Liberals disapprove of Wikileaks 64%-30%, Democrats disapprove 79%-19%

[Still a Democrat]

If you disapprove of Wikileaks displaying confidential U. S. government documnets, as I do, most liberals and Democrats agree with you.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/12/30/rel17n.pdf

[EFerrari]

1. Where did you get those numbers?

[Still a Democrat]

2. Sorry, edited to add link n/t

[virgogal]

4. Go to the link.

[Luminous Animal]

31. Better link with comments.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/30/cnn-poll-wikileaks-has-few-fans-in-u-s/

[marmar]

49. selfdelete, responded to wrong post

nt

[bullimiami]

3. Im surprised I am in a minority in both groups.

Why do I not believe the numbers.

[golddigger]

5. I say that poll is a big stinking

pile of turd.

I call BS.

[Still a Democrat]

7. Or maybe just not the numbers you want? n/t

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[Tunkamerica]

92. I don't know a Dem in real life who thinks that.

[ThomCat]

122. I am not sure I do either.

:shrug:

[freshwest]

214. Nor do I. Not in real life or online.

[sabrina 1]

229. Me neither!

[defendandprotect]

262. I greatly support WikiLeaks and Assange -- so do most here ...

[EFerrari]

16. This was the question:

As you may know, a website called Wikileaks has displayed thousands of confidential U.S. government documents concerning U.S. diplomatic and military policies. Do you approve or disapprove of the Wikileaks website displaying these documents?

Yes, it is a crock.

[Le Taz Hot]

249. Push poll

Unrec. for posting push poll.

[EFerrari]

257. Happy New Year, Le Taz Hot.

:)

[SnakeEyes]

270. How?

please explain

[Renew Deal]

282. How is that a push poll?

A push poll would look something like this. "America hating website Wikileaks which is run by an accused rapist has displayed thousands of confidential U.S. government documents concerning U.S. diplomatic and military policies. Do you approve or disapprove of the Wikileaks website displaying these documents?"

[Hippo_Tron]

264. The poll question leads, but it does demonstrate how susceptible people are

I'm sure if you asked the question "Do you approve of Wikileaks' decision to post the documents that it has posted to its website" and gave people the choices of Approve, Disapprove, and No Opinion/Not Sure/No Idea, you would get a lot of people in that third category who said "Disapprove" to the pollster's question.

But if this is true then this may not tell the whole story either. Those "No Opinion" people formed an opinion against Wikileaks the second you told them that they posted classified documents on their website. In other words, all they have to do is turn on the news for 10 seconds and they will be against Wikileaks.

[Codeine]

66. DU said the same thing during the elections.

We say that every single time we see a poll we dislike. If we see a poll we like our tunes change dramatically.

[sabrina 1]

232. I say that any poll asking for an opinion on a topic already

falsely reported on in the U.S. is bogus. To get an honest result, the people being polled would have to have knowledge of the subject, not the tabloid coverage our media has engaged in on the Wikileaks story. Eg, I received an email from a friend who had heard from a rightwing friend of hers that Wikileaks was a dangerous terrorist organization and that Assange should be hung for treason. She thought he was American, as she is too smart not to know that you have to be American in order to be a traitor.

If she had taken this poll then, she would have voted against Wikileaks.

She asked me if I knew anything about it. I sent her some links to Wikileaks own site (mirror sites since the U.S. Government has censored Wikileaks much to its shame) along with links to real interviews with Assange himself. I know she is intelligent and will now do her own research. And when she does, she would vote very differently in a poll like that and will probably be angry at the lies she was told.

All this poll does is reflect the sad state of our media today which is where most people get their news. It's NOT a surprise to get a result like that in the U.S. when in other more informed nations, the results would be and have been entirely different.

We are a victim of state television news. This poll proves it.

[elocs]

83. I say the same to all polls that do not agree with what I believe.

Although that is pretty typical here.

[Enthusiast]

130. For certain BS.

Might as well read Newsmax.

[Name removed]

259. Deleted message

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

[tularetom]

6. If those numbers are correct we are in deeper shit than I thought

I thought I was a "liberal" and I knew I was a Democrat.

Maybe I was wrong.

[Bluebear]

11. I think it's time you and I and our like-thinking sisters and brothers rethink what we are

Evidently we don't fit in with today's definition of "liberal"!

[MrSlayer]

8. As a liberal and a Democrat, I wholeheartly approve of Wikileaks.

I hope they keep it up.

[mbperrin]

13. As both, I also hope they keep it up

and that they inspire many more.

Only vampires need fear sunshine.

[sabrina 1]

210. As a Liberal and a Democrat, I too totally approve of Wikileaks, also.

But I have seen some strange people claim to be liberals over the past several months. It's odd too because some of those people used to slam 'liberals' in the past. I think there is an attempt to bolster the number of 'liberals' who support the policies of this administration, and the best way they could think of was to get a lot of people to claim to be liberals who obviously are not.

Eg, I do not know a single liberal who doesn't support Wikileaks. It's simply not possible for a real Liberal to want to silence the press.

[freshwest]

215. Totally agreed.

This reminds me of GOPhers who claimed they didn't like Bush when he left office after supporting him completely before.

I don't believe the poll was well worded, and it just came through as a download to my computer which I deleted.

As you say, a real liberal doesn't want to silence the press. Wikileaks has the support of Daniel Ellsberg and many others who released documents.

Why would liberals or Democrats want to hide what the Government has done wrong? That is the function of the press, not to rubber stamp what the government is doing.

Perhaps this is from a Blue-dog or DINO sampling. Just not credible to me, sorry.

[Sancho]

9. I doubt that's a valid number, but it doesn't matter...

wikileaks is not a political candidate. The more rational question lies with the revealed material (and we've only seen about 1%). Don't shoot the messenger! Do Democrats or Liberals approve of lies, torture, bankers who steal from the poor, governments who break their own laws? If wikileaks proves such things are true, then maybe the source is irrelevant. If wikileaks is only a sensational source who makes things up and lies (Glen Beck?), then disapproval is appropriate.

[Bluebear]

10. Oh, "Still a Democrat", I bet the number is 189% disapprove!!!

Or a kajillion! Especially amongst all of us liberals!

:crazy:

[EFerrari]

12. Their question is ridiculous. With a similar question, i could get anyone

to be against Mothers' Day cards.

[sabrina 1]

14. You should say 'Americans' not 'liberals'. Most Americans

are being fed propaganda about Wikileaks, which is why around the world,where the organization was already known and respected, Wikileaks has so much more support.

Americans are kept ignorant by their government who influence the news media so they have no way to judge a story like this.

The rest of the civilized world has known about Wikileaks and what they do long before Americans ever heard of them. When they did hear, they got the government version of who they are.

I doubt anyone in the world is surprised to see Americans as usual, be so far behind the rest of the world on yet another major story.

One of my friends emailed me this week to ask what I knew about Wikileaks. She only knew what the media was saying about them, and has learned enough to know that we cannot take the world of our media on anything without checking.

I sent her some links so she can make up her own mind. That's what I did. When I first heard about them, I did my own research and found that what we were hearing on TV was in many instances, simply lies. Like the WMD lies etc.

We so badly need a free press in this country and polls like these PROVE it.

Thankfully there is the internet and as more and more people learn the facts, those numbers tend to change.

All that poll reveals is how uninformed the average American is.

[U4ikLefty]

15. So 1000 older Americans are given a leading question

and they vote in favor of your point of view?

I'm impressed.

Now let me reframe the question: "As you may know, a website called Wikileaks has carefully released thousands of
government documents to the press concerning government corruption and war crimes. Do you approve or
disapprove of the Wikileaks website displaying these documents?"

[seabeyond]

20. putin is an alpha dog is govt corruption and war crime? wow. didnt know. nt

[Name removed]

25. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[JackRiddler]

115. Putin being an alpha dog should be classified? Wow, indeed.

Over-classification is almost as bad as classification to hide abuses and enable power games. If it's not important, it shouldn't be classified, that's obscuring the workings of a government that must be transparent if it is to be lawful.

[seabeyond]

153. so it isnt about govt corruption and war crimes. nt

[JackRiddler]

154. Clearly that's not what I said. The 1% of cables so far show outrageous, routine corruption & crime.

You won't know if you're not interested. (Click on the link in my sig line and read that thread with its several primers on what's come out of the cables so far if you want to have an informed basis for your currently pulled-out-of-ass opinions.)

[seabeyond]

156. why do you people assume i dont know. 1% released are crimes. 1 friggin %

corruption and crime. so 99% released is bullshit that had no reason to be exposed.

that feels about right

maybe you people ought to talk about the issue than continually resorting to personal insult to express YOUR opinion.

we ought to expose employees assessments for all to read

we ought to be allowed to read our mates email

no privacy allowed

[JackRiddler]

159. Because you have once again demonstrated that you don't know anything about this.

If you knew anything, you would know that "1 percent" (actually less than 1 percent) refers to ALL cables released so far, out of the total.

