« | »

Obama Feigns ‘Fury’ At WikiLeaks Leaks

From a pretending to believe Agence France-Pressee (AFP):

US condemns massive leak of Afghan war files

by Kerry Sheridan

July 26, 2010

WASHINGTON (AFP) – A whistleblower leaked tens of thousands of secret military files on the Afghan war Monday, documenting the deaths of innocent civilians and how Pakistan’s spy agency secretly supports the Taliban.

Both of which has long since been known by anyone even remotely following events in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The leaks prompted a furious reaction from the White House, saying they put the lives of soldiers at risk

The White House was so furious that they asked the New York Times to ask WikiLeaks not to publish some specific details.

Apparently, the White House was afraid to ask the radical leftists running WikiLeaks directly. Perhaps they were afraid WikiLeaks might take their request seriously.

[B]ut the man behind the revelations said the controversy vindicated the decision to break cover…

Yes, if something is ‘controversial’ than that proves… Er, what?

They carry allegations that Iran is providing money and arms to Taliban insurgents, and details how widespread corruption is hampering a war now in its ninth year.

Again, none of this information is even slightly news to anyone who has been sitting up and taking notice for the last nine years.

The New York Times said the archive illustrated "in mosaic detail why, after the United States has spent almost 300 billion dollars on the war, the Taliban are stronger than at any time since 2001" while the Guardian said the files painted "a devastating portrait of the failing war."

Apparently, on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, the New York Times says we are winning the war in Afghanistan. And on Tuesdays, Thursday and Saturday, they say the Taliban is stronger.

And yet The Times also regularly insists that we no longer have anything to fear from the Taliban or Al Qaeda, which is a bit weird.

The Guardian said the files acknowledge at least 195 civilian deaths, adding "this is likely to be an underestimate because many disputed incidents are omitted from the daily snapshots reported by troops on the ground"

Gosh, that is shocking. Funny, how we never hear a body count of the civilians killed by the Taliban. They have probably killed more than 195 school girls. And, unlike our side, the Taliban kill them intentionally. Not because the enemy is hiding behind them.

According to the Times, Pakistan agents and Taliban representatives meet regularly "in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders."

The outrage! Image our military sitting around during WWII trying to come up with ways to kill Hitler.

The White House issued a condemnation shortly before the leaks were posted online, saying the information could endanger US lives.

Good one. Of course, if the White House were really so concerned they might not have been so quick to verify for the New York Times that the information leaked was authentic.

It said concerns had already been raised about links between Pakistan intelligence and Afghan insurgents…

The White House released remarks made in the past by top officials expressing concern about links between Pakistan spy services and militants in Afghanistan

A US official, who asked not to be named, said he did not think that "anyone who follows this issue will find it surprising that there are concerns about ISI and safe havens in Pakistan.

While this is true, we still have to wonder why the administration is going out of their way to authenticate the information.

The official said that Wikileaks wass [sic] "not an objective news outlet but rather an organization that opposes US policy in Afghanistan."

This is a classic ‘distinction without a difference.’ Does this official consider the New York Times to be an objective news outlet? If so, in what way does it differ from WikiLeaks?

Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, said the reactions vindicated his organisation’s mission.

"It is the role of good journalism to take on powerful abuses, and when powerful abuses are taken on, there is always a back reaction," Assange, an Australian former hacker and computer programmer, told the Guardian.

Doesn’t Mr. Assange sounds exactly like an editor for the New York Times or Washington Post when they are justifying their treasonous leaks?

In an interview with The New York Times, Assange said the documents reveal broader and more pervasive levels of violence in Afghanistan than the military or the news media had previously reported.

"It shows not only the severe incidents but the general squalor of war, from the death of individual children to major operations that kill hundreds," he said.

Gosh, yes, this is such an amazing revelation to us all. Who knew that war was “generally” squalid? Who knew that major military operations kill people – even sometimes children?

Mr. Assange is on the fast track for a Pulitzer Prize for sure.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, July 26th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

4 Responses to “Obama Feigns ‘Fury’ At WikiLeaks Leaks”

  1. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Obama pretending to be angry over this is like Rich Little pretending to be “Madam Butterfly”.

    I just don’t see it.

  2. proreason says:

    Fury?

    The leaks undoubtedly were ordered by the Moron.

  3. Right of the People says:

    Since when did someone releasing classified information become a “whistleblower”? In my book they are a traitor, not a “whistleblower”.

    Pro, you are obviously correct, the O-hole I’m sure approved the release. But I still stand by my statement, it was a traitor who released it, you know the one with the big ears and arrogant look.

  4. oldpuppydixie says:

    As I understand it, not ONE of the 91,000 or so pages thus far “disclosed” even mentions the Hussein administration. Wanna bet that this will continue!


« Front Page | To Top
« | »