Afghanistan war logs: Wikileaks founder rebuts White House criticism

[bemildred]

Source: Guardian.UK

---

Assange rejected accusations that the leak had compromised America's national security. "We are familiar with groups whose abuse we expose attempting to criticise the messenger to distract from the power of the message," he said.

"We don't see any difference in the White House's response to this case to the other groups that we have exposed. We have tried hard to make sure that this material does not put innocents at harm. All the material is over seven months old so is of no current operational consequence, even though it may be of very significant investigative consequence."

Speaking at a press conference at the Frontline Club in central London, Assange said that the 90,000 leaked US military documents about the war in Afghanistan would help shape understanding of the past six years of fighting.

--

The White House national security adviser, General Jim Jones, stressed that the documents related to a period from January 2004 to December 2009, during the administration of President George Bush and before President Obama ordered a "surge" in Afghanistan.


Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/26/war-logs-wikileaks-rebuts-criticism

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[msongs]

2. somebody has to counter the unending lies of the government/military industrial welfare complex nt

[NJmaverick]

3. I suspect those hollow words will be small comfort to the families of troops that die

as a result of their actions.

[superconnected]

4. Live by the sword die by the sword. Absolutely fair imo.

I feel sorry for the innocent civilians who didn't take up the sword, they murdered.

Call it "too many wedding parties where mass people were killed - syndrome". And yeah, I don't believe all those people the troops murdered were terrorists.

You know, if they weren't out there committing war crimes in the first place, this wouldn't be a problem, right? I can't imagine being too busy wanting to bury the truth, so the crimes can continue, to grasp that concept and then, omg, claiming people who don't support the troops in murder, aren't compassionate.

[NJmaverick]

5. I always felt compassion was the number one mark of a liberal

[superconnected]

7. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, a few thousand troops dead.

Hello. Where is your compassion for those people in their own land who shouldn't have been killed? Or does your compassion end with our troops? Mine ends with the murderer running lose and defending murder as fair and just even when the murdered are innocent civilians. Until the military holds itself accountable, I'm not going to feel sorry for them - it's not even them getting killed most of the time. Even 100k iraqis dead to 3000 troops isn't fair imo but now the guestimate is in the millions of iraqis dead and who knows how many Afghanis. Oh our poor troops... bull.

[NJmaverick]

11. I never considered compassion to be so selective

[superconnected]

12. You have an incredibly straw argument and are showing yourself to lack all compassion what so ever.

[NJmaverick]

14. You are misusing the term "straw(man) argument". You readily admitted to having

no compassion for our troops (many of whom signed up because these hard economic times leave them few choices).

[moksha]

19. Can you show how these leaks of "open secrets" will potentially

harm one of the troops you have such compassion for?

You are the one who started with a strawman.

[NJmaverick]

20. I will give you the short version. The enemy learning what the Allies know and don't know

and how they collect their information gives them a huge military advantage. Since their goal is to kill as many NATO and Afghan troops as possible any significant help (such as publishing 90,,000 intelligence documents) will help the Taliban and AL Qaeda kill more NATO and Afghan troops.

[moksha]

21. Most all of this info was well know to those in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

It was being kept secret, though avoidance, in the US. Really the only "news" is that the Taliban have heat-seeking anti-aircraft missiles, which of course the Taliban we aware of. Also, it was revealed that the US had an understanding on how the ISI has been funneling (US) funds to fight the US. Again, already well known. The special ops assassination teams were also well known.

This isn't everything the allies know and don't know. This is a slice of past operations. There is no credible threat to the troops in the release of this information.

It is important in that it brings the war and its problems to the American people. It prevents the WH and DoD from dodging the truths. It should go a long way in turning more against the war. It is one more small step in ending this disaster. Which, will be the ultimate security for our troops.

ETA: You are going to have to give your strawman specifics.

[bemildred]

25. Well said,

It is the american public that this stuff is "secret" from, not anyone else.

[NJmaverick]

28. You are making a lot of speculations, that I can't agree with

At best you are playing fast and loose with the troop's safety at worst WikiLeaks is going to get some of them killed.

[moksha]

33. Put up or put it to bed.

Give some specific info from the leaks that threatens troops safety, or drop your strawman.

You have offered not one bit of evidence yet. You made the claim.

[moksha]

36. Pentagon review sees no threat to US security.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38417666

You can now drop your strawman altogether.

[wordpix]

86. as someone who regularly reads the NY Times, WaPo & watches Rachel/KO/PBS/Ed Show

I knew most of these things already. This is only a "surprise" to those who don't read much or who follow Faux news. Not saying I know the total contents of 90K documents---but I already knew the basics.

[Iowa]

34. Nonsense...

"...no compassion for our troops...

Accusing liberals of not supporting the troops is right-wing bullshit.

...many of whom signed up because these hard economic times leave them few choices"

Nonsense. I wouldn't even consider signing on to participate in a killing machine in the service of big-oil and the MIC. I'd starve first. My children and grandchildren have the same values. There are some things people with a conscience will not do for money. Hell, I wouldn't do it for a million dollars, let alone the shitty pittance troops are paid. Furthermore, your premise is flawed. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that a young, healthy, able-bodied person has no other choice than to volunteer for, support, and participate in a bloody, pointless, senseless war about nothing.

[Pavulon]

38. Who orders them there? Who funds the war? What legal body has determined any order illegal?

that would be none, the executive branch, congress. Lay blame where it is due.

The troops are irrelevant. Go take some civics classes.

[moksha]

9. No, the number one liberal mark is social and economic justice.

[NJmaverick]

13. Compassion along with a strong sense of justice drives what you listed

Compassion and a sense of justice are higher up on the liberal hierarchy. They drive things like a desire for economic justice, protection of minority rights and civil liberties.

[arikara]

76. Troops are dying already

because they are in a place where they should not be. The civilians in Afghanistan have been living with what's being done to them over the past 10 years already, the info in the leak isn't news to them.

[flyarm]

89. would that be before or after the Taliban cashes it's US Government checks?

or are they using cash now..as in missing cash from the Pentagon??

[moksha]

6. I praise these leaks, but the news of a NATO rocket killing 45 civilians is getting lost.

(I don't have enough posts to start a new post.)

NATO rocket killed 45 Afghan civilians: government

(Reuters) - At least 45 civilians, many women and children, were killed in a rocket attack by the NATO-led foreign force in Afghanistan's southern Helmand province last week, a spokesman for the Afghan government said on Monday.

The incident happened in Helmand's Sangin district on Friday when civilians crammed into a mud-built house to flee fighting between NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops and Taliban insurgents, Siyamak Herawi told Reuters.

Reports of civilian deaths and casualties caused by foreign troops are a major cause of friction between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his Western backers and often lead to street demonstrations.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66P35Y20100726

[mzmolly]

8. "the documents related to a period from January 2004 to December 2009, during the administration of

George Bush ..."

To clarify who was exposed.

[moksha]

10. Bush wasn't president from jan 21, 2009 through dec 2009.

To further clarify who else was exposed.

[mzmolly]

16. Bush's policy in the country did not end immediately

on 1/21/2009. Obviously a change in policy takes a bit of time, to further clarify my initial clarification.

[mike_c]

18. do you honestly believe that Obama's war is any less immoral than Bush's...?

Seriously. Do you think things have become significantly better in Afghanstan since Obama started killing Afghans instead of Bush killing them?

I don't.

[mzmolly]

24. Yes.

I honestly do.

[Cleobulus]

77. Uhm, how the hell does that work?

To put it crudely in an analogy, if a woman is gangraped, isn't the second guy in line just as guilty as the first?

[mzmolly]

91. That is putting it crudely.

So much so that I refuse a response.

[Iowa]

35. +1

[awoke_in_2003]

22. yeah, Bush's policy in Afghanistan

eventually changed, Obama needed his own manly "surge". See, we can be tough like repukes, too :sarcasm:

[mzmolly]

23. The surge involved a strategy

that prevents the military from committing some of the abuses that were committed under the previous administration. In fact, some in the military "complained" about the new restrictions, remember?

[awoke_in_2003]

27. the only "strategy" that will work...

in Afghanistan is leaving. It will never be conquered or centralized. I will always be a country divided by tribes. It will always be a shithole. A lot of people on this site used to be against war, remember? The number of positions we have flip-flopped on since one of ours is now in the White House is boggling.

[mzmolly]

31. I haven't heard Obama say we're going to 'conquer' Afghanistan.

I also "remember" Obama saying repeatedly "We'll get out as carefully as we got in" remember? Being opposed to getting into a war in Iraq over nothing differs from understanding the complexity of getting out. The later is partly why many of us DID oppose the war. We knew it would be a lasting quagmire.

[Nihil]

82. Oh, that's alright then ...

> Obama saying repeatedly "We'll get out as carefully as we got in"

"We'll get out ..."



"... as carefully ..."



"... as we got in"




I'm sure the Afghans are really looking forward to that.

[mzmolly]

90. Using images from when Bush was President to prove a point about

current conditions, seems a bit dishonest.

[Nihil]

92. No more dishonest than the statement that I was addressing ...

"We'll get out as carefully as we got in"

I know the images came from the Bush years - obviously as the invasion
came from that time - but I have seen nothing so far to persuade me that
a bomb dropped on a village under an Obama presidency has any lesser
ability to ruin innocent lives than one dropped under a Bush presidency.
Hence, the "carefully as we got in" leads me to believe that there WILL
continue to be a lot of innocent blood shed - regardless of whose name
is on the "do what we have to do" claims.

[mzmolly]

94. Innocent blood shed

is not desirable, obviously. We agree on this. I'd like us to get out asap as well. However Obama did say that the war in Afghanistan was just and we need to exit carefully when he ran for office. I'm simply pointing that out.

[indepat]

88. Dems must daily demonstrate their macho-manliness, lest they be dubbed soft on communism,

soft on terra, soft on crime, soft on drugs, weak on national defense. :shrug:

[superconnected]

15. What's amazing here is how many people are afraid of the truth.

And even worse, how many support out-right murder if it's, gulp, our troops, committing the crime.

[Pavulon]

37. Sorry brother thats not how it works. You voted for a person who supports the war

war includes killing people. Even the wrong people. Murder is a legal term, unless a person in in custody and executed it is not a murder. The reality is that 2 branches of government under Democratic control continue to fund and execute the war.

Lay the blame with the administration, not the troops who execute LEGAL orders.

Sorry. That is how the world works.

[superconnected]

40. You are dead wrong. There is such a thing as "WAR CRIMES", and it's time you look it up.

The belief that it's fine to murder because it's war is the EXACT IGNORANCE we need to fight against instilling in our troops.

[Pavulon]

42. Sorry. Unless someone was executed in custody

killing people by mistake in a war is just a really sad thing. I sat through the "what is a war crime" briefing 12 years ago. The law is very clear. Like that turkish boat the israelis took over, highly unpopular, but quite legal.

Sorry to be the one to inform you of this reality. Again troops do not order themselves to war in the US.

Civilians we elect do this.

[superconnected]

45. Killing by mistake? I'm pretty sure what were dealing with is KILLING ON PURPOSE that is in

question here as well as the misreporting of killing.

[Pavulon]

47. Again it is not illegal to shoot an man firing a weapon at you, killing your men

if he is standing in the middle of women and children. It is unfortunate and should be taken into account before sending people to go fight wars. Killing the correct people on purpose and minimizing the death of innocent people is part of war and not illegal.

Using proportional force is more effective but is a person has taken a fortified position in a building an killing your men it is legal to drop a 500lb bomb on him..

Legal and effective are very different.

[superconnected]

48. What about all the women and children carry no weapons?

You WISH this were all about killing people shooting at our soldiers. Talk about denial and trying to make it a perfect war.

Read the leaked docs - kill after kill reports they didn't even have a weapon. That's our own soldiers writing those incident reports. Come on, CLICK AND READ those reports.

[Pavulon]

52. Suppressive fire does nit discriminate, it did not in France in ww2

or in Afghanistan. I never met anyone who would intentionally kill civilians. However war has consequences and dead civilians have and always will be one of them.

That you can count on.

[superconnected]

53. Yep, thought so.

You won't even investigate. Your mind isn't capable of opening enough to even considering clicking on the topic you're discussing. GOT IT.

Todays news that the US denied any casualities for - a talking point, but that's beyond your brain:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4479677

On ignore your ignorant ass goes.

[Pavulon]

55. Thank for the compliment. I also have a degree in Materials Engineering

worked in nuclear engineering (and did not dump classified data because I did not like my contractor), and currently set up facilities for aircraft engine fabrication and other advanced manufacturing.

Killing people in a war is not a crime. It is an unfortunate byproduct of the act.

[superconnected]

46. Maybe you ought to go look up the talking points so you at least sound half intelligent.

[Pavulon]

49. Got mine in BCT and from the horses mouth over 6 years

in the Army. Infantry are not responsible for the byproduct of war. That death is owned by them men (civilians) who order wars and fund them.

