Top Leaderboard, Site wide
January 30, 2015
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!

The Collapse of Europe?

Melting Away

Truthdig Bazaar
Intellectuals and Society

Intellectuals and Society

By Thomas Sowell

more items

Print this item

Thank God for the Whistle-Blowers

Posted on Jul 27, 2010
Lew and Mullen
AP / Maya Alleruzzo

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Jacob Lew, left, and Adm. Mike Mullen at a press conference in Baghdad, Iraq, on Tuesday. Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters he was “appalled” by the leak and “there is a real potential threat there to put American lives at risk.”

Q & A - Live Chat with Robert Scheer

A live Q & A session related to this column took place on July 29, 2010 at 11:00 am PT.

Click here to view the transcript.

By Robert Scheer

What WikiLeaks did was brilliant journalism, and the bleating critics from the president on down are revealing just how low a regard they have for the truth. As with Richard Nixon’s rage against the publication of the Pentagon Papers, our leaders are troubled not by the prospect of these revelations endangering troops but rather endangering their own political careers. It is our president who unnecessarily sacrifices the lives of our soldiers and not those in the press who let the public in on the folly of the mission itself.

What the documents exposed is the depth of chicanery that surrounds the Afghanistan occupation at every turn because we have stumbled into a regional quagmire of such dark and immense proportions that any attempt to connect this failed misadventure with a recognizable U.S. national security interest is doomed. What is revealed on page after page is that none of the local actors, be they labeled friend or foe, give a whit about our president’s agenda. They are focused on prizes, passions and causes that are obsessively homegrown. 

Our fixation on al-Qaida has nothing to do with them. President Barack Obama’s top national security adviser admitted as much when he said last December that there were fewer than 100 of those foreign fighters left in Afghanistan. Those who do remain in the region are hunkered down in Pakistan, and as the leaked documents reveal, that nation is just toying with us by pretending to cooperate while its intelligence service continues to support our proclaimed enemies. As Gen. Stanley McChrystal made clear in his famous report, the battles in Afghanistan are tribal in nature and the agendas are local—be they about drugs, religion or the economic power of military blackmail. The documents contain a steady drumbeat of local hustles that are certainly deadly but rise to the level of a national security threat against the U.S. only when we insist on making their history our own.

It has ever been so with the Afghans, and our continued attempt to bend their passions to our purposes will always lead to horrid results. That is, in fact, just how their nation came to be the launching pad for the 9/11 attacks, which is the ostensible purpose of our occupation. We meddled in their history in a grand Cold War adventure to humble the Soviets by attacking the secular government in Kabul with which Moscow sided.

When presidential press secretary Robert Gibbs intones, “We are in this region of the world because of what happened on 9/11,” he is mouthing a dangerous half-truth. The opposite is the case: 9/11 happened because the U.S. was in the region, and not the other way around. Entanglement with Afghanistan has been based on a tissue of lies since day one, when Jimmy Carter first decided to throw in with the religious fanatics there, as current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates revealed in his 1996 memoir. Gates had served on Carter’s National Security Council and in his book exposed what the publisher touted as “Carter’s never-before revealed covert support to Afghan mujahedeen—six months before the Soviets invaded.”


Square, Site wide
Our government recruited terrorists from the Arab world to go to Afghanistan and fight in that holy war against godless communism with even greater enthusiasm during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, who proclaimed the Muslim fanatics “freedom fighters.” As the 9/11 Commission report stated, those freedom fighters included Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks.

Three years before that attack, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s national security adviser, was asked in an interview with Le Nouvel Observateur if he regretted “having given arms and advice to future terrorists,” and he answered: “What is most important to the history of the world? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”

One of Carter’s advisers back then was Richard Holbrooke, now Obama’s top civilian adviser on Afghanistan. Clearly he knows quite a bit about stirring up Muslims, and someone should ask him about the brilliant decision to give heat-seeking Stinger rockets to those same fanatics who then turned them against our side, according to the recently disclosed documents. They never learn. It was Holbrooke who helped design the Vietnam-era assassination programs exposed in the Pentagon Papers and now replicated in the Afghanistan documents.

Thanks to Daniel Ellsberg, who risked much to make the record of the Vietnam War public, we learned about the madness that Holbrooke and others were creating. We should be grateful to the whistle-blowers who gave us the Afghanistan war documents for once again letting us in on the sick joke that passes for U.S foreign policy.

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”

Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: WikiLeaks’ Afghan War Diary

Next item: Quack Medicine on Taxes

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By garth, August 2, 2010 at 7:32 am Link to this comment

What ardee and Diamond are doing is distracting the argument from a discussion of the WikiLeaks and how the government/Military/Media are having a damned of time trying to deal with it to a recap of ‘some old forgotten lore.’

I brought up the military brass’s latet twist (It’s not like Ellsberg’s Pentagon Papers.) trying to reduce their specious argument to reveal the contradiction at its base.

Are they saying Ellsberg’s Pentagon Papers were good because they revealed policiy lies or are they saying that WikiLeaks release are not good because they don’t reveal policy decisions?

Which is it?

They are clearly flummoxed and have no clear idea what they are saying and what it implies. 

Instead of thinking up your next barrage of cheap shots and child-like insults, get off your sanctimony and take a look at your military.

Andrew Bacevich’s latest book has ‘Permanent War’ in its title.  Instead of licking yourself like somebody’s self-satisfied pet cat, you should try a little honest examination of the current events.

Report this

By ardee, August 2, 2010 at 2:56 am Link to this comment

garth, August 1 at 9:58 pm

Did you have anything of a political nature to add to this political conversation? It seems you must target the individual, disparage the efforts of the generation that came after yours, even though, for the most part, ours was a far more active one politically. I do understand that Dr.King was a member of your own group ,and they fought in Korea, but what does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

The Silent Generation is a generation of people born in the United States between roughly 1923 and the early 1940s. Members of this generation experienced vast cultural shifts in the United States, and many of them struggled with conflicted morals, ideas, and desires. Some members of the Silent Generation claim that they are one of the least understood generations from the 20th century, perhaps because of the relatively small size of this generation.

Describing this generation as the “Silent Generation” is a bit of a misnomer. In fact, many revolutionary leaders in the civil rights movement came from the Silent Generation, along with a wide assortment of artists and writers who fundamentally changed the arts in America. The Beat Poets, for example, were members of the Silent Generation, as were Martin Luther King, Gloria Steinem, and many other notable agitators for change in the 20th century.

Report this
kulu's avatar

By kulu, August 1, 2010 at 9:24 pm Link to this comment

Go Right,

Perhaps we could forget whistle-blowing as a legal issue and, case by case, look it as a moral issue. Who is morally right, the administration and its secretive wars of occupation or the whistle blowers who expose some of the crimes committed by an out-of-control government.

If national security really was the issue and the government really was protecting its people against aggressors then I would support its efforts to quiet the whistle-blowers. Clearly this is not the case - the US is the aggressor doing the terrorizing on a large scale.

Report this

By ofersince72, August 1, 2010 at 9:09 pm Link to this comment

Your method of “slaying the dragon” is to keep voting
Democrats into office and that they will change the
“dragon slaying”.

  However, this theory has been proven to be inaccurate
on a million occasions since WWII.

Report this

By ofersince72, August 1, 2010 at 8:51 pm Link to this comment

That wasn’t a war.  It was the takover of colonialization from one imperialist nation, to another.
The former so devestated and bandrupt from WWII , they
couldn’t afford it anymore, so the later imperialist
nation said “go away,  I will dominate them for now”

  So it was an invasion and occupation of a nation
of good people and their resistance.

Call it war if you care…...I don’t…................

Report this

By ofersince72, August 1, 2010 at 8:47 pm Link to this comment

It appears that you are trying to blame the

  genocide in Viet Nam on Republicans Diamond.

  Certainly not huh?

Report this

By ofersince72, August 1, 2010 at 8:41 pm Link to this comment

You, like others on Truth Dig Diamond, put words in
my mouth that I did not say.

  But I know your motivations,  good try, won’t work
with you either.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Report this

By diamond, August 1, 2010 at 8:13 pm Link to this comment

For God’s sake, Garth, read a book: firstly a history book focusing primarily on the Vietnam war and the anti war movement and secondly a dictionary so you can look up ‘reactionary’. Reactionaries are people who react against and dismantle progressive polices- you know, people like Dick Cheney and George Bush 1 and 2 and Ronnie Raygun. I have never tried to dismantle a progressive policy in my life: quite the opposite.

And ofersince 72, your suggestion that to end imperialism and war and to close down the meat grinder we should all just throw so much meat in that it chokes is almost the most deluded thing I’ve read in years. Yes, feed the dragon lots and lots of virgins- that’ll make him go away. Like hell.

Report this

By ofersince72, August 1, 2010 at 6:09 pm Link to this comment

Diamond, you make my point,

In order to get widespread public support against U.S.
imperialism , aggresion , and genocide,  we need a draft.

Otherwise, Americans are not concerned with the criminal
activity of our government.

Report this

By garth, August 1, 2010 at 5:58 pm Link to this comment

ardee and Diamond once again, like Pavlov’s dogs you react and come out gnashing teeth.  I think they call it reactionary. 

Thanks for the warning of Diamond’s slapping me silly.  Saves me the time of reading it.  You and he are so doctrinaire in your approach to almost every issue brought up that you could ‘can’ your responses ans sell them at rallies where they’d be discarded with the rest of signage and ‘stuff’.

To set you straight I am from the Silent Generation, just before the Baby Boomers.  I was born before your pig-sized and narcissistic batch came down the pike.  I heard it compared to an anaconda swallowing a pig, leaving less and less to go around, hence the acquisitive and wasteful nature of your brood.

You should try exercise.  Work off that extra lard and calm down.

I am sure that no wars and no draft will be enacted or stopped as a result of what is said here.  So take it easy.  You’ll live longer.

Report this

By DBM, August 1, 2010 at 4:23 pm Link to this comment

Go Right,

I think you are a little caught up in your pre-disposed interpretation of intent which is that I agree with leaks when they suit my “causes” and disagree when they don’t.  What I’ve been trying to point out is something distinctly different which is that those in power need to be held to account.  We are fully in agreement about that; checks and balances and so forth.  The difference in our positions is only subtle in that you are saying that when policy is working against us we need to wait for the next election to fix it.  I am saying that elections are not much use if voters have insufficient or even incorrect information about their choices.  They are also of limited value if all the available choices are dominated by interests working to the detriment of the people.

The answer to this dilemma is the spread of information by those NOT in power about the powerful.  Do I always agree with positions of those not in power?  Of course not; but to steal from the famous quote, I strongly support their right to have and to speak about those positions.  I take as an example the poor schmuck who was set up on The Daily Show last week regarding his homophobic spiel that Fascists are most homosexuals (  He’s an idiot, but perfectly within his rights to publish and give away his books.

I hear your concerns about leaking things military (and presumably regarding military/government intelligence):

“It’s almost certain many people will die as a direct result of this information being released.  Right cause or not. 
If it turns out the way you hope, or it blows up completely, the “Leakers” will be those solely responsible for the information released.  No?”

However, I disagree on two points implicit in what you say.  Firstly, for your concern to be an issue:

a)  The “enemy” (whoever that is) must be currently unaware of U.S. tactics and operations despite living with them for years, and
b)  They must have the ability to react and do something about their new knowledge which will enable them to be more deadly than previously.

I’m not sure that either of those factors are even likely to be true but I’ll grant you that it is a concern that should be taken into account.

The second point you make though is more troubling if I understand you correctly.  I think you are saying that good outcomes or bad the “Leakers” will be solely responsible.  Let’s look at that. 

In the event of a “good” outcome ... let’s say disentanglement of the U.S. or even peace in Afghanistan.  To say that this would have come about solely due to these leaks is clearly an inadequate analysis and there would have to be a myriad of more meaningful factors.  Let’s say a groundswell of public opinion, political activism, positive media commentary, decicated political leaders and a military which acts as a policy instrument rather than to their own agenda.

In the event of a “bad” outcome ... let’s say an increase in the success of Taliban fighters or a break-down of U.S.-Pakistani relations.  This would be due to the leakers?  Not the double dealing Pakistani government or ISI?  Not the Taliban themselves?  Not any of the actors in perpetrating crimes which may come to light?  Really??  Doesn’t that sound a bit like shooting the messenger?

I think, as in the other examples I’ve been discussing of whistle-blowers, shooting the messenger has been the usual practice ... and I don’t see that having a good long term outcome at all.  Moreover, I think it would be anathema to the Founding Fathers whose ideals all Americans purport to believe in.  It is harder to stick to ideals when they might work against your immediate interests a little.

Report this

By ardee, August 1, 2010 at 4:20 pm Link to this comment

garth, August 1 at 3:02 pm #

My last conjecture was an afterthought, and your opinion is one way of looking at it.  Maybe a little self-congratulatory nostalgia for baby boomers and activists of the time. 

I think Diamond rather eloquently slapped you silly for your rather sophomoric seeming dismissal of my own generations attempts to save your little ass from wearing kakhi. I , myself, am far too busy working now to think much about the protest movement of the sixties and seventies or my earlier excursion into Southeast Asia that led directly to my involvement in the peace movement upon my return.