As the Wikileaks site currently says:
Currently released so far... 1947 / 251,287

It doesn't mean that only 1 percent of the cables show evidence of wrongdoing, as you seem to imply (thus revealing your ignorance).

It means that only (less than) 1 percent of the cables have been released AT ALL. And this small fraction already shows much evidence of wrongdoing.

To say therefore that you don't know the most basic information about the Wikileaks affair is not an "insult." It is a fact that your own posts demonstrate.

If you wish to react rationally, you will not post back an immediate response. You will go research the matter and inform yourself, and come back with a better informed response.

Finally, it's irrelevant what proportion of the cables in the end will show wrongdoing. If any abuses were covered up by secrecy, that is wrong. If the majority of the cables are routine and irrelevant communications, they shouldn't have been classified in the first place. Either way, this information should be exposed.

The State Department lost its right to claim it was using secrecy responsibly long ago, but a very famous case made that abundantly clear to the world:


The use of secrecy to give authority to the launching of an aggressive war, against worldwide opposition.

This great crime against humanity has not been corrected or atoned. Long as that is the case, this is an illegitimate empire and the State Department is one of its tools.

.

[seabeyond]

161. again with the personal attacks. listen to you. we can only judge the cables that have come out.

that is a real duh. right? we know there is tons that have not been exposed yet. but those really dont matter at this point because we dont know what is in them. what they have put out, about 1% is worthwhile. the rest is bullshit

and clever of you to ignore my point about privacy. so we expose all things, because there is no reason for private? be it a business, employee, medical, personal. that is a whole other argument.

i was addressing the person that stated the stuff exposed were govt corruption and war crimes. that simply is not true. i do not have to say those that disagree with my opinion are uninformed. they know it. you know it. you posted it. yet still...... you are arguing with me.

now the line has been drawn that regardless of what govt does, ALL should be assessable.

that is a different argument.

you can keep saying i am not informed, but it does not make it true.

[JackRiddler]

163. Individual privacy is not the same as institutional secrecy.

You made a series of ignorant statements, which you do not admit but are there to read. Pointing out your ignorance is not an insult or a personal attack.

[seabeyond]

167. in your opinion i did. but i can state easily the reason why you must resort to stating they are

ignorant is because you are protecting your agenda and cannot admit that the majority of crap wiki put out was bullshit. and much was gossip intent on titlating the public, people like you.

so, no institution is allowed privacy, is the position you now hold? only personal privacy is allowed.

[JackRiddler]

171. Please inform yourself about the stories that have come out from the State Department cables so far.

The first link in my sig line leads to a current thread (which I didn't even start myself) in which people have compiled about 100 links to stories based on the State Department cables. You can start there and check those, and go wherever else you like to learn more and get a good mix of views and information.

But please inform yourself about the stories, rather than continuing to repeat simple talking points that are both untrue and uninformed. Thank you.

[seabeyond]

172. you keep repeating yourself. i am informed. is it clear yet, or do i have to say it slower

and louder. i dont agree with you, obviously. that does not make me uninformed. it means, with info i have, and you have, we disagree on the conclusion of worth.

the poster stated that wiki put out corruption and war crimes. putin being an alpha dog is not corruption or war crimes. that is what i addressed. now in all your informed intellect, tell me how i am wrong.

[JackRiddler]

175. Very sad. You're back to "Putin as alpha dog" as though this is the only thing that came out.

(Which again, is hardly something that should be classified in the first place.)

This repetition of the "alpha dog" thing demonstrates your ignorance and stubborness to remain ignorant. (Ignorance is an easily cured condition, not an insult.)

Please follow that link and read the very long list of stories that have been exposed through the cables. I'm not going to repeat it here when it exists just one click away. On DU.

Go there, read that, follow links, do your own research and due diligence, and then form your opinion. Maybe you'll still think the same thing, but at least you'll have a clue instead of exposing yourself as ignorant.

[seabeyond]

189. no. i am back to putin the alpha dog because that is what i responded to.

you and others want to take conversation in other direction. i am not interested in that conversation. you and others insist i am not informed. you are wrong. i am informed. but i am not talking about that stuff. my post was to the poster that said wiki is corruption and war crimes. my post was about it not being corruption and war crimes. gossip too. i have not shifted. you try to redirect what i am talking about and i am not allowing you to.

i KNOW what was put out. all of it. i dont need your condescending guide to being informed. i have told you that a number of times. you are the one that seems to lack the ability to digest simple words. not my problem

[JackRiddler]

196. Okaythanks. You're obviously not interested, but I know that many people are interested, so...

Unlike seabeyond, many of you probably do prefer not to deny but to acknowledge and learn about the big stories that have emerged thanks to the cables release. Many of these are big news! Many expose corruption, abuses and crimes of US empire (as well as of other corrupt states), and/or give important documentary confirmation to abuses that had already been known.

Those who would like to try a guide can go to the thread linked in my sig line. It's mainly a compilation of links to many stories, by several hard-working DUers who believe research is worth more than talking points. Also links to places where you can do text searches of the documents yourself.

Before almost any documents were released, the talking point (being worn out to the bone by seabeyond) was already being pushed: NOTHING IN THERE! Don't read the cables! They're stolen! Don't pay attention to that, only to the evil Assange!

It is a desperate lie originating with a few of the institutions that the cables help to expose.

If you haven't started, you're in for some surprises. Though it's one of the lesser stories, my favorite for now is still the astonishing story of how Yemen and the US fabricated an extremely dangerous redux of the "Gulf of Tonkin incident," in which they advanced to the world in 2007 an outrageous fabrication in which they claimed Iran was flying drones over Yemen, when these drones were in fact American.

This is perhaps the most important power that governmental secrecy confers: the power to tell lies without having to prove anything.

Never forget the worst crime of this young century. It was made possible by the rule of secrecy:



.

[seabeyond]

202. i am not much into games jack. too childish.... your post is beyond absurd

but certainly immature.

every post, it was clear what i was saying. every post, you chose to play a game.

that isnt my way

[JackRiddler]

220. I think we can leave this to the judgement of the readers, if there are any.

[seabeyond]

221. ah. so your performance was for the fellow readers? hm. again. games. nt

[JackRiddler]

223. I don't know why seabeyond distracts and attacks. It's sad. Please follow this link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x65699

[seabeyond]

225. lol. you are replying to seabeyond. it is real clear what i was saying. you dont know why?

i repeated it too many times. and still, you cant figure it out. lol. talk about sad.

happy new years to you, jack

[JackRiddler]

227. There's no point in replying to seabeyond, as s/he is not interested in following this link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x65699

or doing the equivalent due diligence.

Anyone else left who has not educated themselves about the actual cables (as opposed to the talking points) please follow that link!

[seabeyond]

228. wow. now you are just being odd. ok. whatever... lol. nt

[OnyxCollie]

280. This is why seabeyond distracts and attacks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9698609#9719683

Seabeyond's behavior suggests she supports the status quo, secrecy, spying, and punishment for those who dare to challenge authority. And for someone to advance those views on a democratic board is simply flat out creepy.

[seabeyond]

295. what you do on this thread, you did on that thread. no, my behavior doesnt suggest what you make up

because your reading comprehension is lacking, and your refusal to actually pay attention to what i post, is not my problem.

people who play the game of..... she says this, so it means that.... is tiresome at the least. dishonest at the most.

[OnyxCollie]

297. Blah, blah, blah.

You did the same shit in the other thread. In fact, your posting history has developed a fascinating pattern.

Why not ask your hubby if it's an accurate assessment? 'Course he probably knows enough by now to keep his mouth shut (or lie his ass off).

If the jackboot fits...

[seabeyond]

299. what does husband have to do with anything? consistently yawl go after the person

an immature, childish way to argue your point. cant argue the issue, so go after the person.

[OnyxCollie]

300. Project much?

"consistently yawl go after the person an immature, childish way to argue your point. cant argue the issue, so go after the person."

