War on Terror

Bill Kristol: "Whack WikiLeaks"

|

A Serious Man

If the Weekly Standard editor is the voice of Establishment Republicanism, then Establishment Republicanism remains as flippantly authoritarian as it was back when it held executive power:

Why can't we act forcefully against WikiLeaks? Why can't we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are? Why can't we disrupt and destroy WikiLeaks in both cyberspace and physical space, to the extent possible? Why can't we warn others of repercussions from assisting this criminal enterprise hostile to the United States?

I suspect sufficient legal bases already exist for whatever presidential findings, authorizations, and orders would be needed to be given to intelligence agencies, the military, and federal investigative agencies to do what they need to do to defeat WikiLeaks. […]

Congress can act, in an expeditious and bipartisan manner, to encourage and authorize the use by the executive branch of all necessary means to respond to and defeat WikiLeaks. Surely the Obama administration would welcome such congressional action. Surely the nation—and all our friends and allies, amazed and alarmed by our apparent helplessness—would as well.

Taxes are important, but national security comes first. Acting together to degrade, defeat, and destroy WikiLeaks should be the first topic discussed at today's White House meeting between the president and the congressional leadership.

Link via Dave Weigel's Twitter feed.

NEXT: In Defense of Economic Growth

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Just kill the motherfucker! We’re America, dammit!”

    Die in a fire, Kristol.

    1. This issue is going to be for the right what Citizens United has been for the left. Utterly overblown, with completely disproportionate reactions.

      Poor government getting its dirty laundry aired. But conservatives are for limited government, right? Right?

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      1. Sounds about right.

      2. Why do you call it “dirty laundry”?

        1. Because some of it is associated with Hillary Clinton. Ewww!

          1. Since he never answered, I’ll answer for him: because anything to do with government, in his mind, must be “dirty,” however legitimate that function of government is. Just a guess.

            1. Since he never answered, I’ll answer for him: because anything to do with government, in his mind, must be “dirty,” however legitimate that function of government is. Just a guess.

              What does the ‘legitimacy’ of the function have to do with this? Because it is an enumerated function in the Constitution, I don’t see why this argues for secrecy. From the history of government and foreign policy, it seems prudent that such information be attainable. Why should the public accept the convenient excuse of “national security” when there is ample historical evidence of corruption, malfeasence, and ignorance in such divisions of government?

              1. Try to focus. My question was: why is diplomatic language considered “dirty laundry” by Episiarch? Is diplomacy inherently “dirty”? Do you think so?

        2. In all honesty these leaks make our government look pretty good in comparison to who they are talking about.

          Hell i am kind of proud our government is saying these kinds of things about Iran, North Korea and others.

          What is looking bad to me is our government’s and its sycophants reactions to the leaks.

      3. What does not enjoying private espionage have to do with supporting limited government?

        I’m not seeing anyone screaming for the creation of an agency to pursue Julian Assange.

    2. Oddly enough, I imagine a number of people probably would say the same thing (as Kristol), about neoconservative warmongers.

    3. NO! Don’t die in a fire, Kristol. Survive the fire and live in agony, you bastard.

      1. He doesn’t even know you’re alive. Try stamping your foot and screaming real loud. It will have the same effect on reality.

        1. As opposed to your earth-shatteringly effectual comments. Go troll somewhere else, troll.

    4. In order to meet Christmas, Some commodities have been, discount .In addition Buy $ 300 and receive a free glasses or a wallet, as a Christmas gift . welcome all friends to order. Reputation, quality, absolute guarantee. please log in: http://www.fashionsb.com . so what, move your mouse . vbvb././

    5. Perhaps you and the other Reasonites really mean “die in the ovens Bill Kristol”! The gentile left hates Israel and those that defend it.

      1. Yup. And they’re racists too!

  2. Link via Dave Weigel’s Twitter feed.

    Talk about yer fruit from the poisoned tree…

    1. Yeah, Im wondering why anyone follows him on twitter.

    2. Don’t stomp Wikileaks, give them a hug.

    3. I took a massive Weigel this morning. Felt pretty good.

      1. Winner.

      2. OK, I LOL’ed at that

      3. I saw a Nurse Practitioner this morning who Weigeled me for testicular cancer. True story.

  3. Why can’t we act forcefully against WikiLeaks? Why can’t we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are? Why can’t we disrupt and destroy WikiLeaks in both cyberspace and physical space, to the extent possible? Why can’t we warn others of repercussions from assisting this criminal enterprise hostile to the United States?

    That whole rule of law thingee bothers you doesn’t it?

    1. Bill’s just asking questions….juuuuuuust asking questions…

    2. Has this criminal enterprise published ongoing troop movements in enemy territory? Provided the means for terrorists to infiltrate military installations, secure nukes, etc.?

      I don’t think so. We are looking at some things that are politically embarrassing — and even so, only mildly. I mean, is there anything in there that nobody would have guessed?

      Like it’s a surprise that the Saudis don’t want the Iranian wackos to have nukes…

      This is NOT a military attack. He is misusing the word “hostile” — in this context, it would mean a military adversary, but he means it only in the sense of “shows a mild dislike for”.

      What a piece of work Kristol is (and that’s putting it very politely).

  4. Why can’t we just neutralize Bill Kristol? Why? (Scratches head)

    Oh wait, now I remember. The same reason Bill Kristol can’t neutralize Wikileaks.

    Damn it, life is so frustrating, with this whole “You can’t just neutralize Bill Kristol because you don’t like what he publishes” rule people expect me to follow!

    1. Wanna bet we can’t neutralize wikileaks? You may not like it. But the US sure as hell can and will do so. You watch.

      1. That’s not really the question Kristol was asking, John.

        Neutralizing Wikileaks would require us to act like a lawless hypocritical tyrannical shithole of a country. But that’s why I agree with you that we’ll probably do exactly that. Sooner or later. Be proud, babe. That’s the country you want, and you get it, over and over.

        The Obama administration has demonstrated that they will do whatever the fuck they want. So, yeah. You’re right.

        But please, have the good grace not to complain about federal lawlessness or overreaching in any other area ever again. You really don’t have the right, you know.

        1. No country in the world would allow someone to set up an off shore server and publish classified documents for a living. The only reason he is doing it to the US and not some other country is because it will take the US longer to respond than pretty much anyone else. If he had tried this with a European government much less the Chinese or Russians or Isreal, he would already be in prison or dead.

          Pretending that our acting on this makes us some third world shithole is you just living in a fantasy world.

          1. No country in the world

            Still not the question, baby doll.

            Pretending that our acting on this makes us some third world shithole is you just living in a fantasy world.

            A state that kills someone for publishing true facts is a tyrannical shithole. I didn’t say anything about Third World, so we can leave that out.

            It doesn’t matter if you can find a worse state and it doesn’t matter if we saved the world from Communism and it doesn’t matter if the Marshall Plan was a nice thing to do.

            The first time you kill someone for publishing true facts, you are a tyrant. And that makes the state over which you preside “tyrannical”. It only takes one.

            1. “The first time you kill someone for publishing true facts, you are a tyrant. And that makes the state over which you preside “tyrannical”. It only takes one.”

              By that definition every state that has ever existed has been tyrannical. And your response no doubt “all states are tyrannical”. And my response to that is so fucking what. I don’t make reality, I just live in it.

              And further, no one not even Krystal is saying to kill him. He is saying attack his servers and shut him down. If they arrested him tomorrow, I don’t think Krstal would be angry they didn’t kill him.

              If the CIA sends a nasty worm into Wikileaks server and some European government throws this guy in prison, I am not losing any sleep over it.

              1. John, It’s a shame you weren’t around to dump Mark Felt in the Potomac before he squealed. If you had been, President Nixon’s spotless reputation might have survived intact.

              2. And further, no one not even Krystal is saying to kill him

                Really?

                “act forcefully”
                “harass, snatch or neutralize”
                “disrupt and destroy”
                “the use by the executive branch of all necessary means”
                “degrade, defeat, and destroy”

                That sure sounds like kill the bastards rhetoric to me, John. You tell the Army to neutralize a target and you mean blow it the fuck up. Destroy has a pretty unambiguous meaning, too. And the “all necessary means”? That’s a phrase I’d translate as “shoot people”. Kristol can claim later he didn’t say “shoot Julian Assange in the head”, but he did everything but that.

              3. By that definition every state that has ever existed has been tyrannical. And your response no doubt “all states are tyrannical”. And my response to that is so fucking what. I don’t make reality, I just live in it.

                This is telling. Yes, this is the reality we live in, but as moral agents, man also attempts to seek what ought be. If you base your political ideology on facts and not values, then you have little argument against any actions you believe are unjust. In the real world, injustice is, so your opponent just tells you to STFU, as you seem to be arguing in this post.

                Without reasoned arguments concerning values, all actions are simply attempts at extracting self-serving ends by all means necessary. Slavery isn’t really wrong, it just isn’t practiced today. Theft isn’t wrong when I do it. Murder is OK, if enough people, or those in power, think so.

              4. If the CIA sends a nasty worm into Wikileaks server and some European government throws this guy in prison, I am not losing any sleep over it.

                I lost about a 100 miles of respect for John today.

              5. “If the CIA sends a nasty worm into Wikileaks server and some European government throws this guy in prison, I am not losing any sleep over it.”

                That’s because you’re a vile nationalist shitbag John.

                What exactly has Wikileaks done that Julian Assange or anyone associated with it that is so horrible they should be thrown in jail? Made our government look incompetent? Yes. Exposed our foreign policy as asinine, short sighted and stupid? Yes. Endangered the lives of anyone? Nope.

                You can bitch and complain all you want about your made up reasons for shutting down wikileaks or putting them in jail but the only thing you expose is your pitiful belief that the US can fuck over anyone it wants to just because we’re Amerika.

              6. Nobody cares whether you don’t find tyranny morally objectionable, John. And yes, all states I am aware of have done tyrannical things. “So what?” is not a response, it’s a surrender.

            2. “The first time you kill someone for publishing true facts”

              A memo isn’t a true fact, dildo. If I discover the USMC’s secret code book and publish it on the web, that’s publishing a true fact. And it would land me in prision.

