Obama paranoia and Wikileaks

The daily deluge of diplomatic cables from the Wikileaks plunder, of which the New York Times is shamelessly and despicably availing itself, is heartbreaking and infuriating.  The good faith efforts on the part of our government representatives to honestly assess the complicated world in which we live are now pointlessly undermined.
But now that the damage has been done, I would love to see Dinesh D’Souza and all the other right-wing hysterics who are hawking the idea of Obama’s scary Otherness explain how these diplomatic cables contribute in any way to their thesis.  I would love to see them nominate their favorite dispatches that demonstrate Obama’s efforts to undermine American power and to elevate socialism, Third World radicalism, and anti-colonialism over traditional American interests.  To the contrary, the cables demonstrate a continuity of American foreign policy and discourse from the Bush to the Obama administrations.  The Obama-era dispatches show the same assumptions about the need to maintain American supremacy as have been harbored by every previous administration.  And I doubt whether Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld would have deplored the idea of gathering biometric or other identity information on fellow diplomats.   If Obama and Holder wanted to destroy American influence, they should be cheering Assange on, not looking for ways to prosecute him.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Obama paranoia and Wikileaks

  1. Craig says:

    Another interesting perspective on WikiLeaks via Michael Yon:


  2. Stephen says:

    Why would the cables contribute to any thesis about Obama’s Otherness? The only cables I have heard of are from the field, not from the White House. As far as Assange, “looking for ways to prosecute him” could be the equivalent of “sending it to the committee”, or just playing for time. I have no idea on the validity of D’Souza’s thesis, but I do not see how the Wikileaks data dump affects it.

  3. Clark says:

    This is a very good point. I’ve long thought Obama was better analyzed as tied to the Ivy League elites rather than the weird conspiratorial narrative some laid out for him. He seems more in the pocket of big business and the myopia of the Harvard crowd than anything else. I don’t know if (or how) the leaks could back that up.

    What’s been remarkable to me is how consistent both Bush and Obama are with each other. This makes me think those who argue most of Bush’s decisions were determined by “real politic” forces may be onto something. Which isn’t to deny a lot of incompetence in the planning of the Iraq invasion (and arguably maybe even the decision to enter Iraq, although that I’m more willing to give Bush the benefit of doubt)

    It seems we have two competing narratives: the real politic one and the great man theory. Those espousing many narratives about Obama bought into the great man narrative over the power of environment. But I think events are showing that to be mistaken.

  4. Mike H says:

    D’Souza might be a nutbar but I don’t know if diplomatic cables prove anything about Obama and Holder (the AG who has little to do with foreign policy agenda anyway). State has always been State with its own analysis, its own agenda. Mind you, that agenda had little to do with George Bush’s vision of the world either, so really it says very little about the man in charge and his ideas.

    State is a big enough department with enough career staff to chart its own course and it has a “moderating” or “corrupting” influence on any administration depending on your viewpoint.

  5. jld says:

    Fun from Wikileaks

  6. jld says:

    Even more fun, best part in the comments, LOL

Comments are closed.