November 30th, 2010

Wikileaks and the Obama administration

Predictably, Sarah Palin calls Obama out for not doing something about Wikileaks sooner. It’s a good question; why hasn’t he?

There are those who believe that it’s because Obama is so intent on sabotaging the United States and its standing in the world that he’s secretly happy about the embarrassment of the latest Wikileaks dump. But those people ignore the fact that it’s the Obama administration itself that is most revealed, and most damaged, in its ability to use diplomacy and communicate with its allies. As Heather Hurlburt points out in the New Republic, the lack of protective secrecy will have a chilling effect on what she calls “progressive” foreign policy: i.e. Obama’s reliance on and faith in diplomacy.

It is telling that it’s only now that the Obama administration seems to care about Wikileaks. When the dump was just about the military, his objections were ho-hum. Now they seem to have a little more bite, because it’s getting personal—especially for Hillary Clinton.

Whether or not anything will come of threats by Holder to “investigate” whether Assange has violated the espionage or any other act (no doubt he’s shaking in his shoes in Sweden or Switzerland or Iceland, thinking about a nice warm vacation in Ecuador) remains to be seen.

One of the hallmarks of the Obama administration so far has been a curious lead-footedness, a slowness to react to breaking events. I’m not sure whether it is due to Obama’s personal indecisiveness, or some problem with his chain of command, or his desire to placate all sides by not taking a stand until the last possible moment, or all of the above, or some other factor. But this slowness has been quite noticeable in many arenas, and is part of the perception of weakness and hesitancy that Obama and company have engendered.

I doubt very much whether Julian Assange feels Obama and Holder to be any sort of threat at all to his safety. And my guess is also that, even though the recent dump was widely telegraphed by Assange in advance, Obama had trouble believing it would actually happen to him. After all, he’s the good guy—he’s not Bush; he’s Obama, the one who means well, the one who keeps apologizing for America abroad and who wants to end American exceptionalism.

Nothing in Obama’s previous life has prepared him for anything but worldwide adulation and approval from the likes of someone like Assange. When Robert Gibbs remarked that it’s an understatement to say that Obama was “not pleased” by the most recent Wikileaks disclosures, one can be fairly sure he’s telling the truth. Not pleased, and surprisingly surprised.

51 Responses to “Wikileaks and the Obama administration”

  1. Occam's Beard Says:

    Obama’s reliance on and faith in diplomacy.

    Obama had trouble believing it would actually happen to him. After all, he’s the good guy—he’s not Bush; he’s Obama, the one who means well, the one who keeps apologizing for America abroad and who wants to end American exceptionalism.

    I see you’re leaning back toward the “fool” explanation.

  2. Occam's Beard Says:

    I’m not sure whether it is due to Obama’s personal indecisiveness, or some problem with his chain of command, or his desire to placate all sides by not taking a stand until the last possible moment, or all of the above, or some other factor.

    Mr. Soros is a busy man. He can’t just drop everything every time one of his subordinates steps on his …uh… necktie.

  3. neo-neocon Says:

    Occam’s Beard: yes, I was thinking something of the sort. In this case, I believe his goal was to undermine American exceptionalism, but not to destroy our capacity to defend ourselves. I believe he thought we wouldn’t need to defend ourselves quite as forcefully once he stepped on the stage and transformed everything by the sheer force of his wonderfulness.

    Of course, there’s always the knave theory, the one I allude to in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the post.

  4. Nolanimrod Says:

    Leaks. Oh, puhleeze! Theater! You can’t go along strewing rose petals on the paths the leakers trod and expect them to go all shamefaced.

    Lest we forget, let’s remember the NIE “leak” in the New York Times and Washington Post. Iran? Nukes? Oh, that paranoid Bush!

    We about had al Qaeda reduced to running a three-card monty game when the Times published details of the terrorist financial tracking effort.

    Used to be able to listen in to al Qaeda sat-phone calls. The Times put that on page one too.

    So now we are supposed to be frothing with rage at Assange?

    Puhleeze!

  5. neo-neocon Says:

    Nolanimrod: why not? One can’t be angry at both the Times and at Assange? Are the two angers mutually exclusive?

  6. Occam's Beard Says:

    I suspect one of Obama’s problems in dealing with foreign leaders is a fundamental misapprehension of where he stands with them.