              1. Under what statute?

                Assuming you didn’t steal it, but someone decided to randomly mail it to you or something.

                1. The National Security Act.

                  1. The National Security Act.

                    My understanding is that the application of this act is not so straightforward.

                  2. “””The National Security Act.””

                    US law doesn’t extend to citizens of foreign countries on foregin soil.

                2. Way to dodge this, dickjuice:

                  “A memo isn’t a true fact”

                  1. it’s a true fact in regards to what the writers of the memos were thinking at the time

                    stick it to um, gobbler

              2. That the Saudi’s want us to attack Iran isn’t a fact?

                That Hillary Clinton ordered her cronies to spy on U.N. diplomats isn’t a fact?

                That we pay these people, supposedly our best and brightest, to sit around and email each other gossip about Qadafi’s blonde nurse isn’t a fact?

                Try again sir.

          2. John, I agree with you about 60% of the time, but this time you need to get your facts straight.

            http://www.csmonitor.com/World…..d-about-it

          3. “The only reason he is doing it to the US and not some other country is because it will take the US longer to respond than pretty much anyone else. ”

            No, the only reason he is ‘doing it to the US’ is b/c some soldier got into a computer with a lot of ‘secret’ shit and passed it onto him.

          4. You really are everything (well most everything) that is wrong with America John.

        2. Let’s not get all huffy and purist about “federal lawlessness or overreaching” here. If someone stole some of your private papers and you chased them down with your car and grabbed them back, I’m not going to complain that you exceeded the speed limit, committed battery, and didn’t instead call the police and your lawyer and begin a legal process. All “federal lawlessness” is not the same, and to make a few exceptions in edge cases now and then is not that same as abandoning law entirely.

          1. Not a good analogy. We can’t grab back our private papers, they’re already posted on the net.

            What Kristol is proposing is to go beat up the person who posted the embarrassing papers…something that would be illegal for a private citizen to do.

            1. Illegal, true, but I’m still not sure it’s not justified….

              1. Of course it’s not justified. If you believe otherwise you’re a thug who is unfit to live in a free society.

              2. How in the world could it be justified? All these document do is make us look stupid.

                And if we did kick his ass the only thing it would prove once and for all is that the the US is simply the fat ass bully on the school yard.

                1. Oh, don’t get your panties in a bunch. They say politics ain’t beanbag, and international espionage and geopolitics is even less so. And you don’t tug on Superman’s cape. As I’ve said elsewhere on this page, this particular leak seems to be merely embarrassing, but the Afghan war one put the lives of troops and anti-Taliban Afghans at risk. I wouldn’t shed tears if people who did that sort of thing got a little instant karma through extra-legal means.

      2. John,
        GTFO this message board. You goddamn Republican hack.

        Regards,
        Your Mother

        1. C’mon man. John provides 50% or more of the interesting discussion that is actually relevant to the topic. Otherwise H&R would become 4chan with better spelling.

          1. Is that better or worse than omegle?

          2. Otherwise H&R would become 4chan with better spelling.

            I think you just described the most ultimate web site ever created.

            That aside i also usually like what john has to say.

            Today is not a usual day.

            1. John is often good but today he has a severe case of the stupids.

  5. “You can’t just neutralize Bill Kristol because you don’t like what he publishes”

    WHUUUUT?

    I hate you.

  6. According to Drudge they might have already done so. Wikileaks was the subject of a powerful cyber attack this morning.

    It would be nice if Wikileaks would ever leak something from say the Chinese or the Iranians or Cuba or some other authoritarian country. I am sure there are dissidents out there who would love for them to leak embarrassing documents. But that doesn’t seem to happen does it?

    The whole point of wikileaks is to take down and embarrass the US. You guys may think that is great. But let’s stop pretending the site or its founder is in anyway a friend of freedom. He is not.

    1. It would be nice if Wikileaks would ever leak something from say the Chinese or the Iranians or Cuba or some other authoritarian country. I am sure there are dissidents out there who would love for them to leak embarrassing documents. But that doesn’t seem to happen does it?

      You’ve got real grammar problems, John.

      Those dissidents would need to leak information to Wikileaks, in order to enable Wikileaks to publish it.

      Unless you think Assange got those State Department cables by doing some kind of freaky Mission: Impossible shit dressed up as a ninja.

      They can only publish what people, you know, leak to them.

      1. How do you know they haven’t gotten access to such information? That was my point. I am sure a country like Iran or Cuba has lots of internal enemies who probably already have or would if asked leak all sorts of interesting things. But that has never happened. I don’t think there is any way Wikileaks would publish it if it did.

        1. How do you know they haven’t gotten access to such information?

          Prove to me that they have.

          I don’t think there is any way Wikileaks would publish it if it did.

          It’s nice that you have an opinion, but you should have included in your above post that you were basing your statement on the fact that you were completely making up lots of leaks from those countries that Wikileaks received and didn’t publish.

          Maybe you could have done something like this:

          *Completely made this up, because I’m annoyed at these guys.

          1. Yeah because it is so out of this world to think that someone would have it out for the US and no one else and not really give a shit about the real authoritarian countries in the world or is too afraid of them if he did. Yeah, that is really going out on a limb there.

            The bottom line is there is no one no matter how vile and anti-freedom that you won’t cheer on if you think it will damage the US. This guy is a scumbag. You may love what he is doing but your pretension that he is some kind of a good guy or in anyway on your side is ludicrous.

            1. Actually, this is one of those times where you just didn’t bother to check the basic facts.

              Several of the founders of Wikileaks were Chinese dissidents. One of the first things they did was out Chinese Intelligence surveillance of Tibetan dissidents.

              They also have exposed corruption in Kenya, and a near nuclear accident in Iran.

              They also participated in the ClimateGate expose.

              1. Ok. Fair enough. I won’t play MNG and demand a citation.

                But what is the point of exposing any of the cables or the Afghanistan materials? In the case of the Afghanistan materials, it put innocent people’s lives at risk.

                All the cables have done, other than confirming everything anyone was paying attention already knew, is make it less likely for countries to trust each other and speak in confidence. It is not a safer world when countries won’t talk to each other or think that anything they say will be make public. It tends to increase tensions and make it harder to resolve things and cause things like wars where people get hurt.

                You think this shit is great because you are fucking child. You think it is fabulous to mindless tear anything and everything related to government down. Well, sadly governments are not going anywhere and they do have to function. And life is not as simple as you think it is.

                1. Are you sure it wouldnt be a better world if world leaders spoke in public?

                  1. Has sessions of Congress on C-span made the workings of that body more palatable?

                2. You think this shit is great because you are fucking child. You think it is fabulous to mindless tear anything and everything related to government down.

                  No, I think this is great because I believe that government is only legitimate when it arises from the consent of the government.

                  And that you can’t consent to what you don’t know.

                  You can definitely concoct “D-Day” scenarios where you can make me feel bad about asserting that secrecy is destructive of democracy and liberty. But that’s not what we’re dealing with any more.

                  We’re dealing with a government that has increased in size and complexity at a geometric scale for about a century, and would be hard enough to keep track of even if it was perfectly transparent – but which now uses routine secrecy to exclude the lion’s share of its activity from public review.

                  I realize you don’t want to know what is going on, because your version of “consenting” to governance is getting to pick Republicans to occupy the relevant offices so they can do whatever they want to do with nobody looking. But I want to know what’s happening. And the modern state obsessively tries to stop me from knowing even trivial things that, like you point out, everybody guesses at anyway.

                  “Why can’t you just shut up and let the ‘experts’ run the country! You CHILD!” That’s your ultimate argument.

                  Even though you get your panties in a bunch about those mean, mean “elites” any other time.

                  Mean, mean elites who think Palin sucks because she doesn’t know what an Achilles’ heel is = evil to John.

                  Elites who want to run the government and never tell anyone what they’re doing = good to John.

                  1. Fluffy, I don’t disagree with you in general about bloated government and transparency and the consent of the governed and so on, but I don’t think this sort of wholesale leaking helps those causes. It just helps ensure that fewer bureaucrats ever put anything in writing.

                    1. Bureaucrats can’t not put things in writing, otherwise they wouldn’t be bureaucrats.

                  2. “And that you can’t consent to what you don’t know.”

                    So in order for the SoS to do her job in adherence with the Constitution she needs to thell you everything she knows?

                    Jesus Christ what a dildo.

                  3. “And that you can’t consent to what you don’t know.”

                    So in order for the SoS to do her job in adherence with the Constitution she needs to thell you everything she knows?

                    Jesus Christ what a dildo.

                    1. If I was going to go by ONLY the public statements of US officials, I would think that US aircraft were not involved in combat operations in Yemen.

                      But sure, you got it, I’m a dildo for thinking that consenting to combat operations in a given country requires the public to, you know, know that combat operations are underway in that country.

                    2. Hey StupFuck, Quit avoiding the question:

                      So in order for the SoS to do her job in adherence with the Constitution she needs to thell you everything she knows?

                    3. “But sure, you got it, I’m a dildo for thinking that consenting to combat operations in a given country requires the public to, you know, know that combat operations are underway in that country.”

                      So why do you think it took John Kerry so long to reveal that he spent Christmas of ’68 in Cambodia?

                    4. Since roughly 99% of the stuff Hillary does is unconstitutional, it shouldn’t be a problem for the people to be informed what she is doing.

              2. And that’s all fine, but how is leaking US diplomatic cables at all equivalent? What is the good purpose that is supposed to serve? Unless you think embarrassing the US and hobbling our diplomacy is somehow just as laudable as exposing Chinese surveillance of Tibetan dissidents.

                And, of course, there’s the whole “fingering Afghans to the Taliban” thing I mentioned below. Assange either has a distinct anti-American bias, or he’s a fool with a hammer who thinks everything looks like a nail.

                1. What is the good purpose that is supposed to serve?

                  Who the fuck knows?

                  he’s a fool with a hammer who thinks everything looks like a nail.

                  I support fools with hammers.

                  I support lots of stuff that has no clear purpose or good that it does.

                2. Papaya, usually in these secrecy arguments somebody asks me:

                  “If the government needs to keep the date of the Normandy invasion secret, shouldn’t they be able to?”

