Quality Politico Journalism

Politico quotes a Forbes interview with Julian Assange of Wikileaks, where he says he didn’t give the Washington Post early access to their information for this reason:

[…]The Post recently did an article on WikiLeaks which was generally accurate but with one exception–a line in the story which stated that WikiLeaks had been compared to “Baghdad Bob.” That’s a reference to Saddam Hussein’s former information minister, who was a lying propagandist. I’d never heard this allegation before. So I looked for a reference to us being compared to Baghdad Bob and after 20 minutes of searching I found one right wing blogger who had mentioned that phrase on one occasion. That’s not quality journalism.[…]

Then they call him a liar: “But a search through the Post archives reveals no such story.”

Commenters point out that they are wrong (here’s the Post story.) But the article stays up without correction for going on three days.

That’s how you win the morning. (via)

Update: Finally corrected this morning after Glenn Greenwald rubbed their nose in it over the Twitter.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






103 replies
  1. 1
    Cacti says:

    The newspaper industry can’t die quickly enough.

  2. 2
    wilfred says:

    The official story/party line is that the Wikileak has put innocent Afghans and the troops in danger. The documents are being combed right now to see exactly how that is.

    That’s how you win the week.

  3. 3
    WereBear says:

    @Cacti: At least, this one can go away without me missing it.

  4. 4
    Ted the Slacker says:

    Anyone know which wingnut blogger it was that referred to Assange as Baghdad Bob?

    Just so we know where Joby Warrick lurks.

  5. 5
    Comrade Javamanphil says:

    Politico is just like Heidi Fleiss without the integrity. (All major news organizations can now use this comparison with the caveat that “some people say.”) You’re welcome.

  6. 6
    MikeJ says:

    Kiss up, kick down. As long as WaPo is perceived as having power in Washington, Politico will suck up to it. Wikileaks are nobodies who badmouthed a somebody.

    Politico is happy to play this game because it means that in return, WaPo treats them the same way they would a reputable source.

  7. 7
    Woodrowfan says:

    I keep wanting to cancel the Post but I really, REALLY like getting a morning paper on my doorstep (or at the end of my driveway). And what other DC paper could I get???

  8. 8
    Woodrowfan says:

    @wilfred:

    That’s not entirely outrageous, at least as far as Afghans. The military (and these are mostly military docs) is really sloppy about naming sources or otherwise leaving identifying info in their cables. Unless Wikileaks was very, very careful there will be some dead sources.

  9. 9
    Morbo says:

    Correction made!

  10. 10

    @Morbo:
    Witness the power of Balloon Juice!

  11. 11
    Cat Lady says:

    @Morbo:

    Yes, but it’s from a May story, and Politico’s contention was that the comment wasn’t from the Post’s June through July stories, so it’s technically true, but collectively nonsense, or something. IOW, Politico didn’t get anything right. Shocking, I know.

  12. 12
    matoko_chan says:

    @Woodrowfan: two things.
    1. the Wikileaks docs are all SECRET. Most afghan names in secret docs are public friendlies, civil servants, open sources, contractors and potential coverts. Once an afghan becomes a Taliban embed, double agent, mole, etc…..they become a high-valued asset and any intel on them gets classified TOP SECRET codeword.
    So until we see a list of names this is bullshytt.
    2. the exposure of ANY afghan names in the Wikileaks docs is OUR FAULT because WE allowed the compromise of SECRET data and failed to protect them. Instead of whining about Assange we should extract any burned contacts to safety immediately and offer them US citizenship. I would welcome more muslim immigrants in the US.

  13. 13
    dim says:

    @matoko_chan: agreed and thanks for 2 points! Credit where credit is due and blame where blame is due. Lazy and deluded writers should be banished as there are many in line with more integrity who are looking for a chance.

  14. 14
    Aries Moon says:

    Politico is in the business of generating clicks, not reporting accurate information… which is why I no longer read them. Inaccurate information is of no use to me.

  15. 15

    @Woodrowfan: Forget it dude, nobody wants to here blasphemy which disturbs the netroot narrative and it’s freshly minted hero.

    resistance is futile

  16. 16
    soonergrunt says:

    matoko_chan Rabi`a is as wrong here on balloon-juice as she is on Exum’s blog. It’s just different names for the same person being wrong in the exact same way.
    She’s wrong on both parts of her bullshit posting, cause
    1: not all of the documents, in fact the majority of them like the contact reports and such aren’t classified at all except that they collectively fall into a group that could be considered FOUO/LIMDIS as ‘sensitive’.
    2: The compromise of these documents and the information they contain is Mr. Assange’s fault. He’s the one who put them out there. Unless little miss multiple personalities holds that rape is the woman’s fault because she wore provacative clothing and didn’t carry a gun, and the burglary victim is at fault for where he lives and so forth.

