Clinton calls leaked documents attack on world

[Scurrilous]

Source: Washington Post

<snip>

"Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the leak of hundreds of thousands of secret diplomatic documents is an attack not only on the United States but also the international community.

In her first public comments since the weekend release of the classified State Department cables, Clinton said Monday that online whistleblower Wikileaks acted illegally in posting the material. She said the Obama administration was "aggressively pursuing" those responsible for the leak.

She said the leaks erode trust between nations. But Clinton also said she was "confident" that U.S. partnerships would withstand the challenges posed by the latest revelations."



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112903164.html

[Goldstein1984]

1. "U.S. partnerships"

You mean like when Obama/Clinton stood there with their thumbs up their asses while a military coup ousted the democratically elected president of Honduras. The resulting partnership?

Or our secure relationship with the "democratically" elected president of Afghanistan?

Our our alliance with the Saudi Arabian dictatorship?

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...?

She's a politician. She's genetically predisposed to pursue power and to do or say anything to maintain it.

[RandomThoughts]

2. Interesting choice of words.

Says to different things at once.

withstand the challenges posed by the latest revelations.

with stand the challenges posed by the latest revelations.


But what is interesting is such strong language, revelation? a bit of a strong word for that context, then again, posed, is an interesting word also, since it has a few meanings.


But the funniest word, and without any fear or anything, but if your going to be late, might as well be latest :) fits the great line from streets of fire video song, everyone fighting to be last.

:shrug:

Not sure about the rest of the stuff, but find the choice of words funny. Then again Bill has always used dual meaning phrasing in speeches.

And it is always daytime in space :)

But I don't really have anything against the people, just think some things could be done a bit better over the last decades by some observations. Although I think they are mostly good and figure within their perspective they do the best they can also.

[JJW]

3. Advice to Hillary

Loose lips sinks ships. There should be no State Secrets in a real democracy.

[saigon68]

15. She is a hypocrite

A liar and a cover up artist

[Bodhi BloodWave]

16. yer a republic

I get the point tho :)

still, do you really think the US diplomats should send info to the state department telling them how the leaders are in blunt terms publically? i mean, that doesn't exactly help foster good relations(or should they lie to their state departments about their views of the leaders in the country they are in?)

Otherwise your arguing that the state department shouldn't be told about what diplomats finds out which kinda voids the whole point of diplomats

[Art_from_Ark]

61. Being a republic has nothing to do with representative democracy

There are lots of republics in the world that are not democratic in the least-- the word republic just means that the leadership is not hereditary.

[Ginto]

17. Hyperbole.

Should the Manhattan project have published their ongoing notes?

[pipoman]

48. Complete nonsense

right there...geez

[GodlessBiker]

4. No! It's an attack on the entire galaxy!

[Poll_Blind]

10. ROFL Have THOSE cables come out yet?!? XenuGate!

:rofl:

PB

[tomm2thumbs]

27. 'sunshine is the best disinfectant' only seems to apply when someone isn't keeping a secret

little late to try and get in front of this parade - it's already down the block

[Joanne98]

5. If Washington wasn't sooo secretive we wouldn't have to spy on them!

I think it's SAD we have to spy on our own government but that's the world we live in.

[CoffeeCat]

6. Oh please...

Hillary Clinton needs to cut her losses and zip it.

Our government should not be secretly engaging in crap without
the knowledge of U.S. citizens.

All of this baloney about this harming people--and involving social
workers and others who "confide" in our diplomats--is BALONEY. There
is not one leak that is related to any of that.

However, there are many leaks regarding crap that "We The People"
should know about.

You work for US, honey. Our government isn't your damn secret power playground.

[ingac70]

8. +1

[okieinpain]

28. oh yeah, so you tell your family and friends everything you're

doing.

[midnight]

46. Yep...

[pipoman]

49. The naivety hereabouts is styming

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Poll_Blind]

9. Notice how she wisely keeps her mouth shut about the New York Times?

And there's the rub: WikiLeaks didn't actually procure the information, it was sent to them. Same with the New York Times, WikiLeaks sent it to them.

