You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
--Tech & Moderator Notes
What Wilileaks Proves this Weekend
2010-10-24
by Steve White

By now you have heard about the massive 'document dump' staged by the owner and founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange. The documents are being pawed over by the usual leftist crowd, including the New York Times and the Guardian, with the hope of finding documents that will embarrass the United States.

The NYT has published several articles about these documents this weekend that we point to at the Burg, and they in turn point to several original source documents, to which we also point.

Why?

It is not because we have secretly joined the Kos Kiddies, nor have we developed a sudden admiration for the NYT.
To be fair, they do have a few very good reporters. It's just that the others, and the editorial staff, far prefer really good creative writing.
Rather, as you'll see from the articles and documents, if this is the best the NYT and Guardian can do, the Wikileaks crowd has shot themselves in both feet.
Yesterday I pointed out to a few open minded liberal friends the "Bush lied" claims that I noticed Wikileaks proved true. Now that Dr. Steve has done the work for us, I shall point them to the articles. I shall have to work very hard to be tactful, because that's more effective when one wishes to persuade.
The documents presented so far prove two things. First, that Iraqis were and are far more savage to each other than Americans have ever been to them. The sectarian violence, the insurgent violence, and Saddam's violence were far more brutal than anything we ever did. You'll not get Human Rights Watch or the Lancet to admit that, of course, but the documents speak for themselves.
The Lancet hasn't been good at distilling truth from data for a while, nor at demanding the generation of honest data. Human Rights Watch wears polarized glasses -- or perhaps it was done with laser surgery -- and truthfully records what it sees.
Second, Iran has been stirring the pot in Iraq since the day Baghdad fell. They have been providing Shi'a militias and killers with weapons, training and support. Their strategic goals were to try and bend the country to their will, and to fight America. Iran sees Iraq as a battleground in that fight.

It will be no surprise to regular readers of Rantburg that the Middle East is a savage region of the world. It will be no surprise to know that America, never perfect, is far better than those who have ruled in that unhappy region.

And it will be no surprise at all to our regular readers that Iran is at war with us, and has been since the Shah fell.

Just wait until the regular readers of the NYT figure that out.
Exploding heads everywhere. It's going to be a bloody mess.
Posted by:Steve White

#14  It will be no surprise to know that America, never perfect, is far better than those who have ruled in that unhappy region.

I remember the Sunni insurgents themselves saying:
"compared to Al Qaeda, the Americans are just and kind".

Then they joined the Sons of Iraq. Now they want the Americans to stay.
Posted by: Frozen Al   2010-10-24 13:32  

#13  I fully agree. But the left doesn't seem to have grasped the fact that a very considerable majority of Americans see their sons and daughters in uniform as heroes. The One smiles big when he greets soldiers but the hostility and suspicion just oozes out.
Posted by: Matt   2010-10-24 12:58  

#12  the folks being attacked by the Leaks-- the military

It is a really effective attack, too. I see the opinion of the American people in their military as a result of this leak...utterly unchanged. If you wanted to attack the military, this was a lousy way to do it. Almost no one's opinion will be changed as a result of this leak.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2010-10-24 12:42  

#11  Borrowing P2k's tin foil hat for a moment, let's overlay the leak chronology on the political chronology:

2003-2008 -- Evil Boosh launches war based on lies. Runs around Iraq stealing toys from Iraqi children and giving wedgies to old Iraqi men. Result: No Leaks. Robert Redford threatens to leave the country but forgets to do so.

2009- Evil Boosh is replaced as POTUS by The One. Seas stop rising.

Summer 2010- Unexpectedly, The One starts tanking and it becomes clear that the mid-terms will be tough. Result: Big Leak by a single dissident intelligence analyst, a/k/a The Lone Gunmen.

Fall 2010- Unexpectedly, The One keeps tanking and is taking Nancy/Harry/Bawney down with him. Result: Really Big Leak by the Lone Gunmen.

Add to this the fact that the folks being attacked by the Leaks-- the military -- aren't exactly part of The One's base and are possessed of the strange notion that the US is an honorable nation worthy of defending.

Posted by: Matt   2010-10-24 12:24  

#10  The purpose of their release is not to disclose Iran's role but to attack the conduct of the US and UK militaries. All I've done is to look at the summaries in the leftist media, but my reaction is: Is that all you got?

Exactly Reynolds' point.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2010-10-24 11:56  

#9  Just wait until the regular readers of the NYT figure that out.

Well, the Sunday NYT has an article up on what a weird little dude Assange is. As of right now, there are about 350 comments to the article, and a whole bunch of them accuse the NYT of running a "hit piece" on the heroic Assange (presumably in contrast to the public service articles the NYT runs on Palin.)

As for the papers: The purpose of their release is not to disclose Iran's role but to attack the conduct of the US and UK militaries. All I've done is to look at the summaries in the leftist media, but my reaction is: Is that all you got? Has any military in history looked so good after having its secure communications publicly dissected by the ideological enemy? The best the Guardian can come up with is that one Apache crew opened fire when the Guardian says they shouldn't have. Also, the army and Marines forgot to say "Mother May I?" before storming Fallujah. Bo-ring.
Posted by: Matt   2010-10-24 11:51  

#8  It would take a lot more troops than that to "win" militarily. And that won't happen. Our victory will come as the culture of Islam is destroyed modernized. In addition to participating in the process of modernization, the military will keep the worst elements from our door. But they can never achieve victory in the sense of Potsdam or Appomattox. The next victory will be along the lines of the Indian Wars or the Cold War. Long, slow, and ultimately unidentifiable.

Regarding this issue Glenn Reynolds asks the question cui bono? Leaking is the District sport.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2010-10-24 11:26  

#7  but we continue to let them off.Why?

Give us another quarter of a million equipped and trained troops, and a society willing to support another war front or two, and we'll do it, Paul.
Posted by: trailing wife   2010-10-24 11:00  

#6  Iran have meddled in Iraq and Pakistan in Afghanistan from day one but we continue to let them off.Why?
Posted by: Paul D   2010-10-24 09:44  

#5  [Putting on a tin hat] Unless the NYT et al are laying the ground work to save FDR Part II with casus belli. However [the infamous However], it would be more like the Argentinian Junta trying to distract its population from the severe domestic problems with a foreign adventure [which would then cement another lefty Freudian projection which it traditionally accuses others of - though it would be entertaining to watch Code Pink spin on it].
Posted by: Procopius2k   2010-10-24 08:37  

#4  You could start with Danger Room Here...
Posted by: newc   2010-10-24 06:16  

#3  Just wait until the regular readers of the NYT figure that out

logic, facts, consequences and responsibilities over "feelings". I concur with Pappy
Posted by: Frank G   2010-10-24 01:28  

#2  NYT will bury this in a hurry. Why? Smoking gun on the Iranians.
Posted by: OldSpook   2010-10-24 01:27  

#1  Just wait until the regular readers of the NYT figure that out.

Don't hold your breath.
Posted by: Pappy   2010-10-24 00:43  

00:00