« Iranian nuclear scientist assassinated in Tehran | Main | I'm Not Laughing »

Wikileaks gives the President a new name

It's Barack Jimmy Carter Obama... but some of us knew this already:

The U.S. Embassy takeover in Tehran on November 4, 1979, was the start of 444 days which came to define Jimmy Carter.  The U.S. government was revealed to be powerless and the President weak.  Those among us who were alive and conscious during those days have embedded the feelings of helplessness.

There have been many comparisons of Barack Obama to Jimmy Carter, focused on the economy.  But the continuing leak of documents by Wikileaks has become for Obama what the Iranian hostage crisis was to Carter.

The Wikileaks folks trot the globe with impunity and funnel documents to the press at will, for the purpose of damaging U.S. relations with other countries, our war efforts, and our intelligence capability.  And we do almost nothing about it.

Whether or not someone gets killed as a direct result of a  Wikileaks disclosure, the damage to our country is deep, as allies and sources among enemies will stop cooperating with us for fear of exposure, our diplomats will be hesitant to speak frankly with headquarters, and our intelligence on al-Qaeda and others will be compromised.

The piece goes on to detail what the U.S. has done and recommends what should've been done.  The difference is stark. 

H/T to Insty.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40665.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Wikileaks gives the President a new name:

» Brutally Honest linked with Wikileaks gives the President a new name

Comments (44)

Barry passed Carter on the ... (Below threshold)
914:

Barry passed Carter on the way to Hoover about 6 months ago.

And the other question: Doe... (Below threshold)
John S:

And the other question: Does this humiliation of Bill and Hillary's State Department end their hopes for a return to the White House?

Just you wait! Barry will ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Just you wait! Barry will issue a stern warning very shortly!

Obama is to Carter what Car... (Below threshold)
Caesar Augustus:

Obama is to Carter what Carter was to Truman.

If you liked Jimmy, you'll ... (Below threshold)

If you liked Jimmy, you'll love Barry.

So.... Republicans provide ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

So.... Republicans provide a president that makes Democrat heads explode AND then said president loses the good will of the electorate (Nixon, Bush 43). The response from the Democrats and the nation is to elect a Carter or an Obama, the opposite of the previous Republican in ideology and competence.
I only pray that a Reagan emerges to clean up after Obama...

Here's the most honest opin... (Below threshold)
Paul Hooson:

Here's the most honest opinions you'll hear today. The U.S. has absolutely no role in controlling a foreign news mouthpiece such as Wikileaks no matter any claimed damage to U.S. interests. They're not U.S. citizens or subject to our laws. The U.S. doesn't own every citizen of the world. Foreign press are certainly allowed to publish whatever impressions of the U.S. that they may wish.

The honest truth is also that it's always business as usual back in Washington, whether it's Democrats or Republicans in charge. All are "company men" when in power and make all sort of rotten deals with other bad governments and other rotten leaders. That's the honest unvarnished truth.

Free elections are also somewhat of an illusion in this country. Powerful interests choose who would better serve their interests and help to guide these leaders into power. Your vote doesn't really count all that much. Leaders are pretty much predetermined by the powerful in industry and other important economic sectors. Even Dwight Eisenhower recognized the power of the military-industrial complex to rule the lives of Americans left unbridled. And that's only one area of powerful interests. Others exist in oil, finance and other major trade areas. That's how banks and auto companies get major bailout loans and sweetheart deals in legislation. They virtually own many members of Congress.

As far Wikileaks goes, the only reason the U.S. should ever be embarrassed is because of being two-faced and not being very forthright with either the American citizens or with dealings with other governments.

It's more like Barry Jimmy ... (Below threshold)
TexBob:

It's more like Barry Jimmy Hussein Soetoro Carter Obamadinijad.

Based on how many pens he uses to sign every unconstitutional bill put before him, his name is at least that long.

Free elections are also ... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Free elections are also somewhat of an illusion in this country. Powerful interests choose who would better serve their interests and help to guide these leaders into power.