The difference is NYT buys ink by the barrel and if she goes after them, etc., etc., she's going to get more column-inches of heat, and more focusing on her behavior (as revealed by the leaked cables) than she can possibly take.

So she goes after WikiLeaks. It's a safe(r) target.

PB

[grasswire]

12. I wonder how she feels about the leak of the Pentagon Papers.

Is she on the record regarding Daniel Ellsberg?

[Poll_Blind]

13. Very good question! n/t

PB

[Bodhi BloodWave]

18. are the two incidents even comparable?

Kerry doesn't seem to think so, and I'm willing to accept his view on that matter?

[JonLP24]

20. Ellsberg seems to think so

[boppers]

60. Actually, no. WikiLeaks did not send the cables to the NYT.

The NYT got the cables from an "anonymous source", which was later revealed to be The Guardian (who was being sent their data from WikiLeaks).

The NYT is on Assange's shit list, for giving him unfavorable coverage, so he doesn't give them leaks anymore.

[Hissyspit]

11. Or not. nt

[gkhouston]

14. If publicizing behavior erodes trust, the problem is untrustworthy behavior,

not the people who expose you. Let's place the blame where it actually belongs.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

22. why exactly shouldn't a diplomat be permitted to give the state department a blunt view of how

he sees the leaders of the country he appointed to?

Thats not really what i would call untrustworthy behavior since that info helps future diplomatic actions(and any future diplomat while that(those) leader(s) are in power, and it likely would hurt diplomacy between countries if you start publically sending back information that might be seen as insulting(due to being blunt) if that is the view the diplomat has gotten of said leader(s)

[gkhouston]

51. I didn't say a diplomat couldn't express his/her views candidly. I don't consider

that untrustworthy. I take exception with Clinton's characterization that the leak erodes trust between nations. I find that statement melodramatic at best. The duplicitous behavior exposed by the leak is what could erode trust, not the leak itself, and that behavior is more than a few blunt or tactless words. And frankly, I don't really think they're as worried about the reaction of governments as they are of people. Unless they have stinkingly bad intelligence services, most of these so-called secrets have probably already been sussed out by the various nations; it's just that the governments would rather that we didn't see how inept and venal so many of them have been over the years.

Basically, if your behavior is trustworthy, you shouldn't need the privacy, and if isn't, you don't deserve it. Under the law, we should all have privacy, but in this day and age, the only people who actually seem to get it are government agencies and they have a strong tendency to misuse secrecy to hide rank stupidity and grossly illegal acts.

[Union Scribe]

19. The duplicity contained within the leaks is the attack on the world

that we peons are just now catching up on, Madam Secretary.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

21. "We can't bullshit each other anymore!!"

:rofl:

[Jemmons]

23. Cant spell self-goal?

:rofl:

[howard112211]

24. Aww boo hoo.

:nopity:

[jannyk]

25. They're acting as if Assange is responsible for writing the material

instead of just publishing it.

Full on 'ignore the message, just shoot the messenger mode'!

:puke:

[tomm2thumbs]

29. exactly - very Palin-esque to attack the messengers, and not the message

they must be watching a lot of FoxNews for tips on how to handle stuff like this

[avaistheone1]

26. because

Clinton is the world?

:cry:

[Hardrada]

39. Yes. Her song is not "We are the world." Obviously.

but I,I I am the World! And you aren't.

[DeSwiss]

30. Sure Hillary.

The telling of the truth is always an "attack on the world."

- Your world.

K&R

[bemildred]

31. Hubris. nt

[harun]

32. Hypocrite.

[bvar22]

33. Hillary has it backwards:

Wikileaks and Julian Assange are EXPOSING and attack on The World.

[G_j]

37. exactly n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

34. Considering that some foreigners were given wide leeway on a land deal

close to home, I really don't care how Hillary feels. Some of these secrets are destroying what little chance of happiness we have, so they're just going to have to adjust and follow a more honest course.

[Jemmons]

35. At the end of her speech I could hear angels sing...

Then I realized that she has it backwards: Its not wikileaks that erode trust in USG, but the words and actions of arrogant assclowns on behalf of the USG that do that. You would have to be pretty deluded to think that US reputation would do fine if not for the wikileaks!

[FinGovi]

36. If my history is correct,

"attack(s) on the international community" is the activity of the US government. Hypocrisy is the lady's strong suit, I see.

[ixion]

38. Liars and charlatans just hate it when the truth comes out

as is evidenced by the beltway uproar.

[daleo]

40. It's an attack on the whole Milky Way galaxy

Andromeda could be in danger too.

[Bragi]

41. Me on behalf of world -- "No, not really" /nt

[TheLastMohican]

42. It is actually an amusing reading

This "alpha dog" stuff and "batman and robin"

Go on....

[Nihil]

43. Yeah, sure ...

Haven't you got enough "snipers" to hide from when you get off the plane?

:eyes:

[sendero]

44. Mostly just an attack..

.. on lying pieces of shit.

[Demeter]

45. It's an Attack on Lies and Deception Foisted on the Peoples of the World

by those who would be their Overlords.

That includes you and Bubba, Hillary, and anyone else who shelters war criminals and other crooks.

[mbperrin]

47. Okay, so a defense establishment with hundreds of billions of dollars

EACH year and TRILLIONS in assets can't prevent one private from using a thumb drive and taking all this info.

But I can trust these same motherfuckers to protect me and mine from actual malice? Really.

Looks to me like one of those "Look over there! HE did it! No one could have predicted that lousy security to overpaid firms would result in leaks! Nobody!!!"

Dumb fucks. The first rule of secrecy is, don't write down anything you want to be a secret. And two people can keep a secret if one of them's dead. (Thanks, Twain.)

[pipoman]

50. Those who advocate no state secrets

do realize that there are enemies of the state, no? There are those who would use this naive openness to take your freedom, standard of living, and even your life away, no? Amazing the complete silliness.

[Arrowhead2k1]

52. Who, and especially how?

nt

[pipoman]

57. Oh, you're right

there are no nations or groups spying on the US. There are no groups who wish to destroy the US. All people wish the best for the US all the time. There weren't 3,000 killed by people who would do it again if they could/can...nope none of that nonsense, huh?

[Arrowhead2k1]

58. You still haven't answered the question.

Who and more importantly how exactly would anyone subvert our democracy and freedom if our government was hypothetically 100% transparent. I don't want a pissing contest with you based on rhetoric, just a serious discussion.

So again, if we had a truely open government representing the people transparently, who do you think would take advantage of such a system(which I'm also sure many would try), but the main question would be HOW?

The main drawback I'd see with such a system is that the US might have to lose considerable influence it has on the world and might have to step back from being "alpha dog" on the world stage. But about our democracy and freedoms stateside, what other consequences do you see?

[sudopod]

53. Whoops! doubles nt

[sudopod]

54. Who?

The Russians?

THE TERRORISTS??!!!!1111oneoneelevn

Welcome to 2010 AD, slowpoke.

[pipoman]

56. ,,

[fascisthunter]

55. You are Part of the Problem Hillary

that's why you don't want this exposure. Your attempts to censor this man proves you are unworthy of anyones trust. Whatever happens from here on out, now we know for FACT this country is run by corruption.

[hunter]

59. I've not much respect for this "international community."

And the more I learn about it, the less respect I have for it.

I'm not upset that the rot is being exposed, I'm upset that the rot exists.

An honest transparent government doesn't have to worry about leaks.

The governments that make up this "international community," including the USA, are rotten.

But that was pretty obvious before this leak...

[creon]

62. tempest in a teapot

There is nothing horrible in these documents, and very little that could not have been inferred by other means. Grist for the mill.


As for secrets: People do keep secrets. Always have, always will. Whether or not they should, does not alter the fact that people will keep secrets.

[KillCapitalism]

63. Hillary is just afraid of being exposed.

Everyone will soon find that her loyalties are with China, not the US.

[No Elephants]

64. trust among nations

:rofl:

[Xicano]

65. I was always under the impression that exposing misbehavior and dirty deeds was a good thing.

And that honesty is the best policy, not the opposite.

Are you suggesting otherwise Hillary?

:shrug: