There's no denying the fact that the WikiLeaks has weakend Obama on the world stage and at home

[Cali_Democrat]

How is Obama going to gain the confidence of foreign governments when anything they say to Obama can end up on the front page of the New York Times? There's no longer any confidentiality.

Whether or not you agree or disagree with the leaks is irrelevant. The fact remains that this is by far the largest leak of sensitive and classified information in our nations history. It's the Administration's responsibility to safeguard such information

How is Obama going to respond to charges that he's soft on security when such a large leak of classified information happened under his watch? He can't.

The Republicans have a pretty effective talking point going forward and there's really no way to respond.

So for those of you celebrating the WikiLeaks story, you need to look at the implications and realize that Obama has become even weaker because of it.

[VMI Dem]

1. I doubt he could appear much weaker here.

I don't think it will affect him abroad.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Diplomacy with foreign governments is mostly done in private

The public handshakes and statements mean nothing. Its all about what goes on behind closed doors.

Foreign governments aren't going to trust Obama when anything said in private meetings can be made public for the world to see.

[CJCRANE]

4. Maybe it should all be in public anyway.

IMO leaders shouldn't be able to make secret deals.

Remember Bush and Blair and their pally relationship?

(Not to mention whatever Cheney was up to in his secret meetings).

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Everything should be public at all times?

Then I assume you think we should have disclosed the Manhattan Project during WW2?

[jwirr]

13. Have you forgotten that some of the people who worked on that

project later called it one of the most dangerous inventions known to mankind. Oppenheimer did not have the help of concerned citizens and scientist to help him rethink what they were creating. Transparency would have at least slowed that project down and maybe we would not even have these damn bombs around today for NK to play with.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. No. It Just Means The Russians Would Have Got It First

~

[CJCRANE]

36. I was talking about policy discussions between countries

not internal scientific research or military operational details.

To be honest that's just my 'headline' opinion, the more nuanced version is that intergovernmental discussions should be private but not confidential. Leaders shouldn't be able to make secret deals and think no one will hear about it.

[Igel]

44. Nixon to China.

Without a couple of years of secret discussions, no Nixon to China.

Sadat and Begin wouldn't have done squat without secret discussions. Public discussions would have lead to no discussions.

By all means, let's have a live mike direct to the American and Russian and British radio networks at Yalta. Invaluable evidence to historians seeking to understand why the final talks after WWII lead to WWIII in 1947.

"Secret deals" we typically hear about when they're brought forward for treaties, when they're announced as policy proposals and are then subject to debate or even when there are decisions made. There are excesses, times when the secrecy is too much--typically when we think the outcome is horrible. There are far more times when the secrecy leads to nothing or to outcomes that aren't just horrible but in which the alternative would be. Of course, there are times when we like to think that the outcome was horrible compared to what would have been minus the secrecy.

Note that there are four potential outcomes: horrible, not-so-horrible, not-so-horrible-that-wasn't, and horrible-that-wasn't.

We only see the horrible that happens. Not the not-so-horrible and the horrible-that-wasn't. And we fantasize that the not-so-horrible-that-wasn't is the only possibility in the absence of secret deals because certainly Cassandras are forever wrong and only Pollyannas are right.

I keep saying it: We're just not that important.

[Arctic Dave]

2. Obamas weakness is his own doing.

[Hawkowl]

54. Self inflicted weakness

If you boil Obama down to his underlying bedrock, it is weakness. Weakness in all things.

[ProSense]

5. By the OP assessment

his Presidency is over.

There's no denying the fact that the WikiLeaks has weakend Obama on the world stage and at home

How is Obama going to gain the confidence of foreign governments when anything they say to Obama can end up on the front page of the New York Times? There's no longer any confidentiality.

Whether or not you agree or disagree with the leaks is irrelevant. The fact remains that this is by far the largest leak of sensitive and classified information in our nations history. It's the Administration's responsibility to safeguard such information

How is Obama going to respond to charges that he's soft on security when such a large leak of classified information happened under his watch? He can't.

The Republicans have a pretty effective talking point going forward and there's really no way to respond.

So for those of you celebrating the WikiLeaks story, you need to look at the implications and realize that Obama has become even weaker because of it.

What effective talking point do Republicans have? Wikileaks has been leaking information since the Bush administration.

Most of the country abhors the leaks. On the world stage, relationships will likely have to be mended, but the leaks revealed some embarrassing things about other world leaders in terms of their views of each other.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. This was the largest leak of classified information in our country's history

That's a pretty effective talking point IMO.

Information about world leaders views has indeed been revealed thanks to the leak of information. Surely foreign government will now be more cautious when dealing with the Obama Administration because of potential for leaks.

Obama is now weaker because of the leaks.

[ProSense]

11. That's a crime

Obviously, the breach occurred before this Presidency.

Republicans will do exactly what they are doing now, invoking terrorism. They fear this information as much as anyone.

[hughee99]

30. But the breach continues under his presidency.

Wikileaks isn't just posting 3 year old stuff.

[vaberella]

52. Sadly...Cheney has plenty of spies and contacts in the Pentagon.

Gates is planning on firing each and every one of them.

[hughee99]

53. Ah, so it's Cheney's spies,

not the same people who were leaking a few years ago. The good, principled people who didn't like what was going on under the * administration and decided to go public are now "Cheney's spies". Is that your theory?

[Igel]

45. No.

(I usually don't have a reason to simply deny what you write.)

Breaches happened before this Presidency. Breaches happened under *. Breaches in the past have typically resulted in a bit of political damage--who's nailed varies, but there's usually fallout.

There's not just been a single yet intermittent breach of security since Arnold's day. They are discrete events (if I can view something that happens over time and the consequences as a singulative event).

This breach is likely to have happened entirely under Obama's watch. It's likely to have happened a number of months after he was inaugurated. This is his puppy, whether we like it or not.

All that remains is to make sure that either he isn't dinged or the dinging is minimal. Tu quoque is a really crappy defense.

[vaberella]

51. Wikileaks is DESPISED in FRANCE!!! They are trying every way to destroy them. n/t

[jaxx]

8. Of course there's a way to respond.

You keep going and the other countries will wonder if their secret documents will be outed too.

The last thing you do is wring your hands and use rightwing talking points to put down this country and the president.

[Lisa D]

9. +1

[ProSense]

12. There's is that. n/t

[impik]

10. Is that why the professional left is so giddy over the leak? Yea, makes sense.

[Dr.Phool]

14. Yeah, we're so giddy, we're breaking out champagne and reefer.

The truth is awful painful to some people.

This is our country we're talking about here, and we have a right to know what our elected and appointed leaders are doing in our names.

Maybe they just don't hate us for our freedoms. Maybe we're doing some terrible things to people like overthrowing their governments, and undermining their economies. And torturing and assassinating people. You know, stuff that would tend to piss people off, and make them want to blow up our airplanes, and parks, and tree lighting ceremonies.

[impik]

33. Of course. In La-La-La land everything should be out in the open

In the real world, lives are at real risk now and two years effort to repair alliances and restore America's diplomatic place in the world - are now in danger. There was nothing in these leaks but a whole lot of private conversations between diplomats and terrible embarrassment. No one ordered an illegal war, no one ordered torture. How would any foreign diplomat even speak to us if they know that everything they say can be in the paper tomorrow?

But in La-La-La this is not important. Just like there are no real terrorists out there.

And then you don't understand why no one takes the Left seriously.

[Arkana]

57. These documents weren't about those things.

They were private communiques about how much Angela Merkel hates Carla Bruni's new hair.

Why exactly does the public need to know this?

There IS a line between know and NEED to know, no matter how much you wish there wasn't. I don't want to be privy to state secrets.

[treestar]

19. And this is foreign affairs, where there isn't much benefit to the left

Or to anybody, if we come to be at a disadvantage.

[Union Scribe]

42. What is the professional left and why do you have such disdain for them?

[Arkana]

59. The Jane Hamshers and John Aravosises and the keyboard warriors

(and from time to time, the liberal talking heads) who get their rocks off by challenging the President's manhood.

[displacedvermoter]

48. I think you are the most hateful person on DU, good job!

"professional left" and "giddy".

You couldn't figure out how to get "poutrage" into your post?

[AtomicKitten]

15. You have no knowledge of the ultimate consequence for Pres. Obama, if any.

Your premise doesn't hold water.

[Cali_Democrat]

16. Pretend you're a kid in elementary school

You have a confidential secret you want to tell someone. But you tell that person to not reveal the secret to anyone.

That person then reveals the secret to the entire school and now everybody knows.

Would your trust in that person be diminished? Would you think twice about telling that person secrets in the future?

[AtomicKitten]

23. It's inadvertent transparency and that does not constitute weakness.

I understand that's what you think and that's fine, but you should probably consider rephrasing your "there's no denying ..." because you have not made your case.

[Igel]

46. "Inadvertent" does not mean "blameless."

If I inadvertently leave my manual-transmission car in neutral so that it rolls down the street and kills a child, I'm hardly blameless.

In this case, two administrations--let's say--made a huge volume material that was inappropriate for a PFC to have available to said PFC. Then they allowed for a very easy way to remove this material from its supervision.

A person's stupidity tends to have a weakening effect. Was * the stronger for his? Unaffected by it? It works the same for governments.

[AtomicKitten]

49. "Blame" is a red herring.

The contention is that this data dump weakens the president, but there was no bombshell in the data, no smoking gun. If anything (emphasis on the "if") the repercussions from the data dump may be discomfort in the form or embarrassment for the State Dept.

[treestar]

17. Ridiculous, Obama is weakened by every bad thing that happens to happen

without of course being strengthened by any good thing that happens to happen?

What has this got to do with Obama (except for those who are obsessed with him?)

