Glenn Greenwald: Obama administration officials caught lying about WikiLeaks

[Better Believe It]

Obama officials caught deceiving about WikiLeaks
January 19, 2011

Whenever the U.S. Government wants to demonize a person or group in order to justify attacks on them, it follows the same playbook: it manufactures falsehoods about them, baselessly warns that they pose Grave Dangers and are severely harming our National Security, peppers all that with personality smears to render the targeted individuals repellent on a personal level, and feeds it all to the establishment American media, which then dutifully amplifies and mindlessly disseminates it all. That, of course, was the precise scheme that so easily led the U.S. into attacking Iraq; it's what continues to ensure support for the whole litany of War on Terror abuses and the bonanza of power and profit which accompanies them; and it's long been obvious that this is the primary means for generating contempt for WikiLeaks to enable its prosecution and ultimate destruction (an outcome the Pentagon has been plotting since at least 2008).

When WikiLeaks in mid-2010 published documents detailing the brutality and corruption at the heart of the war in Afghanistan, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, held a Press Conference and said of WikiLeaks (and then re-affirmed it on his Twitter account) that they "might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family." This denunciation predictably caused the phrase "blood on their hands" to be attached to WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, in thousands of media accounts around the world. But two weeks later, the Pentagon's spokesman, when pressed, was forced to admit that there was no evidence whatsoever for that accusation: "we have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents," he admitted. Several months later, after more flamboyant government condemnations of WikiLeaks' release of thousands of Iraq War documents, McClatchy's Nancy Youssef -- in an article headlined: "Officials may be overstating the danger from WikiLeaks" -- reported that "U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date" that the disclosures resulted in the deaths of anyone, and she detailed the great care WikiLeaks took in that Iraq War release to protect innocent people.

The disclosure of American diplomatic cables triggered still more melodramatic claims from government officials (ones faithfully recited by its servants and followers across the spectrum in Washington), accusing WikiLeaks of everything from "attacking" the U.S. (Hillary Clinton) and "plac(ing) at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals" and "ongoing military operations" (Harold Koh) to being comparable to Terrorists (Joe Biden). But even Robert Gates was unwilling to lend his name to such absurdities, and when asked, mocked these accusations as "significantly overwrought" and said the WikiLeaks disclosures would be "embarrassing" and "awkward" but would have only "modest consequences."

To say that the Obama administration's campaign against WikiLeaks has been based on wildly exaggerated and even false claims is to understate the case. But now, there is evidence that Obama officials have been knowingly lying in public about these matters. The long-time Newsweek reporter Mark Hosenball -- now at Reuters -- reports that what Obama officials are saying in private about WikiLeaks directly contradicts their public claims.

Please read the full article at:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/


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


State Dept. officials privately tell Congress that WikiLeaks cables are "embarrassing, not damaging" BBI

U.S. officials privately say WikiLeaks damage limited
By Mark Hosenball
January 18, 2011

Internal U.S. government reviews have determined that a mass leak of diplomatic cables caused only limited damage to U.S. interests abroad, despite the Obama administration's public statements to the contrary.

A congressional official briefed on the reviews said the administration felt compelled to say publicly that the revelations had seriously damaged American interests in order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers.

But State Department officials have privately told Congress they expect overall damage to U.S. foreign policy to be containable, said the official, one of two congressional aides familiar with the briefings who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity.

"We were told (the impact of WikiLeaks revelations) was embarrassing but not damaging," said the official, who attended a briefing given in late 2010 by State Department officials.

Read the full article at:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70H6TO20110118?pageNumber=1

[Catherina]

1. Thankfully we still have journalists of integrity in this country. Rec'd n/t

[leftstreet]

2. K&R

[SidDithers]

3. The daily screed from Greenwald...

SSDD.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

When Bush was president, did you refer to Greenwald's

investigative journalism exposing the crimes of that criminal administration as 'the daily screed'? I don't remember such comments re Greenwald on democratic boards back then.

Aside from that, what in his 'screed' is incorrect? Attacking the messenger is not very substantive. Messengers aren't always the most popular guys around, but if the message is true, that's pretty irrelevant.

[Smarmie Doofus]

8. Because there weren't any.

>>>I don't remember such comments re Greenwald on democratic boards back then.>>>>

[sabrina 1]

11. Thank you. Sometimes I think I'm hallucinating when I remember

who our 'friends' were back when Bush was in the WH, and how they suddenly got tossed overboard afterwards, not because they changed their principles, because they are still saying the same things. It's always good to know it's not just me :-)

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[jaxx]

4. Officials with no names.

Ho hum, another day.

