I call B.S. on what this Bush aide says.
I have a strong suspicion that the gentleman quoted here, McConnell, isn't
terribly familiar with the content on Wikileaks. He claims that, "when
(American adversaries) know who's been talking to us, who's been cooperating
with us it's going to make a successful peacekeeping role in places like
Afghanistan and Iraq just so much more difficult". But the fact is,
there's not much in Wikileaks about "who's been talking to us" that is
not already known or strongly suspected by our adversaries. One of
the downsides of an open democracy and a free press is ...well ...is that it's
an open democracy and a free press! Jailing or prosecuting Julian
Assange will generate far more damage to U.S. prestige and security than will
just ignoring him.
People keep saying terrorists will use this information. Can someone explain how
us thinking derogatory things about a French head of state will result in a
terrorits attack? As for the military-related release. So far, no one has been
harmed because of them in Iraq or Afghanistan. While the State Dept cables
should definitely not be for public consumption, the military ones were eye
opening to what we the people are not being told about the wars.
The US is causing the damage by being hypocritical. When you preach democracy
and freedom, but then when something like this happens you want to shut down the
site and imprison the publisher of the materials. What PFC Manning did was
criminal and he should be punished, but shutting down Wikileaks and imprisoning
those involved (only Assange? Why not everyone involved?) sounds like a country
that we consider a totalitarian regime like Russia, Iran, or China. This is like working for a company where you know people are scheming and
trying to get to the top or are trying to make deals behind people's backs, etc.
Then all of the sudden you get to know the schemes, what people are saying, who
is trying to do what, and all the deals. Of course the people who are trying to
get something or are scheming are going to think that information will be
harmful. It hurts them. It ruins there plans. The secret combinations aren't so
I would not put much faith in anyone associated with George W. Bush... considering the 'intelligence failure' that lead to our invasions of Iraq and
Afghanistan. "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces
chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.' - George W.
Bush - Ohio Speech 10/7/2002 Debunked:'US gives up search for
Iraq WMD'Line:'Former head of UN weapons inspections Hans Blix also
said there was no surprise in the announcement. "We have believed
that there weren't any weapons since around May or June 2003...' - BBC News -
I agree that talking about the leaks is not helpful. The U.S should publicly
minimize the impact so as to not draw attention to the material. The
intelligence agencies of other nations probably already know the key stuff, and
drawing attention only helps the job of less sophisticated terrorists. But the
attacks on the leaks should shift from Assange and WikiLeaks to the source of
the material. I still don't get how a lowly PFC was able to access all this
data. If he could, so could others.
So far it's been my impression of the wiki leaks exposure that the only security
compromised is that of the secrecy of power and personal greed through graft,
bribery, payoffs, and profiteering by people in high places of government or
industry. None of the leaks have been about the people of a country,
its all been about the suppression of peoples rights and liberties and the US's
insatiable appetite to be the world power. If the American people
think its okay for any government to use its power to destroy nations and
countries by political greed then I have not trust in them. The US uses money
and greed to leverage its way in to controls of a country. It's not world
security, its world control disguised as security.