    You really ought to at least have the self-respect to know what you’re talking about if you don’t respect your audience enough to know. Having a functional moral compass wouldn’t hurt either, but I suppose you’ll have to take things one at a time.

  17. 17
    geg6 says:

    @Woodrowfan:

    It’s been a week now since the docs have been public. Please provide evidence that any names have turned up in the docs that turned out to be people who were not already known to be working with or for the US or the coalition. With the RW poutrage machine turned up to 10 over this for this long, you’d think they would have found SOMETHING so they could be screaming for Assange to be thrown in Gitmo for some fratboy pranks by now.

    But they haven’t. Because there is no there there.

  18. 18
    soonergrunt says:

    @Woodrowfan: where’s the sloppyness in putting that stuff into a secured, classified system?
    Somebody breached that system, but that’s not necessarily sloppyness. You have to trust people to do the right thing with the information to which we entrust them. Spies and agents, whether working for us or against us all have one thing in common, and that is trusted access.

  19. 19

    Accuracy smaccuracy, it’s all about the page hits!

    Really, run an open thread titled “Sarah Palin in love triangle with Politico editor, tame moose” and watch the counter roll.

  20. 20
    Frank says:

    @General Stuck:

    Forget it dude, nobody wants to here blasphemy which disturbs the netroot narrative and it’s freshly minted hero. resistance is futile

    How did you feel about Dick Cheney when he outed a CIA agent? Any concern for dead sources?

  21. 21
    Frank says:

    @General Stuck:

    Forget it dude, nobody wants to here blasphemy which disturbs the netroot narrative and it’s freshly minted hero. resistance is futile

    How did you feel about Dick Cheney when he outed a CIA agent? Any concern for dead sources?

  22. 22
    matoko_chan says:

    @soonergrunt:

    The compromise of these documents and the information they contain is Mr. Assange’s fault.

    That is just stupid, SG. you are wrong, and Exum and his commenters are wrong. Compromise of classified data is the fault of the custodians, and a system fail. Have you held clearances?
    Manning got 90k plus docs out of a SECRET facility. He WROTE them on r/w media. That is a profound fail of data protection, and OUR RESPONSIBILITY. And of course there are CONFIDENTIAL and EYES-ONLY docs in SECRET facilities– star property, right?
    Can’t read up, can’t write down. The highest level of the released docs is SECRET. There are no TS codeword docs in there.

    I have seen only one name offered as a possible burned contact. If there are hundreds, lets see it. Are you denying that we hold responsibility for burned contacts (if there are any), soonergrunt? Don’t you think we should extract them immediately?

    Like I said, Exum is defending his dissertation this fall….what do you think it is on? The whole COIN ediface is going to crumble. Exum is just hoping he can squeak through the gate before all this epic stupid loses fundage. He has staked his career to COIN.
    And COIN is ovah.

  23. 23

    @Frank:

    Any concern for dead sources?

    Yes, same as now. Got anything else stupid to say this morning?

  24. 24
    Bulworth says:

    Some critics blasted WikiLeaks as an incarnation of “Baghdad Bob,” the nickname of the former Iraqi information minister under Saddam Hussein.

    Is Faux writing the Washington Post’s stories now? “Some critics say…”

  25. 25
    matoko_chan says:

    And my name at Abu Muqawama is a joke for him. :)

    Abu Muqawama means father of resistance in arabic….Rabi’a al Adiwyya was the first shayyka and a Sufi saint……the mother of knowledge if you like.

  26. 26
    Hugin & Munin says:

    OT: I see the ‘liberal’ Fred Hiatt has given page space to Robert Kagan and Max Boot on the same fucking day.

  27. 27

    @soonergrunt: I recommend just let it go and move on. The inmates have taken over this asylum.

  28. 28
    Keith says:

    Dammit! Site’s crashing IE8-on-Win7 again. At least this time, I have been able to verify that it isn’t Flash that’s doing it (I previously thought it was one of the ads doing it). Gotta be *real* fast flipping the page into IE7 compatibility mode to even read the site today.

  29. 29
    matoko_chan says:

    @General Stuck: Assange and Mannings avowed purpose is to stop the meaningless, unjust, and unwinnable war in afghanistan. People that want the war to continue, that are invested in this war (like Exum), are throwing radar chaff. I don’t think there are many names that can be compromised, sorry. The highest classification of the released data is SECRET.
    Hopefully we protected our high value assets like Tali embeds with the strongest protocol available– TOP SECRET codeword.
    If we didnt we were assholes that didn’t give a shit about compromising them either.
    Ricks and Exum and the rest of the war pimps don’t give a shit about the afghan people….COIN (as implemented) is just a recipe for expensive, bloody, failsauce.