Of course we come to where we are because of where we’ve been, so maybe those rock concerts, raves or whatever kept you too busy to engage in your civic responsibilities, or maybe you are just content to let “grandpa” do it because he did it before.

Not that you aren’t entitled to your own opinion of course. But my sarcastic response ( and that of Diamond as well) would certainly have had no need to see the light of day had you demonstrated both an absent maturity and a bit of respect for the opinions of those who have done this before and continue to do it now, without much damn help from your generation as yet.

Here’s hoping that further exchanges between us will be conducted on a higher plane….

Report this

By diamond, August 1, 2010 at 4:03 pm Link to this comment

Ofersince72 that is manifestly untrue. In 2003 long before the global financial crisis literally millions of people marched all over the world against the invasion of Iraq. I know it may not have featured prominently on Fucks News or any other propaganda media outlets but that’s the fact. Of course it had no effect because the Fascists had started planning the invasion of Iraq in the early nineties and as Dick Cheney always said, ‘You have to go where the oil is’. What has prevented a widespread radicalizing of Americans and a large, well organized movement against these wars is the fact that there is no draft. If there was, all hell would have broken loose long ago which is why the Fascists won’t touch conscription with a ten foot pole.What conscription does is cause those being drafted to see that the war is not in their interest and to make common cause with those being invaded, murdered and occupied and you can see how that would be a distinct negative for the Fascists’ agenda.

Report this

By ofersince72, August 1, 2010 at 2:03 pm Link to this comment

It is like the Aztec thing Rico….

There is only one historical account , Cortez’s

Everyone one in the world took his account about
mass human sacrifice practice.

I don’t believe it, and this belief is just as valid
as your belief that it occurred.

Report this

By ofersince72, August 1, 2010 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment

That being said diamond, and well said by you,

the anti-draft protests did bring out the self interest
of that movement.

It did not stop American imperialistic adventures and
there was little protest.

If economic conditions were better in the U.S today,
there would be little to none anti-war dialogue.

Report this

By diamond, August 1, 2010 at 1:28 pm Link to this comment

Yes, just imagine it Garth: conscription is introduced leading to rioting in the streets and civil disobedience on an unimaginable scale. That kind of thing makes ‘lawmakers’ toss and turn in their sleep at night. And you should have more respect for your elders. The baby boomers you despise so much put their lives and their bodies on the line so that the fascists who run your country and your military would never again dare to conscript people in the prime of life and send them against their will to be mangled or killed in some foreign swamp in a war that serves no purpose except to make trillions for the corporations. They would never dare introduce conscription, not because the Congress wouldn’t enthusiastically vote for it, being the stooges they are, but because the people just wouldn’t allow it and there would be massive social dislocation and political upheaval. With two lost wars on their hands, trillions wasted and war crimes to justify the military industrial complex doesn’t need rioting, civil disobedience and draft card burning as well. Whatever slurs are cast at the generation who resisted the draft, no one can say that wasn’t a battle worth fighting - and winning. And they did win for which the generations that came after should be grateful, but human nature being what it is, instead we have your sneering contempt for what they did.People who go to war like sheep are not heroes but people who go to war with the war machine are.

Report this

By glider, August 1, 2010 at 11:27 am Link to this comment

One of the important stories coming out of the Wikileaks Afghan War Diary, irresponsibly dismissed by American MSM, is the documentation of lies and distortion propagated by the U.S. Military in reporting incidents to cover-up bad behavior and promote their military adventurism.  This is widely apparent and accepted regarding the history of Vietnam, but is not a narrative in American MSM, who are complicit in communicating this propaganda.  Some of the best analysis of the contents in the leaks I have found so far is by the UK Guardian.

An example here:

While the lies and distortion are surely nothing new they are having a big ongoing negative impact on our policy decisions.  For those who justify the war as an event being executed on our behalf by democratically elected representatives you need to ask yourself how that can work if the voter is deliberately misinformed by a group with no accountability (admittedly I make the false assumption that we are a peoples representative democracy for the sake of this argument).

Report this

By garth, August 1, 2010 at 11:02 am Link to this comment

My last conjecture was an afterthought, and your opinion is one way of looking at it.  Maybe a little self-congratulatory nostalgia for baby boomers and activists of the time. 
Another bigger reason why that war fell apart was the military brass lost control of its army.  Fragging had risen dramatically.  Newly trained officers were completely incompetent in taking control of group of men in a fire fight.  Drug use was epidemic.  Vietnamese were offering Army grunts escape to another life if they just dropped their weapons and went with them.

Noam Chomsky pointed out that as far as destruction was concerned, the US won the war around 1966 or 67.  They could’ve pressured for peace then.  I think the war machine wanted to empty its inventory and try out new weapons.

But the point I was trying to make is that Army brass might not have changed much in 40 years. They’re still as bone headed as ever. 

The psychologists are no doubt trying to implement solutions to their new dilemma, suicides.  For increasing the ranks, they can raise the flag a little higher amidst cheering Americans after another so-called terrorsist attack and follow-up with whatever they want to do.

With the dumbing down of the American youth, a draft is by no means out of the question.

Report this

By ardee, August 1, 2010 at 10:28 am Link to this comment

Next will come the Draft card with biometrics.  They’ll need to reintroduce a draft if they continue with all the wars they have planned.  At least, they will be able to keep track of the young draft age men and women.

I believe this assumption forgets the simple reason why we have had no draft since Vietnam. A draft involves all American families in the war de jour, thus, as we saw in Vietnam, everyone has a personal reason for involvement in the war. Currently, most families , especially middle class and above, have no personal stake in said war aside from whatever conscience they might retain.

I believe the lack of said draft is a very intentional mechanism for the avoidance of massive anti-war demonstrations. We see the recruitment of foreign nationals with the offer of citizenship for service as a specific way to fill the ranks sans a draft.

Report this

By garth, August 1, 2010 at 8:54 am Link to this comment

Now, the government, military and media know-it-alls are comparing the WikiLeaks with the Pentagon Papers. 

They go on.  The Pentagon Papers revealed policy lies told to Americans by lying governments, whereas, the WikiLeaks reveal mundane reports—nothing new here.

(As if these people were staunch supporters of Dr. Daniel Ellsberg and would’ve supported the leaks if they revealed government and military lies.)

One thing seems clear from the news, and that is that there is no clear policy.  The government learned something:  Don’t be clear about reasons for going to war.  In fact, at some point during the length of the war say Everything, so you can’t be pinned down. 

It was the birthplace of 9/11.  It’s a stronghold for Al Queada.  It’s being tyrranized by the Taliban.  It’s be supported by Pakistan.

And recently, on Time magazine, we are over there fighting for a young Afghan girls nose.  I was wondering when the picture of a little Afghan girl was going to be inserted in the argument. 

Could she be like the Bush Kuwaiti girl that told a yarn to get the Americans up in arms? 

Did Mullins, Jones, Petraeus, McChrystal and Mattis make it to the top in our military under the force of sheer stupidity?

Next will come the Draft card with biometrics.  They’ll need to reintroduce a draft if they continue with all the wars they have planned.  At least, they will be able to keep track of the young draft age men and women.

The biometric Social Security card will come also.

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, August 1, 2010 at 8:49 am Link to this comment

This fine column was published today at the famed libertarian website,

Robert Scheer is right about Wikileaks. The US military industrial complex is afraid of one thing and one thing only: the truth getting out.

The Mainstream Media (CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox etc.) give us pretty pictures of happy Muslim women in Afghanistan, finally allowed to go shopping or go to school.

Wikileaks gives us un-pretty pictures of our heroic warriors machine-gunning civilians, and laughing about it.

For the Military Industrial Complex, the truth is the enemy. If enough people see the truth, and are outraged by it, the game is up. The gazillion dollar contracts in stolen loot (stolen either directly, via taxation, or indirectly, via inflation/counterfeiting) will disappear.

The truth, at all costs, must be suppressed.

Yet another proof of the Founder’s wisdom in articulating the original American foreign policy:
“friendly commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none,” and “stay out of foreign wars.”

Report this
M Henri Day's avatar

By M Henri Day, August 1, 2010 at 7:02 am Link to this comment

I am not at all certain that the available evidence permits so drastic a conclusion as that Wikileaks is a Mossad/CIA operation and Mr Assange one of their creatures ; however, as noted previously, it is of no little interest that these documents were first released to well-known corporate print media like the Guardian, der Spiegel, and the New York Times. My conclusion is that these organs represent a faction among our political and media elite which has concluded that the war on Afghanistan is not going well for the invaders from the United States and Europe (including, I regret to report, my own country, Sweden) - a conclusion which will be shared, I suspect, by most readers on this site - which deprives this elite of the ability to use these expensive military establishments for other purposes and in other conflicts. An example of the purposes and conflicts which our rulers may have in mind can be seen from this Washington Post article : . Note also the increasing US belligerence with respect to China : . I deem it rather unlikely that, in the event US troops are, indeed, withdrawn from Afghanistan, they will be coming home ; instead they seem destined for yet another war of aggression, this time against Iran. That, I suspect, is the meaning of the Wikileaks papers….


Report this

By white noise, August 1, 2010 at 5:46 am Link to this comment

Hence this analysis that would explain a few things &
fill in a few holes too…


War by means of deception hey wink

Report this

By tropicgirl, August 1, 2010 at 4:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think ever since Clinton, if it were up to the elites, and the plans for a unified
governance of the world, Pakistan is already history. India will just be the ones to
do it, eventually. They never wanted it to begin with, just to use to foment more
fear and a convenient source for nuclear war.

These are things I hope, fight and pray never happen, nevertheless…

Report this

By Sodium-Na, August 1, 2010 at 2:05 am Link to this comment

I wonder if anyone else beside Chris Hedges has addressed or rather exposed the CAUSE behind the double dealing of Pakistan in the war in Afghanistan!

In his column entitled “War Without Purpose”,published more than a year ago,July 20,2009,Chris Hedges wrote:


The Taliban,in Pakistan’s eyes,is not only an effective weapon to defeat foreign invaders,whether Russian or American but is a bulwark against India. Muslim radicals in Kabul are never going to build an alliance with India against Pakistan. And India,not Afghanistan,is Pakistan’s primay concern. Pakistan,no matter how many billions we give to it,will always nurture and protect the Taliban,which it knows is going to inherit Afghanistan. And the government’s well-publicized battle with the Taliban in the Swat Vally of Pakistan,rather than a new beginning,is part of a choreographed charade that goes nothing to break the unholly alliance.


To be fair,the following points may be of help for understanding the dilemma in which Pakistan has found itself struggling with in a real messy war it did not start nor would it serve its own best interest:

~ The war in Afghanistan has placed Pakistan between a hammer and real hard place.

~ The hammer is the United States of America.

~ The hard place is the Taliban,with India is the essential constant in the equation that yet to be resolved,precisely as Hedges has clearly spelled out in his column,“War Without Purpose” which he wrote one year and 11 days up today.

It seems to me that Hedges has proven once more that he is,as always,ahead of his time,in his splended weekly analysis.

Since I did not read the 92,000 pages of leak,(I have no intention of reading them),I did not know whether or not this enormous number of pages had touched Pakistan’s worry about India,as the real CAUSE behind its double dealing with the United States and the Taliban.

It seems to me that the importance of India in the equation of the war cannot be overestimated,as far as Pakistan’s long term interest is concerned.

Report this

By ofersince72, August 1, 2010 at 12:11 am Link to this comment

The Democrat Party leadership will continue to have

about 100 to 120 of their lawmakers vote positive on

progressive looking legislation using the republican

vote to knock down this type of legislation in order to

make it “appear” that their are some “progressive”

lawmakers within the Democrat Party.

  This isn’t a new tactic….folks…..............

GET USED TO A U S T E R I T Y ! ! ! ! ! !

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, August 1, 2010 at 12:07 am Link to this comment

For forty years or so, “classified” documents
consist of information that “military personages” do
not want the general public to know,
and for a combination of stupid reasons. 
The hierarchy
of “secretive” provides a “pecking order” within the
chain of command. Most such “classified” information
was fed upon by public news agencies before they
were taken over by the industrial/military-
propaganda machine.

Prior to the New World Order, introduced by GHWBSr.,
whom Hitlers last bodyguard, LTC Otto Skorzeny said
was Georg H. Scherf, Jr., a NAZI spy from a little
burg S.E. of Leipzig, many things in the U.S. and
the western world, were quite different.

When hundreds of family histories were altered in
Germany, and U.S. NAZI-types such as Allen Dulles
falsified passports for Werner von Braun and a total
of almost two thousand such types in order to admit
Werner von Braum and cronies into the US scientist
network, the denigration of the U.S. was well under

The “current” release of a few thousand “documents” which,
prior to 1960, would have been published, journalist-
provided, information, is of value only because the
authority of the suppressive U.S. “system-in-power”
has been overrun.

The FBI published a detailed document via the U.S.
Government Printing Office, about thirty years ago,
hundreds of which were mailed around the world and
copied, copied, copied, which provided detailed
information on how to make home-made bombs.
The document was not classified.

