WikiLeaks Founder: Clinton Should Resign

[ProSense]

Source: CBS

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should resign from office if she ordered American diplomats to spy on United Nations personnel, which recently leaked classified memos appear to have encouraged, the founder of WikiLeaks said Tuesday.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange made the comment in an interview with Richard Stengel, managing editor for Time magazine.

Stengel asked if Clinton's resignation or termination is an outcome Assange would want after his whistleblower organization released hundreds of thousands of classified State Department documents to a number of news outlets, which started publishing articles about them Sunday.

"I don't think it would make much of a difference either way," Assange said of an outcome where Clinton departed her office. "But she should resign, if it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has signed up. Yes, she should resign over that."



Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20024186-503543.html

[Pavulon]

1. clinton to guy accused of rape, thanks for your fucking opinion

now shut the fuck up and go away before the Russians put all you people through a wood chipper.

[sudopod]

4. Are you for real?

"...shut the fuck up...wood chipper."

You've got issues.

[Pavulon]

6. polonium would make people hit the google..

but messing with Russia is more hazardous than messing with the US. The woodchipper would be less painful.

[sudopod]

8. Have you ever herped so much

that you derped?

When did cheering on extrajudicial murder via radionuclide poisoning become the kind of thing we do here, anyway? I guess I missed the memo.

[Pavulon]

11. I have a 4channy response to your post

but I prefer not to be banned. you want me to post a meme on that dead spy the russians killed stone dead for ya?

[sudopod]

13. When did cheering on extrajudicial murder via radionuclide poisoning

become the kind of thing we do here? I guess I missed the memo.

[Pavulon]

22. We don't, we use face recognition software to explode people

or other methods to make them dead. Russia used polonium to kill a an assange like guy.

[sudopod]

26. By we, I mean Democratic Underground.

Also, it's too bad that luxurious, flowing beards seem to mess up that unstoppable Tom Clancy facial recognition software. :3



I could be wrong though. Maybe it's the hat.

[Pavulon]

30. he is already dead(nt)

[sudopod]

31. Maybe Al Quaeda has epic Tom Clancy voice synthesis

software to make all these new threatening tapes. It would be in their interest to hide the truth of our glorious victory from our godly unstoppable CIA. It's possible.

The same argument applies to Mullah Omar, though, if the software can be confused by people who look like pirates.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[FinGovi]

110. Amazing

how authoritative you are. Gosh, I guess I've found my DU Grupenfuhrer. So smart, so powerful...sarcasm.

[No Elephants]

136. Actually, based on the photo in Reply 26, he's hiding in plain sight on the TV show

Austin and Santino On The Road.

[northernlights]

19. failure to perform coitus interruptus

get your character assassination right, Pavulon.

Heh!heh! Assange is *really* getting under your skin, isn't he?

BTW, for every person who hopes the Russians get him, there are probably 1,000 who hope they don't.

And guess what? Assange is not Wikileaks. It will gone on even if they do get him. The leaks will continue. And the empire will self-destruct.

[Pavulon]

27. You are right, like the KKK

you dont win by messing with the grand wizard, you break the little guys. those people have names and are now a military problem if they are not in the US. I dont think the russians use those distinctions.

Leaks are fine, espionage is not "leak"

[greiner3]

How have you stayed undercover for this long?

Ah, so this is what the Conservatives mean when they talk of 'sleeper cells.'

On edit;
Wrong post, sorry OP.

[Pavulon]

36. because i am not on the wikitrip fantastic

i am a conservative. nice logic.

[NeoConsSuck]

80. 'i am a conservative'

Then what are you doing on a progressive board?

Are you here to educate us? :rofl:

[Bodhi BloodWave]

86. you are aware there are conservative democrats

and this is a 'democratic' board, not a progressive one, tho progressives are just as welcome as conservatives

[NeoConsSuck]

137. Well, I'm glad to hear

progressives are just as welcome as conservatives! But where did he say he was even a Democrat? He said he was a conservative.

And I disagree that this is not a progressive board. And obviously, so do the admins:

About Democratic Underground, LLC

Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.

[greiner3]

39. I meant for my 'on edit' post as a reply to you;

So in the interest of not repeating what has been posted, you sir are not a good person.

[northernlights]

46. and now you try to associate Assange with the KKK...continue with the character

assassination. S'not gonna work.