  30. 30

    I don’t really understand why people are hellbent on defending Wikileaks for not redacting names in the documents. Even Greenwald quickly agreed that that was a major mistake.

  31. 31
    jlw says:

    Ted the Slacker asked, “Anyone know which wingnut blogger it was that referred to Assange as Baghdad Bob? Just so we know where Joby Warrick lurks.”

    This seems to be the answer:

    http://davidbellavia.com/new/?p=9831

    Pretty weak tea.

  32. 32
    matoko_chan says:

    @Brien Jackson: show us the data. otherwise you and Greenwald are just siding with the war pimps throwing chaff.
    There is no proof so far that any names of covert friendlies have been compromised.

  33. 33
    ChrisS says:

    So, the VP outing an american CIA operative is meh, but Wikileaks almost randomly releasing a pile of documents that maybe possibly, name some afghan sources is OMG!!! THE NERVE! TRAITORS!

    Fuck this top secret, authoritarian endless war military mindset.

  34. 34
    Woodrowfan says:

    @General Stuck:

    Yeah, I know. I actually like Wikileaks, but I worry about that much data being released at once. Something is going to get out that shouldn’t be.

    As for the Plame Case—Libby, Cheney, the whole crew should be in prison with Aldrich Ames, the Walkers, and the rest for a very, very long time….

  35. 35
    matoko_chan says:

    This is some of the same bullshytt that Manning and Assange are exposing.
    And Sooner and the General are totally spoofed into helping Exum keep this crap going long enough to finish his dissertation.

  36. 36
    Woodrowfan says:

    matoko_chan, before you flame me too, let me note that I pretty much agree with you on everything except for the possibility of burned sources. As for names, we’ll likely never really know who, if anyone, is burned by this. They’ll just be more collateral damage in an endless war. MY worry is that Wikileaks couldn’t possibly sanitize 91,000 documents enough .

    And yeah, anyone who poo-pooed the Plame case can STFU about Wikileaks…

  37. 37

    @matoko_chan:

    What the fuck are you talking about? Neither I nor Greenwald have said they shouldn’t have published the documents, but it’s pretty basic that people’s names should have been redacted.

  38. 38
    matoko_chan says:

    @Woodrowfan:

    Something is going to get out that shouldn’t be.

    But a lot of stuff that we have a right to know….heh….even need-to-know.
    That is what Assange said.

    “[Assange] insisted that any risk to informants’ lives was outweighed by the overall importance of publishing the information.” — The Times of London

    i don’t think there is a lot of risk, but do, show us the names.

  39. 39
    Shawn in ShowMe says:

    Why does Assange believe releasing all these documents is going to end the war in Afghanistan any sooner? This ain’t the 1960s — war protests don’t get TV coverage anymore.

    The best cast scenario is that no one dies because of the release of this information.

  40. 40
    slag says:

    @MikeJ:

    Kiss up, kick down. As long as WaPo is perceived as having power in Washington, Politico will suck up to it.

    So does this make Politico the Baghdad Bob for WaPo?

  41. 41
    Frank says:

    @Woodrowfan:

    As for the Plame Case—-Libby, Cheney, the whole crew should be in prison with Aldrich Ames, the Walkers, and the rest for a very, very long time….

    Thank you. It is hard to take the criticism against Wikileaks seriously when the same people who are criticizing Wikileaks were putting a blind eye to Cheney, Rove etc when they did the same thing.

    For example, here’s what Republican Peter King said about Karl Rove outing a CIA agent:

    Rep. Peter King (R-NY): “I think Karl Rove should get a medal. … I really mean that. I think this is much do about nothing, because let’s look at the facts very clearly. . . . Joe Wilson has no right to complain. And I think people like Tim Russert and the others, who gave this guy such a free ride and all the media, they’re the ones to be shot, not Karl Rove.”(“Scarborough Country,” MSNBC, 7/12/2005).

    Were was the uproar from FoxNews etc?

  42. 42
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @matoko_chan: Why couldn’t the names have been redacted? The general information would be out, but names would not be.

  43. 43
    roshan says:

    @Morbo:
    A non-correction as far as anyone is concerned.

  44. 44
    matoko_chan says:

    @Brien Jackson: why? in secret level docs and below there aren’t going to be Taliban embeds.
    99% of the afghan names will be public friendlies, civil servants, gov functionaries, afghan contractors…..afghan citizens in contact with the coalition forces in the open. Should Karzai’s name have been redacted?
    And like i said, it is OUR FAULT. That is a horrifying exposure in itself. The US gov is supposed to be reviewing the docs, it is THEIR RESPONSIBILTY to extract any afghan citizens endagered by our fuckup.

  45. 45
    sickoftheright says:

    Were people put in danger when Cheney blew the cover of a CIA asset? Did people die? Was there an uproar from the right?