                  And the answer to that, of course, is yes. But it’s Yes, if.

                  If I can believe that the government is acting in good faith, and keeping the right things secret for the right reason, and revealing all information at the earliest possible time.

                  I can’t believe any of these things of the current government. Sorry.

                  The US government has lost the right to demand that I assume it’s proceeding in good faith.

                  Therefore, when a state department spokesman says, “There was a good reason to keep X secret!” I just utterly discount that. It’s too late for that, guys. Way, way too late.

                  1. The US government has lost the right to demand that I assume it’s proceeding in good faith.

                    No shit. When they quit trying to claim state secrets to cover mistakes and culpability in killing citizens they can come talk to me.

                  2. If I can believe that the government is acting in good faith, and keeping the right things secret for the right reason, and revealing all information at the earliest possible time.

                    Obviously you would have revealed the date of the Normandy invasion because clearly the Roosevelt administration was not even close to your standard.

                    Let me repeat one more time. Left-wing types know no history.

                    1. Left-wing types know no history

                      Yes. Fluffy. That known commie.

                      American exceptionalism would be merely funny if it wasn’t so dangerous.

                    2. Ill go further than Fluffy. I would oppose the publication of any wartime activities during a war.

                      Since we havent been in any wars since 1945, it doesnt fucking apply.

                    3. I think even past wartime activities should be publishable after a grace period of a year or two (or the end of the war), barring some explicit classification as a state secret by a committee of elected representatives.

                  3. Fluffy, obviously diplomats speaking freely to one another in confidence is not a secret on the level of D-Day. But even if you don’t assume the government acts in good faith, how does making diplomats afraid to speak freely in confidence help your cause? Especially since these cables seem to show the diplomats were generally acting in good faith. (Except perhaps for Hillary asking diplomats to spy on other diplomats.)

                    It seems to me that sending the message that diplomats cannot write anything containing honest thoughts works against the cause of honest and transparent government.

                    1. Yes. Fluffy. That known commie.

                      For a libertarian he is left-wing. Voted for Obama? Check. Hates Israel? Check. Likes enemies of the US? Check.
                      He is a left-wing libertarian.

                    2. His main crime is not being a Republican, an unforgivable sin in the eyes of people who aren’t libertarians at all.

                    3. I did not vote for Obama, dick. I voted for Barr.

                      And who the fuck decided that support for Israel had a wing?

                      Actually, since Israel is a socialist state, it would seem that we should default to assuming that supporting it means you have an affinity for socialists.

                      I am the farthest to the right person here. By the only standards that matter.

                      You have decided that yellow-ribbon nationalism is part of being right wing. And it’s not. That would mean that John McCain is farther to the right than me, and you’d have to be fucking stupid to think that.

                    4. Fluffy,

                      How in the hell is the US supposed to deal with Argentina now that it has been revealed that Hillary was worried about their President being on drugs?

                      Now I don’t blame Hillary for worrying about that. It is the kind of question I would expect the Secretary of State to ask. But she can’t ask that publicly. And if you make everything public, she can’t ask it or even think about it with her staff privately.

                      Governments do have to talk to themselves. They do need to deliberate and plan and think of contingencies in private. You can’t have diplomacy without that. Leaking these cables does nothing but harm.

                    5. “”How in the hell is the US supposed to deal with Argentina now that it has been revealed that Hillary was worried about their President being on drugs?””

                      How as Argentina suppose to deal with us back when they found out Bill used drugs, and loved all the ladies?

                      In general I call bullshit on the embarresment stuff. Sure it is a little, but it’s not like they don’t talk about us behind our backs in a similar fasion.

                    6. How as, should be How was.

                      One of these days I’ll try that preview thing I keep hearing about.

                    7. Governments do have to talk to themselves. They do need to deliberate and plan and think of contingencies in private. You can’t have diplomacy without that. Leaking these cables does nothing but harm.

                      In a democracy the poeple are the government. If we do not know what we are talking about or with then how can we possibly be the government?

                      You are no different then Tony on this issue and simply sucking the dick of bureaucrats.

                    8. grrizly, you’re an ass. as in: YEW ASS A! YEW ASS A!

                    9. “He is a left-wing libertarian.”

                      ^^THIS^^

                    10. go troll over at free republic

                    11. “Except perhaps for Hillary asking diplomats to spy on other diplomats.”

                      There a legitimate reason for that.

                  4. Papaya, usually in these secrecy arguments somebody asks me I ask my self

                    1. This government has stated that is has the right to murder its own citizen without the benefit of a trial. Let me repeat that. This government has asserted is has the right to murder its own citizen without the benefit of a trial.

                      The executive branch apparently takes its name very literally. Until our government takes a big step back from the brink, I support any and all efforts to expose its secrets.

                3. And, of course, there’s the whole “fingering Vichy French to the Resistance” thing I mentioned below. Assange either has a distinct anti-German bias, or he’s a fool with a hammer who thinks everything looks like a nail.

                  Funny how changing a few words makes it look a lot different. These Afghan and Iraqi “assets” are traitors to their people. I won’t shed any tears when traitors die.

                  1. These Afghan and Iraqi “assets” are traitors to their people.

                    If you think the Saddamist die-hards, Taliban, and Al Qaeda are representatives of the will of the majority of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, you haven’t been paying attention.

                    1. I suppose from a purely technical standpoint one could say he’s right. Of course, under this literalist definition Albert Einstein and Oskar Schindler were “traitors to their people” as well.

            2. “The bottom line is there is no one no matter how vile and anti-freedom that you won’t cheer on if you think it will damage the US. This guy is a scumbag. You may love what he is doing but your pretension that he is some kind of a good guy or in anyway on your side is ludicrous.”

              I won’t cheer on Fidel or Kim Jung what’s his fuck or Amanajihad and I don’t suspect that others on this board would. Your problem John is that someone has made your precious USA look like shit. Turns out, our government is just as corrupt, stupid and generally full of shit as any other government. Problem is, you were most likely raised to believe God made America so everything we do is just and true. No matter how fucking immoral and unjust it is.
              Welcome to reality.

          2. Prove to me that they have.

            Dude, get with the program. Haven’t you heard of the Bush Doctrine: If a I accuse you of possessing X, the burden is on you to prove that you don’t have X?

            1. An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

              1. Sure, but evidence is required to prove something, and it’s up to the person making the claim to prove the claim.

        2. Maybe Ninja Bill Kristol could parachute in to Cuba or Iran with Agent Krauthammertime, steal the info, get the girl, fight off 50 counter-Ninja Agents, and escape in the Bat Big Wheel to provide the info to Wikileaks.

          Better yet, do it in the evening in Germany, so the next day’s headline can be “Kristol Nacht”.

          Just brainstorming here…

          1. Excellent work. 🙂

        3. John,

          You are an arse. I curse the day that I gave birth to you.

          Regards,
          Mom

        4. You’re asking a question that you assume the answer to (until proven otherwise, natch).

          You do that a lot, John. It’s not very becoming.

          We’re a relatively free and open society, even our government, when compared to autocratic regimes. THAT’S why more shit comes out against the US. That, coupled with the enormous size and influence we have over and above everyone else.

    2. Hmmm…I wonder why he hasn’t published anything from Iran or China?

      OH YEA: BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO LEAK THINGS IN THOSE COUNTRIES WILL LIKELY BE KILLED?TORTURED, ALONG WITH THEIR FAMILIES. So, there are no leaks. You think totalitarian governments haven’t already addressed the “wikileaks problem” to their state organs?

      He isn’t choosing to ignore those places, John. He just isn’t getting material from them.

      And yes, ALL STATES are enemies of freedom, so embarrassing them/shedding light on them makes you a friend of freedom, regardless of which gov’t you “target”

      1. Whitley Streiber put it well: “Leaking a government document can mean jail, but jail sentences for this can be fairly short. However, there are many places where it means long incarceration or even death, such as China and parts of Africa and the Middle East.”

        So let’s keep it that way.

      2. “And yes, ALL STATES are enemies of freedom, so embarrassing them/shedding light on them makes you a friend of freedom, regardless of which gov’t you ‘target'”

        Dude, that is some seriously simplistic shit you’re spewing.

        1. What, sweeping and simplistic generalizations coming from a no-compromise political true-believer? And on the Internet? Why, I’ve never heard of such a thing!

        2. Which state isnt an enemy of freedom?

          Its hypothetically possible (Im not an anarchist), but I dont see one.

        3. If you aren’t at least wary of the State, you are probably blogging on the wrong website.

          1. Then I guess I’m good to go here.

      3. So since all states are evil in 1944 you would leak the Normandy landing in the name of freedom? Not my fault, the Gestapo were so good at their job there were no Axis secrets to leak.

        1. Are we currently fighting the military, historical, or moral equivelant of the Third Reich or Imperial Japan?

          If you think so, whatever

    3. That Americans have leaked the juiciest info about the biggest current events is coincidence.

    4. It would be nice if Wikileaks would ever leak something from say the Chinese or the Iranians or Cuba or some other authoritarian country. I am sure there are dissidents out there who would love for them to leak embarrassing documents. But that doesn’t seem to happen does it?

      Seriously, John, you’re outdoing yourself. Pretty much every news outlet in the Western world would love to publish scandalous information embarrassing to NK or Cuba. OK, maybe not Cuba, but Fox News and the like would love to publish it. No authoritarian govts other than the US have any ability to retaliate against Western media, so you don’t need a Wikileaks to publish non-US leaks.

  7. Assange committed an unforgivable act to Democrats. He embarrassed a Democratic administration instead of a Republican one!

  8. Acting together to degrade, defeat, and destroy Bill Kristol should be the first topic discussed at today’s Reason H&R thread between the cosmotarians and paleos.

    1. Ooooo – exploding heads!

      *gets popcorn, pulls up chair*

    2. Kristol’s already pretty degraded, isn’t he?

  9. Good grief. What is with all the Republican tough guys? This release gives them enough fodder to drag the Obama Administration through the mud well past 2012 or when his library opens or his state funeral or when he’s inducted into the hall of fame or when he awakes from death or even the 2000th Barackmas in the year 2000 AO.

    1. Because according to Richard Cohen at WaPo, it’s still all Bush’s fault.

      Full Disclosure: I couldn’t get past the first paragraph.

    2. Imagine if this happened 5 years ago. Lefties would blame Bush for letting this happen and say his administration was too incompetent to handle diplomacy and national security. We are just laughing at the double standards.

      1. The double standards that exist in a counterfactual fantasy world you made up…

        1. ROTFLMAO

          You ARE young, and have a very short memory.

        2. BTW the double standards work both ways. But the left side is 100% as guilty as the right.

        3. Oh bullshit. You know damn well that both sides play the double standards game. Just because you are on one team doesn’t mean you don’t sometimes run the same plays.

        4. Nice tapdancing, Tony.

        5. I’m only cheerleading for Assange because his actions will help Democrats. Otherwise, I’d be siding with Kristol, albeit reluctantly.

          1. Tony, you think Assange is helping Democrats? If the rest of us ever needed proof positive of your poor judgment, this statement is it.

  10. YOU’LL ALL FLOAT DOWN HERE!

    1. Couldn’t It be just some crazy guy dressed up in a clown suit?

    2. This is battery acid you slime!

  11. Of course, Kristol would be all for WikiLeaks if they stole Team Blue internal memos.

    1. *sigh*

      BUT THAT’S DIFFERENT!

      1. I don’t know that he would be for it, but it obviously is different.

        I don’t agree with Kristol, but I don’t see how accusing him of partisanship makes sense. It’s Obama & other Democrats who have the most exposure in this leak.

  12. have the good grace not to complain about federal lawlessness or overreaching in any other area ever again.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  13. Seems to me that this is nothing new. The Soviets (and no doubt now, the Chinese and many others) always had excellent access to US “secrets.” The only difference now is that it’s out in the open for everybody to see.

    1. Exactly. Our REAL enemies know this shit already.

      This is about keeping secrets from the average person who can be controlled better by a government that keeps the truth to itself.

    2. I’ve been thinking the same thing. If some guy with a website can find out all this information, surely people who are paid to spy on the United States government already know all this junk.

      Americans need to wake up to the reality that their own government is more of a danger to them than some foreign country halfway around the world. As far as I’m concerned, anything that helps Americans wake up to the corruption in D.C. is a good.

  14. I suspect sufficient legal bases already exist

    All you basis are belong to us?

    1. Actually, in the context of his article, bases was correct. It is the plural case of basis.

      basis [?be?s?s]
      n pl -ses [-si?z]
      1. something that underlies, supports, or is essential to something else, esp an abstract idea
      2. a principle on which something depends or from which something has issued
      3. (Mathematics) Maths (of a vector space) a maximal set of linearly independent vectors, in terms of which all the elements of the space are uniquely expressible, and the number of which is the dimension of the space the vectors x, y and z form a basis of the 3-dimensional space all members of which can be written as ax + by + cz
      [via Latin from Greek: step, from bainein to step, go]

  15. I think it’s interesting that this set of leaks is more upsetting to the political class than the previous Afghanistan war leaks. This set is more embarrassing, and might well interfere with diplomacy and have some bad consequences down the road, but the Afghan leaks were worse. Those included very specific information that identifies Afghanis who were working with us against the Taliban. Fingering Afghanis to the Taliban is why Assange deserves to be offed, not for making Hillary look bad.

    (I should say I don’t mind the basic idea of Wikileaks. I just object to using it to help the side of evil.)

    Oh, and that pipsqueak Bradley Manning who started all this out of some kind of hissy fit over breaking up with his boyfriend? He deserves a life of rotting in prison (at the very least), and is now Exhibit #1 for the negative in the debate over gays in the military. Gee, thanks for everything, you little twerp.

    1. “I should say I don’t mind the basic idea of Wikileaks. I just object to using it to help the side of evil.”

      Exactly.

      1. I appreciate your efforts John, but as a rational person you are vastly outnumbered here.

      2. Where is the evil? There was a day I was say it’s the assholes that would imprison people or execute them without trial, and had a leader that would claim unobstructed power from the rest of government. As Dick Cheney said after 9/11, we needed to go to the darkside. If everyone is on the darkside, who represents the light? If you decide to go evil to fight evil, at the end of the day, you are evil too.

        We have moved away from the moral compass. You can aruge who is the worst evil, but in doing so, you acknowlede that we are evil too.

      3. I fail to see how the wikileaks are helping the side of evil. These leaks are minor embarassments, at best, and not even for the US (besides the horror of horrors that we can’t keep a secret). The most embarassing shit is stuff about medvedyev, ghadaffi (although his hot nurses are pretty swank) and ahmedinejad. Furthermore, you don’t think that seeing the dirt of the world’s superpower being leaked with very little consequence to Assange would empower people to leak about their own despotic regimes? Apparently it’s working, because Assange says that wikileaks is being overwhelmed with submissions – and the countries that are blocking wikileaks are the evil ones, like china, iran, and australia.

      4. I fail to see how the wikileaks are helping the side of evil. These leaks are minor embarassments, at best, and not even for the US (besides the horror of horrors that we can’t keep a secret). The most embarassing shit is stuff about medvedyev, ghadaffi (although his hot nurses are pretty swank) and ahmedinejad. Furthermore, you don’t think that seeing the dirt of the world’s superpower being leaked with very little consequence to Assange would empower people to leak about their own despotic regimes? Apparently it’s working, because Assange says that wikileaks is being overwhelmed with submissions – and the countries that are blocking wikileaks are the evil ones, like china, iran, and australia.

    2. Dude, fuck off. If your too ignorant to realize that NO PHYSICAL HARM HAS COME TO ANY AFGHANS from Wikileaks (Robert Gates has made that clear) you’re just spewing bullshit

      1. So if I take a shot at you and place your life at risk but miss, everything is okay? No one was harmed after all? Just because we were lucky enough that no one got killed doesn’t mean it was a good thing to have happen.

        1. Publishing someone’s name /= shooting a gun at them.

          1. So can someone give your name to a gunman, have him shoot and miss you, and not get any problems?

          2. Publishing people’s names, when there are lots of people around who have guns and want to kill people like those named, is pretty much the equivalent of shooting a gun at them, yes.

            If I put up a website announcing that Vinnie “the Snitch” Gambino, an FBI informant formerly of Brooklyn, is now living at 123 Elm St. in Indianapolis under the name of George Townsend, I’ve certainly done the next best thing to pulling the trigger.

      2. Besides, ever since I started sleeping under an Amish quilt, I could give two shits about Afghans anyway. If you haven’t tried a real Amish quilt, you must. They’re wonderful!

    3. In addition to outing our Afghani allies, Assange has also published the freaking Social Security numbers of some of our own servicemen. I find that completely indefensible; it does absolutely nothing whatsoever to create political transparency or start a fruitful foreign policy debate.

      In my opinion, Reason is making a big mistake in adopting this character as some kind of hero simply because he mouths a few nice platitudes about openness and the political establishment is unhappy with him. Of course, political tactical brilliance has never exactly been a libertarian strength.

      1. “Of course, political tactical brilliance has never exactly been a libertarian strength.”

        Amen

      2. Absolutely. Assange seems to be suffering from a self-righteousness so blinding that he doesn’t see the difference between the good things he does and the bad things. He wants to leak and expose bad things, fine, but when he has things he shouldn’t leak, he often seems to just want to leak them anyway and come up with some sort of bullshit rationalization for doing so.

      3. Assange has also published the freaking Social Security numbers of some of our own servicemen.

        I’m still looking for them. Where’d you read that?

        1. I read it in that well known far right wing publication, The New Yorker Magazine:

          “Assange does not recognize the limits that traditional publishers do. Recently, he posted military documents that included the Social Security numbers of soldiers, and in the Bunker I asked him if WikiLeaks’ mission would have been compromised if he had redacted these small bits. He said that some leaks risked harming innocent people?’collateral damage, if you will’?but that he could not weigh the importance of every detail in every document. Perhaps the Social Security numbers would one day be important to researchers investigating wrongdoing, he said; by releasing the information he would allow judgment to occur in the open.”

          I personally refuse to visit this guy’s web site, so I can’t help you pinpoint the specific documents on there, but there you have it. Is this really the kind of guy that Matt Welch and the gang want to embrace as a champion of liberty? I don’t, that’s for sure.

          1. There are lots of people who post social security numbers on the Internet, but Assange seems to be the only one Bill Kristol is concerned about. I wonder why?

            1. There are lots of people who post social security numbers on the Internet, but Assange seems to be the only one Bill Kristol is concerned about.

              To me, they’re all dirtbags. Be honest: would you like your name and social security number to be posted online for all the world to have access to?

              1. Of course not. I’m not going to be labeling Assage a hero at this point. But bringing up Wikileaks willfull carelessness with SSNs is a red herring. That’s not what the people urging action against them are on about.

                1. It’s certainly one more thing that shows that Assange is rather cavalier about risks to innocent people.

    4. Those Afghans “helping” us are traitors. Do you really defend such people?

      1. Those Afghans “helping” us are traitors. Do you really defend such people?

        Fuck yes I want to defend them. And for the same reasons I would defend a German citizen during World War 2 who helped the allies, although this person would be a “traitor” in the same sense.

        Do you think the Taliban is more legitimate than the government in place now (corrupt as it is)? If that is your position, then your standard of legitimacy has nothing to do with individual rights or freedom. (That is unless you agree with their pro-sharia ideology. In that case your standard of legitimacy has something to do with individual rights, in the sense of being actively opposed to them.)

        The American Revolutionaries were also “traitors” to the British Empire, and they could not have won without assistance from foreign powers (most notably the French and Spanish empires). Anti-Taliban Afghans are resisting a far worse tyranny than pro-independence Americans were (and many started resisting that tyranny even before the US-led invasion). And the foreign powers fighting the Taliban have a better claim to self-defense in this war than the monarchist empires that helped the US had. So by your logic, we should ask if the founding fathers really should have been protected from the British.