All foreign intelligence services, that give a rat´s
ass about quasi-useless information, are aware - in
detail - of the debauchery of the U.S. military
around the world.

It is only the U.S. Citizenry that is not informed,
and actively “kept in the dark”. 
By the progeny of Georg H. Scherf Jr., NAZI-types.

Report this

By ofersince72, August 1, 2010 at 12:04 am Link to this comment

The United States House of Representatives.

Just voted down a bill that would have provided health
care for the ones that they have always used to provide
them with great media points,  the “heroes” of 9/11 as
they called the first responders such as the Fire Fighters
and the Police Officers of New York City.

  IF anyone who is still ignorant enough to believe
that congressional lawmakers give a rat’s ass about you,
the ones that died in the twin towers, or the “HERO”
responders, must have the same agenda, profiting from
the same destrution as them and the managers of our
War For Profit industries.

  This is yet just another AUSTERITY PROGRAM for
AMERICANS being imposed on us by International Inverstors
using their blackmailed and money hungry lawmaker friends.
  These Austerity Programs are going to keep coming.
I will continue to call them by their proper name.
$9 billion for Pakistan…..Nada for responders
$50 billion for more war Afghan.  nada for responders
  and on and on and on…

There are many Americans that hid forty years in the
wilderness, wondering what has happened.

Now waking up too late,  they own us now ,
get used to it.  We are no more than a Bananna Republic
to them.  They own our debt and they own us just as we
watched them do to other countries with the same debt.

  The Absurd conversation about Fox News stands out
as an example of how we got here without much public
concern.  The sensationalist network serves that purpose
of creating a meaningful looking difference with the
MSMs, making the appearence of the more “serious” look
And gives food for the culture of populace that might
buy the National Inquirer,  or read some poporatzi
article about a Hollywood bimbo.

Report this

By Sodium-Na, August 1, 2010 at 12:04 am Link to this comment

Yes,Mr.Robert Scheer,you are correct when you said:

Our government recruited terrorists from the Arab world to go and fight in that holy war against godless communism with even greater enthusiasm during the presidency of Ronald Reagan who proclaimed the Muslim fanatics “freedom fighters”.


However,the recruits from the Arab world were not called “terrorists” then. They were called the “Afghan Arabs” by the CIA and their Afghani comrades. President Reagan called them,as you said,“freedom fighters”.

Amazing!! is not it,sir? from “Afghan Arabs” and “freedom fighters” to “terrorists” labels!!

Report this

By diamond, July 31, 2010 at 11:20 pm Link to this comment

You’re absolutely right, glider. I live in universe where truth matters. You live in a universe where any old lie will do as long as it makes you feel superior and safe. ‘Safe’ is, of course, a relative concept when your government has been taken over by corporate Fascists who control the military.

Report this

By ofersince72, July 31, 2010 at 11:07 pm Link to this comment

I very much doubt anymore deaths than normal
because of wikileaks.

  The death machince will roll on business as usual.
The will continue change the definition of who the
“enemy” is.

  Americans will continue with their detached concern.
Innocent woman will continue to get raped and murdered
by mercenaries and U.S. troops.

Report this

By samosamo, July 31, 2010 at 10:21 pm Link to this comment


Simple, the criminals profiting from all of the illegal wars are the
people associated with the military industrial congressional
financial complex and they are pissed that even so not so
‘secretly classified’ documents have been distributed around the
world that reflects exactly how the above ‘complex’ views and
treats is own citizens and the rest of the world as the suckers
and prey that they use them for in their quest for benefits
befitting of a king and the aristocracy they believe themselves to
be, and all sitting in the right hand of dog almighty.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, July 31, 2010 at 6:27 pm Link to this comment


I think I understand.  I asked this question:

When does it become acceptable to steal secret documents and release them to the world? “When it suites Richard Cheney?  Or Barack Obama.  Is it acceptable if it benefits the BBC or Rush Limbaugh?”

You answered:

“My response was to draw the distinction between the kind of leaks WikiLeaks is set-up to publicise and the “leaks” that those in power use to their advantage.”

As I wrote prior it seems to always come down to individual perspective. Yes?  The Right Cause or Agenda, so to speak.  You wish to save lives.  Believe me, so do I.  Desperately.  As many as possible.

Correct me if I’m wrong. You’ve basically intimated that declassifying and releasing information is less acceptable when coming from the government when you are opposed to that particular policy e.g. Afghanistan/Pakistan. Yes?  From your point of view it’s acceptable, in this case, if the information being released appears to aid your desired goals.  Yes?

I’m not saying we do not agree on several of your Af/Pak concerns, I’m saying let’s get to the bottom line on what we’re talking about.  Agreed?

You expand your answer:

“There is the small chance that these leaks will change the course of the Afghan conflict and save many many lives ... not to mention the solvency of the U.S. government.”

Right.  On the small chance that the release of this information aids in the Correct Cause, in this case our cause, the probability that many people will die as a direct result is acceptable.  Yes? 

If I have mischaracterized this in any way I’m listening.  It seems to me there are just no black and white answers to this situation.

I remain sincerely concerned about the process.


I was wrong.  The more I read these documents the more it becomes clear the nature of much of the stolen material.  This information has a great deal more depth than I realized at first reading.  The world is now seeing in-depth, day to day, NATO military procedures and tactics broadcast to all enemies across the globe.  We can be certain that NATO Commanders and troops are rightfully concerned.

I have decided this is not a brilliant event.  And I still believe this information may well produce quite the opposite effect you and others, or even myself, desire.

It’s almost certain many people will die as a direct result of this information being released.  Right cause or not. 

If it turns out the way you hope, or it blows up completely, the “Leakers” will be those solely responsible for the information released.  No?

Report this

By glider, July 31, 2010 at 4:27 pm Link to this comment


I have clearly afforded you too much respect.  I see no reason to continue to reason with the unreasonable.  We live on different planets and I will just let you continue to masturbate without interference.  No doubt it feels good to you.

Cheers “Bro”

Report this

By DBM, July 31, 2010 at 4:18 pm Link to this comment

Ok Go Right, by using the Plame example I may have strayed from my point!  What I was commenting on was the application of the “Nation of Laws” idea to this and other leaks.  You have rightly pointed out that some secrets are kept for good reasons and that harm can be done.  You then asked when it would be Ok to contravene laws ...

“When it suites Richard Cheney?  Or Barack Obama.  Is it acceptable if it benefits the BBC or Rush Limbaugh?”

My response was to draw the distinction between the kind of leaks WikiLeaks is set-up to publicise and the “leaks” that those in power use to their advantage.  This is a useful distinction which I think we agree on.  The remaining question then is if ALL leaks by whistle-blowers are good things.  I would agree that the consequences of these things are not always good but, getting back to the Nation of Laws, they are always illegal it seems. 

The case of Bradley Birkenfeld is one of the most egregious examples I can think of.  How on earth is it good for the U.S. public to have mega-wealthy U.S. citizens illegally withholding taxes with the help of a German bank?  And yet, the only person in the scenario who has been punished is Birkenfeld himself.  This is the extreme case.

The recent release of documents is not so clearly advantageous to all (legally acting) parties.  But, I would argue, the release of the helicopter murder video was since the only people directly hurt by it would be people who have committed a criminal act (if anyone were to follow through).  There is the small chance that these leaks will change the course of the Afghan conflict and save many many lives ... not to mention the solvency of the U.S. government.

So, my argument was that the laws you say need to be considered are rigged against whistle-blowers.  There has been discussion of “whistle-blower protection” but no signs of it in action.  If the over-used adage “sunlight is the best disinfectant” has any validity that is something which ought to change.

Viva la Wistle-Blowers!  A vote that Mr Scheer is more right than he is wrong on this one.

Report this

By diamond, July 31, 2010 at 2:53 pm Link to this comment

I’m beginning to think English is your second language, Glider. Where did I say I didn’t believe it was a shock doctrine scenario? Of course it was but if it was the shock doctrine in play then it was a conspiracy that ended in a perverted form of coup. And isn’t that what you’re trying to deny?  The 9/11 Commission was set up specifically not to find the truth. It was a whitewash put together by Phillip Zelikow to do its utmost not to find any fact or put any fact in the final 9/11 Commission Report that came anywhere near the truth or reflected badly on the Bush administration, who were of course in the coup up to their necks. Gore Vidal calls the Bush crew ‘the junta’- and that’s what they were because they rigged the election that put them in the white house prior to staging their shock and awe event.

As for the yellowcake fairytale: if there had been one ounce of truth in that allegation, Dick Cheney would not have gone after Joe Wilson’s wife the way he did. Joe Wilson told the truth about that propaganda, because Wilson could see how the lie (the ‘smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud’) was going to be used to take America into an unnecessary and futile war and if there’s one thing lying, murdering, anarchists like the neo cons can’t stand it’s someone telling the truth and revealing them for what they are: Fascists.

These are some of the lies catalogued (he found 100) by David Ray Griffin in his book ‘The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions’.

1. The omission of the fact that the publicly released passenger manifests have no Arab names on them. (23)

2.The omission of the fact that Larry Silverstein had admitted that he and the fire department commander decided to ‘pull’ i.e. ‘blow up’ building number 7(28).

3.The fact that Rudy Giuliani stated that he had received word that the World Trade Centre was going to collapse when the fire department disagreed (30-31).

4.The fact that the damage to the Pentagon was inconsistent with it being hit by a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

5.The fact that Donald Rumsfeld (the compulsive ‘truth teller’) had referred to ‘the missile used to damage (the Pentagon)’ (39).

6.The fact that the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for air force one after the WTC had been hit (43-46).

7.The fact that the 9/11 Commission claimed that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9.20 am on 9/11 even though a memo from Laura Brown of FAA says that a teleconference was established at about 8.50 and that it included a discussion of flight 175’s hijacking (83-84).

8.The fact that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military’s radar (191-192).

9.The fact that the military claimed not to have been told by the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was hit (204-212).

10.The claim that Jane Garvey, head of the FAA, did not join Richard Clarke’s videoconference until 9.30 am, after the Pentagon was hit (210).

11.The omission of all the evidence indicating that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-225).

12.The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony given to the Commission that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9.26 am that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).

13.The omission of all evidence that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-239).

14.The omission of Richard Clarke’s testimony which suggests he received the shoot down authorization (Flight 93) by 9.50 am. (240)

15.The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base kept several fighters on alert at all times (162-164).

And Wikileaks has nothing to with Israel (as if!). Nice try.

Report this
M Henri Day's avatar

By M Henri Day, July 31, 2010 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment

Once again, «Bluebird1938» you fail to understand : referring to the criminal acts committed by the US government in its wars of aggression abroad by their right names does, quite contrary to what you claim, contribute in its own small way towards bringing those wars to an end - were the people of the United States to realise what is going on in their name, the government would have to put a stop to it. But not unnaturally, so-called «realists» - who don’t seem to care to stand behind their postings with their own names - can’t be expected to appreciate the utility of calling a spade a spade. Rather, such persons maintain that hiding the crimes committed by the Obama administration is necessary, so that it can withdraw from the morass for which it is responsible without losing face - and that, moreover, these crimes are not «real criminal acts» ; unlike those which have been committed by those who reveal what the administration has been up to ! Thus the whistle blower who reports the crime, becomes, in this perverted logic, the criminal, while the criminals become our saviours, working for our best behind the scenes. Most convincing !...

Rather than generalities, on which we are unlikely to agree, let us now turn to concrete matters : you claim that «the UN has sanctioned armed intervention in both Iraq and Afghanistan». perhaps you could specify - with a link to the relevant text(s) just which UNO Security Council resolution(s) support such an interpretation ? There must have been a reason why the US, the UK, and Spain withdrew the draught resolution they had presented to the Security Council on 24 February 2003, which stated that «Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it resolution 1441» (note that the US State Department has removed the text of this draught from its web site), which could perhaps be interpreted as implying a sanction for «military intervention» (otherwise known as «war») - what do you, wise in the way of the world as you no doubt are, suppose that reason was ? With regard to Afghanistan, the relevant Security Council resolutions - 1378, adopted on 14 November 2001, more than a month after the start of the US attack on Afghanistan, and 1383, adopted three weeks later, on 6 December 2001, do not even mention the attack, much less sanction it. First two years later, on 13 October 2003, did the Council «[a]uthorize ... expansion of the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force to allow it, as resources permit, to support the Afghan Transitional Authority and its successors in the maintenance of security in areas of Afghanistan outside of Kabul and its environs». I maintain that under these circumstances, members of both the Bush/Cheney and Obama administrations with regard to Iraq and the former with regard to Afghanistan could very well be subject to indictment for crimes against the peace, as mentioned in my previous posting. It will not, of course, be juridical arguments before the Security Council which will determine whether US government officials are indicted by the International Criminal Court, but rather the political, economic, and not least, military power which that government possesses. Perhaps our task is to work to see that these officials can no longer enjoy impunity for the wars of aggression they have started. Of course, to a realistic strategist like yourself, all this is mere «bombast». But as Samuel Longhorne Clemens noted, «it is difference of opinion that makes horse races»....