    He is accustomed to respect and even deference because he’s black. That works in the U.S., and in fact has been the basis of his entire career. My admittedly limited experience abroad suggests that the U.S. is virtually unique in this respect. Scandinavia is like us, but the rest of the world … not so much.

    Europeans outside Scandinavia are commonly pretty two-faced about race, but are at least polite enough to pretend otherwise.

    But, again in my limited experience, Russians, Chinese, and especially Japanese and Koreans, have had considerable success in controlling their admiration for the black race. Playing the race card with them ain’t gonna fly. At all.

  7. Curtis Says:

    Dissed Mr. Nanny
    Sat on his fanny,
    while Hillary ham’d away.
    Along came a scammer,
    who spoiled and scampered
    merrily, merrily away.

  8. Bill West Says:

    Obama, his employees and his allies believe that this country deserves a beating. That’s why they didn’t squawk about military leaks: they believe that the military is the source of our problems.

    Messing with State is a different thing. They think State can fix things.

    They also think that everyone will like us if only we can talk. That’s a vote for “Fool”.

  9. Promethea Says:

    I think traitors should be tried, convicted, and hanged. This includes the cellphone leakers at the New York Times during the Iraq War and the enablers of Assange, like Soros. Enemy agents, like Assange, should be hunted down and assassinated.

    The above practices were routine during World War II. Why did the American attitude toward traitors change so much in recent times. Maybe it was the KGB infiltrators and the Gramscians who changed our culture so drastically.

    It’s time to change back into a clearer sense of national interest and protecting our country.

  10. expat Says:

    Occam’s,
    Europeans love blacks if they are victims they can save or if they can be used to beat America over the head for racism. Otherwise they are off the radar. So yes, the Euros will be polite and self-congratulating about their tolerance, but they won’t be intimidated by the race card if anything serious is on the table.

  11. Matthew M Says:

    Wikileaks is sleazy and obviously created for the purposes of harming America and not for shedding light on anything (since no Russian or Chinese shenanigans get uncovered). But, why should we of the conservative bent get bent out of shape by leaks that show a) our government knows more than they let us in on (somewhat reassuring) and b) our government is an incompetent bureaucracy. How else to explain how they actually recognize the knavity of international actors like Iran, North Korea and Hezbollah even as they refuse to take a moral stand publicly, thereby acting as enablers to the world’s despots. Also, I’m pretty sure my dry cleaner secures the data on his cash register/computer more effectively than the United States.

  12. Jamie Irons Says:

    From the Washington Post:

    Now, WikiLeaks has struck a third time with what may prove to be its most damaging disclosures yet – a cache of more than 251,287 American diplomatic cables and directives, including more than 117,000 that are classified. According to the New York Times, which was given advance copies of the documents, many cables “name diplomats’ confidential sources, from foreign legislators and military officers to human rights activists and journalists, often with a warning to Washington: ‘Please protect’ or ‘Strictly protect.’ ” Other documents detail confidential conversations with foreign leaders, including Arab leaders urging the U.S. to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. Still others could hamper U.S. counter-terrorism efforts – such as a cable in which Yemeni leaders say they lied to their own parliament by claiming that Yemeni forces, not Americans, had carried out missile attacks against al-Qaeda. If Yemen responds to this revelation by restricting U.S. efforts to hunt down al-Qaeda, the results could be devastating.

    Yikes!

    Hope and change!

    Jamie Irons

  13. Occam's Beard Says:

    Europeans love blacks if they are victims they can save or if they can be used to beat America over the head for racism. Otherwise they are off the radar.

    Exactly. I heard all about America’s racism. Yet in the university where I taught everyone was white, and I mean everyone: even the servants, cooks, gardening, and janitorial staff.

    I had two Africans in my research group who were constantly photographed by the university for use in brochures, despite one of them being a postdoc, not a student at all. Why? Because they were the only two blacks the university could find.

    True story.

  14. Occam's Beard Says:

    Promethea for President!

  15. Bob from Virginia Says:

    Neo wrote “One of the hallmarks of the Obama administration so far …a slowness to react to breaking events. …this slowness has been quite noticeable in many arenas….”

    I read a statement by one insider that indicated that Obama just does not want to get involved in affairs of state. It makes sense, he is being asked to tackle problems way beyond his level of knowledge, experience and managerial ability. A race based police altercation in New Haven appears to be the outside envelope of his problem solving skills.