[sabrina 1]

9. Gates is not a name?

I know I have posted his words many times and they conflict wildly with the accusations coming from the DOJ and other Administration officials. But, just to remind you?

But even Robert Gates was unwilling to lend his name to such absurdities, and when asked, mocked these accusations as "significantly overwrought" and said the WikiLeaks disclosures would be "embarrassing" and "awkward" but would have only "modest consequences

There have been plenty of names throughout this vendetta against a news organization and its editor and publisher, some heaping shame upon themselves, such as Joe Lieberman, Huckabee, and should should anyone be surprised that Sara Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck were on board for the witch hunting of Wikileaks.

This adminsitration really needs to take a hard look at who is on their side these days. From the Rightwing Noise Machine all the way up to Cheney.

This should be a clue that maybe they are on the wrong track. Or maybe it's the 'Right' track!

[EFerrari]

Yep. Too bad these officials don't have the spine to go on the record. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Awwww. The poor widdle administration is embarrassed.

Which they sure as hell should be.

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. K and R So they're prosecuting these people because they're embarrassed?

>>>>Internal U.S. government reviews have determined that a mass leak of diplomatic cables caused only limited damage to U.S. interests abroad, despite the Obama administration's public statements to the contrary.>>>>>>

Who cares. They SHOULD be embarrassed. They should be MORE than embarrassed.

[sabrina 1]

7. If the MSM would do its job, our government would have been

embarrassed every time it lied to the American people. And a lesson might have been learned 'don't lie to the people'.

All Wikileaks is doing is the job the MSM will not do.

[DCKit]

24. No Iraq war, that's for sure.

The media has been criminally negligent.

[BrklynLiberal]

10. I wish I could be surprised by this......

[ProSense]

12. "an article headlined: 'Officials may be overstating the danger from WikiLeaks'"

More from Greenwald's piece:

The long-time Newsweek reporter Mark Hosenball -- now at Reuters -- reports that what Obama officials are saying in private about WikiLeaks directly contradicts their public claims:

Internal U.S. government reviews have determined that a mass leak of diplomatic cables caused only limited damage to U.S. interests abroad, despite the Obama administration's public statements to the contrary.

A congressional official briefed on the reviews said the administration felt compelled to say publicly that the revelations had seriously damaged American interests in order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers. . . .

"We were told (the impact of WikiLeaks revelations) was embarrassing but not damaging," said the official, who attended a briefing given in late 2010 by State Department officials. . .

But current and former intelligence officials note that while WikiLeaks has released a handful of inconsequential CIA analytical reports, the website has made public few if any real intelligence secrets, including reports from undercover agents or ultra-sensitive technical intelligence reports, such as spy satellite pictures or communications intercepts. . . .

National security officials familiar with the damage assessments being conducted by defense and intelligence agencies told Reuters the reviews so far have shown "pockets" of short-term damage, some of it potentially harmful. Long-term damage to U.S. intelligence and defense operations, however, is unlikely to be serious, they said. . . .

<...>

How is it lying for someone to warn of potential danger only to have it play out as "limited damage"?

It should be a relief that the damage was limited. Also, all this for embarrassing information that isn't damaging?

[struggle4progress]

13. Greenwald's shtick has become tiresomely predictable: different people

have somewhat different public stances, so people, with whom Greenwald disagrees, must be liars. It's all shrill and overheated and ugly -- and that, unfortunately, is just Greenwald's style

What, for example, can one make of Greenwald's assertion The case against WikiLeaks is absolutely this decade's version of the Saddam/WMD campaign? The WMD scam was part of an unprincipled push to war, that has probably cost us a trillion dollars and produced over a million premature Iraqi civilian deaths. The objectives of the push to war included boosting W's political capital and bankrupting the US Government, in conformity to the schemes laid out by rightwing theoreticians like Norquist. The international diplomatic community attempted to stall the rush to war but proved too weak. It is unclear what analysis, if any, motivates Wikileaks, beyond Assange's hostile "throw sand into the gears" philosophy, but it is clear that the diplomatic releases can only increase diplomatic friction; meanwhile, Greenwald's WMD analogy is overblown nonsense

[Fumesucker]

14. Was "Greeenwald's shtick" tiresomely predictable when he was pointing out Bush admin lies?

Or is it just since Obama took office?

[ProSense]

17. What is that supposed to mean?

Obama isn't Bush, though Greenwald apparently can't tell the difference.

[Fumesucker]

22. It seemed pretty clear to me..

Has your opinion of Greenwald's work changed since Obama took office?

[ProSense]

15. He's

obssessed

Glenn Greenwald Apologizes, and. .

[EFerrari]

19. Um, no. He's doing his job. n/t

[ProSense]

21. His job is

to criticize Obama supporters and call them names?

[EFerrari]

28. Pathologizing Greenwald is yours?

He is a human rights attorney. He's reporting accurately on the Obama administration's handling of Wikileaks, which tramples the right of expression, or 1st Amendments rights as we call them here in the United States.

[ProSense]

31. No, I'm criticizing him.

I posted that he is obssessed, and you responded that "He's doing his job."

Criticizing an Obama supporter and calling the person names isn't his job.

[Vattel]

49. Thanks for the serious criticism of Glenwald's work:

one excessive tweet for which he apologized. (please excuse dripping sarcasm)

[PufPuf23]

39. I support POTUS Obama but with higher expectations than some at DU.

There are many at DU in the same position; we want Obama and the Democratic Party and the USA to succeeed and be a positive force in the World now and into the future.

I critisize POTUS Obama in cases where he makes poor choices in appointments; takes traditional Democratic policies off the table; or follows failed neo-liberal financial, social, and foreign policies. I did not support POTUS Obama for him to continue neo-liberal policies, expand wars, or dismantle the "New Deal", the crowning achievement of the 20th century Democratic Party.

POTUS Obama does not need an echo chamber and neither does the USA.

I wish more success for POTUS Obama and the nation than his most ardent supporters here at DU because I am disappointed by the last 2 plus years.

Frankly, I am often embarrassed for the administration, especially in the rise in the GOP which does not bode well for the future.

Greenwald is a bright opinion, not always correct, but brighter than most of the popular political commentators.

What is so hard for you to understand about this?

So of us have been around long enough to be really sad and recognize BS for BS.

[EFerrari]

18. So, Reuters is conspiring with Glenn Greenwald

to make Obama look bad?

LOL

[Better Believe It]

20. It's a vast left wing conspiracy! LOL

[struggle4progress]

27. Surely you can do better than jamming ridiculous conspiracy claims in my mouth

Greenwald, as usual, misrepresents the article he cites

[EFerrari]

30. No, he doesn't. Maybe you'd do well to go review that clip of Hillary

asserting that Wikileaks has not revealed government wrongdoing.

The administration has embarrassed itself with its terrible handling of this situation. They don't need Greenwald to improve on their failure.

[struggle4progress]

36. Bzzt. That one person at one time has one opinion, and another at another has another,

is not any proof that the Administration is jam-packed with liars -- a deduction that Greenwald, despite his legal training, nevertheless seems determined to reach without supporting evidence

I have no idea what you mean by "The administration has embarrassed itself with its terrible handling of this situation," since the assertion is vague and without detail. But a moment ago you were implying, without any cause, I was gripped by some vast supposed conspiracy theory, so perhaps this later assertion deserves as much careful attention as the earlier one, namely, rather little

[Better Believe It]

40. There is no evidence that administration officials have ever lied or engaged in deception ....

ever .... on anything .... including the incredible damage that the Assange has done to America and the free world!

Right.

Thanks for the correction.

After reading your informative post the administration has now won my full trust and confidence.

It's like a revelation!

[russspeakeasy]

41. WikiLeaks has become our only source of reliable info.

[ljm2002]

23. You say "It is unclear what analysis, if any, motivates Wikileaks, ...

... beyond Assange's hostile "throw sand into the gears" philosophy, but it is clear that the diplomatic releases can only increase diplomatic friction; meanwhile, Greenwald's WMD analogy is overblown nonsense"

First, the reason that the diplomatic releases "can only increase diplomatic friction" is precisely because of the double dealing and lies that they expose.

Second, I must ask you, was Mario Savio also engaging in a hostile philosophy when he spoke these memorable words at UC Berkeley on the steps of Sproul Hall in 1964:

"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious — makes you so sick at heart — that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all."

Because it seems to me their philosophies are remarkably similar.

Finally, the fact that you feel compelled to speak out against Glenn Greenwald now is telling. I will ask as others here have, were you tired of Greenwald's "shtick" when GW Bush was still president? If so, did you express that here? I'm betting not, but am willing to be corrected...

