The WikiTsunami

The WikiTsunami

There are leaks and there are leaks, there are floods and there are floods, there are tsunamis and there are tsunamis and even though “WikiLeaks” flows from the tongue somewhat more fluidly that “WikiTsunamis,” what happened over the weekend can only be described as a diplomatic tsunami of epic proportions.

The chief difference between that criminal release of purloined documents and a literal tsunami was that the leak has had precedents and the United States knew it was on the way, even if it acted as if it were impotent to prevent or de-fuse it.

Without solely assigning responsibility to the Obama administration for the release of a quarter million mostly classified, some labeled “secret,” United States State Department-embassy cables, it cannot be held totally blameless either.

Sarah Palin Facebooked her thoughts which are right on the mark. She reminds that WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, is not a journalist who should be accorded journalistic privilege. He should have been treated as an anti-American terrorist, which he is, and treated as such.

Rather than preparing for damage control, as is the modus operandi of the Obama administration, after Assange’s earlier leaks, Palin believes our government should have exeerted worldwide pressure and the assistance of NATO, the EU, and other allies to pre-empt WikiLeak’s next attack: http://tiny.cc/zyw0k

Instead, led by the Ditherer-in chief, America dithered as the WikiTsunami approached and ultimately hit with full force.

WikiLeaks and its founder evidently had no regard for repurcussions of its leakage of those sensitive American documents but someone should have.

It was anything for notoriety and anti-Americanism, eh, Julian, no matter how much damage you do, how much chaos you effect, or how many deaths you cause? I would hope that you will eventually be prosecuted and, with any luck at all, be strung up by your gonads.

In no danger of that latter fate since the New York Times lacks both figurative and literal gonads, especially when it comes to resisting the urge to publish any material detrimental to the better interests of the United States, the Times has issued its rationale for publishing allegedly carefully-redacted excerpts of stolen documents.

That rationale essentially boils down to: We did it because we could. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2861)