I had high hopes for Wikileaks as compared to what it’s delivered. It been obvious for a while that the org is not really about transparency, but rather about being partisan hacks.
However — and this is a big however — what it releases is either true or not regardless of why it was released. The two have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
The moronic left (which I alas now include Sarah Kendzior as a part of*) now believes that Wikileaks is unconscionably terrible and are all racist Nazis because they released items about Clinton and because David Duke tweeted something supportive about the org.
As far as anyone can tell, all the doc dumps were real, the beliefs and statements genuine; none were ersatz in any way. Their truth value is not affected at all even if Hitler himself rises from the grave and declares them, like, the best doc dumps of all time. How can this not be obvious to everyone?
Yes, Clinton’s staff really did write emails where it seems they’d rather self-immolate than give a crap about the poor. True whether or not Clive Bundy prints the documents out, throws them on a four-poster bed and rolls around them while moaning periodically.
It’s just so disheartening to see so many people you thought were better than this go full moron. I can’t make sense of it. Fear? Or are all humans just this broken and it emerges mainly when they care about something enough, that they essentially lie to themselves about reality?
*And if you think this means I am on the right, oh god you really don’t know me at all. I am far, far to the left of Kendzior, who would’ve been in 1970 a barely-left centrist Democrat.
The moronic left (which I alas now include Sarah Kendzior as a part of*) now believes that Wikileaks is unconscionably terrible and are all racist Nazis because they released items about Clinton and because David Duke tweeted something supportive about the org.
No, no. The “logic” is all realpolitik by transitive property for two reasons. 1)Wikileaks is terrible because Wikileaks is Assange (AFAIK or anyone paying attention knows; Assange has done his level best to equate the two) and Assange is hiding out in Ecuador to dodge rape charges. 2) Wikileaks is a bunch of racist Nazis because this helps the other major candidate who is full on birther-blowing-kisses-to-Nazis, we-are-Weimar-Germany.
At some point, people stop caring about your stated intentions and what you actually do and who your friends are. Assange is very much at the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” stage right now and you shouldn’t be surprised people apply the obverse right back “the friend of my enemy is my enemy” even if it doesn’t make “logical” sense to you.
Yes the truth of the emails isn’t affected by who releases it and when and who approves of it, but the credibility and how it’s received most certainly is. Ask yourself why Rosa Parks is the face of the Montgomery bus boycotts and why Claudette Colvin isn’t. Assange is stunningly bad at getting the truth out if he doesn’t understand this no matter how great a team of leet hackers he relies on.
Everyone who I know that cares about Clinton’s emails hasn’t mentioned any content but the rules she broke as a federal employee in handling them and the fact she has not been sanctioned for something that would merit jail time for lower level federal employees. What is the point of a hacked info dump if you can’t get a non trivial number of people to care about the information contained in the dump?
Zero surprise at that link. Sadly, politics is often about who you can push to do better. News at 11! She’s technocratic, neoliberal and 3rd way…like she is in public!
True whether or not Clive Bundy prints the documents out, throws them on a four-poster bed and rolls around them while moaning periodically.
From ecstasy or the innumerable paper cuts he’d suffer?
Agreed that there is nothing particularly surprising in the Wikileaks dumps. It’s about what everyone expected to see, but it does confirm that yes, it’s about as bad as expected.
What I don’t understand is that all of the left is now attempting to make her out to be — against all evidence — as some paragon of leftist thought and action, when in reality she and Reagan (and thus Obama) are much alike.
Yeah, I really don’t understand the desire of so many to try to portray Clinton as some kind of amazing policy maker when she’s clearly not.
She was a cypher (at best) as secretary of state and when she has gotten involved has usually made things worse (Russia, Libya).
She has a tendency to not inspire loyalty in those who’ve worked for her (partly but not entirely sexism, I’ve known female bosses who do inspire loyalty).
I think she would probably have been better as president in 2008 but now she’s old and obviously and visibly unhealthy and probably still the slightly better choice of the two major parties. But that’s it.
Many people have weird need to idolize politicians (or pretend they do because they assume most of their fellow citizens are morons who won’t vote for anyone they don’t idolize and so they pander to them). They really need to stop that shit.
People tend to judge wikileaks by its apparent targets. Back when it was the Bush administration the left wasn’t exactly…. complaining about the ethics that I know of.
As to the current releases, it’s all about government so they don’t have any really damaging Trump stuff to release (and releasing Russian government stuff would mostly be met with indifference or puzzlement since they’d have to be translated for a broader audience). I assume that had Cruz or Jeb (god help us) were the nominee then they’d be more than happy to release their skeletons.
I’ve never given Assange himself much thought than thinking he’s a born contrarian (takes one to know one) and doesn’t necessarily think everything through completely.
The “rape” charges in Sweden are really weak sauce (my impression was the ‘victims’ were pressued by the government) and the reason he’s int he Ecuadorian embassy is that Sweden refused to rule out extraditing him to the US where he would probably quickly “commit suicide”.
I almost feel sorry for him. The chances of him ever making it out of that building still breathing are very slim.
Good point about Assange being a natural contrarian. I am, too. If someone is telling me something that will benefit them, I naturally tend to assume that they are lying to me. That so many people believe the obvious lies that Clinton is telling them (just as they believed Obama, were disappointed, and then salved their disappointment by pretending the president had no power anyway) is not surprising, but is still and always will be disappointing.
I don’t talk about the rape charges against Assange that much, but rape is both common and something easy for a government to gin up and use against someone (because it is so common). In the case of Assange, with so many governments arrayed against him, I rather suspect the latter in this case.
Precisely because rape is hard to prove (or disprove) with evidence, it’s the perfect crime to pay someone to accuse another person of and in which the government can prosecute a case with almost no extant confirmatory documentation other than witness statements.
Many people, pay them enough, they will claim their dog is really Jimi Hendrix. Probably what it happening with Assange.