Assange is the target -- Assange made himself the target to protect, to the best of his ability, the whistleblowers.

He's *reeeeeally* getting under your skin, isn't he? Your and one or two other posters around here. But not as much as Hillary's, I'll bet. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Pavulon]

55. No the FBI approached groups like the KKK or wikidicks

by breaking the peons and rolling them up onto the mid level assholes. Once those people are bagged the organization is just destroyed.

So assange could ge running around chirping while all his people are no longer "his people"

Unlike Hillary I can't make him go away.

[sudopod]

57. wikidicks

How clever.

You seem to be fascinated by them.

[FinGovi]

112. Wikidicks?

Gosh, you are sooooooooo clever! I wonder what you spend your free time doing? Looking in the mirror, no doubt. " Aaaah, my precious..."

[FinGovi]

111. If it were not for government espionage,

there would be no need for leaks. I am duly unimpressed by your point of view. Windbags for sale?

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProudDad]

2. I'm glad to see you agree...

And she's not the only one...

---------------------------

No one who is familiar with the title "White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer" would dare imagine that the men and women who speak for presidents can be counted on to speak the truth.

But those who might want, for reasons of partisanship or ideology, to imagine the end of the Bush-Cheney era ushered in more frank and responsible White House communications will surely be disabused of that foolish notion by the response of White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to the latest WikiLeak.

On Sunday, Gibbs achieved the rare combination of utter shamelessness and utter shamefulness when he claimed that by releasing classified diplomatic communications "WikiLeaks has put at risk…the cause of human rights."

Reasonable people may debate the way in which WikiLeaks obtains and releases classified documents. But for Gibbs to try and claim that transparency and openness pose broad threats to the cause of human rights—in the face of all of the compromises of US administrations over the past several decades—is intellectually and practically dishonest.

The point here is not to suggest that the United States is always on the wrong side of human rights debates. That’s not the case. There have been times, many times, when US administrations and the State Department have attempted to promote international human rights. But those attempts must always be seen in the context of military, intelligence-gathering and, especially, free-trade policies that dismiss human rights concerns.

http://www.thenation.com/print/blog/156703/rob-gibbs-engages-shameless-and-shameful-spin-regarding-wikileaks

[ProSense]

3. What? n/t

[ProudDad]

10. You posted an unannotated article urging Clinton to resign...

One is safe to assume that it's your position too...

Otherwise you wouldn't be promoting what Mr. Assange has said... :shrug:

[ProSense]

16. It's news

Do you agree with everything in the news?

Even if it wasn't news, do you need my comment to have an opinion independent of mine?

[StarsInHerHair]

102. Gibbs is an asshole

to have them continue to play the game of "how low can you go?"..........this is ridiculous

[jaxx]

5. Assange is so full of himself he thinks he's running the world.

What a pompous ass.

[ProudDad]

12. Nope...he's just exposing the Empire as a fraud... (n/t)

[jaxx]

28. This isn't an empire.

Don't waste my time with such nonsense.

[ProudDad]

38. The consensus of informed world opinion

and analysis...

From all political spectra...

Disagrees with you...

Ignore the Truth at your peril... :shrug:

[jaxx]

42. It might be like that in your world, but not mine.

I live in the USA.

[ProudDad]

87. What color is the sky in your land of "USA"?

The sky here on Earth is blue...

For the moment...

[FinGovi]

114. Would you mind

doing the same? Your opinion is just an opinion while the rest who post here back their statements with facts. The USA is considered and empire...in decline.
Read some international news and editorials and you may learn a thing or two that isn't only your opinion.

[Javaman]

121. Honestly, that has to be the single most amusing statement I have read on DU ever!

:rofl:

[sudopod]

21. Seriously

Everyone knows that only Americans are qualified to run the world.

It's in the Bible.

[FinGovi]

113. Looks very different from here.

Mr. Julian Assange is a true hero. He fights for truth and justice. I don't give a rat's a** about his personality. I care about his actions. He helps us be aware of the criminal nature of government.

[still_one]

7. How come Sweden dropped the charges? Does that still make him guilty in your eyes? /nt

[Bodhi BloodWave]

88. there is an international warrant out for his arrest

based on a swedish request, i don't think that quite means they have dropped the charges.

[still_one]

120. I didn't know that, however, that still doesn't make him guilty, nor does it minimize what he

released.

