The release of yet more secret, unredacted, government documents, including cables with unverified information, by the WikiLeaks website is yet another blow to US diplomacy and intelligence. It will cause allies to clam up and intelligence sources to possibly lose their lives as their aid is exposed. Thanks for nothin’.
We are learning some things, however, about the world as it really is, which, in my estimation, buttress George W. Bush’s policies in the Middle East and elsewhere. The TPM blog (not one I typically link to, mind you) has a list of their top 5 most shocking things in the leaks.
Among them is the fact that virtually every country in the Middle East wants us to solve the Iran nuclear issue for them. They realize that sanctions and incentives "have no importance" (via translation). Essentially, they are absolutely useless. I’m wondering if liberals who seem to think sanctions are the universal panacea will rethink this course of action, at least with regards to Iran. (Hold not thy breath.)
Also, North Korea is supplying Iran with long-range missiles that could hit Europe or deep into Russia. Yeah, all this diplomacy with madmen is working wonders for the safety of the world, don’t you think?
But one of the biggest reveals is how the New York Times is treating this, vs. other leaks. James Delingpole, writing for the London Telegraph, highlights two quotes from the NY Times:
“The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.” Andrew Revkin, Environment Editor, New York Times Nov 20, 2009.
“The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington. The New York Times and a number of publications in Europe were given access to the material several weeks ago and agreed to begin publication of articles based on the cables online on Sunday. The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.” New York Times editorial 29/11/2010
The first was an explanation of why the Time wouldn’t publish private conversations revealing ClimateGate. The second is the explanation of why the Time did publish private conversations in the WikiLeaks documents. For those paying attention, yet another glaring example of bias; editorial decisions made based on the policy being exposed.
(More at Stop the ACLU.)
But the original leak is utterly irresponsible. Why is WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange still roaming around a free man? (Or for that matter, the head of the NY Times?)