I wonder if Berkley knows that Wikileaks damaged Obama's reputation when it released that his administration was looking for dirt to blackmail foreign dignitaries into signing a climate treaty?
No, "the mainstream left" is not "considering honoring him;" some bozo on the Berkeley City Council is considering honoring him. :roll:
Frankly, this doesn't surprise me.
For one brief, agonizing year, I was the confidential admin to Berkeley's City Clerk, and the outlandish issues the locals brought into our office every day were almost as nutty as the fact that the City Council often took them into consideration. For example, not long after I was hired, I had the joy of including the "Long Live Tinky Winky" measure on the City Council's meeting agenda. [/I] :shock:
The council members I knew back then were all a bit loopy; apparently this current crop is, too. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
Do you think that Wikileaks shouldn't have released that information? Don't you feel it has value to you, as an American citizen?
Not as long as it has the potential to harm our boys and girls in afghanistan.
Do you think that Wikileaks shouldn't have released that information? Don't you feel it has value to you, as an American citizen?
Value to me and the right thing to do are two wholly separate issues. It's like walking in on your wife having an affair. When she see's you she exclaims "He gave me herpies and you probably have it to." Now, was it wrong of here to have the affair? Absolutely! Was it helpful for her to tell me about the herpies? Absolutely! Does that make the affair ok? Hell no!
Well in all fairness, speaking strictly as a conservative..........that's what the mainstream left looks like to us. :mrgreen:
So, you don't think that the story about dyncorp paying for child sex slaves should be public consumption.
Why?
As citizens, you don't think we are entitled to know about gross misuses of our tax dollars?
Hoy. Can you not see that the ends don't always justify the means?
Hoy. If if you want to break a cake, you've got to break some eggs. Now's no time to go all squeamish on us.
On one level, I have a feeling that Private Benning felt that he'd uncovered the same sort of wrongdoing that Ellsberg did in the Pentagon papers, when he read the classified information about the helicopter attack on (apparently) unarmed civilians in Iraq.
That's exactly the sort of information that needs to see the light of day. It should not be hushed up and hidden behind a purely military investigation. The American public have a right to information about those kinds of issues, just like we have a right (and a responsibility to know) about what happened in the hidden prisons at Gitmo and in Abu Ghraib.
On another level, Private Benning clearly violated the law and his sworn oath, and he didn't stop with releasing the single incident, but went much, much further to release reams of information that were not necessarily evidence of a government coverup, and in fact, of which he had zero knowledge or understanding.
Private Benning will have his day in court. It's up to the jury/judge (and, frankly, history) to decide whether his actions were traitorous or heroic.
Let me ask those who are so quick to condemn him, though. Do you think Daniel Ellsberg was a traitor or a hero?
I think history has determined that he's a hero. So, what are the crucial differences between Ellsberg and Private Benning?
What the hell are you talking about?
I think it's more he was pissed cause he was gay.
Traitor benning was angry at how the US and the military views homosexuality.
So, you don't think that the story about dyncorp paying for child sex slaves should be public consumption.
Why?
As citizens, you don't think we are entitled to know about gross misuses of our tax dollars?
Oh and I pulled a catz, I meant manning for everywhere I posted Benning. :doh
Were you there? You speak so definitively, as if you know the guy.
Dude, that was me pulling a hellhound.
You said benning first, then caught yourself, but you put the seed in my awesome mind..... :lol:
It's because of the awesome power I wield over your brain.
actually I think that should absolutely should have come out, and if traitor benning went to say the NYT with THIS story instead of everything he could get his pretty little hands on, you'd have a point, he would be a "whistle blower". however, this we know is not what traitor benning did.
I agree that Private Manning should be prosecuted. He clearly violated his sworn oath. However, i see little difference between this story being published by Wikileaks and it being published by the NY Times.
The real question is...would the NY Times have published it. To date, they haven't touched it with a ten foot pole. Why is that, do you think? It is newsworthy, wouldn't you say?
Do you think it's because they've gotten a little too cozy with the current (and possibly former) administration to out their dirty laundry? Why has the Guardian UK jumped on this story, but the NY Times has refused to run it?
Do you, at this point in time, trust our media outlets to hold the government accountable? I don't.
Here's the thing, HH. How many stories has the NY Times bolloxed or passed up on in the past 5 years?
I don't trust any of the media, from fox to npr.
My point is, if he even went to assface with ONLY the dyncorp story, and his motivations were indeed that of a whistleblower instead of an angry gay activists, I'd have more sympathy for traitor manning.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?