Here's some quotes from you:

"i think the dude is a piece of shit. what is done, is done. people will have to clean up the mess he creates. like there isnt enough to be done." 12/05/2010

"he is a piece of shit.... scum. a creep. when he went to embarrassing, so childishly, he lost my support and respect. he had a great responsibility and he showed what he was about. and has since shown us more of the creep. blackmailing at the expense of others. and he will continue to show us the creep." 12/06/2010

"they fuckin have threads dictating he is a HERO. on du. i did not make it up. they have posters stating he is a hero in pose looking beyond.... all noble. i didnt make this shit up

he now dumps all if all dont leave him alone, regardless. so.... whatever he does, he has made himself 'untouchable" and people cheer.

absurd. beyond absurd." 12/06/2010

"he is a piece of shit. but make him your hero. time will bare it out. betcha." 12/06/2010

"he is not a hero to dump a bunch of crap that does not need, nor should be dumped. if he is going to accept the responsibility, then dont lack the integrity to put out the stuff that is a crime, and leave the stuff that isnt. beyond that, he fails and is no hero." 12/06/2010

He's no HERO. He's a PIECE OF SHIT. He lacks INTEGRITY. ALPHA DOG!!!

"consistently yawl go after the person an immature, childish way to argue your point. cant argue the issue, so go after the person." 01/06/2010

Keep up the good work. Your unintentional comedy is hilarious.

[seabeyond]

301. project much? i am talking about the subject. the issue. you are talking about me. then my hubby

you take it to personal. i am talking about the piece of shit that people are glorifying.

you really... really.... do not see the difference?

wow

bah hahahaha

[OnyxCollie]

302. Pure comedy gold.

"i am talking about the subject. the issue. you are talking about me."

Well, the adults here are trying to talk about the subject, the issue, but you and your scatological fixation are determined to lower the level of discourse to that of dim-witted eleven year olds on Xbox Live.

HE'S A PIECE OF SHIT!
HE'S A PIECE OF SHIT!
HE'S A PIECE OF SHIT!

Thank you for your substantive input on this thread.

[EOTE]

273. This reader agrees strongly with Jack.

This reader also thinks that you should spend a good deal more time making sure your posts are composed of coherent sentences before you think about calling someone immature again. When looking at a number of your posts, I'm thinking immature is too kind of a word.

[Enthusiast]

247. PLUS ONE!

Excellent post!

[JackRiddler]

250. Thank you! ...

I can't tell you what a relief your post is to me.

Readers! Follow the top link in my sig line, thank you.

[EOTE]

272. Sorry, you are completely uninformed on this issue.

Your myriad posts on the subject make that quite clear. If you'd like, you can view Jack's link on the subject and better inform yourself. However, from the content and quickness of your subsequent replies, it appears as if you have no intention of doing so. But for a quick refresher, here's where we're at:

1) The extremely limited amount of cables which have been released so far (about .8%) have all been vetted by numerous media organizations to prevent dangerous information from being released.

2) The cables released so far contain an incredible amount of information dealing with not only corruption, but war crimes.

3) The "frivolous" information contained within the leaked cables has no business being classified in the first place. Please don't make the asinine comparison to personal privacy because there's absolutely no comparison to be made. Governments are supposed to classify information for the benefit of the general public. Information is NOT supposed to be classified simply because it could be considered embarrassing to someone.

Jack is not being condescending. He's speaking in as plain of a manner as possible considering he's communicating with someone who knows extremely little about the subject and is convinced that much misinformation is true. I'd strongly suggest educating yourself a bit more before making your next response, but based upon your previous responses to Jack, I don't know how likely that is.

[JackRiddler]

276. Ouch! Thanks EOTE.

I thought I was nuts to try, but your kind post makes it worthwhile.

[EOTE]

278. It's amazing what some people will defend.

How people will bend over backward trying to make it easier for the powers that be to maintain a stranglehold on the truth. There's an authoritarian mindset that's spreading quickly in this country. And by authoritarian, I don't just mean the people in the government who'll insist that they know what's best and right for the populace and impose their will on others, but those who'll actively defend those authoritarians and make their job far easier. The fascists in this country don't need any help, it really saddens me that there are so many, even on this site, who intentionally or not, enable them.

[snooper2]

298. I don't remember reading 1,947 unique scandels from the cables

maybe 15, 20 tops so far...

And some of them were not "illegal" per say, just shit we already know, like diplomats pimping for Boeing.
So there's your 1% number...


The rest of the cables are everyday shit like:-

US embassy cables: China's next leader reveals taste for Hollywood movies
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/100934

US embassy cables: US offers to help boost security at Yemen airports
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/246988

US embassy cables: America warns of security lapses in Yemen cargo screening over a year before printer bombs
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/219380

US embassy cables: African countries prefer Chinese aid to US-China cooperation
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/248299

US embassy cables: Rising star of Chinese communist party reveals personal crusade against corruption
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/100498

US embassy cables: British diplomat describes UK-China economy summit as 'a bloody disaster'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/211724

US embassy cables: Olympic threat to Bush, Brown and Miliband
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/165451

US embassy cables: Fears of terrorist attacks on Saudi oilfields
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/175700

US embassy cables: United Arab Emirates and terrorist funding – the Pashtun connection
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/223330

US embassy cables: UAE urged to do more about terror cash couriers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/128665

US embassy cables: Al-Jazeera 'proves useful tool for Qatari political masters'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/214776

[sabrina 1]

233. 1% of the cables have been released is what he meant.

And that 1% has revealed war crimes which apparently progressives no longer care about. We've seen how our State Dept. under both administrations has broken the law turning the State Dept. into an Espionage unit, which is strictly forbidden and if any other country had done this, the U.S. would be screaming for accountability.

You really should start studying what has been released. We are looking worse and worse by the day, supporting brutal dictators while undermining democratic leaders, wrongfully influencing the elections in almost every country in the world, which will come as a huge shock to the people of those countries, but which does explain why their leaders now ignore them even when they overwhelmingly, eg, oppose getting involved in U.S. wars. A lot has become clear from these news reports. And hopefully it will empower citizens of countries around the world, to replace their corrupt governments, as Iceland has, with some decent leaders who actually care about their own people rather than the jobs they will be offered after they leave their countries devastated econimically, and move onto the criminal Global Stage as Tony Blair et al have.

These leaks are invaluable to the people of the world, but not to the corrupt governments which is why they are so determined to destroy freedom of the press.

[seabeyond]

235. why

do you assume i dont know what has been released?

there is so much i disagree with you on. and i am not going to argue how i feel. it doesnt matter twit to you and would be a waste of time. just as it is a waste of time you and others continually telling me to be informed when i already am informed. you and others can keep ignoring me when i tell you have read what is released. i do know what is released. and i look at it differently than you.

you keep repeating the same shit, ignoring what i say

why should i bother

[sabrina 1]

237. Okay, then since you ARE informed, what has been released

by Wikileaks that you believe should not have been?

[seabeyond]

239. putin being an alpha dog.... lol. nt

[sabrina 1]

244. Well, the cables did reveal that U.S. officials did believe that

Putin was behind the poisoning of the Russian spy. This information was very important to his widow who for so long had hoped that Western governments would speak out and at least support those who had accused the Russian government of killing him. She was relieved to know that the U.S. did share her belief that Putin knew a lot about her husband's murder, but saddened that they did not reveal their suspicions publicly. However, the leak of that information did give her and her family some comfort and Putin now has been publicly implicated. At least that is something for the grieving family.

Putin himself, although he has been vilified in the leaks along with his government, hasn't gone off the deep end over it as the U.S. government has done. He recommended Assange be given a Pulitizer prize recognizing someone who, while he may be a challenge to Putin's image, is very, very good at what he does. As a result of not throwing temper tantrums over leaks in the media, the actual damaging information about the Russian government has received very little attention. The U.S. should take some lessons on how to handle difficult situations like this from Putin. Screaming for the assassination of a journalist is certainly not the way to handle these things.

[tekisui]

209. Sure it is. It is about corruption, war crimes and the other stuff.

[seabeyond]

212. yup. well see, that is all. would have been so much easier without all the deleted

subthreads to just say "It is about corruption, war crimes and the other stuff."

:thumbsup:

[JackRiddler]

222. Good luck tekisui!

[Webster Green]

22. And you assume they are older because...

these dumb-ass polls don't bother to call cell phones?

That's what I was thinking too.

[Luminous Animal]

35. The report shows that they have no data for 18-34 year olds

[U4ikLefty]

39. Yes I assumed about older folks...am I wrong? Still doesn't take away from my point

and that is that the question was leading.

[Webster Green]

45. Indeed.

I was agreeing with you. :smoke:

[U4ikLefty]

48. sorry

if I was unclear

[Hippo_Tron]

265. The bias in your question is more equivalent to one like this...

"Do you approve of Wikileaks' decision to jeopardize national security and endanger the lives of our troops by posting classified US documents on their website".

The question leads, but all it does is state that Wikileaks released documents which is a fact. In other words, CNN allowed people who know nothing about Wikileaks to answer the question and gave them a tiny bit of background info rather than just letting them say "I have no idea what Wikileaks is". As I said, upthread that question would have been less biased but this one serves a purpose as well. If people are so easily persuaded by simply knowing that wikileaks leaked classified information then that's something to consider.