Report this

By white noise, July 31, 2010 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment



Report this
Blueboy1938's avatar

By Blueboy1938, July 31, 2010 at 12:18 pm Link to this comment

All very interesting, M Henri Day, but the UN has sanctioned armed intervention
in both Iraq and Afghanistan, thus nullifying any “war crimes” actions.

Let’s be real, folks, the Obama administration needs to have a justification for
removing US troops from the current war zones.  It will not do so if the
situation in those countries continues to be dire.  It won’t happen!

The very real criminal acts that will very likely lead to very real death and
torture of intelligence “assets” - that is, actual human beings who cooperated in
the war effort and whose names were not redacted as Wikileaks professed, but
failed, to do - and that will set the NATO effort in Afghanistan backward will
have very real consequences:  Extending the conflict and delaying withdrawal.

Bombast about supposed - or even actual - “criminal acts” on the part of
persons in power will have zero impact on terminating the war.  Didja notice
how effective it was with Bush/Cheney?  All it does is provide an opportunity for
“self abuse”, to use the quaint medical dictionary term for it, and clog the
bloggesphere with pointless, impotent invective.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, July 31, 2010 at 11:04 am Link to this comment

DBM. - “I just can’t see how using a “leak” to destroy a person’s career is akin to blowing the whistle on torture, powerful banks manipulating the government or large scale tax cheating by the mega-wealthy.”


Hey, you brought up Cheney/Wilson/Plame.  I never equated these issues with the most recent leaking of information…(Smile) did.

BTW.  Richard Armitage is on record as not caring much for Richard Cheney.  These two were never in cahoots.  In fact, according to Armitage, the two men were diametrically opposed on matters of WMD in Iraq.


You ask: “are you saying Hussein WAS sourcing Yellowcake from Africa???”

Not at all.  I was referring to the CIA investigation and the CIA public release concerning Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger.

According to the CIA Joe Wilson had told them during Wilson’s debriefing that the former President of Niger, a personal friend to Wilson, had told him that he too had heard that members of Iraq’s Security Services had traveled to Niger inquiring about purchasing Yellow Cake - Just as the British Government insist, even today, is true.  The former Nigerian President could not say, however, whether those inquiries has produced results for them.

In Joe Wilson’s OP-ED he wrote that he “found no evidence” of Iraq attempting to purchase Yellow Cake from Niger.

Did Wilson lie to the CIA or was he, well, disingenuous in is OP-ED?  Or, conversely, did the CIA lie in their public release concerning the Wilson debriefing?


According to Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald it was Armitage who shared Plame’s name and CIA position with Robert Novak.  Not Vice President Cheney or I. Scooter Libby.  Many people, however, still seem not to know the final disposition of the Special Prosecutor’s investigation.

You believe people within the Bush Administration set out to “destroy” Plame’s career, however, according to Fitzgerald, Armitage, and Novak this was not the case.  According to all of the above Armitage was merely “gossiping” and, besides, Richard Armitage was certain that Wilson’s Wife’s CIA position was well known all over Washington.  How?  According to both Novak and Armitage Joe Wilson himself had openly and publicly talked about it many times before the whole “leak” episode.

I’ll let you decide who or which narrative to trust in.

Report this
tropicgirl's avatar

By tropicgirl, July 31, 2010 at 9:51 am Link to this comment

DBM hit on a total jewel, and if you can get your head around this, different
sort of Fascism, that is being developed around the world, I think it says a lot.

““The problem is not so much that government is “subservient” to corporate
power; it is more “infiltrated” with corporate power.”“

YES I AGREE… Its not that AT&T cooperates with the government. It IS the
government. Google didn’t just collaborate, it BECAME. Same with GE,
Raytheon, and so on. All the major corps and industries, and the international
banks, aligned with international forces, using the stock market and insurance
rackets, seem to be at the center. WWW means worldwide wiretap.

Facebook doesn’t just collaborate with the NSA, and whoever, it IS them.

That is the new structure. Now, consider it on an international level and you can
get a picture of what I suggest is going on. (From what I understand, Iceland is
the hope of the future, creating a real monetary system that serves its people
and stopping the association with this structure. Our hope should be that we
could some day do the same thing on a national level, like North Dakota has,
locally. Go Vikings!!! Buy Iceland stuff!!!)

Report this

By Cold Wind, July 31, 2010 at 9:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

But 911 was a Mossad ‘False Flag’ operation according to Andreas von Bulow, who served on the parliamentary commission which oversees the three branches of the German secret service while a member of the Bundestag (German parliament) from 1969 to 1994. Listen to Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former director of studies at the US Army War College says that the military brass now know the Mossad, Israel and rogue US elements did 911. Our entire post 911 response has been shaped to serve Israel and Israel alone. The FBI says they can’t link Osama bin Laden to 911 so why the author of this article give any credence to the official 911 narrative?

Report this

By DBM, July 31, 2010 at 9:20 am Link to this comment

Go Right,

Armitage, Libby, Addington ... all closely aligned with Cheney and part of the Project for the New American Century crowd.

I just can’t see how using a “leak” to destroy a person’s career is akin to blowing the whistle on torture, powerful banks manipulating the government or large scale tax cheating by the mega-wealthy.  One seems like a crude lazy way of dealing with an issue which could and should have been dealt with through official channels if, as you assert, Wilson had lied or mis-represented the truth (are you saying Hussein WAS sourcing Yellowcake from Africa???).  The others are cases where individuals have taken personal and/or professional risk to bring to light crimes which would otherwise go unnoticed and not get dealt with at all.  It is too bad that in all three of these cases, even with the truth or part of it brought to light, powerful interests were able to punish the whistleblowers and divert the attention of an easily led media and population from the actual crimes.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, July 31, 2010 at 8:56 am Link to this comment


A well reasoned post. Thank you.  However, we still disagree on much. smile


“Do you see how these people are more admirable than Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby?”

Honestly no.  I thought the Plame imbroglio was conclusive in that Richard Armitage leaked Valery Plame’s name and position to the media.

Also, did you happen to read the CIA investigative report which outlined how the things Joe Wilson told them during his debriefing was opposite of what he wrote in his, now infamous, OP-ED?

According to the CIA, Ms. Plames own team of investigators, Joe Wilson either lied to them or lied in his OP-ED.

Report this

By glider, July 31, 2010 at 8:26 am Link to this comment


>>You must be one of the only people in the world who can’t see that the 9/11 attacks have only benefited the neo cons, the Pentagon, the CIA and the arms corporations<<

Read my posts, I agree theses entities have exploited 911 for their benefit via a “shock doctrine” mechanism.

>>When a crime is committed it always helps to ask that simple question: who benefits?...A mosquito like Afghanistan would attack an elephant like America? ...How could that possibly be in their interest?

Actually an even smaller mosquito AQ has benefited.  As they have understandably declared they are fighting jihad to get the infidels out of their lands.  America has not been defeated but Bin Laden’s AQ attack is probably the most successful military action in history as measured by its cost versus the multi-trillion dollar response.  Bin Laden said that he won’t defeat us militarily but rather bankrupt us via our own over-reactive stupidity.  His plan is proceeding brillantly.

The investigation of crimes seldom yields the truth, particularly when politics are involved.  Do I have any faith that the Warren Commission figured out JFKs murder mystery?  Of course not.  Regarding 911 everyone only knows beyond any doubt that planes crashed into the Twin Towers.  Do I expect the 911 commission to nail the truth?  Of course not.  Do I expect you and some conspiracy theorists to nail the truth?  Of course not.  Everything you have posted has a response from the other side that is plausible and may nullify it.

So I have tried to look at this differently, and ask the whether the conspiracy theory fits what are the now the known governments responses.  Does it look custom designed to justify the governments actions?  To that the answer is no, that it does a very poor job at meeting those goals and is giving the government trouble in justifying their actions, and so IMO 911 better fits a “shock doctrine” mechanism.

Report this

By DBM, July 31, 2010 at 7:09 am Link to this comment

By the way, Go Right ... how then do you feel about the recent treatment of whistleblowers:

* Joe Darby (Abu Ghraib torture)

* William Black (Banking malfeasance ever since the S&L scandal)

* Bradley Birkenfeld (UBS Tax Cheating)?  His case most troubles me as he is in jail unlike the criminals he exposed.

Do you see how these people are more admirable than Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby?

Report this

By DBM, July 31, 2010 at 6:56 am Link to this comment

We’re close Go Right ... as is often the case when people listen and don’t start every response “you’re an idiot, but let’s put that aside”!  There seems a bit much of that ... wink

Anyway, one thing to make clearer ... you said

“You look toward corporations as the leading impediment to fixing these very real problems.  You believe the government is subservient to the evils of corporate greed, yes?”

Yes, that is a correct.  But then you say:

“I wish to move into the direction of taking government out of business and corporations out of government.  You tend toward combining them into a central power. Yes?”

No, no, no!  At the danger of starting a debate about labels, combining corporate and government power is Fascism in the classic Mussolini / Nazi sense.  That, I fear, is just what we are confronted with.  A new look, American style, globalised Fascism.  The problem is not so much that government is “subservient” to corporate power; it is more “infiltrated” with corporate power.  Now, there has been a revolving door between government and corporations for decades.  It probably got really going when Eisenhower was warning of the Military Industrial Complex. 

However, for many years the revolving door was mainly restricted politicians themselves or, more usually, the lobbyists and staff of politicians that moved in and out of corporations and enriched themselves in the process.  I would contend that the process of filling the administrative and regulatory agencies of government with corporate representatives started about 25 years ago and accelerated out-of-site under the influence of Halliburton’s CEO / Vice President.  Having a relatively weak and disinterested President at the time allowed Cheney to surround him with even more corporate hacks than most modern Presidents have had (and is saying something).  This situation will be terribly difficult and complex for the following administrations to unwind (especially as a lot of non-corporate people left government service leaving the hacks behind).  That is, IF the following administrations care to unwind it ... and I’m not convinced that the Obama administration is interested in the least.

So, I think I understand your issue with Robert Scheer lauding this expose while damning leaks orchestrated by the Cheney gang (e.g. Plame, etc.).  I believe that the difference has been well argued by others that the difference is that when the powerful leak information which harms the weak it is neither particularly useful to the public nor laudable as a brave act.  To wit, if Joe Wilson were actually guilty of anything, Cheney had every opportunity to bring him to justice using the power and influence of his position.  Similarly, the public gained nothing from learning that his wife was a CIA operative except to lose a presumably effective agent.  There was no risk in leaking this information.  Even when the perpetrators would have been caught out by the inconsistency of their lies they simply threw Scooter Libby under the bus and then bought his freedom and paid his fine.  So nothing admirable about all that.  When, on the other hand, Assange at great personal risk of an orange jumpsuit released a video proving a war crime (and moreover showing in the mundane reactions that this was not an atypical operation) that was brave and a useful contribution to knowledge in the public domain.

By I agree when you say:

“A whistle blower coming forward with the collusive dumping of raw waste in a river or stream is one thing.  But releasing top secret documents, with such global effects, and at a time of war, seems potentially catastrophic. [although we can argue the nuance between “war” and “occupation of a broken land”!]

It’s not an easy, right or wrong - black and white issue.”

Too True.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 31, 2010 at 6:49 am Link to this comment

The lies for wars are never ending, the cry for peace is superseded by all the lies and ignored by apathy’s ignorance.

Report this

By JamesMichie, July 31, 2010 at 4:21 am Link to this comment

So we are seeing a repeat of the Vietnam war’s “classified” Pentagon Papers release by a whistleblower and, again, we are witnessing a typical reaction of the military-industrial complex and its friends—in the Defense (War) Department, the White House and in the Congress. Let us pray. Please, let us all pray for this insanity to stop.

Report this
M Henri Day's avatar

By M Henri Day, July 31, 2010 at 3:54 am Link to this comment

«... without which the war effort may be hampered to such a degree that the administration will not be able to justify a withdrawal.» No problem, Blueboy1938 ; the «justification» for withdrawing has always been there - the United States has as little right as say, Nazi Germany, to pursue its foreign policy goals by means of crimes against the peace, i e, the planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression. These crimes, as you may know, were defined by the International Tribune in Nürnberg in 1946, and incorporated in the UNO Charter as «the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole». The best help to the so-called «war effort», which is a crime, would be to immediately dismantle it and bring the troops - and the mercenaries, which far outnumber them - home. As regards who should be prosecuted, it is obvious from the above and from the fact that, according to the US Constitution, «the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding» (Article VI) ; as far as I know, this provision of the Constitution, while frequently ignored by the US Government, has never been amended or rescinded. Thus, rather than the person or persons who supplied Wikileaks with material, it is members of the executive and legislative - and the judicial - branches who should be charged with treason and punished to the full extent of the law….