    Has anyone noticed the hits seem to be coming faster and faster in the last few weeks since the election, first the failed trip to Asia, then Korea, now this. And his response seems to be concern with the DREAM Act.

  16. expat Says:

    I second the Promethea nomination, but I wouldn’t be upset if our guys were beaten to the punch by some poor downtrodden Islamic radical trying to defend the honor of his leader. I think the resulting youtube video might give future leakers second thoughts about the costs of heroism.

  17. Curtis Says:

    Sarah Palin scores another point and shows how Americans should react to this fiasco. She doesn’t glory in the damage the information is causing the present administration. Her analysis is serious and displays gravitas. And here is the ironic point no one has noticed: She is asking about Obama’s lack of “gravitas,” in this case defined when she states, “It would be great if they [soldiers in Afghanistan] could count on their government being equally serious about that vital task.”

  18. Occam's Beard Says:

    but I wouldn’t be upset if our guys were beaten to the punch by some poor downtrodden Islamic radical trying to defend the honor of his leader

    More likely some Islamic leader trying to defend his own honor. Find Assange, then make two phone calls: one to an appropriate world leader, and the second to a florist. Funeral wreaths take some time to prepare, I’m told.

  19. Tom Says:

    In the Bush years a Democratic mantra was “We support the troops.” Hard to do that without supporting their CIC. Does it wash the other way now? “We support the CIC”? Wha’ hoppen to da troops?

  20. SteveH Says:

    Obama has to be slow to react. It’s part of being cool. Looking hurried is decidedly uncool. And i’m dead serious that i believe this is something that is reflexively part of his makeup.

  21. Bob from Virginia Says:

    Now from the we know better department:

    “Narcissistic personality disorder, characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance and the need for constant attention, has been eliminated from the upcoming manual of mental disorders, which psychiatrists use to diagnose mental illness.”

    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/narcissism-no-longer-a-psychiatric-disorder/?partner=rss&emc=rss

    My guess is that they are covering Obama’s ass in case of an impeachment on mental grounds.

  22. rickl Says:

    Bob from Virginia:

    That’s insane. Er, so to speak.

  23. Occam's Beard Says:

    Obama has to be slow to react. It’s part of being cool.

    Simpler explanation: he just doesn’t know what to do. He’s a windsock buffeted by events and conflicting advice, and lacks the core values and strength of personality to make decisions readily.

    That’s my take.

  24. Curtis Says:

    When the country has to hogtie (metaphorically speaking) Obama like the LAPD did to Rodney King to restrain him from causing further damage, will the media only portray 88 seconds, and will the black community riot because this is always what happens to the black man?

  25. jon baker Says:

    Maybe he is too busy preparing to sign the “Dream Act” and the “food safety Modernization Act”-seems they are both moving forward. Both way bad…..

  26. kolnai Says:

    I think OB said it best. My take is that Obama – the entire progressive dream, really – is so tied up in its own web of contradictions and confusions that they simply can’t cut through the knot of their own contradictions and hypocrisies.

    So, it is writ that things like wikileaks are good, but in power the progs discover that secrecy is good too – to come out against wikileaks is to betray a progressive commandment; to not do so is to submit to the exposure of one’s own realpoliticking.

    To take decisive action would be Bush-like; to not do so is coming to be seen as pusillanimity, by the left too. So, be Bush, or be cowardly?

    They just can’t get around these catch-22′s because they (thankfully) possess enough ruth – and external constraint – to not go full on Stalinist. What I mean by that is that the Stalinist was able, as Raymond Aron put it, to adhere to a dogmatic absolutism which paradoxically allowed him to indulge in a limitless relativism. In plain English: any means could be justified in the light of the glorious end.

    So in a sense, the bumbling has a bright side. These are people who toy around with explosive ideas that in other contexts segue readily into very bad things. A Stalinist such as, well, Stalin, could cut through Marxist contradictions by simply offing a few million people and re-defining the result as red orthodoxy. The American progressives for various reasons cannot do that, and so we have both the pleasure and displeasure of seeing the utter intellectual mush and practical stupidity that their ideas entail.

    When you boil it down to its essence, the ultimate mush comes from the unmanageable contradiction at the root of the doctrine: the progressives are anti-American, but when they are in power they have to defend the country. So we see these sorts of deer-in-the-headlights reactions to phenomena like wikileaks and the failure of “linkage” theory to elicit public calls for toughness against Iran from the Arab states.