[SnakeEyes]

271. how is it leading?

please elaborate.

[Webster Green]

18. Who gives a shit about a CNN telephone poll?

CNN is a propaganda tool. I don't listen to anything they say.

Tough shit if the US government is embarrassed by their own bad behavior.

Go Wikileaks! :yourock:

[cali]

19. I don't care if fucking 99% of liberals disapprove of it.

If Wikileaks can actually expose the bankocracy, they'll have done us a HUGE service.

[TBF]

110. Agree on that completely. nt

[Ghost in the Machine]

117. +1000 N/T

[Luminous Animal]

21. From the comments...

posted by Democrats Class Warfare - Destroying the economy and country

"Which pretty much lines up with the 23% of the leftist progressive loons in the US that hate the country. Personally, I'd love to see this clown thrown in US jails for espionage."

I am totally happy being a leftist progressive loon. I was amongst the 20% of leftist progressive loons that was against the Iraq invasion.

Here is a link with comments.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/30/cnn-poll-wikileaks-has-few-fans-in-u-s/

[NoPasaran]

23. In a related story, 82 percent of DUers

In a related story, 82 percent of DUers continued to dismiss opinion poll results that contradicted their own beliefs.

[Webster Green]

28. Oh yeah... CNN is a great source for unbiased information.

:rofl:

[bluestate10]

73. And that mirrors what I see from the right.

Amazing how a newspaper or show host that mirror their views is saintly, while any that do not are deceitful and evil. Throw Fox News out of the discussion, that network is a deceiving, distorted snake-pit. But there are show hosts and news networks that just honestly disagree with a certain point of view, for the typical DUer, that point of view is progressive.

[golddigger]

81. Come on! CNN, Faux News Lite!

In a related story, 28 percent of DUers who would believe a CNN poll, have their heads up something.

[The Midway Rebel]

24. A CNN poll: A sample of 1008 and a tainted poll question.

I am not impressed.

[Bill McBlueState]

150. 1000 is a typical poll size

That's how you get a sampling error of 3%. :shrug:

[JackRiddler]

152. "Samping error of 3%" is a religious invocation, not a scientific statement.

Anyway, what if they had asked, simply, "What is Wikileaks?" or "What did Wikileaks recently do?" How many US residents would know the outlines of a correct answer? (Example: A group who publish leaks of confidential information given to them anonymously by whistleblowers or leakers; published war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan and confidential and secret State Department cables.)

.

[Bill McBlueState]

181. No, it means

that if you assume the only error is Poisson noise, the true result is probably within 3% of the poll result. Nothing religious about that.

I have no idea what the body of your post has to do with anything I said.

[JackRiddler]

198. "If you assume the only error is Poisson noise" is a giant leap of faith.

The invocation of the sampling error claim is religious insofar as it is supposed to legitimate what is usually a non-science as scientific.

I'd be more impressed if the boilerplate they always prominently feature would note that "XX percent of those called did not complete the poll" (i.e., because they hung up, typically two-thirds or more).

The relevance of the body of my post is to demonstrate that talk of sampling error is pure distraction and self-delusion on their part, ignoring the extent to which the results are determined by the questions, which in this case was (as is almost always the case) highly biased to produce a certain result. They first described Wikileaks in negative terms, then asked, "Do you approve or disapprove." The result may indeed be an accurate measure of what the answer is when their question is asked, but not of actual opinion, let alone of informed opinion. A scientific venture would be conducting multiple polls with different questions weighted to different potential results, and then comparing the differences. For example, a positive or neutral description of Wikileaks followed by the approval question. Thus you have a control on your own questions. That almost never happens.

The other point is that, of course, people generally don't know much about the story (evidence can be found on this thread) and those who do have been exposed to a media onslaught of epic proportions in which Assange has been hit with the TERRORIST!!! label.

Thus I asked, what if they asked simply what Wikileaks was? How many people would even have a clue? How many would be able to say what country or countries it is located in, what it is famous for (specifically, what it has released), or who the principle figure associated with it is. Without that and more to get a robust data set covering different dimensions of what people know and think, you can't pretend it's science. At best one tiny piece toward a scientific understanding, no more.

But it's so much easier and cheaper to ask an attack question, get the result you want, and then add the magic words about margin of error to make it look like some kind of thorough scientific examination was done. In that sense, it's a religious invocation.

[sabrina 1]

234. If you are going to conduct a poll, you should poll people

who are knowledgeable about the topic and certainly people who have not been fed false information about the topic. That is if you want an accurate result.

The U.S. media including CNN has been part of the smear campaign against Wikileaks.

It is no surprise therefore that when they poll people who are victims of their own biased reporting, they get the result they wanted to get.

This poll is worthless.

[Number23]

193. How in the question "tainted?" What is the problem some here seem to have with the question?

[JackRiddler]

251. Not to say that almost all questions are tainted but...

Scientific polling would ask something like CNN's question, which is clearly biased toward disapproval of Wikileaks in the introductory sentence, and then ask a question that spins Wikileaks positively of a different 1,008 people. This would introduce control, the most essential element of scientific method. The comparison of the two results would allow analysis. The "truth" would not be in their average, necessarily, but by careful analysis (rather than a headline pretending, "Americans believe this and that") you'd probably get closer. Furthermore, a survey that does nothing to figure out the state of knowledge about Wikileaks (what people know and where they learned it from so far) and cross-analyzes that with the approval/disapproval question is worthless.

Also see here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=99231&mesg_id=102814

[Name removed]

258. Deleted message

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

[The Midway Rebel]

266. Here is my problem with the question.

It is, in my view, a push poll. It yanks at my emotions and counts on me being uninformed to respond in the negative. I don't know why but, for some reason the poll question reminds me of this magazine cover.

[Number23]

294. lolol That poor dog!!!

:rofl: I disagree that the question is a "push poll" but I appreciate the chuckle I got from your post. Happy New Year. :)

[Luminous Animal]

26. May 2003 79% of U.S. citizens believed invading Iraq was justified. (CNN Poll)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq#February_2001

[cbc5g]

70. +1 .. wasn't there also a poll that most Americans, before the iraq war..

believed Saddam was behind 9/11?

[hulka38]

254. Nearly all of them thought a WMD attack by Saddam

on the U.S. was imminent. I'm pretty certain these same people think that Wikileaks is a terrorist organization.

[asjr]

27. I will not fret about it. We all knew there was

terrible things going on. Wikileaks brought it out in the open. We know who, when, and where.

[roamer65]

36. Yep. Only confirmed what we already knew.

[msongs]

29. yikes if everybody else believes in molesting children does that mean we should go along with it? n

[xchrom]

30. Most Americans don't know/understand the basic notion

Of 'informed consent'.

And that's too bad.

Re: DU if wikileaks had happened under bushco
Moderate DUers here would be for it.
It's only a dem presidency that makes a difference with them.

[roamer65]

33. Goes beyond right-wing or left-wing, conservative or liberal.

If you approve of the American empire, then you don't like Wikileaks.

[Ian David]

34. I have problems with some of what WikiLeaks did, and how they went about it.

They're just throwing everything against the wall and letting us see what sticks.

If they were just giving out the information we need to be an informed Democracy, that's one thing.

Spewing EVERYTHING, without some kind of gate keeping, is sub-optimal.

[Luminous Animal]

38. They are not throwing everything against the wall. This is one of the Zombie Lies.

They are releasing the cables ONLY after each cable is vetted and reported on by their media partners... Those being, El Pais, Der Speigel, La Monde, and The Guardian.

Why oh why does this lie not die.

[Ian David]

41. I was under the impression they were vetting it only to filter-out certain things...

... such as the names of confidential informants and things that might put peoples' lives at risks.

I wasn't aware that they were also vetting the information to only give us things that are important and useful.

I was going to go through the database to see if any diplomats had been sending LOLCat photos to each other.

[Luminous Animal]

47. Actually, they are letting the newspapers take the lead on what subjects to report...

Then, after the report comes out, Wikileaks releases the relevant cables on their website.

This information was reported on Dec. 3rd by the AP:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i0Vruimmvy8loGklsz34QyGDKMDA?docId=120c7bf5d3a34dbaadf1280dace2e456

"WikiLeaks turned over all of the classified U.S. State Department cables it obtained to Le Monde, El Pais in Spain, The Guardian in Britain and Der Spiegel in Germany. The Guardian shared the material with The New York Times, and the five news organizations have been working together to plan the timing of their reports.

They also have been advising WikiLeaks on which documents to release publicly and what redactions to make to those documents, Kauffmann and others involved in the arrangement said.

"The cables we have release correspond to stories released by our main stream media partners and ourselves. They have been redacted by the journalists working on the stories, as these people must know the material well in order to write about it," WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said in a question-and-answer session on The Guardian's website Friday. "The redactions are then reviewed by at least one other journalist or editor, and we review samples supplied by the other organisations to make sure the process is working.""

[Ian David]

61. Well, that's not so awful, then. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

93. :) Nope, it isn't! Happy New Year!

[Enthusiast]

131. It is not awful at all.

It is heroic!

[DragonSlave]

52. So who gets to be gatekeeper then?

You need a thoroughly democratic and redundant process. America doesn't need to conduct its foreign policy in a sinister and secretive fashion. That process, the CIA-realpolitik ends-justify-the-means method, hasn't worked anyway. It has made us enemies around the world. When I think of treason, I don't think of Wikileaks, I think of Iran-Contra.

[Enthusiast]

132. I love your post.

I'm with you. Iran-Contra, the Citizens United decision, the Bush v Gore decision and the invasion of Iraq are obvious acts of treason. Wikileaks-not so much. Welcome to the DU.

[JackRiddler]

173. "When I think of treason, I don't think of Wikileaks, I think of Iran-Contra" - DragonSlave

Bravo!

When I think of blood on their hands, I don't think of Wikileaks, I think of this:



That's the real birth of Wikileaks.

It is institutional secrecy at work in the modern US empire.

It is the power of institutional secrecy abused to give authority to lies (one of its primary functions).

This is secrecy enabling the launching of an aggressive war with genocidal consequences. So far, the perpetrators got away with it, in part because of US bullying other countries not to investigate crimes of the American state.

This is the crime that wasn't dealt with and continues today. This is the unfinished business. Long as there is no justice for this, it will define the State Department (a CIA colony) to the world.

The picture shows the commission of mass murder.

It is why the US national security state and empire have no standing and no legitimacy to be complaining about Wikileaks.

It is why not just one Wikileaks but many, many Wikileaks are needed.

[Bluebear]

185. Thank you.

[Zhade]

219. Exactly. Just because a majority of Americans are cowards, it doesn't mean WL is wrong to do this.

Also, a big Slayers fan myself!

[ThomCat]

123. Do you have any clue how Wikileaks has been operating?

For example, haven't year heard even one of the dozen or so times that it has been posted that they send Every Document to a Reputable News Organization first before it is ever released? They contacted the US State Department and Pentagon before they released on of the documents from the US government.

They give the news organizations an opportunity to review and redact every document before they are made public. In the case of the US documents they gave the US government the opportunity to redact ever one of those documents. That means that our government had a chance to censor every one of those documents to ensure the safety of the information.

When the information gets redacted they post the information on their site, keeping the redactions in place. They do not reveal the information that the news organizations thought was too sensitive or dangerous to be revealed. And if the US had chosen to censor any of those documents they would not have posted those portions of the documents that the government said was too sensitive or dangerous to reveal.

Even the major international media has been saying that Wikileaks is behaving responsibly with this information by having it screened first by others.

The time it takes to have news organizations review and redact documents is also why files get released in batches over periods of time.

That is hardly "throwing everything against the wall" or "spewing."

[Ian David]

128. Thank you for explaining it. n/t

[B Calm]

37. Why in heavens name do you disapprove?

[Still a Democrat]

51. Compromises our interests and endangers lives

President Obama, Former President Clinton, SOS Clinton, and AG Holder agree, along with most prominent Democrats.

[cbc5g]

57. Yet no evidence to substantiate that belief.

Shocking.

[Luminous Animal]

58. And not one shred of proof presented to support their accusations.

[Still a Democrat]

147. "We have seen the negative, sometimes deadly ramifications..."

The human-rights groups involved are Amnesty International; Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, or CIVIC; Open Society Institute, or OSI, the charitable organization funded by George Soros; Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission; and the Kabul office of International Crisis Group, or ICG.

The groups emailed WikiLeaks to say they were concerned for the safety of Afghans identified as helping the U.S. military in documents obtained by WikiLeaks, according to several of the groups. WikiLeaks has already published 76,000 of the documents and plans to publish up to 15,000 more.

...

"We have seen the negative, sometimes deadly ramifications for those Afghans identified as working for or sympathizing with international forces," the human-rights groups wrote in their letter, according to a person familiar with it. "We strongly urge your volunteers and staff to analyze all documents to ensure that those containing identifying information are taken down or redacted."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703428604575419580947722558.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_hpp_MIDDLESecondNews

[msanthrope]

160. Indeed--when Amnesty International says this might be a bad thing, it's time to listen. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

180. And Wikileaks has. You can see the redactions of some names in the current crop of documents.

[Still a Democrat]

230. Questions

Why were they all published originally?

How did they determine which names to redact?

Are these organizations satisfied with the redactions?

[Luminous Animal]

241. Actually, the Afghan release did have redactions but Wikileaks is an extremeley small organizatiion

that relies on volunteers and they missed things. They asked Amnesty International for assistance in vetting. Amnesty International declined. They asked the U.S. Govt. for vetting assistance. The U.S. Govt. declined. So, I think they hit on an acceptable solution, have several media orgs do the vetting (the NY Times is conferring with our govt, by the way) and release redacted cables as news stories are released.

I have no idea if these orgs are satisfied. If you'd like to know, send them and email or give them a call.

[Luminous Animal]

179. Still no proof. That is a cautionary letter for what might happen.

So yes, they were concerned and yes, Wikileaks has since addressed that concern. But to date, nobody has shown that anyone has been killed as a result of released documents.

[Doctor_J]

188. Backing up a CNN push-poll with a Murdoch Journal opinion

christ, no wonder you're completely clueless.

[Webster Green]

64. Compromises our interests perhaps.

Nefarious interests! That's why they classify damn near everything they do.

Your list is composed of a bunch of wimps...so who gives a shit what they think.

[Marr]

87. I've noticed that "our interests" don't tend to include me.

They tend to be more the interests of assholes who steal my money through the financial system and send my job overseas.

[Bluebear]

125. Thank you.

[Enthusiast]

135. Fucking priceless!

"I've noticed that "our interests" don't tend to include me."

Beautifully put!

[Raksha]

164. Totally agree with you...that point needs to be made loud and clear

every time the canned phrase "our national interest" is used. I always ask myself, "whose interest exactly?" Somehow, "our national interest" never seems to include me or anyone I know. Funny how that works.

[JackRiddler]

252. Great comment, and pithy as it gets. Thanks!

[JackRiddler]

116. So do Sarah Palin, McCain, Peter King, etc.

It's interesting that from the OP forward, you don't make an argument, merely claim you must be right since this majority and that authority agree with you.

[snot]

119. Even the Pentagon has confirmed that, as of the last time they addressed the question,

not a single person was known to have been harmed as a result of the leaks.

I'm pretty sure they'll let us know if they find one.

Meanwhile, govs and corps have lied and committed crimes that have caused nearly 1.5 deaths in Iraq and thousands more elsewhere.

There comes a point where it's irresponsible NOT to leak.

PS: Yes, the Embassy cache contained over 273,000 cables, and less than one percent have been published to date. All are vetted and redacted by one of WL's newspaper partners, and published by WL only after they've been published by one of those papers.

PPS: The US and other govs have struggled for many months to find something they can charge Wikileaks with. To date, they've failed. Their only hope is to torture Manning into "confessing" that Assange was actively involved in causing the leak, rather than merely passively receiving it.

You can find a summary of the case for Wikileaks at http://www.c-cyte.com/The_Case_for_Wikileaks.html , and more info re- the whole situation at http://c-cyte.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikileaks . Firedoglake, Glenn Greenwald at Salon, and Greg Mitchell at The Nation, and HuffPo are also great sources.

[ThomCat]

124. Obama has surpassed Bush in classifying far more

information routinely than needs to be classified, and in systematically and routinely denying Freedom of Information Act requests. Already worse Than Bush in transparency and providing information to the public!

And you want to trust the Obama administration to decide whether or not information should be made available or not with an ongoing record like that?

Don't go trusting democrats politicians just because they are democrats. They are politicians. Be cynical about politicians who want to keep secrets.

[Robb]

134. That's quite a claim. Can you cite a reference?

The Bush admin had 8 years to classify material. Obama's admin has classified more?

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[Still a Democrat]

145. Sorry you're so close minded

If you bothered to look at my posting as a whole, you'd see a pattern of progressive views.

[grahamhgreen]

146. In reality, it is not the leaks, but the war that "Compromises our interests and endangers lives",

And it is the leaks that are the proof!

[Doctor_J]

187. Now please point me to a liberal on your list

:eyes:

[larkrake]

40. I do not believe this- not 1%

[L0oniX]

42. You aren't going to make many friends here.

[Still a Democrat]

43. Why do you say that? n/t

[JackRiddler]

155. Pretend persecution complex.

Damn these leftists who won't let my uninformed views stand unchallenged!

[truth2power]

44. Looks like push-polling to me. n/t

[robcon]

46. Wikileaks was treasonous.

n/t

[Webster Green]

55. Julian is Australian.

How can it be treason? :rofl:

[PBS Poll-435]

60. To answer a post down-thread...

What 1st Amendment rights do FORIEGN "journalists" have?

[cbc5g]

65. What Amendment gives our government the right to prosecute or attack foreign journalists?

[Webster Green]

74. Huh?

That makes no sense at all.

[PBS Poll-435]

77. LOL

1st Amendment protects American's Press.

Not Australia's nor Sweden's.

[Webster Green]

82. OMG!

WTF are you talking about?

You have some really weird circular logic going on.

Are you suggesting that the US has the right to censor anyone who doesn't live in the US?

Based on what....perceived US exceptionalism? :crazy:

[Luminous Animal]

85. Next thing you know, DUers will be advocating for the right of the U.S. to bar us access to the...

foreign press.

[Enthusiast]

138. The logic expressed

is typical of RW judicial thinking. Consider the source. Understand we are infiltrated to the hilt.

[Luminous Animal]

84. It makes no distinction...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Webster Green]

90. True, and thanks for pointing that out.

You don't need to be "American" to enjoy the rights protected by our constitution.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[Bjorn Against]

204. Show me the text of the Constitution that limits freedom of the press to the American press

The first amendment simply grants freedom of the press, it does not specify which nationality the journalist has to be. Sure it may not protect journalists from being prosecuted by a foreign government, but it is certainly unconstitutional for the American government to restrict the foreign press from conducting journalistic activities.

[Occulus]

217. And "treason" applies to American citizens.

Not Australia's nor Sweden's.

WTF, man? This is grade-school knowledge.

[Hippo_Tron]

267. Then Australia and or Sweden should be free to prosecute him if he has violated any of their laws

[Enthusiast]

137. Sounds like Scalia reasoning to me. nt

[Enthusiast]

136. Zactly!

He didn't genuflect to our all powerful empire. :hi:

[cbc5g]

59. You have to be American to commit treason against America

Sigh..this is the kind if ignorance that gives rise to these poll numbers

[Luminous Animal]

63. Against whom? He's not a U.S. citizen.

[JackRiddler]

72. Instant disqualification. Look at a map of the world and figure out which countries are not the USA.

[Enthusiast]

139. But they fall within the empire.

You must have re-education program.

[Forkboy]

88. Oh noes!!!1111!

[marmar]

50. Denial is as American as apple pie and strip malls.

Majorities of Americans at one time or another supported slavery, segregation, the internment of Japanese soldiers, the Vietnam and Iraq wars, making homosexuality illegal and a laundry list of other horrors. History proves them wrong.

[Karmadillo]

53. The crowd is untruth.

nt

[Alexander]

54. The fascism is strong in this country, and at DU.

Now you can go pat yourself on the back for supporting it.

[cbc5g]

56. Even if it were true, it doesn't matter

A free society protects the rights of journalists. You can disapprove but you are bordering on tyranny when your disapproval turns to "must stop".

[katsy]

62. I don't care.

100% of me doesn't give a flying leap what low info people have to say about wikileaks or tsa or gay marriage.

Because some of us care about everyone's freedom and human rights and we don't take kindly to government corruption.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[JackRiddler]

68. What were the numbers for ACORN, after the corporate media assault on them?

Amazing, when the Vice President calls Assange a terrorist,
And politicians and pundits say he should be garotted,
And the corporate media crank up the slander machine,
When they say "Old News Only" and "It's an Attack On America!"
When they tell you it's an attack on the world, an attack on Diplomacy,
When they sing in unison of treason and espionage,
When they claim the Holy Work of Empire has been rendered impossible,
When they're served acres of stories about albino Assange's hairdo
and claims he's a rapist, and still a hacker...

TWENTY PERCENT OF AMERICANS IN A CORPORATE PUSH POLL STILL DON'T RESPOND LIKE PAVLOV'S DOGS.

That's progress! As I remember, it was much worse when O'Keefe, Breitbart, and FOX did their hatchet job on poor old ACORN.

People are getting smarter, good for them.

The beautiful thing about misinformed and ignorant public opinions is that they change!

What were the numbers expressing approval/disapproval of Daniel Ellsberg when the Pentagon Papers first hit, by the way? (Oh, they probably didn't do as many of these moronic instant tracking polls back then, in which the Wizard tells us what we really think.)

As more of the cable stories come out, as the Bank of America story comes out, you will see a further shift from the messenger to the actual perpetrators.

And what are the Wikileaks approval/disapproval numbers for the world?

Because you see, the cables aren't about this fairly large country, but the empire it runs throughout the world, and everyone's got an interest in that.

8 Smears and Misconceptions About WikiLeaks Spread By the Media
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/149369

.

[Enthusiast]

140. Oh, baby!

Great post!

[whatchamacallit]

69. Yes, let's stay stupid and safe in the loving embrace of the US government

If these are "liberals", than I'm something else.

[cbc5g]

76. Same...

I bet these "liberals" also approve of the installed DHS citizen spy screens inside wal mart too.

Shame.

[Bumblebee]

75. Glad I am not alone. It has endangered diplomacy and thus made the world even more dangerous.

Naive to think otherwise.

[PBS Poll-435]

78. And stalled the effort to get the US back diplomatically after 8 horrible years. nt

[cbc5g]

79. Right, by spying on UN members, taking their dna, wiretapping them?

Lets all just put our heads in the sand since the government obviously is smarter than us and we have no right to know.

[Enthusiast]

142. "PBS Poll-435" Okay, nt

[WinkyDink]

99. Remember Baader-Meinhof? The "Achille Lauro"? Bologna train station? Rome airport?

Lod?

The "world" is no more dangerous today than ever. But the U.S. is more belligerent and Fascist.

[MattBaggins]

118. Who's naive?

Are you even remotely familiar with the definition of propaganda as being lies that fool your friends but not your enemies? The info came as no surprise to any world leaders.

If it's quite all right with you; I will retain my right to know what my fracking government is doing. We don't need anymore CIA covert operations and shadow governments. If the info was really that bad they shouldn't have been doing it then.

[Enthusiast]

141. "Bumblebee" Okay, nt

[eleny]

80. I've approved of them from the start. I'm also with this guy...

[Forkboy]

86. Get back to me when being in the majority makes one right.

The majority thought Iraq was behind 9/11. Did you?

You and your mavericky posts!

[backscatter712]

89. PUSH POLL!!!

This is the kind of biased bullshit the corpomedia uses to shove their agenda down America's throat.

[Still a Democrat]

157. How is it biased? n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

94. Liberals and Democrats are apparently terrified of knowing what their governement does.

Knowledge is scary.

[myrna minx]

95. Yes - we are all Reagan Democrats now and we learned to love Big Brother. n/t

[qb]

96. The question omits important details, namely that the documents were carefully redacted

prior to publication, and that Wikileaks is doing the true job of journalists where most U.S. media has failed miserably. Journalists are supposed to keep government honest.

I support Wikileaks 100%

[krabigirl]

97. Meh, so what if they don't approve? Do they believe the govt should censor it?

Execute him? That is is a crime? Without seeing answers to those questions, it is pretty pointless. Just because one may not approve of something, doesn't mean they want the government to do something about it.

Also, was this landline-only and if not, how many cell phones were called?

Interesting how independents had the highest (albeit pitiful) rate of "approval" vs democrats or republicans. I guess if you are a big believer in the system, you toe the line.

[WinkyDink]

98. Yeah, right.

[Spider Jerusalem]

100. So?

You're quite mistaken if you presume that it's either a liberal or Democratic issue at all. A significant number of American liberals and Democrats believe in the myth of American exceptionalism and are quite comfortable with a muscular American foreign policy so long as they don't have to know the unpleasant details.

[sendero]

101. Most americans are idiots

.. this is probably news to you falling squarely in that demographic.

[DireStrike]

102. Scary.

[lunatica]

103. I amazes me how some people would rather be kept in the dark

Since when is the truth something to hide from? Or to prefer not to know. I find it very sad that people will trust people who have already shown themselves to be liars and crooks.

[H2O Man]

104. funny

[mmonk]

105. I really don't give a rat's ass.

Americans today have a distorted view of themselves, their country, and the world around them.

[affrayer]

106. I wonder...

If we had Wikileaks way back in 2001, could we have avoided the unnecessary Iraq invasion...

[snot]

120. Not only that, but the US agents who were trying to warn of 9/11

have speculated that 9/11, too, might have been prevented if there'd been a Wikileaks.