Leave Soros and the Red-infested unions out of this.

As far Wikileaks goes, t... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

As far Wikileaks goes, the only reason the U.S. should ever be embarrassed is because of being two-faced and not being very forthright with either the American citizens or with dealings with other governments.

The stupid is strong in this one. Very strong. Even for a liberal, damned strong.

Did it ever occur to you governments (both ours and foreign ones) have issues that they don't want blabbed all over the known universe?

For example, if the Pakistani government were really stepping up to help us on terrorism they might not want that fact widely known in Pakistan?

Bottom line: when we keep communications confidential, no one will tell us or cooperate with us on anything that they don't want put all over the Internet.

Surely you can see how that might hinder foreign policy, right?

Sorry, above should read "w... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Sorry, above should read "when we fail to keep communications confidential"

If you disagree on the need to keep some things confidential, please post your last tax return and credit card info on the web. Thanks.

The letter from Koh should ... (Below threshold)
Ken Hahn:

The letter from Koh should have been to every known contributor to WikiLeaks and the owners of the servers on which they operate. It should have simply said, "You, your family, your friends, your children and your pets are now fair game. It is too bad the accident rate in Sweden is going to go up so much in the near future."

The President's name is OHB... (Below threshold)
NONONO:

The President's name is OHBOOBA

This is to be expected. Fo... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

This is to be expected. For years, the US Gov't [be it R or D at the helm], has done little to those who leak state secrets [Scooter Libby did not leak any secret]. If there are no consequences for wrong conduct, then that conduct will continue. If the leaker is the Army private who leaked the previous published secret documents, I believe the military still doles out capital punishment for treason. If he is indeed the leaker, then put him in front of firing squad and be done with it.

The publisher of the leaked documents, Mr. Assange, is a different problem. If the CIA was as big and bad as its legend and as conspiracy theorists believe, then Mr. Assange would be in no position to publish [unless, of course, you believe the leaks and publication thereof are part of an even grander governmental conspiracy - cue the eerie music].

Yes, it is no problem for ... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Yes, it is no problem for the libertarian right/ or wizbang (who in theory, want a limited government), that two to three million public servants from lowly State Department employees to privates in the Pentagon had access to the unredacted mostly analytical gossipy cables

This material went out uncensored, with names and sources disclosed, on an intranet with an unsophisticated coding system.

By way of contrast, the five media organizations in receipt of the material went to extraordinary lengths over the past two months to check and "redact" the material that the State Department disseminated so widely. Dozens of names were removed, sources concealed and any danger to current operations censored. Diplomatic agencies were also given the opportunity to warn of risky areas and their views logged and taken into account. Each of the recipient media cross-checked with each other and with WikiLeaks itself. No such precautions were taken by the State Department in preparing its own intranet dissemination. If I were an American source, I would be far more afraid of the State Department than the world's media.

All hell breaks loose in the right wing if the general public has the opportunity to scan the redacted material, and not the exclusive privilege of the two to three million cognoscenti elite of the State Department/Pentagon and whomever else has government influence or pull, to see the uncensored unredacted tittle-tat. It is really a limited press they want not a limited government.

And Sarah Palin is practically calling wikileaks a terrorist organization and asking Obama, why was he not pursuing, the Austrailian founder Julian WikiLeaks with "the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?"

If Sarah were commander-in-chief, could drone attacks on Sydney be next?

Hooson:They're no... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Hooson:
They're not U.S. citizens or subject to our laws. The U.S. doesn't own every citizen of the world.

...and, conversely, we don't owe them anything either. So if something happens to one of them (such as a miffed Russian doing something awful), we shouldn't even feel pity - or feel obligated to help catch the bad guys (except that we have agreements with many countries to do just that, of course).

On a related note: if we got hold of a lot of confidential information about those same people, like credit card numbers, home addresses, personal fetishes, and the names of their girlfriends and boyfriends and mistresses, they have no call to complain if we "leaked" that information. If "information is free," then THEIR information is free, too.

You'd find out pretty quickly that a high percentage of the wikifans are not, by any stretch of the imagination, in favor of their OWN info being public. Sure, they'll make public protestations claiming otherwise, but it's funny how often these "absolute freedom" sorts really mean "everything except for my stuff!"

If Sarah were commander-... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

If Sarah were commander-in-chief, could drone attacks on Sydney be next?

What is it with you leftists and Sarah Palin, anyway? Is it some Freudian thing? Do you ever stop thinking about her? She never crosses my mind unless some leftist brings her up. But you guys seem obsessed by Palin, for reasons that escape comprehension.

I suppose we should leave S... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

I suppose we should leave Sarah alone but she is the first responder and normally most outspoken and critical.

No, no, keep it up. If it w... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

No, no, keep it up. If it weren't for leftists, I'd have no idea what she ever said about ...anything.

Moderate right-wingers such... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Moderate right-wingers such as David Frum 's site seems obsessed as well. The wikileaks certainly has increased a body of knowledge,and gives more comfort to the right for their view of the "axis of evil". Who knows the left may be asking for severe penalty for the private who allegedly disclosed the trove of documents, and the right asking for a pardon, if the revelations continue to advance conservative opinions. Again from Frum, wikileaks builds the case aginst Iran.

Crickmore:Yes, it... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Crickmore:
Yes, it is no problem for the libertarian right/ or wizbang (who in theory, want a limited government), that two to three million public servants from lowly State Department employees to privates in the Pentagon had access to the unredacted mostly analytical gossipy cables

Actually, it is a big problem for me, it just never came up as a question before the leaks. It's hard to be worried about someone releasing information when you don't even realize that it COULD be accessed.

It's hard to believe the SIPRNet network is this open - and it isn't, despite what some are claiming. From all accounts, the leaker (Bradley Manning) had fairly high clearance (he was an intelligence analyst), giving him access to the more highly classified SIPRNet files. The big question is "why did he get such high clearance, when he was so obviously unstable?"

Not that many of the theoretical "three million" people with access to that network would be able to even see those files, much less open them. An intel analyst in a combat zone would be able to, though...

I don't care if the it is "... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

I don't care if the it is "the left" who "may be asking for sever penalty for the private who allegedly disclosed the trove of documents". This is one right-wing conservative who believes that when it comes to foreign policy/military intelligence, secret means secret. The office of the president, even when filled by someone as incompetent as the current idiot savant, deserves the ability to undertake foreign diplomacy/military affairs in secret when deemed necessary. Having our enemies eavesdropping, or as in this case reading, our frank and candid discussions about our enemies, allies, and policy, be it policy we will definitely undertake or merely options, is intolerable. Unfortunately, it's been going on for years.
If you're in the military or in the bureaucracy, it doesn't matter. You signed up to do a job, and also signed an pledge to keep things secret. If you can't keep your word, then either get out or be prepared to suffer the harshest of penalties.

Thanks for the input, cirby... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Thanks for the input, cirby. Two to Three million people with access did seem unreasonably high. It will be interesting now that the trees have been shaken what will happen. If I was a informant, I would rather have the five established press publish vetted redacted assessesments, rather than the uncensored umredacted reports being scattered all over the world... must go!

Steve, Do you ... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

Steve,

Do you have any understanding on how the handling of classified information is supposed to work?

1The person reading the information are supposed be cleared to read the info. The have been cleared to handle the info and have a need to know what is contained therein in order to perform their duties.

So not ever person in the federal government had access to every document.

It is the policy of Federal Government to neither confirm nor deny information. If you do either then you bring further attention to the data. If the News organization were truly trust worthy they would not publish any information.

The process for declassification and redaction of documents takes longer than 5 months. It is not just the names and locations but how information was obtained. The methods used result in causing US to loose intelligence sources Human and Signals.

Here an example on of the ways the US knew we cracked the Japanese code was disabling a piece of gear on Japanese Island we then intercepted the cable that said that equipment was damaged. This confirmed we had broken their code.

Now if that information was leaked by POS to NYT do you think a broken water pump report would be redacted?

When someone is given a clearance they passed background and some eve go through psychological test. They are competent so those who violate that trust should be held accountable. The Army scumbag that released this info to uncleared personal should be fined, imprisoned and shot.

That would set a good example.

"Who knows the left may ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"Who knows the left may be asking for severe penalty for the private who allegedly disclosed the trove of documents, and the right asking for a pardon, if the revelations continue to advance conservative opinions."

Ah, no. Fuck, no. Hell, no. No fucking way. Security classifications are there for a reason - and we're seeing just why. Whether it's Classified, Secret, Top Secret or whatever (and we won't go into the subclassifications and project specific clearances) and whether the information released helps one side or another is irrelevant - that information ISN'T supposed to be released because it hurts the US's military or diplomatic operations.

I realize it's hard for you to look beyond strictly political calculations, Steve - "Does this help or hurt my side?" as you cheer accordingly - but at least give it a try, would ya?

I swear, the left seems to treat political crap such as this like it was a fucking football game that has no real consequence five minutes after a 'win'. It doesn't matter who the President is, it doesn't matter what the political leanings of the leaker is or the reasons thereof.

A security leak hurts us all - and this leak needs to be tracked down and plugged. There's nothing 'patriotic' about leaking diplomatic papers - if anything it makes it harder for countries to trust each other. They'll certainly be more secretive now - which will cause affiliated problems down the road.

Jesus, for people who are supposedly so fucking 'intelligent' we should just hand you the keys to the world, you can't forecast the effects of your actions beyond your next piss, can ya?

This is one right-wing c... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

This is one right-wing conservative who believes that when it comes to foreign policy/military intelligence, secret means secret.

Yeppers. What Walter and hcddbz said. I don't care if the leaked information embarrasses leftists or supports their position.

(This may represent a fundamental divergence between leftists and the rest of us; for us, national interests trump party interests.)

It wasn't this hairball's place to divulge the information, and he couldn't possibly know the magnitude of harm he could do. Hang him high.

JLawson's comment appeared ... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

JLawson's comment appeared after I posted mine, but I subscribe to his sentiments 100%.

Maybe it'll help our friend... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Maybe it'll help our friends on the left to understand if we use an analogy a little closer to home, shall we say.

Suppose someone put on the web the name and address of all the homosexuals in some place.

While I don't have much time for homosexuals, I'd be incensed. This action would serve no constructive purpose, and could do untold harm. I'd prosecute the SOB responsible to the fullest extent of the law.

The principle is exactly the same.

The only justification for betraying a confidence is some overweening higher purpose. If Assange had released documents proving that Bush manufactured a pretext for invading Iraq, or that the CPUSA had groomed Obama and given him downfield blocking from Day One, that would justify release. But just doing it for shits and grins, absolutely not.

Jesus, for people who ar... (Below threshold)

Jesus, for people who are supposedly so fucking 'intelligent' we should just hand you the keys to the world, you can't forecast the effects of your actions beyond your next piss, can ya?

/Applauds

Jay, a slight disagreement,... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

Jay, a slight disagreement, or perhaps just a clarification. When one is in government work, especially military, CIA, State Department, etc., one gives an oath to not disclose classified/secret information. If you believe that you are justified in betraying your oath, even for some "overweening higher purpose" you personally believe in, you'd better be ready to pull a Nathan Hale.

By the way, Mr. Crickmore, ... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

By the way, Mr. Crickmore, I doubt that the left will "be asking for sever penalty for the private who allegedly disclosed the trove of documents,..." In fact, I will go out on a limb and say that the left will mimic the NYTs in saying just how important the leaks are, the US needs to be humbled, blah, blah, blah. The left saves its righteous indignation for Scooty Libby, who never leaked a secret.

If you believe that you ... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

If you believe that you are justified in betraying your oath, even for some "overweening higher purpose" you personally believe in, you'd better be ready to pull a Nathan Hale.

Walter, I absolutely agree. Following Thoreau, the traditional course for someone breaking the law out of conscience is to accept the punishment for doing so.

I wasn't advocating anyone breaking his oath, but specifying the only circumstances under which someone could do so and still potentially still warrant respect.

What is it with you left... (Below threshold)
john:

What is it with you leftists and Sarah Palin, anyway? Is it some Freudian thing? Do you ever stop thinking about her? She never crosses my mind unless some leftist brings her up. But you guys seem obsessed by Palin, for reasons that escape comprehension.

Uhh, maybe it's because she is active in politics and inserts herself wherever possible?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20024066-503544.html

I mean, seriously... what point are you trying to make? Do you even pay attention to politics and the news? Your comment is like saying "what is it with you people and Wikileaks, anyway? They never cross my mind unless some wingnut brings them up. But you guys seem obsessed by Wikileaks for reasons that escape comphrension".

So yeah, if you lack any semblance of comprehension, then obvious reasons will escape you.

Fuck off.... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Fuck off.

Uh, John, trying to argue t... (Below threshold)
Walter Cronanty:

Uh, John, trying to argue that what Ms. Palin put in a Facebook note is as newsworthy as the story about Wikileaks shows that you "lack any semblance of comprehension." I'm kind of a news junkie, and I hadn't heard about what Ms. Palin said until I read the link Crickmore posted. While I admire Ms. Palin, I don't follow her every move/statement. You guys on the left really are obsessed.

I'm kind of a news junki... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

I'm kind of a news junkie, and I hadn't heard about what Ms. Palin said until I read the link Crickmore posted.

Same here, which was my point for those too cognitively disenfranchised to grasp it.

"I realize it's hard for yo... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"I realize it's hard for you to look beyond strictly political calculations, Steve - "Does this help or hurt my side?" as you cheer accordingly - but at least give it a try, would ya?"

I think that's a good reminder for all the hyper-partisans out there. Sometimes we can all just cut the shit, so to speak.

In fact, maybe that's what we need: the "Cut the Bullshit" party.

Don't mind me...I have no patience today.

Don't mind me...I have n... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Don't mind me...I have no patience today.

Roger that.

Sorry for the bluntness above. I'd had enough.

"Sorry for the bluntness ab... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"Sorry for the bluntness above. I'd had enough."

No worries. I happen to be a fan of bluntness on occasion.

Besides, you gotta love the f-bomb, simply for its versatility...the infix being my personal favorite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expletive_infixation

Yes, I know we need a certa... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Yes, I know we need a certain amount of confidentiality and I was being slightly ironic when I said that many of the judgements, and evidence leaked, not all, seemed to support conservative opinions...therefore, to go easy.

But this absolute bile/hatred for the founder of the wikileaks seems unequalled. Many on the far right want him killed!

Townhall's John Hawkins has a column this morning entitled "5 Reasons The CIA Should Have Already Killed Julian Assange." That Assange should be treated as a "traitor" and murdered with no due process has been strongly suggested if not outright urged by the likes of Marc Thiessen, Seth Lipsky (with Jeffrey Goldberg posting Lipsky's column and also illiterately accusing Assange of "treason"), Jonah Goldberg, Rep. Pete King, and, today, The Wall Street Journal.

All governments, without exception, have through the ages used secrecy to hide censorship and malfeasance. You remember that the first translator of the Bible, William Tyndale was strangled and burnt at the stake for his 'crime.' The governing class, that the tea party loves to hate, wants the consent of the government, only. They don't want they ill-informed public to know how they arrived at their decisions? If they did, they might be shocked. Obama is no different. He promised a more open adminstration, but he has been Bush 2 and even more zealous in regards to pursuing whistleblowers, which are the enemies to those who want to conceal and spin.

But why all this disgust to revealing secrets, most unclassified, and all redacted unlike how they were circulated widely around the State department and Pentagon-up to three million had access to them? Why, because they became public, well to be accurate, more public than they were already.

What would have been your reaction to a leaker of the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union and signed in Moscow in the late hours of 23 August 1939? stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol dividing Northern and Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence.


But "those who expose secrets are far more hated than those in power who commit heinous acts using secrecy as their principal weapon".

I suppose it is because they confront authority, And as for this oath restriction, do you think any of the major players in politics are worried about oaths, for the constitution any more than for their marriages. As Bill Clinton replied to why he did it?, because he thought he could get away with it.

Steve -As far as I... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Steve -

As far as I'm concerned, he's released information that's damaged the United States, diplomatically if not militarily. That information was on a classified network. Manning deliberately took information off that classifed network and leaked it. That's treason, no matter his supposed motivation or your rather pathetic excuses or rationalizations.

Seriously - what part of "that shit's classified" doesn't quite register with you? Just the concept that there's info that doesn't need to be spread about like KY at an orgy? Or is it more ideologically based? I don't give a damn who's the President, or whether this stuff was done by Democrats or Republicans - this is stuff that's going to jurt the country - or who folks in charge THOUGHT would hurt the country.

Do I trust them? Do I trust their judgement? A hell of a lot more than I trust yours, if you want an honest answer.

As such - life in Leavenworth would be appropriate, as would death. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is kind of specific on such.

"(1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any entity described in paragraph (2), either directly or indirectly, anything described in paragraph (3) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, except that if the accused is found guilty of an offense that directly concerns (A) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack, (B) war plans, (C) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or (D) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy, the accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

(2) An entity referred to in paragraph (1) is--

(A) a foreign government;
(B) a faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States; or
(C) a representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen of such a government, faction, party, or force.

(3) A thing referred to in paragraph (1) is a document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense.

(b)

(1) No person may be sentenced by court-martial to suffer death for an offense under this section (article) unless--
(A) the m bers of the court-martial unanimously find at least one of the aggravating factors set out in subsection (c); and
(B) the members unanimously determine that any extenuating or mitigating circumstances are substantially outweighed by any aggravating circumstances, including the aggravating factors set out under subsection (c).

(2) Findings under this subsection may be based on--
(A) evidence introduced on the issue of guilt or innocence;
(B) evidence introduced during the sentencing proceeding; or
(C) all such evidence.

(3) The accused shall be given broad latitude to present matters in extenuation and mitigation.
(c) A sentence of death may be adjudged by a court-martial for an offense under this section (article) only if the members unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of the following aggravating factors:

(1) The accused has been convicted of another offense involving espionage or treason for which either a sentence of death or imprisonment for life was authorized by statute.

(2) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of substantial damage to the national security.

(3) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person.

(4) Any other factor that may be prescribed by the President by regulations under section 836 of this title (Article 36)."

I'd say he's hit #2 and #3 of the last para. solidly. He is, to put it kindly, well and truely fucked by his own actions.

And I doubt he's going to enjoy it much, either.

The amazing thing about the... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

The amazing thing about the NYT is that when their were Climate gate emails they would not publish them because they were not sure how they were obtained.

The NYT also refused o report on the Nazi Death Camps during WWII but if there is information that poses a risk to the national Security of the USA.
Hell they run a 9 part special.

The real sorry part of all this is that where is the Federal Government
Most of Wikileaks servers and domain name is based in the USA. this poses a greater threat than fake Nikes why haven't we shot them down?

Fuck off.A ... (Below threshold)
john:

Fuck off.

A well-reasoned rebuttal, clearly showing the level of justification you have for your position.

Uh, John, trying to argu... (Below threshold)
john:

Uh, John, trying to argue that what Ms. Palin put in a Facebook note is as newsworthy

If I had actually tried to argue that, I would probably respond. But since I didn't, I won't.

I'm kind of a news junkie, and I hadn't heard about what Ms. Palin said

You're kidding, right?

http://www.google.com/search?q=palin+incompetent+handling+wikileaks

Let's see... CBS News, Fox News, Time, Politio, Wall St. Journal, Yahoo News, ... Yeah, I can see how a "news junkie" might have missed that.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy