Wow - what a great guy he is, huh? Stealing classified information, making it public, then claiming free speech. Someone needs to explain that one to me - he is not an American citizen, and he wants protected speech for documents - classified documents - he STOLE? Well, Amazon, at the behest of Senator Joe Lieberman, shut down the site. Despite the (faulty?) claim of free speech, Amazon is a private company, thus able to allow or disallow whatever site it wishes. I reckon Mr. Assange didn't think about that at the time. Oops.
Another thing he clearly did not think through was his call for Secretary of State Clinton to resign after his release of classified documents. Who the hell does he think he is, this thief, this alleged rapist, this holier-than-thou criminal, to tell our Secretary of State she should resign?
Oh, yeah - he said it, according to Time Magazine in this article, "Wikileaks Founder Assange Tells TIME: Hillary Clinton 'Should Resign.'" His logic for such a claim? This:
Hillary Clinton, Julian Assange said, "should resign." Speaking over Skype from an undisclosed location on Tuesday, the WikiLeaks founder was replying to a question by TIME managing editor Richard Stengel over the diplomatic-cable dump that Assange's organization loosed on the world this past weekend. Stengel had said the U.S. Secretary of State was looking like "the fall guy" in the ensuing controversy, and had asked whether her firing or resignation was an outcome that Assange wanted. "I don't think it would make much of a difference either way," Assange said. "But she should resign if it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has signed up. Yes, she should resign over that." (Click HERE to read the rest.)
Oh, please. Are you kidding me? The man who STOLE classified information, and then published it, thinks he is in ANY position to say what Secretary Clinton should or shouldn't do? Spare me.
His implication of wrong-doing on her part is just laughable. Now, I'm no diplomat (obviously), but diplomacy on this level incorporates a number of methods unknown to those of us outside that reality. I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that it is not all drinks and dinner parties. There is much that goes on behind the scenes to accomplish the goals that serve our nation, especially its security.
And while I am not authority on this topic, Larry Johnson, is. He knows something about this level of diplomacy, as a former CIA and State Department employee. He makes clear that the cables that allegedly demonstrate Clinton's involvement did not originate from her, just as they did not originate from her predecessor, Condileeza Rice.
I think Assange's attempts to discredit Secretary Clinton have accomplished quite the opposite. Clinton's strongly worded response to the release of this information minces no words:
[snip] The United States strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information. It puts people’s lives in danger, threatens our national security, and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems. This Administration is advancing a robust foreign policy that is focused on advancing America’s national interests and leading the world in solving the most complex challenges of our time, from fixing the global economy, to thwarting international terrorism, to stopping the spread of catastrophic weapons, to advancing human rights and universal values. In every country and in every region of the world, we are working with partners to pursue these aims.
So let’s be clear: this disclosure is not just an attack on America’s foreign policy interests. It is an attack on the international community – the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations, that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity...
So whatever are the motives in disseminating these documents, it is clear that releasing them poses real risks to real people, and often to the very people who have dedicated their own lives to protecting others.
Now, I am aware that some may mistakenly applaud those responsible, so I want to set the record straight: There is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people, and there is nothing brave about sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations on which our common security depends. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)
Wow. It is precisely because of statements like that, and the authority with which she spoke, that even some Republicans were giving her props, like Christine O'Donnell on "Fox and Friends" Wednesday morning:
Ms. O'Donnell makes a great point about Secretary Clinton (except that Assange is not a US citizen, thus not subject to a charge of treason, though a charge of espionage is not out of the question, as Gretchen Carlson pointed out). Clinton did show great resolve, great strength, and stood up for the nation against Assange.
O'Donnell also makes a good point about what the government is doing about these leaks. That echoes a post by former Governor Sarah Palin, who pointed out that isn't like this is the FIRST data dump by WikiLeaks. Nope, it's the THIRD, and what has the Obama Administration done about it? Essentially nothing. And there is more coming down the road, apparently. It begs the question, why? Why have these leaks been allowed to continue?
Which leads me back to this: just who the hell does Assange think he is divulging classified information, and why has he not been arrested already? Apparently, the UK knows where he is, but hasn't arrested him on a paperwork technicality. Seriously? They can't even bring him in for questioning?
And Secretary Clinton most definitely does not need to resign, thank you very much, Mr. Assange. This is not about Clinton and her work at the State Department. No, it is about this criminal, Julian Assange. He needs to be brought to justice and right now. Don't you think?