So if you dont like war, dont vote for guys who fund them and issue orders to continue them.

End story.

[superconnected]

51. I'm not impressed. I expect you to be some brainless supporter of murder if it's wearing

a uniform, as you are.

[Pavulon]

54. Sorry friend. Thats how the world works. You dont get to use technical language

like "murder" to suit you needs. No one has even been charged with murder. Our government at the highest level is deciding how many women and children can die to kill a Taliban leader in pakistan with high explosives.

So be sure you understand the context. Shooting women and kids in a firefight is different that splattering them with a hellfire missle, exactly?

What body has alleged criminal activity?

[awnobles]

17. War Is a Racket

To steal our tax dollars. This is all to enable the theft. Don't buy in to the divide and conquer tactics, "Straw-man". We all know what is going on. Spooks are every where. I suspect some post here after they park in the 120 acres next to the buildings that house our fastest growing segment of the government, "Intelligence." Our tax dollars at work, enabling the graft.

[superconnected]

30. I'm positive of that. Some of the response look like they are outright damage control by the gov.

[flyarm]

79. + 1 million!!

[seafan]

26. Mr. President, this is your war now.

Afghanistan war logs: Wikileaks founder rebuts White House criticism

July 26, 2010

.....

Julian Assange said his organisation was currently working through a backlog of further secret material and was expecting a "substantial increase in submissions" from whistleblowers after one of the biggest leaks in US military history.

He said the files showed that "thousands" of war crimes may have been committed in Afghanistan.

The documents have revealed unreported incidents of Afghan civilian killings and information about secret operations against Taliban leaders, as well as highlighting US fears that Pakistan's intelligence service was aiding the Afghan uprising.

Assange rejected accusations that the leak had compromised America's national security. "We are familiar with groups whose abuse we expose attempting to criticise the messenger to distract from the power of the message."

.....

Afghanistan war logs: Massive leak of secret files exposes truth of occupation

July 25, 2010

.....

Most of the material, though classified "secret" at the time, is no longer militarily sensitive. A small amount of information has been withheld from publication because it might endanger local informants or give away genuine military secrets. Wikileaks, whose founder, Julian Assange, obtained the material in circumstances he will not discuss, said it would redact harmful material before posting the bulk of the data on its "uncensorable" servers.

.....

War logs aren't just about bungling Bush

July 26, 2010

.....

The war logs, an official accounting of murderous missions, tragic incompetence and abject failure from 2004-2009, put factual flesh on the bare bones of these negative perceptions. Their publication may further undermine public support just as the campaign supposedly reaches a "critical" juncture following June's record casualties and the sacking of General Stanley McChrystal.

The White House's defence – that this serial bungling occurred on George Bush's watch – appears problematic. Since Barack Obama concluded a policy review last December and decided on a "surge" of 30,000 additional troops, overall levels of violence have risen further while confusion about counterinsurgency strategy and the exit timetable has deepened.

.....

Meanwhile, news of an air raid this past weekend that killed at least 45 Afghan civilians:



Nato probes reports raid killed 45 Afghan civilians

July 25, 2010

International forces in Afghanistan say they are urgently investigating reports as many as 45 civilians died in an air strike in Helmand province on Friday.

Nato's initial investigation found no evidence, but a BBC journalist visiting Regey village spoke to several people who said they had seen the incident.

At the time, dozens were sheltering in the village from nearby fighting.

A significant civilian loss of life would be rare this year as a new policy of restraint has reduced casualties.

'Lying asleep'

Witnesses said the attack had come in daylight as dozens sheltered from fighting in nearby Joshani.

Mohammed Khan, a boy aged about 16, said helicopters had circled over the village before the incident. He said that he had warned other children to take cover.

But his mother told him not to worry them. He went further away and was shielded by a wall that saved his life when the attack started.

.....

NATO's initial report of "no evidence" found in this attack, is devoid of credibility.



Mr. President, this is your war now.

[librechik]

29. Now's your chance, Obama. Throw Bush under the bus. Or be tarred with the same bloody brush

too late. WH already rejected the opportunity. In my name. In all our names. We are on Bush's side whether we want to be or not, now.

Fuckers.

[superconnected]

32. Gotta hand it to the US defense dept. I mean they go out and commit attrocities then claim

they shouldn't be exposed because it will put them in danger.

That's the biggest BS I've ever heard. Stop committing atrocities and you won't be in danger of people finding out.

Any other business would look at itself, apologize and correct it's behavior. The US military doesnt want to change a thing, they just don't want people to find out - for the dumbest reason possible - their safety. They're killing people illegally and claiming _THEY_ won't be safe. Forget the people they're killing - thousands to one of them that gets killed. I mean, what kind of denial people must be in to believe that crap! If it were a business, it would be dismantled immediately for the worst business practices. Because of the secrecy, corruption and murder - it should be dismantled. What an embarrassment to our country to have a military committing these atrocities. A better country would end their military for that behavior.

[mbperrin]

39. Well said. My tax dollars are paying for all this murder, and I'm entitled

to know what I'm being forced to buy, since I was against both wars from the get-go.

The poster upthread pointed out that the only people who don't know these things are the US taxpayer.

Do the Afghans knows we're killing civilians? Yep, their friends and relatives.
Does Pakistan know it helps the Taliban? Yep. Does the Taliban know? Yep.
Does the Taliban know they have SAMS and have downed some craft with them? Yep.
Did the US put the Taliban in power after the Russians left? Yep, because they were anticommunist (still are).

Is there any reason in the world for the US to be there, other than to make money for the military-industrial complex? Nope.
What's Afghanistan's nickname? (Hint: the graveyard of empires). Those who cannot remember history are condemned to repeat it.

[Pavulon]

41. You have no right to echelon data collected on chinese officials,

you have no right to sub meter imagery of your neighbor streaming in real time. You have no right to know the total bandwidth and storage consumed by the NSA and laws are in place to enforce these restrictions. The person who stole the information listed will die in florence adx or somewhere equally shitty.

Now the war is being carried out as the administration said it would be. It will wind down when it winds down. We will not be packing our shit next week, no matter what someone posts on the internet.

There is no pipeline, the is no oil, just a war which was a central part of our last election.

[superconnected]

44. Perhaps you don't but I do have a right to know what my taxes are spent on.

What are you doing - futhering the agenda of big brother?

Since you understand the war, please tell me who the threat is to us, how, who excatly we are fighting, why we need drones to fight them etc. I haven't quite figured out why were there yet. And I'm not alone. A whole lot of people here want a better explanation then - the military is killing to keep all of us safe. You need to throw in the - FROM WHOM. Who is the danger to us?

When was Afghanistan going to invade? When was Iraq going to invade? Do you believe they caused 911?

[Pavulon]

58. Drones are a very efficient means to find and kill people

who need to die. Taliban, guys who blew up the uss cole, and hopefully the people who fund them.

Killing goat herders is a waste of time.

Did you vote for Obama?

Yeppers, you dont have access to everything, and you never will. That is the way of the world.

[bemildred]

61. You are not doing a very good job of convincing us to support this sort of shit.

Just saying.

[Pavulon]

62. Oh I dont care what you think..

or what you support. just pointing out the reality of the world in which you exist.

[bemildred]

68. Well then, go away, stop wasting time on us. nt

[Pavulon]

69. No, it helps people to be exposed people who are grounded in reality

else people begin to think their extreme position is held by the majority of people who cast a D ballot.

You know people who actually listened to the president and what he said he would do in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[bemildred]

71. So you hope to influence all the watchers here?

This is a big, important, influential site here?

Or is it just me and people that post at DU that you already said you don't care what we think?

[Pavulon]

72. I post my opinion.

not because I care what you think but just to post an opinion. No more, no less. This is a web site, not an influential body. It is like a conversation in a coffee shop, not a speech to congress.

[bemildred]

74. I'm not buying it, I think you are emotionally involved with this subject. nt

[flyarm]

80. If what you have posted is reality then my constitution tells me to fight you and your sick reality!

Your reality makes me puke!

eom

[Pavulon]

84. That is done in primaries. So be sure to vote.

I assume that is your point.

[mbperrin]

57. Piss on those laws. The only reason NSA exists is to stir up wars

every time there's a danger one might end somewhere and cost a profiteer a dime.

But that's okay. I've read my own FBI file from college, and the idea that someone was PAID to find out I went to Lake Somerville and drank beer (quite legally, 18 was okay in 1971) and ate steaks still tickles me. Thanks to gawd that most of these fucks are totally incompetent at doing anything but weaseling money, and thank gawd most of them can be gulled out of it by talented con folk.

The stupidity, close-mindedness, and stunning xenophobia, resulting in a refusal to learn about the actual world, is all that stands between us and being owned by the dumb fucks of the MIC, and so I praise those traits. I often worry that one of my talented students will spin off into the dark side and end all conflict in favor of the fuckers. But they're pretty good kids, so that's unlikely.

[Pavulon]

60. Then elect people to defund them, actually the CIA

is more active in the flipping of tinhorns out of office than the NSA. They gather information.

The NSA recruits the best math (and other) students in the US and pays quite well. If you want to do crypto and be good, they are the place to go.

[mbperrin]

64. I would happily for anyone who would defund our entire "intelligence"

operation, but they are all bought and sold, for chump change, while the real guys make trillions (off me and mine).

[Raggz]

43. Here is some damage

Roughly 300 men with TF 373 have been stationed on the grounds of Camp Marmal, the German field base in Mazar-e-Sharif, since the summer of 2009. The special unit has chosen a strategically advantageous and shielded location at the airfield, where it operates from the Regional Command North, which is under the command of Germany's armed forces, the Bundeswehr.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,708407,00.html

This tells the enemy where to strike. Not good, not good at all.

[bemildred]

50. What's a "special unit"? How is it special?

Do you really think they don't know where you are?

I mean, it's good to be in a "strategically advantageous and shielded location", but that isn't the same thing as being in a secret location.

[Raggz]

56. wrong

Publishing unit locations helps the enemy kill our troops

[bemildred]

59. Hey, you need to move around more.

Staying in one place is very insecure. After a while people notice where you are.

[mbperrin]

65. Then there's THESE commies! More on that camp from YOUTUBE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtWW4dxsvLg

Soldiers from 1-10 Mountain Division arriving at Camp Marmal in Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan.

DAMMIT!!!! How can we keep a secret when the military posts them on the Internets!!??? DAMMMM!!!

[mbperrin]

63. WOW! This was a big secret!!!!!! Well, except for this soldier blog post

that describes the whole camp, its location, who's posted there, complete with photos. And what COMMIE website carried it?

Mmmm...this one:

http://www.armystrongstories.com/blogger/chris-lecron/danke-schon-camp-marmal-afghanistan/

Yeah, something called Army Strong Stories....and who was the TRAITOR that published it!!!???


Chris LeCron

Affiliation: Army Reserve
Rank: Major
Branch: Public Affairs
MOS/AOC: 46A and 88A, 88C
Location: Ft. Meade, MD

About Me: Current assignment:
Instructor, Defense Media Activity, Defense Information School
Individual Mobilization Augmentee

Current deployment:
Central Command Deployment


This is from March of this year, so thanks for playin'.


:rofl:

[mbperrin]

66. And the 187,000 other Google hits on this camp.

Good thing we're paying people to keep this shit hush-hush!

[Raggz]

70. Irrelevant

Show us a Google hit for TF 373 and this camp?

[mbperrin]

78. Already did at the armystrong blog

You're ignoring facts, aren't you?

[Raggz]

67. Disclosing where units are can get them killed

[bemildred]

73. But only if the enemy doesn't know where they are already.

If the enemy already knows where they are, it doesn't mean shit.

[wordpix]

87. you don't think the enemy knows about an airfield that shields NATO troops?

They might not know what troops are stationed there, but they certainly know about a NATO airfield that gives air superiority and shields troops. Such an airfield would be an obvious target, too.

[Overseas]

75. The minimization process is fully underway. Interesting comparing

Pentagon Papers and this leak. PR folks probably have the Pentagon Papers example in their practice drills.

Address it seriously, then drop it. Seems to be the way.

And that our President has a new plan. This is how the last guys ran things.

I wish it, like BP, were a major wake-up call to accelerate the change we could believe in.

[The Magistrate]

81. In Any Case, Sir, What Concern Of His Is The 'Security' Of The United States?

We are not the world, and we are not the children, either....

[Nihil]

83. Excellent points. Thanks. (n/t)

[bemildred]

85. Indeed Sir.

I rather liked the bit about how the issue has been litigated a number of times and Wikileaks always wins, that law and constitutional order are all on Wikileaks side.

[defendandprotect]

93. Obama and Dems should be announcing HEARINGS on these wars!!

[Pavulon]

95. Why? He has complete authority over their execution.(nt)