[struggle4progress]

26. Every country in the world has diplomats, and the really talented ones

tread a fine and complicated line in their diplomatic work, because their position requires them to support the aims of the political establishment at home and to provide information to that establishment, while they must simultaneously build trust and relationships with their counterparts in order to negotiate effectively; thus, they must simultaneously provide useful updates to their own country while crafting agreements that enable everyone to save face

Not being terribly talented at that myself, I have some admiration for people with the skills and personality to carry it off -- and, as a general rule, I am inclined to support diplomacy more than the alternative, which usually seems to be war. It requires a certain shallowness of thought process, I think, to expect that different cultures and different interests will always best be served by forcing every detail of interaction into public view, where different understandings and different expectations allow absolutely everyone an equal opportunity to misunderstand absolutely everything as evidence of bad intention and duplicity

It is all very well to quote Savio's speech, but that speech has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikileak's pointless attempt to damage Obama's attempt to conduct foreign policy

[ljm2002]

42. As far as quoting Savio's speech...

...that was my response to your own attempt to impute "hostile" motives to Julian Assange. As I said, it looks to me like he's in pretty good company, motivation-wise.

But back to Greenwald. Please provide an example where Greenwald calls someone a liar because they disagree with him. He does cite examples of actual lies. Now one may not like the fact that these are brought to light; one may believe that some level of lying is necessary to the practice of diplomacy; or one may believe that the lies exposed are petty compared to the big picture. Those arguments can legitimately be made.

But your arguments are ad hominem against Glenn Greenwald. You say his "shtick has become tiresomely predictable", and that it is "shrill and overheated and ugly". You (dishonestly) say that Greenwald accuses those he disagrees with of being liars, and then you turn around and smear him in general because he disagrees with you. You say that Wikileaks released these documents as an "attempt to damage Obama's attempt to conduct foreign policy" -- which speaks volumes about your own motives. And yes, I feel comfortable imputing motives to you, since you do it so freely to others.

[struggle4progress]

51. It's ironic: when Greenwald casually calls other folk liars, you interpret my distaste

as ad hominem attacks

[ljm2002]

52. I don't find Greenwald to be someone...

...who makes his published remarks "casually".

Please provide a quote where Greenwald calls someone a liar, where he does not cite the lie in question.

[struggle4progress]

54. Again, I do not consider the fact, that one person at one time has one opinion, and

another at another has another, evidence of lying; Greenwald, in the article under discussion, is readily willing to make such claims, without even the benefit of direct quotes with supplied context. I am completely unsurprised, of course, since he begins by ridiculously comparing the Administration responses to Wikileaks to the Bush Administration's propaganda in the run-up to the Iraq war -- but, surprised or not, I find it reflecting poorly on Greenwald's intellectual integrity

[sabrina 1]

48. Is protecting the Bush Six Torturers from prosecution in Spain

part of Obama's 'foreign policy'? Have you read any of the cables at all? Do you think it important that we the people know that our President who we worked so hard to help to replace the war-mongering, torture-supporting previous administration, the President who said he didn't want to waste time prosecuting War Criminals, did take the time to PROTECT war criminals from prosecution in Spain? Should we know these things do you think? That this administration lied to us, pretending that the problem was 'taking time away from more important things'? Yet, they found the time to reach across the ocean and protect these war criminals?

Do you think that we do not have the right to know that this administration's State Dept. has mocked and shown great disdain for the highly respected judges of the European Court of Human Rights because they, rightfully, chastised this country for its human rights record?

I now know that we inadvertently elected an administration that supports and protects torturers.

I was angry when they refused to prosecute our War Criminals but still held out some hope that the Spanish court would hold some of them accountable. I never thought that Obama himself would use his influence to protect those war criminals.

That will citizens to make more informed decisions in the next election. I thank Wikileaks for the enlightenment, shocking as it was.

They are doing the job the U.S. media refuses to do. I guess reading the truth is so shocking to Americans as we so rarely see much truth in our media, that it now appears to be radical to simply report facts. THAT is how controlled our media is.

[struggle4progress]

50. Frankly, while I would welcome prosecution of Bybee, Yoo, and their gang

(including Bush), it has seemed to me entirely obvious (since I first noticed these issues some time ago) that successful prosecution would be impossible for many years, due to the political climate in the US: it is wonderful, to my view, that Spain recognizes the principle of Universal Jurisdiction, but despite continuing pressure from human rights NGOs, most countries (including the US) still do not recognize the principle; the people in question are well-conncected (Bybee, for example, is a sitting Federal judge, to our shame); and US politics have prevented US involvement in such basic institutions as the International Criminal Court

We were never able to bring the Nixon gang to justice for crimes such as the bombing of Cambodia or the overthrow of Allende; a world court ruling against the US in the matter of Reagan's war on Nicaragua did not produce compliant US action; and the courts here in recent years have regularly dismissed lawsuits of innocent victims of Bush's torturers

History sadly suggests the time frame, for bringing people to justice in such crimes, is (practically) of the order of decades, to judge by Argentina or Chile or Peru ...

[sabrina 1]

53. While I agree with what you say regarding the climate in this

country, at least among the rightwing and the elites who are responsible for the crimes, I fail to understand why, when someone else was willing to do what we are not, this president chose to interfere with that process. Spain has jurisdiction due to the fact that some of their citizens were victims of our war criminals.

As many have said, the U.S. appears to be at a point where it will take outside intervention to put a stop to our war crimes. Spain DID hold up the case in the hope that a new administration would deal with U.S. war crimes, but after the announcement by this president that we were not going to do that, they proceeded.

Frankly I was shocked to see that the president himself, who claims to oppose torture, took the time to interfere and put pressure on Spain to drop the case.

The case has not been dropped, as I understand it, but it has stalled. I hope that global pressure from human rights groups will now use THEIR influence to help it go forward.

We are not a third world country, yet. So, our standards should be higher imo.

[Better Believe It]

25. If you really want to find out what motivates Julian Assange you should read his statements.

That would help you to understand.

Simple "drive-by" personal attacks against Assange just won't cut it on Democratic Underground.

[sabrina 1]

29. It's amazing how people will not simply do that. He has provided

the answers to all the questions about him in his own career and statements. But it's easier to simply regurgitate the propaganda from those with a vested interest in discrediting anyone who challenges the status quo.

[struggle4progress]

32. I read Assange's 2006 theories of government-as-conspiracy:

his notion there is that mass-leaking damages institutions, and so I naturally conclude that his objective in mass-leaking diplomatic cables is to damage diplomatic institutions

[Better Believe It]

33. Have you read any of his more recent statements .... say from 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011?

I don't think his current views on all subjects are identical to those he may have expressed five years ago.

People change and grow as a result of reading and personal experiences.

[Luminous Animal]

43. That would be "Conspiracy As Governance".

Maybe you should re-read the document.

[struggle4progress]

44. It was hooie heavily sprinkled with jargon

[Angry Dragon]

16. Whom do I trust today??

Who is going to lie to me tomorrow??

[blindpig]

34. The agents of the ruling class. n/t

[maryf]

35. K&R nt

[Mimosa]

37. K&R Next Assange may be revealing info about secret Swiss bank accounts

I can hardly wait to read this:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/17/wikileaks-handed-data-on-secret-swiss-bank-accounts/

Excerpt:

LONDON -- A former Swiss banker today supplied anti-secrecy site WikiLeaks with two CDs containing account details on more than 2,000 high-profile politicians, celebrities, crime bosses and multinationals suspected of tax evasion.

Swiss whistle-blower Rudolf Elmer -- the former chief operating officer of the Cayman Islands subsidiary for Swiss bank Julius Baer -- handed the discs to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at a press conference in London. The data relate to offshore bank accounts allegedly held by individuals and companies from across the world, including the U.S., U.K. and Germany, and covers 1990 to 2009.

Assange said the secret banking records could be published in "a matter of weeks" if they can be processed quickly enough. He added that he might seek the help of financial media outlets, or a nongovernmental organization such as the Tax Justice Network, to help analyze the information.

***********************************************************

I wouldn't be surprised if people like Matt Drudge have dirty money stashed away. Druge is among many who have been effective in spreading propaganda for the republicans. ;)

[Better Believe It]

45. Probably at least a month away from their release.

[slipslidingaway]

46. knr nt

[saras]

47. This controversy seems to indicate Greenwald's right

The debate almost instantly degenerated to personal attacks on Assange, petty criticism of Wikileaks, and...

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF CONSEQUENCE ABOUT THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF THE LEAKED MATERIAL.

It's like attacking witnesses to a mass murder because they MAY have parked badly, POTENTIALLY risking a pedestrian in the obscure case where the pedestrian illegally walks into traffic to get around the poorly parked car,

AND CONCLUDING THAT THIS PARKING PROBLEM JUSTIFIES RELEASING THE MASS MURDERERS.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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