Powered by TypePad

« Pot Meets Kettle | Main | That Whole Tedious Chief Executive Thing... »

December 11, 2010


Manuel Transmission

First post of the day? (Can't sleep.)

Mark Folkestad

Dog woke me up, and then she wouldn't pee. And Man Tran still beat me to first posting. Where's Wauck's interminable copy-and-paste tome?


More of your money to be poured down the .

"It also includes an agreement to set up a green climate fund as part of efforts to deliver 100 billion US dollars (£60 billion) a year by 2020 to poor countries to help them cope with the impacts of global warming and develop without polluting."

No word on exactly where this money is to come from.


No word on exactly where this money is to come from.

It'll come from the stimulative effects on the economy of extending unemployment benefits. At least, this is how Nancy "Brain Donor" Pelosi would argue the case.


Saved this for the open thread.
July 5th I found out I had cancer. It was a very treatable cancer, but it did involve surgery and chemotherapy. Last Thursday was my last chemo. The percentages are great for no reoccurrence, 98%.

This site has been an absolute dream come true. The chemo gives me funny hours and having a place to type my worthless thoughts makes it that much more bearable.

This next week will by tough, as the effects take hold, but I will get through. I am blessed with a wonderful family, and I am blessed with you.

Thank You.

Jane the hostage taker

Wow Threadkiller, congratulations on completing treatment. It sounds like a long haul.


Thanks Jane. The diagnosis was quick, and my wife, being an ICU nurse, saying get this over with now, really helped move things along. My sister in law was diagnosed with breast cancer Oct of 2009. I can't believe how much more involved her procedures were than mine. Her support has been wonderful too.


Sorry to hear what you have been through these many months, Threadkiller.


Congratulations on completing the treatment, TK! And very best wishes for the future.


Ccal, Ext, Thank you so much.

Going to lay back down now. I will check in later.


Congratulations TK. I can relate having been diagnosed in 1999 and going through 2 operations and 10 months of chemo.

Continued check-ups even after you think you are cancer free are very important.


Threadkiller, that 98% no reoccurance rate sounds like you have a really good chance. Glad to hear you're approaching the end of what must be a very scary ordeal. I've enjoyed a lot of your posts and hope to see many more.


Steve Walt asks an interesting question:

Should Bob Woodward be arrested?

I keep thinking about the Wikileaks affair, and I keep seeing the double-standards multiplying. Given how frequently government officials leak classified information in order to make themselves look good, box in their bureaucratic rivals, or tie the President's hands, it seems a little disingenuous of them to be so upset by Assange's activities.

Or consider the case of the most famous of all "insider" journalists: Bob Woodward. Over the past several decades, he's built a highly-lucrative career on his ability to get Washington insiders to talk to him. Less charitably, you could say he's gotten rich giving politicos a vehicle to make their case in print. Just think about how many insiders spill their guts to Woodward, and even provide him with key memos, which are sometimes published as appendices in his opuses. It is apparently entirely acceptable for Woodward to publish remarkably detailed stuff on the most sensitive deliberations of the U.S. government, including the nasty things our officials say about one another and about foreign officials. This well-established practice warrants no adverse comment whatsoever; instead, the usual result is a front page review in the New York Times Sunday Book Review and a #1 position on the best-seller list.

Has anybody proposed arresting Bob Woodward? Has anyone looked into applying the 1917 Espionage Act to his revelations of the most secret deliberations of the national security establishment? Is the State Department telling employees not to buy or read his books, the same way they are telling employees not to look at any of the Wikileaks materials? And remember: Woodward isn't writing about minor issues or even the trivialities of diplomacy; his books deal directly with core issues of war and peace. One could argue that what Woodward digs up and displays-information drawn from the highest and innermost counsels of the U.S. government-is more important and more potentially damaging than zillions of often-trivial memcons by mid-level bureaucrats in overseas embassies. How can these leaks be more sensitive or troublesome than a detailed, blow-by-blow account of Obama's secret Afghanistan decision-making?


And I suspect it mostly comes down to this. Elites like the idea of being in charge, and they don't really trust "the people" in whose name they govern, even though it is the latter that pays their salaries, and fights their wars. Elites like the sense of power and status that being "on the inside" conveys: it's a turn-on to know things that other people don't, and it can be so darn inconvenient when the public gets wind of what the current "best and brightest" are actually doing. The idea that ruling elites are in fact "public servants" who serve at our behest is not a big part of their mental make-up, except that some of them do have to get re-elected every few years, and not every seat is safe.

Their view of the public's right to information is akin to the view expressed by Col. Nathan Jessep (memorably played by Jack Nicholson) in the film A Few Good Men. When defense attorney Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) says "I want the truth!," Jessep retorts: "You can't handle the truth!" Unless, of course, it is filtered by establishment journalists like Woodward, and not by some unsympathetic upstart like Assange.


Come to think of it, wasn't that going to be the defense in the AIPAC espionage case? Everybody in government leaks anyway? So maybe we need MORE leaking, so we can balance all the selective, tendentious leaks against each other and get a picture of just what the hell our public "servants" are up to.


In The Sunshine Policy, James Traub asks,
The United States has quietly asked allies like Yemen and Pakistan for some extraordinary favors in its war on terrorism. Is it really so terrible if WikiLeaks forces them to explain those demands?

Personally, I don't much care about Yemen and Pakistan. How about this rephrasing:

The United States has asked the American people for some extraordinary commitments in its war on terrorism. Is it really so terrible if WikiLeaks forces them to explain those demands?

Cecil Turner

Obviously you're not keeping up with the leaking etiquette. This, from Armitage (referencing a Top Secret document), is a good leak:

ARMITAGE: Yeah. And I know [ ] Joe Wilson's been calling everybody. He's pissed off because he was designated as a low-level guy, went out to look at it. So, he's all pissed off.
WOODWARD: But why would they send him?
ARMITAGE: Because his wife's a [ ] analyst at the agency.
WOODWARD: It's still weird.
ARMITAGE: It---It's perfect. This is what she does she is a WMD analyst out there. [emphasis in original]
A "bad leak" would be something like Libby not remembering which guy he didn't leak to three months later.

Melinda Romanoff


Congratulations and our prayers for your continued mending.

Give me my Halibut Bat

Comments from Rep. Ron Paul:

WikiLeaks release of classified information has generated a lot of attention in the past few weeks. The hysterical reaction makes one wonder if this is not an example of killing the messenger for the bad news. Despite what is claimed, the information that has been so far released, though classified, has caused no known harm to any individual, but it has caused plenty of embarrassment to our government. Losing our grip on our empire is not welcomed by the neoconservatives in charge.

There is now more information confirming that Saudi Arabia is a principal supporter and financier of al Qaeda, and that this should set off alarm bells since we guarantee its Sharia-run government. This emphasizes even more the fact that no al Qaeda existed in Iraq before 9/11, and yet we went to war against Iraq based on the lie that it did. It has been charged by experts that Julian Assange, the internet publisher of this information, has committed a heinous crime, deserving prosecution for treason and execution, or even assassination.

But should we not at least ask how the U.S. government should prosecute an Australian citizen for treason for publishing U.S. secret information that he did not steal? And if WikiLeaks is to be prosecuted for publishing classified documents, why shouldn't the Washington Post, the New York Times, and others also published these documents be prosecuted? Actually, some in Congress are threatening this as well.

The New York Times, as a results of a Supreme Court ruling, was not found guilty in 1971 for the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg never served a day in prison for his role in obtaining these secret documents. The Pentagon Papers were also inserted into the Congressional record by Senator Mike Gravel, with no charges of any kind being made of breaking any national security laws. Yet the release of this classified information was considered illegal by many, and those who lied us into the Vietnam war, and argued for its prolongation were outraged. But the truth gained from the Pentagon Papers revealed that lies were told about the Gulf of Tonkin attack. which perpetuated a sad and tragic episode in our history.

Just as with the Vietnam War, the Iraq War was based on lies. We were never threatened by weapons of mass destruction or al Qaeda in Iraq, though the attack on Iraq was based on this false information. Any information which challenges the official propaganda for the war in the Middle East is unwelcome by the administration and the supporters of these unnecessary wars. Few are interested in understanding the relationship of our foreign policy and our presence in the Middle East to the threat of terrorism. Revealing the real nature and goal of our presence in so many Muslim countries is a threat to our empire, and any revelation of this truth is highly resented by those in charge.

Questions to consider:

Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?

Number 3: Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?

Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?

Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?

Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?

Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?

Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised 'Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed.' I yield back the balance of my time. .

Give me my Halibut Bat

"This, from Armitage (referencing a Top Secret document), is a good leak:"


I hope you are not going to start cherry-picking which leaks you approve/disapprove of.


Ed Driscoll explains why we see all the leftist

Oh, happy day! When it comes true.


The LUN works in my 09:55.

Give me my Halibut Bat

"they don't really trust "the people""

Along with 'trust' issues, the people receive daily infusions from many in power, including corporations.

Big Biz and governmental bureaucrats assume the public is stupid, and therefore easily misled with partial truth or outright lies.

Whereas, there is some truth in this when people respond as a 'herd', surrendering independent thought to 'get along', individually people are smart.

But that herd mentality thing.................


Congrats TK. Now celebrate!

Cecil Turner

I hope you are not going to start cherry-picking which leaks you approve/disapprove of.

"Good leaks" would be the default lefty position (e.g., Ellsberg, Wilson, Edmonds . . . and now, apparently, Assange).

Give me my Halibut Bat


Which of your examples fails the 'good' leak test, and why?

Is there anything Assange has released, that does not facilitate transparency?

Other than GENUINE top security, and exposing people to assassination, is there ANY transparency that is not good?

Melinda Romanoff

America First worked so well the first time around, let's do it again.

Pagar's link to Ed Driscoll's post, which is well worth the time.

As well as, the Walter Russell Mead post, referred to by Mr. Driscoll, and included as one of his many hyperlinks.

Go and read.

America First, again, boy, some people just can't get out of the past.

Melinda Romanoff

We all know you're fluent in GRU-speak.

Oozes from the posts.


Give me my Halibut Bat

Could someone translate GRU?

I don't speak Rasputin.


Yay TK! Hugs of happiness for you. xoxoxo

Captain Hate

Congrats on your excellent diagnosis, TK.

Evidently the halfway house received a visit from RON PAUL and he spoke to the most difficult to reintroduce to society occupants. Or maybe he's a resident there.

Melinda Romanoff

Word games?

What? Someone took Youssoupov the menu?

Cecil Turner

Which of your examples fails the 'good' leak test, and why?

Wow, that's hard, isn't it? Leaking planning documents in wartime is obviously "good" (at least to the Dems); leaking wartime video with enemy propaganda written on it is also "good" by the same measure. I guess it's all "good" then.

Even funnier is the supposed reductio argument above of putting such a paragon of virtue as Bob Woodward (or, more apropos, Walter Pincus) in jail for leaking. Is that supposed to be convincing? The horror! Remember, he writes about the evil war Cheney McHitlerBurton ran for Chimpy!! He must be allowed to speak!

Mark Folkestad

Threadkiller, thanks for sharing the good news.

Oh, Lord! Now we are facing a cabal of Wauck, BuBu, Cleo and Ron Paul.


Prayers for you Brian, TK, The problem of revealing covert operations and operatives like Mark's brother in law did to the successors of the Oprichniki and the Third Section, is illustrated in the Welch case.
Welch, trained as a classicist had primarily been a Latin American specialist, training counterinsurgency elements,against the GRU and KGB's proxies. The history of IIA is that it actually took another attack against a COS in Jamaica, to really prompt action, and Schaap, Ray and company, like
Assange's TMZ like peanut gallery, were unapologetic even after the bill passed.

a bunch of distaff Trotskyites, who had never really challenged the Greek regime, followed in the footsteps of the quixotic mold of the MIR, the VPR from which Roussef springs, the Tupamaros of President Mujica Frente Amplio, which in the short term were flattened. the point with Mader, and Agee and Dart, and Geheim; is not about
disclosure, it's about throwing
a 'spanner in the works' so no diplomat would ever consider investigating anything
far afield, and no would be asset, consider
volunteering any information to US govt agencies


Congratulations, TK, that's wonderful news. Rest & take care...

Janet the tea-vangelist!

God bless ya TK!


Cecil, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting ahead. Re Armitage, my views are well established here at JOM, as well as my views on the bogus claims that Plame's identity was protected by statute. Ask hit and run to do the research if you don't want to. Belatedly, even the MSM (or at least the WaPo) is tiring of the Plame charade. Yes, it's way too late, dishonorably too late, but after your own honorable stand the other day it would be disappointing--to say the least--if your intention was to somehow associate me with Armitage's role in Plamegate. Apologies in advance if I misread your intent.


"getting ahead" = getting at

Jack is Back!

TK, you are in our prayers. We have friends now temp residents in Houston - she is at D.A. Anderson for esophagus cancer - and non-smoker. It just grabbed her one day and deposited a tumor the size of a golf ball. You stay good and sharp - the Lord will be with you on that tough journey.


Janet the tea-vangelist!

News from Georgia. Two black Democrats bolt party for GOP.

Give me my Halibut Bat


No offense, but your position on Wiki is as clear as mud. Don't be so timid. let it rip !


Janet the tea-vangelist!

tea-vangelist? Is that like an evangelical who supports the homosexualist agenda, as you appeared to be doing yesterday?

Rick Ballard


Thanks for the link. Driscoll and Mead continue the Second Hundred Years of fighting the demons unleashed during the Endarkenment. Mallock laid very decent groundwork for Mises more definitive refutation of the romantic idiocy of socialism.

The adoption of anarcho-nihilism by the impotent buffoons stuttering in rage over the collapse of the welfare state in Europe and now in the US is rather unsurprising. They have neither the competence nor the capacity to build anything of merit and must turn, once again, to attempted destruction so that we may all "start again fresh, upon a level playing field".

Would that they might be isolated upon an unknown continent and left to play out their fantasies among themselves.


Recall CT. that they had an editor under Woodward on the Libby jury, long after it was discovered that Armitage had been his source,
as with the fact that Radler received privileges over Conrad Black as his offenses
were even more serious. Similarly going after Blago, when Rezko pointed out much bigger players, far afield, was another tell.


Yesterday, or the day before? I considered pasting in the entire Mead blog. I decided not to, not because of fear of the usual petulant outbursts here, but because after thinking about it it seemed to me that Mead's views (which I have posted/pasted here before)--as is, unfortunately, usual--are too deficient in a sense of history to be constructive.


Re Ron Paul.

I'm willing to defend all of the questions he poses, if anyone here cares to dispute them.

As for the rest of what he says...

Re the Espionage Law, I would caution Assange not to rely on Paul's interpretation of it--as I have stated several times before. The fact that others escaped its grasp for political reasons in the past is no guarantee of a Get Out of Jail card this time.

Re lying to get us into war, my understanding (and I'm open to correction on this) is that LBJ did essentially lie re the Tonkin Gulf incident. I'm not sure whether "lie" is the correct word re Bushie, but "dissimulate" is probably a pretty fair alternative. Back when this started, there were enough articles lauding the GWOT as a NATO venture to make it clear that the Bushie Admin had one helluva lot more in mind than Al Qaeda, and that it had a lot to do with Russia, Europe and Central Asian gas pipelines. It also had to do with Iran. The US has spent many trillions of dollars on this imperialist adventure gone wrong, indebtedness that we should all wish we had back again. To the extent that Bushie was not honest with the American people about the real motives behind the GWOT, Paul is justified in his strictures. Presidential dishonesty that involves the US in war really cannot be tolerated.

Question: was Iraq more involved with al Qaeda than Saudi Arabia or Pakistan (whose ISI had huge influence with the Taliban, and still does)? Answer, Iraq was a bit player in that regard. That alone should give pause.


James Fallows at the Atlantic wrote this just yesterday:

Last night, on the "Virtually Speaking" discussion about the media with Jay Rosen of NYU, we talked about the phenomenon of things that everyone in the press corp "knows" but that don't make their way into news stories or broadcasts. One such category involves things that everyone suspects but can't quite prove -- for instance, how involved Dick Cheney and Karl Rove were in the Valerie Plame case.

I ask you, how involved did they have to be? Why do people on the left want to complicate this so much? (I recall Jay Rosen writing that what's his name was our new Woodward, hoping, I suppose, that Plame would end up bringing the Bush admin down)

But knowing the facts of the case, isn't the Plame thing a quite simple matter? Very mundane. A woman in the CIA suggested her husband for a job. Together, they met with several other government employees about it. He went, he started blabbing, he got upset that nobody paid attention to him. He started calling around complaining. He lied about who sent him and what he found. Reporters and people in the admin alike tried to figure out who was talking. The VP wondered how he had gotten dragged into it.
No big conspiracy or deep involvement needed.

But the left can't let go of the idea that it was something big.


It is a wonder what a tonic is JOM. Thanks for sharing that,TK. Glad you are here.


narciso, I don't think that's true about Woodward's editor. I do recall one jury member had been a writer who was Russert's neighbor. He was the jerk who used some kind of powerpoint presentation to persuade the holdouts..

Jane the hostage taker

I just realized that anduril is too stupid to learn how to post links. That's pretty funny all things considered.


Did the "writer" write for the Huffington Post? That's my memory - which is incredibly untrustworthy.

Give me my Halibut Bat

"no guarantee of a Get Out of Jail card this time."

Especially when the powered groups that are most exposed on the issue are interpreting the espionage statutes.

Gulf of Tonkin is a nice backdrop but the problem is the players are dead. Only the
History of Hegemony is illuminated for the context re; Iraq.

If Libby is innocent despite the interpretation (wiggle room) of Plames
job classification, how can Assange be guilty in the minds of Classical liberals?


Should be thought provoking, but I anticipate the usual tired shouts of "anti-semitism":

The Palestinians Won This Round

The leaders of the Israeli right and of the settler movement have been wearing their Cheshire Cat grins since the United States announced its pullback from negotiations to extend a limited Israeli moratorium on settlement construction. Israel’s right have taken to vilifying America’s current president with a birther-like enthusiasm and are celebrating [3] what they consider to be another victory against U.S. peace efforts. Settlement construction itself is booming, with over [4] 1600 units having been started in the ten weeks since the partial moratorium expired on September 26 (in truth, the construction never stopped anyway).

... Thus far at least, President Obama and his team have given the Israeli prime minister little cause for considering that there might be a cost for such mischief-making (unlike then President Clinton who effectively cornered Netanyahu in 1998–99).


Contrary to appearances, the collapse of this latest effort actually strengthens the ability of the Palestinians to shape the next moves and to stamp their imprint on where this now goes. There are still three potential game-changers in the mix: Israel, the United States and the Palestinians. Israel, though, seems ever more intent on postponing and avoiding a moment of choice, and its officials now act in a way that make their own policies the single most proximate cause of their country’s increasing (self)delegitimization.


If one is looking for an Israeli user-friendly way of getting a breakthrough, it can only be via these options, American or Israeli-driven. But this week’s latest twist seems to make either of these eventualities less likely. The center of gravity is clearly shifting in the direction of a Palestinian game-changing move to break the impasse. That gravitational shift will continue as long as America and Israel pursue more of the same.

Beyond the fleeting headlines and settler glee, the deeper dynamic in play is that the Palestinians won this round even if their current leadership is not quite able or ready to clip that coupon.

Israeli expert on Jewish history Daniel Gavron spelled it out in a Newsweek [6] article in which he described the PA leadership as “the last Zionists”—noting their insistence on the two-state option (even as it vanishes on the ground)—and continuing to play along with fruitless negotiations and to build institutions of statehood where there is no state and no freedom, but only occupation.


By contrast, Palestinian civil-society leaders and non-officials have already made that break and are pursuing a popular strategy which puts Palestinian freedom first (whether in a truly independent sovereign state of their own or in one shared state), that pushes for sanctions against Israel for its continued denial of their freedom, and pursues nonviolent struggle [7] and protests in villages [8] across the West Bank.

Making that transition will not be easy for those who the West recognizes as the official Palestinian address and interlocutor. That transition will not happen tomorrow, but it is fast becoming the most-likely game-changer in the foreseeable future. This trend was given a significant shot in the arm by the latest debacle of the rejected moratorium incentives deal and the way it exposed the naked lack of credibility of the existing peace process industry.

While a Palestinian strategic shift may be more likely, it will also be distinctly uncomfortable for Israel and would carry with it unwanted challenges and complications for the United States. It was Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, who said [9] earlier this year that if we don’t get two states then we get apartheid. If the Palestinians were to make that call, then could the United States afford [10] to still stand four-square behind Israel and could it afford not to? Either option will be painful, and for any president it creates a predicament of damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

It is still hard to understand why so many in the so-called pro-Israel camp in the United States (and many Israelis) seem to be willing that moment into being. There are wiser heads in Israel, in America, and in the pro-Israel community inside America advocating an assertive U.S. push for peace, even though it involves taking this Israeli government out of its immediate comfort zone and presenting clear choices that were penned in Washington, DC and not in Jerusalem. But those voices are yet to prevail. The best option is to rip up that old playbook, push a U.S. plan, and lose the squeamishness around deploying U.S. leverage. But time may be running out. Barack Obama may be the last president who can avoid a scenario which is a nightmare for both Israel and America.


The whole thing reminds of that picture of a kitten seemingly talking to a kitten, it's not going to end well. Miller was subpoenaed even though she hadn't written the column in question, but had provided tips on WMD's in the past, from the bete noire of the moment, Ahmed Chalabi. Armitage and Powell were tied to Caspian oil concessions that were threatened by Bush's democracy agenda, Wilson along with Scowcroft, echoing their Saud paymasters, didn't want that applecart upset. The French
under Chirac had their own deals in Iraq,
with the other TEA, Total Elf Aquatina, and didn 't want to consider that their virtual
monopoly, COGEMA, could 'miscount' their
yellowcake storehouse. Armitage, before the war, had represented CACI, one of the major
contractors later involved in Abu Ghraib, and now as the head of the American Turkish council, has other interests.


Jane- The "writer" did a huge blog post for HuffPo after the trial. He mentioned that his wife had saved all the Fire Dog Lake coverage for him to see afterward (I wonder).


Jake Tapper is tweeting that Richard Holbrooke has been treated (don't know what else to call it) for a torn aorta and is in critical condition.



Congratulations on finishing your treatment and my best wishes and prayers that you continue to heal.

Give me my Halibut Bat

"I just realized that anduril is too stupid to learn how to post links."

If such ability is the measure of intelligence, you would shine like a dead mackerel at midnight.

Jane the hostage taker

Fox just reported that Glasater. Maybee - maybe that's my memory. The steel trap has turned to mush!


I recall that the leak of the Judiciary Committee Democrat memo about Miguel Estrada being "especially dangerous" because "he is Latino" was a bad leak. Such a bad leak, in fact, that the MSM didn't even cover the contents of the memo, only the whodunnit "crime," forcing a Republican resignation. Now that's a bad leak.

Let them eat Yellowcake

"Israel, though, seems ever more intent on postponing and avoiding a moment of choice,"

Israeli politics is the same as ours.

Anyone who dares tell the people they can't have their cake and eat it too, must be thrown under the ox-cart.


Prayers to you TK for continued healing. Have always appreciated your comments in this forum.


TK, sorry to hear of your ordeal but happy that it is apparently almost over.

Let them eat Yellowcake

"threatened by Bush's democracy agenda,"


You mean the same Oil Bush's who are now moving to corner the market on drinking water along with t. Boone Pickens?

I wish I could fabricate such an ornate and
bubbled delusion.


This guy, was just more than one errant reporter, in the LUN


Jane, narciso beat me to the answer.

I do think he may have written earlier for the WaPo, but I am not certain of that..somehow I think it was for some mags here.

Let them eat Yellowcake

" Now that's a bad leak.'

Well now. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.


And narciso's latest link shows that Colins had written for the WaPo.


It was much like a WAshington version of the OJ Jury, with obvious differences, they didn't
care about the truth, in the LUN


"Big Biz and governmental bureaucrats assume the public is stupid, and therefore easily misled with partial truth or outright lies."

There could not possibly be any better example than the election of Obama in 2008 and the reelection of Democrats to the House and Senate in 2010.

Let them eat Yellowcake

"I'm willing to defend all of the questions he poses, if anyone here cares to dispute them.'

They have not been given permission to discuss this as talking points are pending from the Host.


I should think this subject requires your astute observations to be made public.


Everything Fitz has handled since has turned to shit. Karma.

Let them eat Yellowcake

In the absence of our esteemed host, let me make a prediction;

Maguire will take a Corporatist position on the subject of Wikileaks.

Bankers and bean-counters are only interested in the truth found in ledgers and cost analysis.


Yes, I've got a mancrush on Maguire in case none of you wingerz picked up on it.



I vaguely remember that he "worked backwards" from the introduced WaPo article (not introduced for its truth content) with a bunch of post-it notes. IIRC, he was a WaPo reporter and Russert's neighbor.

I wanted to see the movie, but it isn't playing anywhere close to here, and it'll be in the bargin bin soon enough.

Jane the hostage taker

You really do Cleo - ick. And another one on anduril. Now you too deserve each other.

Cecil Turner
The 14 internal documents obtained by The Times -- which did not come from a Senate staffer -- appear to support some of the more serious accusations made by Republicans during the 39 hours of Senate debate over Democratic filibusters that ended yesterday morning.
Seeing a trend here? "Bad leak"="disadvantages Democrats."

And while Assange's attempts to damage US security (at least in the first tranche) might not be too problematic, his embarassment of the "smart diplomacy" as practiced by the Dems could land him in hot water . . . whether the law applies or not.

Let them eat Yellowcake

"wingerz picked up on it.'

I believe the most used nomenclature to date is, 'Tea-Baggers'.

Is your jane learning?

"You really do Cleo - ick. And another one on anduril. Now you too deserve each other."

But you can do hyper-links, you intellectual bombshell, you.


They have not been given permission to discuss this as talking points are pending from the Host.

I disagree on several counts:

1. TM doesn't actually provide talking points at JOM. On those occasions when TM wanders off the JOMer rez the JOMers turn and savage him without mercy.

2. JOMer talking points are provided by Clarice.

3. The reason nobody has attempted to engage me on this issue (Ron Paul's statement) is simply fear--they would be raising issues that they wish to deny and they know they don't have the facts on their side.


You really do Cleo - ick.

ick? You find homos disgusting? Are you underestimating them?


Good grief-plenty of links here about your favorite subject.

Why not join with your fellow hackivists and "protest" today? I hear that they are hoping for a good showing in Spain and Latin America (wonder why that would be?).


I recall that unfortunate fellow that leaked what Rockefeller's plans were for the Intelligence Committee.


Alternatively, people may just not be that interested in what Ron Paul has to say.

Ha ha ha talking points provided by clarice. Well, she is our goddess.


So then Cecil, you're in basic agreement with Paul:

"Despite what is claimed, the information that has been so far released, though classified, has caused no known harm to any individual, but it has caused plenty of embarrassment to our government."

Molly Maguire, he's not


Maguire wears suspenders AND belts to hold up his britches. It is true he doesn't give a fig about his trollops and their sensitivities, but he does care about traffic.

He has the innate courage of a corporate CPA.

The last encounter I had with him (Fall 20050
I challenged him to have a live blog with Glenn Greenwald, when I gave him a list of reasons why that would be a good idea, he disappeared like the mist from a yellow shit storm.


Well, she is our goddess.

Hmmm. A gal crush? You JOMers!

Certainly she provides the talking points. A perfect example is how she had to slap down poor Jane when Jane thought she (Jane) had stumbled on to something good in Sible Edmonds. Poor Jane promptly responded: what color? (h/t hit and run)

Bill in AZ sez it's time for Zero to resign

"Everything Fitz has handled since has turned to shit. Karma."


hit and run

The last encounter I had with him (Fall 2005

And five years later you are still here begging for his attention?


Day 1,874 - Cleo Held Hostage

Danube of Thought

Nice going, TK. Good luck.

hit and run

A gal crush?

Actually,MayBee and JMH are the hot lesbo action.

There have even been marriage proposals.

hit and run

Threadkiller -- add my well-wishes and prayers to the long list here at JOM that are pulling for you.

Cecil Turner

So then Cecil, you're in basic agreement with Paul:

If you're going to defend Assange, start with "Collateral Murder." If you think that's okay, the State Department follies stuff--at least what I've seen--is relatively minor (probably IMNSHO because State stuff tends to be overclassified . . . and thus beyond the level accessible on SIPRNET).

I do think it's a bit rich that the Dems in power only got excited about this when they were embarassed (Paul isn't wrong about everything).


Levy's article is deeper, but this one by Daniel Gavron is good for its satirical tone--but still with a very serious point:

The Last Zionists?

Well, I won't leave you guessing. The Last Zionists aren't JOMers, they're...Palestinians!

Here's the intro:

Are the Palestinians the last Zionists? It would seem so. The situation of Israel has become surreal. Just as we Israelis are making a stupendous effort to ensure the dissolution of the Jewish state, envisioned by Theodor Herzl in 1896, by hanging onto the occupied territories, the Palestinians, led by President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, are working to ensure the survival of the Zionist enterprise by striving to establish a Palestinian ministate in the West Bank and Gaza.

And for those interested here is a good article about Stuxnet and Wikileaks over at American Thinker. Worthwile to read it in the context of "The New Digital Maoism".


If you're going to defend Assange...

I've already, repeatedly, stated my view that Assange can almost certainly be prosecuted for serious offenses in the US. The person I'm defending (for the most part) is Ron Paul and his view (among others) that the Wikileaks are, so far, no big deal. Nothing comparable to Larry Franklin's "leaks" to AIPAC and AIPAC's corresponding "leaks" to Israel. Everybody here knows I recognize the need for a certain amount of government secrecy, but I'm also a big fan of consistent application of the laws.

Breathless Incredulity

"The New Digital Maoism".

There it is.

Can you even imagine the synchronicity of
press/internet freedom in China with Wikileaks.

Orwellian, these tea-baggers.

Jack is Back!

Posted this over on latest thread but since we are discussing leaks here it is more appropriate. Picked it up in comments over at Ace's:

[kind of stuff that gives Cleo and Anduril a boner].

CIA's honeypot Wikileaks mirror readily reveals it was set up by CIA

Looks like the CIA created a "honeypot" wikileaks mirror at wikileaks.psytek.net, presumably to see who is downloading the leaks—but they screwed up the anonymization. A quick Google reveals who's behind psytek.net. Wonder what other mirrors they set up, but with better cloaking? From a related Reddit thread:

Thread Comment: "I was going thru WikiLeaks mirrors list, and noticed a small oddity; http://wikileaks.psytek.net was on netblock which belonged Central Intelligence Agency. It has now changed, but 010-12-08 12:27:34 (EEST) was still registered for CIA."

via Len Sassaman boingboing

Very smooth Langley.


Hmmm. A gal crush? You JOMers!

I'm beginning to think you don't pay attention as closely as you pretend. My girl crush is on JMH.
Clarice has been the goddess here for years.

Between Stuxnet and covert action, the mullahs' nuclear program is being dismantled piece by piece. Lastly, it's possible that we haven't heard the end of the Stuxnet story. Copies could be still hiding in odd nooks and crannies of the Iranian system, with the computers reprogrammed to overlook the fact that they exist. The very possibility must weigh heavily on the mullahs and their servants.

Serves 'em right for using Windows.

Heh. Yep.


I'm beginning to think you don't pay attention as closely as you pretend.

Pretend to pay attention? Moi?

Old Lurker

Late to the thread today but wanted to wish our best to TK. Sounds like a decent outcome. Feel better.

The comments to this entry are closed.