  16. Whack Bill Kristol.

    Signed,
    REASONable Guy

    1. May you and your commie traitor pals be ass-raped in Hell with a red-hot poker forever, shitbag.

      Signed,
      Person With Brain That Works

      1. Nah, I’m with Shitty Friend. Kristol has probably helped get more innocents killed than Assange.

      2. Anyone who uses “commie” as an insult for another American probably has a communist/Stalinist minds themselves

  17. Considering how effective our program to whack bin Laden has been, Julian Assange probably shouldn’t bother to lie awake nights waiting for the *knock on the door*.

    1. What if he starts hosting a 10/20 poker night?

    2. The difference is that the actions of Assange et al pose an existential threat to the power establishment, whereas those of OBL & Co. have only really threatened the populace. This is why the ‘terrorist’ label can never be made to fit; it is not the power of terror we see at work here, it is the power of subversion.

      When OBL kills, it is OBL who does it. When Wikileaks is accused of the same (as it will be), you will always find that it is a nation state who is not only making the accusation, but who is also holding a smoking gun.

      1. When OBL kills, it is OBL who does it.

        I seriously doubt bin Laden has killed anyone himself. He leaves that up to gullible recruits.

        1. No doubt, but I don’t see how that’s relevant.

  18. Here are some of the latest revelations just leaked an hour ago:

    President Obama opines that U.K. prime minister, David Cameron “totally plays Nite Owl to [Deputy Prime Minister] Clegg’s Rorschach”.

    Doomsday button lost to U.S.S.R. in drunken, late night, 1983 poker game.

    Existence of a country called Yemen.

    In 2006, the Jews relinquish control of the weather to small, Bombay start up.

    U.S. state department has tried repeatedly, but unsuccessfully to convince Pakistan to show some skin on private government web cam.

    China responsible for DoS attack on 4chan.org in retaliation for offensive Mao meme.

    In 1971, Henry Kissinger had thousands of dildos smuggled into Cambodia from South Vietnam.

    Killer Croc to be the main villain in upcoming Batman film.

    1. I liked this. Moar plz.

  19. “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome Web site?” – King Kristol I

  20. Essentially, you can pretty well guess much of the sweet, sweet innards of the columns on Reason before your first visit of the day:

    -Matt Welch grinds his axe against Republicans he doesn’t like. Which is pretty much all of the them.

    -Picture captions of Nick Gillespie being ‘THE JACKET!!!’ Something something small-government, but..THE MAN IS THE JACKET!!! TV bookers, get this man on now!

    -Brian Doherty doesn’t like US foreign policy.

    -Nobody likes the Tea Parties

    -Gushing praise over liberals who occasionally produce something that can be vaguely construed to sound like half-hearted praise for free markets.

    -Did I mention, the Tea Parties are awful, yucky, not very good.

    -Daily column linking Glenn Greenwald.

    1. Drinkity drink drink

      1. -One of the H&R “wits” saying “drink”…

    2. Dude, what color is the sky in your world? I’m guessing it has zeppelins up there; all alternate histories have zeppelins.

      1. Lyin’, cheatin’, hurtin, that’s all you seem to do.
        Messin’ around with every guy in town,
        Puttin’ me down for thinkin’ of someone new.
        Always the same, playin’ your game,
        Drive me insane, trouble is gonna come to you,
        One of these days and it won’t be long,
        You’ll look for me but baby, I’ll be gone.

    3. Essentially, you can pretty well guess much of the sweet, sweet innards of the columns on Reason before your first visit of the day:

      -Matt Welch grinds his axe against Republicans he doesn’t like because Matt Welch is a fucking commie traitor from JournoList, just like his butt-buddy Dave Weigel. Which is pretty much all of them because for all their faults, they’re not fucking commie traitors like Welch and Weigel and every other JournoLista.

      -Picture captions of Nick Gillespie being ‘THE JACKET!!!’ Something something small-government, but..THE MAN IS THE JACKET!!! TV bookers, get this man on now! Because he’s going to be the very last one to know his fellow tReason columnists are fucking commie traitors from JournoList.

      -Brian Doherty doesn’t like US foreign policy because he’s also a fucking commie traitor from JournoList.

      -Nobody likes the Tea Parties because they’re not fucking commie traitors from JournoList, and fucking commie traitors from JournoList hate unenlightened people like that.

      -Gushing praise over liberals who occasionally produce something that can be vaguely construed to sound like half-hearted praise for free markets because they’re all fucking commie traitors of the kind that fucking commie traitors from JournoList adore and want to see re-elected.

      -Did I mention, the Tea Parties are awful, yucky, not very good because, as noted before, they’re not fucking commie traitors like Weigel, Welch, Doherty, Suderman, etc.

      -Daily column linking Glenn Greenwald, the biggest fucking commie traitor bitch of them all, and therefore worshiped by Welch et al.

      Welch, you and all your fellow members of JournoList should be hanged for the traitors you are and ground up for dog food along with that fucking commie traitor faggot Manning and his fellow faggot ASSange. Damn you and all your treasonous leftard shitsucking buddies to Hell.

      1. Don’t you feel better now that you let that all out, John?

        Better out than in, I always say.

        1. Fuck you fluffy. That wasn’t me. You know better than that.

          1. Come on man, I was just giving you shit. TELL ME you didn’t laugh.

      2. I’d like to think there’s at least a 45% that Dave Weigel wrote this because, a. no one mentioned Weigel, b. outside of a small circle of beltway reporters/pundits no on cares about or could name-drop Dave Weigel.

        I also don’t think a ‘Dave Weigel’ comparison is apt because I enjoy and respect most material coming out of Reason. I just think that for an enterprise that bills itself as looking for political and cultural in-roads for libertarianism, the regular Reason roster produces work that at times can come across with more of an erratic ‘personal blog’ style. I also think Reason basically ‘sat-out’ some of the greatest libertarian-opportunity moments of my life-time this election due to the contributors personal dislike of the GOP. I’m not overly fond of the GOP myself, but I’m also not getting paid to make a libertarian splash on the public’s conscious.

        Dave Weigel, on the other hand, is a political reporter best known for being a private two-face on the belt-way social circuit. Not really the stuff o’ analogies.

        PS-Why did Suderman get drawn in? He’s consistently one of the best contributors.

        1. “greatest libertarian-opportunity moments of my life-time “?

          What the fuck?

          1. You missed the millions of Americans going to political demonstrations against big government and over-spending? Try Googling “Tea Party.”

            (True, they aren’t all libertarians, but it’s a parade libertarians should be happy to jump in front of.)

          2. greatest libertarian-opportunity moments of my life-time

            some times i wish reason was just a web site that writes “The wreckage of Fanny May, which is our economy, is not an example of the failure of the free market, it is a failure of government.” over and over again in multiple and exotic ways

            But then I think that would be a pretty shitty blog.

        2. I initiate slow clap for this and your last post good sir.

      3. God damn it where is KMW?

    4. I like tea parties.

      My girls used to have them when they were little…it was so cute…

  21. I want Assange to publish Max Baucus’ discussion notes from his health insurance bill “negotiations” for the past eighteen months or so.

    John would hate that, though, because he has principles.

    1. Why would John hate that? Exposing the shenanigans behind Obamacare would serve the side of good, not evil.

      1. As this thread so aptly demonstrates, defining “good” and “evil” is such a simple process.

        1. It’s not always simple, but I don’t think assigning such labels to pro- and anti-Taliban sides is very difficult. Do you?

          1. The Taliban hasn’t made a policy of destroying poor Afghan farmers’ cash crops for nine years. If I were a poopy farmer those waters would be much murkier.

            1. The Taliban most certainly did not allow farmers freedom to grow poppies when they were in power. They are some of the most puritanical fanatics in history, and they allowed virtually no freedom to do anything at all. The only reason they are giving cover to Afghan farmers who grow poppies now is because they are out of power fighting to get back in, and they want a cut of the profits from that trade to help their war effort.

              Of course US/NATO policy is still unjust and idiotic for playing into their hands on this. The US should allow farmers to grow it and let pharmaceutical companies buy those crops to make painkillers with – as long as we ensure that none of the profits get back to the Taliban. (Actually the US should legalize drugs outright, but that is going off on a bit of a tangent.)

            2. You said poopy!

            3. +1

              That was a great misspelling.

  22. Taxes are important, but national security comes first.

    This could very well be the Tea Party movement’s slogan in 2012. Bravo Mr. Kristol.

    1. Kristol is hardly representative of the tea party movement.

    2. With a true libertarian like Palin to lead them, how can you say that?

    3. Apparently Kristol is worried that it wouldn’t be, considering that he (and his magazine) have continually been warning and worrying about the Tea Party movement focusing too much on taxes and spending, and not enough on war.

      1. the Tea Party movement focusing too much on taxes and spending, and not enough on war.

        Good thing that taxes and spending have no relationship whatsoever with war, then. Dodged that bullet, didn’t we?

        1. In Kristol’s mind, yes. He represents a wing of the Republican party that is upset because it fears that it is losing clout at the present moment.

      2. He is trying to ally with the movement and move them towards the neoconservative ideal. I seem to recall a headline where, despite his earlier skepticism, he found a strong liking for Palin (which does not speak well of Palin, in my opinion). And there’s this, as well.

        1. Probably because Palin is an intellectual cipher who can be brought over to the dark side like GWB was after 9/11. Remember Bush talking about the importance of a humble foreign policy in 2000, when the GOP and the country in general was sick of Clintonian interventionism? Me too. But when he was confronted with a crisis, and needed a worldview with which to respond to it, the neocons in his inner circle were quick to give him one.

          So it would be with Palin.

          1. That’s an unfair comparison, I think. Clintonian interventions were all in areas where there was little or no national interest: the Balkans, Haiti, Somalia. Bush abandoned a humble foreign policy after the US was directly attacked. Big diff.

  23. In the case of the Afghanistan materials, it put innocent people’s lives at risk.

    WTF?

    Because, barring wikileaks, Afghanistan is perfectly safe? Murdering people with remotely piloted drones puts innocent people at risk, you dumbass. When are you going to object to that?

    1. Well, in his case, I’m pretty sure that he would also object to a private citizen killing people with drones without US government orders.

    2. So because Afghanistan is an unsafe place to begin with, it is totally okay to leak the names of people working for one side or the other. By that logic I guess it would be okay to leak the names of police informants in East St. Louis. I mean it is a dangerous place anyway right?

      Fuck you Brooks. You are the dumbass here.

      1. Nuke East St. Louis. Problem solved.

        1. I took a shit in East St. Louis once.

          1. They probably didn’t even notice it went missing.

    3. I see John rail on the police state in Balko threads, but he is completely unable to transfer that same respect for human decency to people that happen to be born in a different country.

      1. Uh…his problem is that the publication of informants names could get them killed. He’s not the one shitting on human decency here.

  24. fuck off Kristol

    1. You fuck off and die, nj.

  25. Sure, you’ll see that stuff. If you can wade through the sea of articles about decriminalizing pot.

  26. Someone on a news show last night asked the question, “Who is behind this?” Of course, we all think it’s this Assange fellow, but for all we know, someone in the Obama administration wants this stuff leaked because on balance, it’s to their advantage.

    1. I think i saw the same show, it was claire mckaskill (sp) and when she asked “who is behind this?” i got the feeling she didn’t know that manning was in custody already.

      1. No, it was Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski. He asked who is to gain with the leaking of some very targeted information. And did Manning leak the diplomatic shit as well? I don’t recall that he did, but I am often mistaken.

  27. Matt Welch,

    Should nothing happen to Julian Assange? What about Americans like Pfc Manning who participated in all of this?

    It’s all just okay?

    1. Manning should get his boyfriend choices limited to Leavenworth inmates for the rest of his life. It’s called “espionage”, or “treason”, take your pick. Assange should simply get his ass whacked like anyone else whose actions jeopardize the well-being of our troops in a combat zone. Please, spare me this bowdlerized heroic “whistle blower” bullshit.

      1. Assange should simply get his ass whacked like anyone else whose actions jeopardize the well-being of our troops in a combat zone.

        Like the guy who ordered them into that combat zone in the first place?

        1. Or the fuckhead who is keeping them there for nation-building boondoggles?

          1. Hmmm, a veritable school of red herrings.

            1. The deployment of troops has nothing to do with their well-being?

              1. Yes, and so what? And I really don’t have time now to explain Ignoratio Elenchi – and I would prefer to believe that I really don’t need to anyway.

                1. Not only that, but there’s a bit of a difference between troops being risked in the course of carrying out lawful orders, versus having their lives risked by a freelance buttinski do-gooder who thinks it’s OK to risk harming innocents because they’ve decided that what they’re doing is just so darn important.

      2. Yes, treason is what those Iraqi and Afghan “assets” helping us are committing. Bring our troops home and they won’t be in danger in a combat zone.

        1. Yeah because Iraq would be one big happy place if we left. And the people in Afghanistan that are working with us to keep the Taliban from taking over and establishing a theocracy are “traitors”.

          1. As if it’s going to be a big happy place if we stay there another ten years. Or twenty, or a hundred.

          2. Treason is one of those crimes that’s purely a matter of POV. The Karzai govt has no more legitimacy than the Taliban, indeed less, since Karzai was installed by foreign invaders while the Taliban won an internal power struggle fair and square. As John Harrington put it:

            Treason doth never prosper;
            What’s the reason?
            For when it prosper,
            None dare call it treason.

            1. I would also submit that treason itself is value-neutral: it depends who you are betraying, and for what.

              George Washington was a traitor, and a hero.

              1. Yes, he was indeed. So I’m just wondering what I am to infer from that. Is Manning a hero? If so, why? If not, what does the GW bit have to do with what I said about Manning?

                1. To Ice Nine:

                  Yes, Manning is a hero. He, like Washington, betrayed a government that no longer represents the people. It’s not like he sold these secrets to China for personal gain. He released them to the American public out of idealism

                  1. “Yes, Manning is a hero. He, like Washington, betrayed a government that no longer represents the people.”

                    Pretty broad brush you’re wielding, pal. And I’m so sure that Manning knew what was everything he was handing over and saw it as a solution to this representation problem. Yeah, that’s it. So until you decide that the government represents the people again, it’s carte blanche for little misfits like your hero to commit expionage, I guess.

                    “It’s not like he sold these secrets to China for personal gain.”

                    I wasn’t aware that selling government secrets was the sole criterion for espionage.

                    “He released them to the American public out of idealism.”

                    So what? Morton Sobell and Julius Rosenberg acted out of idealism too.

              2. “”George Washington was a traitor, and a hero.””

                The only reason he was a hero is because he won. If England would have won, he would have been shot, and known as a traitor.

            2. Karzai govt has no more legitimacy than the Taliban, indeed less, since Karzai was installed by foreign invaders while the Taliban won an internal power struggle fair and square.

              If you’re willing to not count the Pakistani ISI and persons from the Arabian pennisula as ‘foreigners’ with regard to Kabul.

              1. If we’re going to go that route then the American Revolution was a foreign invasion due to the presence of Lafayette, Pulaski, and von Steuben as well as the assistance from the French Navy.

                The boots on the ground for the Taliban were mostly Afghan in origin. Not so for the US-backed govt.

            3. “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

              You’re right, that’s super subjective.

              1. The boots on the ground for the Taliban were mostly Afghan in origin. Not so for the US-backed govt.

                From the toppling of the Taliban govt to the start of the transitional government, there were actually very few US (and NATO and other coalition) troops on the the ground. On the order of a couple thousand. (compared to for instance over 100K for the Iraq invasion). The bulk of the ground game was the Northern Alliance – backed of course by uncontested overwhelming US & allied Air power.

                On a related note, I would say that Louis XVI got the mother of all blowbacks for medling around in British North America in the 1770’s and 80’s.

  28. The whole obsession with Wikileaks by the security fetishists is really missing the boat.

    By the time this stuff gets to Wikileaks, its already too late.

    Your security problem isn’t Wikileaks, its whoever is leaking to them. If these people will leak to Wikileaks, they’ll leak to anybody, and one its leaked, its gone.

    Quit obsessing about people and activities that are outside your jurisdiction and control, and start thinking about what is inside your jurisdiction and control.

    And if you’re panties are knotting up because Wikileaks seems to be focussed on embarrassing the US, the answer is simple: set up a Wikileaks operation focussed on whoever you want to embarrass.

    1. Hear Hear.

      Also, if the actions that Wikileaks reveals are embarrassing, it’s because those actions are things the US shouldn’t be doing.

      1. Things like diplomacy? Wow.

      2. So what you’re saying is that US diplomacy should be more like George W Bush and make public our insults and low opinions of other countries?

        That’s the only really embarrassing stuff in there.

        1. George Washington’s foreign policy would be better.

      3. The retard is strong with this one.

    2. Well, Manning wouldn?t have leaked it without wikileaks, but I?m open to the point that Assange may have done nothing illegal.
      But Manning and other useful idiots will be serving long sentences (or worse) for treason, while Assange does the interview circuit, claiming to have saved the world.

  29. Some of you anti-defense anarcho-capitalists need to read a little George Orwell.

    “Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that ‘according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be “objectively pro-British”.’ But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories.”

    I think pacifism as a moral stance is valid. But it’s naively self-indulgent to think that it wouldn’t be suicide on an international level. If you’re not willing to acknowledge death as a very possible outcome from pacifism you’re a coward and an idiot.

    1. If we were at war with anyone that might make sense. Since we arent….

      1. Whatever, rob. Not wanting a huge, bloated standing army is the exact same thing as pacifism. It’s so obvious really.

        1. Right, exactly.

          So we’re at war with Germany and Japan.

          And I completely support war with Germany and Japan.

          And I completely support bombing Germany and Japan.

          But I say, “You know, when we catch German and Japanese soldiers, we shouldn’t torture them. We are civilized men.”

          At that moment, Lisa jumps out of the bushes and yells, “PACIFIST!!! ANARCHIST!!!!”

          1. No. We are at war with Germany and Japan. A fasicst sympathizer leaks diplomatic cables that further the cause of Germany and Japan and hurt the relationship between the allies.

            And you go Yeah!! That is called being objectively pro fascist.

            1. Well, here’s where that whole good faith / bad faith thing comes in.

              The US now defines “war” as “a state we will always be in until there aren’t two people in the Middle East who don’t like us who ever talk to each other”.

              So this whole “Buh buh buh we’re at war!” blubbering you lot do just doesn’t cut it with me. By your new definition of the state of war, we will never be OUT of the state of war, ever again.

              So OBJECTIVELY, your position is that no one can publish information – any information at all – that puts the US in a bad light anywhere, ever again. ‘Cause DERE’S A WAR ON!!!!W#!#@#!

              1. You just in a conrner and creating a straw man. I am not talking about all information. I am talking about this information. Information that reveals no wrong doing on the US’s part. And information that serves no purpose beyond hamstringing US policy.

                If these cables revealed real no kidding wrong doing, then I would agree with publishing them. But they don’t. They don’t do anything like that. they just harm US interests without revealing any wrong doing or doing anyone but our enemies any good.

                In all of the times I have seen you post on here Fluffy i have never once seen you object to anything that hurt the United States. Never once. For you it doesn’t seem to matter if these things revealing anything worth knowing. All that seems to matter is that they were revealed and they hurt the US.

                That is why people accuse you of being objectively for the enemies of the United States.

                1. I object to the 9/11 attacks.

                  What you want is for me to object to an act that harms what you perceive to be the interests of the United States, even if that act is protected by a libertarian reading of the Bill of Rights. News flash: I won’t. Sorry. Too bad. To me, “the interests of the United States” and “the protection of the rights of man” are the same thing. So when (for example) evidence is revealed that exposes government complicity in torture or rendition, that to me is good for the real United States. You say, “Oh no this makes it harder for us to pursue policy X” but I just don’t see that as the same thing.

                  And I am not constructing a straw man. By definition, a war on “terrorism” cannot be considered won, ever. So if you’re asking me to make allowances for our government’s conduct because “it’s wartime”, I can’t. People like Kristol have seen to it that the gates of the temple of Mars can never be closed again, definitionally.

                  1. For you it doesn’t seem to matter if these things revealing anything worth knowing.

                    BTW, I see what you’re saying here, and I do get where you’re coming from.

                    But if I was in Assange’s position, I probably would just do wholesale releases of documents, too.

                    For me to edit out what is and what is not important, I would have to be universally informed on literally everything in the world.

