Below is some more food for thought on the Assange release from Wikileaks. The reason I am posting this is because there is more to this leaking than meets the eyes. And there is much more to the responses to the leaking than the surface spin. What I am saying is that it is not just the leaking that is important to us, but the reactions from various targets of the leaks that we need to be watching. The power dance is going on in front of us, but the mainstream media is either ignoring it or trying to paint Obama as an innocent bystander. (He played that card really well during the financial crisis of 2008 when I believe he knew exactly who was behind the crash and why.....Soros directing, if you ask me.)
My take on the article below is that someone is trying to get Hillary off the stage. To what end? To keep Obama in place as the dupe of the global Socialists? This is why these leaks are good for us. Not just for the leaks, but for watching who reacts to what in which way. Smarter political reporters than I will analyze this better than I.
However, I don't agree with Krauthammer, HERE who I used to like but have come to the conclusion that he is on the side of globalism. He admonishes our response to the leaks by saying "we are at war" and this is "sabatage," and therefore, we should be after Assange's head on a platter for exposing how we are conducting this so called war. He wants the guy impaled and fast. Well, last I heard, we are at war with an ideology, not a nation state, i.e. the "War on Terror." Our soldiers are out there in fields where you can't tell the enemy from the friend and our government refuses to declare war on the actual perpetrators of terror. In WWII did we declare war on National Socialism? No. We declared war on Germany. So al qaeda has no nation state.....however, we know they are radical Muslim Islamics. The leaks tell us how our government is trying to conduct this war with diplomacy tactics and cajoling middle eastern players into acting on our behalf. Does this diplomacy effort put our soldiers at risk, or does this exposure of diplomacy reveal the actions of the players out in the open to each other? Or both? I would say both, which complicates the situation even more, but also makes me want to grab our soldiers and bring everyone of them home. But for Krauthammer to blame the messenger, Assange, is misplaced anger. His anger should be directed at our leadership that is conducting a "war" that has no clearly defined enemy and no good military plan.
The very premise that we can manipulate governments on the side of Islam with diplomacy is ridiculous to me. Nice idea if you can do it, but it turns into a shake-down with no results as far as I can tell. This is asymetrical war, not conventional war, which is why we are going about this in unconventional ways not proven in history to work. It is ambiguous and not clearly defined. And if you read my blog much, you know that is not how I like things. I want clear definitions that are based on truth. If I would make a decision to put a soldier's life on the line, I want to know his life would not be wasted by pasting some bandaid (or bribe) on a situation, buying off the Taliban, or trying to kill an ideology. This is why Iraq, though it might have not been well thought out or conducted perfectly, made more sense to me than this stupid action going on in Afghanistan which is spreading into Pakistan and Yemen.
Sure, I'd like to rid the world of the insanity of this radical Islam nonsense. Obviously our government doesn't have a clue how to do that, and Obama is a Muslim sympathizer who refuses to lead on the war. He has mostly left that up to Hillary, but now finding she has power to run against him, he is not unhappy that Wikileaks is going after her. Watch the reactions as well as the actions.
That being said, turning Hillary into a target of the leaks makes one ask, who wants her out of it and why? The low ranked Manning, who downloaded all of this information, is hardly likely to be the brains behind any of this, but a dupe with an ax to grind who just did what someone wanted him to do. Well, as the article suggests below, Obama would like the Clintons off the stage. She is a threat to his second term and he knows it. His backers know it. The power dance is on stage in front of us. Watch for the slam dance and the high kicks! Hardly the romantic waltz, it is going to be interesting.
Big Journalism Article on Wikileaks and Useful Idiots
"The media had info from Manning way back in June that WikiLeaks was targeting Hillary Clinton via a massive foreign policy leak. So why single out Hillary for the media attack now? To whom does Hillary pose a threat? Is it a coincidence that we are 13 months away from the 2012 Iowa Caucus and that this WikiLeaks dump – and the well-timed call for Hillary’s resignation – occurs just four weeks after the incumbent President suffered a major political defeat?
And, why only call for Hillary’s resignation? She doesn’t make the foreign policy that Assange/Chavez condemns, she merely implements the policy set by the President. Why then are some in the media floating Hillary as the fall guy now?"
Adding this: Tom Roberson's take on Wikileaks
Excerpt: "We see a lot of double dealing by world leaders and some embarrassing opinions, but we also see an administration whose foreign policy can at best be described as chaotic, and at worst is downright hostile to American interests around the world. These Keystone Kops are no longer able to hide their flaws behind the failsafe veil of classified information. Many of the suspicions we've had about the Obama administration's foreign policy have now been confirmed by this egregious document dump."
This is good to know, whether you like it or not. And this is why I believe the American people are better off with this information.