Also, with the upcoming release of documents related to the financial industry by him next year, I have no doubt a lot of interests would like to discredit him, or distract from the issue at hand, and it is entirely not unheard of for authorities not only to make a mistake, but to also intentionally distort the facts

Invading a country based on a lie comes to mind for me

[bluedigger]

9. Who elected Assange to anything?

When he becomes a US citizen his concern will be duly noted. Until then, he doesn't need to think he's running our government.

[ProudDad]

14. Whistleblowers aren't "elected"...

they are the Universe's response to evil...

And I don't think there's much of a chance that he would desire to become a citizen of the beast :rofl:

[Pavulon]

23. If they disclose bank info its whistleblowing, what they have disclosed now is criminal

very different and orwell would be proud of your use of language.

Thankfully he is not a citizen, that makes him a military problem.

[sudopod]

35. Orwellian reference to Orwell. Nice one! nt

[Jester Messiah]

41. I'm unclear on how US law applies to a non-citizen of the US.

Which law (that applies to him) did he break?

[sudopod]

49. What's the difference between Assange and, say, a British newspaper?

Backing by a publishing company? Money?

[Pavulon]

54. Thats the rub, the same one that applied to that guy we splattered all over pakistan

a few hours ago. Russia has a far dimmer view of these things.

[sudopod]

59. How do you feel about that law?

You know, the one that violates the Constitution and what not.

[RZM]

45. But Obama was elected

And Clinton was his choice for SOS. Perhaps Assange should be urging people in the unelected governments of the world to resign before weighing in on personnel decisions in functioning democracies. But that wouldn't be nearly as interesting, now would it?

[bluedigger]

50. Try as I might, I cannot follow your statement.

Maybe it makes sense, but I don't get it.:shrug:

[Javaman]

122. ah, what?

That was some interesting reply ju-jitzu there.

[sudopod]

15. Because things we do have no impact on people living in other parts of the world. nt

[bluedigger]

51. That is an illogical extrapolation of what I said, I think.

The rest of the world impacts me, too. As a private citizen I generally refrain from telling the rest of the world how to run their own governments. Or is self-determination just a principle to be observed by us, and not for us.

[sudopod]

62. Well that's fine and dandy for you.

I guess only governments should be able to comment on other governments, then?

[bluedigger]

64. And citizen's of democratically elected governments.

(Speaking of sharing opinions.):eyes:

[sudopod]

66. Such as Julian Assange?

Or is Australia now on the "bad" list?

[bluedigger]

69. Sorry I wasn't clear enough.

Citizen's commenting on their own democratically elected governments. Australia is no better or worse than the US, and Assange would be much more influential if he were focused on his own country's problems; as it is, he seems like little more than a shit stirrer in need of self-aggrandizement.

[sudopod]

70. So only governments are allowed to publically criticize each other then?

Yes or no?

[bluedigger]

71. You're just being purposefully dense.

No.

[sudopod]

75. So why does he bother you so much?

Is it his ideology? Does he dress funny? What?

[bluedigger]

79. Now you're getting to the crux of the biscuit.

I question his motives, and his actions. I simply think he is more self serving than altruistic. Other than sowing dissension within progressive ranks and achieving notoriety, exactly what has he accomplished?

[sudopod]

82. They provided evidence what we all suspected of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

They proved that the State Department are as big a lot of double-dealing backstabbers as they ever were during the 70s and 80s. They proved that our intelligence services are violating US and international law with impunity. These alone are worthwhile.

There is nothing wrong with doubting the Wikileaks people, bluedigger. Maybe they are a bunch of glory hounds. However, I can't see any reason to believe that they have some dark alterior motive other than gut instinct and a general trend in America toward distrusting "nerds." Distrust alone is not enough reason to say that they cannot play a part on the world stage, or to add to the cries to silence them, in my humble opinion.

[bluedigger]

85. They proved things we all should have intellectually "known".

So far it has resulted in no foreseeable consequences for the offenders, as well as collaterally damaging other dialogues that may have been more fruitful. It's the ineffectiveness of their scattershot approach that I dissaprove of. Now Assange is apparently putting a price on his info, which is even more disturbing, if true.

[ProudDad]

89. "They proved things we all should have intellectually "known"."

We did ...

and those things were getting NO attention in the mass media...

Until Wikileaks pointed them all out again...