    Progressivism is the ghost of departed certainties, haunting the land with its eternal howl for a new faith. And with nowhere to go, the faith always comes to rest in the progressives themselves.

    One could call it idolatry. Wiser folks than myself would.

  27. Baklava Says:

    Kolnai wrote:

    the progressives are anti-American, but when they are in power they have to defend the country.

    I remember when Clinton won it was reported that during the inauguration there was a fly-by of military jets.

    A democrat looked on in disgust and wondered aloud about that.

    The democrat next to him said, “Those are our planes now”.

    It makes it all better to Democrats. They can only jump on board if they are in control.

  28. Curtis Says:

    Nicely stated there Kolnai. Obama stands at the precipice afraid to throw himself in. Didn’t he use that phrase “at the precipice” somewhere?

    I keep waiting for Obama’s revival. And I keep on being “disappointed.” The question may be “Will they tear the whole thing down if they don’t get their way?”

  29. texexec Says:

    Obama is slow to act simply because he can’t make important decisions. He’s voted “present” every chance he’s had since he got into politics and as far as we know, maybe even before then.

    He can’t make decisions because he’s afraid he’ll be wrong.

    He tries to cover all this up by acting “cool”.

    This emperor has no clothes.

  30. J.J. formerly Jimmy J. Says:

    Apparently some other governments are not pleased with Assange’s activities either. Interpol has issued a warrant for his arrest.

    Assange is not worried. He says, “It’s very important to remember the law is not what, not simply what, powerful people would want others to believe it is. The law is not what a general says it is. The law is not what Hillary Clinton says it is.”

    The article goes on to say, “The law is, however, what Interpol says it is, and right now Interpol says the law warrants Julian Assange’s arrest. Assange is one of the newest entries in their database, considered dangerous and in need of arrest immediately for “sex crimes”– presumably the charges he faces of rape and/or molestation in Sweden earlier this year.”

    Read the whole thing here:
    http://www.mediaite.com/online/interpol-calls-for-julian-assanges-arrest-julian-assange-calls-for-hillary-clintons-resignation/

    The plot thickens.

  31. strcpy Says:

    Well, I don’t think his appeal to Sweden has been going too good: http://www.interpol.int/public/data/wanted/notices/data/2010/86/2010_52486.asp

    Apparently two women individually report that they engaged in consensual sex with him and during it he intentional broke the condom he was using and forced – with some application of violence – his continued sexual intercourse with them. This is also known as “rape”.

    Don’t know the evidence or anything, he says he had sex with them but none of that happened that it is a plot by the US govt and the Swedes to either silence him or discredit him.

    Given his interviews on it and other matters my guess is the women are more accurate than not but I do not know if it is just coming down to a “he said, she said” case. Real rape has bruise patterns and all sorts of other forensic evidence. Ultimately we will see.

    You can look around with Google and find a little bit of information but it is mostly carried by the Swedish papers. It happened whilst he was looking for Asylum and he somewhat fled the country before they could issue a warrant (already talking about how the powers that be were framing him). It makes a convenient excuse in the court of public opinion does it not?

  32. strcpy Says:

    One also has to note if you poke around enough you will also find quotes when this initially happened that it was a “private matter” and needed to stay there :)

  33. Michael Says:

    This blog has way too few Lefty trolls! It’s been amusing, in a sick sort of way, to read those kids’ comments about Wikileaks. They clearly have not read what was actually leaked, what the actual issues were. Instead, they describe the usual magical thinking, telling a story about a brave young socialist bravely sticking it to The Man. We hear about torture exposed, even though the leaks described the relief of Iraqis who were transferred from Iraqi to US custody. They go on about the “Bush lied” meme, regarding WMD, when the leaks give a good deal of evidence that there were weapons there, better hidden and not quite so abundant, but there, nonetheless. These responses have recurred again this time out, even though what was leaked was diplomatic secrets and had absolutely nothing to do with the kids’ usual party line. The tie-in that I see with the general line of comments here is that there are all too many people in the Oval office, including very likely the man behind the desk, who think like the Lefty kids. That is, they share the confusion.

    And, yeah, the 0 must always appear cool.