Report this

By diamond, July 31, 2010 at 12:05 am Link to this comment

Of course it was a conspiracy, glider, at the highest levels of America’s government, intelligence services and the Pentagon but let’s play your silly game. Suppose you’re right and that the official story is 100% true in spite of all its glaring inconsistencies and impossibilities and the WTC was attacked by Muslim students from Hamburg who couldn’t fly planes and the Twin Towers came down at free fall speed by some anomaly of the universe that suspended the law of gravity on 9/11 but not on 9/12. Let’s accept all that nonsense. That still leaves the goings on at the Pentagon where no bodies, no luggage, and no wings or enormous plane engines were found. You still have the so called crash at Shanksville where again no plane, no bodies, no luggage and no debris were found. You still have Richard Clarke’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission that he had an order from Bush by 9.50 am on the morning of 9/11 to shoot Flight 93 down, an order that was carried out. Then you also have WTC building number 7 which Larry Silverstein admitted on ‘Today’ had been ‘pulled’ which means ‘demolished’: on top of that you have the news story covered by many TV stations and most notoriously by the BBC which announced the ‘collapse’ of number 7 half an hour before it actually happened. I’ve seen the video and it’s a doozy.

On top of that you have the anthrax letters which used anthrax from a CIA bio warfare lab: weapons grade anthrax that only a very small number of people could ever have had access to and Bruce Ivins was not one of them. Bruce Ivins was also a lifelong registered Democrat voter and then he sends anthrax to two Democrat senators with no apparent motive for his actions? He was framed as was Stephen Hatfill. You’re playing a game of ‘Why didn’t they do this?’ instead of looking at what demonstrably they did do. You must be one of the only people in the world who can’t see that the 9/11 attacks have only benefited the neo cons, the Pentagon, the CIA and the arms corporations. When a crime is committed it always helps to ask that simple question: who benefits? Iraq has not benefited, Afghanistan has not benefited and Muslims have not benefited. People don’t carry out crimes that are not in their interest or for which they have no political or financial gain. A mosquito like Afghanistan would attack an elephant like America? Why? How could that possibly be in their interest? But the neo cons had every reason in the world, financial, military and political, to plan and execute the 9/11 attacks and to this date they and their corporate friends are the only beneficiaries of those attacks.

Report this
williamsqualus's avatar

By williamsqualus, July 30, 2010 at 11:41 pm Link to this comment

Bradley Manning has gotten a raw deal from all this, but he is a true American patriot.  He has taken a great risk to expose the atrocities that have occurred in the war for “freedom” freedom of course being profit for contractors.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, July 30, 2010 at 8:32 pm Link to this comment

DBM, - “People and Corporations.  The government is simply mechanism for the application of power.  So, if you look at nature of the way laws have been enforced you find:.....”


Your list, the causes and effects of corporatism, covers a good deal of ground.  And they are all things in which we agree to be real problems.  Yet we come at them from different perspectives. 

You look toward corporations as the leading impediment to fixing these very real problems.  You believe the government is subservient to the evils of corporate greed, yes?

I see it as an collaboration with the government in the lead seat of power.  Not corporations.

I wish to move into the direction of taking government out of business and corporations out of government.  You tend toward combining them into a central power. Yes?

You see, from my perspective the whole notion of combining these machinations is to combine and compound the problems.  In effect, solidify the corruption.  Not ease it.  The last thing I want is for the “have’s” in any nation to hold such overwhelming power over the “have nots”.  To have a central power in total control of both our business’ and, more importantly, administering services to the “have not’s”.

Of course this is all very simplistic.  But have I a handle on how we both hold identical goals but view them from different directions?


I don’t have all the answer to the issue of whistle blowers.  I do know it’s been grappled with for many centuries.  Certainly in the U.S. for over 200 years.

I can’t seem to countenance Bob Scheer believing that this single episode is brilliant due to HIS agenda but, at the same time, he believed it was atrocious and potentially a danger to democracy when the President of the United States, the one man who truly holds the power to release information as he deems necessary, doing exactly that when Mr. Scheer disagreed with the purpose.

A whistle blower coming forward with the collusive dumping of raw waste in a river or stream is one thing.  But releasing top secret documents, with such global effects, and at a time of war, seems potentially catastrophic.

It’s not as easy, right or wrong - black and white issue.

Report this

By glider, July 30, 2010 at 4:32 pm Link to this comment


You must examine the government’s goals to assess whether your conspiracy theory makes sense.

I would state the goals as the following.

1. Occupy Afghanistan for decades to allow installation of bases and a staging ground next to Iran and Pakistan.  Some speculate additionally about supporting the construction of a Caspian Sea to India/Pakistan pipeline that was planned over the previous decade. 

2. Regime change in Iraq because Saddam was not playing ball with the oil companies to fully utilize their vast oil resources and accelerate their oil exports.  Additionally, install military bases that flank the other side of Iran.

So for a force so devious as to murder 3000 people in the twin towers, that coordinated a combination of risky hijackings and an inside demolition operation, they would create a more complete reason to justify their subsequent operations.  Having special ops kidnap and dispose of few Iraqis and Taliban and use their identities would be a piece of cake compared to the rest of your theory.  Because the above plans necessitate decade long occupations it would not make sense to restrict blame just to AQ.  As you can now see the government is coming under increasing heat for this illogical shaky AQ justification for waging a war on the Taliban.  And note that Bush did ineffectively try to implicate Saddam in terrorist links with AQ and would have used that to support the invasion if it was available.  If they had set this up to implicate Iraq and Afghani Taliban this would be a non-issue.  So again I contend that 911 does not add up as a conspiracy.

Report this
Blueboy1938's avatar

By Blueboy1938, July 30, 2010 at 4:15 pm Link to this comment

The “Dolts” to whom I referred, M Henri Day, are Wikileak’s “editors”, if they have such a thing, and the criminal who stole classified information.  They, as clearly stated by the Taliban rep., are personally responsible for the potential deaths of in country intelligence assets, without which the war effort may be hampered to such a degree that the administration will not be able to justify a withdrawal.  That’s counterproductive, whether the perspective is that of the hawks or the doves.

Personally, I’m all for getting out.  The Bush administration was correct in going
into Afghanistan, IMO, but stupidly took its eyes of the ball and diverted to Iraq. 
If that weren’t done, this war would have been over - at least to the extent that
any conflict in that tormented area can be “over”.  The Obama administration
will not pull our troops out until they can convince themselves they are doing
so “responsibly”.  That ain’t gonna happen if the NATO forces don’t have sound
intelligence to neutralize the Taliban and whomever else is party to the conflict.

There’s plenty of ways, you’ve cited a few, that can be employed to further the
impetus for withdrawal.  Pilfering and publishing classified information are not
among them.  That will get our troops and anyone identified in that
disseminated stuff killed.  Those responsible should be prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law - appropriate both to the seriousness of their offenses
and the damage that results.

Report this

By diamond, July 30, 2010 at 3:45 pm Link to this comment

If you think the information I’ve given you is a rhetorical trick, Glider, you’re an idiot, but leave that to one side. Let’s look at the facts.

Fact 1. The excuse for invading Afghanistan was that Osama bin Laden was the ‘mastermind’ behind 9/11 and where was bin Laden domiciled? -in Afghanistan. Never mind that not one Afghan citizen was involved even under the official fairytale. Somehow, though, it was still bin Laden and the Taliban. Even though the FBI has openly stated that there is not one shred of evidence that bin Laden and the Taliban had anything to do with it.  As they did not.

Fact 2. The excuse for invading Iraq was that Iraq was also involved in the 9/11 attacks. Even though, once again, not one Iraqi citizen was allegedly involved. Fearing in the end that they couldn’t make the case against Saddam stick, because indeed he had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, in October 2001 they sent envelopes containing anthrax to Democrat senators Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle and various news outlets that had displeased them in some way. The reason Leahy and Daschle were the targets was because they had expressed doubt about the Patriot Act, something the neo cons and their friends were determined to get passed. They blamed Saddam Hussein for the anthrax letters but that all went pearshaped when it turned out the anthrax was from an AMERICAN I.E. CIA MILITARY LAB. So then they moved on to ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and rigged the intelligence and got Colin Powell to go before the UN and lie his ass off about yellowcake that Hussein supposedly got from Niger. This was later proven to be completely fabricated, just like the 9/11 story and the anthrax story and the war on terror and everything else.

Fact 3. It was always going to be less problematic for the FBI to pursue Bruce Ivins over the anthrax letters than its own government, meaning the CIA and the Pentagon, and to expose the secret and illegal program that made and supplied the weapons grade anthrax. In the same way that Steven Hatfill was hounded by the FBI for three years until exonerated by a trial and paid compensation, Bruce Ivins was subjected to a Kafkaesque nightmare. He was, he told the AP, stalked by the FBI, as was his family and Ivins stated that the FBI offered his son $2.5 million and ‘a sports car of his choice’ to give evidence against his father. Ivins’ hospitalized daughter did not escape their attentions either.  They came to her bedside and showed her pictures of victims of anthrax and told her, ‘This is what your father did.’ Ivins’ supervisor, W. Russell Byrne, told the AP that Ivins was a broken man who would sit at his desk and weep. The case against Ivins was almost laughable, completely circumstantial and would have failed in any courtroom, but in an article by Christopher Ketchum, bio-terror expert Francis Boyle describes the FBI’s strategy against Ivins as, ‘persecute him until he broke, which Ivins did and Hatfill did not. Dead men tell no tales.’

Fact 4.In the end Ketchum sums up in his article the only thing that is known with certainty:
‘The acknowledged certainty is that the anthrax letters weren’t the work of Islamists or Iraqis. The attacks were perpetrated by someone with high-level access to U.S. government supplies of the deadly bacteria.’

Like 9/11, the anthrax letters were part of a government/CIA and Pentagon-planned and funded attack and those who carried them out remain at large and capable of striking again. Whichever part of the story of 9/11 or the anthrax letters you touch, your hand comes away smelling of fish. And the fish stinks from the head down.

Report this

By glider, July 30, 2010 at 2:05 pm Link to this comment

>>Oh, God, Glider. Do you really imagine that they can just ‘throw’ Taliban anywhere?<<

Diamond, you are deliberately avoiding the question with a rhetorical trick.  Please answer the question: 

Why would your proposed conspirator whom you IMAGINE is just ‘throwing’ around way more than the Taliban not build into your elaborate multi-layered conspiracy theory a direct reason to wage war on the Taliban, and on Iraq, which have been proven to be the government outcomes.  They are now on the defensive politically because of the bogus WMD and no AQ in Iraq realities, which would of been unnecessary.  You are requiring them to be extraordinarily devious and capable and at the same time incredibly stupid in your scenario.

Report this

By diamond, July 30, 2010 at 1:46 pm Link to this comment

Oh, God, Glider. Do you really imagine that they can just ‘throw’ Taliban anywhere? Don’t you watch the news? All we really know for sure about the alleged hijackers is that at least seven of them are still alive- which is absolutely miraculous in any terms since they were supposed to have flown planes into buildings and been immolated. Furthermore their identities were established because Mohammed Atta, who worked for the CIA, of course, left a suitcase at an airport in Portland with a handy list of their names and terrorist training manuals and flight manuals along with some airline uniforms. The CIA really needs to get some script doctors in to work on their storylines.

In September 2002, FBI Director Robert Mueller told CNN twice that there is “no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers.” (Insight) Others point out that if those who hijacked the 9/11 airplanes were using stolen identities, then we don’t know who they were or who they worked for.
Eyewitnesses claim that these men spent the night before the attack getting drunk in bars, making noise, screaming insults at the “infidels”, and doing everything they could to attract attention to themselves. They used credit cards issued in their stolen names, allowed their driver’s licenses with the stolen names to be photocopied, and most surreal of all, used public library computers to send emails in which they again used their stolen names signed to messages about their plans to steal aircraft and crash them into buildings. These men did everything they could to make sure everyone knew who they were, or rather who they were pretending to be: because, after all, the IDs used by the hijackers were fake.  But what is apparent is that those who planned the hijackings and the 9/11 attacks went out of their way to leave plenty of clues pointing to citizens of Middle Eastern Arab nations. Many of the investigators believed that some of the ‘clues’ about the terrorists’ identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told a journalist, “Whatever trail was left was left deliberately-for the F.B.I. to chase” (The New Yorker).

I laughed out loud when Mullen said Assange had ‘blood on his hands’. Completely hilarious, when he’s standing there dripping gore all over the carpet. Who is more likely to have bloody hands: a man who runs a website or a man who is a member of the military industrial complex which currently occupies two countries and has killed God knows how many civilians? Mullen lives in some surreal otherworld where war is peace and wrong is right and the truth is the enemy.

Report this

By glider, July 30, 2010 at 1:36 pm Link to this comment


Regarding whether they COULD obviously there is some possibility, but this would be extraordinarily difficult and not worth the risk IMO.  Regarding whether they WOULD I obviously think NO, not because our government isn’t capable of even more evil (e.g. Hiroshima and Nagasaki), but because it is too direct an attack on Americans and impossible to rationalize.  Most of all I see it as unnecessary to fulfill the New American Century doctrine goals.  It is not difficult for me to believe that our efforts to control M.E. oil supplies would result in an attack by an independent agent like A.Q.  And as I mentioned, if 911 was a government conspiracy it would have been better designed to justify the wars against the Taliban and Iraq (like you say, it was sufficient to start the wars, but there is a lot of resistance due to the lack of linkage between the attacks, the Taliban, and the Iraq war, so it does negatively impact the gameplan).  I do not see that any of this 911 conspiracy theory is necessary to explain events and I even think is counterproductive in that adherents which otherwise have legitimate complaints about American foriegn policy can be dismissed as kooks.

I am with you regarding the Bankers and much of my thinking on them is influenced by Ellen Brown’s “Web of Debt” inciteful book.  I have a collection of near mint $20 Silver Certificate Dollar bills that curiously only existed for a short time during the Kennedy’s administration and disappeared after his assassination.  And I adhere to most of what Michael Klare writes about our adventures in the M.E. in his book “Blood and Oil”.

Report this
M Henri Day's avatar

By M Henri Day, July 30, 2010 at 12:23 pm Link to this comment

«Dolts», Blueboy1938, is a term perhaps better used for those unwilling to recognise that that these imperial wars are destroying your country - not merely morally, which was accomplished long ago, but financially, as well. The best help you can bring to the so-called «war effort» is to demand of your representatives that funding for the war(s) be cut off and that troops and mercenaries be brought home - and see to it that they are not plunged into a new imperial venture, this time in Iran. Judging from your signature - if not from your postings - you should have been around long enough to understand so simple a matter….


Report this
tropicgirl's avatar

By tropicgirl, July 30, 2010 at 12:05 pm Link to this comment

Well, including Kennedy situation, the main point is clear of what is happening,
to my mind. There is a problem with the Fed loaning money to our government,
and the world banks to the rest of the world because, in reality, the world
banks are now taking ownership of us, and the rest of the world, because of
this. Kennedy and Lincoln were the only presidents that attempted to take back
the fed.

So even the 911 event is part of a much bigger problem, in my opinion. Even
war in the Middle East is part of a larger plan to control the world (resources,
basically) by the big banks and corporations. Its almost like our military is
attached to them already as their private army.

Thing is, I don’t know any truther that claims to know what happened for sure,
and why. Its just not the way they said it is and was probably an inside job of
some sort, perhaps renegade. But I think, whoever they are, they accomplished
their purpose for endless war in the middle east without using the patsies you
suggested. Who knows why they used who they used. I have no idea.

But again, even the Kennedy assassination criticism claims that the perp was
previously connected with the CIA. I think his wife stated that even recently. 
Anyway, these are the patterns I see. We will know for sure about Wiki if we
start seeing the idiot press chatter about war with Iran and Pakistan due to
something in it, or use it to try to convince congress to vote to authorize war,
or something like that. I still have my serious doubts.

So, are you stuck between whether they COULD, or WOULD? (911) Just curious.

Report this
Blueboy1938's avatar

By Blueboy1938, July 30, 2010 at 11:09 am Link to this comment

Reported today on the Los Angeles Times website (
afghanistan-wikileaks,0,2437923.story ):

“Britain’s Channel 4 News reported that in a telephone interview, a Taliban
spokesman named Zabihullah Mujahid said the Afghans named in the leaked
documents were being scrutinized. ‘We will investigate through our own secret
service whether the people mentioned are really spies working for the U.S. If
they are U.S. spies, then we know how to punish them,’ he is quoted as saying.”

As I said before, this is not a game.  The real world consequences include the
jeopardizing of intelligence sources in country.  These people are very likely to
be killed and/or tortured.  Thanks a lot, Wikileaks and your unnamed source!

So the result will be to set back the war effort in incalculable fashion, which will
make it harder for the administration to justify withdrawal.  Nice job, dolts!

Report this

By glider, July 30, 2010 at 10:46 am Link to this comment

Thanks for the reply.  But no I do not get it.  If there was such a sophisticated conspiracy, arranging for some Taliban and Iraqi patsies would have been the least of their problems, and a slam dunk for the promotion of their goals.  So you are stuck arguing for an elaborate system of devious covert world control, yet at the same time saying those forces are impotent to execute some relatively simple component that would dramatically enhance their desired outcome.

And yes I have watched the truther videos, and I will admit to it being amazing that the buildings would collapse straight down.  I will further admit that even I believe there was likely some sort of conspiracy regarding the JFK assassination (I find the James Files story plausible, but can not claim to know what really happened).  That is quite different than accepting the elaborate theories of the Truther movement.  I have absolutely no trouble acknowledging that the events of 911 have been used to promote a MIC agenda which is simply normal “shock doctrine” type political behavior.

I will tell you from my professional life and observations in general, that it is absolute folly to build scenarios based upon multiple layers of speculation.  The likelyhood of correctly identifying the truth is generally inversely proportional to the number of layers of unsubstantiated speculation.  To get at the truth you need to make simple reasonable speculations and prove them absolutely, and then proceed from there to the next theory.

Report this

By wildflower, July 30, 2010 at 9:32 am Link to this comment

Re Scheer: “Richard Holbrooke . . . someone should ask him about the brilliant decision to give heat-seeking Stinger rockets to those . . . fanatics who . . . turned them against our side, according to the recently disclosed documents.”

One does wonder about this – a lot.  Personally, I can only think of a couple explanations as to why this occurred.  Either it was due to the kind of “incorrigibly stupid” internal politics that E.J. Dionne discusses in his recent column or Holbrooke is trying to extend the war for the benefit of all of these “big time” corporate war profiteers who are making big bucks “big time.”

Report this
tropicgirl's avatar

By tropicgirl, July 30, 2010 at 9:25 am Link to this comment


The Saudis were used because they WERE allies. You don’t get that? Bin Laden’s
family were close to the Bushes and Bin Laden, if he even existed, was said to
have worked with the CIA in the past. The goons use their own. That is why
they are called patsies. Or, like the False Flag in the White House likes to say,
thrown under the bus. Why would you try to control someone who is already on
the other side? Too unpredictable.

This is the problem with Assange. Not that I judge him personally, and he has
done a lot of good stuff in the past, but this expose contains a lot more than
the Afghanistan stuff. Its a call to war against Iran and Pakistan.

It sounds like you like to criticize but haven’t watched any 911 videos with any
other than the party line. If you don’t expose yourself and trust your own
judgment then you will always been subject to this sort of propaganda. Its not
that the truthers have the exact answer to what happened. But what the media
said happened is not true. Why?

“Fake with real” has all happened before. Nothing new. It depends upon how
they try to use Assange and the “leaks”. Right now, they may not be calling
attention to the further call to war, contained within, because they have been
pegged to some degree. But that could change very soon. Something to watch.
And when it does, all the talking heads will parrot the same party line.
Predictable. That is how you know.

About 911, there are two ways, I feel to look at it. One is, COULD the goons
have staged it, meaning, was it possible?..... and Two is, WOULD they actually
justify doing it? The Wikileaks expose even gives you the answers to these
questions to a degree.

I think if you can get over these two questions, honestly, with everything you
already know about the CIA, then that really helps you to go to the next step,
facing the truth. It also has made me less angry at the patsies and politicians
(even Obama is one) and more angry at the hidden international forces and
more curious to find out exactly who they are, and whether they really want to
take over this country (yes). After the initial shock, its a little free-ing, in a foul

Report this

By garth, July 30, 2010 at 8:09 am Link to this comment

Thanks, ofersince72, July 29 at 12:28 pm # for the information in your post. I included part of it below.
The water issue is very serious.

I live right on the edge of rice country
You would not believe the water that is used for one
field of rice…well you would and you also would
understand the consequences, however, few around here
that are being affected by this understand the situation.

All of our water table is being used to grow rice.
Then, rice requires more chemical then any crop I have seen, they say that cotton is more intensive, but cotton is grown around here to and I see.
Besides, I had an occupation that took me to every major farm is Southeast MO and Northeast Ark.
And what is really sad,  all the rice is shipped overseas.


Sounds like what they did to the Mexican farmers with NAFTA. 

(But there we had a malleable government, an oligarchy consisting of about 14 families.  Fox was a good friend of George W, and provided George with his most memorable time, according to George W. himself.  He said, “There we were cooking fresh caught fish over an open fire.” )

In the US we subsidize crops with taxpayer money and make them cheaper overseas.  Hence the influx of unemployed Mexican laborers.

One thing I’ve noticed about these people is that nothing is a one-shot deal.  They use the shotgun approach, or maybe better, a multi-headed missile attack.  They rarely attempt a one mission for one goal.  This is all part of an orchestrated attack. 

I think the ultimate goal of this part of their plan is commodify everything.  As Noam Chomsky put it, it will leave us with control over mainly parking tickets and traffic violations. 

I guess they think TV is that good that we will continue in this torpor.

One of the big news items on Emily Rooney’s PBS show last night was that Pabst Blue Ribbon beer is coming back.  It’s now “cool” to be seen drinking it out of the can.

Report this

By glider, July 30, 2010 at 8:07 am Link to this comment

Tropic Girl,

Not that I know your motives, but I consider it more likely that you are a government plant put on this site to discredit Tdig and Assange, than your character assassination narrative to be true.

I don’t what to start a “Truther” takeover of this thread but I am curious about one point.  If 911 was an inside job why would it be staged such that so many Saudi citizens were involved, whom the U.S. considers an important ally in the region.  Why not throw some Taliban and some Iraqis in with the fake hijackers?

Report this
tropicgirl's avatar

By tropicgirl, July 30, 2010 at 7:28 am Link to this comment

to ardee and glider—-

I don’t mean to minimize the horrific acts that the “leaks” portray. But, come
on, folks… if you can’t see this for what it is, we are worse off than the NWO.

The False Flag in the White House and his NWO cohorts are RUNNING OUT OF
WAYS to slap down the truthers, and others, who know what we are up to in the
middle east. Cass Sunstein has already stated his intent to DO THIS. Did you
MOVEMENT in about a year? The true left was infiltrated and neutralized. I
know you were in the same country, what were you seeing?

This was clearly the plan… Make it sound like you are exposing stuff (people
already know) and mix in in with propaganda to go to MORE WARS, POSSIBLY
NUCLEAR, in Pakistan and Iran.

There are a lot more problems with the scenario, such as the way Assange and
his cohorts did not protect their sources. Quite the contrary.

Anyway, it is not acceptable in the blog world anymore to provide sources. For
good reason. The whole point is that you should be able to find all the stuff I
have said by typing in a phrase from what I say. Then you will see that, as many
of us keep saying, all this stuff, like the Wikileaks, for example, is already out
there, and has been for a long time.

Just because Fox or MSNBC don’t cover it means nothing. But you need to learn
how to search phrases, names and stuff. Even if an underground-type news
organization picks it up, the actual sources are usually from legit sources that
you can judge yourself, just ignored for political reasons.

For example, when I heard that Assange was working for the NWO against
Iceland (the last best hope and example for the US), I heard it from a person
who was recounting his firsthand experience, being the one lobbying the
government on the other side. That means a lot to me. But you have to judge
for yourself and think of what the False Flag in the White House and his gang,
have already said they would do in controlling info.

Report this

By DBM, July 30, 2010 at 6:04 am Link to this comment


You don’t reckon this leak is a reason to vote Republican???  Well no ... who started this mess?  Nor is it a reason to vote Democrat ... who don’t have the balls to get out.

Go Right,

I see your point I think about rule-of-law and that the lack of it is mayhem.  The idea is that even the bad laws should be enforced and changed if they are bad by the representative government (sometimes waiting until after an election if necessary). 

However, I think the situation is quite analogous to another point you make.  It would be nice if wars were unnecessary but other people don’t agree and you have to fight back when they fight you.  Well, I would venture that there are two power centres that are important in today’s Western world.  People and Corporations.  The government is simply mechanism for the application of power.  So, if you look at nature of the way laws have been enforced you find:

For People (and small business): 
  * A steady loss of Freedom with life more and more regulated and controlled
  * A larger and larger share of the tax burden and very limited welfare assistance when things go badly
  * A loss of privacy
  * Reduced government services and the actual human cost of being at (constant) war
  * Misappropriation of enforced savings held by the government (Social Security)
  * Increasingly draconian punishment and incarceration for any law-breaking
  * Strict immigration laws

For Corporations (and the people who run them):
  * Vastly reduced regulation (where regulations are not removed, they are simply not enforced)
  * A considerably smaller share of the tax burden and bail-outs if things go badly
  * Jealously protected secrecy rights enforced by law and fought for by armies of lawyers
  * Government subsidies, government incentives to operate in certain areas, wars fought for corporate financial gain
  * Massive no-bid government contracts and no ramifications for “misplacing” billions of dollars
  * Slap-on-the-wrist fines for wrong-doing paid for by shareholders not executives with no jail time even for capital crimes
  * Total freedom of global movement allowing capital to migrate to where labour is most exploited

Oh, and individuals cannot buy-and-sell politicians while corporations spend millions and millions on lobbying and contribution.  With the cap on those millions now legally removed.  So, if you’re waiting for a reversal of any of those “bad” laws, I suspect you’ll be waiting a long time. 

I’m not sure if you agree with that whole list but assuming that you acknowledge that any of it is correct, what is your suggested solution?  A vote for someone in particular who is going to change the laws in the future?  Do you really think enough people who are not supporting the corporate cause to make a difference could be elected? 

If you think that is possible ... ask yourself again if it is possible while enforcing all those secrecy laws which stop a majority of people from voting in their genuine self-interest.  Without whistle-blowers who is going to make public the transgressions of the powerful?

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, July 30, 2010 at 5:08 am Link to this comment

“Assange appears to be a CIA shill.”  Excuse me ?

The American Patriot who released the info is being
charged from two different directions with release
of “secrets” of the U.S.Army.  If they were
classified, and not available for release to
Americans, who are footing the bill, they must have
been valuable to USArmy top-level administrators. 
Although, one DC “mouth” said there was nothing new
in them. 

The Wiki manager who publicized the leaks is in
jeopardy of being snatched off the streets and
transported secretively to one of the non-existent
US Lockups that torture until its victim admits to
whatever is demanded.

If Mr. Assange is a CIA operative, we need more like him. 
There are a few, but we need more. 
Many more.

There are too many like the one who
pushed a crippled, old man, in his wheelchair,
Sherman Skolnick, down the stairs
in his home, resulting in his death.
Such requires the opposite of American bravado.

Report this

By ardee, July 30, 2010 at 4:59 am Link to this comment

tropicgirl, July 29 at 7:09 pm

I rise to echo glider’s comment regarding this unsubstantiated and unlinked attack upon Mr. Assange. It does behoove one, when making such serious accusations, to attempt at least to show the research.

I do not claim to know your purpose in posting this diatribe, which cannot possibly be taken as anything less than an attempt to muddy the waters, uphold the (shrinking) credibility of Obama’s plans in Afghanistan, and reduce the impact of Wikileaks release of these documents. For that matter you touch not at all on those documents and what they reveal about our hopeless situation there as well as our being shielded from the real truths of our impact.

I care not for rumor or what appears to be ravings about Assange’s past. I do ,however, care a great deal about what he has revealed. What is it, I wonder, that you care about?

Report this

By FiftyGigs, July 30, 2010 at 4:59 am Link to this comment

DBM, “You ask ‘Aren’t we maybe being played?’ by WikiLeaks ...This is a valid question which we should all ask ourselves whenever we see or hear news.  My personal answer would be to try to discern what the news provider stands to gain and/or what has their track record been.”

Thank you for an excellent, thoughtful reply. Again, you and I would likely agree on most things, even maybe on this, I suspect, were we to sit down and talk. As I said, I’m discussing taking and distributing other people’s stuff, not the war.

I would caution people against any kind of consideration that includes an assessment of the “news provider’s” (or leaker’s) motive. I think that’s trouble, because we can’t never know it.

All we do know are the facts. Yes, the documents leaked haven’t been challenged, but they also aren’t explained. If the only story surviving in the Bible had been the one about a freak-out by this guy Jesus running around a temple whipping people, I doubt he’d been considered the son of God worthy of a 2,000 year religious movement.

In context, however, we see it was not an act of malice motivated by evil, but rather something quite different.

So, the fact is that we have a bunch of documents snuck out of the government. Personally, I’m not sure we can conclude very much from that, least of all that they constitute a reason to vote for Republicans.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, July 29, 2010 at 11:32 pm Link to this comment

The few people who paid attention to the publicized
information, provided over twenty-five(25) years ago
by the American patriots of the “Jewish faith”, Mrs.
Mae Brussell and Mr. Sherman Skolnick, were laughed
at and considered “alarmists” and more recently,
“conspiracy theorists”, by hired pimps of the NWO,
and genuine ignoramuses.  The alleged “theory” has
proven to have been “PRACTICE”, not theory.

Now, the administration of the Kenyan, H.B.Obama
further intensifies the NWO agenda, first announced
by the GHWBSr NAZI administration, classifies
American patriots as “homeland terrorists” to be
assassinated, and punishes employees for releasing
truthful/accurate info.

Time to take action before the next phase of the NWO
agenda is implemented.

Report this

By glider, July 29, 2010 at 10:15 pm Link to this comment


You assume we are a peoples representative democracy.  That is delusional as I mentioned in my July 29 1:43 pm post and elsewhere.

Report this

By wildflower, July 29, 2010 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment

Re Atilla: “The next time we are hit to the degree of 9/11. . . there will be weeping and gnashing to teeth wanting to know why “we” allowed this to happen. My answer to all of you whiners would be to look in the mirror.”

And the role and the purpose of the FBI, CIA, NSA?  How do these agencies fit into all of this, Atilla? And what about Homeland Security and the USA Patriot Act?  The Bush/Cheney Administration - as well as Congress -  told the American people that both were urgently needed to detect and prosecute terrorists.  Are you now telling us they are a waste of taxpayers dollars and none of the above will help prevent another incident like 9/11?

Report this

By August Murphy-King, July 29, 2010 at 7:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I listen to you every week on Left, Right & Centre, and I read your columns
regularly - and normally we are in agreement.  However, I must take issue with
your stand here.  Everyone has spoken about the danger to the troops - and I
agree with you, that’s often used as cover for the Pols covering their backs. 
However, the fact that Afghan informants were named is disturbing.  Those
individuals are likely in grave danger, and in that sense, WikiLeaks has failed.

Report this

By - bill, July 29, 2010 at 7:10 pm Link to this comment

My, my, ‘Atilla’:  you seem a bit upset.  I guess realizing that some people hold such diametrically opposed opinions to your own is just too much for you.

To make it crystal-clear, I have no more interest in ‘doing service’ for our troops in Afghanistan than I had in ‘doing service’ for the Russian troops who similarly had no business there a few decades ago.  Even though I recognize that some of them feel (just as some of those Russians probably felt) that they are performing honorable service for their country, the bottom line is that both armies caused the deaths of around 100,000 civilians and displaced millions more in the service of empire, and if exterminating every last soldier is what it takes to make such activity stop, so be it.

I recognize that “My country, right or wrong!” types find such relatively objective views abhorrent, but that’s their problem, not mine.  It’s not just the rest of the world that despises what our country has become, you know.

Report this

By DocReality, July 29, 2010 at 7:03 pm Link to this comment

Assange appears to be a CIA shill. If this was legit, he would have been dead a long time ago.
How convenient at this point this comes up to demonize Pakistan. It’s a clever hegellian dynamic to propagandize the upcoming war(s)with Iran.
It is all over, utter chaos shall reign.
This info was known for years and this clown waits until now?
Think! Think! Think! The big one is on the way and the American idoled crowd is beyond clueless.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, July 29, 2010 at 5:14 pm Link to this comment


No joke.

When is it right for an individual or group to take it upon themselves to act contrary to those whom, at least temporarily, the people of the United States chose to run the show and make exactly those decisions?  When is it the correct cause?  When it suites Richard Cheney?  Sarah Palin?

You see the real concern some have in this Brilliance?

Report this

By glider, July 29, 2010 at 4:39 pm Link to this comment

>>the United States is designed to be overseen by the People’s Representatives.  The House and the Senate.  Everything the White House or Pentagon knows, every action taken, every dime spent, every public release of information is to go through, at least, a few dozen people whom the public chose for the job.  Therein are the checks and balances.  In most cases, if that system is not working, it usually means one of two things.  Either the law is not being minded or, some people are not performing the stringent oversight imbued in slew of really good laws.

This may be the most clueless contention I’ve ever read.  Is this supposed to be a joke?

Report this

By Nessus, July 29, 2010 at 4:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Let’s just take a look at a few of the factual and analytical problems with this screed.

—…any attempt to connect this failed misadventure with a recognizable U.S. national security interest is doomed.

Somehow I could have sworn that not letting the Taliban give Al-Qaeda safe havens and training camps was a legitimate U.S. national security interest.

—…none of the local actors, be they labeled friend or foe, give a whit about our president’s agenda. They are focused on prizes, passions and causes that are obsessively homegrown.

Yes. That is almost always the case with our foreign policy. So what? Besides the fact that the U.S. media is fundamentally incapable of explicating what those causes are to the American people at large, this changes nothing.

—…there were fewer than 100 of those foreign fighters left in Afghanistan. Those who do remain in the region are hunkered down in Pakistan…

You might recall that they are hunkered down just across the border and can cross that border rather freely, even more so if we are not there.

—…and as the leaked documents reveal, that nation is just toying with us by pretending to cooperate while its intelligence service continues to support our proclaimed enemies.

That is an overly simplistic characterization of the power struggle going on in Pakistan’s government. We are supporting the civilian government’s continuing attempts to reign in the ISI, elements of which we have known supported the Taliban and Al-Qaeda for years. Like it or not, the situation in Pakistan is messy, but like it or not, we have to deal with it somehow. What would you suggest? Cut off support and let the ISI win?

—We meddled in their history in a grand Cold War adventure to humble the Soviets by attacking the secular government in Kabul with which Moscow sided.

I will not here accuse you of being deliberately deceptive by describing a puppet government installed directly by the Soviets to provide them with an excuse to occupy their country as if it just happened to be a secular government and Moscow just happened to be friendly towards it, but I will note that you are very close to an outright falsehood.

—“Carter’s never-before revealed covert support to Afghan mujahedeen—six months before the Soviets invaded.”

I will also assume that you are unaware of the KGB’s covert activities in Afghanistan, which preceded the invasion by more than a decade, and included the coup d’etat which installed the “secular” government in the first place.

—those freedom fighters included Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed…

Obviously we should have all looked into the future like you did, and realized what they were going to do. I will await the evidence of your extraordinary prescience which allows you free reign to criticize those who had to make those decisions at the time with the information they had.

—…someone should ask him about the brilliant decision to give heat-seeking Stinger rockets to those same fanatics who then turned them against our side…

Soviet helicopters were the preeminent tactical threat against the Mujahideen at the time, and the decision also allowed us to test the Stingers under combat conditions. Again, where is the column you wrote with the brilliant prediction that we would have to invade ourselves twenty years later?

I would suggest that the vastly more important mistake we made in Afghanistan was turning our backs after the Soviets left and assuming that Afghanis would simply pick up the pieces on their own, and nothing bad would happen as a result. Now you seem to suggest that we should do the same thing and expect different results, because war happens to be a messy business. I would suggest instead realizing that war is cruelty, and you cannot refine it.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, July 29, 2010 at 4:27 pm Link to this comment

garard, - “It appears that I am a somewhat significant enemy to your way of thinking and presenting your opinions, judging from the throw-back from you in the form of personal attack.”


Enemies is the last thing we are.  I have never attacked you in any form.  Personal or otherwise.  In fact I understand you as an passionate and honest anti-war advocate.  I have a healthy respect for such views when displayed honestly.  I have simply asked you several times for, what should be, a common courtesy.  A courtesy I willingly extend to you.

We have polar opposite views of the globe.  We simply disagree.  You write of everyone making peace but it is not me making you an adversary.  And If I am truly your adversary I can’t disagree more with how you attempt to make peace…LOL

You insist on compassion and understanding but you turn me into an adversary?  This has baffled me for some time.

If you truly see me as an enemy then I urge you to consider, as a general rule, the assumption that the person across from you means what they say and says what they mean. 

In stark terms; if you find yourself in Sudan between two waring parties I would pray that you drop your narrative and view of the situation and listen to theirs.  Once you fully understand the opposing views you can, if it is your intention, assist in making peace.  In my view, my narrative, there is no other way to both treat others and foster peace.

P.S. If you can be specific on how to change human nature across the globe I will help in any way I can in ended most wars.  I’ll not only stand behind you, I will stand in front of anyone who attempts to harm you in our goal.  We’ll stand together.  Deal?

Report this

By glider, July 29, 2010 at 3:22 pm Link to this comment


Do you have any evidence for your seemingly insane, kill the messenger, character assassination multi-vomitous rant against Assange?  More importantly what is it you have against providing the public with information upon which they can judge the conduct of the U.S Government and the validity of the war?

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, July 29, 2010 at 3:16 pm Link to this comment

DBM, - “I’ll try not to read anything into your words that you didn’t intend.  However, I do think they show a deference for authority which is somewhat misplaced.’ - ’ I suspect your warning was intended to be generic and therefore criticising any release of “security” information.”


I think you mistake a passionate belief in the United States being a Nation of Laws as a deference to authority.  My deference is to civility over dictatorship.  Maintaining and securing a representative form of government is never an easy accomplishment.  In fact it has always proven fragile and extraordinarily difficult. 

I was so very clear in how insignificant my security concerns were at the time of writing. - I have, after studying the documents further, developed some real concerns for the large numbers of Afghan’s and Pakistani’s who may be targeted as a direct result of the released information.  This is a real concern every time something such as this happens.  Arbitrarily releasing sensitive materials is certainly a serious issue.

But let me try to be clear.  I opined several times on how few my concerns were in regards to the content, security or otherwise, contained within the information released.  My very brief supposition was intended to give the security issue at least a bit of face time.  It cannot simply be ignored, yes?


My concerns are in regards to the process.  How is it decided which of the hundreds of thousands of individuals working within the Federal Government may release classified or confidential information, possibly breaking several felony laws, or worse, putting more lives at risk? 

Mr. Scheer had some very real concerns over the President of the United States declassifying information which appeared to bolster administration purposes but, any individual within all of the Pentagon, or State Dept, or White House or Congress leaking information for a purpose he and others believe in is a brilliant idea?  A model of how things should work?

How is this not of real concern, particularly in a situation such as we have here, when the larger ramifications are so, well, Global in its effects?

When is it right for an individual or group to take it upon themselves to act contrary to those whom, at least temporarily, the people of the United States chose to run the show and make exactly those decisions?  When is it the correct cause?  When it suites Richard Cheney?  Or Barack Obama.  Is it acceptable if it benefits the BBC or Rush Limbaugh?

I think these are questions worth asking.

I honestly don’t yet know if releasing this information was even a good idea.  I do know the release of this information will reach across every ocean.  And I can think of dozens of ways this information will have quite the opposite effect Bob Scheer and many other here believe in.  Mr. Scheer is already on record as judging this a Brilliant event.


As an aside, much apart from the issue of releasing information: You may think it deference to authority, however, the United States is designed to be overseen by the People’s Representatives.  The House and the Senate.  Everything the White House or Pentagon knows, every action taken, every dime spent, every public release of information is to go through, at least, a few dozen people whom the public chose for the job.  Therein are the checks and balances.  In most cases, if that system is not working, it usually means one of two things.  Either the law is not being minded or, some people are not performing the stringent oversight imbued in slew of really good laws.

Report this
tropicgirl's avatar

By tropicgirl, July 29, 2010 at 3:09 pm Link to this comment

As some have already pointed out, there is a BIG problem with Assange and the
way this stuff was released. Let me mention a few things that one would have
heard on the alternative media, if one were listening, that might cause one to
“question” the motive, but certainly not the awful facts.

Assange traveled with his parents in a side show, living in many, many, many
locations around the world.

He was exposed to CIA types early on.

He was spotted up in Icealand, after the movement began to create their own
bank, along the lines of North Dakota, and to stop borrowing money from big
banks. Except he was the one urging them to borrow more money.

He also was involved in the Al Franken election, strangely, not so much to
support Al, but to defeat the other rich guy, Coleman, after a dispute with
someone over who would head the World Bank or some idiot stuff. A money
dump took place.

He freaks out when you mention 911 was an inside job and has been linked to
Cass Sunstein’s effort to “kill the 911 truth movement from within”.

Assange is not really anti-war if you listen to him. Just the ones he’s working
to support.

Among the true allegations in the papers, some untrue allegations are mixed in
regarding Pakistan and Iran, urging invasion. This constitutes the latest
Curveball-YellowCake-Tony Blair trick.

When he dumped the information, the media, who could care less about the
truth, asked Obama, the King of False Choices, if they could release it. He had
no problem. Since when does the media release helpful anti-war information.
Get real.

Some also link Assange to childhood LSD experiments, making him highly
suggestible to the CIA goons.

Oh, and he has HUGE links with Soros. Its all OLD news.


Fact is, the media and the government could care less if our military are doing
nothing but running drugs in Afghanistan, to our kids. The whole thing is

Report this

By anotherplayaguy, July 29, 2010 at 3:01 pm Link to this comment

And what, pray, does this “God” character have to do
with this?  If nothing, which appears to be the case,
then why thank her/him/it?

Report this

By Atilla, July 29, 2010 at 2:50 pm Link to this comment

Bill wrote: “Second, not everyone here is a whiner.  I’d welcome a 9/11 attack every single day until we shape up, for example:  perhaps not a very popular opinion, but definitely not a whine.”

Thanks for making my case Bill, and you know what they say about opinions… Only someone on the lunatic fringe would welcome a 9/11 every day until WE shape up. I got news for you Bill, we aren’t the ones that need to “shape up”. Do you think that the radical Islamic jihadists are justified in the terrorist acts they perpetrate? If you do, carry yourself over there and join them. We are sending our best young people over there to make sure that the fighting doesn’t happen here. You do no service to them with such moronic comments.

And by the way, I’ll spell my name any way I damn well please.

Report this

By gerard, July 29, 2010 at 2:15 pm Link to this comment

GRYM:  “You must find a way to understand that I do not share your view of the world.  It is critical for an open discourse.
  “There is no need to reinterpret what I write.  When I write that weakness will be exploited by an enemy you must assume I mean just that.  Nothing more.”
  My difference with you is well expressed by your words above:  “You must ....” (diktat) It is one thing to criticize another person.  But “you must…?”  Over the top assumption of superiority.
  “weakness will be exploited ...” I am not the least interested in exploiting weaknesses or—as I have said to you before in “winning” or “losing.”
  It appears that I am a somewhat significant enemy to your way of thinking and presenting your opinions, judging from the throw-back from you in the form of personal attack.

Report this

By - bill, July 29, 2010 at 2:14 pm Link to this comment

Hey, ‘Atilla’ -

First of all, you might want to educate yourself as to the most common spelling of the name you’ve adopted (though educating yourself in other areas would have more social significance).

Second, not everyone here is a whiner.  I’d welcome a 9/11 attack every single day until we shape up, for example:  perhaps not a very popular opinion, but definitely not a whine.

Do have a nice day.

Report this

By glider, July 29, 2010 at 1:33 pm Link to this comment

For those who see the light in this.

Report this

By REDHORSE, July 29, 2010 at 10:01 am Link to this comment

Only a fool is honorable with dishonorable men. The fats in the fire and it’s your ass that’s burning. Cheney/Bush are fascists. They betrayed the American Constitution, and did their best to install a police state. The Nazi extermination camps were a well kept secret. Anyone here would agree that they should have been exposed. Is machine gunning a wedding party or openly killing reporters or any massacre different. Lying by omission of the truth is still lying. They don’t care about truth or so called National Security. Like all criminals, they just want to get over.  Because the profligate thugs have none, they must imprison and attack those with moral fiber. The moral human citizen is their greatest fear. You become an automaton when you allow someone to make you say that a lie is the truth. To release those documents was an act of moral courage.

    Do you see the connection, between this “whistle blower” discussion, and the Maryland family whose son is facing 16 years, for filming a police officer who drew his weapon on a motorist? Home raided, arrested, computers seized. It’s pure corporate fascism. You will be allowed NO POWER!!

      Thanks GARTH, XNTRK, OFER72, in fact TY ALL for the attempt at lucidity. Yeah, yeah—Monsant the fascist state and whore politicians. It’s gettin’ HOT and it’s gonna get real thirsty.

      Can I interest you in the VOTE?

Report this

By glider, July 29, 2010 at 9:43 am Link to this comment

Julian Assuage is a modern day hero. 

The mission statement of Wikileaks is to make the world more transparent in order to produce better governance. Since America is now a Corporatocracy, and Eisenhowers warnings about a MIC takeover of our government has come to pass, extreme measures are required for any counterbalance. The brillance of Wikileaks is that they legally protected by external countries and are insulated from the corporate corruption of our legislature and media.
So technically the only lawbreakers are the “leakers”.  However, one must realize that they are leaking information, that was produced through a corporate takeover of government, that has in this case enabled funding of an illegal war counter to the will of the people.  A war that would not exist if we had not lost our democracy. 
Furthermore, there are many warmongers here pushing vehemently for the execution of such whistleblowers on the basis of the breaking of law.  Many of these same people from the extreme right wing could care less or even condoned the murder of George Tiller.  Most of this is less about respect for the law than it is about being upset that Wikileaks is threatening their war agenda.

Report this

By wildflower, July 29, 2010 at 9:39 am Link to this comment

Re Atilla: “We have a bunch of wimpy leaders in the military and Congress. The purpose of war is to kill people, and inflict as much damage as possible to the infrastructure of the enemy . .  .  They know that because of all the cowards in the Congress, and on the liberal left, we will just get tired of playing patty cake
with them and we will pick up and leave.”

Exactly what infrastructure are you seeking to destroy, Atilla? The terrorist group responsible for 9/11 is independent and they are not fighting for any country or anybody other than themselves.  And their members often move and live in more than one country. On 9/11, the core group appeared to living and training in Afghanistan, but now they appear to be living in Pakistan.
After 9/11, Bush/Cheney sent U.S. troops to Afghanistan for a while, but did not stay the course.  They suddenly abandoned the mission to fight the terrorists in Afghanistan to go to Iraq under the guise of the great “WMD Lie.”  As to why this Republican administration abandoned their mission is open to speculation.  It may have been due to the “wimpy” and “cowardice” factors you reference, but others believe it had more to do with controlling Iraq’s oil, looting Saddam’s treasures, and buffering the profits of corporate war profiteers like Haliburton.

Report this
kulu's avatar

By kulu, July 29, 2010 at 9:02 am Link to this comment

The biggest war criminal of them all has to be the Commander in Chief of the biggest military force on earth deployed to kill people all over the planet. Who is that I wonder?

And the Nobel Peace Prize, if it is to regain its meaning, should go to the guy who put his life or at least the quality of his life on the line to expose what at least some of these criminal acts have achieved - Bradley Manning, perhaps jointly with Wikileaks.

Report this
kulu's avatar

By kulu, July 29, 2010 at 8:38 am Link to this comment

By kerryrose, July 28 at 7:55 am #

I guess in the long run the question to be asked is ‘will it make a difference?’

Ah kerryrose, not for a very, very long time sadly - by which time it will be too late.

Report this

By ofersince72, July 29, 2010 at 8:28 am Link to this comment


The water issue is very serious.

I live right on the edge of rice country
You would not believe the water that is used for one
field of rice…well you would and you also would
understand the consequences, however, few around here
that are being affected by this understand the situation.
All of our water table is being used to grow rice.
Then, rice requires more chemical then any crop I have
seen, they say that cotton is more intensive, but cotton
is grown around here to and I see.
Besides, I had an occupation that took me to every major
farm is Southeast MO and Northeast Ark.
And what is really sad,  all the rice is shipped overseas.
You see,  When we left Viet Nam we destroyed all the rice
fields and made sure they wouldn’t be growing rice for
twenty five years or so, they had been the world’s
biggest exporter of rice, a along the MeKong Delta.
From that point, more and more rice was started to be
subsidized and pretty soon Arkansas became the world’s
biggest exporter of rice.
You cannot get a straight answer from the farmers on
just how rice subsidies work because there are so many
ways they recieve money on rice.
It is a very expensive crop to harvest, requires enourmous
amounts of water and chemical.
It makes the area almost unlivable while the levees are
flooded because of the Mosquito.
Crop dusters apply the chemical.
It is poisoning our water, destroyed the soil and
produces poison food.
I suggest no one eat the Arkansas and Missouri rice, it
is clearly poison,  get the California organic.
I mean poison.

Report this

By ofersince72, July 29, 2010 at 8:11 am Link to this comment

Damn good post Garth and very informative

indeed,  its water wars, and it sounds like you
have been aware of this for a while..good for you!!!!!!

Report this

By Michael Murphy, July 29, 2010 at 8:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Another splendid outcome of the “brilliant” Wikileaks download is that the Taliban will now have the names of a number of collaborators with whom they can have a cup of tea.  And their families too!!

Report this

By garth, July 29, 2010 at 7:59 am Link to this comment

From reading the comments I can see that the war mongers are hot on this case. 

Re: Killing’s what war is all about. 

And we kill,wontonly, except when we have to portray our military to the American public as just a bunch of patriotic, peach-fuzzed, bright-eyes, young lads who might live next door.

An interesting revelation came from RB549(?), and it was reaffirmed today on DemocracyNow!, who said that Senator Russ Feingold of WI is sponsoring a bill to privatize all the water in the mid-west.  He’s trying to dupe them into some kind of collective where they will all have “access” to water.

Feingold’s understated self-righteousnes on some other issues belies his reckless disregard for the well-being of farmers of the midwest and subsequently us, the eaters and big eaters.

They want to privatize the world’s water.

After all, that is what the occupation of Iraq is really about.  On a thirsty day in the Summer’s heat, an even swap for all the gas in your car for a gallon of water doesn’t seem unfair.

The Iraqi water (the Tigris and Euphrates) is being diverted to Saudi Arabia, and perhaps other US-friendly countries.

Saudi Arabia is going dry.  De-salination plants cost between $50 to $100 billion to build, and the Saudi Royals expect a populationincrease of 15 million.

In years past, the Saudis spent their water resources foolishly on trying to grow crops like alfalfa in the desert and such. 

Finally, when they looked at their bank accounts and took note of the rising trouble within their borders, they got George W. to invade Iraq. 

The US didn’t want the oil; our military feels like it can take whatever it wants from anyone, anywhere. 

They wanted control of water.

Now it’s coming down to a debate.  What are human rights?  What about shared natural resources?  Does every human being have the right to water? 

In Bolivia, Bechtel got the government to pass a law making it illegal to collect rain-water.  (I’d be up Shit’s Creek if they passed that law here.  And I wouln’t put it past them.)

Rosa DeLauro, (D-CT) probably with the help of her husband “Stash” Greenberg, lobbyist for Monsanto wants to make it illegal to grow a back yard garden.  Monsanto produces seeds and they want a monopoly or at least the Agri-business control of food.

That’s what you Boys in Red, White & Blue, the ones enwrapped in the flag are fighting for.

If I had my way, I’d begin this discussion with a noose and firing squad.

Go get ‘em tiger.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 29, 2010 at 7:28 am Link to this comment

It all comes out in the end!  Nothing new here, just that it did not come from Fox Noose and pisses off the mighty righty whiteys.

Report this

Page 2 of 3 pages  <  1 2 3 >

Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Like Truthdig on Facebook