And now the discussion is opened up about the crimes of the Empire...

So, yes, they've accomplished a hell of a lot!

[sudopod]

93. Jesus H Christ on a pogo stick.

I swear to god that short term thinking is going be the cancer that kills humanity.

Your argument is that some guys with a website haven't yet destroyed a century's of institutional momentum built up by the world's major powers, so everything they did was a waste of time.

Wow. Just...wow.

Also, the "price" was a negotiated fine that the news organizations would agree to pay if they broke the embargo earlier than the agreed upon time. The OP you may be referring to is a blatant distortion or the result of a rush to judgment based on a headline, which is painfully obvious to those of us who actually read the whole article.

While they aren't yet selling their information, it might be the only way that they can safely get funding soon, since it is getting hard to find a paypal-like financial institution to accept online donations on account of US government pressure.

[bluedigger]

101. "Short term thinking?"

You and many others seem to think that that private communications (and duplicity) are a product of the computer age. The only new thing is the ease and speed of dissemination when security is breached.

Thank you for correcting my misinformation on Assange's demands for remuneration. I'm sorry I haven't been able to keep up with current standards for internet expertcy. There is a lot of information coning out quickly right now. What are his costs, by the way? Is he paying his sources? Transferring information isn't particularly costly these days, though I suppose hiding is.

[sudopod]

104. "current standards for internet expertcy"

Apparently that includes "reading several paragraphs in English."

The numbers I've heard for the organizational costs are on the order of $600k, all going to hardware and hosting costs plus some travel.

No one is paid for information. Wikileaks has a upload page that they recommend connecting to anonymously using a Tor client or some such shenanigans. That is the original intent of the site--it was designed so that people in oppressive environments would be able to drop documents anonymously, but they got what they got and so they're running with what that. The reason anyone found out about Manning is that he told someone in the hacker community who is a known douchebag and had been in trouble with the law in the past, and who in turn gave Manning up to the authorities.

Wikileaks has done good stuff in the past before the current brouhaha, such as helping dissidents in several low-information exchange countries get news out (Kenya, China, etc.) They also helped in the internet's war on Scientology, posting pretty much everything the L. Ron ever wrote for the whole world to see, including the Operating Thetan III documents and and the policy letter explaining scientology auditing procedure R2-45, helping cripple the cult's recruiting ability among the internet savvy.

They are good guys. It really isn't fair to hold the fact that they haven't overthrown the Powers That Be during their four short years of existence against them.

[bluedigger]

105. Hey, I said I couldn't keep up - wtf do you want?

I won't pretend to understand (or care) about the technical requirements - they need memory, an anonymous connection to the web, yada, yada, yada...

Manning is an unsophisticated dupe that they exploited without providing cover - I have little sympathy for him. I hope they learn to protect and advise their sources better in the future.

It is good to know that they have had positive results, although I am unimpressed by their war on Scientology - anyone who is "internet savvy" and falls for their scam would probably do so regardless of any intervention short of the Thetans themselves...

You do have a point about their having only "four short years of existence" - I am neither pro or con right now, just skeptical.

[sudopod]

95. And another thing...

Yeah, a rational person could have "intellectually known" what was going on long ago. But if you hadn't noticed, it isn't as if this country is a bastion of rational thought these days. You do realize that half of Congress thinks the world is 6000 years old, right? Some people have to be punched in the mouth by reality before it really sinks in.

[ProudDad]

97. What has he accomplished?

Well the organization that he heads (and as lightning rod for the Empire - shields others in the organization)...

Has gotten the facts out and the discussion going again about the crimes of the Empire...

Pretty damn good work, I think!

I think he's pretty much altruistic and hates hypocrisy as much as many of us do...

As for self-serving, how "self-serving" is it to draw fire from the nastiest bully on the planet? As he knew he would...

[sudopod]

99. I know, right.

Clearly, drawing the attention of every nasty, clandestine alphabet organization on Earth is the easy road to profit and long life. What an evilly ingenious plan!

[northernlights]

24. he doesn't have to be a US citizen to answer a question

and he doesn't think he's running our government. He simply served as a catalyst. Our government is the one running itself into the ground. :shrug:

[bluedigger]

52. He has a right to an opinion.

And I have a right to ignore it.

[sudopod]

60. By posting your opinion repeatedly, apparently.

[bluedigger]

63. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

I thought it was considered polite to reply to responses.