                    I think it was foolish for him to say that he can’t know that one day social security numbers won’t be important – but for just about anything else, that’s actually a pretty valid defense.

                    A lot of data can look innocuous or meaningless if you don’t have the other pieces of the mosaic it fits into. And this is precisely what YOU argued after the Afghanistan document dump – that “our enemies” could turn even innocuous documents to their advantage, by “looking for patterns” or what have you. The same goes both ways. Our governments errors or illegalities might not be apparent until a large body of data is available for analysis.

                    1. You are responsible for your actions, leaking sth per se in such a volume that you are not aware of what you are doing is irresponsible. Spinning it in a “well it?s govt info and govt is evil” is a simplistic way to abrogate your responsibility, as bad as relying on the collective to justify your actions.

                  2. There is no war. No fucking declaration of war means no war.

                    We havent fought in a war in over 60 years.

                2. John, you seem to view the US people and the US government as one in the same. When something hurts the US government, you think of it as being bad for the entire country. I look at those two entities as separate things and (not always but at this point in history) antagonist to one another. Therefore, if something hurts the US government, I think it is good for the US people.

                  When the s**t really hits the fan, and it will in a few years, the people currently in charge of the government will do everything they can to hold on to control. They will declare war on anyone that resists the implementation of their socialist/fascist/corporatist/feudal dystopia. Anything that discredits them now will help ensure their loss in the future.

            2. No. We are at war with Germany and Japan. A fasicst sympathizer leaks diplomatic cables that further the cause of Germany and Japan and hurt the relationship between the allies.

              So you support the FDR administration’s coverup of the Katyn massacre and other Soviet war crimes.

              Indeed, not only must you support the coverup, you support throwing anyone who leaked information about it and anyone who published that information in jail, or perhaps killing them.

              1. How does leaking Soviet war crimes = hurting US war effort?

    2. Alamanian beat your godwin by about 45 min, but good half pike triple sowcow still.

    3. True, perhaps, but that’s half the story, Lisa.

      While the US did defeat Hitler, we did so by having nice secret diplomatic relations with the Stalin. My family ended up on the right side of the Iron Curtain by a short distance, but what about all those who didn’t?

      How are secret deals like that a good thing?

      At some point, secrecy itself is its own evil.

      1. “the Stalin” LOL

        “Stalin”

      2. Yeah, I’m sure Stalin would have just declared neutrality and left Hitler alone if we weren’t so nice to him. That’s the line of BS that the establishment feeds us to justify FDR’s complicity with Soviet war crimes and other atrocities.

        Every time it was in Stalin’s interest to break an agreement made by those nice diplomats from the FDR administration, he broke it.

        1. Not my point.

          My point was that whether the outcome of WW II, and therefore who the “good guys” vs. “bad guys” were, was quite different if you were in Austria vs. neighboring Hungary.

    4. Who the fuck told you I was a pacifist, douche?

      1. at least it’s an ethos.

      2. You did, fascist fuckhole.

    5. Some of you anti-defense anarcho-capitalists need to read a little George Orwell.

      So what’s your point? Orwell was an ardent socialist who was worried about the future of his political movement. Next you’ll be saying that anarcho-capitalists should take a lesson from Orwell about state intervention in the economy or some other anti-market idiocy.

    6. BTW, interesting counterfactual:

      The worst outcome for fascism in Europe in general turned out to be a Franco victory.

      If the Communist / Anarchist bloc had triumphed in Spain, it would have HELPED fascism in the long run.

      Franco was able to stay out of the war because Hitler regarded him as a friendly neutral.

      If Spain had been a Soviet client state after the fall of France, there is NO WAY the Axis wouldn’t have smashed it. It would have had a lemonade stand military and would have been torn by internal dissension and undermined by the Church, so this would have been an extremely weak Spanish state we’re talking about.

      And if Hitler took Spain, he would have been able to take Gibraltar and close the Med to the British in 1941.

      If Orwell and the Lincoln Brigade folks had won in Spain it would have fucked over everbody.

      1. Who says the Axis could have smashed Spain? What is to say they wouldn’t have been drug into a long running partisan war?

        The better counter factual is that if the Communists had won in Spain, it would have turned into a Stalinist nightmare and ended up a hundred times worse off than it did under Franco. Franco is the classic example of the lesser of two evils.

        1. Well, there’s that too. Gotta agree with you there.

          But in the context of the first post, I was trying to point out the irony of the fact that being anti-Fascist in Spain would have had the effect of helping the more powerful and dangerous fascist powers if you had managed to actually win.

          I think the Axis would have easily smashed Spain because Franco’s state was pretty militarily weak, and he had the advantage of at least having the remnant of the professional officer corps. The Communists would have had the same weaknesses as Franco, but with even worse personnel of the “People’s Army” variety. And Franco had the Church behind him; a Communist government would probably have had been facing its OWN guerrilla resistance, which would have welcomed the Germans as liberators.

      2. Interesting counterfactual, but Hitler made plenty of incredible blunders in 1941 that

        1. Declaring war on the US. It’s not at all inevitable that the US gets involved in the European theater without this declaration of war; sentiment against Japan after Pearl Harbor may not have been able to overcome isolationist tendencies to that extent.

        2. Invading a powerful ally, the USSR, when the Middle East was totally there for the taking, with only a meager British force defending it. The Soviets could have been dealt with later.

        1. Had Hitler had better information, he presumably would have done neither thing.

          So I guess information is important in war. But a lot of this stuff isn’t about war.

    7. Exactly! That’s why we were attacked on 9/11. Because the US government was run by pacifists.

  30. Hasn’t Kristol figured out by now that if he wants something to be true, he just needs to assert the opposite? Now Assange is gonna walk and get a Nobel Peace Prize or something.

  31. I love the way Kristol just waves off the blatant illegality of his barely veiled call to kidnap or kill Assange and destroy the Wikileaks servers with “I suspect sufficient legal bases already exist.”

    What already exist is sufficient legal basis for tracking down the US citizens, nay, government employees, who violated US law by giving this stuff to Assange. If you’re serious about doing anything about these leaks, of course.

    The longer this goes on, the more I like Assange and Wikileaks. Their first big dump on Afghanistan, not so much – leaking info on military operations gets much too close to putting real lives at risk.

    These State Dept memos, though, are just embarrassing. To all the right people. Which is a Good Thing.

    1. Ultimately, the truth must out. It is only a question of when.

      1. It’s a lot more fun when it comes out while people still give a shit, too.

        I mean, in a country where we know all about the length of Lindsay Lohan’s pubes this week, what’s with secrecy, anyway?

    2. How exactly do you plan to conduct diplomacy if nothing your diplomats say to each other and nothing any other country says to you can be kept secret? Good luck dealing with Argentina or Saudi Arabia after this. And what is so embarrassing about these cable? I have yet to see anything that reveals anything we didn’t already know or showed the US State Department to be doing anything but its job in good faith?

      1. True. Argentina would have been so helpful in helping us to reform the Federal Reserve system, but not we’re on our own.

        1. Way to miss the point.

          1. Ah, but John, you missed your own point.

            You first said that diplomacy would no longer be possible with certain countries, but then said that no real secrets nor unexpected information were revealed.

            Which is it?

            Either the information was surprising, and it would undermine intense diplomatic efforts, or it was unsurprising, and therefore would undermine nothing.

            1. It is not surprising that the US government wondered if the President of Argentina was on drugs. It is however very damaging to our relations with Argentina to have that fact revealed publicly.

              Put it on a personal level. If you sent an e-mail to your wife in confidence worrying that your boss was a drunk, it would not be surprising that you had such speculation if your boss had behaved in ways consistent with being a drunk. But it sure as hell would hurt your ability to work with your boss if he ever read the e-mail.

              1. The President of Argentina isn’t the boss of anyone in the US Government. Everyone on either side of negotiations knows damn well that the other side thinks/wonders/says all sorts of things about them. It’s not a place for thin-skinned children.

                Have you ever actually known a diplomat?

              2. Not if the boss already knew that you wondered if he was a drunk. The email being linked to the boss doesnt give him any info he doesnt already know.

                1. Both of you are missing John’s point, because his analogy isn’t quite right. Change “boss” to “client” or “customer” and it answers your objections.

  32. The US government can’t neutralize WikiLeaks anymore than you can find Osama bin Laden or stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

    1. Useless McDumbass is back, everybody! Yay!

      1. “Useless McDumbass is back, everybody! Yay”

        I tip my hat to that top-shelf Shit Facktory!

        1. I hope it’s not an $8 fedora from Amazon.

    2. Be grateful the US doesn’t have the balls to do these things. There is nothing in the list that ICBMs couldn’t do, with a little bit of “collateral damage” of course.

      1. Ever heard of “radiation”, moron?

        1. Oh, you’re right.

          The Neutron Bomb might work even better, and we could keep the oil wells intact.

          Oh, and fuck you, douchebag.

          1. Nicely done!

            1. Hey, wait, I’VE never heard of this ‘radiation’ thing he mentioned. And I, for one, would like him to explain, in mind numbing but absolutely complete detail, what he means by that!

              1. And I, for one, would like him to explain, in mind numbing but absolutely complete detail, what he means by that!

                The amount of nukes it would take to check off that list would be the equivalent to the amount of radiation the earth receives in about 30 seconds of sun light…

                The amount an average American would revive because of it over a life time would be the equivalent of eating 1 millionth of a whole banana a day until they die.

                On a side note it is probably good that people don’t actually know how not bad radiation from a nuke is once you get away from the actual blast area.

  33. i don’t thing kristol could do five pushups. krauthammer either for that matter.

    1. Dude, Krauthammer has been stuck in a wheelchair since 1972. Not cool.

      Kristol couldn’t even lift a pint of beer, though.

    2. Well Krauthammer is a parapelgic so I suspect not. Stay classy, asshole.

  34. I happened to catch him saying much the same yesterday while watching SR on FNC for the first time in years. Krauthammer was even worse, suggesting they abduct or kill Assange.

    This is both thuggish and pretty stupid. They claim this makes us look like a “pitiful, helpless giant” but far better to be a giant restrained to ineffectiveness by morality and forbearance than a petty, thuggish, malicious giant stomping on random flighty European perverts whenever its interests are threatened — especially since we almost certainly can’t prevent the leak, and would look just as ineffective, only spiteful instead of forbearing.

