. #99, wrong. The Court did not rule that Ellsberg’s espionage was OK, or that he couldn’t be prosecuted for it, or that the NYT couldn’t be prosecuted for printing the results. All the Court said was that the NYT couldn’t be restrained in advance from publishing anything that wasn’t in the category of troop movements. That Nixon would have to let them publish the papers, and then he could prosecute them. He chose not to, but that’s irrelevant. He could have prosecuted them, and if they were convicted he could have shut them down, and nothing in the Court’s decision would have prevented it. The same thing applies here; there’s no reason why the NYT should not be prosecuted for the secrets it has revealed over the past 10 years.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  104. Dustin

    If they go after her record as governor – it ill put her on the defensive – that coupled ith the resignation, the money the books (seriously she has a third in the works – a bit excessive?)

    Then, no one is attacking her sex, her family, just her record – this is why she isnt running

    EricPWJohnson (2925ff)

  105. Actually it’s a very poorly constructed column, then again Rollins, has supported Perot, Whitman,
    and most recently Huckabee; who just embarasses to no end. So a point of self interest should be considered.

    narciso (9d0688)

  106. narciso

    Sure, but he’s the very best took Huky from 1% to within reach of the nomination and I think (I’m not a Huck supporter) but against Obama, hucky ould have carried North Carolina and Florida making it a razor thin election win by Obama

    EricPWJohnson (2925ff)

  107. Actually it’s a very poorly constructed column, then again Rollins, has supported Perot, Whitman,
    and most recently Huckabee; who just embarasses to no end. So a point of self interest should be considered.

    Comment by narciso

    He made some decent points. He doesn’t really take a bold claim beyond this specter of tough competition to Palin in the GOP primary (I don’t see that, to be honest).

    Reagan is much more impressive in hindsight than he was in the 1970s. Even though he governed a huge state well. I think Palin governed Alaska well, but I agree with EPWJ that the resignation puts her on the defensive (I personally do not hold the resignation against her, but rather against the slimeballs who waged lawfare… but politics isn’t fair).

    I don’t mind that she’s making money and selling books. That’s actually a great thing. The exchange of ideas and making money is a beautiful part of this country.

    Her record as governor is better than most governors, even with her resignation. There’s a reason she was had the highest approval in the nation before the circus got started (I grant her approval is a thing of the past).

    Rollins doesn’t count Palin out, and that’s smart of him. I personally hope Palin endorses someone instead of runs. I think she may be able to beat Obama, but it’s extremely risky and the resignation argument is difficult to win even if that’s unfair. I’d rather nominate someone she respects (I find Palin to be quite ethical and honorable and far more scrutinized than any of the politicians who would challenge her).

    Dustin (b54cdc)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.6578 secs.