    Did they throw that old douchebag Novak in prison for it?

    The right only worries about unnamed Afghans apparently….

  46. 46
    Woodrowfan says:

    But a lot of stuff that we have a right to know….heh….even need-to-know.

    I’d agree with that.

    I don’t think there is a lot of risk, but do, show us the names.

    It doesn’t have to be names. That’s just it. Enough tiny pieces of dates, times, what info was passed, etc, can be put together.

    I am encouraged that Wikileaks apparently held back some documents because they were worried about sources.

    Maybe I should be more straightforward, I am not claiming that sources WERE compromised, but I am concerned that, given the volume of documents and the source of the documents, that sources MIGHT be compromised…

  47. 47
    matoko_chan says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: why? should Karzai’s name have been redacted?

  48. 48
    geg6 says:

    @Shawn in ShowMe:

    You seriously need to ask this question? The docs show the abysmal failure of the entire strategy of COIN, the only hook they have to maintain this perpetual war. The American public, already sick of it, needs to know how fucked up the entire strategy has been and will continue to be. That’s the only chance there is of ending the insanity, small though it may be.

    Not a perfect corrollary, but my hawkish Dad didn’t really turn against Vietnam until he got a gander at the Pentagon Papers. And then that blue collar steelworker and lifelong Republican turned into a huge DFH. Though it wasn’t until Reagan that he finally changed his voter registration.

  49. 49
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @matoko_chan: Why is everything black and white with you? There is a difference between Karzai and an official who has provided help at a low level. A document that mentions that Person X provided excellent advice and accurate information to the US while Person Y in the same position two villages over was unhelpful could well put Person X at risk. Assange, per your link, has admitted that people have been put at risk. He argues that it is worth it. He has made a personal ethical judgment. Others have made the judgment that the loss of information through the redacting of sensitive names would be outweighed by the dimunition of risk to those people without truly compromising the point of the leaks.

  50. 50
    matoko_chan says:

    @Woodrowfan: that sources MIGHT be compromised…
    like i said, i have held clearances. once a covert source turns high-value, ALL the intel associated with that individual gets bumped to TS codeword.
    Assange kept any of that stuff back. Manning requested two things…minimizing intel compromise and releasing the docs in a way designed to get max exposure and shock value. that is why the collateral murder video was released on April 5 and the 92k docs on July 26. A little less than 3 months apart. Assange and Manning want to discredit the meaningless unwinnable war in Afghanistan as radically as possible.
    I think Assange has more stuff. The 260,000 classified diplomatic cables.
    Midterm elections are a little less than 3 months out.
    hmmmm?
    there could be some really poisonous stuff about Our Crazy Exgirlfriend Israel….or maybe even some extra bad juju about Bush that is going to remind the electorate of how much they hated him.
    interesting times.

  51. 51
    matoko_chan says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: i just want an admission that it is OUR SCREWUP that exposed these guys (if they are exposed) and a FUCKIN’ COMMITMENT TO EXTRACT THEM.
    instead there is all this emo whining about Assange not doing the right thing. Guess what? THE NAMES ARE OUT THERE ALREADY.
    Lets us do the right thing. Take responsibilty. Get any burned contacts out. GTFO out of a meaningless unwinnable war we are LOSING before anyone else dies.
    How about that?

  52. 52
    Bella Q says:

    @Brien Jackson: Well you know, someone who’s (screen-)named herself a saint isn’t gonna have much use for what anyone actually said. Or even sentiments like

    I am concerned that, given the volume of documents and the source of the documents, that sources MIGHT be compromised…

  53. 53
    roshan says:

    I would classify the American public as Switzerland. They see no evil, they hear no evil and they do no evil. But somehow, they have noticed that Assange is perpetrating huge atrocities on the Afghan informants.

  54. 54
    Morbo says:

    On the other hand, it’s still safer to be named in the leaked documents than it is to attend a wedding or funeral in Afghanistan…

  55. 55
    Shawn in ShowMe says:

    @geg6

    I could see your point if we were mired in quagmire with no end date in sight. But the drawdown date for Afghanistan is already next summer. Other than boosting ratings for talking heads, the material effect of this document dump is absolutely zilch.

  56. 56
    matoko_chan says:

    @Shawn in ShowMe: the docs show 1. we are LOSING and 2. we CAN’T WIN.

    The best cast scenario is that no one dies because of the release of this information.

    The best case scenario is the release of the truth to the american public results in GTFO and no one ELSE dies because of the stupid meaningless and unwinnable war.

    Let us ax ourselves……why are the war pimps whining about possible burned afghan contacts? Because they don’t want anything to do with the REAL discussion we should be having. Leaving.
    The war pimps are saying we already know whats in Wikileaks docs, no big whup.
    That is a lie.
    The Wikileaks docs SHOW we are LOSING and we CAN’T WIN.
    Of course the war pimps want to change the subject.
    And a lot of retards are totally falling for it, like eemom, the General, Bella, sooner, to mention a few.

  57. 57
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @matoko_chan: Our screw-up that Assange did not redact names, our screw-up that the documents ended up in his hands, our screw-up that the US is doing COIN, our screw-up that the US is still in Afghanistan, or our screw-up that the US went into Afghanistan in the first place – how do you define the screw-up that you want admitted?

  58. 58
    Mike Toreno says:

    Politico was not wrong. They didn’t say there was no such story. They said a search through the Post archives revealed no such story. They didn’t say anywhere that the failure of a search to reveal the story wasn’t due to the shittiness of their search, or their general incompetence and laziness.

  59. 59
    soonergrunt says:

    As for the Plame Case—-Libby, Cheney, the whole crew should be in prison with Aldrich Ames, the Walkers, and the rest for a very, very long time….

    This.

  60. 60
    matoko_chan says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: the SCREWUP where we failed to protect classified and EXPOSED lists of names that we had a sworn duty TO PROTECT.
    Assange is doing his job as he sees it.
    His risk/benefit trade-off is that releasing the docs was worth it even if there is some compromise. That is his call, isn’t it?

    WE DIDN’T DO OUR JOB.
    The right thing to do is to admit our responsibilty and extract any people we have put in harms way.

  61. 61

    @matoko_chan:

    So wait, it’s the government’s fault because they can spend a lot of money removing these people, forcing them to uproot their lives, leave their families, etc. to get away from the prospect of retaliation from the Taliban, when Wikileaks could have just redacted the fucking names?

  62. 62
    matoko_chan says:

    @Woodrowfan:

    we’ll likely never really know who

    So? ‘we’ have no need-to-know.
    The docs are under review, and the local commanders should be apprised of any afghans our failure to protect classified has put in harms way, and they should be extracted.
    Assange is not going to extract them, and the names are already published. Its pointless to discuss Assange.

    You are totally buying into the war pimps efforts to change the subject.

  63. 63

    @sickoftheright:

    I don’t understand the point people think they’re making with this line of argument.

  64. 64
    eemom says:

    just fwiw, little IQ_chan has been shifting the goalposts here all week.

    First, she claimed Wikileaks hadn’t published anything that wasn’t vetted by the newpapers cuz Assange delegated that task to them, and they’ve had like MONTHS to go through all those documents.

    Oh — all 90,000 documents are available for all the world to see on the Wikileaks website.

    Then, she claimed that any sensitive information HAD been redacted from the 90,000.

    Oh — NOTHING is redacted from the 90,000.

    Then, she claimed that there must not be any sensitive information in the documents, because otherwise Wikileaks wouldn’t have published them.

    Oh — Assange has said repeatedly in public that only between 2,000 and 10,000 of the documents have actually been reviewed. (The number he uses has varied.) And he says it’s the Public’s job to review them.

    Oh.

    Oh.

    well, um…….I KNOW!! Secret! These documents were only classified as SECRET! There CAN’T be any outed names in Secret
    documents, cuz those would have to be TOP SECRET! Whew!

    And BESIDES — if classified names got leaked, it’s OUR FAULT!!
    Wooooohoooooo!

    And everyone who doesn’t believe it is a “retard”!!! Wheeee!

    Full orgasm stop.

  65. 65

    @geg6:

    For the umpteenth millionth time; this is nothing like the Pentagon Papers.

  66. 66
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @matoko_chan: You are back to the all black or all white characterization of actions again. Assange could have redacted the names, but chose not to do so. Some blame falls on him if something happens to someone. He, and you, may think the tradeoffs are worth it, but that does not mean that his hat is all white here.

  67. 67
    matoko_chan says:

    @Brien Jackson: yup.
    the contract we signed on to with the afghan people is that if they aid us, we protect them.
    We failed to protect classified data, and if they are exposed, we exposed them. Whining about Assange is useless at this point. I don’t think there are many burned contacts, but any there are are our responsibility, not Assanges.
    You are a retard being spoofed by the war pimps too, right?

  68. 68
    Shawn in ShowMe says:

    @matoko_chan

    The Wikileaks docs SHOW we are LOSING and we CAN’T WIN.

    Which is, to anyone paying attention, about as shocking as finding out that wrestling is fake. Good grief, even milquetoast NPR has been painting a pretty dire picture of the situation there for the last year.

    The question has always been what objectives can you accomplish in the limited time remaining before you get the hell out and “declare victory”. You know, politics. At the end of the day Assange’s “revelation” that shit is bad over there is just preaching to the choir.