[midnight]

33. I think many countries are involved via cables being released.

I get the impression that the concern is impacting the world at large, and not just the U.S.

[harun]

116. He got as many votes as Hillary did to be elected SoS.

[BenzoDia]

17. No she shouldn't, it will weaken or position on the world stage...

More than it has been lately (heh)

[sudopod]

20. Gambling?

I'M SHOCKED!

[David__77]

18. The Honduras coup support was unforgivable.

We need a whole new diplomacy.

[Pavulon]

25. meh

nothing new. you want a new diplomacy, you will not get one. american interests being served, thats their job,

[sudopod]

29. Which ones? nt

[ProudDad]

44. Who is this "ignored" that you're responding to? (n/t)

[sudopod]

48. the guy with the rocket powered penguin avatar.

I never did understand why so many people who can grok an idea as revolutionary as F/OSS software can be such a bunch of cro-magnons in the rest of their views.

[ProudDad]

94. Hmmm...

I just went through my ignored list (it's pretty short)...

Most have been tombstoned...

But no penguin avatars...

What's the username?

It might be amusing to open it up again...

[Javaman]

123. Don't waste your time...

the poster is a water carrier.

[David__77]

37. That is quite a term: "American interests."

You realize, of course, that every administration has served interests defined as such. I do not define the financial speculators' interest (short term interest, at that) as being identical to some imagined aggregate U.S. socio-economic interest. Human interest, including U.S. interest as a subsumed aspect, includes international peace, development, cooperation, and multipolarization of geopolitical power.

[Imajika]

34. Assange is going to be sorely disappointed..

He released all this information thinking it would cause prosecutions and perhaps bring down "the evil empire", and absolutely nothing of any consequence will come of any of it.

He embarrassed the Obama administration, but life moves on. So America will become more secretive and lock down information even more than we do now. Our allies will be more careful about talking to us which will make diplomacy more difficult. He damaged a Democratic President in the short term and made the world more dangerous than it had to be. Progressives scream for diplomacy over chest thumping and military action, yet for some twisted reason many cheer for someone who made diplomacy all that much harder.

Hillary will remain SoS, spying on the UN by everyone with intelligence capabilities will continue as it always has, there will be no prosecutions of any kind (other than of Manning, Assange and any other leakers), and the United States will spend billions to protect classified information and limit it to even fewer eyes.

Assange's day in the sun will fade and he will have made no positive impact on the world. In fact, by making diplomacy more difficult, he has made the world a more dangerous place.

[sudopod]

40. Or maybe he and his sources realized that he could do a something rather than nothing.

There is no list of every protester who ever waked the streets or manned the barricades for a good cause. Most of their names are lost to history. Wouldn't you agree that even small acts in defiance of inhumanity, no matter how individually insignificant on the world stage, are worthwhile, regardless of the threat of reprisals?

[Imajika]

53. Sometimes something is worse than nothing...

"Wouldn't you agree that even small acts in defiance of inhumanity, no matter how individually insignificant on the world stage, are worthwhile, regardless of the threat of reprisals?"

No, I do not. What matters is what one does, not just the act of doing something for the sake of..well..doing something. Just doing something doesn't count for anything worthwhile unless it produces a positive outcome.

What Assange has done won't produce anything good. His previous releases had zero impact, produced no prosecutions and otherwise had no effect on US military policy in Iraq or Afghanistan. His current cable dump is downright counterproductive to what progressives claim to believe in. Dumping this material simply makes diplomacy more difficult. How any DUer who claims to believe in diplomacy as a way of solving world problems could support this is a mystery to me. Releasing information that effectively shatters confidences people placed in our diplomats and foreign service professionals is not going to in any way help produce a safer world.

It is not information gleaned and observations made that are a problem, it is what you do with that knowledge. Assange has made the world just a little more dangerous - perhaps a lot more.

[sudopod]

56. "His previous releases had zero impact"

That depends upon your value of "impact." We're having a conversation that we wouldn't have otherwise had, aren't we? Knowledge is the first step on the road to a better future.

Moreover, I would disagree with the assertion that throwing light on what our foreign services are doing is a bad thing. There are a great many nations in South America that might be in better shape had there been a similar organization operating a few decades ago, just as an example. The same goes for Chile and Iran.

The leaks will definitely cause problems regarding the achievement of particular near and middle term foreign policy goals, but what those goals are, and whether or not those goals were ever designed to "help produce a safer world" rather than one that is safer for certain business activities is very much up for debate.

[ProudDad]

134. In case you haven't seen this yet...

It's all right here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9657585

[ProudDad]

43. The actions of the US Empire

and other idiotic countries are what makes the world "unsafe"...

(Piss on ALL Flags!)

But unlike the naive (many of whom insist on exposing their naivete here), he knows that just releasing some of the crimes and dirty laundry of the Empire are going to 'cause prosecutions and perhaps bring down "the evil empire"'

But, judging by the protestations, threats and embarrassment of some of the functionaries of the Empire (like Clinton), something of consequence has already come of it...

[Imajika]

58. Yes, something has come of it...

These releases broke confidences foreign countries and their diplomats placed with United States and its representatives.

On a forum which generally claims to support diplomacy as a means to solve problems in the world, how is it that so many people are cheering actions that will make diplomacy all that much harder?

The result will be, the US will spend billions to harden information security and become even more secretive, the President will have to make decisions with just a little less candid information from our foreign service professionals and the world will be just a little more dangerous than it was.

Oh, and Manning will spend the rest of his life in prison. Long after those who cheered this wikileaks release have long forgotten about it, Manning will be rotting his life away in a prison cell - all for nothing that had any positive impact on this world.

[sudopod]

61. ...

implying all diplomacy is good

Re: Manning, they said the same thing about Nelson Mandela, too.

[Imajika]

67. What nonsense..

Are you really suggesting Manning is anything even remotely like Nelson Mandela? Seriously.

Manning is a confused kid, who will now spend the rest of his life in a prison cell. In 10 years when Manning is crawling up the walls, how many of those here who cheered his crime will ever think about him again. Poor kid will be completely forgotten, and you can bet in not so many years confined in a small cell, given a chance to take it all back - he would.

[sudopod]

68. Well, Manning IS just a computer nerd.

As far as comparisons go, he never tried to start a revolution.

I stand by my comparison, however. The Apartheid regime in South Africa (and our own right wingers) said the same thing about Mandela, after all, and he was in prison far longer than 10 years.

[ProudDad]

90. How do you know Manning did anything...

Just the rumors spread about like bullshit by the Empire?

And even if he did, he's probably not the only one... :rofl:

As for "breaking confidences" -- diplomats the world over know that their counterparts are all as full of shit as they are...

No surprises there...

The problems in the world are CAUSED by the "decisions of the pResident" and all the rest of the functionaries of the Corporate Capitalist masters...

If history tells us anything it's that it's insane to expect those who CAUSE the problems and benefit from them to "solve" anything...

[Imajika]

98. Dude, there will ALWAYS be governments...

And governments will always use diplomacy when interacting with one another. And they will always gather intelligence, and they will always attempt to keep some information close to the vest in an effort to...you know...be diplomatic.

"The problems in the world are CAUSED by the "decisions of the pResident" and all the rest of the functionaries of the Corporate Capitalist masters..."

Got bad news for ya man, if the United States were not the most powerful nation on earth someone else would step in to fill the void - and there are a LOT of worse, less democratic nations that are eager to asset more influence.

"If history tells us anything it's that it's insane to expect those who CAUSE the problems and benefit from them to 'solve' anything..."

Your wanna-be revolutionary rhetoric indicates to me that you have little actual grasp of history.

[sudopod]

100. And they will always murder 10^5 civilians in illegal wars and

oops, wait...

Well, I guess it's ok as along as we love freedom more than North Korea. Or something.

[ProudDad]

103. Your tenuous grasp of history ...

especially contemporary history...

And the actual state of affairs in the world, of war and Peace, of economic systems and their interactions...

And buying into the propaganda machine that has you so confused and limited...

And your obvious lack of imagination...

And the jingoism you have displayed in that last post trying to insult me...

Tells me you haven't the capacity to understand what I'm saying...

:shrug:

[Javaman]

124. I love to see your crystal ball.

You have this uncanny insight into the future that rest of us lack.

[harun]

117. He only released 220 of the cables so far, get informed.

[Javaman]

125. Don't worry...

the nay sayers will change their tune when the info on the banks are released, then, quite suddenly, he will be the hero to those who trash him now.

[PeaceNikki]

oops

[PeaceNikki]

47. HIGHlarious

[ProSense]

65. Libertarian Jack Shafer of Slate is salivating

WikiLeaks, Hillary Clinton, and the Smoking Gun: The leaked cables make it impossible for Hillary Clinton to continue as secretary of state.

The comments are hilarious.

[onehandle]

72. Assange has jumped the shark.

He's passed from information exposer to self-important anarchist.

Assange might as well be one of those soccer thugs that wrap their faces in black and break Starbucks' windows during world leader conferences.

[sudopod]

76. The America-hating loon is condemned by his own words!

"I don't think it would make much of a difference either way," Assange said of an outcome where Clinton departed her office. "But she should resign, if it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has signed up. Yes, she should resign over that."

BEHOLD, the inflammatory rhetoric of a madman!

See the fiery anarchy-craving passion with which he...uh...doesn't think it would make much a difference either way.

[ProudDad]

91. Touche

:rofl:

I like your style... :hi:

[sudopod]

96. ;o) nt

[Turborama]

73. Assange has an agenda?

Wow, who'd a think it! Personally, I don't care about what he thinks and think he shouldn't keep trying to be the story.

I thought he was saying previously that this shouldn't be about him, it's about the leaks? :shrug:

[sudopod]

77. see below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4635947&mesg_id=4636448

[Turborama]

81. Not only did I read that quote in the OP, I've also heard him say it. It doesn't refute what I said.

I don't care about what he thinks and think he shouldn't keep trying to be the story.

[sudopod]

83. Should he have just said "no comment?" nt

[Turborama]

84. Has he repeatedly said in the past that this shouldn't be about him, it's about the leaks?

I don't care about what he thinks and think he shouldn't keep trying to be the story.

[Javaman]

126. While you think he shouldn't be the story, the disinformation machine

and the media (one and the same) think differently.

rule of thumb in propaganda: if you can't attack the message attack the man.

[Turborama]

127. There seem to be as many, if not more, threads & stories about him as there are about the leaks...

...themselves. That machine you mention has pervaded the media and the internet and seems to be doing a successful job of diluting the impact of the leaks, so far.

[Javaman]

129. Yup.

They can't attack the content, because the content is factual.

So therefore, attack them man as a criminal for releasing the truth. (Orwell would be amazed).

[sudopod]

139. nailed it. nt

[IRemember]

74. Sounds good to me.

nt

[DonCoquixote]

78. OK folks

To all these duer's turning on assange...

Assange was considered a hero, until he exposed Hillary?

SIGH

For all if Obama's failure to live up to half his hype, this makes me more happy than ever that I did NOT vote for her.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

92. no, i think he was considered a hero to many

until he wrecked a lot of the USA's ability to do diplomacy.

Had he only relased those cables that involved actually corrupt activity, crimes or corruption I think everybody here on du would have supported him still and cheered him on.

He however decided to dump a ton of information that has nothing to do with the above and as such can't really be classified as 'whistle-blower' information, the release of all that info is what has a lot of people up in arms due to how it harms international relations while doing no good.

[ProgressiveMajority]

107. The way Assange has been lauded here has been off putting for awhile to me

For example: The Wikileaks release of documents about Iraq and Afghanistan was cheered, even though a lot of information about how coalition forces operate was not redacted. That endangers American lives in Afghanistan.

But now that American diplomacy is endangered, people here are upset.

I just don't get the logic of it. Is universal transparency good, or is it bad? To me it seems like most progressives like Wikileaks style transparency when it strengthens their argument (even if it endangers lives), and dislike it when it hurts their cause. So... they're really not so much about transparency, but about getting information out there that helps them.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

108. My personal opinion

Universal transparancy is not good, yes i do support transparency in most things but not in all.

As i wrote in two other posts(with slight edit)

It somewhat amuses me tho that people seem to think that most diplomatic things should be more public, while i do agree to some degree i also think keeping some thing confidential is whats required for good relations.

As an 'make believe' example, I send you to the country of Free republic(more a punishment I guess then reward >D)and we need their aid to accomplish something, now you find out that their leader is short tempered, quick to draw conclusions and arrogant. Now that information is obviously going to be helpful for our state department to know to help us arrange the agreements we need, the question tho is what do you do?

