Hard News: Wikileaks: The Cable Guys
790 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 28 29 30 31 32 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
Israel's large nuclear arsenal, and sense of entitlement, already provides a destabilising influence on the middle East.
snap, Ian
-
I must say, I deeply admire The Guardian’s approach to these matters
Agreed. That said, I really am not sure I am comfortable with journalists being the arbiters of what the public get to see, any more than the government.
There is some very useful information coming to surface, and only from a very small number of cables. For example, NZers and NZ businesses should be interested in *all* references to free trade because that is a very big elephant right now that is dictating all sorts of domestic policy.
It would be nice to be able to make better informed decisions on how much of it will be good for NZ and how much it will harm us.
-
Readers might be interested in the testimony of several US commentators to the House Committee on the Judiciary last week.
The written submission [pdf] of the Director of the National Security Archive, Tom Blanton, is definitely worth a read, given the extent of his experience.
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
This Chinese ship?
If memory serves, yes, that would be the one.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
Bolton was and is a lying self-promoter who never misses an opportunity to inflate his role in things. Bush sent him off to the UN for a short stint to get rid of him.
I'll give you credit, Neil, you seem to have an amazing insight into the workings of the inner Bush circle and the American Enterprise Institute. Historians will be keen to talk to you.
So Bush appointed a known lying self promoter to the most important ambassadorial job of the lot to get him out if the way?
The reason his tenure was brief was because they couldn't get him confirmed BTW. He resigned because of that.
I think the intial point was that Bush was not a comeplete war-monger, that in the face of pressure to bomb Iran from some Arab countries he didn't.
And the repeated point is that you and I, nor almost everyone else on the planet don't have any idea what went down, the arguments made, who made them, what factors came into play - and likely won't for 25 years.
I do, however, think, with some confidence, that it was a little more complex than the 'initial point'.
I feel like I'm on an endless loop here. Time to get off.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
Israel having a crack at them was the more plausible scenario, with equally worrying outcomes for the region and for their US sponsors.
I think there has been informed speculation that Saudi Arabia has offered to clear the airspace required for such a crack.
The other factor which is often missed too is that the attack window which opened at the end of 2006 after US mid terms, closed in late 2007 as the Presidential elections loomed. Going to war - a third war - heading into a presidential election was not deemed to be GOP candidate friendly.
Not that John 'bomb-bomb-bomb Iran' McCain helped of course.
-
So Bush appointed a known lying self promoter to the most important ambassadorial job of the lot to get him out if the way?
you think that's unlikely?
But I've lost track of why Bolton having any sort of credibility is important for your argument.
I think there has been informed speculation that Saudi Arabia has offered to clear the airspace required for such a crack.
so you're quite certain that we cannot know if Saudi Arabia wanted the US to bomb Iran but on the other hand quite certain that Saudi Arabia wanted Israel to bomb Iran.
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
I'm amazed she was considered trustworthy to be honest.
they likely didn't know about the fraud and corruption charges at that stage.
this allegation could just be part of a wider pattern in the life of MA Thompson.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
they likely didn't know about the fraud and corruption charges at that stage.
You'd expect somebody who has been tagged as a possible mole to have been researched first a little bit? It wouldn't have been hard for anybody to conclude that she didn't actually hold a PhD, for instance - it being public information and all. It's just that nobody bothered to check her credentials.
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
It's just that nobody bothered to check her credentials.
well, quite.
it's also been pointed out to me that 'invaluable' doesn't necessarily mean "giving away secrets". she could just have been explaining the way things work, or connecting people.
OTOH.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
you think that's unlikely?
I think anyone spending more than a brief moment considering it would think it's very unlikely.
so you're quite certain that we cannot know if Saudi Arabia wanted the US to bomb Iran but on the other hand quite certain that Saudi Arabia wanted Israel to bomb Iran.
Once again, I really don't think you've read a single thing that I or anyone else has posted. The phrase "there has been informed speculation" does not = "quite certain".
I give up.
-
I think anyone spending more than a brief moment considering it would think it's very unlikely.
you have a greater faith in Bush's decisions regarding the UN than me. I'm not sure that Bush shifting someone from the White House to the UN was considered a promotion, certainly not at the time:
When President Bush appointed Bolton in August 2005, while Congress was in recess, it was seen by many as an extravagantly provocative move. Many capitals took the choice of an over-fluent critic of the UN as a message that the US, already struggling in Iraq, still did not need friends.
But in that reflex of outrage, Bolton’s critics failed to register that his appointment was, at best, a sideways move, away from the heart of policy making. The move reassured conservatives that their views would still shape foreign policy, and yet it detached Bolton from the hour-to-hour debates.
So you dismiss what the cables have said and what other evidence shows about Saudi attitudes towards Iran are but are quite prepared to justify your own arguments with unattributed "informed sepculation" you "think" might have occured.
-
I don't know why the link doesn't work its:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/bronwen_maddox/article659968.ece
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
I give up.
I'm getting a very strong sense of déjà vu here...
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
I'm getting a very strong sense of déjà vu here...
Indeed.
Neil, in that last post I think you've just dismantled both your arguments.
-
ah, Bolton was "moved sideways" a nice way of putting things in a rather glowing account of his career. "away from the heart of policy making", not the greatest vote of confidence in him from Bush.
But I really don't understand why you think Bolton has much credibility or how that would help your argument.
As for Iran, you dismiss the cables, prefering "informed speculation". I'm not sure how that works.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
Neil, common sense tells anyone that you don't make a person ambassador to the most high profile job in the US diplomatic corps to hide them away or get rid of them. That link speculates quite the opposite - he was moved there for two reasons 1) to get him away from hour to hour decision making - he is, I think we can say, very aggressive, and that aggression served a better purpose at the UN than in complicated nuanced decision making at the White House; 2) to reassure the hard right.
The last part was political expediency.
The phrase 'moved sideways' means neither up or down (and I did not say promoted - please don't continually put words in my mouth to make your point). There he pushed, very loudly, the agenda that drove both Bush's White House and the neo-cons that played such a big part in framing that administration's 8 years.
I'm not sure how that works.
Thank you.
-
Bolton’s critics failed to register that his appointment was, at best, a sideways move, away from the heart of policy making.
"at best".
I really don't think it's all the controversial that Bush wanted Bolton out of the White House and dumped him on the UN.
Still, going back to my original point, I'm not inclined to take Bolton's word on anything. His acount of back then tends to be a little self-serving and he's certainly been making some pretty stupid criticisms of Obama recently.
If Saudi Arabia was Ok with Israel bombing Iran why are you dismissing the cables which show they wanted the US to bomb Iran? In any case in your scenario it was Bush that stopped the bombing by Israel which shows him in just a good a light as if he had ignored the Saudi wishes.
-
You know Neil I'm absolutely twatcocked if I can see what your point is in any of this?
-
The orginal issue was whether or not the cables showed the Bush admin to be less hawkish on Iran than Saudi Arabia and hence a moderating influence in contrast to his reputation. I have been arguing in the affirmative.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
You know Neil I'm absolutely twatcocked if I can see what your point is in any of this?
Neil has access to a wide range of high level internal Bush memos and papers on Iran which he won't share. I'm putting pressure him to come clean.
Bush, apparently, was a "moderating influence in contrast to his reputation". A peacemaker I guess.
-
I'm aruging on the basis of available evidence, the cables, the democrat primaries.
I don't think it's much of a counter argument to claim that that evdience is irrelevant on the basis of other evidence not produced that may ot may not exist and may or may not support any one view.
-
The cables don't show that the US stopped the Saudis from attacking Iran, (which is what they'd need to show for the US to have been 'moderating the situation') they show that the Saudi king is saying 'you and him should fight'.
That's usually something you suggest when you think 'you and him' are inclined to fight.
In the primaries there was a lot of talk about whether or not attacking Iran was 'on' or 'off' the 'table'.
Stupid talk, obviously, because unless the US dismantled it's capability then attacking Iran is on the table; in that is always an option the US will have and that Iran will be aware of.
The point of all that stupid talk was about whether or not Obama was going to step back and leave the threat to attack Iran a bit more implicit than the other candidates.
It looked to me like explicitly having a threat to attack Iran 'on the table' is what it took to be considered a serious candidate, in many circles, including many Democratic circles and media circles.
-
The point of all that stupid talk was about whether or not Obama was going to step back and leave the threat to attack Iran a bit more implicit than the other candidates.
That's a fair assesment of what was going on at the time between Hillary and Obama. I think Obama was sincere with the extending the open hand to the clenched fist bit although they both had to stake out different positions. That's the nature of the primaries. Although I never thought that in reality they would have very different foreign policy positions. With them working together you get the best of whatever small differences in views they had.
-
Reading through Clinton's embassy briefing for her visit I thought it was accurate, measured and detailed. But sort of long and probably just one of the many briefings she has to read each day.
Imagine what her boss Obama has to wade through. How on earth does one come to any understanding of what is really going on. Or maybe people with good judgement can cut through and make good decisions.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.