If it weakens Obama it weakens us all.

[Cali_Democrat]

21. Of course Obama position would be strengthened by good things

Where did I say that this wasn't the case?

[Arkana]

58. You didn't have to.

No one has ever assumed that the good things he's done have strengthened him, because no one ever TALKS about the good he's doing. We amplify his troubles and muffle his triumphs, and that isn't fair.

All we hear is "OBAMA: WEAK, LIBERAL, TOO LIBERAL, MARXIST KENYAN, FASCIST, CORPORATE SELLOUT, ETC". Pick an insult, depending on the side of the spectrum you're on.

[boppers]

18. Transparency = Weakness?

:eyes:

[Cali_Democrat]

20. See my analogy above

When foreign governments no longer think they can trust you anymore, you are weaker because of it.

[boppers]

29. The elementary school one?

Well, if the US government is exposing hypocrites, yes, trust is lost for the "secret keeper", *by* the hypocrite, no doubt there.

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. "There's no denying..."

:rofl:

Oy vey...

[gkhouston]

55. Yup, a phrase that always begins a dubious assertion. n/t

[genna]

24. The leaks started under bush as did the stimulus package.

Obama inherited quite a bit.

[and-justice-for-all]

25. Was Wikileaks around during shrubs reign? nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

27. shrub and co just leaked info about CIA employees?

amongst other things!

[boppers]

28. Yes, but it had a different name, and was run by different people.

Wikileaks copied cryptome.

http://cryptome.org/

[11 Bravo]

26. And that's just fine with more than a few DUers.

[impik]

34. Of course. They hate him as much as they hated Bush

[polichick]

39. Every time you post something like that, you show yourself to be an ignorant fool. nt

[bigwillq]

56. ...

:thumbsup:

[zigzagzed]

31. Public memory too short

The public's memory is too short. Once WikiLeaks releases the batch of documents about the banks, no one will remember what the diplomatic cables revealed.

[harun]

38. +1

[Igel]

47. I think you're wrong.

You consider too narrow a set of people. The world is bigger than domestic US politics and even domestic US Democratic politics. (Yes, the "even" implies a kind of discourse-pragmatic non sequitur; it stands.)

The American public is the least affected by the leaks.

Others more affected are those who divulge information to US diplomats and the diplomats themselves. The former are likely to be less forthcoming--when it's your neck on the chopping block you tend to be acutely aware of the splinters and form a clear impression of the axe's sharpness. The latter are likely to be more circumspect in what they say. Oddly, "circumspect" is likely to mean "opaque": They are less likely to say what they mean. Granted, much contained in the dump is fluff; such is the world.

Then there's the non-American public. Those who have a stake in the contents are likely to remember the content even if the American public doesn't. Then again, I guess we don't really care about what other countries' publics think about us.

Of the four groups of people, the middle two are those most likely to be affected, IMHO, and there the most serious damage will occur. Of course, we can ignore it and say there is no damage because, well, it'll be stamped "secret" and "no forn".

[jeanpalmer]

32. It's not the leaks that make him weak

It's what they disclose. They show the buffoonery and evil of US foreign policy. Where it's now clear they've knowingly installed and retained a corrupt paranoid person as leader in Afghanistan. And are killing the people who are rebelling against jim. They've allowed his brother to become a drug kingpin, unchallenged. Money/our tax dollars obviously are being drained by the corrupt. Or Yemen where the US is attacking and killing the local people and conspiring with the country's leader to deceive the people.

And it results from Obama's pursuit of a failed and corrupt foreign policy. Yep, that's embarrassing.

[harun]

37. Largest leak? 220 documents is hardly the largest leak.

Sure there may be more to come but until then we are still at 220 documents and in no way is it the largest leak.

[SkyDaddy7]

40. Does anyone know the answer to this question...

Did the military kid they have in custody really leak every bit of the info Wikileaks has released from the helicopter gunship killing the Reuters journalist to this?

And what about the bank stuff coming next year that obviously did not come from this kid...

BTW- I feel for the kid as he will probably never be free again...Then 100 years from now he will probably be pardoned.

[MadHound]

41. So we should continue with a policy of political ignorance and no transparency

Because such secrecy helps Obama? Are you listening to what you're saying?

Obama is weak, I agree. But his weakness is self inflicted, due to his willingness to be "bipartisan" and sacrifice deeply held Democratic positions in the vain pursuit of bipartisanship.

[AndrewP]

43. I'm not sure what the effect will be. Public Attention span is short....

it may do damage to the administration in regards to their relationships with foreign countries, but it may blow over with little impact at all. I'm not really on either side of the "He's a hero" vs. "He should be jailed" debate. I'm just curious how it will play out.

I think the media impact in the United States will ultimately be minimal. Some football player will bite someone or something and that'll get 24/7 coverage and put this out to pasture.

It seems like it has much more traction overseas though.

[cottonseed]

50. Everything weakens Obama on Fox and DU. Except when he's single handedly destroying the country.