[Peace-discuss] Wikileaks and our wars…

[Karen Medina]

I just watched the BBC coverage of the leak. While the overall story
was more about the formal reactions to the leak, the final line was
actually kind of good: "the document was about the past, but how can
the future really be different?" or something similar.


On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Morton K. Brussel
<brussel at illinois.edu> wrote:
> …The initial response from the White House was extremely unimpressive:
>
> This leak will harm national security. (As if those words still had some
> kind of magical power, after all the abuse they have been party to.)
>
> There’s nothing new here. (Then how could the release harm national
> security?)
>
> Wikileaks is irresponsible; they didn’t even try to contact us! (Hold on:
> you’re hunting the guy down and you’re outraged that he didn’t contact you?)
>
> Wikileaks is against the war in Afghanistan; they’re not an objective news
> source. (So does that mean the documents they published are fake?)
>
> “The period of time covered in these documents… is before the President
> announced his new strategy. Some of the disconcerting things reported are
> exactly why the President ordered a three month policy review and a change
> in strategy.” (Okay, so now we too know the basis for the President’s
> decision: and that’s a bad thing?)…
>
> This is from an astute article by Jay Rosen, at
> http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2010/07/26/wikileaks_afghan.html