Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: The Obama Administration Benefits From WikiLeaks

un articolo in gran parte condivisibile...gli obamisti sono stati 
smascherati! ;-)
---------------------------------------------
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/11/29/the-obama-administration-benefits-from-wikileaks/
The Obama Administration Benefits From WikiLeaks
2010 November 29
by Joseph Klein
The Huffington Post is running an interesting article today entitled "The 
WikiLeaks Release: Blame the State Department, Not the World's Media," by a 
writer for the Guardian and the London Sunday Times, Simon Jenkins. He 
pointed out that the material leaked by WikiLeaks, and published by the New 
York Times and other newspapers, not only lacked top-secret classification. 
The State Department itself had made them available to some 2-3 million 
authorized users of the State Department's own worldwide intranet.
Jenkins observed that the material went out uncensored, with names and 
sources disclosed, on the State Department's intranet with an 
unsophisticated coding system. The material was downloadable and presumably 
capable of being forwarded on to anyone.
In short, Jenkins concluded,
'The recklessness of such a casual approach to secrecy beggars belief. If I 
were an American source, I would be far more afraid of the State Department 
than the world's media.'
I think that there is even more to the story about the WikiLeaks releases 
than Jenkins does. I believe that the leaks serve the Obama administration's 
purposes to get certain so-called confidential materials out in the public 
arena, knowing that the media outlets most likely to publish the materials 
would spin them in a way that would help buff Obama's image of himself as a 
strong leader even if it meant embarrassing foreign leaders and diplomats in 
the process.
Obamamedia like the New York Times would be expected to use the materials to 
show the Bush administration's foreign policies in the worst possible light, 
and the Obama administration's policies in a highly favorable light.
Previous WikiLeak releases regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for 
example, have been spun as supporting the Obama administration's narrative 
that Bush had acted in an irresponsibly unilateral, militarist manner. The 
current selective leaks of State Department materials run through February 
2010. Theyappear designed to show the futility of Bush policies towards our 
enemies and to elicit sympathetic media analyses emphasizing the virtues of 
Obama's "multilateralist engagement" approach.
And that is precisely what the New York Times has done with its reporting on 
the first batch of leaked cables.
In explaining its decision to publish the diplomatic documents, the Times 
says that for it:
'to ignore this material would be to deny its own readers the careful 
reporting and thoughtful analysis they expect when this kind of information 
becomes public.'
But what passes for "careful reporting" and "thoughtful analysis" at the New 
York Times is to blame the Bush administration for whatever has gone wrong 
and to give credit to the Obama administration for supposedly fixing the 
mistakes of the past. The leaked cables are used as a pretext to portray the 
Obama administration's brand of multilateralism, such as the offer to Iran 
of unconditional negotiations, as a success.
As summarized by the New York Times, for example, this narrative holds that 
while "the Bush administration had never forged the global coalition needed 
to impose truly painful international penalties on Iran," the Obama 
administration decided to use "engagement" with Iran, China and Russia as 
part of its plan to build such a coalition. Note that these conclusions are 
not verbatim quotes from the cables themselves. They represent the Times' 
unchallenged conclusions.
I guess the idea is to convince us that, far from being naive and 
inexperienced in dealing with our adversaries, Obama is really a brilliant 
Machiavellian strategist. If only we knew the real Obama as envisioned by 
his dwindling number of admirers!
In trying to write a revisionist history of Obama's policy of unconditional 
negotiations with Iran from the bits and pieces gleaned from the leaked 
cables, the Times reports,
'The decoding of Mr. Obama's plan was apparently all the Europeans needed'
Obtaining China's "cooperation" (if you want to call it that), by getting 
Saudi Arabia to guarantee China that it would supply any lost oil if Iran 
cuts China off, was described by the Times as a "dazzling success."
Obama also got Russia to "cooperate" on stiffer sanctions against Iran, so 
the story goes.  How did Obama accomplish such a stupendous feat? He "removed 
the burr under the Russians' saddle" - the Times' words in trying to 
extrapolate the meaning of the leaked cables dealing with Obama's decision 
to scrap the planned ballistic missile defense site in Poland and the Czech 
Republic as Russia had demanded.
The only problem with all of this is that Obama's policies of lethal 
engagements with our enemies have failed miserably. We're being suckered.
Iran is closer than ever to achieving a nuclear arms capability. China is 
doing little to restrain North Korea from its course of aggression. 
Moreover, while not reported by the New York Times, a State Department 
official noted recently that Peking has been helping Iran with both its 
ballistic missiles and its nuclear weapons program. For its part, Russia has 
supplied Iran with a nuclear reactor and has negotiated with Venezuela - a 
strong ally of Iran - to do the same.
The latest WikiLeaks episode is no more than a distraction from these harsh 
realities.
I'm not prepared to say at this point whether the Obama administration 
itself purposely leaked any of the materials to WikiLeaks. But in 
complaining about the damage that WikiLeaks may be doing to America's 
interests abroad, it seems like the Obama administration "doth protest too 
much" since its own partisan interests are being so well served by the 
leaks.
--
Joseph Klein is the author of a new book entitled Lethal Engagement: Barack 
Hussein Obama, the United Nations and Radical Islam. 

 leaks.
Dove sei Bacheroz?
Controfirmah.
Am.

"amalric" <ama...@TOGLIMIalice.it> ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:amalric-95C801...@news.tin.it...

come vedi è la tesi che sostengo da sempre sulle 'origini' dei documenti 
pubblicati da WL e che trova autorevoli sostentori... ;-) 

 pubblicati da WL e che trova autorevoli sostentori... ;-) 
Autorevolih?
Ridicule is not your main worry :)
Am.

 pubblicati da WL e che trova autorevoli sostentori... ;-)
chi?

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:ca53fbf5-e623-4432...@o9g2000pre.googlegroups.com...

è un pubblicista abbastanza noto per quanto controverso... 

 Am.
se Obama si � fatto aiutare da un sito infiltrato dai servizi cinesi non � 
colpa mia... :-) Piuttosto diventa ancora pi� chiaro perch� lui e il suo 
entourage abbiano avuto cos� fretta di dichiarare che Obama era il primo 
presidente americano del Pacifico...c'� tanta voglia di appeasement con 
Pechino in casa Obama a quanto pare...complimenti per esserti prestato al 
gioco come altre migliaia di inconsapevoli idioti....manda pure i soldi ad 
Assange :-)) 

 Assange :-)) 
A meh, Kurzon ricordah Giulietta degli Spiriti.
Kuela famiglia incestuosah si deve essere ridotta alla rabdomanzia e ai 
tavolini girevoli dopo che Mosley l'ha inkulatah.
Am.

 ha scritto nel messaggionews:ca53fbf5-e623-4432...@o9g2000pre.googlegroups.com...

ah, UNO. Io avevo letto autorevolI sostenitorI

 A meh, Kurzon ricordah Giulietta degli Spiriti.
mi spiace, non la conosco. Forse la conosce il tuo vinaio però... :-) 

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:cea2d139-d133-46df...@o9g2000pre.googlegroups.com...

sta pur sicuro che ce ne sono altri che la pensano come lui. Adesso non 
ricordo chi fosse ma anche su Sky un commentatore aveva fatto un discorso 
analogo. Sto infatti cercando di ricordare chi fosse... 

 mi spiace, non la conosco. Forse la conosce il tuo vinaio perņ... :-) 
Ecce Homo.
Fellini il suo lustrascarpe sulla Riviera.
Am.

 Am.
chiedi al vinaio, lui lo sa :-)