  34. Brad Says:

    strcpy:

    I happened to look into the “rape” allegation against Assange months ago.

    http://gawker.com/5619931/meet-wikileaks-founders-alleged-sex-victim

    http://gawker.com/5624854/wikileaks-founders-molestation-police-report-leaked-his-top+secret-moves-revealed

    I don’t believe them, but the first comment by “celery” in this second link here had me in stitches of laughter.

  35. Daniel in Brookline Says:

    Personally, I’m baffled that this Assange character is still breathing. Our military is not incompetent, nor are our agents in the field.

    I imagine an Oval Office conversation, in which the President explodes in much the manner Neo describes: “It was one thing when he dissed the military. No problem there. And I can deal with him making Hillary look stupid. But this has gone too far! He’s making me look bad!”

    “What should be done about this, Mr. President?”

    “Huh? Shut this guy down. Find him and stop him.”

    “Are you authorizing a death warrant, Mr. President?”

    “What? Uh… no. Can’t you just capture him and bring him to the White House, so I can talk to him?”

    In Neo’s recurring theme of “fool vs. knave”, I’m going with “fool” on this one. I don’t think President Obama realized that this would turn around and bite him, although he certainly should have.

    As for Assange, what an immature idiot he is… imagining he’s making the world a better place by revealing American secrets. Even assuming that he isn’t arrested at some point, why should anyone, anywhere, ever trust him with anything?

    Hmm, here’s an idea. Remember when journalists used to dig up everything they could about a person’s past, even when they weren’t named Palin? It would be fun to dig up everything about Assange’s past — interviews with the girl who embarrassed him in third grade, his disappointed teachers, his tell-all ex-girlfriend — and publish it. Surely he’s not entitled to keep secrets, is he?

  36. Beverly Says:

    So yes, the Euros will be polite and self-congratulating about their tolerance, but they won’t be intimidated by the race card if anything serious is on the table.

    Yeppers, that’s right. After all, it’s not like They had anything to do with slavery. . . .

  37. rickl Says:

    I was over at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler and found an interesting exchange in the comments section of this thread.

    It begins at comment #32 and goes pretty much to the end of the thread, between people who apparently have experience working in military intelligence. It’s interesting reading, even though there’s a lot of jargon and they can’t be too specific, for obvious reasons. One of the commenters is a woman who sounds like she’s actually working on the investigation of Manning’s theft of the documents. Towards the end she says:

    I’ve spent the last four months of my life dealing with this shit. Let’s just say, I want blood.

  38. rickl Says:

    Let’s keep in mind that the real villain is PFC Manning, and/or any helpers he might have had. Assange is just a cynical opportunist and self-important publicity hound. He couldn’t have released anything if it hadn’t been given to him.

  39. expat Says:

    rickl,
    brad’s links about the molestation charges show the groupie mentality that wikileaks brings out, which BTW doesn’t necessarily appeal only to girls. I bet there are lots of geeks seeking recognition for their genius who get warm and fuzzy feelings about the higher moral calling of working with Assange. Those who seem like promising sources can then be singled out by all sorts of people and encouraged to supply info.

    Yes, Manning is responsible, but that doesn’t mean Assange should be allowed to create more Mannings. He is an Alwaki type who feeds a subversive movement while technically keeping his own hands clean. I hope he lives in fear that one of the hot chicks who take him in for the night will feed him cheese that makes him glow in the dark.

  40. expat Says:

    OMT rickl,
    That link to the Rottweilers was very interesting. Thanks.

  41. turfmann Says:

    Curtis @ 5:14…

    My thought when I was reading the facebook post was that this would be her thought process if she were president under this set of circumstances. Mr. Assange would not be resting comfortably if Mrs. Palin were in office, of that I am sure. If she thought that those leaked documents would do so much as ruffle a single hair on a soldier’s head she would not hesitate to act. Her respect and admiration for the men and women in uniform is palpable – it is the first item on the agenda whenever she speaks in public. That is how a commander-in-chief should conduct herself.

    Another thing that occurred to me as I read these comments was that the progressive is like the petulant child who defies his parents for the sake of defying his parents. Once free of the parent’s council, they revel in their liberty. Unfortunately for them, they’ve eschewed thousands of years of accumulated wisdom, otherwise known as principles and morality. Blind and without bearing in their socialist utopia, they do not know what to do when human nature comes crashing in all around them.

    I feel no pity for Mr. Obama’s situation whatsoever. He made his bed, let him lie in it.

    My concern is for those who Mr. Obama denigrates and abandons, which would be all of us.

