Alice wrote:Not necessarily.
I agree. That cuts both ways, though. Because there's more than one reason why he might have thought it necessary to go to a party at that embassy. Including none.
But since I've already mentioned several reasonable possibilities that meet the same circumstantial criteria you use for the hypothetical following that "Not necessarily," there's not really any need for me to repeat them. I'll just assume that as a rational woman, you've basically stipulated to their possibility by incorporation just by using the same criteria that they do.
So there's no particular reason to dwell on the already-explicitly-stated further, as far as I'm concerned.
Alice wrote:WikiLeaks builds case against IranThat's like me accusing my neighbor, whom I've been harassing and threatening, of stealing my lawnmower, without any evidence, and then somebody using the same accusation written in a private letter I wrote to my mother as corroboration for my claim. In both cases, I am the only source, I am biased, and there is still no credible evidence.
Again, I agree. Or, as we like to say around my place, "That's like an opinion piece by CNN contributor, David Frum."
If you could point to an expression of opinion by Julian Assange that was similarly underhanded wrt to cherry-picking examples of so-called intelligence in order to make a specious, objectionable and dangerous political argument, I'd be very much obliged to you, though. Because as far as I'm aware, there is none.
Alice wrote:So the problem with the contents of the Wikileaks is that where they echo the US/Israeli propaganda, they have low to no credibility, but they are hyped as "explosive", "corroboration", "proof", etc., something that has been pointed out by a great number of analysts but oddly enough, not Assange himself, who continues to insist that the leaks represent a blow against "American imperialism" and "the globalist agenda".
Citation?
Because searches both for "Assange," "American imperialism," and "the globalist agenda" and "Wikileaks," "American imperialism," and "the globalist agenda" bring up the same Prison Planet forum comment as the first result on a list that runs to less twenty entries in both cases.
(ON EDIT: None of which quote Assange insisting any such thing, either in those terms or in any terms, let alone doing so continually.)
Alice wrote:Despite the fact that the leaks have on the contrary been used to promote both more war and more global intervention against the very targets that make up the neocons' wish-list
By the same people who've been using anything, everything and nothing to promote the exact same thing for years (and, in some cases, decades) by now.
Alice wrote:Assange has, tellingly, not made one peep of protest.
Dude, you do recall that for the first couple of days he was laying low for his own safety while prominent and powerful people all across the world called for his assassination, right?
And that ever since then, lasting right up until a few hours ago, he's been in a cell on a disciplinary block at Wandsworth Prison in solitary confinement 23 hours a day with few (if any) communication privileges?
Good. Also: "Tellingly"? Really? How so?
Alice wrote:The smoking gun here is NOT that the warmongering propaganda media has used the cables in that way, but that Assange has not seen fit to protest this AT ALL.
Ibid.
Alice wrote:As you say, neither you nor I know for a fact whether all this is a show or not. All we can do is notice that Assange's treatment as the maverick star of a media circus simply does not fit the usual pattern of how whistle-blowers and other inconvenient people are treated, who are usually quietly kidnapped or suicided or have strange car or plane or home accidents under cover of media silence or terse media coverage. David Kelly, Gary Webb, Mordecai Vanunu and of course,
William Colby come to mind. Neither do the charges against him fit the usual pattern of spurious associations with "al-Qaeda" or other "terrorist" groups or other accusations that specifically target his ideological motives and Wikileaks' credibility. None of this is conclusive in any way, but it's one among other factors that are worth keeping in mind.
See c2w, in re: "Not necessarily,"
supra.
Alice wrote:Nathan, you are misrepresenting the argument. What I and others are saying is that the Wikileaks so far looks exactly like a textbook example of a limited hangout.
If that is indeed what you and others are saying, I'd advise you and others to amend that part of your argument to:
"
The response in the mainstream media and elsewhere to the cables posted byWikileaks so far looks exactly like a textbook example of a limited hangout."
After that, if you feel like it, you could also try re-reading "Politics and the English Language." Because I'm not so sure that it would really be a
textbook example even then, per the sources you cite.
But that's a trivial matter, really. So suit yourself. I personally find that essay to be a pleasure to read, each and every time, which is what makes up more than at least fifty percent of my motivation for mentioning it at all. And more like somewhere above the ninetieth percentile wrt you, specifically. Or....Maybe I mean somewhere below the tenth? Hmm. I don't think I can see any easy way to resolve that particular ambiguity. Although there probably is one.
In any event, what I mean is: I'm sure that you hardly need me to tell you what a pleasure that essay is to read, barring the unlikely eventuality of your never having read it. And that likewise, you hardly need to read it in order to get your skills up to par when it comes to the effective use of language in a political context. Because they're first-rate already.
And that pretty much covers it.
My compliments, as always. And my fondest and best wishes, too.
Perhaps it is a result of your legal training, a lawyer's career would be pretty dismal if they had a poor win record,..and it seems to me that there are many who would not let the spirit of truth get in the way of winning. But I'm not suggesting that's your style.