    1. Assange is Australian, not European.

      You do know the difference between an Australian and a European, don’t you?

      Do try not to think too hard.

      1. Hitler was Australian. You can’t trust Australians at all.

      2. From the context of the post, “random flighty European perverts” would appear to be a type rather than to Assange himself.

        But then there are worse things than not being completely aware of Assange’s nationality.

        Like being a pompous self-important bloviating prick posting critiques on a culture about which he is utterly ignorant.

        1. Yes because when I think “knowledge of the world and other cultures” I think “USians”.

          Most USians can name a fast food mascot before they can name a foreign world leader. Most of them can’t even find their own states on a map, much less other countries, yet they have pretension of knowing what’s best for the world. They think they’re the best country to live in, even though by far the vast majority don’t even have a passport much less ever visit another country.

          1. Yes, but it’s the USA that you’ve been proving that you’re utterly ignorant about for the last couple of days.

            That makes your claims about Americans’ purported ignorance flatly irrelevant.

    2. And before you ask no, they don’t speak “Australian” in Australia.

      1. Everyone know they speak Austrian there. Give us a little credit, USAless.

        1. Of course they speak “Australian” there! In fact, don’t ya know “Foster’s” is their word for “beer”.

          It’s almost like they got a different word for everything!

      2. Struth, mate, o’ course not. They bloody speak stryne in ‘strylya.

        Stone the flamin’ crows, even a bloody drongo bloody knows that.

  35. Why can’t we act forcefully against WikiLeaks?

    Here’s why, you statist assclown. Remedial history is your friend.

    New York Times Co. v. United States

  36. Well, using the “I learned everything I need to know in kindergarten” analysis, Kristol makes sense, in that he probably got beaten up daily and robbed of his lunch money, hence his insistence that beating up Assange and stealing HIS lunch money is the fix here.

    That said (basically, that Kristol is a pompously arrogant blowhard and general all around jackass), Assange is just a publicity whore.

    As for the ‘cablegate’ – meh. Being the sort that likes to look for silver linings, seems the most ‘useful’ part of the whole thing is that it fairly well serves to put the blade to quite a number of strident talking points and memes from all over the political spectrum, although that’s not really going to be acknowledged by anyone who has invested years in pushing view X, Y, or even Z, which may have just been deflated like a party balloon.

    As for this kid Manning that harvested the data and then released it – thanks for playing, and good luck spending the rest of your life in a SuperMax. His crime wasn’t so much being a traitor, as being a dumbass. It’s pretty much a hands down flag on his play, as he violated numerous contractual agreements he’d made to not do exactly what he did – and he doesn;t even get the rationalization pass, in that what he did wasn’t to expose some specific wrongdoing that gave him mental or moral qualms – it was simple foolish and malicious in nature.

    As for the hyperventilation about ‘damaging our national security’ – please. This is very low grade and extremely banal stuff. Embarrassing – to some, in that it puts their hypocrisy or inane drivel on display, to be sure, but so far, real short on anything of earth shaking significance.

    One more titillating twist in the divine comedy.

    1. You copied my thoughts and pasted them!

  37. Has anyone actually stated how, exactly, Wikileaks will harm American national security and put Americans in danger? I keep hearing people say that, but they’re surprisingly short on saying why.

    There’s nothing here that everybody didn’t already know.

  38. The moment the comment is “the government must do ___” is the moment that politicians should retire and commentators should be fired. Has anyone wondered why confidential data from huge businesses like Pepsi and Fox and Tyco is not widely available online? Because they secure it, that is why!! This is more and deeper incompetence by our government first and foremost. Where is the so called expert pointing this out?

  39. It used to take an Ayn Rand thread here to set off the retard alarms. I miss those more innocent days. Where did all the adults go?

  40. This is hilarious:

    http://www.listze.com/lists/Worst-Airports-in-the-World

    The second worst airpot in the world is USian (behind only Baghdad), and is the only “developed” country on the list.

    Sure, you’ll be able to stop Assange ANY day now!

    1. The detailed analysis and evidence presented really cements the relevance of this list!

    2. Apparently, the complexities of US politics confuse you, but you do know that Reason is a libertarian magazine right? That means Reason is pretty much on Assange’s side, not the side of the US government.

      1. We all look the same to him.

    3. Pasta with Turkey Bolognese

      1/2 lb. pancetta, finely diced
      1/4 cup finely chopped carrot
      1/4 cup finely chopped yellow onion
      1/4 cup finely chopped celery
      4 medium cloves garlic, minced
      1-1/2 tsp. fennel seed, lightly crushed
      1/4 to 1/2 tsp. crushed red pepper flakes
      One 28-oz. can diced tomatoes with juice
      1 cup dry white wine
      1 cup homemade turkey broth or lower-salt canned chicken broth
      1 cup whole milk
      1/2 cup packed flat-leaf parsley
      2 dried bay leaves
      Kosher salt
      4 cups medium-diced roast turkey
      1 lb. dried rigatoni or penne (or another sturdy pasta shape)

      ——————————————————————————–

      Heat a wide, heavy-duty 6- to 8-quart pot over medium heat. Add the pancetta and cook until its fat begins to render, 2 to 3 minutes. Add the carrot, onion, celery, and garlic and cook until the vegetables begin to brown, 4 to 6 minutes. Stir in the fennel seed and pepper flakes.

      Add the tomatoes and white wine. Boil for 2 to 3 minutes, then add the broth, milk, parsley, and bay leaves. Stir well, return to a boil, and season with a little salt. (Underseason, as the sauce will reduce and concentrate the salt.) Lower the heat to medium low and simmer until reduced by about one-third, 30 to 40 minutes.

      Add the turkey, raise the heat to medium, and bring to a boil. Reduce the heat to medium low and simmer until the flavors are fully developed and the sauce is thick and rich, 10 to 15 minutes. Discard the bay leaves and season to taste with salt.

      Cook the pasta in boiling salted water according to package directions; drain. Toss the pasta with the bolognese and serve.

      Serving Suggestions
      Serve with Garlic-Parmesan Bread.

    4. Pasta with Turkey Bolognese

      1/2 lb. pancetta, finely diced
      1/4 cup finely chopped carrot
      1/4 cup finely chopped yellow onion
      1/4 cup finely chopped celery
      4 medium cloves garlic, minced
      1-1/2 tsp. fennel seed, lightly crushed
      1/4 to 1/2 tsp. crushed red pepper flakes
      One 28-oz. can diced tomatoes with juice
      1 cup dry white wine
      1 cup homemade turkey broth or lower-salt canned chicken broth
      1 cup whole milk
      1/2 cup packed flat-leaf parsley
      2 dried bay leaves
      Kosher salt
      4 cups medium-diced roast turkey
      1 lb. dried rigatoni or penne (or another sturdy pasta shape)

      ——————————————————————————–

      Heat a wide, heavy-duty 6- to 8-quart pot over medium heat. Add the pancetta and cook until its fat begins to render, 2 to 3 minutes. Add the carrot, onion, celery, and garlic and cook until the vegetables begin to brown, 4 to 6 minutes. Stir in the fennel seed and pepper flakes.

      Add the tomatoes and white wine. Boil for 2 to 3 minutes, then add the broth, milk, parsley, and bay leaves. Stir well, return to a boil, and season with a little salt. (Underseason, as the sauce will reduce and concentrate the salt.) Lower the heat to medium low and simmer until reduced by about one-third, 30 to 40 minutes.

      Add the turkey, raise the heat to medium, and bring to a boil. Reduce the heat to medium low and simmer until the flavors are fully developed and the sauce is thick and rich, 10 to 15 minutes. Discard the bay leaves and season to taste with salt.

      Cook the pasta in boiling salted water according to package directions; drain. Toss the pasta with the bolognese and serve.

      Serving Suggestions
      Serve with Garlic-Parmesan Bread.

      1. See that recipe’s so good it needed to be posted twice.

        And it’s just as relevant to this thread as the comment it was posted in reply to.

  41. Come now, WikiLeaks is just helping out Pres. Obama run “the most transparent administration in American history”(http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/change_has_come_to_whitehouse-gov/). That was what was promised after all, they should not be upset when it is delivered.

  42. They need to give Kristol a column like Larry King or Andy Rooney, where he just writes meandering crap like, “You know else needs to be harassed, snatched and neutralized? My next-door neighbor, whose fence is three-quarters of an inch across my property line. And don’t get me started on kids with baggy pants. Why can’t the government destroy these punks?”

  43. This isn’t about leaks per se. Every administration uses leaks to help shape their arugment.

    There is much ado about nothing. The leaker is in custody, and will probably see a life sentence.

    Focusing thier attack on Wikileaks is just a way to take the light off themselves. They don’t want to point the finger at the military for all it’s failure to properly secure their documents. The leaker is in custody and will proabably get a life sentence.

    Perhaps the biggest embarrsement of all is that an Army PFC was singing Lady Gaga songs while stealing the data.

  44. For an outright call for assassination, take a peek at this article by John Hawkins at the small government, liberty loving Townhall magazine.

    http://townhall.com/columnists…..an_assange

    1. Huck called for the execution of the leaker too. If this was exposing memos showing the Obama Administration had the CIA assassinate right wing activists, is there any doubt all these same people would say that the person is a hero for exposing the crime?

      1. Bad analogy. The leaks do not show evidence for an equivalent level of evil being perpetrated by the US government.

        1. How is it a bad analogy just because it hasn’t happened yet? That doesn’t mean it isn’t coming or this illegal theft of information will not turn up such crimes. They have 250,000 documents which they are only a fraction of the way through. And it might unveil plenty of equivalent evil on other countries’ hands like China or Russia, which you’d think would be something conservatives would be happy to know about.

          Would you rather just stay in the dark?

  45. “Die in a fire, Kristol” would just be good, responsible, mainstream commentary with a very small change of wording: “Be neutralized in a fire, Kristol.”

    Easy!

    This is all I want for Christmas.

  46. I’m not worried: I’m sure the teabaggers will ride to the rescue!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.