  42. Curtis Says:

    Whoa! While Palin keeps looking beautiful and strong, check out Obama’s photo on Drudge.

  43. Artfldgr Says:

    I remember when Clinton won it was reported that during the inauguration there was a fly-by of military jets.

    A democrat looked on in disgust and wondered aloud about that.

    The democrat next to him said, “Those are our planes now”.

    When you are in power, i scream for my rights, because that is your way

    when I am in power, i take away all your rights, because that is my way…

    and so, NOW after a couple of years, my quoting pre french revolutionary key points makes sense…

    Maybe now the The Revolutionary Catechism (Sergey Nechayev 1869) will be read and so applied to our leader, who is knowingly in a role in which he believes, he is a nothing, a cell in a body organ, and so whatever that body calls for, for the greater good, is ok with him…

    its only taken people a few years to catch up to what a few weeks of reading of the opponents stated philosophies, methods, rules, history, and writings…

    its like eveyrone is yelling
    No, no, dont tell me… i can get it… a bit more and i will figure it out… its on the tip of my tongue, etc.

    and by the time they figure it out on their own, rather than cheat and look at the answers, it will be way too late… (hows that dream act, and korean war shaping up? note that if we only read what they wrote, and believed hey meant it, they would never be in place)

    a key thing that everyone relies on, and that is a failing, is that they have a sense of self preservation…. now, how can a collective, where there is no self, have a person, who through their sense of self, wants to be a cancer and preserve themselves?

    [meanwhile, one only has to have a slightly different perspective of a bee hive taking in ALL actions, to realize that the queen is a slave breeding cow, and the workers can kill her, make new ones, and each individually go about their own business making their own choices with regard to the rest of others]

    NUMBER 1 from the catechism is:
    1. The revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no personal interests, no business affairs, no emotions, no attachments, no property, and no name. Everything in him is wholly absorbed in the single thought and the single passion for revolution

    what Obama has he has for the good of the party. if he didn’t have them, then he wouldn’t be able to be present at that table. so he has them.

    its a different way of thinking…

    and number 2 is just as informative…
    2. The revolutionary knows that in the very depths of his being, not only in words but also in deeds, he has broken all the bonds which tie him to the social order and the civilized world with all its laws, moralities, and customs, and with all its generally accepted conventions.

    He is their implacable enemy, and if he continues to live with them it is only in order to destroy them more speedily.

    and if you use these rules, and things when you try to assess and predict, rather than imagination, or guessing, you instantly become much better at guessing…

    [edited for length by n-n]

  44. strcpy Says:

    Brad – did you read those links at all?

    Really, the first one says they charges were ultimately dismissed so they aren’t true – no they were never dismissed (see the Interpol warrant). The second basically attacks the woman as wanting it before hand so it can’t be rape – yes, it still can. Just because something starts consensually doesn’t mean everything that goes on afterward is fine. The fact that they were acting in a “slutty” behavior doesn’t give the right to force intercourse in a violent manner against the others will.

    The allegations by the women are that he intentionally broke the condom, they told him to stop, he didn’t and continued by use of restraining and violence. If true that is rape.

    That is all we know – period. We know none of the evidence so there is nothing there to study. All we have is character witnesses and that is doesn’t have much in the way of if he did it or not. No one denies that it started off consensual but that doesn’t give one a license to do whatever they want from then on out.

    We have, also, in the absence of any evidence other theories – such as one you linked to that said it was a scorned lover because he ignored her after that. Why should I believe that one over an arrogant man think he can get away with anything he wants as long as there are no witnesses (all he has to do is call for a massive secret campaign to discredit him)? Though I would have to sao given the women who are accusing him of it the “massive conspiracy” doesn’t hold much, the Woman Spurned is a better one.

    Real forced rape – what he is accused of – leaves physical evidence that is different than consensual intercourse. Does this evidence exists (it seems as if the women probably came forward in time for the bruising to still be there). As usual there is much more that the prosecution has than listed in a one page web article.

    They all agree up to the point that the women say they tried to get him to stop, his excuse is “they wanted it” and “massive conspiracy to discredit me”. Frankly you can even read where they all totally agree if he truly believed “they wanted it” and continued to force himself, it is not that hard to find mentally unstable people who even torture and kill people and are confused when they get in trouble because they think the other person wanted it – he isn’t disputing the actions that went on as much as the motivations.

    If it comes down to a “he said she said” argument then it will go nowhere and people will most lineup based on what they think of wikileaks, not what was likely to have happened. If there is other evidence then it will probably go on.

  45. Brad Says:

    strcpy:

    Unless you’ve seen the charging documents I suggest you don’t know what you are talking about.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/01/police-seek-julian-assange-rape-claims
    http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=624554

    And no, they don’t agree “up to the point”, indeed, according to a gawker link I was reading yesterday, one of the ladies specifically said there was no force involved and didn’t initially want charges pressed.

    People on here seem to think “Well, why doesn’t someone just look into his private life and try to come up with something? “: Well, they already have, and it’s pretty sparse stuff:

    http://www.buzzbox.com/top/default/preview/assange-rape-case-reopened/?clusterId=1752330&id=5969594&topic=julian-assange%3Awikileaks

    And no he has not been accused of forced rape. Where do you get your information?

    Oh, and please don’t try any of that crap about the “prosecution has more” evidence. The prosecution
    A. Doesn’t need anything other than the word of these women to do this
    B. That was a favorite argument of the “they must have done something” crowd about the Duke Lacrosse players. Turns out the only thing the prosecution had “more” of , in that case is lies.

    I mean, to our knowledge, he has never been accused of this stuff before. There’s no pattern of behavior. Then, coincidentally he goes to probably the easiest place in the world to get charged with rape and RAPES not one, but two women? And you don’t find this suspicious?

  46. Brad Says:

    Hmm..according to comments here..take them for what they are worth..one of the two accusers is the daughter of a US diplomat.

    http://www.buzzbox.com/top/default/preview/assange-rape-case-reopened/?clusterId=1752330&id=5969594&topic=julian-assange%3Awikileaks

    Quoting: “If this was anyone else, would they just happen to encounter the daughter of a high US diplomat and just happen to have sex with her in sweden, a country with the worlds most lax laws regarding rape accusations and the encounter just happens to turn handily nonconsentual.

    What’s next, Julian Assange goes on a drunken rage in a hardware store, he tips over a shelf which falls on a laptop and the random letter combination it types turns out to hack into US missile control and launch some nukes at North Korea? “

  47. Daniel in Brookline Says:

    As seen at Michael Totten’s place (hat tip to Instapundit):

    Those following the Wikileaks story might find its founder Julien Assange’s blog archive interesting. Here’s the first paragraph. Good luck.

    Follow the first link for some possible insights as to how Assange thinks, and what he thinks about himself.

    Personally, I feel, as Disraeli reportedly said about Gladstone, that Assange is “Inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination”.

    respectfully,
    Daniel in Brookline

  48. RPL Says:

    FWIW, I think that someone (Soros?) is pulling the strings on this, and that the target was Hillary. Obama’s still petrified of the Clinton’s, and he’s trying to humiliate and destroy the. Quite honestly, the cables all seem to be related to things that the Secy of State is doing/involved in. Other countries are doing the same thing. My belief is that these docs were released in order to get her to resign.

  49. strcpy Says:

    “take them for what they are worth”

    I will: anonymous postings on the internet. Do you even know how to do research and what that means?

    With theat level of vetting comments you can also link too this: Assange is the great grandson of Mohammed Bin Laden and has been in contact with him and is fabricating documents. If he *really* had all of those he would have already released them in one big chunk – the slow releases are so that Al Qaida has time to create them.

    Of course I admit I totally made the above up – but had I not you can “research” that and quote it all you want – doesn’t make it true. You know what the argument against what you read is going to be, you chose to believe for some reason even knowing it was totally unreliable.

    But then, lets even assume it is true – heck it may be, that is the trouble with such statements neither of us really know. Both Women in question are VERY long term leftist and supporters of Wikileaks and Assange (thus why the were in charge of inviting him as a guest). You are better off running with the “woman spurned” than a decades long plant in order to discredit someone no one knew about (or even worse a decades long plant successfully attacking US interests just so that they might maybe be able to do something else that is only a moderate interest to the feds). A character assignation here on their leftist credentials is the weakest argument of them all – up until this they were, for their area, one the leaders of the movements and had been for many years and even decades.

    Further I doubt you are going to get very far with a US diplomat getting himself assigned to Sweden so his daughter who had years ago infiltrated leftists groups could coerce Assange into publicly going home with her to have sex and her claim sexual abuse (this would also require foreknowledge if him requesting asylum there and being denied).

    The whole narrative is just ludicrous – it requires such a strange set of circumstances to be true as to be near impossible. They had to be long term plants waiting for an opportunity, they had to be effective at anti-US goals for decades, they had to have decided that this was the time to act (that means that this act was good enough to overcome those decades and ani-US’ism), and they had to have the morals to have sex with someone they loathed. I guess someone at some time has to be hit by an cosmic body, but I would believe that as a cause of death well before I would buy the above.

    “What’s next, Julian Assange goes on a drunken rage in a hardware store, he tips over a shelf which falls on a laptop and the random letter combination it types turns out to hack into US missile control and launch some nukes at North Korea?”

    I guess if you believe the above then it would be believable to you. However for the rest of us it isn”t hard (especially given that he doesn’t say what she describes didn’t happen but that “She wanted it” is his primary defense) to figure that a narcissist figures he can get away with doing as he wants.

    The evidence we know doesn’t point to guilty any more than it points to his being innocent – however his “defense” so far is so laughable to make many fall into the “he did it” category and your links aren’t helping there either. A defense of a convoluted conspiracy theory along with “She wanted it” makes him appear guilty – at the least one has to note that the defense is a lie.

  50. Brad Says:

    strcpy:

    I didn’t say whether I believed the anonymous poster or not. I have no idea where they got their information, they claim CNN. Also, the ambassador was named, as was his daughter.

    Let’s assume , for the sake of argument, that it is true.
    What do we know about woman A, and Woman B? We know the name of woman A, but that’s not what I’m asking here. I’m asking how they came into contact with Assange.

    Woman A was the one who facilitated his trip in Sweden. She , at least at one time, belonged to the wikileaks organization.
    Woman B, was supposedly, a groupie, who followed Assange around and met him at a press conference, and then had dinner with him where she was dazzled by his “cheese seduction” game.

    If the information on that thread is correct than woman B would be the ambassador’s daughter. He wouldn’t know her from a hole in the head, and as you can see she very clearly introduced herself and all that to him.

    I’m not one to believe in conspiracies. I’m not a birther, or truther, I don’t believe in alien visits, and the illuminati , to me, sound like something you’d put on your wall.

    But then some people on here wistfully speak of the government or some government assasinating Assange. Yet these same people would doubt that a government wouldn’t take advantage of an opportunity? It’s very easy to charge rape in Sweden. You really think our government is above whispering in the ears of daddys little girl and Ms radical feminist about how this creep used and dumped them to get them to press a few bogus charges? It’s not like all these charges mean much anyway – if convicted on all counts Assange could get up to 2 whole years in prison. In america, you can get more than that for a bounced check! In fact, one of the ladies only claimed “molestation” , not rape, and the way the Prosecutors in Sweden have been handling this screams political pressure.

    In short, this “plot” doesn’t require some elaborate years long scheme, it merely requires taking advantage of opportunity -they knew Assange was going there, his Swedish trip was not some big secret in any case.

    Anyway, the reasons to do this wouldn’t be to utterly ruin Assange’s life -even if convicted he probably wouldn’t get the 2 years – but to slow him down, discredit him with some, and to keep him from using Sweden as a base. He does have strong support there, ya know.

    So no, in response to your assertions taking advantage of opportunity doesn’t require assigning ambassadors to posts years ahead of time just for that purpose, planting a leak, manufacturing false evidence, or any of that. In this case it merely requires finding one spurned woman, better yet, two , esp if one really is some ambassador’s daughter, leaning on the Swedish government to prosecute, and relying on Sweden’s nutty rape and assault laws and the media circus to do your work for you. This just sounds so unrealistic. Why clearly Tom Clancy could have a field day with this exciting and highly technical plot! I mean , it sounds almost as unrealistic as the idea that a guy that has a clean record with women would suddenly come up with two rapes (or a rape or a molestation or whatever, I don’t think the Swedes have made up their minds just yet)just very conveniently at the time that he was embarrassing Sweden’s most important foreign ally.

  51. Mission viejo Water Damage Says:

    I don’t understand anything with this putting up, but you do make some ideal details. Im very interested with this matter and I me personally do alot of investigation concurrently. Either way it was a properly thoughtout and nice study well, i figured I would leave a comment. Really feel absolutely free to verify out my page sometime and let me understand what you think.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>








Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge