Julian Assange ought to be hunted down like a wild animal and brought to justice. If he gets away with what he does, then every miscreant out there will know that there will be no price to pay for having damaged America’s security and foreign policy interests. Unfortunately Eric Holder is not the type of Attorney General who will strike fear into the vile hearts of left-wing activists because in my opinion – Holder actually has sympathy for their goals. We are still treating acts of war and sabotage as law enforcement issues.
by Charles Krauthammer
It is understandable for the administration to underplay the significance of the WikiLeaks State Department cables. But while it is wise not to go into a public panic, it is delusional to think that this is merely embarrassing gossip and indiscretion. The leaks have done major damage.
First, quite specific damage to our war-fighting capacity. Take just one revelation among hundreds: The Yemeni president and deputy prime minister are quoted as saying that they’re letting the United States bomb al-Qaeda in their country, while claiming that the bombing is the government’s doing. Well, that cover is pretty well blown. And given the unpopularity of the Sanaa government’s tenuous cooperation with us in the war against al-Qaeda, this will undoubtedly limit our freedom of action against its Yemeni branch, identified by the CIA as the most urgent terrorist threat to U.S. security.
Second, we’ve suffered a major blow to our ability to collect information. Talking candidly to a U.S. diplomat can now earn you headlines around the world, reprisals at home, or worse. Success in the war on terror depends on being trusted with other countries’ secrets. Who’s going to trust us now?
Third, this makes us look bad, very bad. But not in the way Secretary of State Hillary Clinton implied in her cringe-inducing apology speech in which she scolded these awful leakers for having done a disservice to “the international community,” and plaintively deplored how this hampers U.S. attempts to bring about a better world.
She sounded like a cross between an exasperated school principal and a Miss America contestant professing world peace to be her fondest wish. The problem is not that the purloined cables exposed U.S. hypocrisy or double-dealing. Good God, that’s the essence of diplomacy. That’s what we do; that’s what everyone does. Hence the famous aphorism that a diplomat is an honest man sent abroad to lie for his country.
Nothing new here. What is notable, indeed shocking, is the administration’s torpid and passive response to the leaks. What’s appalling is the helplessness of a superpower that not only cannot protect its own secrets but shows the world that if you violate its secrets – massively, wantonly and maliciously – there are no consequences.
The cat is out of the bag. The cables are public. Deploring them or trying to explain them away, a la Clinton, is merely pathetic. It’s time to show a little steel. To show that such miscreants don’t get to walk away.
[…]
Read the rest here: WikiLeaks founder Assange ought to be in hiding from from America
Mike Bloomberg running as a third party “centrist” candidate for POTUS in 2012 – yeah that makes perfect sense – we already have a nanny in the oval office. Bloomberg is no centrist – he is an old fashioned, overbearing liberal who looks down on the vast majority of working stiffs and has an imperious demeanor which is so typical of millionaire (or as in his case – billionaire) liberals. He is proof positive that one can make a ton of money and still be an idiot (actually Hollywood, Major League Baseball, the NBA and the NFL is further proof). Like a former Governor of Alaska, Bloomberg has gotten bored with the grind and minutiae of “governing” and now wants a job upgrade.
by Adam Brodsky
Here we go again: The 2010 midterm elections are barely a month old, but chatter’s already surfacing about a possible Mike Bloomberg presidential bid, just as after the 2006 midterms. A week from Monday, we get the launch of a new “centrist” group that could evolve into a third party that would be perfect for Hizzoner to represent.
If it all takes root, get set for a campaign to pull the wool over Americans’ eyes — while New York City, perhaps, rots from neglect.
So far, Bloomberg swears (cross his heart!) he won’t run. But: 1) One guy who reportedly played a role in assembling the group’s leaders was Mike’s political gofer, Kevin Sheekey — a key force behind the mayor’s last presidential flirtation. 2) Its rhetoric sounds uncannily like Hizzoner’s. And 3) He was invited to Monday’s launch.
The group calls itself “No Labels,” but “No Purpose” might be better– because, other than as a platform for Mike, it offers no reason whatsoever to exist.
Scour nolabels.org and just try to spot a rationale. You can’t.
Its “Statement of Purpose”? A litany of domestic challenges plus several paragraphs of gibberish: “Most Americans in the vital center want . . . a political system that works,” it boldly asserts — one that “makes the necessary choices to . . . put our country on a viable, sound path going forward.”
[…]
Yes, the group has a strong view of what it calls “hyperpartisanship,” which is “destroying our politics and paralyzing our ability to govern.” We’re supposed to buy No Labels as a response to “extremism” on the left and right — presumably, the Tea Party movement and group like MoveOn.
No Labels vows to “restore the political center.” But is the center moribund — or just further to the right than where the No Labelers would like? Americans this year didn’t oust moderates in favor of an equal number of far right-wingers and far left-wingers; they booted Democrats, and some moderate Republicans — and welcomed conservatives. Independents, notably, broke 56 percent to 37 percent for the GOP, ABCNews reports.
Nor, by the way, are the Tea Partiers a handful of right-wing radicals. They include a broad swath of mainstream Americans frightened by the left’s agenda: ObamaCare, ever-bigger government, massive debt, taxes.
And they don’t want everyone to simply “come together” and split the baby — cut some spending here, raise some taxes there — as Bloomberg and No Labels might suggest.
Now compare the group’s rhetorical mush with Mike’s after 2006: “The politics of partisanship,” he said then, “have paralyzed decision-making . . . and the big issues of the day are not being addressed.”
Yeah, blame partisanship. Never mind what voters actually think.
[…]
Read the rest here: No labels = no ideas
Tags: Adam Brodsky, Charles Krauthammer