  69. 69

    @matoko_chan:

    I normally try to be as nice as I can, but…you’re a fucking idiot. Worse, you’re an intolerably self-righteous fucking idiot.

  70. 70
    eemom says:

    @Brien Jackson:

    you can’t tell her that. She was THERE, so she knows…….and she says this is JUST LIKE THE FUCKING PENTAGON PAPERS. Because shut up, that’s why.

    @Shawn in ShowMe:

    But the drawdown date for Afghanistan is already next summer.

    And you BELIEVE that?? You must be a hippie puncher.

  71. 71
    matoko_chan says:

    @eemom: links please?
    and my thinking evolved when i saw the intent of the war pimps to change the subject, and read some of the docs, and learned the top classification was SECRET.
    Assange did keep some of the docs back, and no, the 92k released are not the total he got from Manning. I think he is planning another document release in late Oct.

    you got spoofed by the war pimps.
    and again, i have seen ONE single possible case of an endangered source cited.
    links please.

  72. 72
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @matoko_chan:

    Whining about Assange is useless at this point.

    Let’s not bicker and argue about who killed who. So things just happen and once they do all we can do is discuss how to go forward. No sense in looking back and determining whether a certain course of action had a beneficial or pernicious effect, right? It’s all in the past. Is that it?

  73. 73
    matoko_chan says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    if something happens to someone

    If. lets wait and see, shall we?

  74. 74
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Brien Jackson: Ah, now she will start in on IQ.

  75. 75
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @matoko_chan: Yes, being careful beforehand is a terrible idea.

  76. 76
    eemom says:

    @matoko_chan:

    link yourself, twit. Where’s the links for all of your brazen bullshit?

  77. 77
    matoko_chan says:

    @Brien Jackson:

    intolerably self-righteous fucking idiot

    actually i am a hypereducated elitist intellectual snob that has held clearances. and a sufi. :)

    @Shawn in ShowMe: if it is public knowledge that we are currently LOSING an UNWINNABLE war then lets GTFO.

  78. 78
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @matoko_chan: Then you should email Cole your credenzas. After all, the helicopters aren’t laughing.

  79. 79
    matoko_chan says:

    @eemom: here are some cases where afghans MIGHT be at risk.
    But not because of Assange.

    A senior official at the Afghan Foreign Ministry said: “The leaks certainly have put in real risk and danger the lives and integrity of many Afghans. The US is both morally and legally responsible for any harm that the leaks might cause to the individuals, particularly those who have been named. It will further limit the US/international access to the uncensored views of Afghans.”

    I repeat, if there are compromised individuals, let local field commanders extract them if they are in danger.
    Blaming Assange is a distraction from the real discussion we should be having…..leaving.

  80. 80
    Jon H says:

    @geg6: “Please provide evidence that any names have turned up in the docs that turned out to be people who were not already known to be working with or for the US or the coalition.”

    This is a pathetic chicken-shit gambit on your part. The odds of typical blog-readers being able to get that kind of information, or even being able to connect a name in the files to the name of a shopkeeper killed for passing information to the Americans, are pretty fucking slim.

    You’re hiding behind your own impenetrable ignorance and the ignorance of your peers in the West, safely protected by thousands of miles of geographical and cultural distance.

  81. 81
    Jon H says:

    @matoko_chan: “actually i am a hypereducated elitist intellectual snob that has held clearances”

    Maybe. Most of your online babbling is so eccentric I rather doubt it.

  82. 82
    Jon H says:

    @matoko_chan: “why? in secret level docs and below there aren’t going to be Taliban embeds.”

    This is bullshit, net-kook, and I’m sure you know it. A person doesn’t have to be a ‘Taliban embed’ for their cooperation with the US to put their life at risk. Some farmer who occasionally passes on some information could be at risk, without being an “open source”.

  83. 83
    sparky says:

    @matoko_chan:

    repeat, if there are compromised individuals, let local field commanders extract them if they are in danger.

    what exactly is wrong about this proposal? have people already forgotten what happened/may happen in Iraq? or Vietnam, for that matter?

    i’m not Assange, and i’m glad i didn’t have to make the decision he did. but it’s done now, and if these assertions are true then the thing to do is get those people out, not complain about disclosure. is that happening? and if the release forces the US out of that country that much more quickly, lives will have been saved. at the very least, the general public has some access to information it didn’t have before, and yes, that is worth something, if only to bar the claim of “it’s too difficult to find out what is going on.”

    after that, perhaps, people can complain, if they wish. but since the USG is already reading your online activity it already knows what you think.

  84. 84
    matoko_chan says:

    @Jon H: From the link.

    The Pentagon claimed a preliminary review of the thousands of secret reports released by WikiLeaks showed that they posed no immediate threat to US forces.