[frylock]

107. "self-described liberals" i'm sure..

the kind that, if quizzed, would really show to be center-right authoritarian. it's funny that the more meaningless, trivial, or "gossipy" these cables get, the louder the mighty wurlitzer gets. keep fuckin that chicken!

[Better Believe It]

108. Percentage of liberals and Democrats who have not been mislead by the mass media smear campaign

Liberals 30%

Democrats 19%

Is that about right?

CNN's anti-WikiLeaks and their right-wing bias is clearly demonstrated by the polls question. The question contains loaded words and just plain false and misleading information:

"As you may know, a website called Wikileaks has displayed thousands (this is false, less than 2,000 have been made public) of confidential U.S. government documents concerning U.S. diplomatic and military policies. Do you approve or disapprove of the
Wikileaks website displaying these documents?"

If CNN was interested in an accurate pole and honesty they could have asked:

"As you may know, the New York Times and several other major newspapers along with WikiLeaks have published excerpts from several hundred confidential U.S. governmentdocuments concerning U.S. diplomatic and military policies. Some of the information has been removed from the published documents to protect people. Do you approve or disapprove of newspapers publishing these documents?

For the truth check out this post:

Smears And Misconceptions About WikiLeaks Spread By the Media

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x96288

[Still a Democrat]

151. "Some of the information has been removed from the published documents to protect people."

You are the one wanting to build in bias by inserting an arguement of your own. The original question doesn't imply anyone was harmed. As for the number of documnets, it says displayed, not made public. But you can make that minor change and I don't see how it changes the results.

[Better Believe It]

158. Is that your best defense of CNN's misleading and biased poll?

[Still a Democrat]

177. There is no bias

It was a factual statement with no judgment or argument built in. You wanted to add one.

[Number23]

243. It's interesting

People don't like the results of this poll so they say the question is "skewed" or "biased" or just flatout "bullshit." lolol

The CNN question:

"As you may know, a website called Wikileaks has displayed thousands of confidential U.S.
government documents concerning U.S. diplomatic and military policies. Do you approve or
disapprove of the Wikileaks website displaying these documents?"

is somehow deemed as "biased." The proposed solution? Rephrase the question with the addition of blatant and untrue editorializing ie "As you may know, a website called Wikileaks has displayed thousands of confidential U.S. government documents WHICH HAVE HIGHLIGHTED US GOVERNMENT MISCONDUCT AND FRAUD (which they haven't) concerning U.S. diplomatic and military policies. Do you approve or disapprove of the Wikileaks website displaying these documents?"
Somehow, THIS is not considered "biased!" :rofl: :rofl:

I mean, you just have to laugh even though it's really much more pitiful than funny.

[a la izquierda]

109. i'm a staunch leftist...

and i sure as hell agree with most of the wikileaks dump.

[bullwinkle428]

111. "WorldNetDaily liberals", I'm guessing. Kind of like "Reagan Democrats".

[walldude]

112. Yeah..

and at one point 93% of Americans approved of George Bush. And every fucking one of them was wrong.

And frankly after seeing the CNN interview with Glen Greenwald it's obvious they have their marching orders.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/28/cnn-yellin-glenn-greenwald-wikileaks_n_802067.html

[provis99]

113. I call bullshit; it says the South is more pro-wiki than the Midwest.

[Zax2me]

126. And of course that could not be true....

?
Careful, your southern predjudice is showing.
COVER UP!

[Enthusiast]

144. Plus one. And THAT simply has to be bullshit.

Funny how these propaganda efforts are so clear to anyone for a critical eye but not to those of the RW persuasion.

[tinkerbell41]

114. Well I'm 40+

A straight middle-aged flaming Lib mom, and I can't wait for more to be released. I say bring it on!

[bengalherder]

121. Let me guess

you found out about wikileaks a few weeks ago.

Some of us have been following this narrative for a long time. I think you ought to lurk more in free speech forii and actually trouble yourself to read about the forms activism is taking in the digital age.

When you take the msm at their word on this, you are doing yourself and progressive ideals a grave disservice.

[Bragi]

127. The First Amendment would be defeated in a poll today

Most Americans have no idea about why they have civil liberties, or how they came to be.

If the First Amendment was not already in the constitution, I doubt you could get a majority at DU, or even a majority of American MSM "journalists", to support its passage.

Very depressing. It's why the damage done by TPTB (a great acronym, incidentally) to U.S democracy is largely irreversible.

[mrfrapp]

211. Depressing indeed.

The First Amendment would be defeated in a poll today

That's perfectly succinct.

[Enthusiast]

129. REAL liberals can't possibly

disapprove of Wikileaks. If they disapprove of Wikileaks they are not liberals. These numbers are completely manufactured. This is just more propaganda in a veritable sea of propaganda. Just one more absurdity.

[BzaDem]

165. If that were true, wouldn't liberals be a numerically irrelevant 6% of this country?

Either you are wrong, and most liberals actually disapprove of Wikileaks (as the poll accurately states), or you are correct, and liberalism itself would represent such a tiny portion of the country that it would be politically irrelevant.

[Enthusiast]

182. I could mention something irrelevant. nt

[grahamhgreen]

143. If they don't actually believe in open govt, they may not have been polling liberals

lib·er·al
–adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
–noun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.


—Related forms
lib·er·al·ly, adverb
lib·er·al·ness, noun

—Synonyms 1. progressive. 7. broad-minded, unprejudiced. 9. beneficent, charitable, openhanded, munificent, unstinting, lavish. See generous. 10. See ample.
—Antonyms 1. reactionary. 8. intolerant. 9, 10. niggardly.


Source:  
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.


1 of 2 Next »

Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Contact Us

Classic Dictionary.com
Copyright © 2011, Dictionary.com, LLC.
All rights reserved.

[BzaDem]

166. If you arbitrarily discard liberals who disapprove of wikileaks, how many liberals in the country

would there be left?

[PufPuf23]

148. Just with reading DU, one could conclude that the politcal junkies at DU

disagree with public polls.

[JamesA1102]

149. Thanks for the info nt

[Earth_First]

162. There are a majority of "Democrats" who cannot support Dennis Kucinich either...

Coincidence, perhaps not.

But it is very, very telling...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

168. After looking at their data retrieval method....

[RedCloud]

169. So we'll stick our heads into the sand, just pretend that all is grand?

Man you are so far away from being with it... I would tag you and call you "it", but you don't just get "it".

What about leaks throughout history? Would it help or hurt to know Wall Street tried to overthrow FDR and install a fascist regime? That's just for starters.

[Capitalocracy]

170. There are things we don't want to know!

Important things!

Polled at the height of the smear campaign against them, btw. We'll see what happens with those numbers if they continue polling (instead of never ever polling again because they've already gotten the result they're going to use for their smear campaign from now on)

[JoseGaspar]

174. Well then, it is a lucky thing that Mr. Assange did not ask for...

... the permission of the OP, "most liberals and Democrats", or political pollsters before doing what he did.

And, there is an outside possibility that Mr. Assange will not ask for the OP's approval before he does other things in the future. It is even possible that there are additional people who will not look for sanction from the OP or the polls before they act.

It is shocking, I know... but it could happen.

On the other hand, if the OP is looking for polling support to defend an otherwise difficult position, why not choose creationism which always polls very well against evolution? The OP should be able to ride that dinosaur (figuratively speaking, of course) for a lot longer than this horse is likely to travel.

[sarcasmo]

176. More media lies, Bullshit!

[gulliver]

178. WikiLeaks is doomed once people figure out one thing.

Appearing to approve of it brands you and makes you much less employable and trustworthy. It's like saying that you personally reserve the right to disclose any confidential information to which you are a party, regardless of any contracts you have signed or oaths you have taken. Few people want to hire or even associate with a blabbermouth who won't keep their word.

I personally am fine with whistleblowers under certain circumstances. No organization or person has the right to expect you to participate in or conceal a crime, for example. But WikiLeaks? No. I disapprove of their arrogant and arbitrary leaking, and I think whoever gave them the U.S. diplomatic cables should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[Name removed]

183. Deleted message

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

[Enthusiast]

248. "under certain circumstances."

Government and corporate approved whistle blowing! What a novel idea!

[mdmc]

184. same % thinks "liberal" means pro-choice

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

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

[NorthCarolina]

190. This is 100%, pure, unadulterated, BULLSHIT. nt

[xchrom]

191. After 9-11 bush had 90% approval ratings.

I'd guess even a 'few' DUers approved of bush.

Most certainly some moderate ones did.

[Number23]

192. This is what happens when you post/live in an echo chamber

People here think that Wikileaks is great. The majority of people in the world do not agree.

People here think that Obama is a corporatist, semi-Republican. The majority of people in the world do not agree.

Instead of absorbing and maybe even CONSIDERING that their viewpoints do not represent even a sizable minority of people, folks here scream that the data that refutes their point of view must somehow be "skewed" or "bullshit," just like the 4 billion polls that have come out showing that Obama enjoys the vast majority of support from both liberals and Democrats means that "people must not REALLY know what a Democrat is." In other words, if you disagree with me, YOU are the one that is wrong/incorrect because it cannot possibly be me.

OPs like this are nothing short of fascinating. Rec'd.

[Junkdrawer]

195. Which is why you should listen to points of view other than CNN, FOX, etc...

Listen to DemocracyNow, read Glenn Greenwald, go to FireDogLake. You know, hang out where Liberals hang.

[Number23]

197. Your post has absolutely nothing to do with mine

[Junkdrawer]

203. Thanks

:hi:

[Number23]

205. No... thank YOU.

:hi:

[Renew Deal]

279. Apparently that's not where "liberals hang"

:shrug:

[TheKentuckian]

194. Jimmy crack corn

The sheep are often herded into wrongheaded and cowardly positions.

[Desertrose]

199. ..and your point is as this proves what exactly?

Something like this just tells me that more Americans need to wake the f**k up.

[southernyankeebelle]

200. I don't believe that poll. This man has done nothing wrong except to shame a few governments that

aren't doing the right thing and lying to their citizens. Just think if we had Wikileaks before Bush went off to war maybe we could have saved many soldiers and innocent civilians. OMG I just don't believe it.

[rpannier]

201. I'm a bit stunned

I approve of much of what they've released
I'd be curious what those numbers would be if they included people like myself who live overseas

[Bluebear]

275. These numbers are meaningless.

Push poll, phone poll, whatever lol!

[Time for change]

206. Perhaps a better way of phrasing the question would have been this:

As you may know, a website called Wikileaks has displayed thousands of U.S. government documents that expose crimes by the U.S. government and private corporations, such as torture, financial fraud, and untruthful propaganda meant to gain public support for war. Do you approve or disapprove of the Wikileaks website displaying these documents?

I wonder if the results would have been any different?

[northernlights]

207. I remember when W invaded Iraq with an 80% approval rating

I was a 20 percenter back then too. And proud of it. :shrug:

[tekisui]

208. I have no problem being in the minority on this, if those numbers are

accurate.

I am one of those 10 percenters that never supported bush. Numbers do not make right.

I am a liberal and support wikileaks, without reservation.

[NorthCarolina]

296. I do believe a Majority of Liberals are in this Minority grouping with you. nt

[crim son]

213. I have never, ever, believed that because a majority believes something

that it must be right and as comforting as it might be to be part of that majority, I am not in need of comfort.

[BlueMTexpat]

216. I am a Democrat and a liberal and I do not disapprove what Wikileaks has done/is doing.

If I am truly in the minority of true liberals and true Democrats on this issue, then I am surely with the people that I want to be.
True liberals and Democrats usually come to believe as I do - that is, if they truly believe that our governments should not lie to us, or do bad things in our name - although it takes some awhile longer than others simply because they have difficulty believing that people - sometimes even good people - in positions of responsibility can and do lie and behave badly.
After the 2000-2008 period of the most wretched behavior and nefarious behavior possible on the part of the USG and the MIC, with the participation, if not outright collaboration, of the US media, where no official investigation is being conducted and no journalism source in America is conducting its own investigation, I am personally very happy to see Wikileaks doing at least some of what should have been done either officially or by our so-called, but misnamed, "free" press.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

218. So, if liberals approved jumping off a cliff 64%-30%, would you jump off a cliff?

</yourmom>

[JackRiddler]

226. Why do you hate President Obama?

[Jamastiene]

224. Yeah, right. Uh-huh.

I take it you have never heard the saying, "You can find a poll to agree with anything you want."

Polls are like the Old Testament. If you look around long enough you can find exact opposites for quite a lot.

[DeSwiss]

231. Anyone who believes a poll coming from an MSM source......

...never mind, you wouldn't get it.

- This poll is BS.

[Name removed]

236. Deleted message

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

[JonLP24]

238. I must be wrong then

Though I wasn't polled. In fact I'm never polled for anything, ever.

[me b zola]

240. yeah, most of the idiots in this country are woefully under informed

--and most of em like it that way.

[ThePhilosopher04]

242. BULL-FUCKING SHIT!!!!!!

No fucking way in hell that poll is accurate.

[MrMickeysMom]

245. Telephone polls across a weekend in December . Hmmmm...

I don't care about the sampling margin of error.

I'd like to take a swarth of Americans who make it a point to read the news who represent a cross section of age groups who read actual news. These numbers represent little more than the Americans with land lines who watch television.

Do these people who were polled understand what the press historically has been expected to do as the fifth estate? Would the same numbers answering the CNN poll have placed Daniel Ellsberg in the boat with Julian Assange?

What exact point is intended by a fucking CNN poll? Nice try. If I want to see what a bunch of dunderheads think, I'll read more of these CNN polls.

[jeanpalmer]

246. The divide on Wikileaks

is similar to the divide on Obama. Many Wikileak critics on DU are also full Obama supporters. Surprise. They're simply adopting what they believe is his and his administration's position. It's not true in all cases, but is true in many cases. If Obama has him arrested, the divide will be very clear. If a person is going to be be a full Obama supporter, he has to position himself now for that event.

Everything diplomatic ought to be public knowledge. There should be no secrets. Once you allow secrets, the system descends into dishonesty and corruption. Why would anyone choose to be kept in the dark about the actions of his government?

[Azathoth]

253. The denial levels in this thread are off the charts. n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

255. Yeah...

That's for a reason.

[JackRiddler]

263. You mean, like denial of just how demented this country and its empire has become?

[alarimer]

256. Then most liberals and Democrats are utterly WRONG.

I want to know the fucking evil shit our government does in our name. If it gives any Democrat in office hearburn, so be it.

Fuck government secrets. Fuck the oligarchy that runs this piece of shit country.

Thank God for Wikileaks and fuck anyone who doesn't see that this is a good thing.

[sarcasmo]

260. A 1984 style poll.

[defendandprotect]

261. Sounds like a huge misundestanding or misprint --

[Blue-Jay]

268. This thread is....interesting.

Please continue.

[hyphenate]

269. I guess I'm in the minority

because I personally thought Assange was one gutsy fellow to do that. I have to be on his side for actually walking the walk so many say they do, but don't.

IIRC, one of the things Obama campaigned on was a more transparent government. He zipped up his lips 5 minutes after his inauguration on the topic, and it's taking a foreigner to show that pols are lying, conniving bastards no matter what their party once they're in office--most ANY office. If I could give him a medal of honor, I would.

[LAGC]

274. Look closely at the results of that poll.

First of all, there are NO representative samples of the 18-34 age group! How biased is that?!

And I notice how the West and Urban areas have the highest approval ratings, even in that biased poll. That's something to be proud of, as a Westerner.

[Renew Deal]

277. 286 posts of the truth hurting

:hide:

[Laelth]

281. That's sad. Any true liberal should be in favor of Wikileaks.

As Theodore Roosevelt said:

"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."

I hardly recognize alleged "liberals" these days.

-Laelth

[Renew Deal]

283. "True liberals" should be in favor of damaging their nations security?

Because that's how people view it.

[Laelth]

284. Our nation's security is NOT what's at stake here.

The right of the people to know what the government is doing in our names is at stake, and you know this.

Shame on you.

-Laelth

[Renew Deal]

285. That's the way you interpret it.

Others accept what the government is doing.

[closeupready]

287. So you accept Guantanomo? Shame on you!

:mad:

[Renew Deal]

288. I knew that was coming.

Try again

[closeupready]

291. No. I won't try again. You should be very ashamed of your slavish views, and

frankly, I'm not going to let you get away with posting them here. They are completely unacceptable to me.

[Renew Deal]

292. Which views are unacceptable to you?

Be specific

[Laelth]

289. So much for the "open government" Obama promised us.

I am not surprised. Disappointed, yes. Surprised, no.

-Laelth

[Renew Deal]

290. Another promise kept

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/08/open-government-directive_n_384018.html

But I think this goes to three different philasophical questions and why there is disagreement. Does the government have a right to limited secrecy? Are you willing to accept undesirable tacticts to "protect" this nation?

EDIT: And I think people also don't like the information being kept by a foreign entity. I think people would be more comfortable if the info came from a US news source.

[closeupready]

286. Studies show that four out of five people disapprove of death.

n/t

[truth2power]

293. Nobody asked me. eom

[Swamp Rat]

303. Corpofascist flatulence...