It's too bad that the Watergate wiretapping was foiled

[jberryhill]

You know, when noted information freedom activists John Ehrlichman and Bob Haldeman were trying to get at information in the DNC files and bug their offices, we took the wrong approach.

Just what was it that the Democratic Party was trying to keep secret in those files and conversations?

The Nixon team was just doing its part to promote openness and transparency in the Democratic Party.

[rfranklin]

1. I seem to recall that NIxon was paranoid about dirty tricks...

and wanted to get inside information about things like foreign language campaign buttons that said things like "Nixon is a dog" in Cantonese.

[elleng]

6. S**t, nixon WAS dirty tricks! Heard of donald segretti???

[BeFree]

2. Bad satire, really bad. n/t

[jemelanson]

3. What?

What fiction is this?

[jberryhill]

8. Why should the DNC have secret communications

A "secret" is a term we apply to any truth or perceived truth which someone seeks to hide.

What was the DNC trying to hide?

Wouldn't it be interesting to know what Howard Dean was saying to the Obama and Clinton campaigns during the primaries, and what he really thought?

[Individualist]

4. Fail.

[fascisthunter]

5. are you trying to attack the release of info by Wikileaks by stating this?

lol

[jberryhill]

7. No, just some of the simplemindedness about it

Why should any DNC communications be confidential?

Can you explain that?

[BeFree]

10. Confidential communications?

There haven't been any confidential communications since the Patriot Act.

Except for the government. And now they get their balls busted. That's a good thing, right?
I mean, we wouldn't want a government that thinks it can just do whatever the hell it pleases, eh?

[JackRiddler]

13. Counter simplemindedness by adding to it? A homeopathic solution, perhaps?

[jberryhill]

15. More or less, yeah

I just don't get the point of disclosure for disclosure's sake as some sort of universal good. Take the stuff relative to negotiations to get highly enriched uranium out of Pakistan, for example. That's worth doing, no?

Maybe it's just my background, but I'm not hiding some sort of horrible skullduggery by expecting client communications during litigation to be confidential.

I would expect that our diplomats provide Washington with candid assessments of the situations they are dealing with. If they can't do that, then what's the point?

If Bradley Manning had found some particular evidence of a crime, that's one thing. But just a raw data dump "because I could" looks a whole lot more like vandalism than principled sabotage for a worthy purpose.

I guess it's time for a "sheeple" reference in this thread, since the herd has apparently decided that these disclosures are the best thing since corn feed.

[cleanhippie]

24. I think I see your point

Leaking classified documents just for the sake of "because I can" is not really helping anyone. If there is some revealing info that shows someone lied, fabricated or did something illegal, then yes, that would be "worth it".


AM I picking up what you are putting down?

[jberryhill]

26. That's part of it

The other part is the uncritical acclamation of Assange as a hero.

We are seeing what he chooses to release, and on his terms.

That normally tingles the "spidey sense" of folks like our friend Jack here, but as this stuff trickles out, I'll be waiting to see evidence of US action that is dramatically at odds with stated public policy.

The Pentagon Papers exposed a massive and deliberate deception of Americans by the US government. Exposing something like "King Abdullah wanted us to take out Iran's nukes" is not of that caliber.

[fascisthunter]

34. hopefully not to hide corruption

have any other questions?

There is no crime here... only a cover-up... or should I say many many cover-ups!

[Poll_Blind]

9. "See, WikiLeaks is also like Hitler and Poland is the leaked documents."

:eyes:

If the best you can manage is to somehow try to conflate WikiLeaks and the Nixon administration, that's pretty lame. Even though it's an absurd reach at best, I don't begrudge you the viewpoint- but for Pete's sake, get some coffee in you, maybe a nutritious breakfast, put some effort into it!

PB

[jberryhill]

11. Dude, I sleep late on Sundays

So I don't normally get coffee early enough.

What documents is the DNC keeping secret and why?

[JackRiddler]

12. It's a good thing Daniel Ellsberg was disappeared.

Who knows what troubles might have followed if the Pentagon Papers were released.

[jberryhill]

16. These are not the Pentagon Papers, either

How is a raw untargetd data dump of diplomatic cables comparable to the type of targeted exposure of deliberate deception of the American public?

[JackRiddler]

33. Didn't say so. Merely taking your cue, governor.

I'm sure the Wikimediaites would like to release what they don't have, but I guess they'll settle for releasing what they do have. Of course, neither of us has read much of what they have released, so let's have a look-see and render our judgements over time.

[Luminous Animal]

14. Both the break-in and the theft of diplomatic cables are crimes. Your point?

[jberryhill]

17. They were both information liberation actions

No secrets.

[wndycty]

18. Exactly

:kick:

[Luminous Animal]

19. The acquisition is the crime. The publishing of the information is the liberation.

Without a doubt, stealing these cables was a crime. And without a doubt, publishing them is not.

[jberryhill]

20. Yah, well, where are the tapes of Clinton's oval office conversations?

[Luminous Animal]

32. Secret. Unless someone steals them and hands them over to Wikileaks.

[Marr]

21. I hope you're being intentionally obtuse. If not, let me help you.

In the case you describe, one party was the US government. Can you guess which one? I'll bet you can if you try!

RIGHT! It was the Nixon White House. Good for you.

So if you want to compare Watergate to wikileaks and argue the latter is bad, you should start by explaining how exposing the Nixon White House's crime was un-American.

[jberryhill]

22. CREEP was not the US government

However, why should the DNC have secrets in the first place?

[Marr]

23. Absurd, and not worth a response.

Have fun.

[Liberal Veteran]

25. I'm not sure one can draw a moral equivalent between looking for dirt for your election...

...and release of diplomatic exchanges between governments.

Of course it is early and I'll have to think about it.

Okay I thought about it and I stand by my first sentence.

[jberryhill]

27. Dirt's dirt

[Liberal Veteran]

28. No. Simply put, it is not and I question the ethics of that claim.

Dirt: President Clinton had a sexual relationship with an intern named Monica Lewinsky.

Dirt: President Reagan authorized the sale of weapons to Iran and funneled the proceeds to South American death squads called the Contras.


Dirt's dirt? I think not.

[jberryhill]

31. Every secret is merely a hidden truth /nt

[upi402]

29. Yay! Open government! Don't worry be happy! Yay!

:wink:
God I miss government that worked, and a press that would jerk their chain when it went into the ditch.

That was another country. It seemed so broken at the time, but worked so much better than now. It was so unlike the facade we have now, that 'SEEMS' so confident and seamless.

[Imagevision]

30. Simple, Nixon needed to know if Howard Hughes was financially backing the Dems...

yaaaawwnnn... but everybody knows that. That's right, when Howard Hughes stated he wanted to back a presidential nominee when asked which party? he simply replied, "it doesn't matter".