    There yah go, horses mouth.
    Its the Pentagons bidness to determine compromise damage, not yours.
    Seems a lot of the commenters here aren’t any brighter than FOXtards–just a bunch of ‘slines and cudlips that are getting played by the war pimps.
    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Then you should email Cole your credenzas.

    well….i would, but i don’t think that Cole maintains a secure facility where I could pass my tickets through channels.
    :)

  85. 85
    henqiguai says:

    @Jon H (#81):

    @matoko_chan: “actually i am a hypereducated elitist intellectual snob that has held clearances”

    You forgot “…and a sufi”.

    You’re a sufi. Great. That makes you what; the Islamic version of a Scientologist ? (Yeah, I know. Sufism is an ancient and venerated and serious discipline of Islam, but m_c is making it look pretty pointlessly idiotic.)

    You’re hypereducated. I guess that hyper education thingie skipped over spelling. And there’s loads and loads of extremely educated nitwits out there; all it fundamentally takes is the ability to sit through lectures, function in a lab, regurgitate material or perform perfunctory analysis.

    You’re elitist. Apparently you don’t get outside your little self-referential bubble much, do you ?

    Anybody who’s done any dope will, at some point, claim some great intellectual capacity. And that snob thing. Really ? So are hordes of dumb-as-a-bag-of-hair uneducated twits lacking any human worth outside their mere existence.

    You are tiresome in your ignorance; or intentional obtuseness. And your having had a security clearance is irrelevant. I, as have many on this board, have or had various levels of clearance. Outside of the material you’re cleared to see/handle, it means nothing. The Secret material I still carry around in my head is forbidden knowledge to my wife, and her Army clearance was stratospheric compared to my merely Secret-level. You’re an idiot.

  86. 86
    matoko_chan says:

    @henqiguai: lookie lookie
    Sully and Greenwald agree that you cudlips are being played by the war pimps.

    As was painfully predictable and predicted, the bulk of political discussion in the wake of the WikiLeaks disclosures focuses not on our failing, sagging, pointless, civilian-massacring, soon-to-be-decade-old war, but rather on the Treasonous Evil of WikiLeaks for informing the American people about what their war entails. While it’s true that WikiLeaks should have been much more careful in redacting the names of Afghan sources, watching Endless War Supporters prance around with righteous concern for Afghan lives being endangered by the leak is really too absurd to bear. You know what endangers innocent Afghan lives? Ten years of bombings, checkpoint shootings, due-process-free hit squads, air attacks, drones, night raids on homes, etc. etc.

    and its not ignorance or obtuseness…..its pure-D righteous arrogance.
    because im right.
    ;)

  87. 87
    Jon H says:

    @matoko_chan: “There yah go, horses mouth.”

    You’re a moron.

    What you quoted specifically addressed threats to US Forces not Afghans.

  88. 88
    Jon H says:

    Pretty much off-topic, but whenever I see a photo of Julian Assange, I can’t help but think he looks like some kind of UFO-cult leader. Like the Raelians or something.

    If you called Central Casting, and asked for them to send someone over to play the part of a utopian UFO-cult leader, I bet they’d send over a dead ringer for Assange.

    It’s kinda weird.

  89. 89
    matoko_chan says:

    @henqiguai: and i could tell you about my tickets…..but then i’d have to kill you.
    :)

  90. 90
    matoko_chan says:

    @Jon H: my point being, i think you ‘slines are somewhat underqualled to do threat assessment for the afghans named as well.
    Let the guys that know what they are doing do their FUCKING JOBS and quit letting the war pimps punk your dumbass.

  91. 91
    henqiguai says:

    @matoko_chan (#86):

    @henqiguai: lookie lookie
    Sully and Greenwald agree that you cudlips are being played by the war pimps.

    Sorry, m_c, but I’m completely indifferent to both those blowhards (and yes, I do read the occasional Greenwald rant; not so much Sullivan). And I have no idea of what relevance that chunk of text has to do with my comment. A hypereducated elitist snob should be able to run that analysis for the rest of us. Oh, and what’s a “cudlips” ? You do understand that an insult works only if the target understands the insult, right ?

    and its not ignorance or obtuseness…..its pure-D righteous arrogance.
    because im right.

    Umm, no. You’re demonstrably an air-head and/or an idiot. But I’m willing to accept counter arguments.

  92. 92
    matoko_chan says:

    @henqiguai: and, merci mille fois pour tous vos complimentes.
    My role model is Matt Taibbi.
    I know, i know, my profanity is weaksauce compared to the Master….
    but im gettin there with the offensive part, right?

  93. 93
    henqiguai says:

    @matoko_chan (#89): Oh oh ! Tit for tat silliness ! Okay –

    @henqiguai: and i could tell you about my tickets…..but then i’d have to kill you.