Would you send the information publically so that they find out we think that about the leader and likely sour him toward us?
Would you send the information publically but couch it in more flattering terms?
Would you send the information privatly being blunt so we know your exact views?
Would you send the information privatly still couching it in more flattering terms so we might need to figure out exactly what you mean?

To me only the third option makes any real sense.


And in regards to wikileaks

they have claimed their duty is helping 'whistle-blowers'

if that is so, then they should simply focus on actually blowing the whistle so to speak.

if there is something they are unsure on then they have to make a judgment call, if its the correct one, congratulations, if its the wrong one then they should be mature enough to accept the consequences(even if done with the best intentions), if it has nothing to do with whistle blowing then they quite honestly should not reveal it and likely return it to its rightful owners

[Turborama]

106. IMO Anyone who saw Assange as a "hero" has been watching too many movies

Essentially, he is just a guy who owns a website that people give content to. He is also very good at publicity, but that doesn't make him a "hero", either.

[Nihil]

119. It's been quite sad reading through this lot ...

> To all these duer's turning on assange...
> Assange was considered a hero, until he exposed Hillary?

I have been appalled at some of the posts in the last day or so.
Whilst it is no surprise to find the sole member of my ignore list
apparently splashing his usual spray of incontinent hate across
the forum, I have been disappointed to see some other posters
(who I respect a lot) suddenly decide that Assange has become the
AntiChrist because he *dared* to offer an opinion on the SoS ...
moreover, an opinion that could only be described as "indifferent"
at worst ...

We've ended up with a 2008 redux that only serves to whitewash the
genuine crimes that yet another entire administration has perpetrated
and let the truth (that the rest of the world can see) be subsumed
in another petty squabble between the fan-clubs for two right-of-centre
politicians.

:-(

[citizen snips]

115. Hopefully ASSange's comeuppance will soon come.

[EFerrari]

135. Yes, how DARE he challenge unethical and even illegal behavior

of his betters!

LOL

[PassingFair]

118. I was outraged over the behavior of Bolton and the spying that we knew about ....

during the Bush administration.

At least we knew what we were dealing with
when Bolton was stomping around the UN.

Clinton should resign, of course.

I can't believe that "democrats" on this
board think illegal behavior and bullshit
UN spying is hunky-dory,
as long as democrats are the ones ordering it.

[Javaman]

128. There will always be blind water carriers...

There are a few here on DU.

They don't like the apple cart being upset. They want the plodding path of the uphill battle winning inch by inch. Rather than calling in artillery or an air strike to clear the hill.

What Assange did was a massive air strike and many of the conservaDems have a really hard time dealing with that.

The left wants the truth out and in everyones face. The centrist and right dems choose the path of least resistance to meet their goals.

The most amusing comment I have read on here, well two to be honest, were 1) America is not an Empire (that was classic) 2) (more disturbing) there should be a little transparency. If that isn't Orwellian, I don't know what is? Who determines what is to be transparent? Who gets to decide?

That statement hearkens back to: if you sacrifice a little liberty for a little security, you get neither.

If we get a little transparency, how will we ever know that they are actually being transparent about in the first place? ("they" being the US Government)

[PassingFair]

130. I hate to post it about US.....but if the poster FITS:

[Javaman]

131. That's a little rough...

I would call the repukes more like brown shirts. Many of the conservaDems are more like Vichy France.

[PassingFair]

132. Yeah, I know, I'm just so depressed about the state of our state...

And it really does appear that Hillary took
Bolton's ball and RAN with it.

[Javaman]

133. anger management man boltan...

just used the same ball the US has been using for decades. He just chose to bounce it higher than everyone else.

What I find really interesting about these leaks about spying on other UN diplomats is: they spy on us too. It's just our dirty laundry is now out for everyone to inspect.

all the feigned outrage by other nations, in regards to the spying, is down right comical.

I believe that the most inflammatory information won't come from the obvious sources, but from a small memo to some schmuck to another schmuck in one of the smaller nations.

And the state dept is doing all it can right now to keep the UN spying part front and center so everyone is distracted from the real meaty stuff.

We are being played. It wasn't Assange who, per say, pointed out that we were spying, it was the Administration aka the State Dept that is raising the biggest stink. They are purposely diverting our attention.

The communications from Columbia piqued my interests. I have to sit down and read those.

[No Elephants]

138. He responded to a question and is saying she should resign if she told her underlings to violate US

law. I don't see that as outrageous.