    Parking or speeding ? Oh, you’re talking about military secrets ? Personally, rather than worry my beautiful mind on taking you out after divulging what I know, I’d simply drop that dime to those guys down in the local Federal building. They like dealing with those sorts of situations.

    And as for the killing me part; give it a shot – real killers have. I’m more persistent than my usual off-the-walledness would suggest (kind’a like a social disease, I can just keep coming back).

  94. 94
    henqiguai says:

    @matoko_chan (#92):

    but im gettin there with the offensive part, right?

    Offensive ? No. As said earlier, just tiresome; I don’t use cleek’s pie filter just judicious use of the mouse scroll button. For example, even while trying to be offensive, Corner Stone manages to, if not technically inform, at least stimulate the occasionally interesting question (‘specially when he and someone like Stuck are going at each other hammer-and-tongs).

  95. 95
    matoko_chan says:

    heh
    cudlips are from Morgan scifi and ‘slines are from Stephenson scifi.
    and no, i do not care if you dont know what those mean….you understood perfectly well that it was an insult.
    the part im right about is that these dumbass juicers are gettin’ played by the war pimps into bellyaching about Assange just like the FOXtards, when they should be bellyaching about the war we are LOSING in Afghanistan.
    here is true thing you said, Mr. SECRET access.

    Outside of the material you’re cleared to see/handle, it means nothing.

    zactly. you can’t read up. i can’t write down.
    got that?

  96. 96
    matoko_chan says:

    @henqiguai: wallah….you don’t know what tickets are?
    ax your wife i guess.

  97. 97
    eemom says:

    @Jon H:

    The odds of typical blog-readers being able to get that kind of information, or even being able to connect a name in the files to the name of a shopkeeper killed for passing information to the Americans, are pretty fucking slim.

    Not to worry. More knowledgeable folks are on it:

    In an interview with Channel 4 News, Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said they were studying and investigating the report, adding “If they are US spies, then we know how to punish them.”
    . . . .
    Information from the documents could reveal:
    Names and addresses of Afghans cooperating with Nato forces
    Precise GPS locations of Afghans
    Sources and methods of gathering intelligence

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....mants.html

    But of course, it’s been FIVE WHOLE DAYS, and no one’s reported any mutilated corpses yet. So none of that counts as EVIDENCE.

  98. 98
    Henry says:

    @Mike Toreno: Yeah, I also ran a search for Baghdad Bob on wapo, and that article doesn’t show up anywhere (i searched 1987-current and ordered by date – it just wasn’t there). Not to defend politico, but wapo search seems to be just terrible.

  99. 99
    matoko_chan says:

    @eemom: it is not our job.
    it is the us govs job.
    the us gov should extract any compromised contacts.
    you are just getting punked by the war pimps, eemom.
    you can’t do anything to Assange, except whine.
    if you are relly worried about compromised afghan idents, start a petition to get them out, pressure the Pentagon.
    you don’t relly give a shit about anything but being shown up as a cudlip that is too dumb to know when shes being played by the war pimps.

    A senior official at the Afghan Foreign Ministry said: “The leaks certainly have put in real risk and danger the lives and integrity of many Afghans. The US is both morally and legally responsible for any harm that the leaks might cause to the individuals, particularly those who have been named. It will further limit the US/international access to the uncensored views of Afghans.”

  100. 100
    liberal says:

    @Woodrowfan:

    And what other DC paper could I get???

    The Examiner? (Just kidding.)

  101. 101
    liberal says:

    @Jon H:

    Pretty much off-topic, but whenever I see a photo of Julian Assange, I can’t help but think he looks like some kind of UFO-cult leader. Like the Raelians or something.

    Not me. When I see his photo, I think “gay”. (“Not that there’s anything wrong with that…”)

  102. 102
    liberal says:

    @Jon H:
    I was thinking the same thing, so I’d say you have a good point there, but we all know she has a really really really high IQ, so…

  103. 103
    Total cynic says:

    I have total faith that the people who set up the “murder inc” unit in Afghanistan will kill a couple of the Afghanis named just to make WiliLeaks look bad. There is not the tiniest doubt in my mind.

    The Phoenix program of cold blooded murder killed some village leaders that were patriots. The Vietnamese collaborators “intelligence” chose the targets. The patriots, who had infiltrated the collaborators “intelligence” completely, selected the village leaders who were neutral. It made the eventual takeover much easier since there were no neutrals left. The Phoenix program had murdered almost all of them and any possible opposition.

    If the “intelligence” is good enough to murder families en masse at night, like their heroes in the Gestapo, exactly why haven’t they found Bin Laden?

    Yeah, him, the mastermind. Not the number two killed 27 times, or the number three killed 319 times, but the mastermind.

Comments are closed.